Andy Murray and Victoria Azarenka in action during the Australian Open singles finals in Melbourne. He lost but looked good; she won but lost some friends.
The first Grand Slam of the season is finished, and we're left with the same two champions�Novak Djokovic and Victoria Azarenka�at the 2013 Australian Open. The conversation, though, is a lot different this time. Here's what we learned from Melbourne this year.
Anything can happen among the men's Big Four (Djokovic, Roger Federer, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal).
In Melbourne, Djokovic confirmed his No. 1 ranking by winning his third consecutive Australian Open title with a win over Murray, 6-7(2), 7-6(3), 6-3, 6-2. He's the toughest out in tennis�in his last five majors, he has won two, lost two finals and lost in the semifinals�and it takes an incredible blend of firepower and consistency to beat him. Even then, as Stanislas Wawrinka learned this tournament, it might not be enough.
But if this tournament confirmed what we already knew about Djokovic's stamina and relentless play, it also showed that he can be beaten under the right circumstances. The other three members of the Big Four know this. This great era has progressed to the point where each member of the Big Four expects to have a chance to win against any of the other members. Though Djokovic has to be considered the favorite to win any tournament he enters, no matter the surface, he's not a clear favorite like Federer was in 2005 or 2006. Assuming that Nadal returns to full strength in time for the French Open, things could change quickly�and then change again�with these four stars this season.
Murray is ready, and plenty capable, of winning several more Grand Slam titles.
He didn't cry or mope, or even look that disappointed after missing a chance to win his second major title in Melbourne. He acted like a man who knows he can win more of them�and expects to do it. He beat Federer at a Slam for the first time and did it with smart tactics, nervy play and most revealing of all, attitude. When Federer had some words for Murray, Murray sneered. He later attempted to peg Federer with the ball, a shot his coach, Ivan Lendl, would be proud of.
In the span of a year, Murray has gone from a distant fourth on the tennis depth chart to a close second, and he intends to stay there�and even do better. "I think I'm going in the right direction," he said. "I felt much more comfortable on the court [Sunday] than even I did at the U.S. Open, so that has to be a positive." It is.
Don't fret over Federer.
Federer fans are forever worrying whether their man is slowing down, if only because it is going to happen sometime. Here's the truth: Don't go gray over his result in Melbourne. He's 31 and played back-to-back five-set matches at a Grand Slam for the first time in his career, both against younger, stronger men, and he could have won them both. Barring injury, Federer should have a long twilight. He's light on his feet, powerful, versatile and an exceptionally good server. Of the four Grand Slam surfaces, the hard courts in Melbourne are the second-worst for his attacking style. He's going to need a few breaks�an upset or a tiring near-upset, an injury, funky weather�to win major titles, but those things happen in tennis, and happen a lot. Maxim for Federer fans: Anything Andre Agassi can do, Federer can do better. Agassi won his final Slam a few months before his 33rd birthday and took a set off a young Federer in the 2005 U.S. Open final when he was 35. There's still plenty of time.
Finally, a No. 1 woman.
Melbourne didn't do wonders for Azarenka's image, thanks to a medical timeout in the semifinals that seemed to be more about nerves than a physical injury. But no rules were broken and Azarenka, despite an entire stadium pulling for her opponent, stopped Li Na in the final to win her second major title. A young No. 1 with two majors and the desire for many more? It doesn't matter if she's unpopular, the fact that she exists is a major upgrade for the women's game. For the first time in years, the rest of the women's field is chasing someone who won't implode and plummet in the rankings (like so many recent No. 1s) and will be playing the game for years to come. That will motivate everyone to play better, even Serena Williams.
Sharapova's up-and-down future.
For five rounds in Melbourne, Maria Sharapova bludgeoned her opponents (she lost nine games total and won her first two matches without dropping a single game). When she came up against a player who could move as well as strike the ball, she lost in straight sets. Sharapova still hits as big, or bigger, than any woman on the tour, and she's among the best�if not the very best�in terms of concentration and competitive desire.
But big hitting isn't good enough in women's tennis anymore�a player has to know how to scramble, too. Sharapova's brand of tennis is devastating against 98% of the women's field, so she should continue to reach the last few rounds of majors. To win them, though, she'll have to play out of her mind, or hope for a favorable draw in the later rounds.
Are five-set matches doomed?
Another major, another two weeks of injuries. With each passing Slam, the talk about ending the days of best-of-five-set matches gets louder, and it is understandable. Matches are getting longer and longer. Injured players don't play great finals: Djokovic and Murray were both wobbly on Sunday and the match had a few lulls. At this point, I'm still in favor of sticking with tradition. No matter what, I'd hate to see best-of-five sets banished for good. If any change is made, let's keep the final best-of-five, and maybe the semifinals too.
No comments:
Post a Comment