Djokovic: A Season for the Ages

 The 2023 tennis season came to an end last week with the completion of the ATP Finals Tournament, held on the fast indoor courts at Turin.  There are a number of things about this tournament which make it unusual, if not unique.  For many years, the top eight players on the men’s tour have vied for this coveted trophy, unofficially crowning the year’s best player, though not necessarily the year-end number one.  Unlike  the four “Majors,” sometimes misnamed “Grand Slams,”this tournament is best of three sets.  But here’s the catch: because it’s a round-robin format split into two draws of four men each, you could wind up having to play the same person twice.  Given the exclusivity of the draw, the competition starts out tougher than any major.  Novak Djokovic, reigning world number one, had to win his first match against Holger Rune in order in clinch the year-end number one position, a record he already holds.  That said, he was currently tied with the great Roger Federer for having won the most of these ATP Finals at six.  These are extremely difficult to win, even once.  For example, the great “King of Clay,” Rafael Nadal, has never won it.  In the 53 years since its inception in 1970 only 25 men have hoisted this trophy, and only 10 have won it more than once.  In fairness, because it is played at the end of the year, it has always been indoors and on a fast surface due to the coldness of the weather.  While clearly, it could be played elsewhere in warmer climes, it could still have been played on clay (or even grass) but hasn’t been.  Arguably, it’s the hardest tournament to win, which explains the relative paucity of repeaters.

It also stands out—in a negative way—by still requiring lines-people, despite the availability of computerized line calls.  One other anomaly is its peculiar scoring system.  After each contestant plays three matches within his group, the top two players then play runners-up in the in the semifinals and the winners play in the final.  Yannik Sinner won the first two matches in his group (including a tight three-setter against Djokovic), had already clinched a berth in the semifinals, and was playing the young Dane, Holger Rune, who had earlier lost to Djokovic in a three-setter.  Although Djokovic had a 2 and 1 record, if Rune were to have beaten Sinner, Rune, and Sinner would also have been 2 and 1.  But, even though Djokovic would have been in a three-way won and loss tie,  in such a case the rules look to winning percentage. Because all of  Djokovic’s matches went to three sets, his record would be 5 sets won and 4 sets lost  (55.5  %), versus Rune at 5 and 3 (62.5%) and Sinner, at 4 and 3, (57.14%.) And so, if Sinner, who was nursing a strained back had wanted to avoid the possibility of having to play Djokovic again, he could have tanked the Rune match.  Instead, by edging Rune in three sets, let the Joker back-door his way onto the semis.  Under the tournament format, the top player in each group (Sinner and Alcaraz) would meet the second place people in each group (Medvedev and Djokovic).  Sound complicated?  It could have been worse.  If there had been a dead heat for sets won, they would have then looked for games won.  Fortunately, such was not the case.  As it turned out, the semis involved the four top seeds—and players.  While Sinner won handily over Medvedev, the Djokovic-Alcaraz semi, expected to be a battle, was over in 2 sets. At an hour and 28 minutes, it was shorter than one of their sets at their classic final at Cincinnati.  Djokovic was dominant against the world number two,  beating Alcaraz 6-3 and 6-2.  Amazingly, Alcaraz served at an 85% first serve rate and still lost.  Says something about Djokovic as a returner, something already well known to followers of the men’s game. In what is often called the “all important 7th game,”Alcaraz, already down a break, was trying to keep it close.  After falling behind 15-40,  Alcaraz made it 30-40, needing one point to level the score at Deuce.  What followed, as happens so often with these two superb competitors, was truly a point for the ages.  Speaking of ages, one of the Tennis Channel commentators observed that the difference between the ages of Djokovic’s young son and Alcaraz is less than the difference between Alcaraz and Djokovic. Now there’s an unusual stat!  But back to the rally.  Not only did it go over 20 shots, but several exchanges would have been winners against virtually anyone else. Finally, incredibly, an Alcaraz return went long, causing Djokovic to raise both arms in celebration of the match which was now, almost surely his, something which turned out to be the case a few minutes later.  The tempestuous Nick Kyrgios, who had joined the excellent commentating team headed by Jim Courier and Bret Haber, turned out to be a fine “color” commentator in his own right; articulate and insightful. After the point which gave Djokovic a commanding 5-2 lead, an astonished Kyrgios exclaimed, “Best player to ever touch a racquet,” followed by “the best to ever walk the earth.”  No faint praise, that!

