TOP Sportswire—Just in case you don't follow tennis (and who doesn't not follow tennis these days? Even I don't, and I try), you have an opportunity to watch history in the making this afternoon, if you happen not to be otherwise occupied at 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
Novak Djokovic is having a year of years.
As Sports Illustrated puts it: "Nadal is all that stands between Djokovic and one of the greatest individual seasons in tennis history, a campaign that would rank favorably with Rod Laver in 1969, Jimmy Connors in 1974, John McEnroe in 1984 and Roger Federer in 2006. The 24-year-old Serb is 63-2 with nine titles and can become just the sixth man to win three majors in the same year, joining such esteemed company as Laver, Connors, Mats Wilander, Federer and Nadal."*
Novak Djokovic. Photo from his official website.
His comeback against Federer on Saturday was one of the greatest in the history of the game, against one of the greatest players in the game. Down two sets, Djokovic (it's pronounced "Jock-oh-vitch" by Serbians and "joke-oh-vitch" by Anglophone announcers) came back, then faced down two match points with Federer serving. Awesome. Epic. Barely believable. (Of course, I missed it. And I meant to watch.)
It's never a foregone conclusion against the great Spaniard, of course, but Djokovic has beaten Nadal five straight this year, all in tournament finals. It's as close to being owned as Nadal has ever been. A Nadal victory today—as astonishing as this might sound—would be essentially an upset. He has a lot to prove; if he does it, that will be something to see too.
Worth watching today you have the chance. An athlete having this kind of year doesn't happen very often in any sport.
In the U.S., it's on CBS.
Mike
*This seems to be wrong, now that I think of it. Don Budge won the Grand Slam in 1938. Laver did it twice, which I guess is covered by naming him once, but it still doesn't seem right to lump him in with the group that has won three majors without saying "at least" in front of "three majors," since the Grand Slam consists of winning all four majors. So why no love for Budge? Because he was an amateur? That was the thing to be in those days.
UPDATE: CBS is not even airing it in my market. I now officially hate my CBS affiliate.
Have to watch it online, which is annoying because I don't quite have the bandwidth. Must get cable...and cable modem....
UPDATE #2: Djokovic won, 6-2, 6-4, 6-7 (3-7), 6-1. Very curious final. Sort of a redux of Wimbledon, which followed the same pattern. Djokovic completely dominated in the first two sets, then Nadal fought ferociously and took the third to a tiebreaker, which he won handily. At about that time Dkojovic started having trouble with a strained muscle in his back, getting massages on the changeover and needing a medical timeout. With Djokovic on the ropes and Nadal resurgent, you would have thought that the fourth set would have been Nadal's, or at least close. Not so. Djokovic broke him early, and then again later, and won easily. By the final games Nadal had essentially given up, to a degree I've seldom seen, standing flat-footed while watching Djokovic's passing shots.
Which made it quite awkward when the interviewer after the game opened with some canned bull about how Nadal never gives up no matter what...odd in that we had just watched him give up. Makes you wonder which match the interviewer had been watching.
I have to believe Nadal just doesn't think he can win against Djokovic. He's 0-6 against Djokovich this year, all in finals. Given how dominant Nadal has looked at times over the years—like nothing can beat him—this is pretty amazing.
I ended up watching the match online, which was fine—the early stop-and-start bandwidth problems eventually disappeared. The big problem were the horrible announcers, who were pretty awful, blustering and blathering on and on with ridiculous comments, seemingly half of which were wrong. Where's Bud Collins when you need him? (Which reminds me, I don't care for NBC much, either.)
Send this post to a friend
Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
I am not a tennis buff but I did watch some of the tennis matches this weekend. Tennis is a fast game that can keep you on your toes.
Posted by: Mike | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 03:17 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I saw him beat Nadal last time, but completely missed the Federer match :( That's what I get for being only a fan in passing; love it when I see a good match, but don't regularly pay attention. Haven't really done that since the Laver days.
Interesting that Borg isn't in this esteemed group*; I still can't forget his epic match with McEnroe. And speaking of McEnroe, it's a shame what's happened to the men's American tennis scene. McEnroe and others are trying to change this.
* I just looked up his stats and found he's one of only 4 to win Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year, and the only to have done this in 3 consecutive years.
Posted by: Jeff | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 03:35 PM
Incidentally, it's more or less pronounced Jock-oh-vitch. No diphthongs in Serbian.
Posted by: erlik | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 04:55 PM
Sport eh? Takes a lot of dedication and single mindedness. We admire such obsession in people it seems, unless of course we have to sit opposite them over dinner.....
In many ways I preferred the old days when most sports were amateur affairs. Someone would go to the track on Saturday, win a gold medal and buy the boys in the pub a celebratory pint before heading home to the family and back to the day job on Monday.
