Common to the winners of the 2011 Australian Open was a steely determination which strengthened their defenses at tough moments. The runners-up, however, had nothing in common, and the matches couldn’t have evolved more differently. Or more unexpectedly.
With a 27-year-old first-time finalist carrying the hopes of over a billion Chinese on her winning a first-ever slam for their nation, a women’s match that might have been a blow-out for the experienced champion turned out to be suspenseful and full of long, tactically interesting and exciting points.
The men’s final disappointed everyone except the Joker’s (Djokovic) box and the flag-waving Serbian fans. The long-awaited battle royale between two of the most brilliant shot-makers and movers in the men’s game probably left many viewers at a loss to explain the lack of interesting rallies, and bored by the lack of suspense during the match.
After Li Na took the first set and continued to shoot winners around the court as if – forgive an analogy even Sarah Palin might hesitate to make – armed with a semi-automatic hand gun, Kim dug in defensively and lobbed some moon-balls from her bunker behind the baseline to mess with her opponent’s rhythm (and perhaps her mind).
It worked just well enough for Kim to wrest the second set and the momentum away from a determined foe.
Kim never lost her understanding of the big picture and her steady hand showed in her own periodic sharp shooting.
In the end, she accomplished what many people expected her to do from early in the tournament when she was dominating opponents, though she could not do it the same way she’d done earlier in the tournament or in US Open final, when her own barrage of winners left the wily Zvonareva defenseless.
Having now won her fourth major, and at 27 years old approaching the number #1 ranking for the first time in five years, Clijsters maturity and versatility as a player are finally making her into a perennial champion (with the perennial caveat, if Serena is not healthy). Will Kim’s desire to keep winning outlast Serena’s ability to swoop back into action and steal the show?
At the start of the men’s final no one knew what to expect, including Brad Gilbert, who said it was the toughest one he’d had to call (perhaps because Federer or Nadal had been in 22 of the last 23 major finals).
Joker’s narrow margin in the odds stemmed either from a sense that his having won before in Australia and his confidence from the Davis Cup victory in December were an advantage over Murray, who could be his own worst enemy when he didn’t have a Federer on the other side of the net.
Joker had staged his share of disappointments, but most felt he was playing at the top of his game after grooving his new serve, while Murray had struggled in the semis to put away the ferracious Ferrer (forgive the Palin-tology).
The question was: which Murray would show up – the regal Brit or the hapless Scot?
My friend and reader Dr. Modest (both a real doctor and an astute tennis observer) was prescient about the answer after watching Andy’s semi-final win: “I could not escape the impression that Murray is playing against himself.
“Seems like he could be playing Queen Elizabeth, Pope Benedict or Roger Federer and the outcome would hinge only on the positioning of the devils and demons in his head.” (I wish Andrew had more time for pithy commentary, but he’s a busy doc with a full life.)
Throughout the long first set, the answer was at least in doubt. While Joker executed an aggressive game plan and demonstrated his ability to control play, Murray’s focus waffled between questionable and dreadful, but he stayed even until 4 – 4, giving himself a chance to find his game.
He’d barely managed to hold serve after facing multiple break points, due to a raft of inexplicably errant serves and groundstrokes had him visibly unhappy with his string tension. Yet, for those who wished Murray well or awaited a tennis match, when the coverage cut to two stringers re-doing Andy’s racquets after the third game, hope remained alive.
Not for long. After the first set, 6 – 4 for Joker, all hope died as quickly as I recall seeing in a three out of five set major final – at least since Murray lost the opening set tie-breaker in the US Open final in ’09 and Federer ran off the next two sets. Barely twenty minutes after 4 – 4 in the first set yesterday, Joker was up a set and leading 5 – 0.
For the rest of the match, Joker’s challenge was to pace himself and avoid mini-melt-downs when he lost his serve three times in the last 12 games.
He did. Each time after losing his serve, Joker broke right back, accumulating seven breaks in Murray’s last nine service games. Murray’s occasional power-serving saved a few break points, but he couldn’t survive Joker’s pressure AND his own incompetence. Only once did we see classic Andy (brilliance on the run, a BH winner up-the-line).
Rather, we endured mangled volleys, missed overheads, routine slice BH’s finding the bottom-of-the-net, and, of course, a few ill-timed double-faults (as on the first point after breaking serve).
How bad was Murray? A few more statistics:
– Murray faced 18 break points in 13 service games.
– He needed 50 per cent more serves in the match.
– He won a mere 31 per cent percent of his second serve points.
– His vaunted return-of-serve gained him barely 33 per cent of receiving points to Joker’s 51 per cent.
Gilbert had given the advantage on second serve to Joker (to Murray on first serves) but had foretold that the outcome would not hinge on serving, as it almost always does in men’s tennis to some extent. In spite of the statistics, I think his instinct was pretty much correct.
