The Week-After Blues

Hitting the blues in Melbourne.

Sportskeeda

Oz ’13 – Answers to Questions

The scorching sun has finally set on the first Major of 2013.

So, no one actually died of sunstroke, no one disturbed the established order, though Sloane Stephens made a dashing statement for the teens and Wawrinka came as close as possible to beating Djokovic without actually doing it, and the Slam remained as Happy as it could be. But what about the questions we had decided to ponder over earlier? Did we come any closer to unraveling these profound issues?

Can Murray go higher?

Well, he didn’t go higher in this tournament, but he showed us that he has the appetite to. His run through the draw was impeccable, and his match against Federer in the semis was as convincing as a 5-set victory could get, with the Swiss whiz always playing catch-up. In the process, Murray managed to accomplish something for the first time in his career – defeat Federer in a Grand Slam. All this bodes well for the Scotsman. It shows he is still using the momentum from the US Open to move on to better things. But his running out of steam against Djokovic in the final definitely did not help his cause. He is now getting into the rarefied heights where only more Grand Slam titles will conclusively prove anything. So till then, he remains one step below the Big 3 of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal in terms of big-match achievements.

Does Radwanska belong?

Along with Serena, Radwanska was the woman among the Top 4 who didn’t make it to the semi-finals. But while Serena’s loss to Stephens was easily the upset of the tournament, Radwanska’s loss to Li Na did not even register as a shock among many people. And therein lies her problem. When it comes to challengers, she puts them away with elan, but when it comes to peers and opponents higher up in the pecking order, it has always been a toss-up with her at best. Until she changes that perception with a string of consistent performances against top-ranked players at the Majors, Radwanska, unfortunately, does not belong.

Is the Chennai Open a valid momentum-builder?

This one was always going to be about Tipsarevic, wasn’t it? For all the great Chennai efforts of players like Agut and Paire, it was always going to be someone with established big match credentials against whom this hypothesis could be tested. And it did seem to hold good for a while. Tipsarevic got off to a great start in the first round in a very tricky match-up against Lleyton Hewitt, and then followed that up with two back-to-back 5-set victories. I like to think that this confidence of closing out long-drawn matches comes with the experience of winning recent tournaments. But that same experience of a string of long matches also results in injuries, and it was a sad sight to see him hobble off the court against Almagro in the fourth round. On the whole, I prefer to leave this question still open.

Can Stosur play in Oz?

No she cannot, seems to be the simple answer. In her own words, she choked her second round match away, but I think most people did not expect her to go beyond that stage to begin with. Future prospects at the Australian Open look grim to this sentimental favourite of mine. Each early exit from the Open reinforces the mental block she has, in everyone’s mind, most of all, hers. Maybe she needs to do something drastic to shake things up. Like change her nationality, perhaps.

Will the Big 3 give us more drama?

First, they took their designated spots in the semi-finals without too much fuss, which showed that the concept of the Big 3 remained as relevant as ever. Djokovic had already conjured up his customary Houdini act to get to that stage, and that only seemed to make him stronger for the crunch matches. The first match-up among them, the second semi-final between Federer and Murray, was enthralling without being a classic. The fourth set tie-breaker was vintage Federer, but for the rest of the match, Murray looked tougher, fresher, and younger. The final again, had its moments in the first two sets, before Murray’s wheels came off and Djokovic pulled away. So, no, the Big 3 did not give us the kind of consistent high-octane drama that we’ve unjustly come to expect from their matches, but they still produced tennis of the highest quality to keep the Big 3 storyline very much a subject to be followed this year. We just need Nadal to get back into the fray now and script the next fascinating chapter.

Backhanded Compliments

New post up at Sportskeeda.

http://www.sportskeeda.com/2013/01/28/tennis-backhanded-compliments/

 

 

Breath of Fresh Air

It finally happened, again. A teenager broke through the ranks of the WTA after what seemed like an eternal wait. Irrespective of what happens in the final stages over the weekend, Sloane Stephens’ remarkable run to the semifinals has to be the story of the Australian Open.

