Rite of Passage: The Poling

The second week of the grass court season almost never sustains the excitement and intrigue of the first, especially when the first ends in a blood-haze of punctured shins. For all that I believe the grass season should be longer, I think, given the reality, most people just want Wimbledon to start by now. Some of the players seem to feel that way, including Richard Gasquet. Today’s highlight was the news that Brian Baker has qualified for the main draw, thereby justifying or ridiculing Wimbledon’s denial of a wildcard, depending on your point of view. Today’s lowlight was the hopeless match between Fabio Fognini and Bernard Tomic at Eastbourne, which didn’t have to end the way it did, and for a long time didn’t feel like it was going to end at all.

But in lieu of talking about that, I’m going to travel back twenty-three years to a suburban tennis centre in Canberra, Australia, and to a defining rite of passage from my youth. For those who’ve never been there, Canberra is a modestly-proportioned city that happens to be the capital of Australia. Visitors to the city sometimes feel it to be charmless. The truth is, it takes years of living there to confirm this beyond doubt.

Rites of passage take on many different forms all around the world. Some are organised, some are chaotic. Some are benign, many aren’t. As regards males, most rites of passage are designed to help a boy become a man. In rare cases, they are designed to help a boy become a eunuch. Poling, common in my youth, is one such case.

The origins of poling are shrouded in blood-haze, although academics agree it isn’t Polish (they haven’t ruled out Germany). It is not a mechanically complicated process. It involves being picked up horizontally by a bunch of guys, having your legs placed on either side of a metal pole, and then driven with great force until either the pole or your crotch give way. Given that the poles are invariably selected for their sturdiness, the deck is stacked against said crotch remaining intact. It goes without saying that in classic poling, the ‘polee’ is a non-consenting party. When this basic condition is not met, poling is merely a fetish. This practice will not be considered here.

With that explanation in place, let’s return to Canberra, where your writer is a thirteen year old boy. It was late in the day, and I was just leaving the tennis court, where I had comported myself with consummate grace, considerable artistry and – if I may say – a certain derring-do in losing 6/2 6/1. The afternoon sun was coming in low, but with a pronounced boldness, a fitting tribute to the glorious Spring day just ending, and a rich promise of the Summer approaching. I bid my friend farewell, complimenting him on his play while secretly knowing that I was laying strong foundations for future dominance. I noticed some girls from school standing nearby. They had just completed an after-school tennis class. I fancied several of them, and felt sure that the feeling was reciprocated in the case of one. The scene was idyllic, and I wasn’t to know that I was about to be humiliated as never before. The hour of my poling had arrived.

It must be said that being physically restrained and launched junk-first at a pole is not really humiliating on its own, even for teenagers (for whom hot-cheeked mortification is the factory setting). It’s not like there’s much you can do about it, although a show of resistance is expected. Indeed, if played correctly the experience might even be parlayed into a badge of honour, a large badge that might then be artfully worn over the wreckage of your scrotum. You are now part of an exclusive club, albeit one whose activities are mainly limited to sitting around nursing and comparing mashed nuts. Sadly, the particulars of my situation were such that even honour proved unsalvageable. I belong to no club. I doubt whether there are even support groups, even in America.

To my knowledge – and I’ll admit I have not confirmed this recently – I remain the only person to have been poled exclusively by girls. A rare accolade, I know. And while you may think this means I got off lightly – a grazing in lieu of a pulping – rest assured that even thirteen year old girls in sufficient numbers can, when operating with fey cohesion, achieve impressive pole-ward velocity. It helped that their ringleader was Sam, a burly and especially androgynous lass who wore her hair short but for a rats-tail of particular magnificence. The year was 1989, and Sam’s hairdo was widely admired, as were the Megadeth and Iron Maiden patches meticulously sewn to her denim jacket.

I was set upon suddenly by those young ladies from school, of which there were perhaps half a dozen, some of whom, as I’ve suggested, were quite comely. Under kinder circumstances, I would have been delighted for any of them to pay any attention to my genitals, and had spent no few hours in the idle contemplation of precisely that, although I’d envisaged caresses more lingering and less lethal. A case of being careful what you wish for, I suppose. Anyway, I was hoisted aloft, hollering ‘Unhand me, you louts!’, or something more appropriate to a teenage boy, something laced with expletives (‘Heck’, probably, perhaps a ‘Darn it!’). I dropped my tennis racquet, a Wilson Pro-Staff whose subtleties I would never master, and the can of balls, which spilt and scattered everywhere, a fairly fitting symbol for the catastrophic interaction between poll and crotch that was about to transpire. Sam manfully did the heavy lifting, whilst directing her team expertly. I was efficiently positioned, and then driven with great force into their chosen pole. Sadly, this still wasn’t the most shaming part of it, even if it was the most public. People were watching by now.

In a perverse way, I’d like to tell you it felt exactly like you’d think it would. But it didn’t. Somehow, despite the pole being two or three inches in diameter, and having been lined-up with the utmost care, it missed. That’s right: I was hit flush in the loins with a large metal pole, and it utterly avoided anything of vital importance – I now have two lovely children – and didn’t hurt much at all. Instinctively I knew that admitting this would be the most egregious faux pas I could commit. One day I might dine out on the tale of being molested by six teenage girls, if recounted with the right degree of self-deprecation. But there’s just no way of selling even the implication of a package so miniscule that it could easily elude a full-frontal assault. That would stick forever.

Thus I doubled over in a fair approximation of indescribable agony. The fact they’d unceremoniously dumped me onto the cement after contact helped. In any case, my performance was convincing enough for dear sadistic Sam. Surveying the scene, she pronounced herself satisfied. I had apparently learned my lesson. She and the others moved away, pleased. No one came to help. I collected my racquet, and my balls.

Indeed I had learned my lesson. I’d learned several lessons, in fact. Firstly, that there are multiple layers to all social transactions, which are therefore like an onion. In my case, like an onion that had been attacked with a mallet, or David Nalbandian’s foot, and somehow survived. Secondly, I’d learned that at no point would I ever have any chance of intimacy with any of those girls. The only exception was the brutish Sam, who I later found out had a crush on me. Crush, I reasoned, was the appropriate term. Nothing ever came of it, though I did later beat her at tennis, 6/2 6/1. Sweet revenge.

13 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour, Placeholders

And At His Age

Queens, Final

(6) Cilic d. (10) Nalbandian, 6/7 4/3 default

When Tommy Haas – who I am contractually bound to point out is 34 years old – upset Roger Federer in the Halle final, you would have been forgiven for believing that this would ultimately constitute the day’s most remarkable result. Perhaps you’re a gambling type, and somehow laid money on it. I’m not here to judge. Through a set and a half of the Queens final the belief remained unchallenged and the bet remained safe. The tennis, which was alternately produced by David Nalbandian and Marin Cilic, was merely adequate, and certainly not up to the lofty standard of last year’s final, which had been one of the matches of the year. Then, at 3/3 in the second set, Nalbandian resumed his ongoing crusade against advertising hoardings, and inadvertently demonstrated that – for excitement and drama – nothing that occurs within the rules of tennis can quite compare with those rules being violently transgressed.

