The year-ending finale at the O2 arena in London featured the top eight players on the AT Tour for the year. Fittingly, it was the number one Novak Djokovic and the second seed Roger Federer who made it to the finals. Roger had cruised through to the final, apart from a round robin loss to Del Potro. Federer, who likes playing indoors, because it removes the variables of sun and wind from his aggressive game, was too good in the semifinals for Andy Murray, the local favourite.
Murray is a counter puncher and had used his defensive skills in upsetting a tired Federer for the gold medal at the Olympics. But in perfect conditions, Federer’s unmatched all round skills proved too strong. It seemed to be the case in the finals as well, as Federer took the first three games with some excellent offensive play. But then Djokovic started to slowly get his baseline defence going and he reeled Federer in. Errors started appearing in Federer’s game and the tide had turned.
The miniscule difference: When you are number one in the world, every player is fashioning his game to defeat you. Murray and Djokovic have such games. They return well, defend well and pass well. It takes a Federer at the top of his form to beat them as he did at Wimbledon where he equaled Sampras’ record of seven Wimbledon titles. Federer likes to run around his backhand and hit his forehands in out and in as they are called, meaning to both corners of the court. But Djokovic has a backhand down the line shot that he can hit accurately under pressure and it is this shot that restrains Federer from going too far away from the center of the court. At the top level, it is these miniscule things that, along with a bit of luck, can make the difference between winning and losing. And Djokovic and Murray have the advantage of youth.
Aisam Qureshi had qualified for the Masters along with partner Roger. They had a lean run, losing all their matches. The Bryan brothers also failed to reach the semifinals. The final was between Indians Bhupathi and Bopanna and Spain’s Granollers and Lopez, with the latter winning in a deciding tie break.
The next tennis year promises to be a blockbuster, with Djokovic and Murray in the ascendant and Federer nipping at their heels. There is also the giant Argentinian, Del Potro who is looking at his menacing best of late, following wrist surgery. There is Milos Raonic, the Canadian with the Pete Sampras style serve. David Ferrer will always be there, in the later stages of tournaments, but will have a hard time winning the majors. The Frenchman Tsonga is limited by a weak backhand and will have a difficult time getting past the top four. Thomas Berdych will be contending in the later stages of the majors, but lacks variety and temperament to win the big events.
Rafa, the big question: The big question, however, is that of Rafael Nadal, the fourth member of the quartet at the top of the sport. Nadal has not played since his Wimbledon loss. There are problems with his knees that simply refuse to go away. The American hard court circuit is simply too tough for his overly physical style of play that exacerbates his physical frailties. Nadal has announced that he will be back for the 2013 season at the Qatar Open in January. However, it remains to be seen how well his body copes with the day in day out stresses of competitive play. We may have already seen the best of Rafael Nadal. The future is uncertain at best.
Three simultaneous cricket rubbers: Three cricket series are ongoing as we go to press. Australia and South Africa are going at it hammer and tongs in the battle for the Southern Hemisphere while England are exploring what for them is the final frontier, a tour of India, where they have not won since 1976. South Africa, who recently wrested the number one ranking from England, had their hands full in the first of three Tests against the Aussies. The Aussies have been on a bit of a rebuild, but such is the depth in their domestic structure that they bounce back with quality players at every position. At thirty odd for three, the South Africans had the Australians down for the count but a monumental captain’s inning from Clarke and a supporting hundred from Cowan turned the tables. Michael Hussey also made a welcome return to form after a lean trot against the South African pace attack of Steyn, Morkel and Philander.
South Africa’s batting revolved around the excellent Jacques Kallis and Hashim Amla. Kallis has astounding all round figures that lay claim to his being the best all rounder ever, even surpassing Gary Sobers. Sobers’ supporters would cite his ability to bowl both spin and pace along with his world record innings against Pakistan. While Sobers was charismatic, Kallis has gone about his job in a modest understated manner. Certainly, both are all time greats of the sport. Hashim Amla might just be the best, most consistent batsman on the circuit today. He is calmness personified and his technique has evolved over the years, from grotesque to seamless. His consistency has been one of the major reasons of South Africa’s ascent to the top position. Amla’s wristy strokes have a subcontinental look and remind of some of the great batsmen of the recent past like Azharuddin and Zaheer Abbas.
England have a huge task on their hands, in taking on a strong Indian batting lineup on their own wickets. The margin for error on Indian tracks is minute and the pacers are having a difficult time of it. Much depends on the England spinners, among whom Swann is easily the best. Swann can take wickets on any surface and he proved that as he removed India’s top order in the first Test. A lot depends now on how England handle the Indian spinners and their lone paceman, zaheer Khan. Their skipper Cooke has to lead from the front with his ability to play the long innings. Kevin Peterson has the ability to turn a match around in one session. But in the end, England have to get twenty wickets in order to win and under Indian conditions it is the hosts who have a better chance to do that. Regardless of the result, a cricketing feast is in the offing.
do you mean inside out?
Comments are closed.