We were getting to the point where the top rung of the women’s circuit was closely mirroring the men’s. Serena, Azarenka and Sharapova had established a hegemony at the top, and the business end of the majors were being continually fought among them along with some usual suspects like Radwanska, Li, Kvitova et al. Where were the brash adolescents who used to pop out of nowhere and set the world on fire? Where were the Hingis, Sharapovas and Capriatis of this age? Well, we might have got our answer in Stephens.

She didn’t go all the way. And she’s definitely not in the same league yet as the top players right now. But she was a welcome change to the established order of things. I thought she moved very well, with powerful groundstrokes and a cool temperament. She needs to develop a couple of big weapons though, to regularly challenge the focused big-hitting in today’s game. I saw her for the first time in the fourth round match against Laura Robson (I must admit I was watching it for Robson, who was my personal choice for breakthrough artist of the season). The greater consistency in Stephens’ game prevailed. Then came Serena Williams in the quarterfinal, and the match that moved Stephens from ‘promising youngster’ to ‘big league player’. Granted she might not have been able to beat Serena but for her injury, but at 19 years of age, she accomplished the tough task of taking her chances when they presented themselves. And then, she seemed to be on the verge of repeating the Houdini act against Azarenka, but a dubious time-out put paid to her hopes and her dream run.

What gave the Stephens-Serena encounter greater emphasis was the context. Stephens is an African-American teenager, with the Williams possibly as role models, and it is very easy to think of this encounter as a passing of the baton. Only, it wasn’t. Stephens still has some way to go on improving her game. And she might respect and admire Serena, but doesn’t idolize her. Stephens is her own woman.

And that brings us to what the real appeal about Stephens is. She actually comes across as a normal teenager in the mad world of professional tennis. Her interviews are candid and frank, freely interspersed with references to her crazy mom, her money woes, and regular teenage drama. This is a far cry from the typical young female tennis player of today, who is highly intense and shows it painfully on court, plays with a mask and fields questions in the press conference with equal reserve. Stephens, on the other hand, appears quite laid-back on court, which might come around to hurt her later, and displays personality off it. She speaks freely like a kid, but manages to say the right things all around. That indicates an amiable and intelligent personality. I’ll take that any day.

Oz ’13 – Questions to Answer

The season is catching momentum now, and the first major of the year is already on us. As always, the tournament comes with its set of plots and sub-plots. Who is going to get on a hot streak now? Who is on an irreversible career slide? Who is going to be the first to suffer from sunstroke? Each of the players in the main draw bring their own unique storylines to the fortnight, but, surely we can’t be interested in all of them? So, here are my areas of focus, and the 5 questions I hope to get answers for, over the next fortnight.

Can Murray go higher?

Well, the monkey is definitely off his back. But, what’s next? Will this new tag of Grand Slam champion inspire him to a slew of major titles, starting here? If yes, that would uncannily mirror his coach, Ivan ‘the terrible’ Lendl’s career. Or will it induce him to plateau his performances and finish with a legacy of ‘occasional’ rather than ‘serial champion’. Given the standards set by his peers at the rarefied heights of men’s top tennis today, and given the unbridled ambition and talent he’s shown to stick with them so far, my guess is that we’ll be seeing him hold up the champion’s trophy aloft quite often in the future. But that future begins here in Australia, and nothing short of the title will show that he is still on his way up. Tough ask, but oh, the possibilities.

Does Radwanska belong?

