Actually, looking back, it was pretty civil here for such a drama-filled Grand Slam final weekend. Thanks for reading and writing, even in what may have been the early morning hours for many of you.

*****

My only gripe with the comentators is Rafa's uncle. Stop calling him uncle Toni! Every time McEnroe or Gilbert calls him uncle Toni, it makes me sick. What is he, the world's uncle. It's Nadal's coach. My girlfriend knows nothing of tennis and the first thing she said was, why do the keep calling him uncle.—Jamie S

This is funny in part because I’ve never thought of that before—I guess I do think of him as the "world's uncle." Was it Mary Carillo who popularized the “Uncle” in Uncle Toni? In those early days of Rafa, the fact that he was coached by his uncle was seen by some as kind of a joke. Turned out he was a pretty good coach. Having read Rafa’s autobiography, the relationshiop reminds me of what Pete Sampras said about his early coach, Pete Fischer: “He tried to put his brain in me.” Toni comes across as a pain in the butt, but it’s also clear that Nadal wouldn’t be the competitor he is if it hadn’t been for him. Too late now, though: He’ll always be Uncle Toni to us. It fits with the homegrown Rafa legend.

*****

Steve I have been reflecting more on this final You and I are big Borg fans.D. You know halfway through the match my mind turned to Borg who I still believe to this very day is the Fittest Tennis Athlete I ever saw to play the game and even now other players havent come close in terms of his fitness. I know we cant compare era's and of course with todays new power head racquets and all.It got me thinking how Borg would have fared in the match against either opponent.Okay maybe I need to move on from my Idol Borg Its funny how that thought appeared in my head halway through the match Still miss Borg to this day.—Aussiemarg

There’s something about Bjorn, isn’t there? And it’s not just you who hangs on to him, Aussiemarg, or the image of him. When I was managing editor at Tennis magazine here in the States, we used to joke that we had to get our “obligatory black-and-white shot of Borg from the 70s” into each issue. We even thought about calling it that—"Obligatory Retro Shot of Bjorn Borg." Whatever else was in the magazine, people always gravitated to the long-haired Borg photo, no matter how small we ran it. He still signifies “tennis” to a lot of people.

*****

I enjoyed the analysis and reaction, since I didn't see any of the match. But one facet of Steve's analysis troubles me - the repetition of tennis' conventional wisdom that serving second in a set puts you at a disadvantage. It truly doesn't.

Observe that Djokovic had four chances in this match to win on the next game: three by breaking (games 8, 10 and 12) and one by serving out the match (game 9). He eventually did break for the match, but you have to believe that a player's chance of holding (or breaking) changes once you get to a "sudden death" situation to believe the CW. The way the CW works goes like this: suppose two players, A and B, hold serve, on average, 80% of the time. They reach 4-4 in a final set (no TB), then A serves first, B second, and so on. If their "hold probability" doesn't change, simple math shows that A is no more likely than B to win. If you don't like math, just note that the situation is symmetrical. If A holds, B has an 80% chance of holding: if A is broken, same 80% chance. Each two games that are played, there's a 16% chance A wins (80% hold, 20% break), a 16% chance B wins (20% break, 80% hold) and a 68% chance the score will be 5 all (64% chance both hold, 4% chance both break).

Ah, but suppose A holds, there's a changeover, and B walks to the line, with the commentators breathlessly hugging themselves as "B has to serve to say in the match!" Surely, B's in trouble, right? Wrong. There's no evidence that player's hold frequency changes AT ALL at this stage of a match. Psychologically speaking, maybe B is invigorated by his or her closeness to the edge, and gets a 90% hold probability by his or her steeliness. Or maybe A can almost taste it, and starts overcooking returns.

In other words, unless you can demonstrate that being one game away from defeat differentially changes players' serving/holding ability by making it worse, there's no advantage to serving first.