It seems, these days, that when Djokovic and Alcaraz meet in a semi-final, the final seems anticlimactic.  But such was not the case here.  Yannik Sinner, the young Italian superstar, is just a year older than Alcaraz, and—except for not yet having won a major— every bit his equal.  He had already beaten Djokovic in a tight three-setter in the second round and, though it is a daunting task to do it twice in a row, he had done so at Indian Wells and Miami. Accordingly, he is a tough young man to ever bet against.  Let’s not forget him having bested Daniil Medvedev in the semis, a man arguably the best hard court player in the game.

Whatever the betting line, few would have predicted a straight set win by Djokovic, especially given the struggle of their first match.  The first set was nothing short of a clinic by Djokovic.  Serving at over 80% and playing virtually error-free tennis, Djokovic cruised to a quick 6-3 win.  The second set saw Djokovic’s level drop a bit, but he still continued to dominate on serve while Sinner struggled to hold. Up 2-4 with Sinner serving, Djokovic was up 15-40 only to see the young Italian bring it up to deuce.  What followed were multiple deuces, with beautiful points alternating with unforced errors on both sides. Finally, after almost 16 minutes (some sets don’t take that long), Sinner won, but that was all she wrote.  Djokovic, after blowing a sitter at net and being unable to handle a power forehand from Sinner, found himself at love-thirty, with Sinner two points from squaring the set at 4-all.  A suddenly refocused Djokovic got the score even and held on to win on his second game point.  Sinner, serving to stay in the match could not do so.  The match ended with a Sinner double-fault, as they say, “not with a bang but a whimper.  One remarkable statistic showed, at one point, Djokovic having only served 38 times against Sinner’s 68.  A 30 serve imbalance shows just how dominant the Serb was. But Sinner is very young and already a great player.  Not that you heard it first here, but he is a future world number one, with many majors likely coming his way.

At the end of the day, and season, it is yet another remarkable achievement by the seemingly ageless, Djokovic, playing—at 36–as well as he ever has.  Think of it, winning three majors (for the fourth time) and losing just the one in a five-set thriller to Alcaraz in the Wimbledon final .  While this might have dampened a lesser man’s ability to bounce back, Djokovic’s victory over Alcaraz at Cincinnati in an almost four-hour two out of three set match—two and a half times longer than his semi-final win—showed how truly indomitable his spirit it.  Although the Alcaraz/Djokovic rivalry is a new one, and will never approach in length or importance his contests with former GOATs Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, it will certainly equal them in intensity.  An argument could be made that now is this perfect time for Djokovic to retire.  Here he is, at the top of his game, coming off of one of the best seasons any player has ever has, and punctuating it with straight-set wins over two of his closest rivals. He would clearly be making a statement.  But that, of course, is not Novak Djokovic.  He has already said he wants to play Nadal once more, and believes he has more major titles ahead of him.  Be that as it may, while record books are never truly closed, if he never played another tennis match again, his record is secure.  Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner, and his name is Novak Djokovic.  He may not play with the timeless elegance of a Federer or the muscular resolve of a Nadal, but somehow he manages to beat them at their own game.

Tony Bennett dies at 96

 I’m writing this piece from memory, because Tony Bennett will forever live in my memory.  Accordingly, I may be off on some of the timeline, but not on substance. His most iconic song, “I Left my Heart on San Francisco,” was actually recorded by Frank Sinatra.  When Sinatra (who greatly admired Bennett) heard Bennet’s take, he withdrew his own recording from circulation.  Frankie knew a good thing when he heard it.  I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Bennett on the occasion of his release of “40 Years: the artistry of Tony Bennett,” his career defining box set. It is a superb collection of many of his wonderful songs, including a number of lesser -known gems.  I had the temerity to suggest to him that he record “The Way We Were,” the classic Streisand standard.  Knowing him to be a great fan of the late Marilyn Bergman (he managed to outlive just about everyone), he shook his head and smiled.  “It’s a great song,” he said, but it belongs to Barbra.  Like Sinatra, he knew a good thing when he saw it.  Listening to just about any of the 70 odd albums Bennett recorded, one thing that stands out is the consistency of good taste in the songs he sung.

