The Days Of Our Youth

I must confess I was late in learning to appreciate Juan Carlos Ferrero. I probably only really came to admire him in his career’s long twilight, as a potent combination of injury, illness and a changing game lent the sun-washed years of his youth a sepia-tint. ‘The days of our youth are the days of our glory’ wrote Byron, somewhere between Florence and Pisa. But it took a while for me to appreciate the heroism of Ferrero’s quiet toil once his youth was cut short. Eight years is long time in the life cycle of any professional tennis player. But for Ferrero it was the distance from dethroning Gustavo Kuerten in the Rome final, to failing to qualify for the same event. It was an eternity, and the days of glory must have felt terribly remote indeed.

For his fans it was an eternity of heartbreak, but the man himself hardly ever complained. Initially, as he tore up the rankings, he had nothing much to complain about, and I hardly saw him as Byroneseque. I found it easier to cast him as the villain, and I don’t mind admitting that the manner and regularity with which he dispatched my favourite players worried me. Nonetheless, the seeds of sympathy were sown early, the year before he rose to the No.1 ranking, even if they only flowered years later.

The first time I really noticed Ferrero was in a jazz club in Hanoi’s French Quarter in the year 2000, which I mostly mention in order to establish my credentials as an intrepid global traveller, and to invest the scene with a little millennial flair. I hasten to add that Ferrero himself was not actually present in the jazz club. (I’m not sure he even likes jazz, and at the time I was having a hard time deciding whether I did.) However, there was a miniature version of him darting about inside the establishment’s dismally small television. Given the era and the region, this was a cheap CRT model of local provenance and unfaithful colour-reproduction. The sky above Ferrero was greenish. Squinting through a thickening haze wrought by cigarettes, finely-honed trumpet solos and criminally cheap Long Island Iced Teas, I watched the tiny figure of the young Spaniard push an equally diminished Kuerten to five sets in the semifinals at Roland Garros, which had apparently been relocated to a toxic dump in Lilliput.

This was Ferrero’s debut at the event, which has since returned to Paris. Indeed, he’d only contested his first full scale tour event the year before. A few months after that he’d contested his fifth, and won it. Now he was in the last four in Paris, giving the tournament’s pre-ordained winner all he could handle. Rafael Nadal would of course win the French Open on debut five years later, one of the many ways in which he would eclipse his senior compatriot’s achievements, but at the time the tennis world was rightly impressed. I would have been more impressed had I liked Kuerten less. As it was, I was anxious.

Even miniaturised, Ferrero posed a clear threat to my favourites, who in addition to Kuerten consisted of Pat Rafter and Pete Sampras. As far as I could tell, Ferrero had no real weakness. He was exceptionally nimble, boasted a tremendous forehand, a backhand that clearly wouldn’t break down, and a perfectly serviceable serve, especially the one up the T to the deuce court. Every shot was technically flawless, and it was hard to see what aspect of his game an enterprising opponent might hope to expose or molest. He was so smooth that even his errors looked deliberate, and he always appeared in control, even if the stats revealed he wasn’t. He lost that day, but I had trouble seeing how anyone could reliably beat him. Months later in Paris, this time indoors, Marat Safin proved that Ferrero could be hit through given a sufficiently slick court, but Safin could do that to anyone anywhere, especially that year. 2000 was Ferrero’s second full year on tour, and he ended it ranked No.12. Then he personally and comfortably defeated Australia to secure Spain’s first ever Davis Cup title. These were the kind of things that twenty-year-olds accomplished back then, assuming they were as able as Ferrero.

Looking back, it was astonishing how quickly Ferrero insinuated himself among the elite. Suddenly, it was as though he was just there. (Seven years later I watched Novak Djokovic work a similar trick, and with a similarly impeccable technique, at least until Todd Martin so masterfully sabotaged his serve.) Kuerten and Safin ruled the rankings, while Sampras and Andre Agassi remained imposing. But if the former pair stumbled, or the later pair faded, Ferrero and Lleyton Hewitt were the next logical prospects, and the Australian’s forehand was a liability. Ferrero, I predicted, would before long rule the sport. I wasn’t pleased at this.

Ferrero’s dominion didn’t seem too far off when he actually beat Kuerten in the 2001 Rome final, again over five sets. Notwithstanding his inexplicable intervening loss to Albert Portas in Hamburg, it was clear to me that Ferrero would be the least surmountable obstacle to Kuerten’s French Open defence. History shows that Michael Russel ultimately provided a sterner challenge than Ferrero did, but the Spaniard’s straight sets loss in the semifinals did little to dampen expectations, even if, in hindsight, it did reveal a tendency for him to wilt when those expectations were highest. Still, two semifinals from two appearances: nothing in the sport was more certain than Ferrero one day winning a lot of French Opens. It was kismet.

Then Kuerten and Safin did stumble, thanks to their hip and brain respectively. Hewitt filled the breach, Sampras faded, though Agassi remained as good as ever. Ferrero percolated upwards, growing faster, smarter and more powerful. Whenever he won he looked unbeatable. Curiously, he looked equally infallible when he lost, which is to say that most of his losses felt like upsets, even though there were plenty of them. Everyone lost more back then. He reached the semifinals of the Masters Cup that year. The next year he reached the finals of the French Open. In the final Ferrero faced a seasoned clay-courter in Albert Costa, but he was still the overwhelming favourite. Kuerten had succumbed to the surgeon’s knife, Rafter had retired, and Sampras was all but spent. Only Costa stood between Ferrero and global domination.

Unbelievably, the moment suffocated the young Spaniard, abetted by a malingering foot injury. Costa romped through in four. Again I was watching on a tiny, old television, but this time it was a cold night in Melbourne, and the haze was due to exhaustion. Suddenly the certainty of Ferrero claiming the French Open and pounding world tennis beneath his dancing feet looked less certain. He looked forlorn and fallible, even as he lost, but especially afterwards as the silverware was doled out. Suddenly he seemed young, and small, and human, and suddenly I felt a pang of sympathy.

A year later, in 2003, he did win the French Open, and after reaching the final in the US Open a few months later ascended to No.1, as had been long foretold. He won the Madrid Masters, on indoor hardcourt, proving himself worthy of his top ranking. But by then I was no longer concerned. In fact, I don’t recall that I minded at all. Perhaps it was because so many of my favourite players had disappeared into retirement or the wilderness, but I could now appreciate Juan Carlos Ferrero for the gracious and accomplished young man he was, one who ill-deserved the hard road ahead, the road that stretched from Rome to Rome, but left glory behind.

6 Comments

Filed under Players

The Same New Balls

Now that Bernard Tomic has attained twenty years of age – a milestone that was as restrained in its celebration as it was devoid of homoeroticism – there are once again no teenagers ranked within the ATP’s top one hundred, a shortcoming that has proved quite popular in recent times. Indeed besides Tomic there is only one twenty-year-old, although he doesn’t share the Australian’s penchant for canary yellow Ferraris.

Leaving one’s taste in garish sports cars to the side, this remains a serious problem. The age at which a player first ascends to the top hundred correlates strongly to their future success. As this article by Jeff Sackmann reveals, of the 25 players who broke into the top hundred between 2001 and 2011, 20 went on to reach the top twenty, while 17 reached the top ten. Of course attaining the top hundred so young is no guarantee that you’ll one day reach No.1, but failing to do so makes it all but certain that you won’t. Of all the No.1 players since the rankings began, only Patrick Rafter didn’t reach the top hundred before his twentieth birthday, which explains why the party was a decidedly glum affair at which he refrained from stripping off and wrestling his mates. It’s enough to make one wonder where the next top players are actually going to come from, or if they’ve even left the Juniors (there are some especially promising prospects in the class of ’96).

In the meantime I’ll confine my gaze to the youths who’ve already ensconced themselves in the top hundred. Given that an article summarising only Tomic and Ryan Harrison would be either too short or provide me with too much space in which to poke fun at them, I’ll expand the selection to those young men who are old enough to purchase alcohol in the United States. I can justify this by saying that in the current climate twenty-one still looks very young. In David Goffin’s case it looks downright embryonic. But it is still a largely arbitrary restriction, and I don’t mean to imply that the most notable twenty-two-year-olds – Jerzy Janowicz, Guido Pella and Evgeny Donsky – aren’t worth discussing. The number in brackets is each player’s ranking at the start of the season.

