by Pete Bodo
As has been the case for so many years now, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer were once again the main headline makers at the recently concluded Grand Slam event, this one the season opener in Melbourne. Only this time, it wasn't about the no. 1 and 2 players (respectively) meeting in the final, or either one of them adding to his major title count with a win. It wasn't about the Rafa Slam or the Federer insurgency.
This time, we had something closer to what some crusty old journalist once defined as news: Dog Bites Man is not news; Man Bites Dog is. . .
For the first time since Novak Djokovic overcame Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the Australian Open final of 2008, neither Rafa nor Roger made the final (corrected from original - ed.). Before that, you had to go way back to 2005 for a Rafa or Roger-less major final; Marat Safin downed Lleyton Hewitt in Melbourne in that one. Much was made of all this in recent days, more will be made. And it isn't entirely because we have a hunger for change, or news, or controversy or sensation. There's a fair chance that the reigning icons of men's tennis are coming up against it.
Take Nadal. If his actions and words are to be trusted, he's been unable to compete effectively in 5 of the last 8 Grand Slam events because of injury, although the only tournament he actually sat out was Wimbledon of 2009. It's tough to quantify the degree of impairment a player labors under, but there's a point at which you have to be downright perverse to ignore the injury narratives. The main reason to bring it up in Nadal's case is because there seems to be a pattern here, and it doesn't bode well for Nadal's future or longevity.
Federer's case is more transparent and commonplace. He's living the oldest story in the book. He's 29, an age at which the emotional knife no longer holds a good edge for a significant period of time, the mind needs more frequent breaks from the demands of fierce concentration, and the legs are less eager to follow the instantaneous orders issued by the eyes. The sobering aspect of Federer's most recent loss - the one that leaves him without possession of a Grand Slam title for the first time since 2003 - is that he didn't play that badly. Nor was he hurt, or otherwise impaired, as far as we could tell.
Novak Djokovic is playing extremely well, but not that well - not straights sets in the semis better than Federer, or at least the Federer we knew not so long ago. That Federer would have found a way to compete better; to do something more, or something different, or something bolder and more confrontational or intimidating albeit in a perfectly acceptable, sporting manner. He would have done something like that even if he still ended up losing. But this is just the way it goes, the energy level of a competitor gradually drops. All credit to Djokovic. The way he played the tournament suggests that Nadal needs to watch his back, and his ranking. That is, if he's fit enough to carry on.
So I don't believe this was just aberration, and that we'll be back to business as usual in no time, even if the next major is Roland Garros, a tournament that Nadal could probably win having to crawl across the terre battu on his belly. I have a feeling that the year of transition, the one everyone has been either dreading or awaiting, is upon us. And some of the other results at the Australian Open suggest that we might be in for a wild time.
It all starts, for the men, with Djokovic. Granted, Andy Murray's attitude, energy and determination (or lack thereof) were conspicuously weak in the men's final. By midway in the second set, Murray's highly-praised, somewhat unconventional game (he's still one big win from claiming the high ground as the "thinking man's" tennis player) already lay shattered in small pieces on the blue-gray floor of Rod Laver Arena. And the credit for that goes to Djokovic, for sweeping aside Murray's fatal attraction to games best left to cats and mice. In the big picture, Murray looked to create a masterpiece of craft and guile. But Djkovic just squared up across the net and basically said, Cut the crap and show me what you got!
It wasn't very much, it turned out. Djokovic was neither lured nor lulled into anything. He just continued to probe, push and take advantage of every opportunity that came his way. He seemed to know that if he executed at sufficiently high level, he could catch Murray flat-footed and out of tricks and go right through him. This was the second major in a row in which he performed at a remarkably high level; he was just unlucky to have a fit, on-form Nadal instead of Murray back at the US Open a few months ago.
So Djokovic is on a high, but you never know how long that lasts, and while he's still a pup (as is Murray, who was born within a week of Djokovic in 1987), he's shown that he can be distracted.In fact, he's just coming out of that Novak-the-Entertainer phase, which was accompanied by a fall-off in his game if not his popularity.