As with many generations of lovers of the “American Songbag” of standards, I grew up with Tony’s music in my ears.  As a kid, I remember immediately loving “Rags to Riches” and “Cold, Cold Heart.” A little later on, it was “Stranger in Paradise” and “Because of You.”  I was on college when “San Francisco” hit the charts, and find me a jilted lover who didn’t relate to “I Wanna be Around.”  Not unlike Sinatra (or, in  a different way Dylan, McCartney and Billy Joel) the songs of Tony Bennett play as background music to our lives.  Interestingly, both Dylan and McCartney—master songwriters to be sure—have recorded albums of just the kind of standards Bennett included in his repertoire.  As for Billy Joel, make sure to hear their duet on “New York State of Mind.”  It’s nothing short of wonderful

Many music lovers rightly salute Frank Sinatra’s longevity.  While Sinatra started recording in the late 30’s and continued into the 80’s—covering parts of six decades, Tony did him one better.  Bennett actively performed from the early 50’s until—and this is amazing—2022.  That’s not only seven decades, but seventy years of performing.  Most remarkably, Bennett remained in fine voice.  He was said to have practiced the bel canto scales every day, and his strong high register remained a staple of his performances.  No question, his voice frayed a bit near the end, and he tended to speak, rather than croon, some of his lines.  That said, he could always hit and sustain the high notes, and did so like no one else.  I heard him only once in concert.  In was in the mid-90’s at The Boca Raton Resort & Club and the seats were up close and personal.  He was playing with the Ralph Sharon trio, and the performance was nothing short of wonderful.  As was his practice, he turned off the microphone for a song, projecting his solo voice across the large auditorium.   It was a memorable evening.

Most notably, he stayed actively in touch with the current generation of singers, as his recordings with K.D .Lang and Lady Gaga will attest.  Last year, in the serious throes of dementia, Lady Gaga put together a 95th birthday salute to her dear friend.  While he could still sing, many simple tasks like tying his shoes eluded him. He couldn’t even remember Lady Gaga’s name.  But when the evening came, I was expecting a salute to him by others, and didn’t expect him to perform,  But oh, perform he did.  If you haven’t seen this show, I’m sure it can be streamed.  It is memorable, not only because of the high level of his performance, but because it demonstrated  the degree to which his mastery of his craft not only survived, but transcended, the ravages of dementia. To quote a line from one of his favorite songs, “,,,the music never ends.” And it never will  Good-bye, dear Tony, and God bless.

“The GOAT-Herder”: Djokovic goes for number 23:

   I began this blog post on the evening of June 10, 2023, the night before the 2023 French Open finals.  This is the second leg of the four major tournaments know as “The Grand Slam.” In baseball, of course, a grand slam is the greatest of home runs—one with the bases loaded, and giving the lucky batter four runs batted in—hence the name.  Tomorrow, June 11th, Novak Djokovic —to use an appropriately French cliche—will have a rendezvous with history.  Fans of Djokovic might invoke FDR and call it a “rendezvous with destiny.” Just a few short years ago, the three contestants  for the title of G.O.A.T. (short for “greatest of all time”), Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Djokovic, were tied in a dead heat with 20 Majors each.  This was—and remains—a remarkable achievement, unlikely to ever be equaled by any three players, let alone at the same time.  In any event, the great Roger Federer—the oldest of the three, has retired, and did so with a remarkable 20 majors to his credit.  The “King of Clay,” Rafael Nadal, was the first to reach 21 (at the Australian Open, from which Djokovic was refused permission to play due to his refusal to get the COVID vaccine).  Nadal extended his lead to 22 last year, with his 14th victory at Roland Garros, demonstrating yet again an almost unimaginable mastery of the surface.  Indeed, the only man to have beaten him there twice was Djokovic. Djokovic won his 21st major at Wimbledon last year, narrowing the gap between himself and Nadal to one.  In 2023’s first major, Djokovic won his 10th Australian Open, tying Nadal at 22 majors each.