 

Milos Raonic

Current Ranking: 13 (31)

Milos Raonic barely qualifies for inclusion in this survey insofar as his birthday falls only two days after Jesus’, which will thereby propel him to the advanced age of twenty-two before the year is quite spent. He also stands out from this crowd for his tangible accomplishments, and for the way that in discussing him one isn’t obliged to deploy a term like ‘potential’, let alone precede it with ‘wasted’. This season he compiled a respectable 8-8 record against opponents ranked above him, and 37-12 against those below.

He has already won three tour titles, including two this year, reached several finals at 500 level, and beaten various top ten players, including a hobbled Andy Murray in Barcelona and a perfectly fine Murray in Tokyo. He saw off Tomas Berdych on a fast hardcourt, and Nicolas Almagro on clay. He also faced Roger Federer three times on three different surfaces, and on each occasion acquitted himself well in a narrow three-set defeat. There was also that marathon loss to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga at the Olympics, 23/25 in the final set.

His strengths and weakness are easily grasped. His impenetrable serve is ably supported by a commensurate forehand, and he generally remains undaunted under pressure. On the other hand his movement is poor, his backhand can’t do the things he tries to make it do, and his returning is of a standard that makes tiebreaks feel inevitable. More subtly, I suspect he still hasn’t quite worked out how to prepare for really big occasions in a really big venue. But he will. On the other hand, he won’t convince me that anyone besides the French should wear Lacoste.

 

David Goffin

Current Ranking: 46 (174)

David Goffin has been kicking around for a couple of years, but it was during his excellent run to the fourth round at this year’s Roland Garros that he established a broader appeal, first as he ended the career of Arnaud Clement, and then as he pushed Federer to four sets. While this provided Federer’s innumerable fans with a measure of unwelcome anxiety – traditionally grounds for excommunication – all was forgiven when Goffin professed himself to be among his opponent’s more ardent admirers, which earned him a hug at the net.

Although Goffin went 17-14 at ATP level, including a win over John Isner en route to the Valencia quarterfinals, he compiled a fairly healthy 44-25 record across all levels, including a pair of Challenger titles in Le Gosier and Orleans over a strong field. His game is built around light feet and great hands, offset by tremendously fine bone structure and a hairstyle straight out of That ‘70s Show, or contemporary Belgium. He rose almost 130 places over the course of this season, and it’s a reasonably secure bet that he’ll rise higher yet.

 

Grigor Dimitrov

Current Ranking: 48 (76)

Grigor Dimitrov remains tantalisingly close to a definitive breakthrough, as he has for several years now, although he continues to defy expectations that it will ever come all in one go. His biggest win this year came over Berdych in Miami, although he’d already acquitted himself well in Melbourne, taking Almagro to five sets. There was also that savage drubbing of Mardy Fish at the Hopman Cup, a few highly entertaining wins over Kevin Anderson in England, and over Julien Benneteau indoors. His best result came at Queens, where he fell in the semifinal to David Nalbandian in abhorrent conditions (and luckily before the blood rage took hold of the Argentine). He also reached the quarterfinals in Basel in fine style, especially in his straight sets victory over Viktor Troicki, which featured the officially endorsed shot of the year.

A blessed side-effect of Dimitrov’s more regular appearances at the business end of tournaments is that we’re increasingly spared the unrelenting comparisons to Federer. Apparently even commentators can tire of saying the same thing over and over. I’m as surprised as you are. It feels like Dimitrov now succeeds or fails more or less on his own merits, and references to ‘Baby Federer’ sound jarring and extraneous.

 

Bernard Tomic

Current Ranking: 52 (42)

It was always a long shot that Tomic would replicate his results from 2011, though there nonetheless remained a measured hope that he might compensate by playing well elsewhere, or at least by displaying some evidence of progress. What was a surprise was the extent to which his game stagnated, and how desultory he grew once the results ceased to flow. After January he did not beat a player ranked above him (0-14), and he is the only player on this list whose ranking failed to improve.

There was also confirmation of something many had suspected, which is that for all his undeniable talent, and immense racquet skills, his game will only trouble good players when they’re having an off day, and that the very top players would need to suffer a catastrophic day indeed, which by definition they almost never do. There has been endless talk about his poor application in New York and Shanghai, as well as his more spirited efforts in Gold Coast rooftop spas, but for me the definitive moment came in Miami when he faced David Ferrer. Given the gap in experience between the two men, there was no shame in it being a mismatch. But the gap between them was a chasm, and it wasn’t clear how Tomic might ever hope to bridge it.

 

Ryan Harrison

Current Ranking: 69 (79)

The first time I watched Ryan Harrison this year was from close range as he lost a practice set to Alex Bogomolov Jr the day before the Australian Open commenced. I next saw him the following afternoon as he wrenched a tough set from Murray in crippling heat, and looked for all the world like a different player, not merely from 2011 but from the day before. There was a maturity and boldness to his play that left everyone present in no doubt that he might have contrived a longer stay in Melbourne, had he only chosen his first-round opponent more wisely.

It would be unfair to say that the remainder of Harrison’s season was entirely disappointing, although it mostly was. Those of his fans with whom I’m personally acquainted have permitted their disappointment ample expression. Still, he reached three tour semifinals, although none occurred at an especially noteworthy event (San Jose, Eastbourne and Newport). More impressive was his run to the last sixteen in Indian Wells. All the same, Eastbourne forced him into the top fifty, while Newport pushed him to No.43, his highest ranking. Since then, however, he only won two matches, and they weren’t consecutive. Interestingly, Harrison’s overall record for the season stands at 23-25, but he is only 6-20 against players ranked higher than him, and 17-5 against those ranked lower. This suggests that, for now, his ranking looks about right.

He once insisted with special vehemence that he really hates to lose, with an earnestness that implied he’d invented the sentiment, as though no one had ever felt that strongly about it ever before. In other words, he sounded like a teenager. He has hopefully spent a year learning that the other guys don’t enjoy losing any more than he does, and that those passions he’d assumed were unique are common. That’s what growing up is.

 

Evgeny Kuznetsov

Current Ranking: 78 (222)

This time last year Evgeny Kuznetsov didn’t attempt to qualify for the Australian Open, instead confining himself to Futures events in Russia and Egypt  two of which he won. This time round he will gain a comfortable direct entry into the year’s first major. This is despite compiling a 2-5 record on the main tour (with both wins coming against lower-ranked opponents in Umag), and owing entirely to an outstanding season on the Challenger circuit. In all he won four Challenger events, for a record of 42-13 at that level. After winning three in a row in September, he steeled himself for an actual ATP tournament in Moscow, and promptly lost in the first round. It was a similar story at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, where he fought through qualifying only to exit in the first round, although I can well recall how desperately contested the loss to Florent Serra in London was.

I have to wonder just long he can maintain a ranking of No.78 without starting to compile results on the main tour. We saw a similar story play out with Cedrik-Marcel Stebe, who roared into the top hundred after winning the Challenger finals last year, but subsequently found the transition to the main tour overwhelming, and then fitfully subsided.

18 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour, Players

There Has Been Only One

Last year there were ten players (all men) who claimed their maiden titles on the ATP Tour, although history remains coy about what indignities they visited upon them after that. This year, in an outcome doubtless endorsed by immortal Scotsmen with suspiciously Continental accents, there has been only one. Ten to one is a precipitous drop, and as ever the temptation is not inconsequential to tease out an explanation. I’m certainly open to hearing one, especially if it hinges up a wild conspiracy, includes Sean Connery as an even less convincing Spaniard than Russel Crowe, and features a soundtrack by Queen.

Before I launch myself into a full-blown rhapsody on a theme of Highlander – ignoring the fact that this season’s sole first-timer Martin Klizan hails from a part of Slovakia frustratingly near sea-level – I should indulge in some marginally more sane musings. If nothing else, it’s worth mentioning that there were five first-time winners in 2010, and at the time this felt about right. Extending that, I can say that last year’s ten felt like over-abundance – one handful too many. The paucity of new champions this season can be considered a correction of sorts. Next year we’ll have five, mark my words.

