Novak Djokovic: A lesson in becoming the best in the world

I remember watching Novak Djokovic, or 'Nole,' for the first time in 2007. The young Serbian, all of 20 years old, was confident and let people know about it. 

He unleashed Tiger Woods fist pumps after, it seemed, every winner he hit. He yelled at himself and gesticulated toward his box after every shot he dumped into the net. 

He had all the talent in the world — that wasn't hard to see — but his mind wasn't calibrated to win championships, to defeat the rock-solid Roger Federer in his prime. 

So even as I watched Djokovic exchange forehand for forehand and big serve for big serve against Federer in the 2007 U.S. Open final, the outcome was inevitable. 

Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic 7-6 (4), 7-6 (2), 6-4.

Fast forward five years and four months. 

Djokovic was having similar issues. He had outplayed Andy Murray for most of the Australian Open championship's first set, but had failed to capitalize on any of five break point opportunities. In the tiebreak, he had fallen apart. First, he had double-faulted. Then came four unforced errors, yelling at himself, and, very quickly, a lost set. 

The break between sets hadn't helped. On serve down 0-1 in the second, Djokovic now faced three break points, the match seemingly, already, hanging in the balance. But this moment showed just how much he's matured, how he's learned to become a multiple-time grand slam champion against the world's best.

Djokovic outlasted Murray during the ensuing rallies to stave off the points, got a huge forehand winner down the line for the advantage, and then claimed the crucial game.

He would only face one more break point the entire 3-hour, 40-minute match — and save that one too.

By the fourth set, Djokovic was cruising, moving around the court like a gazelle, barely breathing as the more-than-game Scot labored from a bloody blister and what appeared to be an aching backside. This also spoke to how far Djokovic has come as a big-match player. He got better as the night wore on. His serves became bigger; his ground strokes crisper; and he played incredibly efficient at the net — not a talked-about strength of his — where he converted 35 of 41 points.

Novak Djokovic def. Andy Murry 6-7 (2), 7-6 (3), 6-3, 6-2.

Let me introduce you to Novak Djokovic:

Six-time grand slam winner.

Four-time Australia Open winner, including an Open-era record three in a row.

The undisputed world No. 1.

Even when Djokovic won his first Aussie Open in 2008, he was young and immature. He didn't gain a lot of friends on tour by making a habit of performing crowd-pleasing  imitations of other players. He was playful but also acerbic, incredibly talented and hard-working, but raw. 

For three years, Djokovic remained stuck in the world's No. 3 slot, not that there was anything wrong with that. He was behind two of the greatest who have ever played the game — Federer and Rafael Nadal. Still, he gained a not-good reputation of retiring from matches. He advanced deep in many tournaments, but couldn't finish them. He failed to advance past the quarterfinals of any of the 2009 majors before losing to Federer in the semis at the U.S. Open in a match similar to their '07 meeting.

Djokovic's 2010 season wasn't all that different from '09 — at least at the grand slams — until his epic, unleash-the-forehand-on-match-point win over Federer in the semifinal rematch at the U.S. Open. Until that match, you still couldn't put the Serbian on the same level as the Great Two. But then he won that match. Then he gained a real swagger, a real belief.

And, well, Djokovic's 2011 season was, as 14-time major champion Pete Sampras said, "One of the best achievements in all of sports."

Since that epic, three-major-winning year, Djokovic has had to share victories with his Big Four companions. After all, Nadal, when healthy, still owns the French; Federer, ever the stubborn champion, refuses to take his 17 majors, two kids and wife and build himself a white picket fence; and Murray, born a week before Djokovic, is as tough of an opponent as ever after getting that first-grand-slam monkey off his back at September's U.S. Open.

But the least amount of question marks surround Djokovic and his half dozen majors. He's still young at 25 unlike Federer, 31; he's healthy unlike Nadal, who's been sidelined since last June with his knee injury; and Murray, while playing very impressive of late, still has shown the ability to win a major just once. 

After that '08 title, during the drought years of '09 and '10, the question was asked about Djokovic: Was he just a one-hit wonder? Now, of course, that seems silly but will be asked about Murray until he wins more titles. Which will likely mean going through the man who outlasted him Sunday night in Melbourne. 

Djokovic's antics can still seem a bit outrageous on center court. After outlasting Stan Wawrinka in a memorable five-set match earlier in the tournament, he tore off his shirt in celebration. 

But the key difference is when that behavior is on display — after he's won another match.

As for the matches themselves, Djokovic is focused, honed in, and as rock-solid a No. 1 player in the world as you can have.

Meet Sloane Stephens, the next great American hope?

