There were two pretty significant things that happened this chilly Sunday afternoon in early June at the finals of the French Championships at Roland Garros. Novak Djokovic not only became the eighth man in history to have won the so-called "career Grand Slam," (i.e. winning all four majors--Australia, French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open) but did so in his fourth successive victory in a major. The last time that was done was 47 years ago by one of the sports's true legends--Rod Laver. Indeed, only Laver (who did it twice) and Don Budge have ever done won four consecutive majors. More remarkably, their achievements were done in a single calendar year. Djokovic is halfway there in 2016, but--as we saw in last year's stunning upset of the great Serena Williams by journeyman player Roberta Vinci--the pressures to win a Grand Slam are enormous. The last woman to do that was the equally great Steffi Graf. Right now, only Steffi stands between Serena and the most majors won by a woman, but Serena (even at 34) seems to have plenty of tennis life left in her.
If someone were to ask you what Jimmy Connors, Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras have in common, you would certainly be right in saying they are among the greatest players of the Open era, each of whom can lay claim to multiple victories in the Majors. Interestingly, however, none of these court stalwarts ever won Roland Garros. What soil erosion exists in the Red Clay of France that erodes the skills of such great champions? To be sure, the French Open has probably hosted more champions that have only won there than at any other major. To succeed at Roland Garros, a big serve and volley are unlikely to be nearly as determinative as they would be on the pristine grass of Wimbledon or the faster hard-court surfaces of Melbourne or Flushing Meadow. In order to win the French Open, a player must be prepared to endure (and prevail in) endless rallies, as the red clay slows down the most powerful shots as it quickly makes new balls heavy with age. While winners of the French Open have included many of the game's greatest players (Borg, Lendl, Federer and Nadal among others), many of its victors and finalists remain anonymous to all but the most devoted tennis aficionados. Remember when Andre Gimero beat Patrick Proisy, or when Martin Verkerk was a finalist? Me neither. The reason is simple. The slow clay of Roland Garos appeals to players who concentrate on that surface. This is why we see so many players from Spain (and elsewhere in Europe) do better there than anywhere else. Obviously, an important exception is Rafael Nadal, who has won Major championships at all four venues (fourteen overall) including an astonishing nine at Roland Garros. But Nadal, of course, is one of the all-time greats, second only to Roger Federer, whose seventeen major victories leads the pack. But even the great Federer's record of seventeen--once threatened by Nadal's fourteen--is within reach of the elastic Novak Djokovic.
As someone who has both played and rooted for tennis since I was a teen-ager, I can recall the great amateurs (and the then handful of touring professionals) who led the game in the 1950's. I have been fortunate to have seen players like Laver, Pancho Gonzales, Tony Trabert, Ken Rosewall, Arthur Ashe and Lew Hoad. With the advent of the Open Era in 1969, we have seen the men's game dominated by the people mentioned above. On the women's side, we have such greats as Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles and, of course, the Williams sisters. Sadly, we will never know how great Seles might have become, had her rivalry with Graf not been truncated by her being stabbed by of a crazed Graf fan.
But back to the amazing Djokovic, who is ever more clearly the dominant male player of the past several years. Up until today, the French championship was the sole major to have eluded him. He was the odds-on favorite last year--especially after taking Nadal apart in the quarter-finals, only to run into a flawless Stan Wawrinka, who--after after playing in the shadow of his fellow Swiss, Roger Federer--overpowered Djokovic. Given Djokovic's defensive skills, this is no mean feat. Simply stated, Wawrinka played the match of his career, and well deserved his victory. In the 2016 semifinals, Andy Murray did to Wawrinka what "Stan the Man" had done to Nole in last year's finals. So the stage was set. All that stood between Djokovic and history was Andy Murray, numbers one and two in the world.