It’s also interesting to note what occurred this year at the tournaments that last year produced a first time winner. In three of the cases, the person who won their first title in 2011 came back to defend it, which piques my interest more than winning it in the first place did. For the record these events were San Jose (Milos Raonic), Kitzbühel (Robin Haase) and Casablanca (Pablo Andujar). In the case of Haase and Andujar these remain their only successful venues, while Raonic added Chennai back in January. Again, I can’t think of a good reason why this should be so, besides the well-worn idea that returning to the scene of your initial triumph is inspiring enough to propel you across the line again. (But if that’s true, then why doesn’t it happen more often? And when it does happen, how does it ever stop?)

Among last year’s fistfuls of first-timers were Janko Tipsarevic and Florian Mayer, both of whom had achieved a modest portion of notoriety as the best players yet to win a title. There are worse things to be best at, and less savoury ways to be notorious. Given this, it was always a dicey proposition whether either man would trade their fame for the cheap quick thrill of claiming an actual tournament. Garish trophies are lovely, and the pay-checks are obviously superior, but the mantle of the premier also-ran can be worn for ever. Sadly, Tipsarevic and Mayer took the quick gratification. They were the best players who hadn’t won a title. Now they’re just a couple more dudes who have. Ho hum.

Their mantles currently weigh down the able shoulders of Julien Benneteau, for whom 2012 proved to be a career year in this as well as so many other respects. This is the fifth consecutive season in which he has finished runner-up in an event, without winning any. Not only that, he did it twice this year – Sydney and Kuala Lumpur – his best such showing since 2008. Benneteau is now a tour-leading 0-7 in finals, a statistic that only grows more impressive when we consider that he hasn’t managed it twice at the same event, and that he has failed to win titles across a variety of surfaces. That suggests a calibre of versatility and persistence second to, well, many. Benneteau will soon turn 31 (significantly his birthday is three days after Beethoven’s and five days before Jesus’)  and there is every chance that he’ll be wearing that mantle forever. In his dotage it can be refashioned into a rather fetching knee-rug. It might calm his fevered bones as he reflects on the time he couldn’t beat Jarkko Nieminen in Sydney, or the time he did beat Roger Federer in Bercy, but didn’t at Wimbledon.

Nonetheless, at No.35 in the world Benneteau isn’t the highest ranked man without a title. That honour currently falls to Jerzy Janowicz at No.26. However, Janowicz’s ranking is brand-new, and heavily based on that audacious run to the Paris Indoors final a few weeks ago. He hasn’t been around long enough to generate crippling expectations, or to develop a passion for nude spa-wrestling. He still has that new player aroma – car dealerships sell it in aerosol cans – and it’ll be a few months before the internet learns to be disappointed in him. But Brian Baker can attest that the online community is nothing if not infinitely resourceful in its disapproval, and nothing at all like a community. Give it time.

The one man who did claim a maiden title in 2012 was Martin Klizan, who is also the first (lowland) Slovakian to do so since Dominik Hrbaty in 2004. Despite a patch of career-best form extending back to July – he knocked Tsonga out of New York on the way to the fourth round – Klizan had no real business taking the St Petersburg title given the effort he’d expended in the rather astonishing semifinal the day before, in which he eventually saw off Mikhail Youzhny over almost four hours.†

But in the final he encountered the equally title-less Fabio Fognini, who has never been one to permit a clear incentive to work hard get in the way of his preference not to. To be fair, Klizan seemed less exhausted than he afterwards claimed to be, although given that the match barely exceeded an hour it was hard to tell. The decisive shot was Klizan’s forehand, which he hits with the left hand (this is normal for left-handers), and which he kept hitting past Fognini, which failed to lighten the Italian’s mood. There could be only one, and it turned out Klizan was it.

† If I was inclined to redo my Match of the Post list, I’d be tempted to find room for this match, and not merely because it featured Youzhny.

2 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour

The Trimmings of Objectivity

It didn’t take long for my innocent intention to write about the best tennis matches of 2012 to be revealed as dewy-eyed naivety. It was supposed to be simple, but rapidly came to feel reductive, if not intrinsically dishonest. The more I looked at it, the less I could see, and the less worthwhile the task became. All the same, if you are interested in seeing the list I did eventually arrive at, you can skip to the end. But if you’re more interested in why the Australian Open final isn’t on it, please read on.

To say that one’s choice of the match of the year is fundamentally subjective is to say barely anything at all. Presumably no one believes such opinions are earthed in hard science, especially since attempts at a scientific method usually yield results that are either laughable or useless, if not both. To add that a subjective choice still relies upon commonly accepted criteria is to say only a little more. After all, ‘subjective’ doesn’t mean ‘arbitrary’. There are particular characteristics that most good matches share – context, quality, and drama – and all must be present for any match to be adjudged ‘great’. It’s hardly a coincidence that each season sees broad consensus on what the ‘match of the year’ actually was. On the other hand, to insist that this season featured no truly great matches is to say a lot.

I realise I am courting controversy here. There were certainly great moments, and there were some very long matches, but only a die-hard Wagnerian would insist that these constitute the primary ingredients for immortality. And I realise such an assertion risks dampening the post-seasonal mood, which is one of ecstatic retrospection. Even as the season progressed certain orthodoxies emerged as to which matches were or were not great. Regardless of one’s innermost proclivities it grew hard to deviate from this orthodoxy without appearing wilful, not to say perverse.

The Australian Open final is an excellent example of this. The view was aired even as the match was grinding to its eventual end that we were all witnessing the greatest tennis match ever played. Within the hour – and for those of us sharing a time zone with the players this hour was very late – that view was revised to the greatest Major final ever played. Certainly it was the longest, and probably the most disabling for its participants. Bobbing fitfully amongst the inevitable flood of military metaphors was the term ‘epic’.

However, in the days following the match simple calculations revealed that the match wasn’t merely epic, it was considerably more epic than it needed to be, and that had the players confined themselves to the allotted time between points the match would have concluded almost an hour earlier. Beyond that, the tenor of the match was cautious rather than audacious. It was an encounter in which two of the supreme athletes in our sport trusted their legs more than their shot-making. Indeed, it mostly felt uncannily like the first three sets of their US Open final the year before, until Djokovic’s injury had caused him to go after his shots, which in turn inspired the happy discovery that a point could end with a winner even before it reached thirty-five strokes. Sadly by Melbourne this lesson had been forgotten.

Nevertheless, the view persists that this is the match of the year, which leads me to wonder just how of the people who’ve ranked it so highly have bothered to watch it a second time. I have gone back and watched it, and I can attest that it is indeed very long, but that until about halfway through the fifth hour, barely anything notable happens, kind of like Einstein On The Beach, only more martial and twice the length. In that sense it was an epic. It was downright Wagnerian, although by sitting through it twice I’ve done better than Rossini managed with Lohengrin.† If my match of the year list was to be entirely of my own choosing, I don’t think this final would make it into the top ten.

I suspect that most who write about tennis maintain two discrete lists. The first is an official match of the year list, which is heavily lacquered and decorated with all the trimmings of objectivity. Notwithstanding the odd quirky pick to establish the writer’s credentials as free spirit, these official lists are largely interchangeable with each other. This is the list that I’d set out to compile but eventually gave up on. I would have felt obliged to rank the Australian Open final somewhere near the top. The second, less visible list outlines one’s favourite matches played each year. In both cases it is never possible to expunge all trace of favouritism, but it is still worth the effort to try. I like to think you can get close, which makes it hard for me to include, say, James Blake thrashing Marcel Granollers at the US Open, even though I’d love to.

For myself, I generally favour attacking tennis, although I am more than partial to desperate and virtuosic defence when the situation calls for it. This in turns means that, all else being equal, I will appreciate a match of contrasting styles more than one whose texture remains constant throughout. The structural advantage of attacking tennis is that the attacking player forces his opponent to defend, and thus generates a stylistic contrast. I would therefore rank Nadal’s excellent Australian Open quarterfinal victory over Tomas Berdych higher than his loss to Novak Djokovic in the final. The final arguably has it covered for atmosphere, but the quarterfinal featured far more interesting and enterprising tennis from both men. Nadal’s defence in the semifinal against Roger Federer was also unworldly, especially on his forehand, which was lethally unapproachable. Consequently, I’d also rank that match over the final.