With the women’s game achieving some kind of stability at the top, with Serena, Sharapova and Azarenka forming a triumvirate to rival the men, it’s Radwanska who is facing the challenge of making it a Big 4. Quite like Murray some time back on the men’s tour, though he has now moved on quite a bit. Radwanska is a consummate professional, with a game based on efficiency rather than power, she enters a lot of tournaments and wins quite a few of them. She is fresh off two WTA titles leading into the Australian Open, and is unbeaten so far this year. But all that doesn’t quite inspire confidence in us when it comes to her chances at the Grand Slam. She’s never come close to winning a major, and tends to get blown off court by one of the bigger hitters around. Perhaps, her current red-hot form will give her the required momentum to take her game to the next level this time around. You think she would need to get to at least the semi finals, and play convincingly there, to answer the question in the affirmative.

Is the Chennai Open a valid momentum-builder?

It’s always an interesting question this time of the year. Former winners of the season-beginning Chennai Open have ridden a wave of momentum well into the year – Cilic and Wawrinka come to mind. From the narrow perspective of a Chennai native who would like to see some special significance being attached to his home tournament, which is otherwise only a lowly ATP 250 stop, I still wait for the Australian Open where the Chennai Open winner or runner-up goes much deeper than expected into the draw. A couple of runs like that could quite possibly change the profile of the Chennai Open dramatically. So, go Tipsarevic, go Agut! May the momentum be with you.

Can Stosur play in Oz?

The sight of Stosur playing, and losing, in her home country time and again, can get quite ugly. The former US Open champion has never made it past the fourth round at Melbourne, and few people seem to expect her to. Is it the weight of home expectations? A weakness in the mental makeup? True to form, she has begun the year with some disheartening losses so far in the Australian swing, and even the home press has written her off before the tournament has begun. But to me, she is still Slammin’ Stosur, she is still the quiet, calm champion with a killer kick serve. I hope against hope that she can play, and play well, in Australia.

Will the Big 3 give us more drama?

We live in fortunate times, with the likes of Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray blessing us with so many of their unforgettable duels in high-stakes games. We have been so spoilt that we expect every Grand Slam tournament these days to feature at least one high voltage match among these central characters, a match which will leave a lasting impression for its top-notch quality, raw emotions, gut-wrenching rallies, all provided within a strong context of shifting power bases among these tennis giants. So, will we get more of that again, even if Rafa, one of the chief culprits for these occasions, is missing? You have to like your chances for getting to witness one more match stake its claim to being ‘the best ever’.

With that, let the games begin.

Chennai Open Resolutions

I am back at the Nungambakkam SDAT tennis courts for the 18th edition of the Chennai Open. I think to myself that 18 years is quite a long time. How many have I been to? At least 12 of them?

I sit halfway back in the green-tier, giving me a 45 degree view of the centre court, and I wonder if this was the same spot my friends and I had occupied all those years ago when Nadal beat Moya in that cliff-hanger of a semi-final.

I sit in the front row right behind the chair umpire, and ask myself again if the performance of the ball boys at the tournament is actually below par, or if I am just prejudiced against them, this being the only tournament I’ve ever regularly followed live

I sit in the top-most row of the brown section, providing a bird’s-eye view of proceedings down below. The cool evening breeze swirls around me, and in the focused glare of the stadium lights, the gladiators fighting each other way below seem to be no more than inanimate video game caricatures.

I walk out of centre court and head towards the publicity stands and the outside courts, and I marvel again at the relaxed vibe the tournament always has, at how anyone gets to sit anywhere in centre court, in spite of having tickets with designated seats printed on them.

I sit in the outside courts, up-close-and-personal with the qualifiers battling it out there. With the young rookie climbing up the rankings, the old journeyman at another stop on his never-ending trip, the has-been pro on a terminal downward spiral, the nameless, faceless operators on the perennial fringes of the tour.

I watch Tipsarevic hit the tournament-winning shot, exult in joy, use a cricket bat to hit balls into the crowd, make flamboyant comments on his win, lift the trophy, and I feel a surge of joy from within. Beauty might save the world yet.

I flow with the crowds gently drifting out of the stadium. There is no shrill clamour, no excited debate, just a relaxed buzz. And I feel I have just renewed my friendship with an old friend, I have just passed an annual signpost in my life, as regular as the seasons.

