Getty
More exhibition than Grand Slam final. Andy Murray competed for about half of the first set, but once Novak Djokovic took it on a break of serve, the match was all but over. Even with a minor lapse in the second set when Djokovic slapped a forehand long on a set point to deliver a bagel followed by a loose game to drop serve, he was never in any trouble. 6-4, 6-2, 6-3.
It's been a long time since a women's final eclipsed a men's final for overall quality, drama, and competitiveness, but here we are. Both finals featured the same number of games, but Li Na, despite losing her focus, still played with some passion and fight.
Murray, on the other hand, becomes the first player in the Open Era to lose nine consecutive sets in Slam finals. I'm not going to say it again, but you can no longer consider me a fool for believing it. (For the record, Dinara Safina has also contested three Slam finals without winning a set...) Some of the pundits are now beginning to wonder if we should be talking about the Big Three instead of the Big Four.
Humph.
Djokovic has taken his game to a new level. Focused, precise, efficient. And what incredible defense to offense. There were a few points where I felt like I was watching Serena Williams in full flight. He admitted that winning Davis Cup was a strong wind in his back, and he delivered in spades.
Am I becoming a fan? Maybe. Maybe not. Not sure I can get over a lot of his history, but what I do admire is that he didn't let the premature expectations of being the "Future of Tennis" derail him. (He also proved me wrong. He stopped tanking and talking shit, showing far more respect for the sport.) He slumped. He recovered. He regrouped. He improved. That takes an inner toughness not always seen in the upper echelons of tennis.
And he can play on clay. While no one touts him as the next man capable of winning four Slams in a row, not yet anyhow, wouldn't it be interesting if he found a way to win Roland Garros this spring?
Getty
0 comments:
Post a Comment