Context also counts for a lot. The unabashed Andy Murray cheer squad that Sky Sports persists in calling a commentary team were even quicker to anoint the US Open final as the greatest match ever played. I think they first delivered this judgement about four games in. Given the moment, their enthusiasm was hard to begrudge even as it was easy to mock, especially when it was replaced by a consuming dread as Djokovic recovered the two set deficit. Without question it was a dramatic match, and for historical value it’s hard to top. But the weather was truly horrible, and at best we can say that the standard was exceptional given the prevailing conditions. It’s definitely high on my list of best matches played in a cyclone. But Murray and Djokovic proved the following month in Shanghai just how fine their tennis can be when it isn’t tempest tossed. They’d already proved it back in Melbourne, in what probably was the match of the year, but then disproved it in Dubai and Miami. It’s a confusing rivalry, as these things go.

Anyway, here is a list of my favourite matches from 2012, in a very approximate order. There are at least a dozen other matches I could add, including, of course, the Australian Open final. The more I think about it, the more matches I think merit inclusion, and the more I’d like to reshuffle those that are already there. There were plenty that were good in 2012, even if none were truly great.

13. Berdych d. Almagro, Davis Cup Final, 6/3 3/6 6/3 6/7 6/3

Berdych puts his tennis where is mouth is, barely, but a gallant Almagro somehow never loses faith.

12. Murray d. Djokovic, US Open Final, 7/6 7/5 2/6 3/6 6/2

Excellent tennis given the appalling conditions, and a resonant and momentous result.

11. Nadal d. Berdych, Australian Open Quarterfinals, 6/7 7/6 6/4 6/3

Nadal barely saves the second set, then lifts to trample Berdych.

10. Kohlschreiber d. Paire, US Open, 6/7 6/3 3/6 6/2 7/6

High drama, absurd shot-making, and a pair of headcases.

9. Seppi d. Wawrinka, Rome Third Round, 6/7 7/6 7/6

Seppi saves six match points, breaks Wawrinka’s heart, and sends the home fans into a prolonged swoon.

8. Djokovic d. Tsonga, French Open Quarterfinals, 6/1 5/7 5/7 7/6 6/1

Heartbreak for Tsonga, failing to take any of his many match points. Djokovic’s courage when on the brink is unparalleled.

7. Ferrer d. Tipsarevic, US Open Quarterfinals, 6/3 6/7 2/6 6/3 7/6

Outstanding offence and defence from both, as the indefatigable Ferrer recovers from a break in the fifth.

6. Federer d. Berdych, Madrid Final, 3/6 7/5 7/5

All-out assault on the slick blue clay. Federer narrowly prevails over a rampant Berdych.

5. Rosol d. Nadal, Wimbledon Second Round, 6/7 6/4 6/4 2/6 6/4

A combined winner to unforced error count of 106-45, as the lowly Rosol continues blasting, and somehow doesn’t miss.

4. Djokovic d. Murray, Shanghai Final, 5/7 7/6 6/3

Two sets of immense quality, with Djokovic saving match points, then running over the tiring Murray.

3. Haas d. Nalbandian, Cincinnati First Round, 6/7 7/6 6/3

Outstanding all-court play and drama from two veterans who are proven masters at both.

2. Federer d. Del Potro, Olympic Games Semifinals, 3/6 7/6 19/17

Del Potro’s finest effort on grass, defying predictions of a Federer cakewalk. Utterly absorbing from start to finish.

1. Djokovic d. Murray, Australian Open Semifinal, 6/3 3/6 6/7 6/1 7/5

Probably the best match of the year. Murray’s desperate fight in the fifth almost rectifies his tactical tank in the fourth.

 

† ‘One cannot judge Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don’t intend to hear it a second time.’ - Gioachino Rossini, displaying a Churchillian gift for pithy insult.

26 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour, Davis Cup, Grand Slams

Masters Retrospective (Part Two)

This is the second part of my look back at this year’s Masters 1000 events. It’s all there in the title. The first part, to which I whimsically appended the term Part One, can be found here.

Internazionali BNL d’Italia, Rome

Winner: Rafael Nadal

Fears that Madrid’s blue clay would prove catastrophically disruptive turned out to be well-founded when the last four standing in Rome the following week were Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer and David Ferrer, the four most accomplished clay courters of recent years, and who would go on to populate the Roland Garros semifinals a few weeks later. Tomas Berdych played his new heart out against a near-perfect Nadal, and lost four and five. Andreas Seppi and Stanislas Wawrinka slogged through a three-quarter pace twilight classic on Court Pietrangeli, with the Italian saving six match points and sending the locals perilously close to a rapturous riot.

Civil unrest was certainly in the air by the final weekend, when foul weather and an extravagant collapse from Li Na combined to postpone the men’s final. The final itself was the anticipated rematch between Nadal and Djokovic. Without bereavement to muddy the issue, Nadal’s straight sets triumph proved that he is after all the best clay courter in the world. I cannot recall why it had been in doubt.

 

Rogers Cup, Toronto

Winner: Novak Djokovic

The Olympics always wreaks havoc on the tennis calendar, and this year poor Toronto bore the worst of it, coming at the tail end of a dense passage of tournament that included Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the London Games. Gold medallist Andy Murray turned up, had his cake, ate it, then took off. Djokovic’s sternest test came against the resurgent Tommy Haas. Milos Raonic had a court temporarily rededicated to him, then fell to John Isner in a quarterfinal that amazingly featured a lot of unreturned serves. It also rained a lot, which didn’t help to attract the fans that were already staying away in droves.

Richard Gasquet was the surprise of the week, defeating Berdych, Mardy Fish and Isner en route the final, just his third at this level in seven years, or in 26 years, depending on how you slice it. ‘To ribbons’ was how Djokovic sliced it in the final, winning comfortably three and two.

 

Western & Southern Open, Cincinnati

Winner: Roger Federer

The match of the tournament was Haas’ match-point-saving first round tussle with David Nalbandian, whose inability to take a trick since Queens was starting to look eerily like karma. Brian Baker finally won a match on US hardcourts, from just his fifth attempt. Fish played the best match of his health-afflicted year against Federer – a wonderful fast-court display. Raonic was excellent in taking out Berdych, but was upset by Wawrinka. Juan Martin Del Potro’s left wrist packed up, but he toiled through to the semifinals, which he contested one-handed. This turned out to be too few hands with which to realistically challenge Djokovic.

As top seeds, Djokovic and Federer had collision course written all over them, which unfortunately contravened their existing sponsorship agreements. Neither dropped serve on the way to the final. Then Federer broke Djokovic three times in twenty minutes – all with one hand – and he was well on the way to taking his fifth Cincinnati crown in straight sets, again equalling the Masters title tally.

 

Shanghai Rolex Masters, Shanghai

Winner: Novak Djokovic

Positioned cruelly in the post-US Open hangover period, Shanghai is often beset by scheduling issues. Even when top players turn up, they don’t really turn up to play. But this year’s edition was very good. Matthew Ebden’s year of living large ended when he failed to defend last year’s quarterfinal, while Bernard Tomic’s year of giving up continued unchecked, this time against Florian Mayer. The stand-out performers were Haas and Radek Stepanek, who set the event alight with quarterfinal runs, though their veteran status spared them from being prosecuted for arson. When you’re over thirty-two you’re permitted to set one venue alight per year, but no more. It’s in the ATP Rulebook, somewhere near the back.

Federer’s hopes of finishing the year at No.1 realistically ended at the rough hands of Murray in the semifinals – a near-perfect display from the Scot. Berdych meanwhile found Djokovic totally impenetrable, and admitted as much after the match. The final between Murray and Djokovic was one of the finest and most dramatic matches played this year, as these inherently defensive players proved that given ideal conditions and sufficient incentive, they can belt the ball as lustily as anyone. Djokovic saved match points in the second set, before pulling away from a flagging Murray in the third. It was the Serbian’s thirteenth Masters title (and eighth in the last two seasons) and all but guaranteed him the year end top ranking.

 

BNP Paribas Masters, Paris

Winner: David Ferrer

If Toronto was reduced by an Olympic year, then poor Paris was all but dismembered by a deliberately abbreviated one. In the long term this is a trickier issue to address. With no buffer between it and the World Tour Finals [Barclays] the following week, there was always going to be a question of commitment from the top guys. To no one’s surprise, defending champion Federer pulled out, citing a knee injury (presumably sustained in Madrid). Djokovic went out to the tournament’s early surprise, Sam Querrey. Astonishingly, it was only Djokovic’s second loss before the semifinals for the entire year. Janko Tipsarevic meanwhile seized his chance to further augment the most comprehensive retirement resume in the sport, blaming sudden fatigue as he pulled out while his opponent served for it. Many onlookers experienced sudden scepticism. The Parisian crowd delivered sudden boos. It is apparently a structural requirement of the event that at least one Frenchman makes an audacious deep run. This year they were Michael Llodra and Gilles Simon.