One of those rules, rarely invoked, is that you aren’t allowed to kick officials. This holds true whether you do it unintentionally, as Nalbandian did today, or even whether you really want to, and apply for special dispensation beforehand. You probably know the story by now, and have thus already worked through your disappointment at the Halle final’s demotion to subsidiary fascination. You may have even come to terms with your gambling loss. You might just be traumatised by the visuals. (If so, the ATP is providing a toll-free 24 hour helpline.) Having yielded up an easy break after laboriously breaking back in the previous game, Nalbandian lashed out with his boot – ‘foot-punched’, to get technical – at the Nike sign in front of the baseline line judge, whereupon it splintered, and the Argentine’s foot made contact with the official’s shin, messily rearranging a small portion of it. I could describe it in more graphic detail, perhaps with some Homeric verse thrown in for colour, but it’s probably easier if you just watch it. Nalbandian, it must be said, looked rather less concerned than he might have, even as it became clear fairly quickly that the judge was a fighting chance to survive. He will, at worst, have an interesting scar with which to frighten the kinds of children who are frightened by small scars.

Of course, Nalbandian was immediately defaulted, in what is presumably the simplest such decision any referee has faced since Zidane sought to burrow through Materazzi’s chest head-first, or since Barry Hall decked Brent Staker. In his defence, Nalbandian looked considerably more contrite than either Zidane or Hall had, or at least less disingenuous. He knew he’d done bad. Cilic was awarded the trophy and is thus the new Queens champion. He looked bemused. Nalbandian was not awarded a runner-up trophy, and indeed will be stripped of all ranking points and earnings from the tournament so far. The crowd did not acquit itself well, although they were denied the use of a slow-motion replay, and the tickets can’t have been cheap.

Nalbandian later conducted a press conference that was almost impossibly inappropriate, although he was careful to offer a perfunctory apology to the wounded official, whose name he had not bothered to ascertain. Having got that out of the way, it turned out he had an axe to grind with the ATP, who had earlier denied his request for carte blanche in all matters of on-court vigilante justice, and strayed off into a ramble about wet courts and other matters. The real surprise by this point was that he didn’t bring up Kader Nouni. I like Nalbandian, and I love his tennis, but there’s a time and a place.

But I don’t want to suggest that Nalbandian’s default was the most shocking thing seen on the Queens court today. Kicking a line judge until he bleeds and hollers for quarter is one thing, but it hardly compares to the Bryan Brothers’ shorts. How are they allowed to wear that? Aren’t there rules? The real mystery, I suppose, isn’t why they stole a pair of Radek Stepanek’s shorts. The mystery is why he had two.

Halle, Final

(WC) Haas d. (2) Federer, 7/6 6/4

The day’s second-most interesting tennis match took place in Halle a few hours earlier, and saw Tommy Haas record his third career victory over Federer, and his first since the Australian Open in 2002, during the German’s third comeback. Today, he was utterly fearless, and no one watching failed to be moved as he hoisted the fancy green and gold tureen, especially Federer.

Initially, it didn’t look likely. When Federer broke and held to open the match with rapid efficiency, it looked sadly like a mismatch, and as though the Swiss would be collecting his sixth soup-dish within the hour. Haas held on grimly in the next game, and you could sense the patronising smiles breaking open around the world, betokening a general sentiment of, ‘well isn’t that nice for him, and at his age. At least he won’t be humiliated.’ Somehow, the match was trending worldwide. Then Haas broke back following a sloppy game from Federer, and suddenly his service games were impenetrable. They stayed this way for the remainder of the match. Federer could barely get a look-in. Haas open the tiebreak with a pair of nervous long forehands, which Federer, good mate that his is, reciprocated. Haas powered on, unwavering in his aggression, and took the first set. The worldwide sentiment expanded. Now the fans were all thrilled that Haas had taken a set (and at his age), although it was a shame that Federer was going to be spending so much longer on court, and with only a week to rest up for Wimbledon. I don’t think anyone really believed Federer wouldn’t win by this stage. Much like that match with Roddick in Miami, sometimes these things are just obvious.

The point of the match, if not the tournament, came when Federer was break point down at 4/4 in the second, having blown about a dozen game points already. They conducted a scrambling all court affair, featuring passes, lobs (one played by Federer over his shoulder while running from the net), and a really misadvised drop shot. It gained Haas the vital break, and a chance to serve for the match, which was nice for him (at his age). He’d been holding to love for most of the set, although it was inevitable that he’ll be tense. Considering the situation, he held his nerve admirably, and served it out at 30.

After Federer’s final return plonked long, Haas turned to the crowd and nodded his head slightly, then kind of shook it a little as he jogged to the net, where he and his friend embraced for a bit, shooting the breeze amiably. It was a nice change from the usual antics of collapsing to the surface as though speared, tasting bits of it, or rending your clothes asunder. Subtly restrained, it was a lovely scene, and a late crowning moment for one of the sport’s great stories, for a great player whose body has always denied him his due. The curious contours of his career are nowhere better illustrated by the consideration that this is Haas’s eighth consecutive final victory, and that the last time he lost in a final was to Andre Agassi in 2002. For those of us in our mid-thirties, who were otherwise resigned to the reaper’s imminent visit, it’s a reason to feel young again.

7 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour

A Modest Proposal

Halle, Semifinals

The finalists at both Queens and Halle have been decided, and the line-up is about what one might expect, assuming you have just emerged from a decade-long coma. (If you have, then allow me to be the first to apologise for Justin Bieber, and admit that it’s a mystery how he became secretary-general of the UN. Also, check out that Old Spice ad, and know that when Michael Jackson died, he became a force of pure light who visits us in our dreams. I think that brings you up to speed.) Roger Federer will face Tommy Haas in the Halle final, a match that will ultimately hinge on which player’s walking frame can best negotiate the rutted and ruined baseline. The Germans have superior engineering, but the Swiss have precision, and Federer is notoriously easy on his equipment. Meanwhile at Queens David Nalbandian will endeavour finally to win a grass court tournament, after a decade spent falling just short. His previous grass final was Wimbledon 2002, and I remember that he beat Xavier Malisse on the way there. I note that he did the same this week in London. We may therefore assert with some confidence that Nalbandian cannot reach a grass final without beating Malisse. That’s science. I should also add that in the final tomorrow the Argentine will face Marin Cilic, who was 13 in 2002, although he’s older now. It’s also horribly windy in Queens, which has severely affected the standard of play, especially Grigor Dimitrov’s.

Before I get to the Halle semifinals, and therefore begin to treat this post with the gravity it merits, I will share one further brainwave, because I’m either drunk with power or flu medication. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the eventual champions in Halle and Queens played each other, with the overall points adjusted such that the ‘winner’ received 1,000 points, and the runner-up 600. You can probably see where I’m going with this. Obviously there are serious issues – disastrous mash-up of seedings, draws, unfamiliar court for one of the finalists – but I wonder if it could be made to work, whether a kind of grass Masters event could be run across two separate tournaments concurrently.