None. Zilch. Nada. Bupkiss.—Andrew Burton

You forgot Zip, Zero, No Dice, and Not So Much. Point taken, it’s hardly a guarantee of anything. But I do think most players would rather be serving first in a no-tiebreaker fifth set. It can also help stop your opponent’s momentum coming out of a fourth set, as Federer did to Djokovic by hanging on to serve at the end of the fourth at last year’s U.S. Open. Almost worked for him, anyway.

*****

I want your opinion on this. Is it not time to prepare faster courts? I personally think so. I admire both players and the effort they put in. But, this is ridiculous - six hours - more than a baseball game. If it continues like this, tennis is not going to attract general public.—SA

Yes, as special as this final was, we don’t want six hours—or five, or four—to become the norm for a tennis match. It isn’t just the courts, though; the players often bring up the weight of the balls as having a big effect on play.

It’s also not like the surfaces are getting slower everyday, as some people seem to think. Wimbledon’s grass has been the same since 2001; players have been talking about Key Biscayne playing like clay since at least 2005; the Aussie Open’s previous surface, Rebound Ace, was a similar pace to the Plexicushion they use now, and it was installed in 1988. Many fans hold out Federer as an example of an attacking player who can’t win on today’s courts, but he’s been winning on them his whole career, including five trips to the French Open final.

Still, you’re right, we do need more variety—Exhibit A is the Paris Indoors, which were a fine showcase for fast-court tennis in 2010. Then they slowed them down. I would say the indoor season would be the right place to make an effort at speeding courts up and seeing if it has an effect.

*****

I still maintain the same point in regards to people not giving Nadal any credit (see Bodo's article on this match).
If Nadal was a journeyman or just ranked within the top 30 in the world then you could bring in all the left handed, surface speed, Fed's head stuff.
However, when the guy has won ten slams been consistently at the top of the game for years and has a winning h2h against all of his main rivals, including Djoko. Then he can't just be branded Fed's 'bogey man', the lefty he can't deal with blah blah blah.
Nadal is too godd a player to chalk all his victories down to Fed underperforming.—DJB

I’ve been trying to make that point for a long time, that Nadal has something to do with his wins over Federer. But as the years have gone by, it’s become more undeniable, at least to me, that Federer also misses shots against Nadal that he doesn’t miss against anyone else. There’s the Rafa spin, the Rafa speed, the Rafa confidence against him—all of that is real. But there’s also Federer pressing and forgetting his game plan.

It would seem totally inexplicable, if Nadal didn’t do the same thing against Djokovic the next night. After playing so well versus Federer, he made routine errors at crucial moments of the first, second, and fifth sets against Djokovic. Maybe we’re wrong to call tennis an individual sport; it’s more of a relational sport, between you and your particular opponent.

*****

I'm unure eaxctly what this match will go down as a few years down the line.
Either it is the final nail in the coffin for Nadal, he threw everything at Djoko and still lost.
Or its another step of Nadal working out the Djoko puzzle. He came so close to beating Djoko on his beloved hard courts, next time he may take it. Similar to that 2007 epic W final against Fed. It was a tough loss but he built from there.
Perhaps though this is Nadal's curse, he chases for years to make up the ground on Fed and just when it looks like he's done it Djoko comes along and thats project number 2.
Who knows what this match will be, the former or the latter.—DJB

It is hard to gauge what the final means for Nadal, just as it’s hard to gauge what the semi means for Murray. Rafa did hang in longer than he has recently, and he said he didn’t feel the same “mental problems” against Nole that he did last year. But he also should have lost the match in four—Djokovic tightened up late in that set, especially in the breaker. And at the very end, Rafa went back to the defensive play that he had tried to get away from.

Much the same is true for Murray. There was progress, especially from last year’s Aussie final, but he didn’t handle having the lead well, the same way he didn’t handle it well in last year’s Wimbledon semifinals against Nadal. I came away from both the semi and the final thinking that, as close as the matches were, and as much as Djokovic struggled during them, they just ended up making him seem harder to beat than ever.