Posted by: Steve Jacob | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 05:29 PM
Thanks Erlik. I made the change.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 05:46 PM
www.USOpen.org. Watch it live. Hurry, it's already started!
Posted by: JohnMFlores | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 06:06 PM
Sorry to hear about your bandwidth issue. I'm sitting here at home in economically depressed Latvia watching it right now on an optical, 100mbs connection that costs less than $30 a month. What the hell, America....
Posted by: Scott Marriott | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 07:21 PM
On TV the announcers pronounce his name with a long O.
And, by the way, he won today's match!
Posted by: Marc Rochkind | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 08:55 PM
It came on live at 4am in HK. We couldn't bring ourselves to get up but 3 hours later when we woke up the match was still going and in the third set. Wonderful match.
Posted by: Andrew H | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 09:28 PM
Funny I started to lose interest in Tennis when I began to be deeply involved in photography. But it's still visually my favorite sport.
Posted by: Emmanuel Huybrechts | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 09:39 PM
Don't feel bad about it not being broadcast. The World Championship of Freestyle, Greco-Roman and Women's freestyle wrestling is being held in Istanbul, Turkey. The US has a few wrestlers with a solid chance to medal. We don't get it on regular TV either.
Posted by: Mahonri | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 09:41 PM
Sadly, the peak of my tennis interest is each year in about the second round of Wimbledon when the last Brit crashes out (I think Henman went further than the second round, but you get my point). Once Murray repents his anti-Englishness then he may get my interest (for anyone not in the UK, his interviews on the BBC are instructive. He really hates England, and is not shy of saying so. So I'm really not shy of wanting him to fail). At the moment I am delighted when he is beaten, as he should be. Until then, I fully support Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Tsongas or whoever else is playing him.
Posted by: James | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 09:57 PM
Not on CBS! Even in Vanuatu we saw it live, courtesy Australian Foxsport.
Rex
Posted by: Rex | Monday, 12 September 2011 at 10:09 PM
I also caught the match online, but only the first two sets. Nadal played some truly impressive defense, but Djokovich ran him all over the court, played better returns, and was the dominant server. Some games were nail-biters. I can't wait to go through the sports photos in the morning.
Posted by: Charles Hueter | Tuesday, 13 September 2011 at 01:09 AM
Well crap, I missed the final. Really wanted to see it after Jokovitch's amazing comeback against Federer. But there is something about the US Open, perhaps it's the start of autumn while I associate tennis with spring, that make me always miss most matches while I always intend to watch them. It's an impossible tournament for me.
Posted by: Koen | Tuesday, 13 September 2011 at 02:50 AM
"Down two sets and facing two match points..."
Nitpick: he faced match point in the fifth set, by which time he was no longer two sets down.
Posted by: expiring_frog | Tuesday, 13 September 2011 at 11:12 AM
Mike... if you want to hate CBS, that's fine with me. As a former CBS News producer, I have plenty of my own issues with the company. But don't hate CBS because the match wasn't aired in your market. Hate your local affiliate, which to the best of my knowledge is not a CBS owned and operated station. If I were you, I'd call the station, ask to speak to the general manager and express my displeasure.
Posted by: Steve Biro | Tuesday, 13 September 2011 at 11:54 AM
The dynamics at the top of the tennis world are pretty interesting. Federer (#3) can't defeat Nadal (#2) but he beats Djokovic (#1) (at the French Open and came tantalizingly close at the U.S. Open). Nadal can't beat Djokovic but he owns Federer. The Federer/ Djokovic semi-final match pretty much ordained who the championship would fall to. If Federer had won his semi-final match with Djokovic the championship would have went to Nadal. Since Djokovic did indeed win the semi-final against Federer, he won the championship too.
Posted by: Player | Tuesday, 13 September 2011 at 03:23 PM
Tennis - a sport with a great scoring system that guarantees tension all the way through the game (unlike basketball, which I remember you ranting about some time ago...)
Posted by: Jonathan | Wednesday, 14 September 2011 at 09:48 AM
I spent about 180 hours onsite at the US Open this year so I guess I don't not follow tennis like everyone else.
Good to see interest in Djoker's extraordinary season.
Posted by: Mike | Wednesday, 14 September 2011 at 07:58 PM
I enjoy tennis (both watching and playing), and this US Open was amazing. The women's final was also very entertaining.
As John Flores mentioned, the main US Open website had all the matches available for free live streaming in the US.
The situation at the top of men's tennis right now is very interesting: Nadal has no answers for Djokovic's game. No weakness to expose. Meanwhile, neither Federer nor Murray seem to be able to beat Nadal (except for Federer on the fastest of courts), yet Federer and Murray seem to be the only ones capable of threatening Djokovic. Thus it isn't just a matter of who's best but also of how their games match up, and the draw becomes very important.
Posted by: Amin | Thursday, 15 September 2011 at 07:09 AM