29
Superhuman Djokovic Terminates The Raging Bull In Epic Clash Of Titans
37 Comments · Posted by Scoop Malinowski in Articles, Scoop
Wow. This match was beyond comprehension. I’ve never seen such an epic display of such talent, stamina and ferocity over the course of six hours. Leonard and Hearns, Ali and Frazier could not have kept it up for as long as somehow Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal did.
I’ve never seen a man fall to his knees after winning a fourth set, it was as if Rafa just knew he was going to win after he managed to save the fourth set. You just know Nadal had to have visions of seeing Djokovic falter in those Davis Cup matches where he quit against Davydenko and also the one this year against Argentina. That was the one question about Djokovic – is he strong enough to overcome exhaustion in a marathon epic? Could Nadal take Djokovic into deep waters and drown him in the fifth set?
Nadal did have Djokovic in dire straits in the fifth set, exactly where he wanted him. Up a break with Djokovic clearly looking exhausted and frustrated at having blown the fourth set. But somehow, as if my miracle or something divine, Djokovic hung in there. Nadal missed that semi-easy backhand up the line which would have given him 40-15 but instead he missed the shot and it was 30-30 and Djokovic ended up winning the game and getting the match back on serve.
It was magical how suddenly Djokovic was able to capitalize on that error, and regain strength and determination. Of course Nadal battled till the end but he could never regain the stranglehold of the match. Djokovic would not let him.
Nadal showed a ferocity and desperation and viciousness that I’ve never seen before. When Djokovic struggled with his legs – Patrick McEnroe commented that he might be rope a doping (or faking) – Nadal would not even look over and show any mercy or sympathy, he completely ignored his arch rival’s pain and anguish. Nadal wanted this match like nothing he’s ever wanted before.
Djokovic is the greatest challenge of his career, Nadal has never been dominated by one man before, like he has been in six straight finals by Djokovic. Nadal hungered to win this match perhaps more than any other he ever played, and he competed with a ruthles fury and desperation that reflected this desire. The raging bull was trying to kill the matador who had antagonized him for a year straight of torture.
But the matador would not succumb. Somehow he managed to summon the best tennis of his life, maybe some of the best tennis that’s ever been played. It was a rollercoaster ride the last half of the fifth set but Djokovic round his seventh, eighth or ninth wind and got the job done, leaving Nadal in shock and devastation.
They embraced briefly at the net but there was not a lot of warmth between the two gracious but bitter rivals. Nadal composed himself but this had to be an excurciating moment for Nadal, the most painful moment of his career, and he has to be wondering, deep down, if he will ever be able to beat Djokovic ever again in a final.
As the two waited at the net during the awards ceremony, again a cold looking Nadal seemed to ignore Djokovic, though he gave a very gracious and respectful speech.
Djokovic has proven to the world that 2011 was no accident or fluke and that he is prepared to do whatever it takes to take his game to an even higher level in 2012.
We may see Novak Djokovic become the greatest tennis player in history this year and winning the grand slam is looking within his grasp right now.
Steve · January 29, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Gone are the dominating ways of last year. He survived Rafa more than anything else which is quite a feat.
Mitch · January 29, 2012 at 5:31 pm
I wonder if these guys will be able to survive the season.
Dan Markowitz · January 29, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Please, Steve, he “survived Rafa!?” The guy had to play two five-set matches in the span of 48 hours. Djoko had never won back-to-back five set matches. The fact that Nadal got an extra day lay-off, time to train and rest, was huge here. The Aussie O, I hope, learns from this epic contest that you can’t stage semi matches on two different days and give the winner of the first contest a decided advantage. Djoko was super-human in this event, especially after what happened at the tail-end of last year. Give him time to recover and I think he sweeps the field in Indy Wells and Miami, as he did last year.