*****

I agree with much of what you point out, Steve. Especially about Djokovic's struggles being half mental. As someone who's been watching him since 2006, whenever he starts huffing and puffing I just say "It's all in his head".
One thing I do disagree with. You seem to imply that the 50 (!!!) combined break point chances the guys had during their epic are somehow evidence of how sloppy the match was. You fail to mention that these are probably the two best returners of serve in the game, neither of which is a Sampras when it's time to actually hold serve. At the beginning of the match I joked on Twitter that we might end up with 50 combined break point chances. I laughed when I read your piece and saw that 50 ended up being the number. I could get a job in Vegas, if only people cared enough about tennis to gamble on it.—Juan José

I probably should have made it two stats. rather than one, that summed up that semi for me. The break chances and the winner-error ratios: Murray’s was 47/86; Djokovic’s a marginally better 49/69. It was a great match, but a messy one. Neither this one or the men’s final were as clean or winner-heavy as some of the Melbourne classics—Roddick-El Aynaoui, Nadal-Verdasco—of the recent past.

I do associate multiple service breaks with inferior tennis, but maybe that’s something to reconsider when Djoker and Murray train their returns on each other.

*****

Steve thank u for superb observations on a finaI I slept thru to tune out the shrieks.—Douglas Montrose-Graem

Well, that’s one solution to the grunting issue. But I did feel like some inroads were made on the topic Down Under. Azarenka and Sharapova were certainly aware of the level of annoyance, from crowd and press alike. Now it’s time for someone “important” to talk to them about it.

Unfortunately, it could end up being another case of the circular nature of tennis’s issues—as in, they go in circles and we never make progress. Shrieking comes up for two weeks at a major, then disappears from the general media until the next Slam, when we wonder again why nothing is being done about it.

*****

Have a good weekend. On Monday, we'll try to move forward from Oz.

Watch Djokovic hit returns next time he plays. He makes a spectator sport out of that shot alone, the same way Pete Sampras did with the serve. On one point, he’ll hit it early with his backhand, direct the ball at a sharp crosscourt angle, and take the initiative from his opponent with one swing. On the next point, he’ll leap out of the way of a serve hit right at him and reflex back a deep forehand return while his body is moving in the other direction. Djokovic's particular athletic mix—his balance, quickness, and hand-eye—is on full display when he's returning.

In the Aussie Open final, Djokovic combined the best of Federer and Nadal
For the better part of three sets, he made beating a 10-time Slam winner look ridiculously easy. Djokovic moved smoothy, almost casually. He controlled the rallies without taking big risks. He got the ball into Nadal’s backhand seemingly at will. He dialed the pace up as needed. Like Federer, he made all of it appear effortless.

In the end, though, it took effort, a lot of it. In the end, Djokovic needed to out-Rafa Rafa. Down 5-4 in the fifth set, with the crowd against him again, having run for 10 hours over the last three days, Djokovic came out after the changeover and started firing with more confidence than he had shown all set. He shrugged off the disappointment of blowing the fourth, and won the last three games against a guy who was 15-3 in five-set matches.

Federer and Nadal fans may not have loved seeing another Slam fall to the world No. 1, but it was an effort worthy of the era that those two players began, and that Djokovic is poised to continue. It was worthy of a round of applause from any tennis lover.

Their language and delivery were bolder as well. After one winning Lopez volley against Nadal in their early-round match, Pat McEnroe punctuated the moment by yelling “Got it!” as soon as the ball touched down. After Lopez came forward and knocked off another passing shot by Nadal, Gilbert said, with the sport fan’s edge of aggression, “He made him pay!” Here is how the same moment was analyzed by one of the sober Aussie commentators on the World Feed: “If he can continue with those tactics, it will be interesting to see what Nadal does.”