(2) Federer d. Youzhny, 6/1 6/4

A mostly mighty Federer saw off Mikhail Youzhny in fairly quick time, until the end, which was momentarily delayed when the Russian, languishing hopelessly at 2/5 in the second, began to lash the lines with a reckless intensity worthy of Novak Djokovic. He broke Federer back to love, and then saved match points on his next service game. Tension aside, both guys seemed quite upbeat about it. Youzhny was grinning all over the place, although without his beard to soften it his smile is complicated, combining an unsettling intensity with childlike delight. Federer served for the match again at 5/4, and, following a moment’s confusion, closed it out with a declamatory ace out wide. There were a few delightful backhand rallies, which is something of a specialty between these two. Tomorrow will be Federer’s fifth final of the year, and he hasn’t lost one yet.

(WC) Haas d. (8) Kohlschreiber, 7/6 7/5

In the final Federer will play Haas, who as far as I can recall was already staging comebacks in 2002. There was never much doubt Haas would receive a wildcard into this event, but it was touch and go whether he’d be granted one for Wimbledon. He has been, which is frankly excellent news, and he has  further justified it by his efforts in Germany this week. Fans will recall Haas taking the Halle title during his last stirring and unlikely comeback, three years ago, upsetting Djokovic in the final. Whether Haas has much hope against Federer is up for debate, although history provides some hope. For the last two years the Halle champion has seen off the defending champion en route to the title. As precedents go I suppose it’s not much, and Federer has long since exempted himself from such folly.

Today Haas beat the defending champion Philipp Kohlschreiber, which meant that, in terms of sumptuous backhand rallies, Federer and Youzhny were merely the entre. Indeed, it’s rare to see four single-handed backhands in the final four of a tour event, although I imagine that a slick grass court like Halle’s goes some way towards explaining it.* A tight and high-quality first set eventually attained the tiebreak, which Kohlschreiber looked certain to take. He led 4-1, and Haas could only find the bits of the court outside the lines. But then it turned. An effort of will was all it took. Haas took the next point with a tremendous backhand return winner, and this appeared to grant him a modicum of momentum as he and his opponent traded ends. Kohlschreiber would only win one more point, and the elder German – a proto-Teuton given his antiquity – sealed the breaker with a service winner up the T. The second set proved to be similar to the first, which means that it was tremendously exciting attacking fast-court tennis from both guys. At 5/5, Kohlschreiber unaccountably, which is to say characteristically, fell apart, and Haas broke, then served it out to love.

Tomorrow’s final could be one for the ages, or at least the over-thirties.

 

* My research department has informed me that the last time this happened was actually on clay, in 2009. So much for that theory.

3 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour

Such As It Is

The grass season, such as it is, has arrived.

Terre battue has, finally, given way to emerald sward, although in Halle the sward always looks at risk of being churned into muck. Although I’m partial to the event – I’d dearly love to see it elevated into a Masters – there’s something about the arrangement and gradient of the stands that makes the court feel hemmed in and dank, almost mossy. Meanwhile across the channel at Queens the courts are so vibrant and verdant they throw the All England Club into shade. Suddenly Nicolas Mahut is winning matches, and not just against Andy Roddick. Ivo Karlovic is still losing them, but he’s now doing so in the familiar triple-tiebreak format. Players are venturing to the net of their own volition, as often as twice a set, and the volleys are actually being punched through the court, assuming the proponents remember how, which almost no one does. It is glorious, and it will be over too soon.

However, there must be balance in all things. So with the elation of noting that Grigor Dimitrov actually contrived a straight sets victory comes my profound sadness at Mikhail Youzhny’s decision to shave off his beard. There was no official explanation provided, although one can hazard that it was intended as radical penance for his abject performance at Roland Garros, where he was unmanned by David Ferrer. It’s a way of making his ‘sorri’ clear on his face. You must earn the right to wear a beard like that, and once in place, you must forever prove yourself worthy of its cultivation. Or maybe it was itchy. It’s still a shame, since his magnificent thatch gave me another reason to appreciate one of my favourite players. Happily, the fiery assurance with which he eventually saw off Alex Dolgopolov in Halle today gave me enough to be going on with. The pace with which he was redirecting backhands off slickly skidding slices merited applause even in isolation, but within the context of each point it induced one’s heart to sing. His sunnily diffident smile afterwards, so at odds with the rapt sternness of his countenance during general play, was as ever joyous, though it would have been more advantageously framed by a beard.

As I said, the grass season isn’t long enough, and the preparation for Wimbledon is woefully inadequate. Unexpected support for this line of reasoning was masterminded by Ion Tiriac, who as ever works in nebulous ways. Many pundits felt that it was unreasonable to plonk a fast blue clay event into the schedule three weeks before a major, reasoning that this would upset the natural flow of things, and fatally hamper the top players’ preparations for Roland Garros. These fears seemed a trifle overblown when Nadal, Federer and Djokovic all reached the semifinals in Rome the following week, and in Paris a few weeks after that. You cannot have it both ways. Either two weeks isn’t enough preparation, or it is. Furthermore, there were also several weeks of red clay before Madrid, and – aside from Yen-Hsun Lu and the Americans – every professional tennis player spends ample time on this surface in their formative years. By contrast, hardly anyone ever sees a grass court while growing up, and even as pros the exposure is limited to the two weeks before Wimbledon, and however long they last once there, which for most of them isn’t very long at all. I think the preparation for Roland Garros is longer than it needs to be, while the preparation for Wimbledon is too short.

The upshot is that Wimbledon, ostensibly the flagship event in the sport, is nowhere near as good as it should be, and the best results are achieved by those who prove themselves the most adept at limiting the impact the grass has on their natural game. The top players have proven themselves to be the best at this. Related to this is of course the issue of the grass itself – slower and more tailored to baseliners – but I’m not going to go into that here. Even given the courts as they are now, I suspect that the standard of play could be much higher, and more imaginative, individualised and exciting, with a lengthier preparation. Those mid-tier players whose styles are suited to grass – players like Mahut or Petzschner – would have extra time to hone their specialised skills properly, which would in turn compel those ranked above them to adapt. Adapt is a revealing word here, but as it stands it isn’t necessarily one to be proud of. Nadal is in Halle already, for which he is to be commended, since he has ample reasons not to be, and they haven’t named a street after him yet. But really, he’s not there to master grass court tennis. Like everyone else, he’s there to adapt to it as quickly as he can, to limit its detrimental impact on his natural game.

There needs to be a grass court Masters.

7 Comments

Filed under ATP Tour

The Sun King

French Open, Day 16

(2) Nadal d. (1) Djokovic, 6/4 6/3 2/6 7/5

Rafael Nadal has won Roland Garros for the seventh time, which is the most times anyone has ever done it. There is presumably no one interested in tennis who remains unaware of this. It’s a big story, and not lessened by the bigger story it forestalled. Nadal eventually defeated Novak Djokovic in four sets, one of which was close, and all of which were long. Coming in at somewhere over 23 hours, I believe I’m right in saying this is the longest match these two have ever played, easily eclipsing the record they set in Australia, although there were admittedly one or two breaks due to bad weather conditions.

