The one that never went away

(This was first posted on 606 after the AO 2011 final).

This is a tale of two tennis players born within a week of each other.

The first, Novak Djokovic, shot on to the scene in spectacular fashion in 2007, doing the unthinkable. Beating Federer and Nadal on hard courts. Beating the top 3 in the world too. All in one tournament.

Djoker then proceeded to win the Australian Open in 2008. An epic match with Nadal followed at Queen’s. And then a Masters cup win in late 2008. He stretched Nadal the hardest on clay in 2009, and looked set to join Federer and Nadal in the top echelons of the game.

Only, he didn’t.

It is difficult to see where it all fell away and how. Perhaps it was the fact that his physical fitness wasn’t up to scratch. The constant ill-feeling among players and fans alike about his retirements from matches didn’t help. Either way, 2009 turned out to be all about Federer. Federer’s annus mirabilis.

And the guy who finally stopped Federer’s grand slam streak wasn’t Novak or Nadal, it was Del Potro. He seemed like the next really good player. A new era seemed to have arrived. Djoker had stepped back into the shadows from where he had emerged.

Most of 2010 wasn’t any better for the Djoker. In fact, it was significantly worse. Federer reclaimed the Australian Open. Nadal ran away with the rest of the year till a late Federer revival. Del Potro was injured. 2010 was Nadal’s annus mirabilis. Talk of 2011 centered around a possible Rafa slam.

Where was the Djoker? The Djoker continued watching from the wilderness. His serve had fallen away now too, and he showed only glimpses of the player who wowed the world in 2007.

There was another challenger to Federer and Nadal who had made his own surge in late 2008- Andy Murray. He had shot to fame by amassing a superior head to head against Federer, mostly by dint of beating him in hard courts on non-grand slam events. In fact, for the Australian Open 2009, he was anointed favourite.

What happened since then was that Murray kept being hit off the court by big hitters in grand slams, including twice by Federer in slam finals. But his game seemed to be improving to the point where, by the end of 2010, he had beaten Federer and Nadal in the same masters series tournament. He also demolished Federer in straight sets in Shanghai.

The pair took their revenge on Murray in the end of the season World Tour Finals, but the general consensus seemed to be that with Del Potro away from the scene, Murray was as likely as anyone to win a slam in 2011.

When the world was talking of Del Potro and Soderling and Murray instead of Djoker who for some reason was considered an underdog in spite of being ranked above everyone else, his response was to keep toiling away and hope that his chance would come. There was a hint of a revival from Djoker in 2010. The signs were there in US Open 2010 where he took Federer out in 5 sets, before running into Nadal the next day.

The same old story for a tennis player in this era. Djokovic could have shrugged his shoulders, said to himself that he had tried, and withdrawn into the shadows yet again.

Only, he didn’t.

In 2007, when he first burst on the scene, one had to be amazed at the completeness of the Serb’s game. Every shot was supremely efficient without being flamboyant. Even when it all fell away in 2010, Novak’s response had been to keep working on the physical aspect of his game till he felt stronger than ever. And to work on his serve till it went back to its level in 2007.

Only a Federer in full flight could see him off three times towards the end of 2010.

The inevitable opportunity that Djoker had been waiting for came again in Melbourne in 2011. Djokovic had quietly progressed through the opening rounds before thrashing Berdych, no mean player himself, 6-1 7-6 6-1. His reward would be a match with Federer.

Djoker grabbed the chance with both hands, demolishing Federer in straight sets in a match that was a treat to watch. Two aggressive shot makers were going full tilt at each other. But Djoker was to prevail. Djoker had now beaten Federer thrice in grand slams, and twice in straight sets. No one else had beaten Federer more than once in a hard court grand slam since he became number 1. And Djoker had done it thrice. He was playing at his best after a long time, maybe even better than he had ever played.

In the final, he would play Murray. It seemed just right. The best two players in the world had gone out. The two next would battle in an effort to lay a claim to being the heir-in-waiting. This was the culmination that tennis fans had been long awaiting.

Murray, for so long considered the heir to Federer and Nadal, had, over the years, rightly been lauded for his versatility. Djoker had always been the quiet one, whose progress was overlooked. But unlike Djoker, Murray’s game could lapse into a worrying passiveness at times, particularly in slams.