I have long believed that Murray is the single toughest opponent Djokovic can currently face. In part, it is because their games are so similar, it can seem as if each is playing a mirror. While Andy usually comes up short in best of five situations, that is hardly the case in two of three. I attribute this to two things: endurance and focus. Djokovic is as fit as anyone who has ever picked up a racquet, and has the ability to rebound from his rare lapses in play. Remember when he outlasted Nadal (who was then at the top of his game) at the longest final in the open era? The Australian Open finals of 2012 lasted close to six hours, with the Djoker the last man standing. Actually, the two of them requested chairs for the trophy ceremony, as neither could remain on their feet. Hopes of a Nadal-Djokovic semifinal this year were dashed when Rafa had to withdraw due to an injured left wrist. With Federer already hors de combat due to an aching back, Djokovic benefited from the weakened draw as well as challenges to his quest for history. Unfortunately, for him. the weather did not cooperate, and he found himself having to play five matches in six days. Fortunately, most of the matches were short, with only one going beyond three sets. Of most interest to tennis fans was his semi-final against the up and coming Dominic Thiem, a 22 year-old slugger from Austria, who has an elegant one-handed backhand and a powerful forehand, both of which he hits with heavy topspin. Along with Thiem's quarterfinal opponent David Goffin, the two are considered part of tennis's future. Thiem, however, was not up to Djokovic's vast array of skills, and fell in straight sets.
In the finals, Djokovic started like a house of fire, breaking Murray's serve at love. But, from that point on, Murray dominated the first set, playing better and harder than the (somewhat) tentative Djokovic. At one point, Murray had won 10 out of 11 points! But once the first set was over, Djokovic turned his game up a notch or two and gave up a total of three games over the next two sets, to take a 2-1 lead. Djokovic continued his flawless play to go up two breaks in the fourth set, and smiled at the 5-2 cross-over. And then, serving for the match, Murray broke Djokovic, and went on to hold his serve. Again with victory at hand, (and no longer smiling) Djokovic successfully served for the match, the championship, and his place in history.
And just what is that place? If Djokovic retired tomorrow, he would already be part of the discussion as one of the game's greatest,a certain Hall-of-Famer. As mentioned above, he becomes one of eight men to have won the career slam (along with Fred Perry, Don Budge, Laver, Roy Emerson, Federer, Nadal, and Agassi) and the first since Laver to have won all four in a row. He's also won five out of the last six majors, and is second to Federer among active players in semi-finals and finals reached. He holds a winning edge over every player of any consequence including Federer and Nadal although--in fairness--Roger spots him over five important years in age. Amazingly, however, he is far from retiring. Indeed, he is in his prime--and at the top of his game. And to anybody who hasn't been following tennis too closely, what a game it is. In fact, nobody does it better.
If someone were to ask you what Jimmy Connors, Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Pete Sampras have in common, you would certainly be right in saying they are among the greatest players of the Open era, each of whom can lay claim to multiple victories in the Majors. Interestingly, however, none of these court stalwarts ever won Roland Garros. What soil erosion exists in the Red Clay of France that erodes the skills of such great champions? To be sure, the French Open has probably hosted more champions that have only won there than at any other major. To succeed at Roland Garros, a big serve and volley are unlikely to be nearly as determinative as they would be on the pristine grass of Wimbledon or the faster hard-court surfaces of Melbourne or Flushing Meadow. In order to win the French Open, a player must be prepared to endure (and prevail in) endless rallies, as the red clay slows down the most powerful shots as it quickly makes new balls heavy with age. While winners of the French Open have included many of the game's greatest players (Borg, Lendl, Federer and Nadal among others), many of its victors and finalists remain anonymous to all but the most devoted tennis aficionados. Remember when Andre Gimero beat Patrick Proisy, or when Martin Verkerk was a finalist? Me neither. The reason is simple. The slow clay of Roland Garos appeals to players who concentrate on that surface. This is why we see so many players from Spain (and elsewhere in Europe) do better there than anywhere else. Obviously, an important exception is Rafael Nadal, who has won Major championships at all four venues (fourteen overall) including an astonishing nine at Roland Garros. But Nadal, of course, is one of the all-time greats, second only to Roger Federer, whose seventeen major victories leads the pack. But even the great Federer's record of seventeen--once threatened by Nadal's fourteen--is within reach of the elastic Novak Djokovic.