The longest of these breaks came between Sunday and Monday, when played was controversially called off due to total darkness. Parisians term this meteorological phenomenon nuit (literally ‘not-daytime’). As bad weather conditions go it is even worse than rain. Had the finalists forged on through the not-daytime, valiantly and tentatively, blundering awkwardly through the shadows of the evening sun, it’s a dicey question who would have been best served.† My money was on Djokovic, who in staging a late comeback from two sets and a break down had already proven his ability to excel in the wet. Eight straight games and some fifteen thousand Nadal fans suffering simultaneous strokes bore testament to Djokovic’s mastery. Then again, Nadal won his first Wimbledon at night, so who can say.

Those who’ve previously suggested that Nadal prefers slow conditions will hopefully absorb the lesson. He enjoys bouncy conditions, and the speed of the court, though related, is largely secondary to the amount of pop he can gain from it. His relatively poor indoor record speaks for itself. Recall what happened in Indian Wells, when the damp and wind drained the fizz from his groundstrokes, and he was cut to pieces. A similar thing happened on Sunday. After dominating a care-laden Djokovic for a touch over two sets, the drizzle established its incumbency, and the clay turned to mud (boue: another astonishing local phenomenon). The wet balls grew dense, and resistant to doing Nadal’s bidding where before they’d been eager to oblige, rather like children when they enter their surly teenager years. Meanwhile, Djokovic’s flatter groundstrokes and capacity to penetrate off the backhand proved telling. Battling a resurgent nemesis, his feet mired in sludge, and faced with recalcitrant equipment – ‘You don’t understand me!’ the balls yodelled as they stormed out – is it any wonder Nadal began to lose his way? His camp looked livid. The Djokovic clan was in full voice.

When you’re thus beset, the best thing you can do, really, is sleep on it. Everything looks better when the sun comes back. Having romped through the third set – thereby spoiling Nadal’s chance at a third French Open without dropping a set – Djokovic broke to open the fourth, and began to look like spoiling any chance at victory at all. Nadal later admitted that holding for 1/2 was crucial. To Nadal’s satisfaction, play was suspended, cruelly denying us the spectacle of night tennis. Djokovic was, unsurprisingly, willing to continue, but he didn’t raise a fuss.

It wasn’t quite a new Nadal that emerged this afternoon. In fact, it was more or less the same one we’d seen through the first two sets: determined and reserved, and, by his standards, slightly dishevelled. His first order of business was to retrieve the break. Djokovic, tentative when he needed to be bold, yielded it up with inadequate struggle. The players settled into a pattern of holds. Nadal was doing it easier – a few love holds late in the set implied the defending champion had the momentum – though Djokovic was doing enough. The tennis was better than the day before, but it still wasn’t great, by any stretch. As the fourth set wore on, Nadal’s backhand began to fall short and lose sting, and Djokovic, as he had in the US Open final, began to pound it until it cracked. For some reason he hasn’t returned to that attacking strategy much this year, and he didn’t stay with it today, for all that it mostly worked when he did. At 5/5, with Nadal serving, the match was poised. Suddenly, seemingly from nowhere – although later reports suggested it came from the sky – the sun burst through.

For no good reason, my mind immediately returned to another overcast final at a major marred by weather: Wimbledon 2007. I recalled how in that match, at its most crucial moment, tied up in the fifth set, the sun finally broke free for the first time in the match, seemingly for the first time in days, cutting in low over the Centre Court stands, that year topless for the first and last time. That day Nadal – already a three time Roland Garros champion but still pursuing his first Wimbledon – was the better player for most of the match. Federer seemed to be saving break points in every other service game. Serving at 2/2 Nadal had only faced four break points across the entire match. Yet at that moment, as the oblique shadows sprang forth, Jimmy Connors remarked with the utmost perceptiveness: ‘Do you have a little feeling here that Nadal’s had his shot?’ Under that sudden wash of light, Nadal would not win another game. Afterwards, the Spaniard would claim it as his most disappointing loss. A year later he would take the Wimbledon title in darkness, pierced through by a thousand flashes in the gloom.

That’s where my mind wandered, deep in the fourth set during today’s final, as the sun bustled in with sudden splendour, like Le Roi Soleil, momentarily overwhelming the polarising filters in the cameras. And I reflected upon how things change. This time, five years on, the sun was exactly what Nadal needed. Tight, pressed to 30-30, he surged, and constructed a mighty point to hold. For the second time, Djokovic was compelled to serve for survival. Typical ferocity moved him to 30-15. The unbidden thought came to me that this rendered it mechanically impossible for him to fall down consecutive match points in this game. This was a problem. 15-40 is when he traditionally hits his stride. (15-40 is his talisman. If he didn’t have ‘Nole’ embroidered on his gear, he would have that.) An error brought the score to 30-30. A chain of three big forehands brought Nadal to championship point. One championship point. As he had in Rome, Djokovic double faulted. His armature collapsed partially, and, head bowed, he ambled dejectedly to the net, there to patiently await the greatest clay-courter of them all.

The greatest clay-courter of them all spun to his family, collapsed to his knees, and bowed his forehead to the dirt. He quickly rose, freed his sodden hair, and jogged to the net, taking due care not to step on the service line. He was in the stands soon after that – lavish with the hugs – and then on the podium moments later, hoisting and nibbling the Coupe des Mousquetaires, which he received from Mats Wilander, who’d himself narrowly escaped the Eurosport commentary booth. This was, Nadal insisted, one of the most special moments of his career. It didn’t sound like hyperbole. Indeed, compared to his endless dazzling smile, it seemed like an understatement.

This is Nadal’s eleventh major title, and his seventh at Roland Garros, from the last eight years. Robin Soderling remains the only man ever to defeat Nadal at this venue (or indeed in any best-of-five clay court match). Everyone else has lost, and most of them have lost very badly. For the third time, he has denied a reigning world No.1 the opportunity of holding all four majors at the same time, proving himself to be a final and insurmountable hurdle to achieving the rarest prize in the sport. I’m guessing this is some kind of record, too. Djokovic had won 27 straight matches at this level. But to win the necessary 28th he needed to become the first man to defeat Rafael Nadal in a Roland Garros final, to storm the very court of the Sun King.

 

† My thanks to Robert Smith (I’m certain he’s reading), and to the reader who inspired this line’s inclusion.

20 Comments

Filed under Grand Slams

On Place, and the Holding Thereof

French Open, Day 15

(2) Nadal leads (1) Djokovic, 6/4 6/3 2/6 1/2

Those expecting any kind of recapitulation of the unfolding, stuttering, lurching, despair-inducing, adjective-laden Roland Garros men’s final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal are bound to feel disappointment when I say that I am about to offer no such thing. Those with different expectations are probably going to feel disappointed in other ways, to an extent commensurate with the extravagancy of their hopes. Those who for whatever reason had been sure I was about present a new Grand Unified Theory, if not a Theory of Everything, may well be the most disappointed of all. To all of you, I can only say sorry. This post is merely a placeholder.