To those that had watched the two over the years and specifically in AO 2011, the final with both playing their best could only go one way. And so it proved. The result wasn’t surprising. But the manner of the win was.

Murray never got into the match. Djoker seemed to break Murray’s serve at will. Novak was the brick ball past which a winner could hardly be hit. And, when the moments came, Novak was the one stepping into the court and blasting winners past a hapless Murray. The score line flattered the Scot - it could have been much worse.

For those praying for Djokovic, for those in love with the Serb’s aggressive and complete game ever since they saw him play in 2007, it was a day of vindication, a day of triumph. For those waiting for an aggressive player post Federer, this was a ray of hope. And for those wondering which of Murray or Djokovic was the real deal, the next great champion, this was the day when the answer became obvious.

It isn’t easy to be a tennis player currently. Two of the greatest players of all time seem to have been in the top two ranking places for eternity. One of them is virtually unbeatable on clay, and mighty tough to beat on any surface. The other, an absolute sorcerer with the racket is capable of turning on his magic any time even though past his formidable prime. A victory in a slam had to be earned at times by beating both. Something that only Del Potro had ever accomplished. Murray, for eg, had beaten Nadal twice, only to be destroyed by Federer.

Under such conditions, if you have been ranked number three behind two legends, like Djoker has been for so long, it is easy to give up. To sit back, and to wallow in self pity for having been unlucky enough to be their contemporaries. With the knowledge that you would be excused for doing the same by an understanding public. Particularly if you have suffered from breathing problems, allergies and a lack of fitness. Which is what Novak Djokovic ought to have done.

Only, he didn’t.

Growing up in Serbia during the Balkan wars, the boy was made of stronger stuff. He had a spirit that had enabled him to survive the war-torn adolescent years in Serbia. It was the mindset of a winner. It was a priceless ability to seize the moment. It was the heart of a champion.

He would fight. And hang on. And improve. And wait for his chance. And when it came, take it just like he had in 2008.

This was the most telling contrast between Murray and Djokovic, even more than the nature of their playing style. Murray, built up as the natural successor to Federer and Nadal, never really came into his own. Djokovic, written off multiple times, never once thought of giving up.

Murray is the one that never arrived.

Djokovic is the one that never went away.

And after winning in Australia in early 2011 and dominating the Master Series thereafter, it was surely a formality when he reached the French open semi-final that that the appointment with Nadal would be kept, this time by the newly annointed #1.

Only, he didn't.

Super, TennisAnorak, SOO-PER

And here's hoping.....

After winning Wimbledon and gaining World No.1, it was destined he would then win the USO Open, to add to his other hard court slam.....

Only he didn't.

Federer was the one that never went away.

At least, this is what I'm really praying for! Wouldn't it be a brilliant addition to the above! hehe

Well, lucius,

noone's stopping you from writing something nice about Federer....after ALL he's given to you as a fan ...

I usually do write nice things about Federer!

I'm happy with either Federer or Djokovic winning the USO.

Provided they do, it will be back to good old times (aka 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007) when Nadal wins one grand slam and that one being the French Open!

The year ends pretty well as long as that happens!

Murray is the one that never arrived.

uh-oh you better hope yummymummy or sportslover don't see that

keep me out of this

Great analysis, tennisonorak. Bogbrush stop trumpeting your silly Italian Job French open victory by Roger. Is it your agenda to continually rain on the new #1s parade. Oh my god, how dismal of Djokovic to actually lose a match after 7 months of tennis. Roger had the stars (and fogninni) line up for that win. Good for him. You Fed lovers had your time and Roger is goat, blah blah blah. Can we enjoy our moment in the sun?

Very good analysis by the original poster, it will be interesting to see if murray can shake the demons and really etch his name in tennis history by winning a couple of slams and challenging at the top. What bodes well for Murray is that Roger is in his twilight and Nadal with all of his leg problems doesn't seem to be one of those champions that will be able to dominate for a lengthy period of time. Murray though has to get better because he can't just rely on hanging around and waiting for his rivals to slip up or age. Time is not on his side at 24 like it was at 21. He is at his physical peak for at most another 2 or 3 years as a tennis player, then his time will have come and gone.

well socal..

what is it they say? you can't argue with ignorance.

Josiah its very strange for me, I mean are the Rog fanatics tennis fans or just roger fans? There is almost an obsessive quality with this stuff, as if no one could play before Roger, and no one is worthy after Roger. Well if that is what you believe fine. But the tennis world is still moving forward, whether federophiles like the way the guy plays or not. I for one thoroughly enjoy players other than Roger and Rafa, but have to suffer through every single thread and topic being shifted into Roger is greater, Rafa is a moonballer.

Some posters are responsible for that socal, not all.

I'm a Fed fan but hearing you write him off rather more often (and yet again with the USO) than you praise him says a lot. Unlike Djokovic, Fed has won the USO and was just a point from beating him last year so I do think he stands a good chance of doing well if not winning it.

Djokovic is still the favourite but the fact I like the way Djokovic plays means I am not obsessed with Fed, although I might take issue with him being written off.

USO is probably Fed's best chance out of the 4 majors (5 wins from 6 straight final followed by semi loss after having 2 MP's) Roger at the USO is very much like Nadal at the French, very hard to see him not making atleast SF.

I don't write off Fed lucius. In fact, I have over and over and over again said I think the man will win another slam again. I just don't think it will be this one, it could. But the difference and we have discussed this before is that I think Fed is the most natural grass court player and should have an edge. On hardcourt all the top players are comfortable and I would venture to say that this makes it a bit harder to win the US open. Additionally, I feel like Novak is playing too well right now. Could Roger upset him absolutely. But when making a prediction you have to predict one guy will win and one guy will lose. I think Roger could win the USO he could win wimby again, I just don't think he will win the USO this year.

Exactly JM, that's on the basis of previous records. I admit we will only know how things will work out once the two masters tournaments are played out but otherwise, Fed's best shot is @ the USO. It's because Wimbledon was Fed's first slam (just like Nadal's first was the French) that we say that's his best tournament but the stats suggest otherwise and Fed's been remarkably good across many surfaces from when he won his first slam.

Fair enough socal. I'm unsure about grass, he does play well but he's just as comfortable on hard courts. Also, Fed doesn't play all the best players on hard court, at worst, 3 of them (quarters, semis & final) which gives him a much better chances than lining up all the great hard court players might suggest.

No lucius but most likely he has to beat Novak and Nadal both to get to the trophy. The way Djoko and Nadal are making every semi and every final basically is going to make it harder for Fed as the #3 seed. This is what Djokovic had to deal with as the #3 in an era with dominant 1 and 2 players. As the 3 guy you most likely have to take both of the guys above you out. Now a draw can open up and one or both of the top seeds could lose, but not the way Nadal and Djoko have been consistently making the working end of tournaments this season.

Why do all threads have to be about Federer? I'm a massive Federer fan ("massive" refers to the fandom, not to me!), but does that mean that I cannot write about Djokovic? This is just a piece appreciating the Djoker and his achievements.

socal1976 wrote:Great analysis, tennisonorak. Bogbrush stop trumpeting your silly Italian Job French open victory by Roger. Is it your agenda to continually rain on the new #1s parade. Oh my god, how dismal of Djokovic to actually lose a match after 7 months of tennis. Roger had the stars (and fogninni) line up for that win. Good for him. You Fed lovers had your time and Roger is goat, blah blah blah. Can we enjoy our moment in the sun?

Very good analysis by the original poster, it will be interesting to see if murray can shake the demons and really etch his name in tennis history by winning a couple of slams and challenging at the top. What bodes well for Murray is that Roger is in his twilight and Nadal with all of his leg problems doesn't seem to be one of those champions that will be able to dominate for a lengthy period of time. Murray though has to get better because he can't just rely on hanging around and waiting for his rivals to slip up or age. Time is not on his side at 24 like it was at 21. He is at his physical peak for at most another 2 or 3 years as a tennis player, then his time will have come and gone.

To continue:

"Some foolish people thought that the Panic in Paris was brought about because Djokovics level dropped after the stress rest in the quarter final.

Only, it wasn't

socal1976 wrote:Great analysis, tennisonorak. Bogbrush stop trumpeting your silly Italian Job French open victory by Roger. Is it your agenda to continually rain on the new #1s parade. Oh my god, how dismal of Djokovic to actually lose a match after 7 months of tennis. Roger had the stars (and fogninni) line up for that win. Good for him. You Fed lovers had your time and Roger is goat, blah blah blah. Can we enjoy our moment in the sun?

