Djokovic vs Nadal was great, but do we need six-hour finals?
Roar Rookie By sheek, 2 Feb 2012 sheek is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Australian Open, Australian Open final, Maria Sharapova, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Tennis, Victoria Azarenka
Five hours and 53 minutes. Or 353 minutes. Or just seven minutes shy of six hours. The Australian Open tennis men’s final is being rightly described as one of the greatest matches in history. Was it really a case of overkill?
If you believe ‘great’ means most great plays in most games in most sets, then perhaps you will not be so convinced of this match’s greatness. If you believe it means pushing the other guy to the absolute end of his endurance, then you could make a convincing argument.
The stats tell us Novak Djokovic eventually prevailed over Rafael Nadal 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7, 7-5. I didn’t see the start of the match, coming in to watch midway through the first set. I then watched the second set before retiring to the study and computer.
I looked for updates every half-hour or so, and saw that Djokovic had won the third set also. My daughter called me back to the living room when things were tied up 4-4 in the fourth set. From there I watched this increasingly compelling game to its dramatic conclusion in the wee hours.
After three sets, Djokovic appeared on a roll. All the momentum was with him. Yet when I returned to the living room TV, I watched a defiant Nadal fight and scrap his way to an extraordinary levelling fourth set. Nadal was struggling to get on top of Djokovic, but somehow he prevailed.
As the fifth set unfolded, Djokovic appeared spent, and even the commentators were predicting a quick end. Nut as Nadal had done in the fourth set, Djokovic hung tough in the fifth.
While Djokovic showed his emotions outwardly, Nadal was like an inscrutable merchant. But you knew Nadal was tiring when he started netting a lot. Well, more often than he had been.
Nadal had gone into the match I believe, with a plan to drop shots just on Djokovic’s side of the court, forcing him to run in off the baseline. But his execution needed to be precise, and on the night it wasn’t. He netted often, and as he got tired, he did it more and more.
The pendulum was now swinging back Djokovic’s way. In the end, it was Novak who found a second (or was it a fifth, or a tenth?) wind, while Rafa was utterly spent.
For Rafa, the consolation was this – if you can’t win, the next best thing is force your opponent to give everything of himself. Novak also had nothing left at the end.
For me, it reminded me of the Thriller in Manila between boxing legends Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier. Both boxers belted each other almost into oblivion. Frazier’s corner threw the towel in to end the fight at the end of 14 of 15 regulation rounds.
Some comments attributed later to Ali had him saying that Frazier’s corner threw the towel in about five seconds before Ali’s was prepared to do the same. Extraordinary.
I consider myself privileged to have watched such a magical tennis match. Some of the early tennis play was regulation, but as the stakes grew, so did the quality of the play, and the courage of the combatants.
I like my heroes to be good people, and Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal are as good a pair of human beings as you can find. I thought both their post-match speeches were terrific – full of humility, empathy and graciousness. Even a little humour.
Rafa even had the presence of mind to joke “Good morning” in his opening address, which was repeated by Novak.
So, yes. It was great. But that said, is it fair to ask our best tennis players to push themselves for nearly six hours in a final? Isn’t it possible to reduce the timespan? Novak played over 11 hours of tennis in across his final and semi-final epics.
Clearly, this is verging on the ridiculous. The women have come in for criticism for their lacklustre final. Victoria Azarenka dispatched Maria Sharapova in a 82 minutes. The bare scorecard read 6-3, 6-0.
For their efforts of less than about one-seventh the time on court compared to the men, the women won exactly the same prize money – AUD$2.3 million to the winner and AUD$1.15 million to the runner-up.
Not that I’m criticising the women’s tour. They have copped a raw deal for such a long time that I can only say good luck to them if they have some advantage these days. The point is that if we want to see the men playing at their best for many years to come, then we need to find ways to help prolong their careers.
Marathon finals, semi-finals and quarter-finals spanning four, five, or six hours will see these guys bunk out earlier than they need to, robbing us of the opportunity to see them play for longer periods of their careers.
