For Roger Federer, the question was: can he win Wimbledon again? Is the great Roger Federer in decline? In the last two years, Roger Federer started losing to players he had never lost to before. For a few years, Roger figured out a way to play that few had answers to. He was the one asking questions, questions with his tennis racquet, questions with his deft footwork, questions that only geniuses seem to ask, and questions almost no one had answers to. After years of stumping the opposition, some were starting to find the maestro’s puzzles fathomable, to solve his riddles, and one wondered if he was who he once was.
Losses to Nikolay Davydenko, Juan Martin del Potro, Robin Soderling, Albert Montanes, Marcos Baghdatis, and Lleyton Hewitt seemed to mark signs that Roger Federer wasn’t nearly the dominant player he was. In particular, Federer’s loss to Soderling at the French Open who finally upset a streak that had lasted some 6 years and 23 Slam semifinals, and Nadal’s fifth French Open title, combined with a loss to Lleyton Hewitt made everyone wonder if Fed could overcome his woes.
Wimbledon started off shaky for the six time Wimbledon champ. Federer would struggle against Falla. Falla had a 0-40 opportunity in the third of a match that he had taken 2 sets to love. Federer said if he had gotten broken then, the match would have been over. He was having a hard time reading Falla’s serve and Falla’s ability to take shots off the rise was pushing Fed to play a style that was more defensive than he likes to play. In the fourth set, Falla would break immediately to go up 2-0, but then face his own nerves serving for the set and match at 5-4, dropping the first two points on nervous shots, and eventually dropping serve altogether.
He would then face a qualifier, an unknown Serbian in Ilija Bozoljac, whose name would give announcers fits. Bozoljac would use two hands on both sides and play aggressive shots on both sides, but especially his backhand to take a set and push Federer to a fourth set tiebreak. Only after Roger beat an old foe in Arnaud Clement did he finally play someone that lacked huge weapons and Fed found an opponent that he could relax and play his own tennis. As cliche as it sounds, Roger might agree that the early rounds of a Slam is sometimes about survival.
Questions aren’t fully answered for Roger, but there is at least the thought he could reach the quarters as he faces veteran Jurgen Melzer for the fourth round.
When Rafa came to Wimbledon this year, fresh off his fifth French Open title where he, again, did not drop a set en route to the title, the question was more ambitious: could Rafa reclaim a title he was unable to defend last year? People forget that Rafa was struggling until he returned back to clay. Until his title at Monte Carlo, Rafa had not won a title in nearly a year. His last win was at Rome, the year before, against Novak Djokovic.
It’s not that Rafa was playing particularly bad. Anyone else would have been thrilled to have Rafa’s year between Rome and Monte Carlo. He was routinely reaching semifinals of tournaments he entered, but experts wondered if Rafa was losing the mental edge that had made him such a ferocious competitor. In Doha, Rafa took a 6-0 lead on Nikolay Davydenko before Davydenko won a few games, and then Rafa had a match point in the tiebreak, which Davydenko fended off. When Davydenko took the tiebreak, he gained confidence and got a break in the third set, with Nadal wondering how he didn’t come through that match.
And in a tennis version of Groundhog Day, Nadal would experience deja vu all over again. Nadal reached the semifinals of Indian Wells and played Ivan Ljubicic who was having some senior heroics. After losing the first set, Ljubicic would get a handle on his own serve, then play an aggressive game to break Nadal in the second set. He would then push the third set to a tiebreak and take it handily.
Andy Roddick would meet Rafa in the semifinals of Miami and experience the same thing. Rafa would take the first set with an early break that was enough for the first set. Roddick would then find his own serve and Rafa had a hard time breaking. In the middle of the second set, Roddick turned up the heat, hitting harder shots, coming into net more, and Rafa was surprised at the change of tactics. Roddick would break in the second set and then break twice more in the third set to get a rare win over Nadal.