This Tuesday, some 10,000 miles away from this country in Melbourne, Australia (where it will be Wednesday), the current queen of women’s tennis will meet the next great American hope.

Many Americans probably won’t see the match between Serena Williams and Sloane Stephens. It will likely occur late at night — or early in the morning — here in the States.

Heck, many Americans probably don’t know about Stephens (I’ll admit it; I wasn’t aware of the 19-year-old until this tournament).

If they follow tennis, they will soon.

Stephens will not beat Williams in this Australian Open matchup, her first quarterfinal at a Grand Slam tournament. It won’t happen. Not against arguably the greatest women’s player of ALL TIME. Not against a 31-year-old Williams who has only dropped a single match since last May’s French Open. Not against a player so dominant that she won singles and doubles titles at Wimbledon, Olympic Gold in singles and doubles, and the U.S. Open — all in two months.

No, Serena Williams is too dominant, too powerful, too everything.

But make no mistake about it — when it comes to U.S. women’s tennis, Sloane Stephens has got next.

And that next isn’t far off.

This blog is about the precocious youngster with the huge forehand and bubbly personality (descriptions, coincidentally, that you could apply to a certain American player also mentioned in this post).

Let me first provide a paragraph on where the Plantation, Fla., native stands today:

Stephens, at No. 25, is the lone teenager in the Women’s Tennis Association’s top 50. After her three-set Round of 16 victory over Bojana Jovanovski, she’s guaranteed a spot in the top 20. And she’s also the second-highest ranked American behind you know who.

Only one American not named a Williams has reached a Grand Slam quarterfinal in the past handful of years. That was Melanie Oudin at the 2009 U.S. Open. How’s Oudin faring now? She’s ranked 84th and hasn’t advanced past the second round of a major since.

So why am I so high on Stephens? What’s to say she won’t become another Oudin?

Because of the similarities to Williams, that’s why. Yes, it’s a convenient comparison. The young, black, strong American player with an energetic, full-of-life personality.

But if you watch Stephens on the court, you can see it, too, even if her development is far from complete. I saw it in the final, tense moments of her 6-1, 3-6, 7-5 victory over Jovanovski.

The 21-year-old Serb took over the match in the second set, grunting and outmuscling Stephens, who became passive and stuck on the baseline. After Stephens dumped a forehand into the net to get broken and fall behind 0-2 in the final set, it would have been easy to dismiss the, yes, 19-year-old. The pressure, it could be said, was getting to her.

But down 1-3, Stephens found a switch that you wouldn’t expect such a young player to possess, suddenly unleashing a barrage of laser forehands to win eight straight points and knot the set at 3-3. With the set tied at 5-5 and Jovanovski serving at 0-15, Stephens again pounded an impeccable, impossible-to-return forehand down the line that, seemingly, rattled the resilient Serb.

She broke a minute later, 6-5.

In the final game, Stephens appeared on her heels as she served down 15-30. Jovanovski was pounding forehands left and right. But in an example of her versatility — of her burgeoning ability to win points in different fashions — Stephens showed Novak Djokovic-like defense and outlasted Jovanovski to tie the game.

A minute later, Stephens was breathing a sigh of relief as she gave her post-match interview — her date with Williams secured.

"I'm sure my mother's had like four heart attacks," Stephens joked of the match. "I hope my Grandpa didn't have to put my Grandma to bed, because she gets a little worried."

All kidding aside, Stephens has a chance to be great because not only does she have the physical ability, but she has the right personality, too, to succeed on tour — to slug out the tough matches. She’s already mature beyond her years.

Stephens conceded that Jovanovski’s play had her out of rhythm, but she added that “sometimes you just kind of got to stick it out, and hopefully she comes down off her throne."

That’s veteran talk, not 19-year-old talk.

Stephens doesn’t lose her cool on the court, but she also knows when she needs an emotional boost. After breaking Jovanovski to get to 1-2, Stephens allowed herself a few mini fistpumps and “Come on!”s. She is far from stoic on the court.

OK, reality check time. Did I mention that Stephens will not beat Williams tomorrow? She met the 15-time Grand Slam winner in a Brisbane exhibition earlier this month and put up a fight, falling 6-4, 6-3. As all-time great and current ESPN analyst Chris Evert said, “Once they get into a rally … I think she can stay with her.”

Of course, that statement came after Evert talked about Williams’ dominant serve, which is the biggest advantage — besides experience — she has on Stephens. In her dominant 6-2, 6-0 dispatching of Maria Kirilenko, Williams had a first-serve percentage of 95 percent in the first set. That’s unbeatable. That’s a reason Williams has won 20 consecutive matches.

