When Novak Djokovic outlasted Roger Federer in an epic 2019 Wimbledon final on Sunday, July 14th, it was a series of "firsts." Tradition-bound Wimbledon had finally succumbed to its own version of a tie-breaker. Hewing up until now, to a policy of no tie-break in the final fifth set for men (and third for women), The All-England Club finally deigned to allow a best of seven point breaker when a final set remained tied at twelve games apiece. Bear in mind that a twelve-all set is the equivalent of two six-six sets. While nothing like the multi-day marathon in which John Isner outlasted Nichloas Mahut 70-68 in the opening round of Wimbledon in 2010, six sets is still a lot of tennis to have to play before the decisive tie-break. It was also the first (and only) final set tie-breaker in the entire tournament. In addition, it would mark the first time ever in which a men's final in a Major would be decided by a tie-breaker. It was also an (unsuccessful) historic opportunity for (the anything but serene) Serena Williams--arguably the greatest women player of all time--to tie the great Margaret Court's record of 24 major titles. At 37, with many excellent younger women players on the tour, it is unclear how many more chances Williams will have to reach that elusive goal.
On the men's side, the most-anticipated match was not the final, but the "dream" semi-final between the two men vying for the (unofficial) accolade of "Greatest of All Time" or "GOAT." Nadal is rightfully known as "the King of Clay," having won the French Open an insurmountable twelve times. (Remember when Bjorn Borg's six wins at Roland Garros seemed unreachable?) Federer's record eight wins at Wimbledon seemed almost as nonpareil. To many people's surprise, the eternally youthful Federer, playing at the very top of his game, outlasted Nadal in a grueling four-set semi-final, a match in which tickets were said to have sold for as much as $15,000. (I watched it at home, for the relatively cheap price of an ESPN subscription.) Many wondered whether either of the two would have the energy to beat the more rested Novak Djokovic, the world's current number one player. That said, most imagined that Nadal, the younger and stronger of the two, stood a better chance in a final destined to test the endurance, as much as the talent, of the players.
When I last wrote about Novak Djokovic on this blog, it was three years and five "Grand Slam" Championships ago for him. At that time, Djokovic trailed the great Federer in wins at the Majors (the proper name for what we colloquially call "Grand Slams") by 17-11, and the almost as great Rafael Nadal, who had 14 to his credit. Since that time, surprisingly, Roger Federer has added three Grand Slam trophies to his collection, and--less surprisingly--Nadal has as well. But, when I wrote about the Djokovic-Federer match in 2016, I viewed it as a "last hurrah" for Federer, hardly imagining a man who hadn't won a major since 2012, could ever again prevail as a champion in a five-set format. Amazingly, however, Roger Federer appears to be playing the best tennis of his equally amazing career. Clearly his backhand, once vulnerable to Nadal's high-kicking left-handed topspin, is now better than ever--something he proved thanks to (a) a bigger racquet and (b) an array of talent the game has seldom, if ever, seen. Even so, a younger, fitter, and more rested Novak Djokovic stood between Federer and a record 9th Wimbledon title.
But now, on the eve of the 2019 Wimbledon final, even the most passionate Federer and Nadal fans would have to concede that there was a third member of the GOAT-herd. With fifteen Majors to his credit, and career edges over both Federer and Nadal, Djokovic--at 32--could, with a Wimbledon victory, narrow the gap between himself and Federer to "a mere" four titles. On the other hand, a Federer victory could increase that margin to six (i.e. 21-15). Interesting how a single match would give the victor a two-title "swing" in the GOAT race.