Rafa started off the match with a comfortable win over Kei Nishikori who missed most of 2009 due to injury, but who many predicted might be Japan’s first top 10 male player. Few expected that unheralded Robin Haase, a player the Dutch hoped might be their next great star, but whose knee surgeries had taken him off tour in both 2008 and 2009, would take not just a set, but two sets, trying to overpower Nadal. Nadal would regain control and take the last two sets comfortably.
And it would happen again. Philipp Petzschner took Federer to two close sets in the Halle semifinals, and so he had enough game to bother a top player. Petzschner would use a big serve, and a net game, to hold serve throughout the second and third sets, and engineer a break in the second set, in a game where a lob that landed on the sideline leading to a Nadal missed overhead would fuel the break. Petzschner would take a 2 set to 1 lead before Nadal would call trainers and Petzschner would complain that calling for trainers disrupted his rhythm.
Nadal would reveal something he had kept secret since, well, since a while. Everyone had felt Nadal was healthy again, but there were some odd signs. Nadal won Monte Carlo in dominating fashion, barely dropping games. He gave up one game against top 10 player, Fernando Verdasco, in the finals. But apparently, despite his domination, his knee had started to bother him again. He said he felt knee pains back in Miami against Roddick.
The signs occurred, to some extent, in Rome. Where Nadal was barely dropping games in Monte Carlo, Nadal was looking more human in Rome where set scores were more like 6-3, 6-3 instead of 6-0, 6-1. For most, this would be nothing. Perhaps he was in the zone at Monte Carlo. Different venue, and Rafa plays winning tennis, but the scores aren’t crazy good. No big deal, right? But Rafa then dropped his first set in the semifinals when Ernests Gulbis took a set. Rafa would claim he played a poor match, despite the win. Then, in Madrid, Rafa would drop a second set to the hard hitting, Nicolas Almagro. It would turn out that Rafa headed home after Monte Carlo to get more treatment for his knees.
Things seemed fine again at Roland Garros when Rafa would not drop a set the entire tournament. His closest call was in the semifinals when Jurgen Melzer pushed him to a tiebreak. Otherwise, he seemed his usual dominant self.
Nadal would head over to London to play Queen’s and lose to Feliciano Lopez. One wonders if he opted for the loss to minimize the stress to his knee. Of course, Nadal mentioned nothing. He didn’t want to make excuses until he began to make excuses. With two matches that have gone the distance, one even wonders if Paul-Henri Mathieu, who used to be in the top 20, will play aggressive tennis against Nadal and take a set or two off him, and even if he gets past Mathieu (which he should), he’ll meet Robin Soderling (most likely). Soderling’s style is more like Haase but with better consistency and the belief that he can do it since he’s done it before.
Andy Murray would come into Wimbledon with questions too. In 2009, Murray had won Rotterdam. He had won Miami. He had won Queen’s. Everyone felt that he was in as good shape as anyone to make a deep run at Wimbledon. There was the hope, in the 100th year since Fred Perry was born, that Murray would be able to make the British proud.
This year, by contrast, Murray had come into Wimbledon with no wins. He seemed lost and despondent after losing to Federer in Melbourne. He dropped out of Marseille. He lost half-heartedly in Dubai claiming he was treating his match against Tipsarevic like practice. He didn’t even want to be in Dubai, but when an angry Marseille tournament director wanted the powers-that-be to ban Murray from a few tournaments, Murray felt some quick PR work was needed, so he showed up, but without much enthusiasm.
He would get pushed around mercilessly by Philipp Kohlschreiber and folks would wonder what happened to Murray? Did he lose his motivation for the sport? He would head down with his entourage to Barcelona and Alex Corretja would set up a bunch of hitting partners to teach Murray how to play aggressive clay court tennis. Although Murray would lose in Rome and Madrid to David Ferrer, he would play good matches up to then. He’d lose, perhaps not unexpectedly, to Tomas Berdych, who was having himself a fine French Open.
Murray would return to grass at Queen’s and lose, once again, to Mardy Fish, who he lost to early in Miami. And again, questions abounded. Was Murray ready to win Wimbledon?