For those of you who’ve never visited the internet before (I’m flattered this was your first port of call) or even created anything more detailed than a shopping list, I’ll explain that a placeholder is traditionally the thing you put in when you cannot think of the right thing at that moment, with the intention that you’ll return later when inspiration is once again flowing like pomegranate juice down your chin, which is my usual state while writing. Douglas Adams argued persuasively – and posthumously – that the ‘La’ bit in ‘Do-Re-Mi’ is a classic example of a placeholder that somehow snuck through the entire production process without being fixed. All the lines in the song more or less work, but ‘La, a note to follow So,’ really stands out as a temporary kludge. Less controversially, the original beta of World of Warcraft featured the character Captain Placeholder (pictured), who gained a cult following, and is spoken of with some reverence to this day. This may seem obscure, but when we consider that the total number of people who’ve played WoW is easily four times that of the population of New Zealand, I’d suggest that the least the Kiwis could do is save a spot for the good Captain on their next installment of Dancing with the Stars. Saving a spot for Captain Placeholder . . . did anyone else just experience a postmodern rush?

This post will no doubt achieve a similar cultural impact, with the key difference that once Nadal and Djokovic have eventually manufactured some kind of outcome – the weather outlook suggests this might be some way off – I will replace this post with a proper one. This current post will consequently vanish forever. Those who save it now will therefore possess a rare collector’s piece, a true shard of folklore. It will be for the market to decide what its value will be, but I’ll hazard that it might exceed a full sheet of Penny Blacks.

Furthermore, in that post – this post – is embedded a secret code that will one day unlock a hidden part of the website. Upon entering, the true fan will discover a surprise.

Spiders. Lots of spiders. In fact, all the spiders.

And one precious kitten.

Fade to black.

12 Comments

Filed under Grand Slams, Placeholders

Scarlet Billows

French Open, Day 13

(2) Nadal d. (6) Ferrer, 6/2 6/2 6/1

(1) Djokovic d. (3) Federer, 6/4 7/5 6/3

By the time a tennis tournament has been reduced to just four men – continuing with my nuclear chemistry theme from the other day, I will term this point the semifinals – one’s idea of what constitutes an entertaining day’s play mostly becomes a matter of perspective. Earlier in the event there’s enough going on that even if the match you’d been anticipating turns out to be a damp squib, there will inevitably be fireworks elsewhere. (If Fabio Fognini is still about, there’s bound to be a Roman candle.) But when there are only two matches, played consecutively on the same court, what you see is what you get. When you don’t get to see much, you’re apt to feel some disappointment, even as you mouth mute praise that the matches at least aren’t being conducted simultaneously. As I say, however, ‘much’ is here a debated issue. I have little doubt fans of Rafael Nadal found the experience worthwhile, even as they graciously observed a moment’s silence for his opponent.

At other majors, such as the Australian Open, the two semifinals aren’t even played on the same day, which makes a ticket to either of them a very expensive way to watch a blowout, if that’s what eventuates. 2007 was a good example of this. The second semifinal saw Fernando Gonzalez demolish Tommy Haas with the most terrifying display of ball-striking since . . . well, since Roger Federer inflicted one of the sport’s most notorious beat-downs on Andy Roddick the night before. For fans of Federer and Gonzalez, it was naturally money well spent. For those hoping for a more engaging contest, it was all over rather too fast. I have little statistical justification for this, but I’ve always felt the semifinals of a major are often its best matches, and so the disappointment when they turn out to be anything but is compounded. Again, your mileage will vary. A tournament is supposed to build towards something. ESPN’s coverage is based on the assumption of a story arc. This perhaps explains why ESPN have given up and gone home, out of sheer disgust. NBC have stuck around, though I’m not alone in wishing they hadn’t. John McEnroe sounded so bored he was almost fascinating towards the end of the second semifinal. World fame has insulated him from this sensation for too long, apparently. He unleashed tedium as though he was rediscovering it.

Anyway, the long and short of it – let’s be frank, the short of it – is that Nadal reduced David Ferrer to his constituent elements with frightening efficiency, and often faster than my bleary eye could follow. At one point he fell on his bottom, took the time to wipe his hand on his shorts twice, and still won the point. In all he won 83 points to Ferrer’s 48, and, as a percentage, won more points on return than Ferrer won on first serve. Jim Courier remarked that Ferrer needed to play recklessly. Judging by his uncharacteristic quantity of errors he was already playing recklessly, or maybe just badly. Any more recklessly and he would have lost even more rapidly, had that been possible. The world No.2 was just incredibly good at almost every facet of the game that matters, although his penmanship remains otherwise sup-par (there, I said it). I can hardly recall him moving with this kind of easy assurance since 2008. He will almost certainly win the final. It was Ferrer’s first Roland Garros semifinal, and it was an experience he won’t ever forget. Trauma is peculiar that way.

A few hours later Novak Djokovic somehow fashioned a straight sets win over Federer out of a pair of train wrecks, proving, yet again, to be a master at constructing affordable art out of found objects. Federer led by a break in the first two sets, except for the second one, when he led by two breaks. Then he was broken back in about 35 seconds, and then again more slowly. Then he broke again to lead 5/4, thereby earning the privilege of serving for the set. It was about that confusing, a tangled mess of missed chances. There was something wrong with Djokovic’s leg or back or breathing, and as a consequence he was playing more aggressively, the way he did in last year’s Rome final, or the fourth set of the US Open final. Federer displayed great variety in his utterance of the phrase ‘Come on’, especially through the first three games, as it crescendoed from a menacing rumble to a sforzando exclamation upon gaining that crucially unimportant second break. Until this moment, he was really into it. Upon blowing the second set for the sixteenth time, he seemed to lose a measure of interest, taking the crowd and the commentators with him. He fell down an early break in the third, and Matt Cronin on Radio Roland Garros proffered the amazing opinion that Federer would now find it very difficult to win the French Open. This was hard to fault for accuracy.

In the end Djokovic ran away with it. It transpired that those who had hoped for a classic, based on last year’s masterpiece, were revealed as being prone to wishful thinking. I confess I was among them, despite the fact that neither Federer nor Djokovic had played at all well so far in the tournament. Even Mahut and Isner, with a radio antenna perched atop his lofty frame, could not provoke lightning to strike a second time, so what hope did a pair of amateurs like Djokovic and Federer have? It was still disappointing.

In the final Djokovic will endeavour to become the first man since Rod Laver to hold all four majors at the same time. Nadal will attempt to win his seventh French Open title. Naturally, we have all known about this for weeks. The prevailing narrative is now that this was the final we all apparently wanted (except for those who didn’t), since neither of these respective records would mean quite as much if this pair didn’t have to face each other. We can toss some ‘unstoppable force – immovable object’ metaphors into the mix for good measure. There’s also some stuff about Nadal getting revenge for past major finals. So now we have a revenge tale between titans that was destined to occur. That’s narrative. Where’s ESPN?

