So much interesting stuff in this year's French Open, I have to do this rambling style:
- First, Stan Wawrinka. 18 months ago, he was something of a career flake. He wasn't labelled an underacheiver like Thomas Berdych, mainly because no one really saw that level of skill in him. Somehow, we fast forward to today and he has more slams in the past 6 than anyone other than Novak Djokovic. Some tried to take away from his first slam triumph after Rafa Nadal chipped a disc in his back in the final. There was no issues with teh opponent yesterday. Wawrinka just rolled through Novak. Even in the first set, Wawrinka had his moments. He stayed the course after not capitalizing on break point after break point. He finally got one to wrap up the 2nd set, and then played amazing there on out. He deserved that win, no doubt about it.
- So what does this mean for Wawrinka? Obviously he joins one of the more exclusive clubs. The difference between the amount of men who have won 1 slam vs. those who have won multiple is stunning. You can fluke your way into one slam (though that was easier back in the day), but to fluke into two is pretty much impossible. Let's remember that Andy Murray is a nominal member of the 'Big 4' and he himself just has two slams. Murray's definitely had a better career, but Stan Wawrinka has done something that Andy Roddick couldn't do, win a 2nd slam
- Wawrinka has also in his slam wins done some pretty unthinkable things. In both his slam wins, he took out a legend and one of the favorites in the QFs - in Australia it was him beating Novak in 5 sets, ending Djokovic's run as three-time champion. Then he took out a dangerous opponent in a 4-set semifinal that looking back he could have lost (Berdych in '14 Australia, home-favorite Tsonga here), and then took out a man going for history in the final with relative ease in 4. Obviously, Novak was going for a career slam here (and putting at least some credence to the idea that someone could win the calendar slam), but let's not forget Nadal was going for a 2nd career slam in the Australian final last year. These are two of the bigger upsets in finals this decade (2010 to now), and he has both of them.
- Finally, a couple trivia questions Wawrinka is one of the answers too:
- Q: Who are the three players who have beaten both Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic in the same Grand Slam tournament run?:
- A: Rafa Nadal ('06-'08 French Open), Marat Safin ('05 Australian Open), and Stan Wawrinka ('15 French Open)
- Q: Who is the only player to beat both Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic in the same Grand Slam tournament run?
- A: Stan Wawrinka (2014 Australian Open
- As for Novak, this is a crushing loss, but given the circumstances one he took rather well. He was far more emotional and desolate in defeat the last three years when losing to Rafa (especially last year where he was far more 'close to tears' during the trophy presentation). In a way it makes sense, when he lost to Rafa again and again, it almost made him feel further away from winning. This time he has the knowledge that he can beat Rafa here. But still, this was gift-wrapped for him and he couldn't do it.
- Novak Djokovic is a top-10 player all-time. But there has to be some takeaways from what is now a 8-8 record in Grand Slam Finals (3-8 outside Australia). Novak Djokovic's week-to-week consistency the last four years have only been matched probably by Roger Federer's peak, yet we've seen on multiple occassions Djokovic play passive, un-emotional tennis in major finals. This match was very similar to both Djokovic's loss last year in the Final, or his loss to Murray in the Wimbledon final in 2013. Novak lost to a player who played better, but he himself was flighty.
- Case in point: the sheer number of drop-shots he attempted. Going for way too many drop-shots was a common theme in his losses to top players in the 2007-2010 phase of his career. I haven't seen him do it that many times in a match since. To get out-winnered 60-30 was surprising but even more suprising was to almost reach Wawrinka's error count (45 for Stan, 41 for Novak). That -11 differential for Djokovic is a clear sign of how off and relatively average he was in that match
- For Nadal, his run of 5 straight wins came to a crashing end. This is definitely turning out to be his version of Federer's 2013 season from hell. The issue with Nadal is probably more mental than the issues that Federer faced in 2013, and he'll have the knowledge that he's basically defending nothing going forward in 2015 so that #10 ranking will be short-lived, but when you're fresh losses in every spring Clay tournament and now heading to a place where you haven't made a QF in four years, this is a really tricky time for him.
- For Murray, he's now lost 8 straight matches to Djokovic. Now, his record and competitiveness against Djokovic in 5-set matches has always been better (another sign that Novak is slightly worse in 5-set matches against top players than best-of-three), but this trend of him falling off in 5th sets is not good. He did the same in Australia this year, Australia in 2013, and even the year before in the Australian Open. Still, he looks better now than he did a year ago.
- Finally, for Federer, this was a missed opportunity. Sure, having to beat Djokovic was going to be tough had he made the final (even Tsonga in teh SFs was not guaranteed - he lost to Tsonga in 3-sets in the quarters in 2013), but he was given a dream draw. He was given all the opportunity and he was playing good tennis, but then got rolled in straight sets. Not a good way to lose in what may be your best chance again to win other than him pulling a Sampras at Wimbledon
- A quick point about Serena, it was odd to see her so vulnerable so many times in these two weeks. She had to go to 3-set four different times. Sometimes it was her coming back from early deficits. Sometimes it was her choking away big leads. Overall, it was far from her best win. In fact, I believe I saw a stat that this represented the most games she had ever lost in any of her 20 major wins. But that last stat is what means to most: 20 major wins.
- It is hard to remember, but there was a time when people very openly, and very rightly, questioned Serena's attention towards tennis and if her career had peaked early. This was in that 2004-2008 phase where she would miss a few majors, make random runs in Australia, and often lose in the QFs in matches that were upsets in name only. There was a 20-slam period from the US Open in 2003 through Wimbledon in 2008, where Serena won just two slams. Those were her age 22-26 years, ostensibly a players prime. How did she follow that up, in her age 27-33 years? By winning 12 of the next 27. She has now won three in a row, and a Wimbledon win would give her a 2nd 'Serena Slam', a full 12 years after the first one. She has a reasonable shot at a calendar slam. Oh, and she's just one month younger than Roger Federer. Serena has had the most strange, inexplicable career, having two peaks, one in her youth (18-21), one in what is normally a decline phase (27-33), and a valley in her prime. Add it all up and you still get 20 effing slams
The French Open is always interesting, and this year even more so. The top seed who struggled all two weeks ended up winning. The top seed who dominated through 5.5 matches, winning the first 17 sets he played, ended up losing the final, and losing 5 of the last 7 he played. A man who hadn't won a slam in December 2013 has now won two of them. The last 6 majors have given us three wins for the 'Big 4' (two for Djokovic, one for Nadal), and three wins for non-Big 4, of course, those other three weren't from the normal contenders, but from Stan Wawrinka and Marin Cilic. I like the unpredictability that tennis offers. And nothing, I guess, is harder to predict than if Djokovic will regain that chance to win a French Open, and if Serena's second career peak will ever end?