It sinks in that the ATP tour for the year has just begun, with Chennai signalling its dawn. Happy news floods in that the tournament’s contract has been renewed for the next three years, and so I know it will be around next season again, as a faithful sentinel ushering in new beginnings, new hopes, new resolutions.

And I realize then I need to put these thoughts down. I know I need to keep track of these moments. I resolve to write.

Play it Again, Sam

It was a turbulent US Open, more due to extraneous factors rather than the tennis. The threat of hurricanes to begin with, day after entire day washed out because of the rains, and when play did get underway, water seeping through the court and the resulting temper outbursts from the players around. Compared to all that, the tennis went pretty much according to plan. My predictions seem pretty reasonable in the end, though that mind-boggling repeat of last year’s US Open semi-final between Djokovic and Federer was the closest it came to changing the script we all expected. But it was on the women’s side that the script was supposed to be set in stone. And it seemed that way for a long time, with Serena steamrolling through the draw. Until that fine lass from the Gold Coast, Sam Stosur, provided a final, exhillarating twist in the tale, to make it a match I will remember for a long time now.

We’ve always known that Sam Stosur has the game for a GS title. Her kick serve is one of the best in the business, her success in doubles means she has honed some great reflexes, her fitness and stamina are unmatched, and she has an all-round solid game that players would die for. The problem for her has always been the mental aspect. Doubts have always been raised about the lack of steel in her game, about her ability to close off the crucial points, the big games, and quite justifiably so.

What didn’t seem to help was her personality, or the lack of it. She is quiet and reserved, almost to a fault. In that sense, she is an anachronism in the women’s game of today, with all the fist-pumps and tantrums and modelling assignments and troubled parental problems. In the midst of all that, here’s the lady from Down Under who shies away from the cameras, doesn’t have a star entourage, is not known for eloquent speeches, but continues to go about doing her business and winning tennis matches. Just for the lack of star appeal, I have always wanted her to do well. For the fact she did not represent the razzmatazz of the tennis world. Instead, she stood for the old school ethics of hard work and talent. Her success would, therefore, confirm to the world that the qualities needed to be a champion were pure sporting skills, and not ‘personality’. But that didn’t happen often enough. I watched her fall short in big match after big match against players who didn’t necessarily play better, but just wore their passion more obviously on their sleeves. The best illustration for this was the 2010 French Open final against Schiavone. The Italian was making her dream come true, and was making sure the crowd realised it, in a very Italian way, and they responded. I must admit that I did too, and when Schiavone clambered into her box at the end of the match for a round of impromptu celebrations, I could feel the display of unbridled joy in the camp at that moment. In the other quiet corner, Stosur was silently packing her bags and not getting any face time at all. A match, like so many others, that would be remembered for her opponent’s victory than for Stosur’s loss. It was moments like that which made me ponder and come to the disheartening conclusion that personality was, in fact, an essential ingredient in a tennis champion’s mix today. Maybe, you really needed to blatantly show aggression and passion to convince yourself, your opponent, and the crowd that you had the skills needed to win a tennis GS. And with that sad thought, I had written off Sam Stosur as a Grand Slam champion.

Cut to the 2011 US Open final, and she was facing an opponent who was the epitome of all that she wasn’t. Serena Williams doesn’t lack for too many things on a tennis court, and personality is definitely not one of them. She was also on a comeback trail with a point to prove, had had a ridiculously easy series of wins so far (a rout of the World No.1 being the latest), and was in front of a New York home crowd. It was pretty obvious who the favourite for the title was. But the course of events proved otherwise. I wasn’t surprised to see Sam Stosur take an early lead, and my eyebrows only mildly arose when she won the first set. Because I, like everyone else, was waiting for the Serena Moment to happen. She hadn’t been playing well in the match so far, but we knew from so many times in the past, that this is when Serena is at her most dangerous. When she digs into her passion, her personality (there’s the term again), and comes up with a victory after seemingly running on empty.