8 Comments

Filed under Grand Slams

By His Design

French Open, Day Eleven

Tuesday’s French Open quarterfinals provided a pair of matches that were about as fascinating as discerning tennis fans could reasonably hope for, although those same fans might reasonably query the wisdom of scheduling both for precisely the same time. Aside from this continuing and daft experiment – the apparent goal of which is to neatly halve the number of potential viewers – Wednesday’s quarterfinal matches turned out nothing like that. No match points were saved, and neither of the eventual winners ever fell behind more than a game. Yesterday’s arrhythmic and barely tonal bloodbath gave way to a stately procession; a pair of sunny sarabandes whose intricate figurations initially delighted but ultimately failed to disguise the unyielding onward pulse below. I presume this won’t bother fans of Rafael Nadal or David Ferrer one bit, particularly as these fans are often (although not exclusively) one and the same. Perhaps it’s a Spanish thing. Perhaps it’s something else. I’m open to theories.

In any case, predictably or otherwise, the upshot is that the Roland Garros semifinal line-up is complete. Actually, I’ll concede that predictable is the appropriate term here, since, as usual, the last four includes the top three players in the world. Nadal will play Ferrer, and Djokovic will play Federer. For all that their journeys along these roads have not always been stately – Federer and Djokovic have seemingly clashed with bandits at every turn – there is an immutable sense that all of the roads have led here, even those snaking away from Rome. Indeed, it’s worth remembering that the Foro Italico witnessed precisely the same semifinalists, up to and including David Ferrer. Who can reasonably question Rome’s value as a form guide?

If today’s quarterfinals aren’t destined to abide in the collective memory, they still cleared up a few lingering questions. We now know that Andy Murray really did have the toughest draw out of the top four, although Juan Martin del Potro had the toughest draw out of anyone, excepting perhaps Simone Bolelli. We discovered that Murray plays better when the crowd hates him, which is something for the fanatics at Wimbledon to bear in mind. There is a rumour that Virginia Wade is organising a cheer squad. And we found out that Nicolas Almagro can time the ball really sweetly from both sides, even a sodden ball in dull conditions, although further viewing revealed that he cannot keep doing it for nearly long enough.

(2) Nadal d. (12) Almagro, 7/6 6/2 6/3

Indeed, today proved to my satisfaction that Almagro will probably never beat Nadal on clay. By his own admission he ‘played one of the best matches he can play against Rafa’, but he was never all that close to taking a set, and Rafa was hardly at his best. Post-match analysis has focussed on Almagro’s squandered break-point at 3/3 in the third set. But if your tightest moment comes in the middle of a set, when you have a two set lead, you’re not realistically in much trouble. I can’t recall thinking at the time that a break to Almagro at that moment would guarantee anything beyond the opportunity for Nadal to break him back, an opportunity so far denied him. For once I agreed with the otherwise pointless Slamtracker (think of the man-hours that went into that thing):  the momentum was all with the defending champion, who was defending as only he can. I was vaguely reminded of those who talked up Jurgen Melzer’s chances at last year’s event , based on the fact that he’d almost taken a set from Nadal the year before. Somehow, in spite of this immaculate pedigree, Melzer lost in the second round.

Nadal’s victory also gave us a useful example of the shortcomings of highlights packages, proving once again that trying to gauge the quality of a match from it best moments is about as worthwhile as settling down to read The Great Conversations from Middlemarch, or Proust’s Top Ten Recollections. Actually, that’s not quite correct. It is the conceit of mainstream tennis coverage that in order for a tennis match to be sufficiently dramatic, or ‘meaningful’ – here a meaningless term – it must therefore have a readily-defined narrative. The truth is that it mustn’t, and the drama, as I’ve suggested before, is essentially symphonic rather than literary. (Of course, not all matches provide great drama, but then not all symphonies are by Mahler or Beethoven. Most of them are crap, and mercifully forgotten.)

A highlights clip is more like a short medley of tunes than a symphony, which entirely misses the point, since a masterpiece cannot be distilled by just plucking out the catchy bits. Melody is only part the charm, and in rare cases none of it. Some of the most dramatic tennis matches are relatively highlight free. Even as ESPN conceives of tennis – as facile and programmatic – the highlights package heightens the spectacle but warps reality, and instills the false belief that a great match is merely the sum of its best parts, when all too often the opposite is true. Watching winners chained end on end can certainly be diverting, but without context they reveal little about how a given encounter actually unfolded. Here endeth the rant.

The metric has yet to be devised whereby today’s quarterfinal between Nadal and Almagro could be considered a great match. I watched it unfold in something like real-time, with only a brief delay to catch Almagro’s potential nipple-slips and for my stream periodically to insulate itself against the rigours of global travel. I’ve since watched a highlights package, which mostly showcased Almagro striking the ball with rare authority and Nadal retrieving desperately until his lower ranked compatriot buried a winner into the court he had lovingly prised apart. These points were very occasionally punctuated by Nadal contriving a scintillating winner from a hopeless position.

Nevertheless, the score-line informs us that Almagro actually lost the match, which therefore tells us that he missed the court rather too often, or that Nadal probably wasn’t in hopeless positions as frequently as one is led to believe. The score-line therefore says more than the highlights do, which really only reveal the astonishing information that when the world thirteenth best tennis player hits the ball as well as he can onto the lines, he is almost unbeatable. The real match took considerably longer, and was mostly decided by Almagro’s inability to return serve with any consistency – a fatal shortcoming in sluggish conditions – and the necessity for him to immediately exert control in every rally, and then maintain it almost indefinitely. If he didn’t, Nadal would, because he can.

The truth is that Nadal’s capacity to produce outrageous winners from impossible situations is no more fundamental to his perennial success than Djokovic’s ice-veined recklessness while match-point down is to his. Both are handy attributes, to be sure, and as I suggested yesterday, without it Djokovic’s continuing steeplechase towards history would have foundered at the second fence. But this is not how either man wins most matches. By my count, Nadal has now claimed 48 consecutive sets on red clay, dating back to last year’s Davis Cup final. He has done this by controlling the court, not through his undoubted virtuosity when forced off it. Most of the sets weren’t close, and this is by design. His design. He might not have been at his best today, but you can be sure that it went just how he wanted it to.

9 Comments

Filed under Grand Slams

Les Particules élémentaires

French Open, Day Ten

Much like other radioactive substances, the tournament draw at the 2012 French Open cleaves to a more or less fixed rate of exponential decay, weather permitting. After a slow start, the event discards precisely half its mass as charged particles every two days, although some of the particles are less charged than others. Paul-Henri Mathieu was an exhausted particle. Mikhail Youzhny was both enraged and contrite. With four half-life cycles complete, the original 128 participants had been reduced to just eight. Nuclear chemists traditionally call this point the ‘quarterfinals’, and I can see no reason to avoid the term. Eight remaining participants means four remaining interactions between them – called ‘matches’ – since it is an innate property that these particles must be paired before decay occurs, whereupon one of them is given off as heat (often in the form of hot air). With only four matches to get through in two days – neatly divided into two per day – this leaves considerable time in which these interactions can occur. The question therefore begs: why on earth would you schedule the day’s two quarterfinals to be played at the same time?

