The Next Point

Australian Open, Semifinal

(3) Murray d. (2) Federer, 6/4 6/7 6/3 6/7 6/2

Thirteen hours have passed since a superb Andy Murray won the second men’s semifinal at the Australian Open, which it turns out is more than enough time for those so inclined to wax eulogistic on the declining career of the vanquished Roger Federer. Depending on one’s proclivities, these pieces cover the emotional range from gleeful to threnodic, and utilise a broad range of media: there are verse epics, literate blogs, illiterate journalism, interpretive dance, limericks, mime, sound sculptures, tapestries and at least two light operas. Sir Elton John has rearranged Candle in the Wind, yet again. Whatever their mood, and whatever their format, these works are united in their belief that the king, finally and incontrovertibly, is dead. By my count, this is the one hundred and sixteenth time this has occurred.

Charting and announcing Federer’s demise is something of a cottage industry within tennis journalism (which itself occupies a decidedly minor niche within the wider world of letters). Apparently there’s bonus renown for those who proclaim the exact moment. To those who follow tennis, it’s all bit dull. Those who don’t follow the sport are probably just confused, or, worse, misled.

In my experience, those whose interest in tennis remains shapeless vague are as surprised by Federer’s losses as they are by the news that he is no longer ranked No.1. In the minds of those who believe there are only four tournaments played each year, Federer’s ongoing supremacy is an almost immutable law. (I hold nothing against such people; indeed many of those related to me by blood fall into this category.) The Australian Open tends to galvanise the local population into delusions of expertise, and I’ve had to weather any number of knowing predictions from those unaware that this tournament does not constitute a quarter of the sport’s totality. The predictions, predictably, were that Federer would wipe the floor with this dour Scottish upstart. (I quickly gave up on trying to explain that Murray is a really excellent tennis player, and a rather nice guy away from the court. It was a waste of breath.)

Those of us who watch a lot of tennis of course know better. We know that Murray has posed special problems for the Swiss almost since the beginning. In 2006, as a teenager, the Scot was the only person besides Rafael Nadal to defeat Federer in his greatest season. By 2009, Murray had driven the head-to-head to 6-2 in his favour. Coming into last night’s tussle, this had narrowed to 10-9 for Murray. Those who watch a lot of tennis had undoubtedly seen plenty of those matches, although I’d hazard that this provided little assistance in predicting who would win. Recent results hardly favoured one man over the other. Federer had won their last match in straight sets, at the tour finals. Murray had done the same in Shanghai. They’d split finals at Wimbledon during the English summer. Perhaps most tellingly, Murray had never beaten Federer at a Major. Yet the betting market favoured Murray.

Initially, the match looked like reprising the Shanghai semifinal from last October. Murray’s defence was impeccable, and Federer could find few free points. At one point in the first set Murray had returned 23 of 24 serves. When Murray claimed the first set 6/4, there was a sense that the whole thing wouldn’t take too long. The scribes, composers, weavers and sculptors prepared their various implements. When Federer snuck out the second set in a tiebreak, as Murray’s forehand momentarily collapsed, the frame of reference abruptly shifted. Suddenly we were heading for last year’s Wimbledon final, in which Federer had stolen the break late in the second set, then gambolled away with the title.

But then Murray broke to open the third set, and rode it to the end, his serve untouchable. Nothing like this had ever happened in their previous nineteen matches (particularly since most of them were best-of-three), and so I felt obliged to widen the frame of reference. There was a touch of the 2009 Australian Open final about it, in which Federer and Nadal had traded tight and desperate sets for hours. It seemed to fit especially well when Federer broke early in the fourth. Frustratingly, this convenient interpretation ran into issues when Murray broke straight back, then soon broke again, and stepped up to serve for the match. Pens, chisels and looms were poised. Then, somehow, Federer broke back, forcing another tiebreak. Although the path to get there was different, the appropriate comparison was to the 2008 Wimbledon final, in which Federer narrowly averted defeat to force a fifth set. Channel 7’s patented decibel meter informed us that fully 120 decibels were in attendance, although they provided no advice on what should be done with such information, nor a frame of reference to show us what it meant. (I presume that’s a lot of decibels? But was it enough, or too many?)