So there’s a reason I’m writing this before the match. The action on the court could look ugly for Stephens. Her nerves could play a factor. Mostly, her opponent will.

Rather, this writing should serve — pun intended — as a sign of what American tennis fans can hope for, and anticipate, going forward as Williams’ historic career winds down.

The women’s game, as we’ve witnessed over the last handful of years, is wide open when Williams isn’t playing. It’s a crapshoot. Maria Sharapova, 25, has overcome injury and reemerged as one of the sport’s premier players — having won the career grand slam and playing her best tennis. Victoria Azarenka, 23, won this tournament a year ago and took Williams to the brink of defeat at the U.S. Open in September. But neither player is as dominant as Williams. Neither player will dominate the tour like Williams has or be an indomitable roadblock in front of Stephens like Roger Federer was for Andy Roddick during the American’s best years.

The next great American hope is in the process of arriving, sports fans.

And she’s a joy to watch.

With best serve ever, Serena Williams will continue to win well into her 30s

Serena Williams has won so many Grand Slam titles, several of them in dominant fashion, that they all blend together like the blueberries, orange juice, hemp powder and spinach I mix when I decide a healthy breakfast is needed. 

The result is that there aren't too many moments that stand out, there aren't many stills that I can picture when thinking of her dominance in women's tennis.

I'm pretty sure, however, that a moment — or, rather, 49 seconds — from Williams' 6-1, 5-7, 6-2 Wimbledon final victory over Agnieszka Radwanska will last with me and many tennis fans for years to come.

It came in the pivotal third set, a set no one on this earth except, maybe, Radwanska thought possible after Williams exerted her power and will during a one-sided first set. Trailing 2-1, Williams stepped up to the baseline and dropped in a powerful serve.

Radwanska didn't move. 

Williams received a new ball from the ball boy or girl — I wasn't monitoring that too closely — and stepped to the ad side of the baseline and uncorked another enormous serve.

Radwanska barely twitched.

You get the point (or, more accurately, Williams grabbed four straight points without Radwanska coming close to making any kind of contact with the ball). The game had commentator and 18-time grand slam winner Chris Evert gushing from ESPN's box. It had other tennis greats wondering, via Twitter, if such a thing had EVER been done on the lady's tour (which, remember, has been around a long time — since Billie Jean King created it in 1973).

She might not admit it, but those 49 seconds, that sense of helplessness she must have felt on Centre Court, finally broke the very-game Radwanska. In the next game, Williams finally got the critical break of serve. She didn't come close to losing a game the rest of the way.

When Williams powered a final backhand winner to close out the match, she fell to the court in jubilation. It's easy for the casual sports fan to think that with those missile-sized biceps and athleticism, tennis and winning comes easy for Williams. 

They're, of course, forgetting or ignoring all the obstacles she's overcome and how much work she's put into the sport that she loves and the opportunity to be the best of her generation on the one surface in life where she feels completely comfortable. 

Williams' fifth Wimbledon win matched her sister Venus' handful of championships and gave her 14 grand slam singles — just four shy of Evert and Navratilova's 18. Steffi Graf's 22 majors still seems untouchable. 

Williams is capable of eclipsing Evert and Navratilova's number even playing in her 30s, but more on that in a second. First, it needs to be mentioned why Williams was so emotional after the final ball had been hit in London. 

As polished as her tennis resume is, Williams' career has been bumpier than most Washington, DC roads (if you can't picture the comparison, come visit). Missing a pair of majors during the 2006 season due to a serious knee injury, falling completely out of the rankings and needing a wild card to compete at the U.S. Open couldn't have been easy for a seven-time major champion.

It was nothing compared to Williams' past two years. After a masterful performance at Wimbledon in 2010 — a tournament during which she didn't drop a set — Williams was again on top of the sport, No. 1 in the world.

Then, in a freak, accident, she cut her foot at a restaurant and needed 18 stitches. Still sidelined in early 2011, Williams confirmed she suffered hematoma and a pulmonory embolism while on a flight from New York to L.A. I won't get into the medical details, but the seriousness of the injury boils down to one sentence:

Serena Williams could have died from it.

Thankfully, Williams made a full recovery, returned to tennis almost a year after her world nearly shattered, and now here she is, today, a major champion again — the first 30-year-old grand slam women's winner since Navratilova 22 years ago.

Which brings me back to that serve.

Evert said blatantly that it's better than half of the serves on the men's tour. Williams easily set a Wimbledon women's record for aces, with over 100. Ask Radwanska about it.