A guy must think pretty highly of himself to toss his smelly sneakers into the crowd right after a match (did he imagine that the lucky spectator who caught it would fall to her knees to fondle and sniff it?). There's a bit of the narcissist in Djokovic, it seems, but if he doesn't get hauled in for repeatedly disrobing in public, he's going to be a huge factor in 2011. He's gone back to the roots of his clean, precise, relatively flat game.
We could talk about some of the other usual suspects who have been loitering, waiting for the end of the Federer-Nadal era - the Berdychs, Soderlings, Monfils, Cilics' and Roddicks - but why bother. Those guys will be around, like flies on watermelon. I'd rather pay tribute to some of the players who made this Australian Open one of the more delightful, surprising of Grand Slams in recent memory:
Li Na - I've liked the spirited Chinese girl since she first punched through to a Grand Slam quarterfinal in 2006. At the time, her style and demeanor reminded of that great lady warrior, Chris Evert. But in the interim, Li has improved enormously, and evolved from a conventional baseliner (a game that no longer works well at the highest level) into a dangerous shotmaker.
Li has also gotten leaner, stronger, and more nimble. She reminds me a little bit of Andy Roddick now, in that she's clearly taken a journey, seeking to make herself better, and arrived at a new place in her career. There's only one thing she still needs to do: maintain the standard of play she's achieved in the first month of this year.
!Kim Kim Clijsters - I thought it was touching how, in her victory speech, Clijsters acknowledged that only after winning the event did she finally feel she'd earned the right to answer to the affectionate nickname, "Aussie Kim."
More important, Clijsters really needed this win for her street cred as a champion, and the way she earned it, with a come-from-behind three-set win over Li, deserves the utmost respect. Unfortunately, Kim hinted that she'll play only sparodically going forward, which may make you ask, "So why bother?" Are all the great WTA champions going to declare themselves part-timers?
The WTA needs a new sheriff in town, and that job may fall to Caroline Wozniacki. Alright, she didn't uphold her no. 1 seeding - or win her first major. But she had an excellent tournament despite laboring under a load of pressure. I think that's only going to make her hungrier and better. I don't think this is another Jelena Jankovic here. Petra Kvitova has a lot of up-side as well, and she's not even 21 yet; I liked the way she handled the native favorite and no. 5 seed Sam Stosur.
And what can you say about Francesca Schiavone? Realistically, not very much because she's already 30 and unlikely to sustain the level she hit last June as the suprise winner at Roland Garros (now that was a Man Bites Dog story. . .) . Her 16-14 win over Svetlana Kuznetsova was a high point of this tournament, and we can only hope that she finds a way to keep doing these things. It's like she was put on this earth to remind her fellow WTA pros that you can play this game with joy, passion, humor, and a humble, visceral awareness of just how danged lucky you are compared to the average person.
On the men's side, I wrote during the tournament about the Fab Five, those young guns named Grigor Dimitrov, Alexandr Dolgopolov, Bernard Tomic, Milos Raonic, and Richard Berankis. The one I like best in the lot is Raonic. He has the potential to develop the biggest game, but let's not forget that way back circa 2003, Roger Federer was attracting high praise and accolades, although nobody suggested that he had a game with which he might dominate on all surfaces (which he did, at least until Rafa Nadal came along, at which point Federer became merely the second-best - by a mile - player on clay).
Dimitrov is the one who's already received the same kiss of death once bestowed on unreliable Richard Gasquet: the nickname, Baby Federer.
The success of the Fab Five (Dolgopolov, the oldest by far at age 22, went the furthest, losing in the quarterfinals to Andy Murray) suggests that the status quo on the ATP Tour is in danger. Even if none of those youngsters is ready to vault into the top 10, each of them is capable of beating top 10-type players. Just look at some of the names they knocked off - Robin Soderling, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Mikhail Youzhny, David Nalbandian, Feliciano Lopez. And that will certainly have an impact. None of the players who have waited patiently through this Federer-Nadal era, hoping for a turn in the spotlight, will have to be very careful.
Tomorrow, I'll have some thoughts on Andy Murray. . .