And that’s something that’s not great at all.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:08am
Madan said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Point taken
February 2nd 2012 @ 7:32am
M1tch said | February 2nd 2012 @ 7:32am | Report comment
Do we need long finals? Yes, yes we do.
The men’s final is now the only opportunity fans get to see tennis like this. Womens matches are lucky to go 90 minutes, mixed doubles the same and the Mens doubles has been cut back to 3 sets as well. The viewing figures don’t like the people want to see marathon tennis like we did sunday night.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:31am
Sam said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:31am | Report comment
IF there were a Nadal and Djokovitch on the women’s tour then you bet we would have looong finals as well. Unfortunately there are not several incredibly dominant players there. On the women’s side the top 15 or so are about equal or, if not equal there is no clear divide like there is with nadal djokovic federer, and murray. the Men’s final was so long because both of the players were willing to play as long as they could, and they could keep up an insane level of play for an insane amount of time.
The women’s final was lackluster because 1. both players were tired ( women have less endurance than men. Evidenced by the fact that they only play best of three set matches and still are exhausted by the end of the tournament. Djokovic won an epic match against andy murray in 4 hrs. 50 min. and came back two days later as fresh as he could be, ready to play a six hour match against one of the greatest players ever. And he won.)
And 2. They weren’t playing near the same skill level. Sharapova got a thorough whipping from azerenka. If they had been closer in skill level their match would have been much much longer.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:43am
D said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:43am | Report comment
We do need it. Djokovic and Nadal are pushing tennis to a new level, almost a new sport. New players will be trained with this in mind, to be “as strong as Djokovic” or “as enduring as Nadal” and this can only be good for the sport. Perhaps it won’t be good for the American public that can’t watch anything for more than 2 hours without explosions or for people who want to relax while watching a sport, but for true tennis fans, these are exciting times.
Why do we need to protect our players? Djokovic and Nadal can probably do this for another 5 years and when they retire, a new generation will have trained to become just as competitive. For years we watched Federer play a slower, more technical game, that while masterful was never that exciting to watch. Tennis went in that direction until Djokovic and Nadal stepped up and turned it around, to a more physical game. Not only is it exciting to watch, the shots are much more difficult to make than many fans give it credit for. They are creating massive spin, massive strength cross court rallies, drop shots, aces, and everything else.
In short, these finals are extremely beneficial for the sport, but perhaps not an average casual fan’s concentration.
If anything, this will give tennis that boost it has severely lacked in the past decade.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:42am
clipper said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
D – great comment about Americans not being able to watch anything for more than 2 hours without explosions, but have to disagree with you about Federer. A lot of people find him more exciting to watch, precisely because of his technical game that is masterful. Also, Federer does not play a slower game, as he always does better on faster courts, and his 5 set epics at Wimbledon with Nadal and Roddick didn’t go as long as this AO final – although the points in between may have been shorter, as Federer doesn’t fidget and time waste.
February 2nd 2012 @ 1:37pm
Maggie said | February 2nd 2012 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Or pray to some deity.
February 3rd 2012 @ 1:25am
stillmatic1 said | February 3rd 2012 @ 1:25am | Report comment
are these the same americans that watch a minimum 3hour NFL game or 3-4 hour baseball game!! while “we” leave in droves to watch 20/20 cricket instead of the 50 over game.
its nice to take the pot shot at the supposed american attention span, but please, they certainly put us to shame in regards to attention to detail and time invested in their 2 main sports.
not to mention a basketball season that stretches for over 80 games aswell.
leave the myth making to people with less intelligence, like journalists!!
February 3rd 2012 @ 2:03am
danisrob said | February 3rd 2012 @ 2:03am | Report comment
To be fair American sports are only stretched over 2 hours because of constant ad breaks and TV time outs and when you attend these games live – such as basketball or american football – they are constantly trying to distract you with fireworks, cheerleaders, kiss cams etc as opposed to just the on court action.
February 3rd 2012 @ 11:31am
Rory said | February 3rd 2012 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Federer’s game is also much more varied than Nadal’s and Djokovic’s. That makes it more interesting.
