Battle lines being drawn in Slams
In post-Federer age, specialization is key when it comes to winning majors
For two sets and seven games, this one was a ballgame.
"It's very thrilling," said Djokovic afterward, sounding slightly less than thrilled.
He did not tear off his shirt and exult, as he did a year ago after defeating Rafael Nadal in that epic 5-hour, 53-minute classic, the longest Grand Slam singles final on record.
"I'm full of joy right now," Djokovic added after his 6-7 (2), 7-6 (3), 6-3, 6-2 win Sunday. "It's going to give me a lot of confidence for the rest of the season, that's for sure."
Lovely. Confidence is a wonderful thing, but recent history says that, going forward, it might not make a bit of difference.
For the one thing we now know is that tennis, in this post-Federer age, has joined the world at large. Specialization is everything when it comes to winning majors.
The last four Grand Slam singles titles have gone to four men -- the Big Four is truly as good as its name.
Djokovic has always thrived Down Under. He won his first major in Melbourne five years ago -- at the tender age of 20 -- and now he's become the first man of the Open era to win three consecutive Australian Open titles. Djokovic has taken four Aussie titles in six years, a fact that may sneak up on casual tennis fans. Maybe it's the low-key atmosphere that pervades the grounds or his eagerness to escape the offseason training grind. Whatever, his game meshes perfectly with the blue court in Rod Laver Arena, even though it was playing faster than in recent years.
Last year Roger Federer broke a 0-for-9 streak in Grand Slams with his seventh title at Wimbledon. Even though he'll be a month shy of his 32nd birthday at this year's fortnight at the All England Club, his startlingly diverse skill set suggests he might be a threat to win there for another two or three years. Still, in his last 12 major appearances, Federer has won one, lost in the final once, the semifinals six times and the quarterfinals four times. Like it or not, that is the new normal for Federer. Someone on a very short list (of, say, two) may wrest that crown away in July.
That someone could well be Murray, who fell to Federer in that Wimbledon final but one month later won the Olympic gold medal on the same court. Murray, of course, broke through with his first major victory at the U.S. Open, beating Djokovic in the final. Murray, for a number of reasons, seems suited for success in New York, and one wonders if this will become his signature major.
And so, these peerless players have carved the majors into four very distinct fiefdoms. Each man is the reigning champion of the major that best suits his peculiar skills. As long as their careers remain viable, their best opportunities will likely come on their favorite courts.
"No one's ever won a Slam [consecutively] after winning their first one," Murray said after losing to Djokovic. "It's not the easiest thing to do. And I got extremely close.
"I have to try and look at the positives of the last few months, and I think I'm going in the right direction."
Indeed he is. Both 25 -- and born within a week of each other -- Djokovic and Murray seem destined to dominate for the next several years.
Unless Juan Martin del Potro or Tomas Berdych or Jo-Willie Tsonga suddenly elevate their games, it will be so. Until the Grigor Dimitrovs and Milos Raonics and Bernard Tomics arrive -- if, indeed, they ever will -- Djokovic and Murray will be joined at the hip.
They have won the last five hard-court majors between them, and that number should grow. They are also the leading candidates to fill the void when Federer and Nadal cede their exalted territory in London and Paris.
Australian Open 2013 -- Jan. 13-Jan. 27
Svetlana Kuznetsova and Vera Zvonareva
Leander Paes and Radek Stepanek
Bethanie Mattek-Sands and Horia Tecau
Follow us on Twitter »
Watch on ESPN
Australian Open website »