The Rally returns with a weekend edition. Today and tomorrow I'll be talking about the 2012 season—what's behind and what's ahead—with freelance writer Kamakshi Tandon.
Kamakshi,
Are you ready for the fall season? I guess you have no choice, since it’s well upon us by now. I have to say I’m looking forward to it more this time than I have in years past. Psychologically, knowing that the men finish in mid-November instead of early December seems to have made a difference—I can see the finish line a little more clearly.
There’s also more to play for and look forward to this time around, on both sides. For once, the men’s No. 1 ranking wasn’t clinched at the U.S. Open; we should have meaningful matches right down to the World Tour Finals in London. It will have a little less flavor and flash without Rafael Nadal, but there should be more tension as Roger and Novak go for No. 1. I get the feeling, despite Federer’s seeming second thoughts at the Open, that they both want it. On the women’s side, it doesn’t seem as if the bottom has dropped out of the tour this time around, the way it has in other seasons, when so many players pull the plug on the year early. Azarenka, Sharapova, and Radwanska were all in Tokyo, though we’ll see how Vika is after her dizzy spells this week.
Before we get to the end of the season, though, what would you say the stories of 2012 were, now that the tournaments of record, the majors, are over? In the ATP, the reversal in fortunes between Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray is the most striking to me. This is a short-term situation that feels like it could be long term. Not that Nadal won’t be back, and be as good as ever—it seems like a long time ago now, but he was very close to winning the first two majors of the year. But I do feel like he’ll have to make some compromises with his schedule in the future; he’s started to talk about adding clay and subtracting hard courts, which would probably have a negative effect on his ranking in the future. And now that Murray has the first one out of the way, his status changes. In 2011 and now in 2012, power has been democratized just a tiny bit more on the men’s side. I just hope we won’t begin to see a slow fade from both Federer and Nadal. I’m betting against it.
The fate of the women’s game this year has been more straightforwardly positive. We always said that the WTA needed Serena Williams, and we were right. But in 2012 the tour also got the best from Maria Sharapova and Victoria Azarenka, as well as an appealing new player to most casual fans, Agnieszka Radwanska. And while Serena did put the hammer down on Maria in the gold medal match, she showed vulnerability in the Wimbledon and U.S. Open finals, enough to make the matches entertaining.
Serena has brought reality back to the women’s game—the best has proven she’s the best. Of course, she’s still ranked No.4; which is fine, in a way, because it at least keeps her from floating in the draw, and it’s not like Serena needs the computer to tell her who’s No. 1. It also helps that the current top woman, Azarenka, has won a major, and nearly beat Serena for another. She’s legit.
Which brings up a question. Do you think Vika’s Open loss helped her popularity? A lot of people in the U.S. watched that match, especially the third set—they were waiting to see an interview on <em>60 Minutes</em> with the Bin Laden special forces author. It would be nice to think that Vika will gain some fans from that coincidence, enough that she doesn’t clear out so many arenas in 2013.
Hi Steve,
It's always a little hard to figure out what the fall is about, especially at the beginning—what's it leading up to? What are they—what am I—still doing here? That means it can be a little hard to get into. In fact, the tennis fall is like summer school—sparse, dimly-lit, populated by an odd mix of earnest types trying to get ahead and stragglers making up for frittered time.
And from a spectating perspective, it's mostly optional. Then again, since when do I need a reason to watch tennis? That drop shot from Philipp Kohlschreiber in Metz last week, the one which spun off wickedly into almost a V-shape when it hit the ground. Jesse Levine hitting a drop volley that had “too much class” (commentator) for Jo-Wilfried Tsonga to get to, so the Frenchman ended up jumping the net instead. Oh yeah. Those are reasons to watch tennis.
It does feel different, though. One of the matches Kohlschreiber played last week was against Benoit Paire, a must-see for shot-making aficionados. But while there were some good points, the arena was nearly empty, and even those who were there looked like they were waiting for a bus. I thought back to a couple of weeks ago, when these two were playing a fifth-set tiebreak in front of jammed stands at the U.S. Open. It was one of those classic side court day-to-evening encounters with brilliant rallies, controversy, an electric atmosphere. Everyone was hanging on each point. <em>Oh yeahhhhhhhh</em>. Fast forward a few days. Same players, no rock concert. Was it undervalued, or does location matter? What makes the match—the players or the stage?
I guess that’s what will be at the heart of the power struggle that will be going on though the fall, until the next big stage at the Australian Open, as the growing standoff between the ATP players and the Slams heads to a possible showdown.
In the meantime, though, this is tennis unplugged. And it's a good chance to rediscover what lies beneath. Watching Guangzhou last week was an example. There were some entertaining welterweight battles, a real look at some emerging names like Laura Robson, wayward ones like Sorana Cirstea, and at long last Su-Wei Hsieh, who's had such intriguing results but been so invisible. I knew she'd be interesting.
Most of the top women are back in Tokyo, as you said, and Shanghai is coming up, so before you know it we'll be all wrapped up in the Race to London and Istanbul, which is really the way we get into the fall and stop asking questions about whether the season is too long. It's also supposed to be a time in the year when it's not all about the Big Four, because we already know they've got spots. It’s about Tsonga and Berdych and Tipsarevic and Gasquet and all those guys.
But with the race for No. 1 at the end of the year still open, maybe that will be the focus this time. It doesn't mean much to me who ends up there, to be honest—but if Federer and Djokovic decide it matters to them, it could be interesting. Federer playing Shanghai would be a strong signal, especially after the talk at Davis Cup about being tired. He’s played a lot this year, and I’m not sure if making a hard charge now is a good idea. Having said that, I can see the temptation because he has a shot at Pete Sampras’ six year-end No. 1 finishes.
More on the year so far in the next post, but for now, the question of the year—who was the men’s player of the year? For me, it’s close but quite clearly Djokovic, even if he hasn't been as good since January as he was most of last year. Nadal unfortunately couldn't post a full season, Federer was so impressive but it felt a little more fragile, and Murray closed a gap rather than opening up a new one. If one really dominates the others in the next couple of months, I could change my mind. How about you? I've seen a lot of different opinions.