Of all the top players, Murray has had the easiest run, but one could easily argue that he hasn’t played anyone that has the game to push him. Nieminen is someone of Federer’s generation, closer to 30 than 20, and the kind of person Murray generally doesn’t struggle with. Gilles Simon was coming off injury and, like Nieminen, lacks the powerful game of someone like Soderling or Verdasco, which can bother Murray. Murray next faces Sam Querrey, someone who has the potential to hit hard off the ground, but at this point, Murray seems to have hit a positive stride. We’ll see if that’s so.
Andy Roddick was coming back to the site of his last big hurrah, a five setter that gave him his best chance at a Slam since he first won in 2003 at the US Open. Yet, Roddick was also match-shy. After reaching the finals of Indian Wells and winning Miami, Roddick had pretty much not played. He skipped Monte Carlo and Rome and when he decided to play Madrid, he fell ill and had to skip, and headed into the French lacking any matches on clay, and eventually succumbed to Teimuraz Gabashvili. Roddick would lose early at Queen’s, a tournament that he reached the semifinals the year before, to Dudi Sela.
Roddick started off with a player he’s played doubles with, fellow American, Rajeev Ram. Ram, who models his game after Pete Sampras, had no answers to Roddick. Roddick would then face Llodra who just won a tournament on grass mere days earlier. Llodra would take a set off Roddick and befuddle Roddick for a set and a half before Roddick made some adjustments (mainly coming to net before Llodra came to net) to win the match. Then, he would play Kohlschreiber, a player that upset him in the 2008 Australian Open, and get a tough four set win.
Perhaps no one has had more questions asked of him than Novak Djokovic. Djokovic played exceptional at two different times in 2009. Djokovic played exceptional clay court tennis, losing to Rafa three times, but playing his closest match in Madrid where he had match points. The match was so exhausting that both Rafa and Novak would lose early in the French. Djokovic would then reach the semifinals of the US Open and have an excellent post-US Open run.
Djokovic wanted to retool his serve and started working with Todd Martin around the US Open, but by the time he finished Miami with an early loss to Olivier Rochus (he lost to Ljubicic in Indian Wells), Djokovic had decided the Martin experiment was over. Djokovic would lose twice to Verdasco, once easily and once not as easily, at Monte Carlo and Rome, then lose to Krajinovic in Belgrade blaming allergies for his playing woes, and skip Madrid to recover. Djokovic looked like he might play Nadal in the semis of the French, but for the second straight Slam, he faded in a five setter, this time, to veteran Jurgen Melzer.
As in the Australian Open, where Djokovic took a 2 set to none lead over Tsonga then could barely complete the match, Djokovic would similarly take a 2 set to love lead over Melzer, then fade in the third set, and then not play optimal tennis in the fourth and fifth set where Melzer hung tough throughout.
So far, Djokovic has avoided those problems. Like Roger Federer, he faced a scare in the first round against Olivier Rochus, the guy that beat him in Miami, when Rochus took two sets off him. Rochus had a break in the fifth before Djokovic righted the ship and took 6 games in a row to win the fifth.
Djokovic would play big serving Taylor Dent which was perhaps more friendly to Djokovic’s style of play gave Djokovic a much needed straight set win. He’d then beat Montanes, who won Estoril and beat Fed in the semifinals. The straight set win could have been even more lopsided had Djokovic returned a bit better. Djokovic will now face Hewitt, who is playing pretty good grass court tennis with a win over Federer in Halle, and memories of last year’s quarterfinal run fresh. Djokovic leads in head-to-head, so the question is whether Djokovic has answers that Monfils did not.
Finally, Robin Soderling. Until last year, Soderling had probably imagined that his best chance at a Slam might be Wimbledon or the US Open, until he discovered that he’s one of the few players that can still hit very hard on a clay court, and reached the French finals again. Soderling had had bad luck at Wimbledon. He faced Federer in 2009 in the fourth round. He lost to Federer at Wimbledon the year before. He lost to Nadal the year before that (in five sets). And he lost to Tim Henman the year before that. He just hadn’t had a friendly draw in years.