And the moment did come early in the second set. The chair umpire got Serena riled up for a legitimate call, she proceeded to work herself up with some typically Serena statements, and sent down a couple of bullet serves and glares that indicated she now meant business. But as I waited to watch the tide turn, incredibly, it didn’t! Sam Stosur held her nerve, and returned blow for heavy blow. Breaks were exchanged, and the longer she held on, the more diluted Serena’s attempt at a momentum rush became. And soon, you could make out that the worst was past and Stosur was in command again. For me, the best part about that period of play was that Stosur rode the Serena wave by being herself. There were no out-of-character attempts to pump herself up, no berating her box for an unforced error. She remained Cool Hand Luke right through, and let her racket do the talking, all the way to her first Grand Slam title.

In the process, she gave me my tennis story for the year, after Djokovic’s incredible run, of course. You dont really need to be a crowd-puller to win Grand Slams, you just need to handle a tennis racket well. I don’t know if she will play it again, but I definitely will be watching and hoping that Sam does.

US Open: Breaking it Down

The last Grand Slam of the year is upon us, at pretty much the same time as Hurricane Irene. The rain is lashing NYC now as I write, but it might have timed its entry a day too early to spoil the fun at Flushing Meadows. Hopefully, the only storms we get to see over the next few days are the ones brewed by the players on court. Here’s a quick breakdown of the draws and my shot at everybody’s favourite game – guess the winner.

The Men:

There is talk of an unsettled look about the men’s side this year, about the possibility of familiar faces not reaching familiar places. Federer and Nadal are not in good form, Djokovic finally seems fatigued, and Murray has always flattered to deceive. Ideal opportunity for some fresh opportunists to break through? Ha! Fat chance, I say!

First Quarter: The Djoker has a relatively smooth run early on, which should give him more time to get into rhythm after that retirement in Cincy. Dolgopolov might appear in the 4th round, and Monfils/Berdych in the quarters, but by then the Man of the Year should have hit top gear to see him through. Novak Djokovic.

Second Quarter: Fedex has had a couple of disheartening losses recently, and there is only so far that the confidence of one great match in Roland Garros can take you in a year. I see his remarkable streak of 29 straight GS quarter-final appearances coming to an end, at the hands of Tomic in the 3rd round, maybe? At the other end of the quarter, Fish is busy asserting himself as the best male American tennis player around, and he’ll get all the home support he needs for a late-career breakthrough run. Mardy Fish.

Third Quarter: DelPo is still slowly lumbering around trying to get some momentum into his comeback from injury, Soderling seems to be quietly winding down his aspirations for GS title contender, and Feliciano Lopez remains everybody’s favourite blue-eyed boy but never a favourite for the quarter. Which leaves only the grouchy Scot to make the best use of the momentum gained from winning the last Masters 1000 event. Andy Murray.

Fourth Quarter: The defending champion is back at, arguably, his weakest GS event. But he will be encouraged by a relatively comfortable draw. Ljubicic in the 3rd, Melzer in the 4th, and Ferrer in the QF are encounters he should win, even if a couple of them go the way of his typical scrapping fights. Rafael Nadal.

And then: Fish is stopped by Djokovic, who is on a juggernaut by then. Murray beats Nadal, who is disturbed by a few end-of-season niggles by then. In the final, Djokovic beats Murray, to reaffirm one of the best seasons ever had by any player on the ATP, and Murray is left to ponder on what might have been, again.

 

The Women:

Predicting the women’s draw has always been a roll of the dice, but could this event be slightly different? The re-emergence of a couple of veterans might contribute to that, one from injury, and the other from poor form. In the end, the tournament could turn out to be a seniors vs juniors affair.