At one point Roland Garros – via the miracle of Twitter – named the del Potro-Federer encounter its match of the day, but failed to explain why the match of the day was being played on Lenglen instead of Chatrier, and at the same time as a match between the world No.1 and the only Frenchman remaining in the draw. Now, I cannot cavil at the choice of courts. Novak Djokovic and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga certainly produced a spectacle worthy of the venue. Furthermore, the scheduling did throw up a few remarkable moments of simultaneity, the most exquisite coming when both Federer and Tsonga moved to match point at almost precisely the same moment. You don’t see or hear that too often, and the roars from Chartier resonated almost perfectly through the two streams I had running. The vocal crowd on Lenglen loved Federer, even after he’d earlier directed some tough love back at them, but the swell from the main court built into a vast breaker, that then crashed across the grounds and through my speakers.

But, souvenir-value aside, match points in matches as big as this deserve to be appreciated in isolation, and the excitement was more cancelled out than augmented by trying to follow both. Interviewed the next day, Federer revealed just how distracting it had been, and how he’d requested that they stop showing constant updates from the other match on the Lenglen scoreboard. It should be said that those following the earlier women’s quarterfinals faced an identical dilemma (both scheduled at the same time). In both cases the problem would have been ameliorated by putting the men’s match on first on one of the courts. Not both, though, that would be foolish, although I wouldn’t put it past the French Open to propose this as a solution. At least one can hope they’ve learned their lesson for tomorrow’s remaining quarterfinals. It therefore no surprise to note today’s schedule will be reprised perfectly.

(3) Federer d. (9) Del Potro, 3/6 6/7 6/2 6/0 6/3

For fans of Roger Federer, today’s quarterfinal with Juan Martin del Potro began in a depressingly familiar fashion, recalling the loss to Robin Soderling at the identical stage of the same tournament two years ago. For fans of del Potro, the deflating familiarity came at the end. As their man, easily the better player through the early going, began to wilt noticeably in the third set, and then fade entirely as the fourth wound on, the comparison to the 2009 semifinal became unavoidable.

It was only gradually that I began to grasp Federer’s sophisticated rope-a-dope strategy in this match. In glacial conditions, he was never going to be able to hit through the court as effectively as del Potro, who, like Soderling, can effectively hit through a wall. As with the Rumble in the Jungle, when Ali allowed Foreman to wear himself out from punching him so much, Federer was icily content to let the Argentine – similarly proportioned to Foreman – grow exhausted from landing so many lusty body-blows.

I’m being facetious, of course. Icy is the last thing Federer was today, and through the initial stages, a strategy was the last thing he had. I can hardly recall him looking and sounding so fired up since . . . well, since the 2009 US Open final, when he was famously beaten half to death by del Potro’s haymakers. At one point he bellowed ‘Shut-up!’ at the someone in the crowd after they’d allowed their excitement to spill over during the rally. ‘I was (you know) sometimes upset,’ he remarked later.

It’s hard to know quite what to make of del Potro’s insistence later that his knee injury wasn’t crucial, although he maintained this line under persistent probing, and suggested that the frequent appearances from the trainer were just to loosen the taping. Pressed to deconstruct his drop-off, he evocatively credited Federer lifting – ‘I feel his ball more on the baseline’, which seems like a clear example of the hindrance rule – abetted by his own serve deserting him. Certainly he served worse after the first two sets, but up until that point he had seemed quite dominant when the ball was in general play, and even from neutral positions he was generally the one forcing Federer to defend. It’s hard not to chalk his response up to gracious disingenuousness – he really wasn’t pushing off that side well – but he did remain indefatigable on the matter, even when obliged to explain himself at least four times.

Still, it’s also undeniable that Federer’s game picked up. For perhaps the first time in this tournament, he began to look like himself in those last few sets. The first couple of sets saw him launch innumerable forehands long, and every backhand he sought to redirect up the line found a part of the net well below the top. From the third set those shots found the court, even through a persistent drizzle that rendered it ingravescent. He began to mix up his first serve – mostly mixing ‘in’ ones with the ‘out’ ones he’d been discontent to use earlier – and generally resembled the guy who’s beaten del Potro four times already this year. For two sets, this was a better del Potro than that, but then it was a much worse one. I don’t know what this means for Federer’s upcoming semifinal against Novak Djokovic.

(1) Djokovic d. (5) Tsonga, 6/1 5/7 5/7 7/6 6/1

A glance at the score line tells you a lot of what needs to be said about this match. The outer sets were dominated by Djokovic, but the middle three almost elevated it into a classic. When Tsonga dished up the early break in the second, it really didn’t look like heading that way. Djokovic played an imperious first set, but then he’s developed a habit of doing that a bit this year. Think back to Miami, or even Rome. In contrast to last year, he has frequently thudded back to earth in the second. (Last year he returned to earth in October.) Tsonga broke back in typically enterprising fashion, and to his credit he never really stopped playing that way. Djokovic grew perceptibly anxious at the end of the next two sets, either spraying errors or tentatively allowing his opponent to impose himself. If there’s one thing Tsonga is willing to do – I’m sure there are lots of things – it’s impose himself.

It’s hard to say enough about Djokovic’s composure when facing match points, although it’s a simple matter to say little of use. Tsonga had four match points in the fourth set – they marched in, two by two – and on each Djokovic discovered a typically mordant calm. Federer has twice proved in New York that two consecutive match points is not enough against Djokovic, a seemingly absurd concept that was nevertheless lent weight in Paris last year, when he needed three in a row to secure the win. There are arguably better players at saving match point, but Djokovic is the finest I’ve ever seen at surviving a pair of them. Admittedly, this is a highly specialised skill. It is quite useless to, say, trauma surgeons. But for the world’s highest ranked male tennis player, it certainly has its value, which we can determine by adding up all the prize money and prestige he would have foregone without it. Djokovic himself could offer little explanation afterwards, and it’s not his job to. For myself, I maintain what seemed apparent at the US Open last year. His calm seems to stem from a deep gallows detachment. People who are very good at confrontation will perhaps recognise it, the way, at the uttermost end-point, all the concern and anxiety seems to evaporate, leaving a near-giddy sense of anticipation and delight.

Giddy delight almost perfectly describes how Tsonga didn’t feel afterwards, although even he could barely parse what he was feeling: ‘You want to break your racquet. You want to shout. You want to cry. You want to laugh and say, ‘Oh come on, that’s a joke. How could I lose this match?’ You want to wake up.’ He knew that, as calm as his opponent was, he’d had a shot on those match points, particular that passing shot. He declared it to be the hardest loss of his career. I suspect, deep down, he really did believe a Frenchman could win the French Open.

For Djokovic, I don’t know what this means for his upcoming semifinal against Federer, except that the Swiss will need at least three match points to win, since anything less plays right into the Serbian’s hands. Hopefully the tournament will schedule them both to play at the same time.

16 Comments

Filed under Grand Slams

The Second Week

French Open, Day Nine

The definition of when the second week of a major truly begins is contested, fraught and ultimately not very interesting, which is why I’m going to spend some time on it. Much like Douglas Adams’ recipriversexcluson – ‘a number whose existence can only be defined as being anything other than itself’ – the second-week of a major can seemingly commence at any moment other than the tournament’s second Monday, for all that this nominally kicks off the actual second week, although not at Roland Garros. Like I said, it’s complicated.