Soderling played three clay courters (of sorts) in Robby Ginepri, Marcel Granollers, and Thomaz Bellucci, not dropping a set. He’ll play his toughest opponent in David Ferrer in the next round. The good news for Soderling is his record against Ferrer. Although Soderling didn’t make his big breakthrough until last year, he had beaten Ferrer a number of times even before last year. Soderling will, again, look to impose his power game over Ferrer.
As much as all those players looking for answers seemed to define Wimbledon prior to its start, it was a match, a nearly meaningless match, between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut that was the story of the first week. The match started on Tuesday and was called at two sets all due to darkness. The fifth set was scheduled for play at 2 PM and 7 hour later and 118 games played, and the marathon match that wouldn’t end, didn’t end on Wednesday.
This was not brilliant match play. Perhaps one reason that Mahut is ranked around 100 is his inability to pick up fast serves. To be fair, Isner has perhaps the biggest serve in the game, or close to Karlovic, but Isner would not normally have that many aces against better players. Isner needed every big serve he gave because he was not moving well even early in the fifth set. Already, the big man doesn’t move particularly fast, but with fatigue, he chose to save energy and hold serve, than run after shots.
This created a kind of perfect storm. With Mahut unable to read many of Isner’s serve and Isner returning the favor, both held easily through the majority of games. Mahut had only 2 break points in 138 games in the fifth set, and only one more earlier on. Isner had 5 match points (one at 10-9, two at 33-32, one at 59-58, and the one he won at 69-68). A match doesn’t go nearly 140 games without approximately 135 games going without break point and that doesn’t happen if either player is returning anywhere near reasonable.
In other words, it was due to obvious deficiencies in both player’s games that caused the match to go on and on, and after a while, it was more about endurance and the will to win and not make huge gaffes that compelled fans and even non-fans to watch. Boris Becker often said the fifth set is not about tennis, but about will, and that’s what this match was all about.
Neither player wanted to lose, but eventually, at 69-68, Isner was getting more looks at Mahut’s serve and starting to make Mahut play. Mahut, for his part, abandoned his baseline play and chose to come to net again and again giving Isner targets. And finally, with a dipping return followed by a weak half volley to Isner’s backhand, and a shot hit up-the-line, and the longest match was over.
At most tournaments, especially Slams, everyone asks who is going to win the Slam. Eyes are focused on the top 5 players. First round matches are mere hurdles to an ultimate goal. But in a topsy turvy tournament, all eyes were riveted on a match that wasn’t going to determine the Wimbledon champ. When it was finally all over, neither player truly lost, but really, neither player truly won, for the victor still had to play another match. Who had anything more after that?
John Isner would lose in straight sets to Thiemo de Bakker. He would drop out of doubles and head home. Nicolas Mahut would try to forget how much it hurt to lose and play doubles with Arnaud Clement, the man he just displaced as record holder of the longest match. He, too, would lose with Arnaud Clement, but he had to wait one more day because that doubles match was, yes, called due to darkness.
This Wimbledon would produce numerous five setters, including two for Nadal and one for Federer, and yet, these five setters, even the quaint 16-14 fifth set that Thiemo de Bakker had over Santiago Giraldo in the first round, the win that lead him to John Isner in the second round, but they would all seem to pale compared to the match that wouldn’t end.
And so as Week 1 wraps up, it wasn’t the near defeat of Federer in the first round, the two five setters Nadal faced, nor the five set opening round for Djokovic that came to define Wimbledon 2010.
It was a match, out on quiet Court 18, a match that captured the attention of tennis fans everywhere. Fans hollered and whooped, witnesses to something that, more than likely, will never happen again.
![[US Open Men’s Final] Can Djokovic beat Nadal in the finals?](https://www.essentialtennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130909djokovic-500x383.jpg)
