COMMENT – The Australian Open did not go according to the script most of us had written out. Not by a long shot. I watched Nadal’s exit from the tournament at Melbourne airport, and landed almost 24 hours later in Lahore to see Djokovic meting out the same fate to Federer. The only finalist in either men’s or women’s singles who was a contender coming into the tournament was Kim Clijsters. In the men’s doubles, what mattered to Pakistanis was that Aisam Qureshi wasn’t there.
The second week at this year’s Australian Open served up plenty of surprises. First among them was the remarkable bout between Kuznetsova and Schiavone in the women’s singles fourth round. The match ended up being the first of its kind, stretching into the longest ever women’s singles match at 4 hours and 44 minutes, with the final score line reading 6-4, 1-6, 16-14. Compared to the marathon between Isner and Mahut at Wimbledon last year, this match decidedly had competitive edge. The two women went hammer and tongs at each other till Schiavone put away the final volley.
The Italian used all the prowess she had exhibited at Roland Garros last year to outlast her opponents en route to the French Open title. The oldest woman in four decades to win her first Grand Slam, Schiavone was every bit the tenacious clay courter in Melbourne. What makes her performance even more praiseworthy is that she came into this match having played two three-set matches in the Melbourne heat. For her part, Kuznetsova had looked comfortable coming through the earlier rounds, with even Justine Henin – who has not had quite the comeback of her compatriot Clijsters – failing to give the Russian a tough fight.
Unfortunately for the battling Italian, this string of defiant feats of endurance had to end at some point, and so it did in the next round against the world no. 1, Caroline Wozniacki. The latter herself could not overcome Li Na, who became the first Chinese woman to reach a Grand Slam final. Wozniacki came as close to lending some more credibility to the WTA ranking system as she did in last year’s US Open, but as it stands, the last two women to be No 1 in the world occupied that spot without any Grand Slam success.
In fact, Safina’s fall from the top was all the more inglorious, as highlighted by her demolition at the hands of Clijsters. Still, Wozniacki is not the only world no. 1 not to make it to the final. Talk was rife about this being the ‘Rafa Slam’, with Nadal would become the first player since Rod Laver to hold all four Grand Slam titles. Laver of course accomplished this feat both as an amateur in 1962 and later as a professional in 1969.
In the ongoing debate over whether Federer or Nadal is the greatest player ever to grace the game, this surely would have been a telling blow to the Spaniard whose apparel sports a ‘raging bull’ symbol. Juxtaposing the reigns of Federer and Nadal presents a slew of contrasts, one of the most striking of which is Federer’s ability to keep himself injury free while he was at his peak, truly dominating the world of tennis en route to becoming the longest reigning world No 1.
Nadal, ironically, for all his undeniable talent and supreme physique, is periodically let down by his body. If Nadal is to dominate the game, his body needs to improve even more to sustain a very demanding playing style.
Still, one can say it is all the more proof of Nadal’s superior credentials that he is able to maintain his ranking and his dominance in spite of these injuries. Nadal’s injuries caused him to miss the French Open where Federer completed his own career Grand Slam achievement. It was an injury that forced Nadal to retire from his quarter final at last year’s Australian Open, and it was injury again that undid him this year.
Last year it was Nadal’s knee that gave way, and this year it was a torn hamstring. To the Spaniard’s credit, he stayed on court to finish the match with compatriot David Ferrer, despite the fact that the hamstring injury occurred in the second game of the match. Tragic as it was to see such a tremendously athletic player struggling with forlorn hope to make the most of a bad situation, one can only commend Nadal’s willingness not to throw in the towel. Following Nadal’s loss, it was all too tempting to assume Federer would take the title, but it was not to be so.
Djokovic, having forged his body and his mind over the past two years to become one of the best movers and shot makers in the game, did to Federer what the Swiss has done to so many players over the course of his own glittering career; he made him uncomfortable on court, and pushed him to take risks rather than engage in long rallies. Federer seemed even apathetic at times, and his inexplicable inability to close out the second set had an air of resignation about it. Djokovic’s plan worked to perfection, and he now stands a chance to repeat his Grand Slam victory of 2007.
Standing in the Serb’s way is Andy Murray, who, just like last year, can thank a Nadal injury for allowing him a path to the final. That said, much credit is due Murray’s way for what has been an outstanding run to the final this year. He has looked every bit the title contender with displays of finesse, athleticism, raw power and an all too evident hunger for victory. The final at Rod Laver Arena will be played out between two men who know how to run down the tennis ball and are adept at changing the pace of a rally. Well and truly, it is anyone’s title. I myself had commented in an earlier column that Djokovic and Murray did not step last year the way they could have to contend with Federer and Nadal for the biggest prizes in the game, but if the first Grand Slam of the year is any indication, they are ready to do so now.
Aisam and Bopanna missed out on a quarter final meeting with the Bhupatti/Paes duo, still creating magic on the court despite being apart for five years. It will be interesting to see if these two stick together for the rest of the year or part ways again. With the mighty Nestor/Zimonjic pairing now broken, the Bryan brothers will be looking at another year at the top of the doubles rankings. In the women’s doubles, the title was won by Dulko and Pennetta, who too were the no. 1 seeds despite not having won a Grand Slam even individually. Suffice to say the first Grand Slam of the year has raised some points to ponder, and only a year end retrospective look will tell if it heralded a time of change in the highest echelons of the game.