 Sadly, Nadal did not compete at the 2023 French Open.   His battered body is undergoing a second surgery from which he is likely to be sidelined for five months.  He has promised to return in 2024.  Whether that will be simply a spirited farewell or another championship remains to be seen.   Of the three, Federer and Nadal are revered, if not idolized.  While Djokovic may wind up leading them both tomorrow, he may forever lag in popularity. One man, Federer, epitomized grace and an updated version of the old school all-court game, the other, Nadal, muscular determination and topspin ground strokes unlike any the game had ever seen.  When Djokovic won his first major in 2008, Federer had already had 12 and Nadal 3.  In short order, Nadal narrowed the gap with Federer.  For Djokovic to have caught either seemed unlikely in the extreme.  To take the lead once seemed unimaginable.  Now, at the 2023 French Open Final, it appears not only possible, but likely.  

I saw an interesting video the other day, showing French Open entrants in the locker room looking at the draw to see who they would play in the first round.  Some were qualifiers who had to play in a short tournament just to gain a spot in the Open.  Others were ranked somewhere among the 200 best players in the world.  Just imagine what it takes to be, say, 175th in the world. You have to be a marvelous athlete and tennis player to reach that level —way better than virtually every person who ever picked up a tennis racquet.  These people will be lucky to survive the first round at a major, let alone make a living as a professional tennis player.  The camera flashed to someone who had drawn one of the very top seeds, which is how the draw works—the “best” play the “worst.” He was rolling his eyes, and his friends were elbowing him in the ribs and cracking up over his preposterously bad luck.  And yes, someone drew Novak Djokovic.  After all, someone had to, but more about that later.

Djokovic is an enigma.  While certainly not the “man you love to hate,” he could hardly be called a fan favorite. For many reasons, he should at least be as popular as his two legendary rivals.  He is the only one of “the big three” to routinely applaud other player’s shots, and is, apparently, very popular in the locker room.  He is multilingual, articulate, intelligent, unfailingly polite and possessed of a wonderful sense of humor.   He is a keen student of the game of tennis and its history.  He has headed the ATP and is well known for being supportive of other players.  His physical regimen of conditioning and zen-like mental fortitude is second to none.  For me, his biggest negative is occasionally yelling on the court, hardly the stoic approach that made stars like Sampras and Borg universally admired.  Then again, greats such as Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe (not to mention Ilie Nastase) make Djokovic’s demeanor seem as restrained as a novitiate who has taken a vow of silence.  For the fans, however—and unfortunately—he often finds himself being rooted against.  He says it doesn’t bother him, but who knows?  I’ve spoken to a couple of otherwise rational tennis buffs  and club level players who describe with relish how they root against him at every opportunity.  Some of this he may have brought on himself, given his anti-vax approach during the COVID pandemic.  He not only refused vaccinations, but sponsored a tournament during the pandemic which spread the virus.  To be fair, he maintains a health regimen second to none, and believes the vaccine might compromise his health.  Indeed, he has paid a price for that, having been banned from competing in both the Australian and U.S. Opens, two surfaces on which he has enjoyed great success.  Also, much of this animus predates COVID.  He also had a bad break in at the U.S. Open 2021, when he accidentally hit a lines-person in the neck with a ball he hit without looking. This caused him to be defaulted from the tournament, in which he was the clear favorite.  That said, he finally tied Nadal at 22 by winning the 2023 Australian Open.  This remarkable feat was accomplished while suffering from a hamstring injury. 

His ascent in this year’s French Open reached its zenith in a semi-final which had been billed as the battle of the year against the world’s number one player, Carlos Alcaraz.  Alcaraz is a twenty-year old Spaniard wunderkind who once beat both Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament and (barring the unforeseen) is already destined for greatness.  Beating the oddsmakers (and hooray for that), Djokovic beat young Carlitos as well (6-3, 5-7, 6-1, 6-1).  This lopsided score was almost certainly caused by the severe cramping that Alcaraz suffered from early in the third set, so disabling that he sat out a service game and willingly defaulted it in order to give himself more time to recover.  Alas, for him, and for many tennis fans, this was not to be.  To Alcaraz’s credit, he admitted after the match that the cramping was brought on by nerves caused by the enormity of facing a player like Djokovic on such a huge stage.  Be that as it may, Djokovic’s day of reckoning had finally arrived.