The tournament’s late surprise was the utterly unheralded Jerzy Janowicz, who first qualified, then saw off no fewer than five top twenty players en route to the final (Philipp Kohlschreiber, Marin Cilic, Murray, Tipsarevic and Simon), which propelled his own ranking some 43 places higher. (He’ll now be seeded for the Australian Open next month.) In the final he discovered Ferrer, who had never won a Masters title and wasn’t about to let this chance go by unseized. The Spaniard’s triumph was acute, unlikely and perfect. You’ve hardly seen a happier man.

In the end Ferrer and Janowicz contrived to transform a potential dreary end to the season into a truly memorable one. But Bercy remains a problem that needs to be addressed. There’s a sensible proposal to move it to February, which would in turn lend that month some much needed coherence. But this would meant that six of the nine Masters would be contested before Roland Garros. The best way to fix that would be to move one of the others, and play it on grass.

4 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour

Masters Retrospective (Part One)

The moment came just after Shanghai. With eight of the season’s allotted nine Masters 1000 events completed, it looked for all the world as though the ATP’s premier tournaments would be claimed  exclusively by the sport’s top four players, an outcome that wasn’t rendered less astonishing by the fact that this is precisely what happened last year. Even as one couldn’t believe that the same quartet just kept on winning, an alternative winner grew increasingly difficult to pick, or even imagine; a clear reminder that when a trend goes on long enough it can feel both mundane and amazing at the same time.

As it so often is, the Paris Indoors provided the exception. The last time someone outside the top four won a Masters was also in Paris, in 2010, when Robin Soderling triumphed as the world No.5. This time around it was won by David Ferrer, who is also ranked No.5. It says a lot that the world’s fifth best player winning a Masters tournament elicits surprise. Precisely what it says will depend on one’s opinion of the current era.

 

BNP Paribas Open, Indian Wells

Winner: Roger Federer

As a virulent gastric bug replicated its way through greater Palm Springs, the theme of the week was vomit, with the consensus being that too much of it was emerging from the mouths of professional tennis players. The withdrawals mounted, and the story spread that there was something wrong with Roger Federer, who’d turned a worrying shade of green. Andy Murray fell to a momentarily resurgent Guillermo Garcia-Lopez, kindling fears of yet another post-Melbourne slump. Rafael Nadal and David Nalbandian fought out the finest match of the tournament, one that the Argentine’s fans may never forgive him for not closing out.

Stomach bugs gave way to hardware glitches in the later rounds, and a Hawk-eye malfunction ruptured Juan Martin del Potro’s brain for an entire set. Then bugs gave way to a gale as storms swept over the desert. John Isner, the latest great hope for American tennis, served through the wind to inflict Novak Djokovic’s second loss of the year in a third set tiebreak, and in doing so progressed to his first Masters final. Federer and Nadal met in a semifinal that played out exactly unlike everyone predicted, with Federer storming through as though his end of the court was untroubled by the merest zephyr. He defeated Isner comfortably in the final.

 

Sony Open Tennis, Miami

Winner: Novak Djokovic

Desert gave way to swamp, and straight-laced southern Californians gave way to a Latin carnival. Grigor Dimitrov upset Tomas Berdych, proving that he’s ready to mix with the big boys, a contention he then spent months disproving. Andy Roddick played his best match in years to upset Federer, ensuring their career head-to-head would never attain a twenty match differential. Any hopes that he’d finally turned a corner were undone when he was subsequently bagelled by Juan Monaco, riding a wave of ‘local’ support. Monaco then defeated Mardy Fish, in what would prove to be the American’s last competitive match for half the season. David Ferrer dismantled del Potro in a way that was startling at the time but has since been revealed as the norm.

Djokovic was looking patchy, but hadn’t dropped a set, even against Marcos Baghdatis, although he afterwards celebrated as though he’d triumphed 12/10 in the fifth. Nadal and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga proved yet again that a long tight match doesn’t have to be a good one. After winning, Nadal’s knees withdrew, leaving the rest of him no choice but to go along. This gifted Murray his second walkover of the event, and propelled him into the final. Talk of the post-Melbourne slump was forgotten. Suddenly it was all about the Murray-Djokovic rivalry. Then Djokovic won a low-grade final comfortably, thereby defending his title. It wasn’t much of a rivalry, yet.

 

Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters, Monte Carlo

Winner: Rafael Nadal

The interest, as the clay season hit its stride, was the condition of Nadal’s knees, and whether they would be able to withstand another round of blows from Djokovic. Further interest was provided by the tournament’s decision to install a pot hole behind the landward baseline, which cripplied Monaco and Julien Benneteau. It got even more interesting – if that’s the term – when Djokovic’s grandfather died the day before his second round match against Alexandr Dolgopolov, leading to speculation about whether he’d play. He did, and he won, just.

Nadal encountered barely any resistance on the way to the final, except from Gilles Simon of all people, who’d apparently saved up a whole season’s worth of aggressive play for that one match. The final was billed as the big showdown between Nadal and Djokovic, the first time they’d met on clay since Rome the year before, or anywhere since the Australian Open in January. Would the world No.1 continue to dominate the Spaniard in finals? As it happened, Nadal won so easily that even his staunchest fans felt that nothing had been resolved either way. Grief had reduced Djokovic to a shadow. Still, it was a record eighth consecutive Monte Carlo title for Nadal, and really you take them however they come. By winning Nadal again moved to the top of the all-time Masters title leader-board. But all the same, the sense of unfinished business was pervasive.

 

Mutua Madrid Open, Madrid

Winner: Roger Federer

And so we came to the blue dirt in the magic box. It is difficult to overstate just how controversial this was at the time, and how thick and fast the doomsday proclamations came. It was going to ruin preparations for Roland Garros. The blue clay, which otherwise resembled nothing more lethal than laundry powder, was so dangerous that it might as well be laced with anthrax. Ion Tiriac was the devil incarnate. It was the end of days. I quite liked it, although I grew weary of the way every ailment suffered by any player in the ensuing weeks was reliably traced back to Madrid, including gastric afflictions, sore shoulders, and general Weltschmerz.

Federer overcame Raonic in a high-quality fast-court first round. By thrashing Davydenko, Nadal foolishly invited his fans to relax their guard, which meant his subsequent maiden loss to Fernando Verdasco struck with the force of a sledgehammer blow. A testy Djokovic fell to Janko Tipsarevic. Berdych and del Potro played a fine, aggressive semifinal. Federer finally overcame Berdych in a tremendous and tight final, earning a framed suit from Will Smith, a temporary return to the top two, and the right to be dubbed the ‘blue clay greatest of all time’ (BC GOAT). Earlier in the week Djokovic and Nadal delivered separate ultimatums that it was blue clay or them. There won’t be blue clay in La Caja Magica next year. I’m sure there’s no connection.

 

4 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour

How The Life Goes On

It is several weeks shy of one year since I was last in this situation, mind murmuring in torpid contemplation of the tennis season just past. The fifty intervening weeks have wrought change on my life, such that I’m now sitting in a different café in a different part of Melbourne, watching a slightly different version of the world swirl and eddy through the pollen-choked air. This edition of Spring hasn’t sprung so much as enveloped, a vast pulviscular blanket that first clogs your nose and eyes, then before long your brain. The wind is a slight northerly, although for a rarity it carries no threat of heat. My coffee is a shade too strong, and I am well past the age when I believed a taste for strong coffee (or high chili-tolerance) proved anything of worth to anyone that matters. But I know that I’ll order another when this one is done, and that I won’t ask for it to be weakened. If I wanted things prepared just so, I’d stay at home. Nevertheless, thanks to the twin miracles of pollen and caffeine, my mind murmurs at a higher and less useful pitch than usual. The café is playing an Italian version of ‘Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da’ – ‘La la, come la vita va avanti!’ – which isn’t helping. But that’s the soundtrack we have, so try to keep it in mind while you read.

