When Novak Djokovic won the Novak-Slam last year, he remarked that it was as if his ‘spirit had left his body’ during the final points. Well, that spirit has come thudding to the ground. The quarter-final thumping at the hands of Dominic Thiem in Paris last week was the kind of out-of body performance that made the match go from irresistible to unwatchable.
Watching Djokovic crash out of the French Open last Wednesday was the most disorienting and painful sight I’ve ever seen on a tennis court (apart from my own attempts at a slam dunk overhead). Even though he was in a slump that had already seen him give up three of the four Slam titles he proudly held a year ago (the first man to do so since Laver; and the first ever to win 4 straight Slams on three surfaces), this was a defeat of such a nature that left me stunned. It turned out I was in good company – seven-time Slam winners John McEnroe and Mats Wilander had pretty much the same response, struggling for words. The mind raced through all the Slams in all the years past to find a comparable defeat. One could not be found.
It wasn’t that Djokovic was knocked out in an early round like at Wimbledon last year (3R to Sam Querrey). Nor was it that Djokovic lost to an unknown player (Dennis Istomin in Australia). He lost in a completely respectable quarter-final to the only man who had beaten the eventual French champion Rafael Nadal on clay this year, the Austrian especially-on-clay wunderkind and last year’s semifinalist, Dominic Thiem. No, the shock at this defeat was all in the manner and not in the result. And it was to a man who he had just beaten 0 and 1 two weeks ago. Things seemed to be getting back on track, slowly.
…
Not since 2005 had he lost a set to love in a Grand Slam. And even during the early years, when he was known as a joker (not always appreciatively) when he had a reputation of retiring in matches (he retired two sets to love down against Nadal in 2006 and almost ludicrously claimed he had been ‘in control’ in the early stages), there had hardly been a match where he so visibly threw in the towel.
From 2008 to the end of 2010, he was content being #3. He would mostly reach the semifinals of Slams, lose to Federer or Nadal (except in Aus ’08) and be characteristically generous in defeat (and continues to be), always good to see. But in 2011, he changed the status quo and went from chasing the top two to leaving them chasing him. The greatest achievements in sport come when the status quo is challenged. But this was not the Djokovic we knew. That many loved and some found irritable at times. The man for whom match point was just a hurdle to be crossed before winning a match (ask Roger Federer in the 2010 and 2011 US Open semifinals, about that). This was not the man who defeated a sublime Federer to win his second U S Open in 2015 in front of a not-even-remotely balanced nighttime New York crowd. The man who, not once, but twice, has handed the formidable Nadal seven defeats – count them, seven – in a row. The man who defeated two of his greatest rivals in back to back matches – 4h50m against Murray and then a day and a bit later, 5h53m against Nadal to claim what was his greatest Slam title, a barely comprehensible feat of skill, endurance, strength and indomitability. Djokovic, who used to be weak, called a joke by Federer and mocked by Roddick had transformed himself into Mr Indomitable. He could not be passed. He would not be beaten. None shall pass, as the Black Knight said.
…
Except that now he was floundering, making seven backhand errors in the first set tiebreak against a fearless opponent. He might as well have lost his limbs for how effective he was in the third set. A third set, when everyone expected him to grind down and find a way back in, he chose to bolt. Charging the net and giving up the ghost, and now the joke was on him.
Change must come. The firing of his entire coaching team, the switch to Lacoste, the hiring of Agassi, however unconventional the terms all speak to an intent to rediscover his mojo. The retention of Pepe Imaz, the repeated talking of love and peace – this is all very well at a commune, but not on a tennis court, in a sport that Boris Becker once said was ‘boxing without the punches’. Jim Courier was not the only expert to question Djokovic on the benefit of keeping Pepe around.
Twelve months ago, he was the next Laver. The man who was seriously challenging Roger Federer for the overall Slam count and a legitimate contender for the GOAT title. Now, he risks going the way of Mats Wilander, who after winning three Slams in 1988, barely won a match of significance at a Slam after. Once the peak was reached, he could not reset his goals. And tennis was the poorer.
Falling down is how we grow. Staying down is how we die. Here’s hoping Novak Djokovic doesn’t stay down.
Disclosure: I am a Rafa Nadal fan and could argue that Novak’s slump is a good sign from that point of view. Novak Djokovic could and has defeated Nadal and Federer on their favorite surfaces handily. But as a tennis fan, who wants the best to be the best, it is hard viewing. Djokovic at his best is a real threat to Federer’s Slam count. Yet, one hopes that Agassi slaps some sense into him. Maybe Steffi can give him a dose of good German common sense and tell him to shelve the peace and love for post-retirement. He needs to find the inner mongrel. Come on Novak, rip some shirts. Without it, he may as well almost retire to his house in Florida. Otherwise this is too painful.
No comments:
Post a Comment