And that serve — so precise every time, the ball reaching the same apex before Williams' racket thunders through it; poor ball — will allow Williams to remain a force on a weakened, who's-turn-is-it-today? women's tour for quite sometime. 

(Fun fact: Each of the past seven grand slam tournaments have been won by a different woman. On the men's side, there have only been four finalists!.)

Williams isn't the best mover on tour. Her net game leaves something to be desired. And she's not getting younger (although when asked during the trophy presentation if 30 is the new 20, she responded, "Oh my GOD, of course, hello!."). But with the best serve by a woman ever, with that ability to win games solely on her serve, Williams can continue to win majors — if not as smoothly as in 2010.

Then again, nothing has come easily for her since that last major. 

Which only makes celebrations like Saturday's that much more enjoyable and rewarding. 

I suspect we'll be seeing more of them for another handful of years.

Can Andy Murray deliver on the biggest of stages?

Andy Murray is only 25. If healthy, the Brit will likely play in dozens of more majors — well after the great Roger Federer has laced up his shoes for a final time. 

But 25 in tennis isn't 25 in baseball; Rafael Nadal, 26, and Novak Djokovic, 25, aren't going anywhere; and from somewhere, you have to figure, new young hotshots are close to bursting through on the tour to, at the very least, win a few big matches and put a scare into the big boys.

Which is why, this Wimbledon is Murray's LeBron James moment. 

(I promise: This won't be a post full of Murray-LeBron comparisons, because that would be nonsensical; a basketball and tennis player only have so much in common.)

With each major that Murray fails to win, the pressure only grows. By now, any tennis fan knows what's at stake — despite being the birthplace of tennis, Great Britain hasn't produced a Grand Slam winner since the great Fred Perry (eight titles) won at the All England Club in 1936. 

That's 76 years and counting.

Murray, at the moment, is the country's greatest — and lone — hope. Like LeBron (oops, rule broken), he's shouldered incredible pressure since emerging on tour about five years ago. Unlike LeBron, he can't take his talents to South Beach.

Rather, Murray is faced with the challenge of believing in himself against the world's best; of pushing himself to a place he's never been. The physical tools are there — the powerful serve, the consistent ground strokes, the ability to finish points at the net.

But to this point, Murray has wilted on the biggest of stages.

He's played in three Grand Slam finals and failed to win a set, succumbing to Federer twice and Djokovic once. He didn't show much life in any of the three matches. Similarly, he's lost in six major semifinals to the Big Three, and only once — in this year's Aussie Open, when he fell to Djokovic — has he pushed his opponent to the brink.

In Wednesday's quarterfinal victory (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 7-6) over the "Little Beast" David Ferrer, Murray showed the type of resolve he'll absolutely need for the entirety of a match if he's to break through this weekend and win that elusive Grand Slam over Federer or Djokovic (first, of course, he has to face Jo-Wilfried Tsonga Friday in the semifinals). 

Murray displayed toughness, grit and a bounce-back ability that, to be frank, has usually been the separating factor between the Big Three (32 major titles between them) and him. 

After dropping the first set in a tiebreaker, which had me groaning, "Oh, typical Murray; can't win the big points," the Brit found himself down 5-2 in the second set tiebreaker. He stood two points from being down two sets against a player in Ferrer whose motor never slows down. 

Instead, Murray responded with aggressive shot-making to take the tiebreaker 8-6. Match on.

The third set appeared headed for yet another tiebreaker, but with Ferrer serving at 4-4, Murray unleashed a pair of killer groundstrokes to break the Spaniard then served out the set at love. 

Killer instinct.

Against an opponent like Ferrer, Murray knew there would be no easy final set, and the players battled back and forth until the usual London rain delay halted play at 4-4. Leading up to the stoppage, Murray showed the let's-get-this-done attitude that he's carried all tournament, not wasting a second between points and throwing 130-mph serves to the inside and wide of Ferrer.

He wasn't in the mood for messing around, even up a set. A couple rounds earlier, Murray had done the same thing to finish off Marcos Baghdatis just a couple minutes after an 11p.m. "curfew" to finish play for the day.

In the final set tiebreak — what else? — Murray used all the strength he had left in his body, firing back-to-back aces up the middle to take a 4-3 lead. Leading 5-4, he then set up match point brilliantly with an array of groundstrokes to Ferrer's baseline before a steaming forehand winner up the line.

A point later, Murray left no doubt with his third ace of the tiebreak. 

After 4 hours on Centre Court, Murray raised his hands in triumph, but only for a fleeting moment. He'll save any big celebrations for Sunday.

Can he do it? That answer is impossible to know.