As someone who has both played and rooted for tennis since I was a teen-ager, I can recall the great amateurs (and the then handful of touring professionals) who led the game in the 1950's. I have been fortunate to have seen players like Laver, Pancho Gonzales, Tony Trabert, Ken Rosewall, Arthur Ashe and Lew Hoad. With the advent of the Open Era in 1969, we have seen the men's game dominated by the people mentioned above. On the women's side, we have such greats as Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles and, of course, the Williams sisters. Sadly, we will never know how great Seles might have become, had her rivalry with Graf not been truncated by her being stabbed by of a crazed Graf fan.
But back to the amazing Djokovic, who is ever more clearly the dominant male player of the past several years. Up until today, the French championship was the sole major to have eluded him. He was the odds-on favorite last year--especially after taking Nadal apart in the quarter-finals, only to run into a flawless Stan Wawrinka, who--after after playing in the shadow of his fellow Swiss, Roger Federer--overpowered Djokovic. Given Djokovic's defensive skills, this is no mean feat. Simply stated, Wawrinka played the match of his career, and well deserved his victory. In the 2016 semifinals, Andy Murray did to Wawrinka what "Stan the Man" had done to Nole in last year's finals. So the stage was set. All that stood between Djokovic and history was Andy Murray, numbers one and two in the world.
I have long believed that Murray is the single toughest opponent Djokovic can currently face. In part, it is because their games are so similar, it can seem as if each is playing a mirror. While Andy usually comes up short in best of five situations, that is hardly the case in two of three. I attribute this to two things: endurance and focus. Djokovic is as fit as anyone who has ever picked up a racquet, and has the ability to rebound from his rare lapses in play. Remember when he outlasted Nadal (who was then at the top of his game) at the longest final in the open era? The Australian Open finals of 2012 lasted close to six hours, with the Djoker the last man standing. Actually, the two of them requested chairs for the trophy ceremony, as neither could remain on their feet. Hopes of a Nadal-Djokovic semifinal this year were dashed when Rafa had to withdraw due to an injured left wrist. With Federer already hors de combat due to an aching back, Djokovic benefited from the weakened draw as well as challenges to his quest for history. Unfortunately, for him. the weather did not cooperate, and he found himself having to play five matches in six days. Fortunately, most of the matches were short, with only one going beyond three sets. Of most interest to tennis fans was his semi-final against the up and coming Dominic Thiem, a 22 year-old slugger from Austria, who has an elegant one-handed backhand and a powerful forehand, both of which he hits with heavy topspin. Along with Thiem's quarterfinal opponent David Goffin, the two are considered part of tennis's future. Thiem, however, was not up to Djokovic's vast array of skills, and fell in straight sets.
In the finals, Djokovic started like a house of fire, breaking Murray's serve at love. But, from that point on, Murray dominated the first set, playing better and harder than the (somewhat) tentative Djokovic. At one point, Murray had won 10 out of 11 points! But once the first set was over, Djokovic turned his game up a notch or two and gave up a total of three games over the next two sets, to take a 2-1 lead. Djokovic continued his flawless play to go up two breaks in the fourth set, and smiled at the 5-2 cross-over. And then, serving for the match, Murray broke Djokovic, and went on to hold his serve. Again with victory at hand, (and no longer smiling) Djokovic successfully served for the match, the championship, and his place in history.
And just what is that place? If Djokovic retired tomorrow, he would already be part of the discussion as one of the game's greatest,a certain Hall-of-Famer. As mentioned above, he becomes one of eight men to have won the career slam (along with Fred Perry, Don Budge, Laver, Roy Emerson, Federer, Nadal, and Agassi) and the first since Laver to have won all four in a row. He's also won five out of the last six majors, and is second to Federer among active players in semi-finals and finals reached. He holds a winning edge over every player of any consequence including Federer and Nadal although--in fairness--Roger spots him over five important years in age. Amazingly, however, he is far from retiring. Indeed, he is in his prime--and at the top of his game. And to anybody who hasn't been following tennis too closely, what a game it is. In fact, nobody does it better.
No comments:
Post a Comment