The end of the tennis season marks the point at which professional tennis players and those who enjoy talking about professional tennis mostly part ways for a time.† Some players are clearly addicted to the attention, however, and haven’t been able to endure a week without resorting to social media. Their messages, almost without exception, are dull beyond belief. Astoundingly, it turns out lots of them are training. David Ferrer may or not be in Istanbul. Radek Stepanek might finally have retired to bed. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga has hopefully been in touch with Gael Monfils to ask if the latter ever hit upon a reliable method of translating Roger Rasheed into English. Monfils, according to Twitter, is in Paris, again. Nadal has returned to the practice court, which is news.

Still others are using their off-season to partake in exhibitions, including some who’d lobbied tirelessly to have their break extended. Last time round I called these events ‘low-brow vaudeville for very good causes’, and right this moment I can’t think of a better description. As with so much in tennis, exhibitions remind me that finding professional tennis players even remotely funny requires one selectively to forget that professional funny people are doing far more amusing things elsewhere. Mostly it merits a bemused smile. Andy Roddick doing impressions of other players in Toronto the other night was held to be a comedic coup, but I couldn’t see that it held a candle to either Billy Connolly or Tim Minchin performing live at the Royal Albert Hall. Readers will doubtless come up with other comedians they prefer. But if Roddick or Djokovic number among your favourites I’ll hazard you need to watch less tennis.

Tennis in this sense is something of a sealed microcosm, and cloyingly self-referential, but it’s far from the worst offender. It does better than Classical music, a field in which Mozart’s Ein musikalischer Spaß gets them rolling in the aisle, or in which people believe adapting bawdy verse to a symphonic masterpiece constitutes a fabulous gag. (I doubt whether many orchestral musicians can hear the waltz from Tchaikovsky’s Fifth without humming ‘Once I was a virgin, now I am a whore . . .’) But the point is the same. When one spends too much time focussing tightly on one thing, a realistic perspective is the first thing to go. The tennis off-season grants everyone who needs it a good month in which to regain a sense of proportion. It is an invitation that many of us nonetheless refuse to take.

After all, for those who presume to write about tennis the busy season has now arrived. We now have a clear month in which to look searchingly back on the last eleven. Only here in the southern hemisphere is the summary season especially summery, but no one is immune to this urge towards retrospective. Who can resist the temptation to repackage the season just ended into a seemingly endless torrent of self-generating list-based articles? Not me.

The helpful poltergeist trapped in my iPhone informs me that the air outside is 20.1C, which to a Cayman Islander is approximately 68.2F. I’ve now finished my second coffee, which was if anything stronger than the first, and produced an effect on my brain not unlike that which the US Air Force once visited upon the forests of northern Laos: my mind feels comprehensively defoliated, and unfit for human habitation. The café’s sound system has exhausted its impressive repertoire of Beatles covers.

It launches into an Italian bossa nova version of ‘What’s New, Pussycat’, which is conceivably an improvement over the original. Suddenly energised, I start to compile a list of the top ten matches played this year.  And did you see that Novak Djokovic took to the court against Gustavo Kuerten while wearing a curly wig? Priceless. Let the summary season commence.

† Of course, there are plenty of Challenger players for whom the season hasn’t ended at all. I encourage anyone interested in their continuing toils to read about them at Foot Soldiers of Tennis.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ATP Tour

Shredding The Lions

Davis Cup Final, Day Three

Ferrer d. Berdych, 6/2 6/3 7/5

Stepanek d. Almagro, 6/4 7/6 3/6 6/3

The Czech Republic has defeated Spain in the one hundredth final of the Davis Cup. Astute historical observers might note that the event actually began in 1900, while those with a particular gift for arithmetic will hopefully spot the numerical discrepancy. The answer is that, as in so many fields of human endeavour, two world wars proved terribly inconvenient.† The Cold War, on the other hand, provided almost no hindrance at all. Indeed, the last time the Czechs tasted Davis Cup glory was in 1980, and they were obliged to share it with any interested Slovakians. This time, for the first time, they have it all to themselves. Meanwhile, this is only the second time Spain has lost a Davis Cup final since the Soviet tanks rolled into Prague. Their latest squad included a world No.5 in career-best form, and a doubles team that had just claimed the World Tour Finals. It was almost enough to guarantee victory. But, as any engineer will tell you, a chain is only ever as strong as its Nicolas Almagro.

In the end, but only in the end, Tomas Berdych was proved right. Despite his many accomplishments, Almagro was indeed the fatally weak point through which the Czech Republic funnelled its assault, and thereby achieved a famous victory. They had to try something.  When you’re faced with the most impregnable tennis nation of the era, which has claimed more Davis Cups in recent years than nearly every other country combined, you take what you can get, even if it is the assertion that the world No.11 is somehow a liability. The Czechs took what they could get.

Presumably no one was more relieved to see Berdych’s astute prediction come to pass than the man himself, for all that such comments are intended to be partly self-fulfilling. Berdych’s aim was certainly to seed doubt in any existing cracks in Almagro’s mind, and consequently widen them. The belief, which is widely subscribed to even by the Spaniard’s admirers, is that Almagro’s ranking around the edge of the top ten represents the upper limit of his abilities, which is restricted not by raw ability but by the near-certainly of his mental collapse in important matches.

Of course, this tactic nearly backfired when the Spaniard acquitted himself superbly on the opening day, and almost force-fed Berdych the healthiest slice of humble pie since Yevgeny Kafelnikov promised Lleyton Hewitt a stern tennis lesson, and then promptly lost. In a hostile environment, on an indoor hardcourt, Almagro pushed Berdych to the limit for four hours, leaving the Czech with a victory that might well turn out to be Pyrrhic given the heroic quantity of tennis still ahead of him. Suddenly the doubts were all Czech. What would this Almagro do to a tired Stepanek in a live fifth rubber, if it came to it? These abstract musings took on a practical urgency after Berdych’s consummate flogging at the hands of David Ferrer in this morning’s fourth rubber.

The loss to Ferrer was Berdych’s first loss in Davis Cup in 2012, which ensured that one of the most successful such years in history ended on a slightly down note, at least personally. He had become just the second player to win at least ten live rubbers in a season, but he might have lost the one that mattered most, and badly. Meanwhile, it was Ferrer’s eighteenth singles win in a live rubber, for only three losses, and he has been unbeaten this year, winning six matches for the loss of two sets. This was the rubber that many had expected to be pivotal.

Desperate to resuscitate Spain’s chances, Ferrer emerged as though unbowed by the slightest concern in the world. He was, from the opening point (an ace), operating on a stratospherically higher plane than Berdych. Ferrer’s defence was predictably impeccable, and Berdych completed few trips to the net that weren’t laced with peril. All too often the Czech barely attained the service line before spinning to watch Ferrer’s passing winner streak by. But mostly it was Ferrer darting forward and compelling his larger opponent to yield up the baseline, and to run, subjecting Berdych to an unending selection of vicious high-speed geometric puzzles that he proved ill-equipped to deal with. It was the most surgically accomplished match I have seen from Ferrer since he dismembered Juan Martin del Potro at Wimbledon.

But would it all be for nothing? Just last week Ferrer managed to win two matches in the round robin phase in London’s O2 Arena but was cruelly denied a place in the semifinals. Now in Prague’s O2 he had flogged both Czech singles players, but was faced with the possibility that he might still lose the Davis Cup final. It had all come down to Almagro and Stepanek.

Either represented a vanishingly slender thread from which to suspend national hopes. Stepanek was in Prague on his preferred surface, but was also playing his third best-of-five match in three days, and he was almost thirty-four years old. Indeed, no man over thirty had won a decisive fifth rubber in a final exactly one hundred years. Meanwhile Almagro’s capacity to under-perform in crucial matches had been the endlessly-iterated theme of the weak. The fifth rubber of a Davis Cup final is a crucible. The man who wins is invariably the man who can retain his shape the longest. Could he somehow replicate Viktor Troicki’s unlikely feat from 2010, and stand firm in the face of an experienced opponent who wouldn’t stop coming at him?

Visually, neither man could realistically claim the honours. Almagro’s pink shirt had long since shed its España patch, which only the congenitally unpoetic failed to read as symbolic, while his shoes looked like he’d forded a shallow stream of salmon dip. Meanwhile Stepanek’s blue shirt sustained the rich Czech tradition of producing history’s most hideous tennis wear, a tradition that stretches back at least to Ivan Lendl. (Lendl was there, incidentally, and looked on approvingly.) With its extravagant leonine heraldry, it scored highly for patriotism even as it uneasily reminded us that sanity is only ever contingent.

The match got off to a shaky start, but before too long settled into a steady pattern of Stepanek attacking and Almagro barely holding on. It is hard to think that, as predicted, the occasion hadn’t gotten to Almagro. Character is indeed destiny. He was unusually passive, but then part of his make-up is that despite being a gifted shotmaker he can stop going for his shots when the going grows tight, unlike, say, Marcos Baghdatis, who keeps going for them but misses. Given the wave of support that Stepanek was bodysurfing – he was relentless – it was in a way admirable that Almagro held on as long as he did, until, at crucial times, he didn’t. The second set provides a particularly good example. After they’d traded early breaks, Almagro finally forced his way a tiebreaker with his best tennis of the match so far. From there he disappeared almost entirely, and failed to trouble the scorer, although the stats guy in charge of unforced errors was kept busy.

The third set was certainly Almagro’s boldest passage of play, and hope or dread kindled at the prospect of an audacious comeback from two sets down, depending on your proclivities. Surely Stepanek was now tiring. It was hard to tell. He was certainly endeavouring to shorten the points, but he’s been doing that for years on nearly every point. His work around the net remained consistently excellent, and this consistency began to wear his opponent down to nothing in the fourth, although Almagro, with feathery irony, did save one match point with an angled backhand volley of his own. He couldn’t save the second. The Davis Cup was sealed with one last Almagro error, his 56th of the afternoon, and Stepanek collapsed to the court. The captain Jaroslav Navrotil arrived to crush him shortly after, followed immediately by the mullet he has cultivated since the Czechs last won the Davis Cup. Before long the rest of the squad were there, and piled atop each other in the approved manner.

Speaking of irony, it was a quite delicious moment when Berdych of all people, amidst the team celebrations that were gaining a fearsome internal momentum, interrupted Stepanek – who’d taken to vaulting the net – and reminded him to go and shake the hands of the assembled Spanish team. Both the Czech players have had a memorable year when it comes to handshakes. That will definitely be what they remember 2012 for. Stepanek then shredded his special lion shirt, providing an image fated to remain with the rest of us for some years to come.

I won’t pretend to have seen all hundred Davis Cup finals that have so far been contested, but I’ll submit that this one would not look out of place beside the best of them. It featured  just about everything one might have hoped for (unless you are Spanish, in which case you would feasibly have hoped for more Rafael Nadal, without whom the Spaniards are merely very good, as opposed to unbeatable). The heroic Ferrer did a lot, but he couldn’t do everything. He might have even done enough to stop pedestrian commentators telling us how underrated he is, despite the fact that they’re only ones saying it.

Nor should we forget the central doubles rubber, in which Stepanek and Berdych defeated the reigning Tour Finals champions in Marc Lopez and Marcel Granollers, proving once more that the top doubles players aren’t necessarily the best doubles players. This in turn reminds us that the Czech Republic won the 2012 Davis Cup with only two players. Berdych and Stepanek contested every live rubber in 2012, in singles and doubles. It also fittingly caps the most successful possible year for Czech team tennis. In 2012 they have won the Davis Cup, the Federation Cup, and the Hopman Cup. It’s a lot to bear in mind, and it’s conceivable that 2012 won’t be remembered for missed handshakes after all.

† I note with some interest that Australia defeated the USA in the Davis Cup finals of both 1914 and 1939, an outcome that might well have precipitated unprecedented global carnage. Of course, there’s a slim chance that it’s just a coincidence, but can we take that chance? It’s probably for the best that my country remains mired outside the World Group.

12 Comments

Filed under Davis Cup

Lessons Learned

Davis Cup Final, Day One

Ferrer d. Stepanek, 6/3 6/4 6/4

Berdych d. Almagro, 6/3 3/6 6/3 6/7 6/3

The first day of the 2012 Davis Cup final has been completed, with the Czech Republic and the constitutional monarchy of Spain locked at one rubber all. If one was feeling overly wilful or mischievous this could be spun as a political tussle between the old world and the new, between tradition and progress. It’s something for Tomas Berdych to consider, lest he grows short on Spaniard-baiting material, which admittedly seems unlikely to happen. There’s also a chance he is too tired and wary, having narrowly avoided gagging on the heroic portion of humble pie he’d prepared earlier. Perhaps he’s learned a lesson. Part of me hopes not. Still, even if he hasn’t, the rest of us certainly have.

For example, we now know that the Prague crowd expresses its disapproval by whistling, and that what they lack in virtuosity they make up for in raw stamina. Expressing ire through whistling, you may be sure, is a distance event. This was eagerly illustrated when Carlos Ramos failed to correctly award a point to Berdych after the Czech player had successfully challenged a winner called out. Ramos was certainly wrong; the point should have gone to Berdych. For a good twenty minutes the locals pursed their lips and made their feelings known with undiminished gusto, which would swell ominously like the Sirens of Jericho whenever Nicolas Almagro commenced his service motion.

Despite sounding like the stadium was rapidly deflating, it ironically pumped Berdych up. Having appeared flat throughout the second set, he fair bounded through the third. Whistling clearly has its advantages, especially as it proved sufficiently loud to drown out the vuvuzela section. (I don’t know who invented the vuvuzela, but I do kind of wish it was me. I could make a fortune charging people $10 each to punch me in the face.) Before too long it subsided, leaving Berdych so diminished that he first surrendered his lead in the fourth, and then the set itself in a tiebreaker.

It went without saying that an Almagro victory would have put Spain in an overwhelming position, given that they’d already won the opening rubber. Or so I thought. Greg Rusedski did not agree: ‘If Almagro wins, then Spain is in the driver’s seat.’ In the end Berdych did eke out the fifth set, thus technically proving Almagro to be the weaker link, since it’s doubtful whether Berdych on this form would have troubled Ferrer for long. But even so, I’m sure it was a closer run thing than Berdych had envisaged, and it’s hard to think that this hadn’t contributed to the nerves that for a time threatened to paralyse him. Almagro acquitted himself well, in every sense, from his superior serving and aggressive ground game, up to and including his gracious handshake afterwards. It was a lesson in classy behaviour, or at least an example of how politeness can be weaponised. We learned that Reebok has nothing in its current range that comes closer to bandera roja than pink.

We also learned that there’s really not much to say about David Ferrer beating Radek Stepanek in straight sets, but that in the hands of a master analyst like Rusedski this little can be made to go a long way, or at least for a long time. The actual Eurosport commentary during the match had been provided by Frew McMillan and Chris Bradnam, and was thus quite good, although they only referred to Ferrer as ‘underrated’ a handful of times. This was well short of the crushing quota achieved over on the Tennis Channel, whose experts rate him so highly that they struggle to come up with much else to say. Almost everything about him, by their estimation, is not accorded the respect it merits from the broader public.

Keen to verify this for myself, I took to the streets. There weren’t many people around at that hour in Melbourne, but those seedy revellers I did corner eventually confessed that they didn’t rate Ferrer very highly at all, even when I showed them a photo and explained who he was. Some appeared shocked to learn that he has such competent volleys, and that he defends his second serve so well. (None of them hung around long after that, except for one charming transient who insisted he could smell my heartbeat.)

Notwithstanding the scientific validity of my vox pop survey, I still think Ferrer’s underratedness is mostly overrated. He was the clear favourite today, and played like it, despite a minor hitch in the second set when Stepanek came back hard at him. He won in quick time, serving, passing and running remarkably like you’d imagine a world No.5 would, regardless of rating.

Although the result itself clearly thrilled the Spanish team – even yielding them temporary control of that cherished driver’s seat – its brevity won’t have troubled the Czech team too much. Stepanek probably wasn’t going to win anyway, so it’s best he was spared unnecessary toil before the pivotal doubles tomorrow. Whether he’ll partner the weary Berdych could be a dicey question, though, and the Czech team has some thinking to do. I suspect he’ll play, if only to see his devious plan bear fruit. All this Almagro ‘weak link’ talk has been a red herring. It’s really Marcel Granollers they’re after.