In the case of the French Open, today actually marked the beginning of the third calendar week. With this in mind, Roland Garros’ ongoing commitment to Sunday starts therefore bears reading as a subtle affirmative action policy towards lower ranked players. Apart from those few poor buggers who lose on the opening day, just about everyone therefore gets to experience the second week of a major, which is, I think, a special treat. The famous quote that you can’t win a major in the first week but you can lose one – commonly ascribed to the Greek philosopher Pete Sampras – grows more complicated by the realisation that you can’t win the French Open until the third week. I suppose this is a minor matter, given the fact that unless you’re Rafael Nadal, you can’t win it at all.

The US Open’s decision to conduct itself in hurricane season on a land-filled swamp creates further issues, which are compounded by the bloody-minded determination to spread the opening round over three days. Monday finals have become the norm, casting yet more doubt on Sampras’ credentials as a theorist. It turns out fully half the majors can’t be won in the second week, either.

A persistent deluge through the middle part of last year’s US Open saw the schedule back up disastrously, guaranteeing widespread discontent, and inspiring everyone to turn on Caroline Wozniacki when she sought but failed to lighten the mood. Andy Roddick, who’d gone to some effort to anoint himself the man of the people, expressed his profound joy at returning to the second week of a major upon winning his second round match. He’d already brow-beaten the attendant media so thoroughly through the first week that no one retained the wherewithal to point out the absurdity of this. The Australian Open, meanwhile, splits the fourth round across the middle Sunday and Monday, thereby rendering a calendar definition useless. Wimbledon takes the middle Sunday off, and plays all round of 16 matches on the second Monday. This generates a spectacular day’s entertainment, though it doesn’t feel quite like the second week.

As I say: fraught and contested. My own definition of the second week has it commencing with the quarterfinals, and is based on the rationale that a reasonable cross-section of players would be pleased to have gotten this far. Lower-ranked players are invariably thrilled to reach this point, while the top-ranked guys aren’t suicidal if they lose. Beyond that, the quarterfinals seem to mark the point at which the tenor of the tournament shifts. The upshot of this is that Roland Garros, after nine full days of play, is about to commence its second week. With the exception of Tomas Berdych, everyone you’d expect to have survived so far has.

(2) Nadal d. (13) Monaco, 6/2 6/0 6/0

Some have done rather better than survive. Nadal has dropped only 19 games on his gambol to the final eight, his fewest in eight visits. He has never looked worse than unbeatable, and at times has looked considerably finer than that, particularly in the match against Denis Istomin. Undeniably, his draw has been easy, but no easier than Novak Djokovic’s, and certainly tougher than Roger Federer’s. I realise that this is a contested area as well; a frankly pointless debate as to whose inevitable progression to the second week has been the least inevitable, as though it really matters.

Each of them can only face the men placed before them, and Nadal has been merciless in making every opponent wish he’d been placed somewhere else. I’ve actually been looking for an opportunity to write about him, but frankly there isn’t much to say about constant straight-sets drubbings, although I’m sure his fans would insist I’m glossing infinite nuance. I will say that I think the defending champion was more impressive against Istomin than against Juan Monaco, who played quite poorly, even for a guy who wasn’t permitted to play well. Milos Raonic probably wouldn’t have won a set, either, but I have no doubt he would have won more than two games, and provided Nadal with a sterner, and arguably more useful challenge.

(12) Almagro d. (8) Tipsarevic, 6/4 6/4 6/4

In the quarterfinals Nadal will, deep down in the sub-cockle area, be pleased to face Nicolas Almagro, who today took out Janko Tipsarevic in straight sets. As ever, Almagro looked like the world’s best clay courter. That’s precisely what he is until the better ones show up, which they have a habit of doing at any event grander than a 250. Unfortunately for him these players are all still in the tournament, apart from Robin Soderling, who is apparently still in Sweden. Still, reaching the second week of a major is a considerable achievement for Almagro, who generally prefers to lose early, so as to leave that week clear for planning his next campaign in Båstad, Nice or Buenos Aires.

(4) Murray d. (17) Gasquet, 1/ 6 6/4 6/1 6/2

Andy Murray’s innate contrariness proved useful today, allowing him to harness the crowd’s vicious and sustained disapproval, and push it deep down into the pit of his gut, where it was transformed into a force of untrammelled destruction. It took about a set and a half for this subtle gastric alchemy to occur. After that the hapless Richard Gasquet was scourged from the face of the court. It’s worth finding some highlights. Andy Murray was finally playing the way everyone says he should. This might be a cause for celebration, but we should bear in mind that Gasquet played the way he should against Tommy Haas the round before. No one plays the way they should all the time. It’s a simple point, and it’s amazing how easily it is forgotten. Murray will kick off his second week with David Ferrer. If Murray plays like he eventually did today, even Ferrer, festooned with canine metaphors, will fall quickly. We may therefore expect a dogged epic. Ferrer, for the record, beat Marcel Granollers. For a brief moment, around the grounds, blessed silence reigned.

(9) Del Potro d. (7) Berdych, 7/6 1/6 6/3 7/5

The top-half quarterfinalists were also decided. Federer will face Juan Martin del Potro, who he hasn’t lost to since the latter’s wrist returned from its gap-year (in which it bummed around South-East Asia and discovered Jim Morrison and Karl Marx). You might recall that the first three months of del Potro’s season were largely constrained by hidings at Federer’s hands, across four continents, although these were mostly in fast conditions. You might also recall that Federer had a hell of a time getting past the Argentine on his way to the 2009 Roland Garros title. Amidst all this recollection and reverie, del Potro’s win over Berdych should not be forgotten. It wasn’t a decisive win, but it was a win, and Berdych is by a considerable margin the finest player anyone has beaten so far in this tournament. The weather will also play a role. The forecast is for frigid, dull and dense conditions, not unlike Federer’s quarterfinal loss to Soderling in 2010, in which the bigger man’s capacity to penetrate the court proved definitive. Even ignoring his patchy form, Federer’s fans are justified in their concern.

(5) Tsonga d. (18) Wawrinka, 6/4 7/6 3/6 3/6 6/4

Finally, Novak Djokovic will face Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. Anyone who tells you how that one will turn out is guessing. This time last year Djokovic was chasing history, and we were uneasily wondering how he might possibly lose a match ever again. History beckons once more, like an alluring Jezebel, but this year his march towards her feels far less assured. Faced with the looming and admittedly hunky Andreas Seppi, the world No.1 tripped on his trousers whilst removing his socks, and reeled heavily in to the dressing table. Whether the subsequent blow to head returned him to his senses remains to be seen.

In Tsonga he’ll face a player who can handle almost anyone, whether he’s in the mood or not. When he is in the mood, there are few more arousing sights in the sport, even as he’s man-handling your favourite player, and rendering their best efforts irrelevant. Those for whom Tsonga is their favourite player – I’ll admit he ranks among mine – will be hoping for some of this tomorrow. The question will be which version of Djokovic shows up – they’re differentiated by serial number – and whether Tsonga will maintain his commitment if and when he the world No.1 lifts. Let’s not forget his early contention that no Frenchman could win the tournament, and that this is his first trip to the quarterfinals here. He is into the second week of Roland Garros. Will that be enough?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Grand Slams