ESPN’s style is derived from team sports, which makes sense when you think of the audience the network wants to reach. It’s an approach that was summed up hilariously by a British reporter who mimicked the U.S. commentators’ lingo: “Be careful,” he said to a colleague who was making fun of him, “or I’ll take you to the woodshed and give you a beatdown.” Both reporters burst out laughing. "Woodshed" and "beatdown" did sound ludicrous in an English accent. I silently vowed to myself not to use either of them anymore (it hasn't been easy).

ESPN’s love of drama-building produces another phenomenon that we don't see much of among the Aussies: the bold prediction. This is a Gilbert specialty, and you have to admire his persistence with them. Incorrect guesses are ignored and quickly forgotten. In the match between Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and Kei Nishikori, Gilbert showed his first-hand knowledge of the Japanese player’s mindset when he speculated, accurately, that he would take an extended bathroom break at the end of the next set. But BG wasn’t quite as accurate with his next prophecy. After Tsonga held serve confidently in the third set, Gilbert said that now “Jo Willie” (to the world outside ESPN, Tsonga is just “Jo”) “is going to roll.” Nishikori won the next game, that set, and the match.

Going over the top is what Gilbert is paid to do. He’s tennis’s toned-down version of an ESPN staple: the cartoon commentator—think Dick Vitale and Lee Corso. But that doesn’t mean he can’t analyze a match. In Rafa vs. Lopez, BG was the only commentator on any of the networks to notice how well Rafa was anticipating Lopez’s service placement, a product of having spent so much time across the net from him in past matches and practice sessions.

That’s the kind of observation that the Aussie commentators specialize in. Where ESPN brings a team-sports style to tennis, the Aussies, whether on Channel 7 or the World Feed, show off their instinctive understanding of the sport. It’s no accident that the best analyst on ESPN is an Australian, Darren Cahill, though even he has learned to punctuate the action by raising his voice dramatically when needed.

You don’t get a lot of that Down Under. Stolle, Hewitt, Todd Woodbridge, John Fitzgerald, and Roger Rasheed were all generally understated, and generally very good, over the last two weeks. They brought a sense of detail and realism that never pushed the drama too hard—you always had the sense that they were players or coaches once, and that tennis was interesting and complex in its own right. When Lopez anticipated a Nadal pass, Rasheed commented that Lopez knows that “Rafa likes to pass into space”—he rarely goes behind or directly at his opponent with a passing shot, and he loves the crosscourt. Watching Bernard Tomic losing his first-round match to Fernando Verdasco, Woodbridge noted that because Tomic is a fast player, he has trouble slowing down when things aren’t going well. It was as if Tomic heard him. As the match progressed, he began to take more time before critical points—partly, it must be admitted, because he was tired—and he began to win them.

What’s odd is that the lead analyst on Channel 7 is Jim Courier, an American. Courier takes his share of criticism Down Under. He can seem over-earnest among the sly, easygoing Aussies, and his interview style was described in one local paper as akin to a Vegas lounge lizard's. But I like Courier; he’s level-headed, not too egotistical for a former No. 1, and is still connected to what players are saying about other players in the proverbial “locker room.”

The Australians, always mindful of their country’s tennis legacy, can show an over-reverence for the game’s legends. At this point, it seems that Rod Laver walked on water when he played, while Roger Federer is inevitably referred to as “the Great Man himself.” But I’ll miss their commentary for the rest of the year. They respect tennis enough, and assume that their Aussie audence respects it enough, to talk about it in its own subtle terms.

Andy Murray

Tomas Berdych
He helped give us two excellent sets against Nadal. Yes, he should have shaken Almagro’s hand, but how many of the handshakes that actually happened were as fun to watch as his snub? B

Juan Martin del Potro
Is he still on his way back? Or has he settled in where he belongs, a definite tier below the best? With each Slam, the latter looks more likely. We’re going to need him for variety in the semis soon. B-

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
Once again, we can’t trust him at the Slams. Should this affect our enjoyment of his shotmaking and charisma, and his success elsewhere? Nope. But watching it go for nought at the majors is frustrating. C+

Marcos Baghdatis
Smashing four racquets was the smartest thing he did Down Under. C

Gael Monfils
Coo-coo against Kuku: His most perverse performance yet. The crowd atmosphere he generated was great, but as usual he pulled the rug out by blowing the match in the end. D

*****

That's it from Oz. I think it was a record-breaking week, words-wise, for me as well. As with six-hour tennis matches, this can be a good and bad thing, depending on your point of view. I will say that this was probably the best major I've covered since I started doing them in 2004. It's probably not over yet for me, either. I'll be back with some aftermath posts when I return, and wake up.