Very good analysis by the original poster, it will be interesting to see if murray can shake the demons and really etch his name in tennis history by winning a couple of slams and challenging at the top. What bodes well for Murray is that Roger is in his twilight and Nadal with all of his leg problems doesn't seem to be one of those champions that will be able to dominate for a lengthy period of time. Murray though has to get better because he can't just rely on hanging around and waiting for his rivals to slip up or age. Time is not on his side at 24 like it was at 21. He is at his physical peak for at most another 2 or 3 years as a tennis player, then his time will have come and gone.

I do normally agree with much of what you say socal but going by your addage then Roger Federer is a spent force at 29 and can be completely ruled out of winning anymore Slams? Now Andy may or may not win a slam in his career but it seems that is is the media and fans who make more out of will he/won't he than the players. This will hurt a lot of his detractors a lot but Andy Murray could retire tomorrow and he will still have had a brilliantly successful tennis career with the upmost respect of today's greats of the game Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. How many other players in the game can do that?

Nice article - Nole has always had the ability and potential, everyone knew that in him - infact I thought he would comtinue in 2008 like he has done this year. So it just took him a few years to get his mind and body straight.

I dont think Roger is a spent force but he has found 2 players now who have been regularly beating him. That's life, better players always come along in the end, he had a good run but dont see him winning any more slams (hasnt won since 2010 AO now) unless the draw opens up nicely for him, the game is starting to pass him by. I dont think he'll worry about his record too much - Novak has a lot of catching up to get to where Nadal is, never mind Roger.

Murray can significantly improve and with a moderate amount of luck in the draw there's no reason why he can't win a Slam or two.

Nadal has won Slams recently without needing to play another member of the top 4. If Murray was accorded the same privilige he'd get a couple.

Nadal simply plays the draw infront of him as any other player does. If the rest of the top 4 arent getting to the final thats their issue not his.
Murray needs to be able to win a slam against anyone, not rely on luck of the draw. At the highest level he's consistently falling short [so far].

Disagree with you there bogbrush.

Murray is not as good with his forehand as he was under Brad Gilbert.

Rethink his forehand = will help him towards a few slams.

Under Gilbert Murray didn't have a Forehand JM. He got a big serve under Gilbert and thats it.

Murray is much better now with his Forehand then he has ever been. Least when he is aggressive with it.

only in a few matches has he dictated with his forehand imo LK.

But overall he does struggle to hit that side deep and often waits for a stronger opponent to attack first.

Gilbert is the one that gave Muray his speed/mouvement on the court.

Murray's speed and movement came post Gilbert. He did alot of pre-season work that season as he had so much time on his hands after that wrist injury. Jez Green has been instrumental in his fitness late 2007-early 2008.

As for his Forehand he has never dictated play with it. His dominance in games has been the BH.

Tenez wrote:Gilbert is the one that gave Muray his speed/mouvement on the court.

His movement and court coverage is certainly a dominant feature in his game LK... but maybe he would be better served in not chasing everything down early on and conserve himself for the big points at the end of the set?

I think if he served better he would win more matches comfortably. I think his serve got worse after Gilbert left.

Yea it's certainly more of a 'slappy' serve the way he let's loose...looks to me like he holds back a bit

He has certainly dropped the speed off the serve. I wish he could find the range and power he did before. I think maybe that's why he is relying on the FH a bit more.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:His movement and court coverage is certainly a dominant feature in his game LK... but maybe he would be better served in not chasing everything down early on and conserve himself for the big points at the end of the set?

This is actually true. Murray does too much running and gets regularly injured for it. he is a bigger frame than Nadal and Djoko and this "physical" style is very risky for him.

Like Andy said - HE knows his game better than anyone else
and plays to his strengths - Note I said HIS strengths as HE
sees it !

I don't criticise other players and I am CERTANLY not going to
criticise the most successful player that GB have had .

yummy come US Open his strengths will be firing on all cylinders

I call mine constructive criticism yummy because what is letting him down can be improved.

Well that is the frightening thing here. Andy has areas to improve in his game and yet he is already a multiple slam finalist and slam semi-finalist. If he can make those improvements I would like to ask why people still say he will NEVER win a slam.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well that is the frightening thing here. Andy has areas to improve in his game and yet he is already a multiple slam finalist and slam semi-finalist. If he can make those improvements I would like to ask why people still say he will NEVER win a slam.

