Rafael Nadal took Novak Djokovic to school on the stadium court of the Indian Wells Tennis Garden today in the Pacific Life Open final, but this Djoker kid is a quick study. By end of the match, the student was making as many pronouncements as the teacher. Most of you saw what happened: Djokovic was slightly overwhelmed at the start, unable to move his feet and dial in his strokes, while Nadal firing rockets left and right, bringing to bear all the experience he gained in the course of collecting six previous Masters Series titles.
By the time Djokovic realized that he was supposed to be playing in a match instead of watching it, he’d surrendered a set, even though he’d saved a bit of wear and tear on his shoes. Djokovic made a match of it in the second set, and at two stages (2-1, with Nadal serving, Djokovic had three break points) it looked like he might be able to extend the match. But Nadal held firm and the next thing you know he was biting the Pac Life trophy.
Among other things, this match was a great advertisement for five-set tennis. If you recall the last French Open final and how Roger Federer laid a similar first-set hurting on an ill-prepared and out-of-sync Nadal, you’ll know exactly what I mean. I disagree with the ATP and the revisionist movement launched by last year’s Roman debacle (after playing a magnificent five-set final in Italy, Nadal and Federer both pulled out of Hamburg). The problem isn't five-set finals, it's back-to-back tournaments of Masters grade. Incidentally, the Sony Ericsson Open is sticking to its guns and going best-of-five in it’s own final, two weeks out. Can I get a little back-up on this?
Today’s match confirmed something that I wrote in the Comments section of the previous post: Nadal matches up favorably with Djokovic. A counter-puncher with the strength, stamina and precise passing shots of Jet Boy can give a shotmaker and risk-taker like Djokovic fits. It’s frustrating to see balls that ordinarily land for clean winners or tease out feeble retrieves come whistling back bearing a small sign that reads, Not so fast, buddy! Djokovic has better chances against Roger Federer because it’s like playing a game of chicken, which shotmakers like. While most players go white at the prospect of playing chicken with The Mighty Fed (these guys didn’t all just fall off the turnip truck), Djokovic is one of the few guys who wouldn’t be certifiably insane to try it. Just a little demented.
But seriously – aggressive placement vs. aggressive placement equals a whole lot of open court; it’s just a petal-to-the-metal race to see who gets there first without flying over the wrong side of the white line. It’s trickier against Nadal: He gives you a look, you take a big honking cut, and something awful happens on your way to the fist pump.
Still, I’m not going to pooh-pooh Jet Boy as just some other counter-puncher. He took the game to Djokovic with stunning ferocity in the first set, clocking big forehands in the best Fernando Gonzalez I’m crazy and don’t care about nothin’! tradition. What really impressed me, though, was the way Nadal moves on hard courts. I confess that it was the first time I really took note of that: Nadal is a lot more Jim Courier than Felix Mantilla. That is, he doesn’t seem to have any instinct to slide. Perhaps he’s seen a few too many slo-mo replays of Kim Clijsters on hard courts, and figures he’s got enough to worry about at the back end, what with those wedgies, to do the hard court split.
I asked Jet Boy in the presser if his wonderful footwork on hard courts is something he works on, or if it just comes naturally, more or less by instinct, when the footing changes. He had to turn to ATP handler Nicola Arzani for a translation, but then he said:
Well, one of my best things is the movements, no? Normally I'm -- I am fast on court and I have good movements. So, well, that's important. But the most important thing is understand the court and move like the court. So in the clay, you only move a little bit, (Spanish), a little bit behind the line, analyzing a little bit more. But here you need be on the line. You can't go out of court, and I'm trying always that. Well, maybe that's for that reason this week I play very, very good.
Well, it wasn’t exactly the answer I was looking for; it may have been ever better. Has anybody else commented on the way Nadal played up close to the baseline, looking to take balls on the rise? In fact, there’s a new Nadal afoot on hard courts, and this could cause muchas problemas for his rivals. As he said later in the presser, on the subject of room for improvement:
Well, for improve, my game, I need play a little more aggressive with my forehand, especially serve a little bit better, go to the volley sometimes, improve little bit the slice, improve a little bit the backhand. But I need improve because I'm very young, but I -- well, I wasn't changed too much things, you know. Just try to play a little bit more harder with the forehand, more aggressive, the mentality more aggressive, and try to play a little bit more aggressive with the serve, too, no?
