Tennis Down Under

The Australian Open, oh how I love the year's first grand slam tennis event. Why you may ask? Well for the simple reason that it is a international tournament that marks as the first major competition of the sporting calendar. A much needed event to blow away the post holiday blues with some top-class tennis drama. This year’s tournament is like always, a well run competition staged down under with a lot of vibrant energy. On court, the tennis was solid if not stellar but lacked a certain wow factor. 

You may think that this is a contentious point to make considering how absorbing the men’s singles final was, but there is a method to my madness.  

Firstly in reviewing the women’s singles competition, it must be said that this championship was a bit of a let down. If for nothing else, it simply lacked overall genuine quality. Now female readers here me out, I make this statement based on the fact that realistically there have been a number of years where the women’s game has lacked individual top-draw excellence. A feature in my opinion that has hindered women’s tennis from reaching new heights that other past eras had established. Who are the players that instantly draw us as fans to the game today? Barring Maria Sharpova, Kim Clijsters, and Serena Williams there is an average depth of talent in women’s tennis, which was not isolated from this year’s Australian Open. Indifferent matches, no real individual stamping a claim to the title, and a case of who out of an uninspiring pack would claim the championship summed up the two weeks for me.

Young starlets like Sabine Lisicki, and Petra Kvitová are some of the new names being earmarked as the potential dominate forces in the women's game, but in this championship they slightly flattered to deceive.  The tournament saw other spoken would-be champions crashing out early to the relatively unknown or unfavorable too. Oh how I miss the early noughties when there was a cast list of players that read like a who’s who in women’s tennis. A plethora of names who could win any given impending grand slam tournament whilst raising the bar. Names like Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Maria Sharapova, Kim Clijsters, Jennifer Capriati, Justine Henin, and the Williams sisters provided us with genuine competitive matches, and at the very least varying names who could win the big tennis events. 

Some of the ladies mentioned have long retired or gone off the boil, and do not compete readily for various reasons including raising a family, pursuing other personal interests, or injuries. However, in the cases of  Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams, and Justine Henin to a lesser extent, have all made comebacks after a long layoff. The puzzling thing is how these players instantly found themselves to be there or thereabouts as the individuals to beat for the sport’s biggest prizes. What is the young current crop bringing to the table if this can happen?

In saying this, if the women’s game is average, it is far more open to a larger number of possible winners unlike the men’s championship in grand slam play. Watching the men's draw unfold during 2012 Australian Open fast became a redundant first ten days until the semi-finals stage, when the top four ranked players had to compete against each other. Roger Federer reached the semi-finals without dropping a set, before losing to Rafael Nadal. The Spaniard himself only lost a set en route to the semi-finals, and quite frankly (pun intended) I struggle to piece a case where he was even challenged in his matches to this stage. 

Murray’s path to the final four seemed to resemble a string of training sessions that he might have participated on an easy Sunday morning. Barring Leyton Hewitt who is affectionately called by his native Australian public as the “dogged mongrel”, the 2005 former finalist sure enough lived up to that title and offered some sort of resistance to the defending champion Novak Djokovic. But in all fairness, the world number one merely sleptwalked his way to a semi-final encounter with Andy Murray.

Without doubt in terms of top quality, the men’s game is going through a major purple patch that is lighting up the courts around the world whatever their colours may be. But this rudimentary run that the top four are having in reaching the business-end of the major tournaments is becoming all too predictable. That is of course when they have to face each other, and battle it out between themselves. It is not so much who is contesting the later stages that I have a gripe with, but it is how unchallenged they are in their efforts in getting there. The 2012 Australian Open was the third time out of the last five grand slam tournaments, that the top four have contested the semis with the greatest of ease. 

Much like the dearth of quality talent in the women’s game, this status in the men’s game cannot be good for tennis. Clearly it is not the problem of the elite male players, but a massive gulf between the world’s top quartet and the immediate rest who by their own right are good players, dampens the legitimacy of the earlier rounds of grand slam competition.

But looking at the positives, congratulations are in order to Victoria Azarenka who took the women’s championship with an impressive 6-3 6-0 victory against Maria Sharapova in the women's final. With the win, Azerenka has now positioned herself as the current world number one. Azerenka's double success, and a new leading face in the sport, may act as a catalyst in providing high-end quality in the women’s game for some years to come. Shifting a much needed push away from the established names that have lasted for over ten years. Moving away from the women's championship, how crazy were the men’s semi-finals and final itself?

Despite tennis’s version of El Clasico (Real Madrid v Barcelona), now resembling a lopsided rivalry in Rafael Nadal’s favour against Roger Federer, their clash still excited. Kudos must be given to Roger Federer who despite being the senior of his nearest contemporaries by five years, it was good to see the grandmaster still being highly competitive in the grand slams. His clash with Nadal brought a key thought in my head, which is Federer’s game is now a dying art. 

Okay let’s be honest, not many past or present have ever played the game quite like Federer. The Swiss player will go down as one of the greatest if not the best that there has ever been. But his game, and the style of being creative whilst displaying varying shots in today’s tennis player is now becoming extinct. In favour is the blood and thunder physical game that exists amongst the top players, a commodity needed to achieve victory. Disagree? Well before you make your decision let us first continue the review of the sharp end of this Australian Open.

In the other semi-final, Novak Djokovic finally overcame a vastly improved Andy Murray (who was not bad before), in a battle that resembled a roller coaster. You just did not know where the match was about to turn. If the Djokovic v. Murray clash was immense, then the final between Djokovic and Nadal gave us a snapshot as to what ancient gladiatorial clashes were like in Rome's Coliseum. An incredible six hour display full of grit, determination, heroic rallies, and an edge-of-your-seat experience to those who watched. The Rod Laver Arena will go down as a place where one of sports greatest ever contests took place. 

I have new found respect for Rafael Nadal who I will go as far as to say, I doubt if we will ever witness a sports professional perform more intensely, and more physically whilst leaving every ounce of their being in competition consistently. Truly the raging bull that is Nadal is an outstanding individual! Congratulations to Novak Djokovic on retaining his Australian Open title. The Serbian's win posts the questions of how many grand slams can Djokovic win in total, and can he achieve a calendar golden grand slam this year? So back to the question I posed before I leave you, would one describe the men's semis and final as stylistic, or more about substance?