First Quarter: Li Na has had a fantastic year, but has tailed off in the US hardcourt season. Notwithstanding the fact she had a similar slump before the French Open, this one might be irreversible for the year. Wozniacki has felt the pressure of justifying her No. 1 ranking all year long, and you feel something’s going to give soon. Either a confirmation of her ranking, or a slippery slide downwards. I like to think this US open will contribute to the former. After all, she’s had a few good runs at Flushing Meadows before, and the sporting success of her new beau Rory McIllroy is bound to rub off on her. Caroline Wozniacki.

Second Quarter: Azarenka has had a solid GS year and has lived up to her ranking right through, but the Gods have conspired against her by putting Serena Williams in her path as early as the 3rd round. Serena is hungry, with a point to prove, playing at home, and fresh off a WTA victory. That spells bad news for the others in the quarter too, be it Jankovic or Schiavone. Serena Williams.

Third Quarter: Sharapova should breeze through this one. The likes of Penetta, Peng and Pironkova shouldn’t trouble her. Kvitova possibly awaits her in the QF for a rematch of the Wimbledon championship, but a repeat of the result is unlikely here, with Kvitova slightly off the boil, and Sharapova red-hot at the moment. Maria Sharapova.

Fourth Quarter: Anything can happen here, with the likes of Zvonareva, Lisicki, Cibulkova, Bartoli and Petrova lurking around. Given the volatility of the characters, I am going for the quietly solid Stosur, who has been showing signs of life recently, to make a move here. This is, of course, assuming that Venus Williams in her unfamiliar unseeded position is upset by Lisicki in the 2nd round. Samantha Stosur.

And then: Serena cruises past Wozniacki, providing more fodder to the No.1 debate. Sharapova outclasses Stosur in an exhibition of passion overcoming steadiness. In the final, Serena will be desperate to cap her comeback with a GS title. But Sharapova will be as desperate to avoid a Wimbledon repeat. In the end, Sharapova might have that additional bit of desperation to win in 3 desperately close sets. It should be a humdinger.

Fall from Grace

An extended Test series of 4 – 5 matches, that rare event in today’s crowded international calendar, serves as a great illustration of a cricketer’s or cricket team’s ebbs and flows in fortune. There is sufficient time for a storyline to develop, several, in fact. One batsman emerges as a bulwark for his team, another finds he can’t score a run to save his life, a bowler discovers a new bunny, strengths and weaknesses are compared, patterns emerge. Sometimes, when the pattern becomes obvious pretty early on, the rest of the series just grinds on remorselessly to the obvious conclusion, demonstrating how cruel the Test arena can be with no place to hide. As it was with the India-England Test series.

This was a highly awaited series between two evenly matched sides at the top of the rankings, but it ended up as one of the most lop-sided in recent times. To be honest, they were never evenly matched, but no one knew that to begin with, and hence the initial matches had more than a semblance of a contest, with both teams playing in ignorance of the other’s relative strengths and weaknesses. But once they realised the gulf between the two teams, the Indian team fell away disastrously, and there was just no coming back. And the increasingly divergent paths taken by the two teams through the series was watched with a sense of incredulity, irrespective of who you were supporting.

1st Test, Lords: Teams ranked 1 and 2 are fighting it out, with 2 playing host. There’s excitement in the air, the series is too close to call, and the teams oblige by playing some hard-fought cricket. The partnership between Broad and Prior in the England second innings turns out to be pivotal, proving to be the difference between a target of 460 and a target of 340. Even the latter might have been too much for India, but that rubbing-your-nose-in partnership provides some much needed momentum for England.

2nd Test, Nottingham: England have been the better side in the first side, but the series is still balanced. India has a recent history of always playing catch-up and playing it well, say the experts. So the world waits and watches. And we watch open-mouthed as India actually seems to turn it on, taking a first innings lead with 6 wickets in hand. This is really champaigne stuff, we begin telling ourselves. Till Broad runs in to take a devastating hat-trick, and keep the Indian lead down to 67. For me, the hat-trick was the key event in the entire series, given the match circumstances and the stage of the series it came in. And a hat-trick, almost by definition, seems to be always associated with a winning side, providing that enormous boost in team morale and confidence. How many hat-tricks have been taken in a losing cause, I wonder? The England batsmen immediately follow it up with the first of what would be a recurring feature in the series – a 500 plus score, and a pattern begins to emerge.