But with the pressure not going anywhere, Murray, an avid boxing fan, has displayed signs this fortnight of the package of jabs he needs to bring to center stage if he's going to knock out one of the Big Three and be toasted in England for many fortnights to come.

We are a witness to the Golden Age of men's tennis

Novak Djokovic doesn't have an explanation for it.


When asked how and why he's able to play his best tennis in the absolute most critical moments — those match points for the other guys — he smiles and often shakes his head.


"There really isn't any rational explanation or a word that can describe what you're supposed to do when you're match points down or when you're losing or very close to losing," Djokovic said Tuesday after rallying from down two sets to one to defeat Jo Wilfried-Tsonga. "It's trying to be mentally tough and believing in your shots. So, I don't want to be wise now and say, 'OK, I know how to play when I'm match points down,' because I said, there's no explanation."


Several players on tour can hit the shots that Djokovic unleashed to stave off match point not once, not twice but four times — on the practice court. Or during the middle of matches on relatively inconsequential points. 


But how many guys can completely unleash their best forehands, their hardest backhands, and their most punishing overhead rallies when if they're off by just a few inches, they're done, their tournament is over?


Not many.


What the world's No. 1 ranked player did on Tuesday is called greatness. 


But he wasn't the only one to show an incredible will and fortitude at Roland Garros. On the same chilly, rain-threatening day, Roger Federer, the man of 16 grand slam titles, found himself down two sets to none against the powerful, spry Juan Del Potro. 


Surely the 30-year-old wouldn't have enough energy — wouldn't have the legs — to win three consecutive sets from the 23-year-old, right? Del Potro had clearly outplayed him, taking the first set 6-3 and the second in a tiebreaker. 


Time to let the young gun have one, right? (Although a 20-year-old Del Potro did shock Federer in the 2009 U.S. Open final.) 


Instead, as we've seen on so many occasions, the Greatest of All Time (GOAT) responded with equal portions of poise and tenacity, giving the match a 180-degree turn and cruising to three straight sets, 6-2, 6-0, 6-3.


Greatness.


It's not a word that should be tossed around. It should be reserved for the very best in sports. And right now, in men's tennis, we are so lucky to be witnessing it. In fact, we've been a witness to it for the past seven or so years — when Rafael Nadal, who is putting together the most dominant French Open in tournament history, joined Federer on the podium of tennis' best winners, just elevated a few feet above the rest of the lot.


And that's the thing. Yes, the Big Three as I'll call them — after all, that's the theme this NBA postseason — are all very good, right now, at tennis. At the X's and O's, if you will. 


Federer's serve. Djokovic's killer forehand and drop-shot ability. Nadal's lateral movement and penchant for reaching any ball. 


But a lot of guys on tour can do those things. Especially when you talk about the aging Federer, who has been written off by many tennis folks at different junctures during the past two years. 


What separates the trio of men who have 32 Grand Slam titles between them is an innate ability to do exactly what Djokovic and Federer did, in different fashions, to stay alive on the clay Tuesday — perform at their highest level when their backs are against the wall. 


Think of Jordan's 1998 game-winner. Think of the Cardinals' two, two-out rallies in last year's Fall Classic (a World Series that actually deserved the name.) Think of Eli Manning's last-minute Super Bowl heroics.


Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have come up that big on myriad occasions. When trying to think of a "choke" job by any of them, all that comes to mind is when Federer slapped that easy forehand into the net, giving Nadal the 2008 Wimbledon title in arguably the greatest match ever played. 


How else can you explain Federer making an unreal 28 consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinals? In other words, winning at least four matches at tennis' biggest tournaments for seven years running. 


Until a year and a half ago, this greatness was a trait only shared by Federer and Nadal. There was no other way to explain why the extremely talented and hard-working Djokovic, almost Nadal's age, had just one grand slam to his name. 


But then he found it — greatness — and matured in front of our eyes, becoming even more clutch in the biggest moments than we'd ever seen Federer or Nadal. His forehand winner against Federer in the 2010 U.S. Open semifinal, while facing match point, was fearless, the stuff of legends, and laid the groundwork for his three grand slam wins in 2011 followed by this year's epic Australian Open victory over Nadal.


Now, we get to see Federer-Djokovic, again, in Thursday's first French Open semifinal. 


We're so lucky.


In so many sports, we, as fans, love the upset. The unpredictability of it. The excitement that comes with the goliath being stoned down. But in tennis, I root for the Big Three to reach the final rounds and eventually face off against each other, because their greatness under pressure, their shotmaking ability, is unmatched. And it makes for incredible theater.


It's the Golden Age of men's tennis. And we should relish it while it lasts.