Well, it is now a surety that Novak Djokovic will end the year as the World's top male tennis player. This year, he has won three grand slams, except Rafa's Roland Garros. He has trounced, defeated and edged past the chasing pack of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray, almost always prevailing over them. Novak, in a way, has become the conundrum to Rafa that the latter himself had been to Roger. Rafa's sympathy for Roger must have turned to empathy over the six finals in which he has seemed nowhere near putting one past Novak. Numbers do not narrate the legends and sagas in sport, no matter how many new parameterizing techniques are brought out by the statisticians. In Novak's case, however, they easily evoke the awe that the spectators must have felt watching him play. He has lost a meager two matches in 2011. Technically, he retired from his match versus Andy Murray at the Cincinnati Masters owing to injury, though he was much closer to losing than a victory. When a plucky Roger, at the semis of the French Open, beat him, he had helped the Swiss Master's cause by reverting to his edgy, flustered self. Such an arrival is well announced. He casts dazed gazes at his box, and his asides have all the listeners but the one he intends them for. He begins to bounce the ball for much too long, as if he is trying to count his ado away. In his loss to Roger, he reacted petulantly when the chair umpire pointed to the last trait above that is against the rules of the game. Come to think of it, his was among the few serves that prompted the 20-second rule's return to the chair -- adding one more chore to the umpire's task list -- and the commentary box, a fetch from beyond the corner of the court, from the cozy nook of the rulebook. He also sulked at the how the partisan Parisian crowd was itching for a Federer win. In the end, he was left scratching his head. It does seem that he works hard to keep his emotions bottled, but they sure do fizz forth when his plans fizzle out. You can't be a King without a crown, can you? In truth, he never conveys such royal illusions. On the court, he is more like a gladiator. His fights, and how his camp experiences the thrill of each point, do make for a more dramatic viewing of the game. Nevertheless, as a fan, I would love to see a serene swing of his racquet that would let eyes linger over the ball, as they ought to, in deference to his tennis talent. Among his tangible targets must be tying up a career grand slam, a vantage point that would let him comprehend that all important number - sixteen. Nole’s on the ascent, but he still needs to get around a knoll or two.
Roger, on the other hand, is at the Pete-at-the-turn-of-the-millennium stage. He remains stoic and graceful on the tennis court, and gracious off it. My concern for him has nothing to do with his temperament. The chiding a young Roger Federer got from his father, with the old man having already flung his son on the snow outside the arena for the discredit the boy's behaviour threatened to bring, has served the tennis legend well. I still believe he is above enervating musings, but I do now fear for him even against some opponents outside the top three -- he has slid to fourth on the charts. It is sometimes frustrating to see his game-plan failing to come off. Yet, as can be seen from the tweaking his tennis has gone through, he certainly hasn’t given up on his quest, the object of which, arguably, will anyway be head and shoulders above what any tennis player might have ever dreamt of. The fine tuning has been effective in taking away the passivity from his game. But, he continues to betray almost an ideological intolerance for the power game that is on tour, keeping in line with his being the epitome of elegant tennis. Will there be a seventeenth? His longevity is not under question. So, all he would need is an apparition of the impeccable, much like in Pete’s swan song. Isn't class permanent? Further, if luck is more generous, he is after all the most regular at the majors, he might even place himself on a higher summit before he is over the hill.
Roger, on the other hand, is at the Pete-at-the-turn-of-the-millennium stage. He remains stoic and graceful on the tennis court, and gracious off it. My concern for him has nothing to do with his temperament. The chiding a young Roger Federer got from his father, with the old man having already flung his son on the snow outside the arena for the discredit the boy's behaviour threatened to bring, has served the tennis legend well. I still believe he is above enervating musings, but I do now fear for him even against some opponents outside the top three -- he has slid to fourth on the charts. It is sometimes frustrating to see his game-plan failing to come off. Yet, as can be seen from the tweaking his tennis has gone through, he certainly hasn’t given up on his quest, the object of which, arguably, will anyway be head and shoulders above what any tennis player might have ever dreamt of. The fine tuning has been effective in taking away the passivity from his game. But, he continues to betray almost an ideological intolerance for the power game that is on tour, keeping in line with his being the epitome of elegant tennis. Will there be a seventeenth? His longevity is not under question. So, all he would need is an apparition of the impeccable, much like in Pete’s swan song. Isn't class permanent? Further, if luck is more generous, he is after all the most regular at the majors, he might even place himself on a higher summit before he is over the hill.
Comments