Wow, the tennis world is still reeling over the Aussie Open men’s semis, where not one but BOTH the top two seeds were dismissed, and convincingly so. I can’t quite recall where I saw it, but one commentator remarked “Tsonga + Novak: 6, Fed + Rafa: 0.”
As a brief digression before getting into the match, let’s consider Nadal’s loss to Tsonga. Was it really that surprising? First, Tsonga is no flash in the pan. He’d beaten Hewitt twice in the last 9 months, and in the last 6 weeks alone he had beaten Hewitt, Youzhny, Gasquet, and Murray leading up to the semifinal. He’d pushed Roddick the previous year in Melbourne, and so he was clearly very comfortable in Melbourne.
But the more important consideration was the installation of the Plexicushion surface this year. The players had been mentioning that the court seemed slower than Rebound Ace, which would make it even closer to the speed of clay, but for some reason, service numbers had also increased: players have been hitting more aces this year than in any previous year. Roddick set a career-high with 43 aces before bowing out to Kohlscreiber, who himself had more aces in that match than he had the previous year-to-date (no slight exaggeration), and Federer had 30-something in his match against Tipsarevic–Federer rarely breaks double-digits, so this was a relevant development. Also, the ball doesn’t bounce as high or catch as much on Plexicushion as it did on Rebound Ace, so the effect of slice serves and well-timed volleys are accentuated. These factors seemed to point to favoring players who were competent at the baseline but were more serve-oriented and could also take away the net against opponents. Simply put, a guy with a big serve, serviceable groundies and a penchant for cutting off the court up front had a strong chance to just blow through the draw. I had Tsonga upsetting both Gasquet and Youzhny before the tournament started, and I felt he would give Nadal a run for his money by emulating the blueprint Fernando Gonzalez laid out so elegantly the year before, but in no way did I think that Tsonga would totally overmatch Nadal the way he did. It was a comprehensive beatdown he put on Nadal, no two ways about it.
As for Djokovic’s stunner, let’s back up the train for a bit. Before we get wrapped up in hysterics here, let’s think critically for a moment. Djokovic served at 68% 1st serves for the match, which is in itself an exceedingly good stat, but when facing break points he upped that percentage to 86% (6 of 7). And these weren’t I-don’t-want-Fed-to-get-a-look-so-I’ll-take-something-off first serves, these were 125+ bombs out wide. On EVERY break point. Something tells me that Djokovic happened to serve exceedingly well that particular day. Also, Federer noted that after losing his grip on the first set (looking to break at 3-5, 0-30 and later serving for the set) Djokovic really opened up his game, and that alone had a lot to do with the complexion of the match.
None of this is to take away from what Djokovic actually accomplished. He steamrolled Federer like no other player had done before in a LONG, LONG time. He played the big points far better than Federer, he defended his backhand corner with almost religious zeal (an absolute must if you’re going to take out the Fed), he served incredibly well, and he seized the opportunities given to him by Federer and created by his own sterling play. What heartens Djokovic the most is the reaffirmation that, on most occasions, Djokovic’s regular level is more than enough to compete and beat Federer, and that gives him the internal stillness required to have the sort of clarity of thought needed to execute his gameplan. Notice, for example, how early Djokovic was taking Federer’s second serves. To beat Fed, and this has been proven over and over, you have to be able to change directions with the ball, exploit Fed’s tendency to camp ad-side, and at all costs, keep him on his heels.
That said, as amazing as Djokovic was, in the end it’s really not about him. It’s about Fed, and what he can do in the face of this end-to-end beating he took. Before the semifinal began I gave the slight edge to Federer because, even though Djokovic had shown the far superior form leading into the match, I thought that Federer’s edge on serve and his ability to slice, penetrate the court and close out points at the net would be exploitable against Djokovic, who had yet to face anyone who could change the texture of the rallies like Federer could. But for some reason, Federer chose mostly to play to Djokovic’s strengths, and Djokovic was better from the ground on the day, and Federer failed to (or simply refused to) make the necessary adjustments–the reasons for which one cannot know.
It’s a bit simplistic to say, as usually people like to do in these types of situations, that if you are getting beaten off the ground then you should just come in. First, it depends on how good you are at the net, and of course it depends on how good your opponent is at the passing game, and Djokovic is among the handful of the world’s elite at the pass due to his mobility, court coverage, rock-solid groundstrokes, and native intelligence. Djokovic is the most dangerous type of player–a guy with gifted hands and solid shots, legs to express the talent, and the head and temperament to direct everything. So you cannot just change the game plan on the fly against someone of his caliber and expect that he will not make adjustments. It is a bit unfair that Federer should get criticism simply for this reason.
That said, here are some other considerations. Federer had to do something to change the tempo and tenor of the match, because Djokovic, like all good players, is a brilliant rhythm-based player, and after he pulled out the first set, he was surely going to look to take more chances. Federer’s clear advantages at the net and on slice were simply being unused; why not kill two birds with one stone? Disrupt Djokovic’s rhythm, save some of your own energy, and make him come up with something else. The second set was the time to do it. By the time he started mixing it in during the third set, it was enough, but already too late. On all three occasions where he looked to actively come in early, he won the points convincingly. So part of me believes that Federer was confident enough in his ground game that he didn’t have to immediately solve for whatever question Djokovic was posing, and it just happened to be on the day that Federer’s response was wrong. Djokovic was simply the better player that day.
Postscript: Tonight’s final is going to be sweet. Djokovic defends the backhand as well as anyone, and Tsonga won’t be getting sitting ducks to whale on like he was getting from Nadal. Plus, Djokovic’s serve is what’s setting him apart from the other rock-solid baseliners this tournament. Tsonga’s got the firepower, but he doesn’t have the consistency, and Djokovic is going to make him play a little faster than his comfort zone dictates. If Tsonga can blast himself out of trouble then he’s got a shot, but Djokovic’s break rate this tournament has been phenomenal, and I don’t see that changing with this match. Prediction: DJOKOVIC, in 3.