As proof that the old Nole can win big, too

Last year, we said Djokovic won because he was fitter and calmer. He had more belief; the old, edgy, pull-the-trigger-at-the-first-sign-of-trouble Nole had been left behind. He won because he had grown up.

Except that this past week, the old edgy, heavy-breathing, trigger-pulling Nole returned. And he still won.

Any tennis instructor trying to teach a young player the value of positive body language must have cringed at Djokovic’s performances this week. The Serb began matches talking to himself and his friends, throwing his hands in the air when he missed, and shuffling to the sidelines with his head down in exhaustion and pain. Djokovic puts all of his troubles out there for his opponent, and the world, to see.

And that’s also how he gets rid of them. It’s as Djokovic must have something go wrong, as it did in the first set tonight, before he can relax, forget about the pressure and the setting, and let loose. After five games, Djokovic was already on his third racquet (he didn’t like the string jobs) and his second shirt. By the start of the second set, though, he was at his ease in rallies, breathing fine, and pumping himself up. By the third set he was pouncing on everything in sight. It’s nice to know: Nole—who won the semis and final 7-5 in the fifth set—can be himself, neuroses and ailments and vulnerabilities and all, and still win.

*****

As another example of the eerie mirror image between Djokovic-Nadal and Nadal-Federer

The “trivalry” between these three shows us again how much of tennis is about matchups, about how two players’ games, and heads, uniquely interact.

Nadal uses his high, heavy, lefty forehand to Federer’s one-handed backhand as his fail-safe backup; Djokovic uses his high, heavy, forehand to Nadal’s weaker backhand as his fail-safe backup.

Against Djokovic, Nadal, so sure of his game plan against Federer, appears to have little idea how to construct points or where to start. Rafa can’t identify a weak spot, because there isn’t one. In some ways, Djokovic, who is best on hard courts and whose shots move through the court much more easily, reveals Nadal as the clay-court specialist he once was.

Nobody can exploit Nadal's biggest weakness, his serve, like Djokovic, who owns the best return in the game. Rafa was so amazed by this shot that he burst out in praise of it tonight, without being asked. "Is something unbelievable how he returns, no? His return is probably one of the best of history."

When Federer plays Nadal, Federer’s fans ask, “Why isn’t he more aggressive? Why doesn’t he do this, or that, or something else?” It looks like he should be winning. When Nadal plays Djokovic, Nadal’s fans ask the same exasperated questions. It’s not so easy. Djokovic hits with deceptive weight and accuracy, and he’s better than anyone at forcing Nadal to hit to his backhand. He’s always going to have the advantage when he does that. When Nadal plays Federer, he can play his game, while his opponent must find a solution. When Nadal plays Djokovic, the roles are reversed. It's Nole's who's comfortable, and Rafa who's searching.

There is one area of similarity: After this match, Rafa and Nole will likely be elevated to must-see rivalry status, next to Rog and Rafa, something that wasn't necessarily true when Djokovic owned him last year. (Nadal was just happy that he gave him a better run tonight than he did in 2011.) Djokovic may have joined the brand-name rivalry club tonight. We've had Fedal; this was the best of Rafole.

*****

As proof that we can still relate to the world’s best tennis players

It’s been theorized that fewer people play tennis than they once did because they're disconnected from what the pros are doing—it’s like a different sport. But anyone can relate to what each player went through tonight when they had the match on their racquet. Each of them blew it once; one of them was lucky enough to get a second chance.