One not so little secret in men's tennis is how Djokovic lags far behind the equal adulation enjoyed by Federer and Nadal. While many grudgingly concede the Joker's stellar talents, he has had a tough time winning over the "hearts and minds" of the tennis afficionados both within the stands and without. People love the old world elegance of Roger Federer, whose talent (while anything but) appears effortless, as does his grace under pressure. He rarely shows emotion on the court regardless of the score, and is a fearsome front-runner. Nadal, on the other hand, is fiery with emotion, a muscular tennis player with a muscular game comprised of dizzying court coverage and blistering top-spin groundstrokes. Like Jimmy Connors before him, Nadal fights for every single point. People forgive Nadal his many tics, tugging at the back of his shorts, endless ball-bounces (something in which Djokovic rivals him) and cheer his fist pumps and exhortations of "vamos!" But Djokovic's shows of emotion are not received with the same sense of fan equanimity. He is the only one of the three I've noticed who applauds his opponent's shots, something he routinely does, and did at a very tight moment in his semi-final against the formidable Roberto Bautista-Agut of Spain, not to mention his acknowledgment of a splendid Federer stop-volley in the 24th game of their fifth-set final. He is also one of the rare players who is able to smile when something funny happens. In point of fact, he has the best sense of humor of the three, something of which the stoic Federer and intense Nadal have rarely been accused. And, lest we forget, Djokovic is also criticized for a gesticulation he uses after a victory, when he extends his arms as an opening of his heart in appreciation to the fans. It's too bad, because Djokovic is a caring, intelligent and articulate person who, in addition to being the world number 1, serves as the head of the Association of Tennis Professionals, a high honor and often thankless task. Perhaps he simply cares too much about being liked.
Be that as it may, tennis is not--nor should it be--a popularity contest. Some of the game's most successful players are far from its best sports. The great Serena Williams has had some disgraceful outbursts on the court. Nick Kyrgios catches a lot of (well-deserved) heat for his reprehensible behavior, but he draws from a great history in the men's game. Pro tennis has had several "bad boys, including the now-beloved John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors--and, lest we forget, Ilie "Nasty" Nasase.
On to the match, which will go down as one of the greatest of all-time. In what may well be Roger Federer's last shot at a Grand Slam win (Yeah, I know I've said that before and was wrong, so what the hell!), most spectators believed that Federer could not outlast the fitter (and younger by five years) Djokovic. Both men are considered by friend and foe alike as having no weaknesses in their games. While Federer is credited with being one of the best "spot servers" in the game, Djokovic's increased serving prowess (actually a touch faster than Federer's), is the factor which catapulted him into what was once the top two, but now the top three in the game. I would still give Federer the edge when coming to net, as well as an uncanny ability to adapt his game to whatever the situation dictates: finesse, power, slice, top-spin-- you name it. Djokovic, on the other hand, is considered to be the best service returner and (along with Nadal) baseline retriever of all time.
I'm not going to replay all the match's great moments, which you've probably already seen, read, or heard about. Roger's feathery touch on drop shots, and peerless volleys were things of beauty. Novak's passing shots and--at one point-tumbling stab-volley winner --had fans shaking their heads in disbelief. Suffice to say, there were many such moments, including some things that appeared to be turning points until the other player turned them around. The first set was probably the highest quality of the match, with both players at the top of their games. Neither man lost serve, and we found the two tied at 6-6. Federer had more winners, and seemed--subjectively--to have played the better set. Fed was playing a strong breaker and was not only up 5-3, but serving for 6-3, which would have given him three set points. Nole then won on Roger's serve, won his two serves and Federer's next serve--seemingly stealing the set out from under Federer.
Djokovic has an extraordinary record in five-setters when wining the first set. Once again, the (not so) smart money believed that Federer could not recover sufficiently to outlast a Djokovic in the lead. I was among those astonished to see Fed roll over a surprisingly somnolent Djokovic 6-1 in the second set, and suddenly we had a tennis match. It occurred to me that Djokovic's strongest opponent is himself. When he is "on his game," which is most of the time, no one can touch him. One can't help but look at this man whose concentration under pressure is absolutely beyond compare, and wonder how that same man can experience the lapses in focus as he showed in the second and (parts of) the fourth set. It's almost as if he requires a little "down time" before he can mentally regroup for the next stage of battle. Federer's level (despite the misses that accompanied his many winners when trying to shorten points) was more steady throughout the match. But even this high degree of excellence, as we were to see, proved no match for Djokovic on the pressure points.