Scoop Malinowski · January 29, 2012 at 9:14 pm
There was a bit of survival in this match, but it basically followed the same pattern. Close early, Djokovic takes control, then Rafa hangs in there fighting for his life, with desperation and panic. This time Rafa got the edge at the end but Djokovic somehow managed to make the reversal from that backhand miss by Rafa at 0-30. Also don’t forget that challenge moments earlier on Djok’s ball that was called and would have been 40-0 Rafa but Djok challenged and it was on the back of the line. Both players survived numerous moments of peril, it was simply a miraculous match, maybe probably the best I’ve ever seen. Nadal’s facial expressions were the most intense I’ve ever seen, he actually looked like a raging bull a few times. This is going to be a devastating loss for Team Nadal. No matter what Rafa does, Djokovic ALWAYS has the answer. If Djokovic dominates Fed now, which I think he will, it’s hard to imagine who can step up and topple this seemingly unbeatable indestructible Serbian tennis machine.
Dan Markowitz · January 29, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Let me pose this possible-reality. Let’s say Djoko wins six more slams over the next three years, putting his total at 11. In doing so, he has the decided advantage over Nadal and Fed. Let’s say Nadal wins three more slams over that period of time and Fed one. That puts the ledger at 17, 13 and 11.
Then over the following three years, Djoko wins four slams, Nadal one and Fed none. And you’re at 17, 15, 14–Fed, Djoko, Nadal. Now, seeing that Nadal dominated Fed and Djoko dominated Nadal, at least in the last six years of their careers, who is the GOAT?
I say Djoko because he would’ve had to overcome the best two players of all time to become the GOAT.
Michael · January 30, 2012 at 1:40 am
I posit this. ]
Let’s say Pete time travels back and rips Joker who has never seen a sustained S+V attack because it hasn’t existed since Henman retired. And while I knew Henman’s S+V game, Henman was no Jack Kennedy.
But Fed repeats the 2001 performance and beats Pete twice in a row on Pete’s fav surface. Borg says I want a piece of that and he plays Nadal but they both pass out from exhaustion in the first set.
Who’s the GOAT then.
@scoop
“…it’s hard to imagine who can step up and topple this seemingly unbeatable indestructible Serbian tennis machine.”
That’s what they said about Pete. Then Fed. It’s always hard to imagine. People age. They get injured. Distracted. I always thought Pete’s six times year ending #1 was one of the more impressive stats.
I can tell you who won’t be doing it. Raonic. Can you even imagine that guy playing in a match like that final. The great ones all are great movers.
I would say Jesse Witten is most probably the guy that will step up to challenge Joker. He gave him all Joker could handle last they met, obviously matches up well against him and he will most likely chase Joker for GOAT.
Makes as much sense as inter-generational GOAT talk.
Dan Markowitz · January 30, 2012 at 3:58 am
I don’t think inter-generational GOAT talk is nonsense. The great ones have special qualities, and Laver pointed out Hoad and of course, Sampras, and Borg, and I think Djokovic, now. Can’t say Federer really fits into that category, as what matches of his come to mind where he really battled through adversity except for the 2008 Wimby finals with Rafa. Rafa’s being challenged by Djoko and the next couple of years will tell if he can upturn Djoko and become a GOAT nominee.
Steve · January 30, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Dan that’s easy. Sampras is the GOAT. Or maybe Laver. 🙂
But ya know Fed used to do okay against Rafa when he was younger. Beat him in two Wimby finals. Its a bit unfair because I actually consider Fed a diff generation than Rafa & Novak. Just as Sampras & Agassi a were diff generation from Edberg but only 4 or 5 years diff. in age.
Steve · January 30, 2012 at 1:51 pm
BTW, I don’t put any stock in the fact this is longest final in Aussie slam history. An announcer pointed out these two are the slowest players in history. Like an hour of it was toweling off and bouncing the ball before serving.
Dan Markowitz · January 30, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Fed has played in what-must-be-a-record nine slam finals or semis that went five sets, and he has only won three of those matches:against Roddick in 2009 Wimby, 2007 Wimby against Nadal and 2009 French semis against Del Po.