The 2023 French Open is now in the history books and Novak Djokovic at the not so tender age of 36 now holds high the “Coupe de Mousquetaires.” (This, for those who don’t know it, is the trophy that goes to the winner of the French Open, something the great Rafael Nadal has hoisted 14 times and has a statue on the grounds of Roland Garros to show for it.  It is named in honor of four great French tennis players from a century ago—Jacques Brugnon, Rene Lacoste, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra.  It is somehow fitting that Djokovic’s main sponsor is Lacoste, whose tennis clothing displays the first, and most famous, tennis insignia: the crocodile, which was the nickname of its eponymous founder.)

Djokovic’s road to winning grand slam number 23 in ‘23, was a relatively easy one, at least on paper. He only dropped two sets in the entire tournament and won all six of his sets that went to tie-breakers. His first match was against an American of Serbian extraction, Alessandra Kovacevic, to whom Djokovic had given encouragement earlier in the former’s career. In a very small way, I found Kovacevic’s history coinciding with mine in Manhattan.  Like me (albeit many moons ago), Kovacevic grew up playing on Central Park’s famous clay (now, Har-tru) courts on the Upper West Side.  This was where I had my tryouts for my High School tennis team, and began my life-long enjoyment of the sport as both a fan and player.  Anyway, the Djoker made fairly short work of his “landsman,” being challenged only once in a third set tie-breaker, which Djokovic won handily.  In the second round, after surviving a tough first set against veteran Hungarian player Morton Fucsovic, Nole cruised to a straight set victory.  The third-round match with Alejandro Davidovic Fokina was, I believe, Djokovic’s second toughest challenge of the tournament. Although it was a straight set win for the champion, the first two sets were nip and tuck, lasting nearly three hours, with both ending in tie-breakers. In succeeding rounds, Hubert Hurkacz fell quietly in straight sets, as did a tired Lorenzo Sonego, who had upset Russia’s Andrey Rublev in a long five-setter in which he prevailed after dropping the first two sets.  The quarter-final match against Karen Khachanov marked the first set Djokovic dropped in the tournament, and was only able to tie the match by winning a second-set tie-breaker.  By the way, the score of that tie-breaker was 7-0. Pushed almost to the limit, Djokovic went on to win the 3rd and 4th sets and doubtless breathed a sigh of relief.  Earlier, I mentioned the Davidovic-Fokina match as being the second toughest for Djokovic.  This one was the toughest.  When watching great champions at work, it is easy to forget how good world class opponents are, and how difficult it is to play, let alone win, at this level.  Khachanov played an absolutely incredible first set.  I’ve heard it said that Federer and Nadal consistently play their marvelous games at the same high level.  Djokovic, however, has a quality shared with very few (and  Medvedev is one of them), and seems able to play as hard as he has to, thus raising his level beyond what the other player had ever anticipated.  Khachanov is a very powerful, hard-hitting and highly-skilled athlete.  For him to have played the first two sets as he did, only to see Djokovic shift into overdrive and outplay him in every category must have left him shaking his head and wondering what he had to do in order to win.  The answer, clearly, was to be Djokovic, something only one man has accomplished to date.

Having survived the quarters, one had to wonder what tricks the Djoker had up his sleeve for the semis.  Due to the silliness of events which led to the seedings (thanks to Djokovic having received zero points for his Wimbledon championship at which Russian players were disqualified from competing and—of course— Djokovic himself being disallowed from competing in both Australia and Flushing Meadows) he and Alcaraz found themselves on the same side of the draw.  This made the semi-final more like a final, with the final, sadly, anti-climactic.  This, by the way, is not meant to be a knock on Caspar Rudd.  Anybody who  could take out the flashy and confident Holger Rune as Caspar Rudd did, cannot be underestimated.  In fact, Caspar Rudd is probably the most underrated superstar in men’s tennis.  Getting to two consecutive French Open men’s finals is no mean feat.  Losing, as he did, to Nadal and Djokovic, two of the greatest people to ever hold a tennis racquet, is not only nothing to be ashamed of, but something in which he should take great pride.  His future in men’s tennis glows as brightly as that of Alcaraz and Rune.  Don’t dismiss his quiet excellence as boring.  Remember Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Bjorn Borg—to name just three superstars who neither jumped up and down nor preened.  Sometimes flashiness can turn out to be a flash in the pan.  Just ask Nick Kyrgios and Gael Monfils, two supremely talented and demonstrative athletes who never won a major.  Rudd’s semi-final was just a day at the office for the 24 year-old Norwegian, facing the resurgent Alexander Zverev, whose recovery from a shattering ankle injury just a year ago was wondrous to behold.  Sasha fell in straight sets, leaving a well rested Rudd to face a tried and tested champion twelve years his senior.