I don’t know, but it sure sounds a lot more Courier than Mantilla to me. Wonder how he’d look a redhead?
The wonderful thing about Nadal is that he’s a warrior on the court, but in the press room he’s like a schoolboy who reduces the most complex (and sometimes downright silly) questions and issues to equations so logical that only a child would be innocent enough to calculate and articulate them in that way. When Matt Cronin asked him if he had ever served better, he said, “Well, Wimbledon was -- I was losing, one time the serve in the first round, one time in second round, and after that, I never lose a set before final. But after in the final, I lose three times consecutive.”
It doesn’t matter that you’re left wondering if he’s talking serves or sets or hard courts or grass – it’s all apples and oranges to him and who cares? Not him. He’s busy squeezing all those fruits into his own Sponge Bob juicebox!
By contrast, Djokovic is downright grave. If TMF is ambassadorial, Djokovic is ministerial. This kid digs delivering statements off the court as much as on, even though at 19, he’s a young punk compared even to Nadal (he’s a young 20). You can tell that it’s important to Djokovic to appear professional, like all the grown-ups. Like he has to live up to his talent in other ways, and that’s a very good sign.
When I asked him if he was nervous in the first set, he replied:
Yes, I was. As you all know, it's my first Master Series final, first final of the really bigger tournament, you know, Master Series tournament. And, you know, after a couple of games, the stadium was more or less packed. It was a lot of people, like 15,000 people. It was great atmosphere. And he started playing really well. I didn't -- I made a lot of mistakes, unforced errors. He played incredible forehand and he was in the control of the match in the first set.
That’s the emerging man in the chrysalis of this 19-year old with the coat-hanger shoulders and jet-black Chia pet hair. He cuts a nice, square figure and, more importantly, presents a nice contrast to the irrepressible Jet Boy and even the cosmopolitan Federer. I asked him if, given the way he matches up with Nadal, he needs to attack the net more often.
Well, yes, yes. Still I can play. I think I can play with him even from the baseline, you know. I have powerful shots. I just need more to improve, to play better to backhand, and I think I can. You know, you saw the second set, it was pretty much equal. But still there are some points, like, for example on the breakpoint, I shouldn't go to the net, I should use my opportunities. Of course, it's mental, mental preparation, as well.
I think he meant to say that while he should go to the net more often, he picked a dumb time to do it at one of the key moments of the match. But it doesn’t really matter. This match wasn’t about two or three points determining the result, it was about experience, preparedness, and the persuasive hard court game of Rafael Nadal.
Lastly, the best moment of the Djokovic presser occurred when Jerry Magee of the San Diego Union-Tribune raised the issue of the busted ball. If you saw the match, you might remember that Djokovic halted play at one point to have a dead ball removed from circulation. Now, keeping in mind that Magee has a gruff, booming voice, and is easily mistaken for a Grumpy Old Man, you have to picture him articulating the question, his stentorian voice slowly, deliberately rising to a thunderous crescendo:
"In the fourth game of the second set, you pitched a broken ball out of play. Had you lost that point, you would have been behind 40-Love. You later won the point and it was from that point it seemed that you really started to battle it, it really became a fight from that point after you pitched the broken ball out of play. What was wrong with that ball?
Djokovic looked Jerry right in the eye and said: I don't know what to answer on that question. I just. . . it was. . . broken ball, you know?
============================================================================
Okay, Tribe, that's it. I'm flinging this computer into the trunk and heading out for some serious GEs. We had a great week here, with Dwiz and her goddaughter, Caroline, Andrew, Ellen, Ray, and a bunch of other folks with whom we never did hook up. Wish you all had been here, I'll be back on Tuesday. Vaya Con Dios!