Look at the players he’s beaten in slam finals: young Nadal and Djoko, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, old Agassi, Gonzalez.
Does that matchup to who Sampras beat: in prime Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Goran, Chang, out of prime Becker? Decided advantage Sampras.
Pete played in only three slam finals/semis 5-setters and won only one against Goran in 1998 Wimby.
Does anyone know the only player to ever beat Pete in two semi/finals of slams without Pete ever beating him once?
Steve · January 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Without looking it up…maybe Krajchek(sp?) I read Pete’s book. Or maybe Safin.
IMHO, Sampras is the best athlete out of all in the GOAT discussion –not the fittest. When Sampras was having a good day there was little hope in beating him as there would be mostly two or three stroke/volley rallies, at least in the 2nd half of his career.
Even a serving duel would be tough –ask Goran. Are you asking is Sampras had a tougher era? Probably yes. He also had to face Guga who was insanely good.
Scoop Malinowski · January 30, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Forgot to add that Djokovic won two five setters in a row for the first time in his career. How strong he has come since the days when some people called him a quitter. Steve, think you are right abot Krajicek but can only think of one time he beat Pete in a major (Wimbledon). Though I think RK has a winning record career wise vs. Pete.
Steve · January 30, 2012 at 8:23 pm
…and there was that period of a year when Djokovic kinda lost his service motion for a season –happens to me weekly. 🙂
Steve · January 30, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Scoop I have a match on DVD I think you would love. Sampras vs. Gilbert at the Slam Cup in Germany. Sampras was just 19 but was patient and the points were mostly long. Gilbert tries all his tactics though.
Scoop Malinowski · January 31, 2012 at 2:09 am
Steve you’re not the only one, unless you go out and hit a few almost every day, I find the rhythm and motion leave you and you have to refind it.
Scoop Malinowski · January 31, 2012 at 2:11 am
Would love to see that BG Sampras match, never saw BG play but am a big fan of his book Winning Ugly which I read constantly as a matter of fact it’s on my bathroom floor now, I can trade you Rios vs. Agassi in Grand Slam Cup and some other Rios matches on there, but need that Rios DVD back, it’s a keeper from a friend overseas. Let’s do trade in the spring.
Michael · January 31, 2012 at 4:20 am
“I actually consider Fed a diff generation than Rafa & Novak. ”
I think I do too certainly as far as Novak. But I think Fed has always had a bit of a Rafa problem. From the get go.
Though I’m not sure Dan can view Federer objectively because he thinks Federer “prances” around the court and he doesn’t like it.
I think Federer is a more complete player than Sampras.
Having watched both from the start to finish of their careers (at least I hope to finish with Fed) I enjoy watching Fed more. Fed can do it all.
I saw Pete live numerous times (v. Corretja and v. Yzaga being my favorite) and I can’t recall Pete ever hitting a tweener. Fed would do it just to entertain. Routinely. Including during the virtual clinic he put on against Dan’s boy Spadea in 2006 USO, R16. He gave us a tweener — just because he could.
Dan Markowitz · January 31, 2012 at 6:52 am
Sampras didn’t have to hit tweeners. He was such an explosive jumper, balls usually didn’t get over his head at net. I’ve watched Fed and Sampras play their entire lives. Here’s a few objective critiques:
Sampras won his first slam at 19. No one really saw it coming, he was second fiddle to Agassi and even Courier, who are both a year older. Fed didn’t win one till 21. Sampras matured earlier as a player.
Sampras was an explosive mover. He didn’t move as gracefully or as quickly as Fed, but I’d say he was as equally fast.
Fed has a great serve, but no one, ever, not a single player I’ve ever seen, hit his serve as consistently well as Sampras. And then he was in on you at the net. I still think the really great s + v’s==Sampras, Rafter, Mac would be able to ply their trade successfully in today’s game.
No one held the upper hand on Sampras. His career didn’t last as long as Fed’s as a top player, but Fed is second fiddle to both Nadal and Djoko now for the past couple of years, longer with Nadal, and that never happened to Fed.
Fed beat only five players in slam finals who had won a slam themselves–Rafa, Agassi, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt–and only two who at the time were multi-slam winners–Agassi and Rafa. Think of that, the only two multi-slam winners he beat were a 35-yr-old Agassi and a 21-yr-old Rafa, who’d only won French Opens when Fed beat him at 2007 Wimby.
Sampras in contrast, beat seven slam winners in slam finals–Agassi, Courier, Chang, Rafter, Goran Moya and Becker–and every one of them had won multi-slams when he beat them except Chang, Goran and Moya. That’s a big difference.
As Spadea said about Pete, “he didn’t let you play.” Even the aged Vince at 32 took a couple of games off of Fed in that Open match in the first two sets, and threatened to do more. Against Pete, he might’ve won a few games, too, but there would have been no threat of more.
And, also, the answer is not Kraijcek who never beat Pete in the semis or finals of a slam. The only player to beat Pete in a slam semi/final who Pete never beat back in a slam was Edberg.
Dan Markowitz · January 31, 2012 at 6:55 am
By the way, everyone talks about Pete’s slam finals losses to Hewitt and Safin late in his career, these guys weren’t five and six years younger than Fed, the way Nadal and Djoko are younger than Fed, they were ten years younger than Sampras. Big difference.
Steve · January 31, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Scoop…let’s do that trade in the spring!
Steve · January 31, 2012 at 12:43 pm
I agree Federer is a more complete player than Sampras but Sampras’ overwhelming offense was insane.
And he could hang with Agassi on groundies, sometimes besting him.
I have to admit I always rooted for Goran back then.
As Sampras said in his book, he only hated playing people that did to him what he did to others. The Krajicek’s, the Larssons, Philippoussis types.
Though I recommend YouTubing his matches against Guga. Nice contrast of styles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx9GWECUSjk
Mitch · January 31, 2012 at 2:58 pm
It’s a ridiculous point to say that Fed is inferior to Sampras because he didn’t beat many other slam winners in finals. He won so many of them that there weren’t any other multiple slam winners around to beat.
Steve · January 31, 2012 at 3:12 pm
It’s too hard to compare eras at the end of the day.
Scoop Malinowski · January 31, 2012 at 3:37 pm
I agree Mitch, Fed is the superior player to Sampras, his having won the French Open, which Pete failed to do, affirms it. Pete was the best of his time but Fed took the sport to a higher level, as since have Nadal and Djokovic. Dan has a very keen affinity for nostalgia about him and he will always be a big fan of the aesthetic style of Sampras and McEnroe. Sort of like the cigar chomping boxing fans who long for the rock em sock em boxing days of Louis and Marciano and Robinson and Jack Dempsey.
Scoop Malinowski · January 31, 2012 at 3:41 pm
All we can do Steve is accept that each era is suprassed by the next era. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have taken tennis to a higher level after Pete and Andre. And just as sure, someone else will come along and eclipse and surpass Djokovic though that heir apparent is not clear at this time. It could be Dolgo, Dimitrov, Tomic, Harrison or Raonic but those five have a very very long way to go, if they even want to get close. But don’r forget how long it took Federer to make that big jump, it’s hard to remember how many years he struggled and underachieved with so many setbacks (Horna, Nalbandian, etc.)
Dan Markowitz · January 31, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Scoop,
Let me ask you a question, who’s the greatest basketball player of all time? LeBron James, Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan? Don’t think too long, the answer is Jordan. But wait, he’s 49 years old now and broke into the NBA 25 years ago in 1986. How can he be the greatest player when at least one full generation of players has come after him?
So your premise that every era ups the level of the previous era is not valid. Jordan was a physical freak and intensely competitive person as was Sampras. And Mitch, Federer won two more slams than Sampras. Sampras played in an era of better players. Let me ask you what group of players is stronger: Agassi, Courier, Kuerten and Rafter or Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Nalbandian?