Rudd looked great right out of the box, breaking Djokovic and taking a 3-0 and 4-1 lead. Despite clearly being rattled and spraying an unusual number of errors, Nole was able to settle down and square the set at 4-4,  Djokovic had Rudd at 30-love down, two points away from serving for a set that had seemed out of his reach, but Rudd held on, and Djokovic had to hold serve after being down 0-30 just to square things at 5-5. The next two games were relatively easy holds to bring this topsy-turvy set to 6-6.   Once the tie-break began, it was all Djokovic, 7-1.  For Rudd, who had just played a marvelous set of tennis only to resoundingly lose the breaker, this had to be more than a little deflating. The next set was Djokovic all the way (6-3).  The 3rd set found the two neck and neck, with Rudd doing his best to hold off the inevitable.  He was actually up 5-4, love-15 on Djokovic’s serve when the bottom fell out.   Djokovic raised his game to a level at which the younger Rudd could simply not match.  Nole won 11 points in a row and had triple match point. After losing a point to Rudd, Rudd’s next shot a 40-15 went wide, and Djokovic, for the first time, led everyone on the men’s side in victories at the Majors.  Right now, he trails only Margaret Court at 24, but—in fairness—it’s kind of apples and oranges.  Novak Djokovic is simply the winningest player in men’s tennis.  

The red clay of Roland Garros eats up a lot of the power that heavy hitters enjoy on both grass and hard courts.  This makes Djokovic’s 12 aces against Rudd all the more significant, not to mention the heaviness and accuracy of his ground strokes.  The French Open is the most elusive of all the Grand Slam surfaces. At one time all three of the others were on grass.  After a brief diversion to har-tru, the U.S. Open joined Australia in being hard courts.  Wimbledon (grass) and Roland Garros (clay) remain the quirky outliers, and—as a fan—I couldn’t be happier for the diversity  The red clay courts at the French Open have stymied many a great player in search of Grand Slam glory. Pete Sampras, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg are but a few Hall of Famers who never won The French.  As often as not, it has been the patient players who have dominated the serve and volleyers and heavy hitters. Nadal, of course, is the rare exception. In addition to being the best clay court player in the history of the game, he has won eight majors on other surfaces.  Djokovic has often admitted that Roland Garros is his toughest challenge.  With his victory last Sunday, Djokovic became the only men’s player in the history of the sport to have won the career grand slam (each of the majors) three times.  Not even the great Rod Laver, the only human to have won the (calendar) grand slam twice could match Djokovic’s achievement.

Like all sports records, nothing is forever.  Not so long ago, Pete Sampras’s record 14 seemed unbreakable.  That said, barring a resurgent Rafael Nadal, Djokovic’s achievement seems unmatchable. To be sure, we’ll never see three current players with twenty slams under their respective belts.  But then again, history always wins, so stay tuned.  As for the big three, we’ll each have our favorite, and each has—at one time or another—traded places as the GOAT.  But as of today, there is only one Greatest of All Time, and it is Novak Djokovic.  While I would never argue that his slight edge in the head to head category is determinative, it is not without significance.  But when you add up the 23 majors, the three career slams, most weeks as number one in the world, year-end number one, most Master’s 1,000 and best hair (sorry Roger and Rafa, I know how you feel), you’re left with one inescapable conclusion.  Federer and Nadal may remain GOATs in their own right,  but Djokovic is the Goatherd, and they are members of his flock.