The third set found a Djokovic reawakened, and once again--with no breaks of service--he was serving at 5-6 but down love-30, and two points away from a two sets to one deficit. He then won the next four points, and we were in a third-set tie-breaker. Djokovic ran through Federer in the breaker 7-4, and it appeared all but over, even though Federer seemed to have been the better player over the first three sets. He had won 18 games--usually enough to win a match--while Djokovic had won but 15, yet led two sets to one. It didn't seem fair, let alone possible. But once again, Federer hung in there and won the fourth set 6-4. The crowd went crazy. Federer had forced a fifth and conclusive set, something few (least of all, me) thought he had either the ability or endurance to do. But boy, were we wrong! Roger Federer was, at almost 38, was playing as well as he ever had--and continued to prove it throughout most of that fifth and final set.
While Fed was broken mid-set to give the Joker a 4-2 lead, he broke right back. From then on, the players traded holds until 8-8. After Novak went up 30-love in the 17th game, Roger reeled off the next four points to go up 9-8. Remarkably, the ageless Federer was now serving for the Championship--something he almost succeeded in doing, going up 40-15 with two aces. He now had double-match point, and stood on the precipice of a 21st Grand Slam title.
I, in a state of disbelief, all but conceded not only victory to him, but recognized what seemed about to happen as the crowning achievement of a career second to none. While obviously of great importance to both players, this was a much more significant moment for Federer than it ever could have been for Djokovic.
We must, at this point, acknowledge some tough history for Federer of which both players had to have been aware--if not at the time---all too soon thereafter. Twice before, in the (2010 and 2011) semi-finals of the U.S. Open, Federer had been up double match-point against Djokovic, only to lose the match and any chance at the championship. Both times, the great Federer seemed staggered like a heavyweight boxer--ahead on points--who is suddenly stunned by combination punches from which he can't recover. As amazed as I was to see Federer suddenly surge to two Championship points, I never imagined that Djokovic could possibly even things up, but he did. 9-9, and counting!
While the players had traded service holds since Federer broke back at four-all, the 23rd game was a tense and surprising one. Djokovic went quickly up forty-love, and all that stood between the two men and a tie-break was another Federer hold. So here was Djokovic one point from finishing off a game that seemed all but his. Before we knew it, Federer had forced the game to deuce, and--on the next point--hit an inside-out forehand that both players (thinking the call went against them) challenged. The Chair umpire said the ball caught the line, and Djokovic was now the one challenging. It turned out that the shot had, indeed caught a sliver of the line and now Federer had--remarkably--come from being down 40-love to being within one point of a crucial break. Djokovic argued--unsuccessfully--that he might have had a play on the ball, but it was clear that he had given up on the shot. Djokovic then tied it back up at deuce, but soon Federer had another break-point, only to lose the break opportunity and the game, and have to serve with his back to the wall at 11-12.
By now, it seemed inevitable that the tournament would (and should) see its first final set tie-breaker in its glorious history. Federer did not disappoint and held serve with apparent ease. With the match tied at an absurd 12-12, these two champions had played six sets of tennis lasting over close to five hours. In the decisive tie-break, Djokovic won this historic victory handily, in an almost anti-climactic 6-3. The great Roger Federer had won thirty-six games--arguably played better tennis--but lost the match. Djokovic, the pretender to the throne, had won only thirty-two, but timed them better. While Djokovic lost two sets without a single break of Federer's serve, he won each of the three breakers with increasing dominance--7-5, 7-4 and 7-3. The two men, not close friends, but respectful adversaries, embraced at the net. Djokovic, aware of not only what he had won, but what Federer had so nearly had within his grasp but lost, did not collapse on the court, jump up and down, nor use the "pouring out his heart" gesticulation. Instead, after the warm but restrained chest-pats, Djokovic took a ceremonial bite out of the hallowed Wimbledon grass.
The players, great champions both, were most gracious in their praise of each other. Federer, in a wonderful show of gallows humor, responded to the BBC's court-side question as to what he would most remember of his match by saying that he was "trying to forget it." In fact, neither will ever forget it, nor will the fans who watched it in person or on television. Years from now, people will be able to say that they saw the three greatest players in the Open era--if not of all time--Federer, Nadal and Djokovic-- play in one of the greatest tournaments Wimbledon has ever hosted. No one knows who will wind up with the most Grand Slam victories when they hang up their monogrammed sneakers, but what we do know is that each man, in his own right, is a GOAT.
No comments:
Post a Comment