THE ATP
5. What if...blue clay had caught on?
Technically, this is an item that could span across both tours - Madrid is a joint event, so one could ask this question of the WTA as well. It's Rafael Nadal's presence on the ATP that made me save this specifically for the men, though - a lot of skilled clay-court players on both tours, of course, but no one in tennis history has ever quite dominated the surface the way that he has. The blue clay experiment was an interesting idea from the mind of Ion Țiriac, the tournament director of Madrid, in which he attempted to switch the surface color from the traditional red clay that's traditionally used in the European swing. It's been noted that one of the tournament's main sponsors used blue in their advertisements; perhaps this played a part in the switch, but Țiriac insisted that it was merely for cosmetic reasons. The problem was, the surface didn't play like the red stuff - it turned out to be super fast and very slick, an issue that can apparently be attributed to the salt laid on top of the surface, which didn't blend, but stuck to the top instead. As a result, players struggled with footing all week, which led to a lot of unhappy campers; after relatively early losses, both Rafa and Novak Djokovic were among the loudest critics of the change. (The "King of Blue Clay," Roger Federer, went on to win the tournament.) Madrid would revert back to red clay the following year, and the experiment seems likely to be a one-and-done thing.
It's interesting to think about what might have come about had this experiment caught on. I highly doubt it would have led to anything drastic like Roland Garros changing its surface color, but the idea that the clay can be rendered in different shades is a worthy one, I think. Hard courts aren't only regulated to one color scheme, after all, and the ball is occasionally difficult to track on the red clay if you're watching in an area with glare or with less than optimal quality. It also makes me think about how it might've affected Rafa's dominance, as well; seeing as how fast this version of the surface apparently played, I wonder if it's something that was specific just to these courts, or of it's something that would've held true and forced him to have made some adjustments in his game. Be that as it may, this appears to be one of the many off-ramps tennis has taken in its history that, in this case, will indelibly linked to the 2010s. Who knows, maybe this is one of those things someone will try again in the future - I think there's some viability here, it just might need to be integrated a lot better than randomly attempting to slap it in the middle of the clay-court season with little to no prior consultation.
4. What if...Juan Martin del Potro hadn't been so damn unlucky?
An easy "what if?" question to suggest, no doubt, but what especially makes this one fascinating to ponder is the fact that Delpo and his injury issues began to crop up right at the beginning of the 2010s. He won the 2009 U.S. Open in memorable fashion, blowing out Nadal in the semis and then outlasting Federer in a five-set final. He turned 21 just days after this triumph, and at the turn of the decade, it seemed reasonable to believe that he'd continue this upwards trend. But the injury bug began to bite in earnest as soon as the next year started - first, a right wrist injury that had not fully healed by the time the 2010 Aussie Open started, which eventually required surgery and knocked him out for most of the rest of that year. He returned in 2011, and slowly made a climb back to the world's top 5, but then his left wrist began to bother him and wound up necessitating two surgeries of its own. No problem - he returns in 2016, with some adjustments to protect his left hand from further damage (necessitating a greater use of slice backhands as a result), and again finds his footing to make another climb up the rankings, this time as far as #3...before a fall in Shanghai in late 2018 caused him to fracture his right kneecap. Returning from that this year, he slips, falls, fractures the damn thing again, and misses the rest of the year as a result.
Now, one could certainly make the argument that Andy Murray is similarly unlucky, and I'd be hard-pressed to argue that, especially considering what's ended up happening with Andy and his hip issues near the end of the 2010s. The difference between these two, though, is that Andy was at least able to get extended periods where he got his fair share of licks in - he's had his own fair share of injury struggles too, no doubt, but his periods of relative good health lasted for much longer than anything Delpo's been able to sustain. It's been one thing after another for the Argentine; all we can do is speculate on what might have been had he been able to remain healthy. I think it might be a stretch to suggest that we lost out on an all-time great - while he's landed some big blows against the Big Three/Four, I doubt he would have supplanted any of them - but I don't doubt that he likely could have captured at least one more major with a sustained run of good health. Alas, we will never know what a fully healthy Delpo could have done.
3. What if...Roger Federer had converted even one of those match points against Novak Djokovic at the U.S. Open?
The closing of the decade brought up another potential "what if?" moment for Roger - that being his near miss during this year's Wimbledon final, of course, having squandered two championship points. While that was an incredibly stakes-heavy, gut-wrenching experience in and of itself, though, it doesn't quite register for me the same way these back-to-back U.S. Open losses did. By 2019, both of these gentlemen are well established as two prime candidates among the battle for the so-called Greatest of All Time; there is nothing to doubt about either one of their legacies, and at this point, they're merely scrapping for their exact final places in the all-time record books. It was a different story at the beginning of the decade, though, certainly for Novak, who entered this decade with only one major to his name, the 2008 Australian Open. Remember, he'd gone into their 2010 U.S. Open match having lost in three consecutive years to Roger at that tournament - the finals in '07 and the semis the next two years. He'd clearly become the next-best challenger to Roger and Rafa's supremacy at that point, but a victory for him wasn't a guaranteed proposition. So when he fell down two match points while serving at 4-5 during the 2010 semi, the crowd seemed to rejoice - New York would finally get its first Roger/Rafa showdown after all, or so it would've seemed.
Except Novak had other ideas in mind - he saved them both and went on to win, snapping a streak of six straight U.S. Open finals for Roger. And the next year, somehow, some way, Novak did the exact same thing at the exact same stage of the tournament - this time with Roger serving, just to add insult to injury, including the Return Heard 'Round the World to save the first MP.
So what might have changed if Roger had taken even one of these opportunities? For one thing, as I mentioned up above, it would have guaranteed a Nadal/Federer match at the U.S. Open, something that's still never happened to date - they've played multiple times at every other major, but never there. I personally don't think this is all that big of a deal, but for the sake of history, it's worth mentioning, as Rafa and Roger have on several occasions been one round away from meeting at Flushing Meadows, only for one of the two to falter. But I digress - that's anecdotal, part of history, sure, but certainly not the main takeaway here.
Is it worth speculating on whether or not Novak would have dominated to the degree that he did in 2011 had he lost this first semifinal? It seems to be, along with his guiding of Serbia to their very first Davis Cup triumph later in the year, one of the galvanizing forces behind his absolutely dominant start to the following season. Had Roger won this match, beating Novak for a fourth straight year at a deep stage in this particular tournament...hmmm. I could see Novak recovering from such a thing fairly easily; he'd already had plenty of lessons in taking his lumps from Roger and Rafa at that point. But I do wonder if he'd still been able to triumph in the same manner had he lost this first match. Maybe he wouldn't have gotten off to such a sizzling 41-0 start? Then again, he went on to lose the final itself and still came out of the blocks on a tear in 2011, so it's likely to not have mattered either way. You never know, though...
The 2011 match is an even more fascinating case study, given the facts just mentioned - this time, Novak was the alpha dog, having gotten off to the aforementioned amazing start and coming into this tournament as the undisputed best player in the world. Roger, meanwhile, had slipped to #3 in the rankings, behind Novak and Rafa, but had the benefit of entering this match knowing that it was he who broke Novak's winning streak, at Roland Garros earlier in the year. When Roger went up two sets to love, as he'd done at RG, it may have seemed like history was destined to repeat itself; unfortunately for him, that's exactly what happened, though it sure as shit wasn't in the way he imagined it would. He was none too pleased after this loss, too - give his post-match press conference a whirl to see how palpable the salt was.
Taking the match points themselves into consideration, it's interesting to note that it's only the fourth and final one that Roger really even had any chance to make a mark with - the first two, from the 2010 semi, came on Novak's serve, and he dictated both of those points, moving Roger from side to side and going for broke with an inside-out winner on the first, then pulling the trigger on a down-the-line winner after Roger's service return on the second. The third, and first from 2011...well, no one, dead or alive, was returning THAT shot. It's only the final one where Roger even had a chance - a tough serve to the body which Novak fought off, setting up a relatively easy look at an inside-out forehand from Roger...which proceeded to clip the top of the tape, bounce high into the air and fall back on his side of the net.
But if even one of those points had gone the other way...
2. What if...Novak hadn't touched the net?
The most dominant men's player of this decade has also had his own fair share of missed opportunities and heartbreak, as is the case with any great athlete and their respective oeuvres; the sting of this one might be eased a bit nowadays by the fact that the gent finally triumphed at Roland Garros three years after this happened, but Lord, was it a long, agonizing climb for him to finally get over that hump. This is one of the many sources of anguish that occurred before that milestone was reached, and arguably the top of the heap; it's a legendary match in Roland Garros history, and one of only two times anyone has ever even pushed Rafa to a fifth set at that tournament (we won't mention the other instance). Novak was still on top of the game at this point, while Rafa was in the midst of returning from his latest set of knee problems which had knocked him out for the second half of 2012 and the start of 2013. It was a match worthy of a finale, but unfortunately, Rafa's comparatively lower ranking by this time thanks to his injury hiatus led to the contest happening in the semis instead. They battled back and forth for hours, with Novak breaking Rafa as he served for the match at the end of the fourth set, breaking early in the fifth, and maintaining that advantage until 4-3. Then...
This part of the battle has long remained one of my favorite stretches of points from any match, one that I can recall from memory without any need for outside consultation. Rafa, perhaps sensing that he needed to step it up now if he was gonna come back and have any chance to win, went all-out with his forehand in this game, smoking two pinpoint down-the-line winners to reach a break point at 30-40. He then goes on to butcher a relatively neutral, easy forehand, to bring up deuce. Novak then initiates a lengthy rally and runs Rafa ragged, pulling him wide to set up an easy forehand volley...but his momentum carries him forward and into the net.
What has always been interesting to me about this sequence is that the break point Rafa earned by Novak's misfortune was not the break point that Rafa broke serve on - Novak actually saved that one with some punishing groundstrokes, but went on to lose the following two points after the second deuce. So did the net-touching thing really matter that much? Would we still remember it or call it a pivotal, momentum-swinging moment if Novak had simply dumped a groundstroke into the bottom of the net instead? Well, it obviously was something that might have broken his concentration a bit; the crowd got super riled up, and it led to a protracted discussion with the chair umpire in an attempt to plead his case for winning the point, to no avail. It's just always been interesting to me that it didn't immediately lead to the break, as you might assume it had.
If he hadn't touched the net, he clearly had that particular point won, and it would have set up a game point for 5-3 - still not quite over the hump, as there's no doubt that Rafa would have kept fighting, but boy, I bet Novak rued his anxiousness in putting away that shot for quite a while afterwards. It's a good thing he finally did win the damn thing in 2016, because this moment might loom even larger in his career had he not!
1. What if...Rafa hadn't missed THAT backhand?
Depending on which of the Big Three/Four is your primary rooting interest, the top 3 moments on this particular list are likely to be interchangeable in terms of gut-punches; being a Rafa fan naturally means that his various near-misses register with me more than any of the others. For me, the Australian Open has been the greatest source of that familiar stress and anxiety that comes along with rooting for your athletic favorites; since the 2013 U.S. Open, he's been another Aussie Open win away from becoming the only male player in the Open Era to win every major at least two times each. His fellow active Career Grand Slam mates on the men's side, Roger and Novak, each lack a second Roland Garros title, something which Rafa's dominance there over the years has prevented from happening several times now (and plays into the previous item on this list, in fact). But for Rafa, it is Australia that has proven to be the toughest finish line to cross; he won it once, in 2009, and has finished runner-up on four other occasions, including an injury-aided loss to Stan Wawrinka in the 2014 final (though I think he would have lost this match anyway - he was down a set and break when the injury occurred), and losing a 3-1 final set lead to Roger in the 2017 final.
For me, though, the biggest "what if?" surrounding Rafa and this tournament isn't any of the aforementioned finals, nor the never-in-doubt 2019 edition. It will always be 2012, the longest Grand Slam final to date, and that goddamn backhand. :(
This particular period of tennis ties into several aspects that have already been covered - Novak was the undisputed #1 at this point, and had beaten Rafa in the finals of the previous two Grand Slams. Rafa, meanwhile, was hoping to make some inroads against a rival against whom he'd been 16-7 against heading into 2011, but saw that whittled down in a hurry after going 0-6 against him in the Year of Novak. They both progressed to the final after defeating their fellow leaders in tennis supremacy in the semis - Rafa defeating Roger in four sets, Novak seeing off Andy in a lengthy five-setter (and with a day's less rest, to boot).
Midway through the fourth set, it appeared that things were set to go Novak's way yet again; he won sets two and three and had a love-40 advantage on Rafa's serve at 4-3 in the fourth set. Miraculously, Rafa dug out of this hole, saving all three break points, and when the set progressed to a tiebreaker, he won it - marking the first time these longtime rivals had ever reached a fifth set. When Rafa broke for a 4-2 lead in the finale, it seemed for a moment that maybe, just maybe, he was about to reverse his losing streak. He reached a 30-15 advantage, and then...
In hindsight, it seems like the 30-15 point is one of those moments where Rafa had way too much time to think about what he needed to do - forcing Novak to cover the net and shooting a backhand straight down a wide-open line. Seems like a simple task, the kind of shot a professional player is likely make in practice 99 times out of a hundred. It just so happens that this one time, in a high-stakes Grand Slam final, is the one goddamn time he misses this shot. I remember watching this live and I could sense it, the commentators could sense it, and the crowd likely sensed it as well - that's exactly what you don't need, against the worst possible opponent to miss such a thing. Had he made it, it would have been 40-15 - much like Novak's net gaffe up above, not completely out of the woods, but you've gotta like the odds with two game points for 5-2 a lot better than you would with a 30-30 point and the world's most dangerous opponent on the other side of the net.
But, he blew it. And Novak went on to sweep five of the last six games of the match. Le sigh.
What's interesting about this missed chance too is that it occurred before the opportunity to win every major twice each was even on the table - Rafa only had one U.S. Open at this point. While he has had several chances to accomplish this feat since, of course, this one still stings the most for me, not because I have any particular disdain against Novak or anything, but because, well, wouldn't you want your favorite to say that they won the longest GS final ever? Ah well. But that's part of why this exercise turned out to be so fun to me, as I stated in the last entry - it helps me to cope much more in imagining the alternative as opposed to sitting around and stewing about it endlessly.
Anyone else have any moments from the ATP's last decade that are still stuck in their craw after all this time?
This particular period of tennis ties into several aspects that have already been covered - Novak was the undisputed #1 at this point, and had beaten Rafa in the finals of the previous two Grand Slams. Rafa, meanwhile, was hoping to make some inroads against a rival against whom he'd been 16-7 against heading into 2011, but saw that whittled down in a hurry after going 0-6 against him in the Year of Novak. They both progressed to the final after defeating their fellow leaders in tennis supremacy in the semis - Rafa defeating Roger in four sets, Novak seeing off Andy in a lengthy five-setter (and with a day's less rest, to boot).
Midway through the fourth set, it appeared that things were set to go Novak's way yet again; he won sets two and three and had a love-40 advantage on Rafa's serve at 4-3 in the fourth set. Miraculously, Rafa dug out of this hole, saving all three break points, and when the set progressed to a tiebreaker, he won it - marking the first time these longtime rivals had ever reached a fifth set. When Rafa broke for a 4-2 lead in the finale, it seemed for a moment that maybe, just maybe, he was about to reverse his losing streak. He reached a 30-15 advantage, and then...
In hindsight, it seems like the 30-15 point is one of those moments where Rafa had way too much time to think about what he needed to do - forcing Novak to cover the net and shooting a backhand straight down a wide-open line. Seems like a simple task, the kind of shot a professional player is likely make in practice 99 times out of a hundred. It just so happens that this one time, in a high-stakes Grand Slam final, is the one goddamn time he misses this shot. I remember watching this live and I could sense it, the commentators could sense it, and the crowd likely sensed it as well - that's exactly what you don't need, against the worst possible opponent to miss such a thing. Had he made it, it would have been 40-15 - much like Novak's net gaffe up above, not completely out of the woods, but you've gotta like the odds with two game points for 5-2 a lot better than you would with a 30-30 point and the world's most dangerous opponent on the other side of the net.
But, he blew it. And Novak went on to sweep five of the last six games of the match. Le sigh.
What's interesting about this missed chance too is that it occurred before the opportunity to win every major twice each was even on the table - Rafa only had one U.S. Open at this point. While he has had several chances to accomplish this feat since, of course, this one still stings the most for me, not because I have any particular disdain against Novak or anything, but because, well, wouldn't you want your favorite to say that they won the longest GS final ever? Ah well. But that's part of why this exercise turned out to be so fun to me, as I stated in the last entry - it helps me to cope much more in imagining the alternative as opposed to sitting around and stewing about it endlessly.
Anyone else have any moments from the ATP's last decade that are still stuck in their craw after all this time?
No comments:
Post a Comment