3rd Test, Edgbaston: Saurav Ganguly’s confidence in the Indian team coming back to square the series 2-2 begins to sound like one of his erstwhile team pep talks, rather than the balanced view of a cricket analyst. But the determined Indian fan continues to watch with hope in his heart, only to see his worst nightmare come true. The batsmen are worked over, the bowlers look club-level, the fielders look insipid, the freshly arrived Sehwag gathers a king pair, and India crashes to a defeat by an innings and a whopping margin. It’s hard and brutal Test cricket, with only one team in the match right through. We realise the concept of ‘key moments’ no longer apply to this series, because one way traffic has commenced. An interesting aspect is the lack of runs from Dravid in this match, the only match with meagre returns for him, in a series which he otherwise dominated. And this might be the truest, and saddest, picture painted of Dravid’s immense contribution to the series. For all his batting heroics and commendable pride shown right through, his exploits only served to lessen the margin of defeats for India, nothing else. And that is just a statement on the nature of the game, and not on the individual brilliance he exhibited all through the series, except Edgbaston.

4th Test, The Oval: Do we really need to extend this farce, seems to be the predominant thought. At least, the Indians seem to think so, jaded in their mind, and exposed by the cruelty of Test cricket. They plod on, Dravid continues to dig in, Bell makes perhaps the easiest double hundred ever, and even rain intervening for a major portion of one day cannot stop England from completing another innings defeat. Tendulkar comes within 9 runs of completing ‘that’ landmark, which thankfully will now not be remembered as having been achieved in one of the worst Test series for India ever. Small mercy! Team 1 slips to 3, while looking far worse. Team 2 moves up to 1. England are surprised at the margin, but delighted. India are just tired, and relieved it’s all over.

Things can change dramatically in a Test series which spans across months. Drastic momentum shifts happen, perspectives change, reputations are made and lost, rankings are squandered and attained. During the second Test, commentator Ravi Shastri made an ill-advised remark on how England were jealous of India’s No.1 ranking, which led to a minor furore of its own. A couple of years down the line, it’ll be hard to imagine this kind of comment was made in the middle of a humiliating 0-4 whitewash of India. It’s been that kind of series.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

So, what did we witness last week?

A new champion staking his claim to the GOAT (greatest of all time) title? The end of a memorable duopoly at the top of the men’s game? The beginning of another winning streak that’s going to run forever? Just another exhibition of the cyclical ebb and flow of the professional game? As I struggle to put it all in perspective, it might be useful to step back and look at the big picture. This does sometimes help when we ponder over heavy questions, like leadership transfers and legacy shifts.

The tennis season has some clear milestones in the course of its busy season which helps us in this kind of exercise. The conclusion of the Australian Open is the first, where we get a fair indication of who’s been the quickest off the block. Right in the heart of the clay court season, around Rome and Madrid, is when we get our second milestone, where everyone analyses how well the usual suspects have done on the red surface, how the unfavoured have upped their game, and so on. The third is at the end of Wimbledon, a clear middle-of-the-year marker, with a long period of inactivity and a longer journey across the Atlantic to follow. The fourth is at the end of the US open, when every player’s report card gets graded for the year, and we all head off to celebrate our findings in London.

This year, the fight among the top three spots has been intense, with individual storylines playing out right through the year. So, where do they all stand at the end of Wimbledon?

Roger Federer began the year looking over his shoulder at Novak Djokovic, who quickly caught up and dispatched with him in the semi-finals of the Australian Open. Federer’s response to a query on the long-term implications of that loss was to brusquely ask the world to check again six months down the line. Well, six months later, Federer is dethroned, but hanging on. The curious part of his season though, has been that his high point came not on his favourite green surface at Wimbledon, but at Roland Garros when he masterminded the usurper Djokovic’s sole defeat this year. This has actually worked in his favour, proving his resilience on his least favoured surface, while he continues to threaten on surfaces more conducive to him. Roger Federer continues to be there and thereabouts.