Every one of the top 4 has plenty of room for improvement, but because they have won multiple slams o.e. monkey (read media) is off their back, they are not under such scrutiny like Murray.
I hope he doesn't read what papers say....

Andy says he takes very little notice of media criticism or comments.

He is definitely his own man

lydian wrote:Nadal simply plays the draw infront of him as any other player does. If the rest of the top 4 arent getting to the final thats their issue not his.
Murray needs to be able to win a slam against anyone, not rely on luck of the draw. At the highest level he's consistently falling short [so far].

Don't be prickly, I'm not having a go at Nadal, just saying that now and then he's had Slam runs that Murray wouldn't have been bothered by. If Murray gets one of them he's laughing, but so far in finals it's been Federer, Federer and Djokovic. Not Soderling, for instance.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I do normally agree with much of what you say socal but going by your addage then Roger Federer is a spent force at 29 and can be completely ruled out of winning anymore Slams? Now Andy may or may not win a slam in his career but it seems that is is the media and fans who make more out of will he/won't he than the players. This will hurt a lot of his detractors a lot but Andy Murray could retire tomorrow and he will still have had a brilliantly successful tennis career with the upmost respect of today's greats of the game Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. How many other players in the game can do that?

First, I never said that Federer is a spent force. He is number 3 in the world, and if he gets a draw that opens up for him or plays really well he could very well win another slam or two. I just don't think Fed is going to win this US open on the current form of the top players. I actually agree about Murray, the guy has had a good career slam or otherwise and his life will be great whether he wins it or not. But for a male tennis player your mid twenties for most champions is the peak. Right now Murray needs to play with more of sense of urgency, 22-27 years old are usually the best performing years for great champions. And Andy is right in the middle of that prime, so if he is going to win one or two slams it will be a lot more likely to happen in the next 2-3 years. That was my point, he can't just keep thinking time is on his side, it really isn't for a tennis player.

It would be good for tennis if Murray won this USO as it would prove this era actually is strong and not dominated by the same 2 players + now Djokovic that is has been for 4+ years. The main problem is how he can handle Djokovic or Federer on hard court, if he goes passive he loses, needs to play like he played in Australia 2010 imo.

He needs to be in Nadals half as I think he should have the edge on him, and hope that Fed/Nole go 2nd on Stupid Saturday and one wear the other out, like last year.

bogbrush wrote:He needs to be in Nadals half as I think he should have the edge on him, and hope that Fed/Nole go 2nd on Stupid Saturday and one wear the other out, like last year.

Didn't Murray have that scenario last year and blew it....I think it's about time Nole had his break at USO....

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:He needs to be in Nadals half as I think he should have the edge on him, and hope that Fed/Nole go 2nd on Stupid Saturday and one wear the other out, like last year.

Didn't Murray have that scenario last year and blew it....I think it's about time Nole had his break at USO....

Nole had his best chance in 2008 when Fed was post-GF and Murray beat Nadal in the other semi.

Not prickly BB, its just luck of the draw for all players. Nadal has proved his worth over the years - beaten Federer 5 times in slam finals for a start. Murray needs to beat whoever is in the draw.

I think the speed for Murray came with the extended fitness regime he went on under McLagan's tutelage. Gilbert tried to work on his brain more - unfortunately the meeting of minds wasnt a good one.

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:He needs to be in Nadals half as I think he should have the edge on him, and hope that Fed/Nole go 2nd on Stupid Saturday and one wear the other out, like last year.

Didn't Murray have that scenario last year and blew it....I think it's about time Nole had his break at USO....

Nole had his best chance in 2008 when Fed was post-GF and Murray beat Nadal in the other semi.

Even more so for Murray.

Tennisanorak,


I hope you don't mind, but I posted your article on tennis.com they are in need of some enlightment across the pond

Noleisthebest, with a user name like that, you have complete freedom to post an article like that anywhere! But where on tennis.com did you post it exactly?

Tennisanorak, you are a pal

I posted it under this article (at the moment it's buried in the sea of rubbish on page 2 of the comments)

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2011/07/the-rally-surveying-the-new-landscape.html

Noleisthebest, thanks for posting it!