Djokovic tightened up in the fourth set. He was ahead 4-3 and was up 0-40 on Nadal’s serve. This looked like the end. For three sets, Djokovic had been dominant; I had never seen Nadal as despondent as he was when he lost the third set. But he got the score back to 30-40, and Djokovic, who had been ripping backhand returns all night, suddenly guided this one back safely. He lost the point and the game. The set went to a tiebreaker. Djokovic went up 5-3; again it looked like the end. Then, two points from the title, he proceeded to send a forehand wide, another into the net, and another wide to lose the set.

Now it was Nadal’s turn. With Djokovic reeling and the crowd pushing him forward, Rafa went ahead 4-2 and 30-15 on his serve. Djokovic came to the net and popped up a sitter volley. Nadal closed, with an open court down the line. He pushed it wide. The crowd couldn't believe it; they cheered as if it had been in. Rafa challenged, but it was hopeless. He nervously lost that game and all of his momentum with it. Normally, Nadal hits bravely in the clutch moments—his career five-set record was 15-3 coming in. But this time he retreated. His second serve floated, and he moved back to where he’s always been comfortable, behind the baseline. His defense from there was incredible, but, again, it was the wrong matchup. Djokovic controlled the rallies in the last three games. There were some shaky moments, including a botched overhead, but he didn’t choke twice.

*****

As a testament to both players’ fighting spirits

We won’t remember the nerves in this one; we’ll remember the fight to rise above them. Nadal has won on willpower dozens, if not hundreds of times, before. This time Nadal was trapped, cornered, for three sets; every step forward was followed by a setback, every winner by an error. But he survived the fourth set.

Djokovic’s steely moment was less obvious but ultimately more important. At 4-4 in the fifth set, he had a break point for a chance to serve it out, but he ended up losing a long game. After the changeover, and after five hours of play, he came out fresh, smacking the ball as hard and confidently and accurately as he had all day. He won the last three games. While Rafa retreated, it was Nole, the Nole who was so overwrought to start, who kept his head at the end.

As for shot-making, their seemed to be a million balls hit in this one, and you may have your personal favorite. Here are two of mine. Djokovic reaching out with one hand on his backhand side and poking a seemingly sure Nadal winner onto the sideline, then finishing the point by going behind Nadal with a curling forehand—athleticism and élan in one. The Nadal shot I remember most was a jumping tomahawk forehand that seemed to be hit after he’d done a 360 in the air, early in the fifth set—an example of how he would leave no stone unturned, or shot untried, tonight.

*****

As a testament to the sportsmanship of the era

I felt bad for Rafa as he shook hands with Djokovic. I wondered how he would get that missed pass out of his mind. I wondered if he would break down in tears on the trophy stand.

We got none of that. What we got instead were words that spoke to why you play the sport in the first place—for matches like this, even when you lose them. In my favorite moment of the evening, Rafa raised and shook his second-place plate with a sad pride.

“When you are with passion for the game,” Nadal said, “when you are ready to compete, you are able to suffer and enjoy suffering, no?"

But it isn’t just a feeling you have on a tennis court, and it isn’t something, in Rafa’s mind, that only star athletes can understand. It’s there for anyone who tries for something greater.

“I don’t know if I express it very well,” he went on, “but is something that maybe you understand. So today I had this feeling, and is really a good one. I enjoyed. I suffered during the match, but I enjoyed all the troubles that I had during all the match.

“I enjoyed. I tried to be there, to find solutions all the time. I played a lot with my heart and lot with my mind, that’s something that is nice to be around, and [it’s not just about] tennis.”

Djokovic was gracious in his own press conference. He said that “both of them should have won.” But his best moment came on the winner’s stand. Nole took the trophy with a small, serious smile and immediately turned back to Rafa to congratulate him. Djokovic had made a lot of great moves on this night, but none was better or more appropriate than this one. He congratulated Nadal in the only way that made sense for this match, which was about sports as much as it was about players:

“We made history.”