Well, like I said, my predictions were wrong :)
I also have to admit I like the first week of a slam so much more than the second week, especially in the past couple of years, where there's a certain predictabilty, especially in finals and eventual winners of the tournament. The first week is more exciting because there's always going to be a (minor) upset (here: Nishikori over Tsonga), or a youngster/relatively unknown player going on a streak (here: Kukushkin, Tomic), or an "old" guy showing off (here: Hewitt). While the quality of tennis is generally better in the second week, I'd say the first week is more exciting if your love for tennis isn't just player-related.
As for my favourite matches of the tournament...I haven't seen enough matches to really have a valid opinion about that. I really enjoyed the Federer-Del Potro match, and I would say it offered the most beautiful tennis. I wouldn't be surprised if someone said of this match "the Maestro created another work or art", and that would make me nod agreeably. More than any other match, both guys showed the depth of the game; not every match has to be won or lost on the baseline, not every point has to be a cross-court top spin. If I wanted a non-tennis fan to show any match of the tournament, it would be this one.
I also want to mention the Djokovic-Murray match, which I personally thought was a better match than the final. Murray definitely improved compared to last year, and like I (half-jokingly) said on twitter: "Murray is too good to not win a slam". I want to see Murray play more matches like this, with more agression and less self-anger at missing points. He already proved he can beat the top guys in best-of-three matches, now he'll have to that in best-of-five matches as well.
And then there's a the final, Djokovic-Nadal...an epic fight!!!! Or should I say, epic struggle? I personally didn't think the quality of tennis was as high as previous matches, this was more a physical battle, where one guy was just trying to outlast the other. This was especially true in the last 2 sets. I know some people (Nadal fans!) like these kind of matches, but not me. Sure, it's a test of stamina, mental fortitude, athleticism, and many other things, but does it make for a beautiful game of tennis? Matches like these are exciting to watch, of course, but only because they played on about the same level, and you couldn't really predict who would win until the last point. I thought it didn't come close to the Wimbledon 2008 match though, that one was equally exciting, but had more beautiful tennis. Also, part of the epicness of this match is that it lasted almost 6 hours, but how long did they actually play? I read somewhere that, on average, they took around 32 seconds to serve (normally, it should be under 20 seconds). Someone should add up all those extra seconds and subtract them from those 6 hours. I bet the match would've been at least an hour shorter.
Now that it's over, the question is: what is the long-term significance of this match? Some people (including me) have already compared this match to the Australian Open final in 2009, in which Nadal beat Federer in 5 sets (which had Federer in tears during the trophy ceremony, saying the infamous words "God, this is killing me"). The year before that, Nadal had beaten Federer at Wimbledon, the first time Federer lost to Nadal in major that wasn't Roland Garros, and also destroying Federer's hopes of winning Wimbledon 6 times in a row. And even though that Aus Open final "killed" Federer, he won Roland Garros and Wimbledon that year.
But back to this year. This was Nadal's 7th loss to Djokovic in a final. It was the third time in a row they played the final of a major, and the third time in a row Nadal lost to Djokovic. Now we can start saying that Djokovic is dominating Nadal, the way Federer dominated pretty much everyone else between 2004-2007, and the way Nadal is dominating Federer.
The problem for Nadal in this match was that Djokovic was just physically (and ultimately also mentally) fitter, and could make that extra effort to win the match. Normally, it's Nadal who wins matches like these, even if his opponent is technically "better" (like Federer), he can outlast them, drain them mentally and physically. Not this time. Djokovic should've been more tired since he had that tough 5-setter against Murray, and Nadal had an extra day to rest after his match against Federer...but he wasn't (even though he gave that impression in the first set).
So, what should Nadal do? Should he just accept that Djokovic is the better player? Find a way to beat him? Or just hope that he'll run out of steam at some point? He's exactly in the situation Federer was after that final in 2009. And while I personally do feel Federer chose that last option (probably thinking "my game is good enough to beat 99% of the guys out there, what does this one guy matter?"), I don't see Nadal giving up that easily. I'm looking forward to the clay court season, I'm sure Nadal is going to win at least 2 Masters 1000 tournaments. As for Roland Garros though...let's just say I want to see a Djokovic-Nadal final. That would definitely be the most tense match when it comes to making history: if Djokovic wins, he's going to be the only guy to win 4 majors in a row (the Nole slam!), and he would be the only one to ever beat Nadal in a Roland Garros final. That would be quite something...
As for Federer's performance at this event: as a fan I'm moderately happy. He played some good matches, but again he brainfarted against Nadal yet again. So predictable. It was a match he could've won (in fact, if he wasn't so mentally intimidated by Nadal, I got the feeling he could get at least another set out of his Roland Garros final with him). I actually didn't watch most of that match because I knew that would happen. It's so frustrating, it's like seeing Nadal automatically drops Federer's tennis-IQ. I hate Fedal matches, and I honestly don't see what other people see in them (unless you're a Nadal fan of course), it's a complete unforced error fest. Actually, I fully understand that casual fans like Nadal a lot more than Federer, every time they play at a major, Nadal wins, and Federer isn't able to play his usually beautiful game (I'm afraid to look up the amount of unforced errors he made in this match).
This entry is already stupidly long, and I haven't talked about the women yet!
Let's see...
Yeah. I was surprised to see Stosur out so early, now there really is a curse of the first-time major winner (if you don't know what I'm talking about: Kvitova won Wimbledon, but lost the first round at the US Open. Stosur won the US Open, but lost in the first round at the Australian Open this year).
I thought Serena would get further, but Makarova deserved that win. That girl has no fear. Another girl I should mention is Sara Errani, she made the quarterfinals and the final in doubles.
I didn't see any of the semifinals (stupid time difference!) but I did see most of the final. What a difference with the men's final heh. But Azarenka deserved it of course, after beating Clijsters. I am surprised at how bad Sharapova played though, it was almost like she didn't care at all.
And unlike the men, the WTA ranking is now vastly different. Wozniacki drops to number four, behind Azarenka, Kvitova and Sharapova. Azarenka has about 1000 points on Kvitova, but Kvitova and Sharapova are really close, with Wozniacki about 500 points behind. I personally think Kvitova will be number 1 briefly, but Azarenka will be number 1 again at the end of the year.
And lastly, something not really tennis related: the Margaret Court situation. She made some anti-gay remarks recently, which prompted some people to go to the Australian Open, and in particular the Margaret Court Arena, with rainbow flags and stuff like that.
I'm not really sure what to think of the whole situation. I'm pro-equality and pro-diversity, so I can't agree with anyone who is saying one group of people is inferior to the other. I was shocked to learn how many teens still commit suicide because they're "different" and aren't accepted by society (google "it gets better"). That's a horrible, horrible thing, and I think people like Margaret Court underestimate the impact their words have on these youths.
However, I'm not sure if we should fight this battle on the tennis court. Yes, it's called the Margaret Court Arena, but not because she's a great person, but because she was a great tennis player. Therefor, asking the Australian Open to change the name of the court is just plain stupid. I don't mind the "quiet" protest (rainbow flags and umbrellas and such), because it makes the LGBT community visible in a nice way.
I saw a couple of matches on the MCA, but when they showed the crowd, I haven't seen anything rainbow-y. Could just be me, of course, but then I haven't found anything on the Australian Open site about this. In fact, this is quite interesting - especially the next-to-last paragraph. It makes me think the "happy slam" isn't that happy after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment