The Sporting Statesman

by Chris Bowers

  The following day, Nadal broke Djokovic in the first game of the resumption, taking away the fourth-set advantage Djokovic still carried over from the night before. From then on Nadal was always ahead and Djokovic had to wait for five minutes while rain and thunder graced Roland Garros with Nadal just a game from victory at 5–4. Djokovic held for 5–5 but conceded his next service game on a double fault, as Nadal claimed his seventh French Open title and broke the streak of three major finals in which he’d lost to Djokovic.

  So did the rain rob Djokovic on Sunday? It’s hard to make a convincing case that it did. Yes, the momentum was truly with him and the overnight break came at a good time for Nadal. But the rain had helped Djokovic get back in the match early in the third set. By making the balls heavier, it had blunted some of the merciless topspin that’s a feature of Nadal’s game and made it a more even contest. The ideal for Djokovic would have been for the drizzle to remain very light, or to be intermittent with some dry spells still under heavy cloud – such weather is possible, but is it right to say that only such a very precise combination of conditions would have levelled the match? In addition, who’s to say Nadal would not have come back if the match had continued to a conclusion on Sunday? Although the Spaniard is known for his phenomenal fitness, he is not just a physical player but a superb match player – he is remarkably immune to succumbing to his opponent’s momentum, frequently bouncing back when his opponent is having a purple patch. It’s quite likely he would have done the same if the weather gods had allowed a Sunday finish.

  Djokovic recognised as much when he spoke after Monday’s conclusion. He acknowledged that the rain break had come at a bad time for him but also that the rain had helped him get back into the match. And he recognised that Nadal was the better player over the two days. He had put up a credible challenge, but no one could claim it was an unfair result.

  The full story of how Djokovic surrendered his Wimbledon title in the 2012 semi-finals to Roger Federer has yet to be told. It’s possible there isn’t much of a story to tell – after all, while Djokovic went into the match as a slight favourite, he had never beaten Federer on grass, and losing a four-setter to the great Roger Federer at his most successful tournament is hardly a disgrace. And yet…

  Djokovic said he had too many ups and downs and that a poor spell towards the end of the third set cost him a match that, until then, had been very even. It’s a plausible explanation. He also said he failed to make the most of his second shot of many rallies, in particular when he was serving. That prompted a question in his post-match press conference: ‘Was there any particular reason why you didn’t feel as sharp as you were on that second ball? Did you feel good coming into today?’ Djokovic replied, ‘Not so great really. I had [a] bad last couple [of] days. Last five, six days I wasn’t feeling great. But I don’t want to talk about it now.’ Whatever the story was, he will tell it when he’s ready, but it was a strangely subdued Djokovic that day, and it would not be a shock to learn he had some illness or minor injury. In some ways, it’s almost a relief to know that the guy whose body can carry him through two punishing five-setters in 48 hours the way it did in Australia six months earlier can also rebel and deliver him only 80 per cent of his normal energy, even in a tournament as big as Wimbledon. It makes this remarkable sporting specimen human.

  His final comment at Wimbledon was, ‘You know, life goes on. This is sport, I have to move on.’

  By the time he’d moved on to his next tournament, he should have been in cinemas across the entire world. Never one to shun the limelight, Djokovic had accepted a tiny cameo role in a follow-up movie to the 2010 gangster hit The Expendables. In Expendables 2, a remarkably plot-free film ‘written’ by Sylvester Stallone and starring Stallone, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Djokovic was filmed in a 10-second appearance in which he single-handedly wipes out three (or is it four?) machine-gun-wielding terrorists, all with his tennis racket. For a man who gave up the single-handed aggressive backhand when he was about seven, he takes out one of the terrorists with a superb one-hander that Federer would have been proud of. A bit like the Indian tennis star Vijay Amritraj, who wielded his racket as a mean weapon in the 1983 James Bond film Octopussy, Djokovic looks like he’s having great fun. Yet the scene never made it to the final version and his 10 seconds of heroism was left on the cutting-room floor, although it did make it on to YouTube. As long as it remains visible, he no doubt has scope for a corny peace message along the lines that you don’t need guns, only tennis rackets.

  A small detail from his appearance is that he was wearing his Sergio Tacchini zip-up top. That was part of the contract he signed in 2009 that saw him switch from Adidas, the German clothing company whose sportswear he had worn since he was a junior, to the company set up by a former Italian tennis player, Sergio Tacchini. His deal with Tacchini was nominally for five years, but after just half of it, Djokovic parted company with the Italians in May 2012 to sign up with the Japanese clothing giant Uniqlo. Tacchini was reported to be in financial difficulties and Djokovic would have been costing the firm a fair bit; whether it was in difficulties or not, the split was amicable. The result was that, with filming having taken place in Bulgaria in 2011 when Djokovic was still under contract to Tacchini, the Expendables clip shows him wearing the Tacchini label several months after switching to the Japanese company Uniqlo.

  The switch to Uniqlo is interesting for what it says about the changing economics of tenniswear. For several years, youngsters have tended to play tennis in cotton T-shirts and only used specific tennis shirts for matches (which is what the top players do). At the same time, tennis shirts have become appropriate clothing for casual and smart-casual social occasions. In 2005 the French company Lacoste, set up by the legendary French player from the 1920s, René Lacoste, signed up Andy Roddick because it specifically wanted to target the US leisure market. While the world’s two market leaders in tenniswear, Nike and Adidas, have concentrated on sports clothing, Djokovic was signed up by a Japanese company looking to enhance its standing as a leisurewear retailer in high streets, shopping malls and on the Internet. At the same time as Djokovic was becoming Uniqlo’s global brand ambassador (players don’t just wear the clothing, they’re termed ‘brand ambassadors’ these days), another ‘high street’ brand, the Swedish chain Hennes & Mauritz (H&M), was signing up another top-10 tennis player, Tomas Berdych. It prompts the question of whether Next, Marks & Spencer or other familiar fashion names will soon start sponsoring tennis players.

  By losing to Roger Federer at Wimbledon, Djokovic lost his No. 1 ranking. However, with Nadal off the tour after a mysterious second-round defeat at Wimbledon to Lukas Rosol, the Serb was still thought of as the man to beat. Yet he looked strangely off-colour when he went back to Wimbledon for the Olympics (then again, the All England Club was also off-colour, adorned as it was with bright Olympic-pink drapes incongruously set against the Virginia creeper that grows around Centre Court). After losing his semi-final to Andy Murray 7–5, 7–5, Djokovic seemed strangely unmotivated in the bronze-medal playoff against Juan Martin del Potro. Perhaps he just wasn’t up for a second bronze medal after the one he won in Beijing in 2008, or maybe del Potro was fired up after coming so close to beating Federer in a four-hour semi-final. Whatever the reason, del Potro won 7–5, 6–4.

  The following week Djokovic won another Masters title but a somewhat diminished title, as the Canada Masters in Toronto in 2012 didn’t feature all of the top players (many were still in London enjoying the Olympics). He reached the final in Cincinnati where Federer beat him in two sets, the first of them a 6–0 drubbing that lasted just 20 minutes and in which Djokovic won a mere 10 points. But Djokovic looked all set to retain his US Open title when he eased into the final having dropped just one set.

  Facing him was Andy Murray, who had had a much tougher route to the final, as well as all the pressure of seeking to become the first British man to win a major title since 1936. It was a fluctuating match. Murray
won the 87-minute first set on a 12–10 tie-break and led 5–1 in the second. Djokovic bounced back to 5–5 but lost the set 7–5. Djokovic then played superb tennis in the third and fourth sets, picking up his level after being given a time violation, and as the players took bathroom breaks before the start of the fifth set, Djokovic looked the likelier winner. But Murray bounced back to break twice at the start of the decider, and not even Djokovic calling for the trainer at 2–5 to have a groin strain massaged could knock Murray off course. There were those who wondered if it was a tactical move, but whether it was or not, Murray was so in the zone that he barely seemed to notice the delay before he served for the championship. And when Djokovic overhit a forehand return of serve on championship point, the title was Murray’s.

  Given the closeness of the two in their progression through the junior ranks, it should be no surprise that Djokovic and Murray should play out 50:50 contests when they face each other at full tour level. But this was psychologically very important for Murray. They had played each other a lot on the tour but it had taken Murray until their fifth match to win one. And in their Grand Slam matches Djokovic always came out on top, so this win was massive for Murray. Djokovic was magnanimous in defeat at the end, respecting the enormity of Murray’s first Grand Slam title, but there was no sense of him feeling he’d lost to the better player the way there was in the French Open final. To Djokovic, this was probably one that got away.

  But then the tables were turned four months later when Djokovic beat Murray in the Australian Open final after seeming to be heading for defeat. Djokovic had come through the match of the tournament, if not of 2013, in beating Stanislas Wawrinka 12–10 in the fifth set in five hours and two minutes. That was in the fourth round and he had a lapse in the quarter-finals against Tomas Berdych that cost him a set. But by the time he reached the final, he had recovered and was raring to take on his British rival. Murray had beaten Roger Federer in the semi-finals in a match that was odd for being a five-set crushing. That ought not to be possible – a five-setter is by definition close, but Murray won all his sets comfortably while Federer won both of his on tie-breaks.

  After Murray took the first set of the final, he had Djokovic on the ropes at 0–40 in the second game of the second set. It looked to all those in the Rod Laver Arena as if Murray would triumph. But then two things happened. Firstly, Djokovic played three of his best points of the match to come back to deuce and ultimately save his serve. Secondly, in the second set tie-break, a feather floated down from a passing bird as Murray prepared to deliver his second serve at 2–2. He stepped forward to remove it, went back to his baseline and promptly double-faulted. Given that there had been no breaks of serve until that point, it was a crucial lapse which Djokovic seized on. He won the tie-break to level the match, after which Murray needed renewed strapping to protect blisters on his foot. Djokovic broke in the eighth game of the third set to emphasise the momentum shift and broke twice in the fourth as he snuffed out Murray’s challenge.

  It made Djokovic the first man in the ‘open’ era of tennis to win three consecutive Australian Opens and emphasised that he was the world No. 1 for a reason. The question was now whether he could complete his set of majors.

  At the end of January 2013 it was easy to see Djokovic and Murray as the new top two in the game. Federer was still around but showing signs of fading, while Nadal had been off the tour for seven months. There was much talk of his comeback, originally scheduled for the Australian Open but then delayed until the lower-ranking clay-court events in South America beginning the day after the Australian. But while many felt Nadal would still be a factor on clay, few expected him to put up a sustained challenge on all surfaces. How wrong they would prove to be.

  Nadal’s comeback was impressive. He reached the final in his first tournament in Chile, won the second and third in Brazil and Mexico, and then served notice that he was likely to be a factor by winning on the hard courts of Indian Wells, beating Federer, Berdych and del Potro en route to the title. It meant the first meeting of the year between Djokovic and Nadal was eagerly awaited, especially as it came in the final in Monte Carlo, the clay-court tournament where Nadal had never lost. The score of Djokovic’s 6–2, 7–6 win doesn’t adequately illustrate just how dominant Djokovic was that day. In the first set he ate Nadal for breakfast, and while the Spaniard battled back in the second, Djokovic always seemed to have the upper hand. With rumours circulating that Nadal’s knees were playing up again, the Monte Carlo final looked to be both psychologically and physically significant.

  Yet Djokovic had a poor run-in to the French Open, losing in the first round in Madrid to the maddeningly erratic Grigor Dimitrov, and in the Rome quarter-finals to Berdych. Meanwhile Nadal won both titles, so went to Paris with real form.

  Because of the months he had spent off the tour, Nadal’s ranking had dropped and was still only back to four going into the French. It meant the top two players on form were not guaranteed to be in separate halves of the draw, and indeed the names came out of the hat in a top-heavy formation that left Djokovic and Nadal set to meet in the semi-finals, with Federer and David Ferrer set for the bottom half. And so it came to pass that the most eagerly awaited match of the tennis year took place not in the final but the semis of the French.

  Midway through the second set, it looked a mismatch. Nadal had won the first set convincingly and Djokovic was fighting to keep in touch in the second. Nadal broke to lead 3–2 while Djokovic was hesitant and had slipped a couple of times on the increasingly dry clay that was being baked by strong sun. But then Nadal played a poor game; Djokovic seized his chance and broke twice to level the match. But Nadal regained the momentum at the start of the third and had two set points for a 6–0 set before Djokovic finally won a game. In the fourth set, Nadal broke for 4–3, only to be broken straight back. He served for the match at 6–5 after another break but still Djokovic came back. The set went into the tie-break, Djokovic was never behind and won it 7–3. That wave of confidence swept Djokovic to a 4–1 lead in the decider with a double break. Nadal got one back and, at 4–3, he again put pressure on the Djokovic serve. That was when the incident happened that this match is remembered for.

  Djokovic had recovered from 0–30 and then saved two break points. On the third deuce he opened up the court and had a simple putaway smash at the net. But in playing it, he stumbled and touched the net before the ball had bounced a second time (or in this case, landed in the crowd). As it was right under the umpire’s chair and he had hit the ball well within the umpire’s range of vision, Pascal Maria had a good view and called the point for Nadal. Djokovic argued with him for a couple of minutes but must have known deep down that, if the ball hadn’t bounced a second time before he touched the net, the umpire had no choice but to call the point for the Spaniard. Djokovic said afterwards he ‘should have won’ the point and thought it might have gone to him as the ball had ‘left the dimensions of the court’ before he touched the net. But he didn’t sound convincing; he could scarcely have proved it had left the dimensions of the court, so he wisely stopped himself from saying it was an outright mistake.

  Did that incident cost Djokovic the match? Looking at the flow of points, no. It cost him the point, which gave Nadal a third break point, but Djokovic saved it. So they were back at deuce. It was then that Nadal won the next two points to level at 4–4 and was never behind after that. But in a finely balanced match, such incidents can change the momentum. One could also point to Djokovic complaining about the dryness of the court as he walked out to serve at 7–8 – whether he was right or wrong, he lost the next four points, including one horrendous error on a smash, as Nadal ran out a 9–7 winner in four hours, 38 minutes.

  That fact was that, while Djokovic could well have won, Nadal’s victory was not unfair based on the course of the match. It was only Djokovic’s indefatigable refusal to accept he was beaten in the second and fourth sets that allowed him to be in a winning position in the fifth. And t
his is where Nadal is a match for Djokovic as a competitor – the Mallorcan seldom seems to suffer for long from his opponent having the momentum; his ability to turn the tables is always a clear and present danger to the guy on the other side of the net. That is why their matches are normally such brutal and bruising affairs and why this French Open semi-final was no different.

  By contrast, Nadal’s next match, the final against David Ferrer, was a walk in the park. This was the high watermark of Ferrer’s career. He had beaten Federer’s conqueror Jo-Wilfried Tsonga to reach his first (and so far only) Grand Slam final, a reward for unfailing, ever courteous, low-profile striving to maximise his potential in the shadow of the great Nadal. But while Ferrer deserves to be regarded as the best of the rest, he was always a class below the big four in the matches that mattered, and Nadal made mincemeat of him in a colourless final.

  If Djokovic-Nadal was the new (or revived) rivalry at the top of the game, it wasn’t a consistent one. In his next match after winning the French, Nadal was beaten by Steve Darcis in the first round at Wimbledon. With Federer losing in the second round and other big names going out, Djokovic and Murray resumed their rivalry, which could not have continued in Paris, as Murray missed Roland Garros due to a back injury that necessitated surgery later in the year. Following the carnage of the first three days, a Djokovic-Murray final was on the cards from the evening of the first Wednesday. Ten days later it finally came round, despite Djokovic having had to go four and three quarter hours to beat Juan Martin del Potro in the semi-finals in the best match of the tournament. The number seven played a big part in the build-up to the final – it was 77 years since a Briton had last won the men’s singles at Wimbledon, Murray had beaten Djokovic seven times but never at Wimbledon and the match took place on seventh day of the seventh month.