Steve · January 31, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Nadal vs. Sampras in their primes would be interesting. Not sure standing so far back is a winning strategy for Nadal in that scenario.
The Sampras service motion, at least, will transcend all eras. Unfortunately in his book he just says “one day the serve was just there” –no tips! He was such a natural talent that he shared his early lessons with his sister. He didn’t hit a 1000 balls a day from the age of five like Agassi.
Scoop Malinowski · January 31, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Dan, I can’t say in hoops, as I do not follow it closely but in boxing and tennis I believe each new era ascends the previous, with a few slight exceptions. There will come a player who outshines and out-achieves MJ, it’s the nature of sports and humanity. Jordan is not the end all be all. The best is yet to come. Just hasn’t yet.
Mitch · January 31, 2012 at 6:33 pm
In the last 25 years, professional tennis has changed substantially more than basketball, with slower courts and new strings leading to a predominately baseline style of tennis that has produced more athletic and complete players than in previous eras. The top 4 now is probably the greatest of all time.
The field pre-Nadal was definitely relatively soft, but on the other hand, the current era might be the toughest, and Fed has held his own, winning 5 majors since Djokovic reached his first US Open final. Also, while he may not have had as many “quality” slam wins, unlike Sampras, since his domination started, Fed hasn’t really had any terrible losses at slams like Sampras did.
Dan Markowitz · January 31, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Agreed, Mitch, that is Sampras’s Achilles Heel, that and not winning the French, although he did have a pretty fine Davis Cup on clay once, which Fed has not done to that level.
All I can say about Sampras’s bad losses in slams is that Vince says he was a notoriously uninterested and bad practice player. He didn’t prepare the way Fed does and didn’t stay in that superb shape. So every once in a while, he’d throw in a clunker. I love the way Vince describes the way he’d warm up for a match. While his opponent would be doing yoga and jogging in place, Sampras would walk into the locker room, do a few shoulder practice swings and he’d be ready.
Steve · February 1, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Hurts me to say it but Fed has been bageled at the French. I can’t remember Sampras getting bageled in a slam final.
Mitch · February 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Sampras was bageled in a French semi against Kafelnikov. I guess it’s worse getting bageled in a final, but at the same time Pete didn’t make it to any French finals.
Scoop Malinowski · February 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Steve I think Hewitt bageled Pete in the US Open final. Also, Santoro beat Pete in Rome or Monte Carlo 60 61. Pete has had some fine wins on clay, making SF at FO and the heroic Davis Cup tie vs. Russia where he carried the US Team on his back but Pete has also had some rough losses on the red dirt. Pete has said if he could do it over he would have changed his racquet head size for clay. BTW did you hear that Fed went with a bigger head size in Australia? Rafa went with heavier, they are trying at least to make adjustments to come up with a way to bring down Djokovic. Luke Jensen revealed that about Fed going wiht the bigger head size.
Dan Markowitz · February 1, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Sampras took a match off Fed in Asia and a set off him at MSG a few years ago. Let’s see if Fed in his late-30’s can take a set off of the uber-player of 8-10 years from now who’s in his prime. And no, I do think the match Sampras took off Fed was for real in Asia. Fed did go easy on Pete at MSG.
The reason why Sampras would beat Fed in most head-to-head encounters is he had the bigger, flatter, heavier forehand, a bigger serve and when Fed chose to chip his bhand return, Sampras would be all over that. Against Nadal, Sampras would have the Spaniard standing 20 feet behind the baseline. Djoko would give Fed a problem, no question about it. But I admit, Djoko is the GOAT.
Steve · February 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm
When Djoko is #1 for 6 or 7 years then we can have that debate.
Dan Markowitz · February 2, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Well, he’s got 5 slams now, if he were to win seven more over the next three years, dominating both Fed and Nadal, I’d say he’s in the GOAT conversation. You cannot discount–if he keeps it up–that he leap-frogged the two guys who were the GOAT top-2.
Steve · February 2, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Yeah, three more years would put him up there.