Murray seemed to be on the defensive all the time regardless of who had served what. This was partially by design (his defense was to have blunted and countered Joker’s initiatives); he wasn’t going to out-hit Joker.
Though the match was won and lost after the serve – just as the women’s final had been – no one expected the men’s contest to be so one-sided, and no one said afterwards that the outcome had hinged on a key point or single shot (as was said after Joker’s three set win over Roger in the semis).
So where was the steel I mentioned in the men’s winner? You could see it in his eyes, hear it in his grunt, feel it in the tension mounting during over 1000 ball bounces preceding a mere 75 serves needed in the entire match.
It’s in his statistics: a man who loses only 25 points on serve in a three set match over 14 service games is giving up very little to his opponent. He faced only four break points – the fact that Murray broke him three of those times is the only inkling that the Scot was not entirely without fight or weapons.
But before Murray could build any speed, Joker’s pressure took Andy back to the breakdown lane.
At the awards ceremony afterward, it was clear that each player had prepared for his role. Just as Joker accepted victory without even feigning astonishment, Murray accepted defeat with resignation and barely a hint of the sadness that overcame him after last year’s solid losing effort in the final to Roger.
Perhaps these two friends had a better sense of how this match would end than anyone else, but I doubt either expected to be at the awards stage less than three hours after they took the court to warm up.
Do we now think Andy’s best chance for a major title is to team up with Joker again in doubles? And do we think Joker is ready to assume responsibility for an era? I don’t expect either.
In big moments, Andy may so far have reminded us a little of another talented malcontent, Marat Safin, but Marat won two majors while imploding on and off big and small stages throughout his career. Murray’s no Ivan Lendl, but I believe his day will come, and feel it’s more likely than Li Na hoisting a first slam for China (someone will do it for China before any US woman not named Venus or Serena).
Why?
Murray’s too good, too fit, and too determined not to win one. Some thoughts to consider:
– During the most competitive years ever in men’s tennis, he’s the only man other than Joker (Rafa or Roger) to have been in three major finals in the last three years.
– At 23, he’s younger than the three other major finalists of these years (Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga).
– Del Potro’s ongoing recovery from wrist surgery leaves a question about his future ability to dominate.
– Roger no longer holds a major, and Rafa’s injury pattern will continue to leave opportunities to others.
Even the recent history of major champions is full of stories of unlikely champions who never showed the results Murray has (to name a few Oz Open champs, how about Korda in ’98, Kafelnikov in ’99 and Johansson in ’02).
Yes, Andy may first need a hypnotherapist or another sports psychologist, or a coach who really gets him better than his mother (who may retire after a brutal career in the box), or all three. It’s a crazy game and a crazy life for those who pursue it on his level (if they aren’t a bit crazy, what’s wrong with them?).
We’ve all wondered about Federer’s mental state in the last few years, and look what he’s done. And then there’s Rafa.
Is Joker crazy, or what?
I don’t think crazy will be his problem. Distraction will. He won’t be able to pull off major wins without continued focus on improvement the way he’s done in the last year, and it my have been the Davis Cup that finally motivated him to change a service motion that was inadequate. He needed a serve to stay competitive.
Now he has one. Did his tennis need a restaurant in his name? Did it need to launch a tournament in his home town?
What’s next?
Joker’s an ambitious, extremely capable man on many fronts — too many, I think.
He’s too colorful and too engaged in life outside tennis to give it the focus demanded to own an era. I look for him to win multiple majors and be a top five player for the next several years, and to end his career happily with five to seven titles and maybe an Olympic dream fulfilled for Serbia.
He will become wealthy and perhaps help to launch another generation of tennis professionals in Serbia. But he’s not looking to get in the race for greatest of all-time.
This is no knock on Joker – there’s no one with that focus among the other top men. In the USA, there’s no one, period, in the top or even on the horizon. That’s another story, for next time.
Whether it’s aces or races, try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp for great odds and a great punting experience. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
Alex de Minaur has missed out on the chance of a lifetime to beat Rafael Nadal on clay in successive tournaments, blown away by…
Former Wimbledon champion, double grand slam winner and Australian Open finalist Garbine Muguruza has announced her retirement from tennis at the age of 30.…
Rafael Nadal has hailed the brilliance of Alex de Minaur, calling him "a great player" after the Australian forced the Spanish legend to say…
The clay season promises to be one of high level and tight margins. With the Monte Carlo open just around the corner, it will…
In incredible scenes, defending champion Carlos Alcaraz's quarter-final clash with Alexander Zverev at Indian Wells was halted abruptly due to a "bee invasion." Less…
Marathon man Jordan Thompson has finally clinched his first ATP Tour title, with the Australian upsetting Norwegian Casper Ruud to lift the trophy in…