2 Comments

Filed under Davis Cup

A Modern Kind Of Fairy Tale

World Tour Finals, Final

(2) Djokovic d. (1) Federer, 7/6 7/5

Novak Djokovic has ended the frivolous debate over who should be considered the ATP’s Player of the Year by defeating Roger Federer in the final of the World Tour Finals, which were hosted in London, sponsored by Barclays and over in a flash. I confess I was unaware that this debate was even being conducted until a few days ago, by which point it had moved beyond mere capitalisation into becoming a regrettable acronym – POTY – the inevitable fate of all such accolades. Any GOAT can tell you that. Anyway, the broad consensus among non-British interests was that Djokovic and Federer had been locked in a desperate race for the POTY. Each had won a Major and three Masters. Federer had won more titles and a silver medal, though Djokovic had gone further in tournaments that mattered more. Victory at the tour finals provided the necessary tiebreak, and now we can now sleep easy: Djokovic’s claim to the POTY is beyond quibble. It’s an accomplishment that would mean more if it actually meant anything.

By no means do I wish to belittle the many things that Djokovic actually has accomplished, which include finishing as the year end No.1 for the second season in a row, and winning the World Tour Finals for the second time over all, and undefeated at that. It was a week in which none of the top players were at their best, and he proved that his not-as-his-best is still the best. If that sounds backhanded, it isn’t meant to. Anyone can win when they’re playing well, but Djokovic ploughed unbeaten through a whole week of slow starts and minor slumps, and he did it again today. For his efforts he received a trophy with streamers attached to it, like the handlebars on my daughter’s bicycle, a fat wad of cash, and a photo-op with the quicksilver Pippa Middleton, who’d apparently forsaken her erstwhile loyalty to his opponent.

Naturally no Tour Final can justify its status without an exhaustive array of disparate celebrities to keep the camera operators occupied, and I’ll be damned if we weren’t painstakingly shown them all. It wasn’t enough to know that Britain’s most nubile royal-in-law was in attendance – although even knowing that did rather tax my interest – the Sky Sports commentators were determined that no viewer should die wondering at the identities of those seated around her. Boris Becker reassured me that the fellow to Pippa’s right was her brother, and that as far as he knew she was still single. Although I am generally disinclined to question Becker’s knowledge of such things, would-be suitors should probably hold off pursuing Ms Middleton full throttle until they’ve had this confirmed by sources closer to the palace. The camera alighted randomly on various other notables, who were enthusiastically noted by Sky and immediately forgotten by me. I don’t recall seeing Ian McKellan or Kevin Spacey. (As far as star power went, it was a far cry from two years ago, when a cameraman was employed for the sole purpose of finding Diego Maradona in the crowd each day, although my proposal that this could be expanded into a permanent DiegoCam in the corner of the screen was rejected. It’s all politics.)

Thankfully, even in the Sky Sports studio some interest remained focussed on the tennis match being played in the midst of the assembled luminaries and their unnamed (and presumably unwashed) vassals. And a strange match it was. Other than the beginning, when Federer looked unstoppable, it hardly seemed as though either player ever had momentum for longer than a few points at a time. It was tight and tough, and the vast majority of points, long and short, were decided by an error one way or another. In all Djokovic won 96 points to Federer’s 95. This would be sufficient to tell you the match was close even if the remainder of the statistical and anecdotal evidence wasn’t overwhelming.

Federer came out maniacally determined not to repeat his deplorably slow start from the semifinal – he won twelve of the first fourteen points – though he wasn’t to know that doing so also required forgoing yesterday’s masterful finish. It turns out it’s one or the other. Djokovic, on the other hand, wisely emerged tense and wayward. It wasn’t long before both players found their range; Djokovic’s range was mostly just inside his opponent’s baseline, and Federer’s appeared to be just beyond it. Federer was broken back, and then broken again a few games later. That mighty forehand just wasn’t firing, and the Serbian’s preternatural athleticism was blunting his first serve. But then Djokovic stepped up to serve for the first set, made it to set point, and thought better of it. He too was broken back, and tempted the crowd’s proven wrath by belting his racquet into the court. As the tiebreaker lurched drunkenly into view, neither player seemed to have much faith in any groundstroke struck harder than three-quarter pace. Time and again, the first man to pull the trigger missed the target, even though it was precisely half the size of a tennis court.

The point of the match, and surely of the tournament given the situation, came with Federer serving at 5-6 in the breaker, which ended when the world No.2 found the target on a hooked forehand pass hit from behind him while scrambling backward. Djokovic turned and stared in disbelief at his player’s box, then came around and won the tiebreaker anyway. There was a time when he would have let it get to him, but that was years ago.

If this final was won anywhere, it was in Federer’s forehand corner. Of Djokovic’s 96 points, about half (42) came from Federer’s unforced errors, and 24 of those came from the forehand, ostensibly the most feared shot of the last decade, at least as regards professional tennis. I have no more numbers to reinforce this, but it seemed that a very healthy proportion of those forehand errors came when Federer was forced to his right, and that most of the subsequent errors went long. This occurred regardless of whether the Swiss was sent scurrying for that corner, or obliged to dart merely a few steps. Along with Djokovic’s unparalleled ability to stretch and return high-quality first serves onto his opponent’s baseline – owing to some unholy alchemy of reflexes, hand-eye coordination and core strength – the relentless mistiming from Federer’s forehand provides the key to unlocking the match.

The answer, if indeed there is a question, perhaps lies in their last match – the Cincinnati Masters final – which Federer dominated 6/0 7/6. The statistical breakdown that emerged from that match highlighted how well Federer controlled his own ad court with his forehand. He was incredibly quick to run around it, so much so that Djokovic had a hell of a time even finding the Swiss man’s backhand wing, for all that he endeavoured to all afternoon. Is it too fanciful to suppose that Djokovic learned a useful lesson that day, or that Marian Vajda did? Contrary to the expectations of some, Djokovic did not mount a sustained assault on Federer’s backhand in today’s final, and often only probed enough to open up the forehand wing.

Conversely, did Federer’s success in Cincinnati prompt him to move prematurely to his backhand corner, with the result that he was easily caught out time and again? It certainly looked to be an issue of balance – in that Federer didn’t have enough of it – and it wasn’t as though he was being undone by searching backhands up the line. Indeed, Djokovic hit few of those at all, although there was a crucial one in the tiebreaker. Then again, it is a kind of indulgence to over-analyse these things, and Federer’s form hasn’t been so stellar of late that one needs to discover new reasons why he wasn’t at his best. I’ve remarked on it before, but even when Djokovic was losing most of their encounters, he still had the ability to wrong-foot Federer without going near the lines.

Nevertheless, Federer was the one to maintain his intensity after that tight first set. He broke immediately, and rode this advantage almost to the end, surviving a particularly enthralling eighth game. Serving for the set at 5/4, he moved comfortably to 40-15. If this didn’t already evoke uneasy memories of the 2011 US Open semifinal, then it certainly did after he made two fine first serves and yet lost both points. Again, under immense pressure, Djokovic refused to miss. The world No.1 broke back, and held for 6/5. Now serving to stay in it, Federer continued to defy Pippa’s expectations that his forehand must come good at some point, and rapidly fell down 15-40. They were locked at 95 points apiece. Djokovic’s 96th point, a backhand that scythed past the incoming Federer, secured him the title, and brought down the O2. Personally, I’m not one for chest-thumping bellows of self-approval, and I confess I sometimes find Djokovic’s work in this area overwrought and excessively macho. But that shot, and this victory, more than merited it. If ever one is permitted to raise the roof, is it after crushing a desperate backhand pass to seal victory over Roger Federer in a thunderous stadium in the final match of the season.

And so ends the 2012 ATP season, especially the portion of it played indoors in Europe, otherwise known as the European Indoors. The ether will doubtless grow dense with summary in the coming weeks, and there’s still the Davis Cup final to be contested. For now it is enough to say that although Federer wasn’t able to reprise his usual autumn heroics, this hardly counts as a failure given that it came at the end of his best season in years. He was, after all, ranked No.1 until the very last week. He wasn’t all that far from winning today.

Meanwhile Djokovic ending 2012 as he began it feels entirely appropriate. After today’s final he suggested that this season was if anything more satisfying than his last, despite the fact that he was less dominant and won less stuff. There’s a lot to be said for backing up the greatest performance of your life, and remaining on top in defiance of widespread expectation that you’ll subside. One gets the feeling nothing thrills Djokovic more than proving his detractors very wrong. (That’s surely why he doesn’t miss when down match point, since a match point is nothing more than the score telling you you’re about to lose.) If last year was the traditional fairy tale, then this year was the modern version. He didn’t get a princess, but he did earn a visit from her more predatory sister.

14 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour