Friday, January 28, 2011

2011 Australian Open Final: Just the Beginning of Something Special, Not the End

This was supposed to be a sports obituary.

Early Thursday, my favorite tennis player, my favorite athlete really, Roger Federer, lost in the Australian Open semifinals to Novak Djokovic. For the first time since I was in high school (which I promise you, was quite some time ago), Federer didn’t hold a single Grand Slam title, and more importantly, hasn’t even made a Grand Slam final since last year’s Australian Open. In Fed’s world, four straight losses before—at the very least—a major final, is four too many.

Granted, there’d been signs of Federer’s decline for a while now, some dating all the way back to 2008. But whenever we counted him out, it always seemed like he bounced back with another dominating title at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open, and once even in Paris.

Finally though, it seemed like the loss in Australia, where for the second time in two majors he couldn’t get by Djokovic, was the nail in the coffin. The guy I had watched grow from quirky upstart with a bad ponytail to the No. 1 player in the world, and ultimately to the best player of all time was officially washed up. Needless to say, it left me more depressed than one of the girls on The Hills if she hasn’t taken her Valium in a week.

But then a funny thing happened: I actually sat down and watched a replay of the Djokovic-Federer match. It wasn’t nearly what I expected it to be.

Then again, this is also why I always feel obligated to watch every match, tournament or game that I plan on writing about. Because a box score or recap only tells a part of the story, seeing everything in living color, with your own two eyes, can often show a different one.

Well, when I sat down to watch the Federer-Djokovic match, I was expecting the worst. I already knew that Djokovic had won in straight sets, and I was expecting it to be ugly. Like Tyson vs. Spinks or JWoww vs. Sammi kind of ugly. Going into the match, we knew that Novak was the younger, sprier and stronger player, and I assumed sitting down and watching a replay would be a two-and-a-half-hour verification of that.

Except that’s not what happened at all. Yes, Djokovic won, but not only was it not one-sided, you could make the case that Federer was the better player through a big part of it. Roger didn’t lose on serve once in the first set, and easily could’ve taken it in the tiebreak.

Then in the second set, he was up 5-2 and cruising, before taking his foot off the gas, and letting Djokovic back in. Within minutes it was 5-5, Djokovic had again seized control, and Federer was left with the same glaze in his eyes my grandma gets when you try to explain the internet to her. Novak cruised in the third, and won the match.

But while all the match reports said one thing, Federer-Djokovic wasn’t the one-sided beat down everyone made it out to be. Instead, it was hard-fought and back and forth for the first 60 percent, before Federer lost focus and control. And even as great as Federer is, you just can’t do that against someone as skilled as Djokovic.

Still, as I took everything in after the match, I couldn’t help but think that my idea for Federer’s obituary was way too premature, because the truth is much better: tennis is in the midst of a golden age.

Looking across the board right now, there appear to be four guys that are head and shoulders above everyone else: Djokovic, Federer, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal. Sure others have their moments given the right circumstance or surface, but ultimately, after years of “Roger or Rafa,” we now have four guys that you’re comfortable saying, “I could see this guy winning this tournament,” every single tour stop.

What makes things really cool though, and what ultimately makes this the golden age of tennis, is that these four guys are all at slightly different points in their careers. And with that, a cool converging of eras has occurred.

Starting with Federer, he’s no longer the dominant force of nature he was in his prime, when I fell in love with his game. He’s a bit older, and a step slower, and with two young kids, undoubtedly no longer a young man, but instead just a man.

As we saw in Australia, he’s also no longer the guy that can go into Grand Slams, play flawless tennis for long stretches and not drop a set for matches at a time. More increasingly, there seems to be one or two early round matches that give him trouble, and draw him into five sets. Ultimately though, that’s ok. Time stops for no man. Even the Fed Express.

Still, what Federer is—even closing in on 30 years old—is a guy that should be favored against everyone other than Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, and can absolutely lay waste to any of the non “Big Three,” on any given night. That’s exactly what happened in the Australian quarterfinals against Stanislas Warwinka, where what was supposed to be an exciting match, turned into a 6-3, 6-3, 6-1 Federer laugher. It was over before it began and had less drama and excitement than a Friday night in Salt Lake City. Federer might not be able to turn on the fifth gear every night, but can still get there often enough.

That match was also why I believe Federer still has at least one major title left in him. On the right surface, in the right circumstances, is there any doubt Federer can take down seven matches in a row and hoist a championship trophy? It not only seems feasible to me, but probable.

No comments:

Post a Comment