February 2nd 2012 @ 8:44am
John said | February 2nd 2012 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Tennis has no time limit so a match can be as short as 90 minutes or as long as both players can muster up all the strength and determination to keep going. No one is asking them to play long matches, it’s their burning desire to compete and win that pushes themselves to play so hard.
Now, must there be a best of five set matches in Slams? Yes, the Slams are the biggest events in tennis. They’re what separates the greats from the good. Only when in tough conditions with high intensity and pressure do we see the best step up to a level that separates them from the rest. A five setter ensures that the game is more than physical; it’s also mental, emotional, and a whole lot of heart–as you saw with the Djokovic-Nadal final.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:02am
Steve said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:02am | Report comment
A very long final is what you get when 2 very strong baseliners duke it out from the backcourt. This is the state of men’s tennis right now. Very strong, fit athletes with powerful serves, groundstrokes, returns and great footwork. Bjorn Borg was an early version of this type of tennis, but he could serve and volley. If we had a modern version of McEnroe…someone who could duke it out with Nadal and Djokovic from the backcourt but also serve and volley effectively against they great returners…well that would be nice to watch and probably shorten the match times…but there’s no one out there like this right now unfortunately. So we’ll all just have to settle for watching these slug fests…which is still very entertaining as well….the overall state of men’s tennis is looking good with these guys, like in the days of Bjorn, Nastase, Connors, McEnroe, etc.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:27am
Gucci said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Completely disagree with you, I want long finals.
If we want to talk about protecting sportsmen, then all extreme sports, all fight sports, all motor sports should all be made illegal. That’s just silly.
And how many of our elite swimmers ended up having heart disease? Nearly all of them. But that doesn’t stop people wanting to become top of the world, nor does it stop people wanting to watch them, does it?
Let’s just appreciate that athletes are willing to put in the effort they put in to bring us all the thrill and joy.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:29am
Matt F said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:29am | Report comment
I can see your point but is there a better alternative? Reduce it to best of 3 sets like the women and witness the 80 minute debacle that was Saturday’s final? No thanks. Most regular tour tournaments are best of 3 sets, which is fine, but I think that the major’s need 5 sets.
Let’s not forget that this was the longest Grand Slam final on record, so it doesn’t happen very often. To put some context on it, last year’s Aus Open final went for only 2 1/2 hours.
February 2nd 2012 @ 1:06pm
Maggie said | February 2nd 2012 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
The 80 minute ‘debacle’ as you describe the women’s final was a result of the winner far outclassing her opponent. (A disappointment I agree, I expected Maria Sharapova to be more competitive than she turned out to be.) That can happen in any tennis match, men or women, no matter how many sets are played. Do you remember the 2007 Australian Open men’s semi-final when Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick 6-4, 6-0, 6-2 in 83 minutes? That was a match played as the best of 5 sets. Didn’t mean that it was a long match though. On the other hand, it took Francesca Schiavone 4 hours 44 minutes to defeat Svetlana Kuznetsova 6-4, 1-6, 16-14 in a best of 3 sets women’s fourth round match at the 2011 Australian Open.
February 2nd 2012 @ 2:27pm
Matt F said | February 2nd 2012 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
True, debacle was a strong, and incorrect word. I still prefer the big tournaments to be decided over 5 sets though.
February 2nd 2012 @ 2:43pm
Maggie said | February 2nd 2012 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
And I agree with you.
February 2nd 2012 @ 9:53am
kolier said | February 2nd 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
maybe if they dont take a minute to serve, the match would last a couple of hours less.
February 2nd 2012 @ 5:51pm
matt said | February 2nd 2012 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
Absolutely correct. 35 seconds on average between each point, You cannot be serious! This style of tennis has been more and more encouraged by the blatant lack of interest in enforcing time limits on these guys. But Nadal owns the tour these days so go figure.
February 2nd 2012 @ 10:08am
ALex said | February 2nd 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Of course, the longer the more epic. As best points and shots go this match was certainly up there as well. If anyone ever asks the question about the necessity of length for a tennis match you must not enjoy tennis too much.