Rafael Nadal has had an even more interesting year so far. His impeccable record last season was always going to make it tough for him this time around, but the fact that he kept losing to this one man over and over again (the Djoker once more), while remaining tough as nails with the rest of the pack, made for fascinating viewing. That he might have successsfully defended all those points from last year if not for that one man adds to the sense of frustration or poignancy, depending on where your affiliations lie. Rafael Nadal continues to lord over the tennis world, with the notable exception of one individual.

Which brings us to the new king, Novak Djokovic. It’s been fun watching him this year. We kept waiting patiently for the match which would end his incredible streak, but it just wouldn’t come. Until, in the biggest stage of all, he fell to Fedex at Roland Garros. But if we thought we were now back to the Rafa-Rog hegemony, we were proved wrong, as Djokovic pressed on again to win an improbable first Wimbledon title. Improbable, only because of the incredibly high standard of tennis he has been able to sustain for so long now, and because of all the tennis institutions he was breaking in the process. For me, the greatest aspect of his ascent to the No. 1 ranking has been that it was achieved against two all-time champions of the sport who had held supreme for the last five years, and who were not showing any perceptible signs of decline yet. This is the greatest argument yet that we might be seeing another all-time champion in the making here. Another one? Three GOAT contenders playing at the same time? What are the chances of that happening? How lucky could we get? But while we wait for Djokovic to provide the answers, he remains, undisputedly, the best tennis player in the world today.

Based on the current state of play, here are three possible scenarios going forward, in descending order of likelihood.

Scenario 1, Nadal and Djokovic are engaged in a titanic struggle for top spot for the foreseeable future. Nadal finds a way past Djokovic’s seeming lack of weaknesses, and Djokovic deflates slightly to descend from his stratospheric heights, and they engage in duels worthy of Nadal-Federer of yore. And that is saying something. Pity Djodal doesn’t have the same ring to it as Fedal does.

Scenario 2, Djokovic continues to thump Nadal till it starts reflecting in Nadal’s game when he plays other mere mortals, and Djokovic asserts his own space at the top of the mountain, and stakes an even stronger claim to the title of GOAT. The key to this will be Djokovic continuing to play lights-out the way he has so far. And inspite of all the lessons I’ve learned this year, I still find it hard to imagine him sustaining such a high level of play consistently going forward.

Scenario 3, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal engage in a three-way tussle for top spot. This would be my ideal scenario, but the least likely to materialise, primarily due to what I see as Federer’s growing inability to keep up with the best over entire seasons. But the romantics among us are already talking excitedly about a Mexican shootout situation, where Nadal has Federer’s number (a known fact), Djokovic has Nadal’s number (leads 5-0 this year) and Federer has Djokovic’s number (a semi-final win at Roland Garros?). As is obvious from the supporting arguments, it is the Federer vs Djokovic case that needs a dose of credibility right now.

Of course, there is always the chance of a Scenario 4, where an upstart (think Murray or Del Potro) decides to gate crash the party. But as a generation of tennis fans, we have been spoilt. We have watched a small group of incredibly talented tennis players take over the top of the sport and create a rigid hierarchy with almost no scope for others to intrude; where the major stories lie in shifts from No1 to No2 and the titanic struggles that come with it. We realise that we are watching not just good players, but great champions in action. The kind who usually come once in a lifetime, but we have been fortunate enough to see all together, pitted against each other. And each time one of them wins a major title, we know it is a definitive step towards either establishing or reaffirming his immortality in the pantheon of tennis legends. And that, more than anything else, is what we witnessed last week with Novak Djokovic, the latest entrant into this elite league of extraordinary gentlemen.