Federer and Murray had never played a five sets against each other, while Federer, who’d gone the distance with Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the quarterfinals, had never before contested consecutive five set matches. They were thus in new territory, although when Murray broke decisively at 2/2, the landscape once more felt familiar. It was again the 2009 Australian Open, in which Nadal had darted away with the fifth set as Federer unaccountably faded down the back straight. As Murray broke again to seal victory on his second match point, the score was even correct: 6/2. Indeed, even the final shot – a Federer forehand driven a foot over the baseline – was the same, although that was also the shot that concluded the 2011 French Open final. Wearily, I reflected that watching a lot of tennis matches can sometimes feel like a burden rather than a help. There’s a great deal to be said for going in fresh. To those who know little, it was just a tennis match. I’m not sure who enjoyed it more.

Murray’s celebration was muted, and the handshake was respectful. There had been moments of confrontation between the two men throughout the match, although as Murray later implied, only in tennis would such interactions even merit a mention. (Both players, at various moments, even used the word ‘fuck’. However, extensive research shows that many other men – and even women – use this word in other situations all the time.) On the other hand, the minor outbursts slotted nicely into the general discourse of Federer’s decline: he has grown ragged and ornery in his dotage. Suddenly the reference wasn’t to tennis at all, but to King Lear. It often is when kings die. But perhaps Macbeth is a better fit.

There is, as it happens, an alternative interpretation, although even to utter it is to invite disapproval, or at any rate befuddlement: it was actually just a tennis match, and it signified little, if not nothing. It was a great tennis match, although the perfunctory way the fifth set unfolded precludes its elevation to a classic. Last year Federer lost in the semifinals in four sets, before going on to have his best season in years. This year he lost in five sets.

Meanwhile Murray won in five sets, defeating Federer for the first time at Grand Slam level, and displaying commendable fortitude to ignore the upwelling of regret that must have accompanied his failure to close out the match in four. Those two tiebreaks notwithstanding, I thought Murray was magnificent, and deserved this stirring win. There was no shame in losing to him, and Federer afterwards didn’t seem particularly crushed, reiterating several times that he’d been beaten fair square, and remarking on how excited he was for the upcoming season. He certainly didn’t sound in decline, although the argument could be made that if he was, he’d be the last to know, or that even if he did know, he wouldn’t let on.

Indeed, such arguments have been made. Perhaps the end is nigh. It will have to come at some point, and even tales told by idiots must come true eventually, when they foretell the death of kings.

Australian Open, Day 10

The story has emerged, or coagulated, that Andy Murray and his support team are dissatisfied with the Australian Open’s decision to schedule his quarterfinal against Jeremy Chardy for this afternoon, while Roger Federer was once again granted the night match. The story was broken, not to say invented, by The Daily Mail, and predictably fails to transcend the subterranean standards for which that publication is renowned. (The comments at the end are particularly revealing, assuming one has the fortitude to wade into the minds of those who derive their news from a tabloid, apparently with the sole aim of being whipped into gleeful outrage. The common themes are that Australians hate the British, Federer is a complete bastard, and that no one has it harder than poor Murray. These themes are diligently adhered to throughout, with only very minor variations, and occasionally combine into fugal delirium.)

Of course, inciting umbrage in the readership is hardly beside the point. That’s the mission of tabloid journalism, and I don’t mean to suggest that local Australian versions are any nobler than their English counterparts. Indeed, The Herald Sun this morning produced this gem: Andy Murray’s camp fumes as Australian Open rolls out red carpet for Roger Federer, which does nothing but quote from the Daily Mail’s original report. Anyway, the whole thing is allegedly ‘a favouritism row’ as the ‘Australian Open chiefs come under fire’. Who is laying down the fire is never precisely established. No sources are named in the original: ‘Sources close to the Murray camp have confirmed…’ Names that are mentioned remain merely notional presences within vague clouds of fluff: ‘Murray’s coaching staff, Ivan Lendl and Dani Vallverdu, are both said to have made their opinions known to organisers about what seems an unfair situation…’

Indeed the only person directly quoted in the article is Craig Tiley, the tournament director for the Australian Open, who wastes his time and breath by trying to explain that there are numerous factors informing every scheduling decision. These factors are duly listed, but are trumped by the reporter’s closing assertion that it’s ‘hard to see what other reason [besides television] lies behind yet another Federer night match tomorrow, and another day fixture for Murray’. I suppose anything is hard to see if you’re unwilling to look. What else could it be?

Well, for starters there’s the fact that Murray is playing the unseeded Jeremy Chardy, while Federer is facing the seventh-seed Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who is also hugely popular in Australia, having reached the final in 2008 and the semifinals in 2010. Which of those matches deserves to be the featured night match? If you’d paid $130 to attend Rod Laver Arena tonight, would you be satisfied, all else being equal, if you were obliged to watch Murray thrash Chardy, followed by a doubles match? Bear in mind that day ticket holders will, in addition to Murray and Chardy, also see a pair of women’s quarterfinals featuring Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka.

But what about the fourth round? Federer faced Milos Raonic, and Murray played Gilles Simon. On paper this is far more comparable. But Simon had been hospitalised after he and Gael Monfils laboriously recreated Il Purgatorio in the third round, only longer, duller and with more cramping. Even at his best Simon is unlikely to trouble Murray over five sets, and the organisers are well-aware of this. Enervated and over-matched, the Frenchman was lucky to get seven games. In truth both matches were fizzers, but only one of them was predictably so when the schedule was made. In the third round Federer played Bernard Tomic, and the chance of that not being the featured night match were precisely zero, no matter who Murray faced (he played qualifier Ricardas Berankis). In the second round Federer played Nikolay Davydenko, and Murray played Joao Sousa. Davydenko is certainly not the force he once was, and his record against Federer is abysmal, but he’d shown strong form in Doha (beating David Ferrer), and was far more likely to challenge a top seed than Sousa. In the first round both Murray and Federer played during the day (the featured night match was naturally Lleyton Hewitt and Janko Tipsarevic).

Given the specific merits of each encounter, there was no point at which Murray deserved a night slot. Bear in mind that the schedule is made the day before each round. It isn’t planned out before the event, since even in this era the tournament cannot assume the top seeds will all progress. The only way Murray would have been given tonight’s match on Rod Laver Arena would have been through a kind of affirmative action, in order that he needed it to prepare for the later rounds. But again, the organisers don’t assume that Murray will reach the later rounds. To do so would be disrespectful to his opponents.

Another issue begs to be raised, it not addressed. What if Murray had played his second or third round at night instead of Federer? Would this have realistically helped in his preparation for a semifinal a week later, given that the matches in between would have been played during the day? The common belief – largely overstated– is that the playing conditions alter radically from day to night, as though evening sessions are conducted on an ice rink using pogo-sticks. (The difference is much less now on Plexicushion than it was on Rebound Ace, which being rubber reacts differently to the heat.) The players have my utmost respect for their mastery of the sport, but I don’t believe they’re so finely attuned that a match played a week earlier is of much use for calibration purposes.

As it happens, I don’t think it’ll matter much: Murray will be fine. I also don’t have much time for the counter-claim that Federer deserves any extra help because he had a tougher draw. For one thing, I’m not sure how playing at night constitutes an advantage. Federer was fitter than each of his opponents so far, has won most of his Majors during daylight, and thrives in quicker conditions. If anything playing during the day would help him more. But aside from that, I really doubt whether the daily schedule was based on a consideration of the respective difficulties of each man’s draw. To suggest it was is, again, to suggest that the organisers (now under fire) were scheduling each round based on the assumption that Federer and Murray would both reach the semifinals.

Scholarly types with an interest in tennis draws and a penchant for adultery will naturally be familiar with my key work Bracketology, the Reading of Draws, and Why Men Have to Sleep Around. They might consequently recall Stage Two of the standard model of draw analysis, which is called Indignation. The function of this stage is to determine that your preferred player has the most dreadful path to the finals imaginable. Your favourite can thereby be granted the cherished status of the underdog, and his or her journey can be recast as a slog to Mordor, notoriously a location one does not simply walk into.

Last year Murray was blessed with truly horrid draws at Wimbledon and the Olympics, leaving fans of other players in a desperate position. (Some Federer fans tried to paint Mikhail Youzhny as a tough quarterfinal opponent, but no one was buying it.) On the other hand, even that proved insufficient for sections of the British press. Readers may recall the proto-controversy at Wimbledon when Murray was obliged to beat Marin Cilic on Court One instead of Centre Court. Murray’s response was that he honestly doesn’t care what court he plays on. Unsurprisingly, his indifference failed to soothe those who felt differently on his behalf.

Sadly, Murray’s draw at this Australian Open has been exceptionally benign, and only grew easier with Juan Martin del Potro’s third round exit. However, indignation must be found somewhere, I suppose, otherwise The Daily Mail doesn’t sell papers. The man who last year said he didn’t care what court he played on has now been positioned at the ‘centre of a heated row’, notwithstanding that he has said nothing on the matter at all. But that’s okay, because sources close to him are furious. Apparently.

Also, thanks to Jewel for linking me that Daily Mail song!