ESPN Tennis

Before Ion Tiriac answers to the players at the annual Wimbledon meeting of the ATP rank-and-file about that blue clay he introduced in Madrid, he has to answer to me.

His experiment, troubled though it was, has ruined my enjoyment of the ongoing Rome Masters -- the last high-stakes battle before the French Open.

Watching the Rome tournament Thursday on a fairly new flat-screen television (but one not set up to receive a digital HD image), I was constantly frustrated by a problem I never even knew I had before the blue-clay event in Madrid: I struggled to see the ball -- an effort I assume I had simply lived with in years past because ... because I didn't know any better. There has never been another option to red clay anywhere in Europe.

So there I sat, as Richard Gasquet crafted an upset of Andy Murray, looking for those tell-take puffs of dirt. They look like the dust rose by an errant bullet in a western movie -- each time one of them served or took a bit cut at a groundstroke. I know from readers of my blog that I wasn't alone in noticing how much harder it was to see the ball after the interlude in Madrid.

Over the past week or 10 days, I've been accused of being blood kin to Tiriac (full disclosure: We do both have some Hungarian blood) and also of being on the payroll of the former pro and iconoclastic billionaire who owns the Madrid event.

I am neither. But I am a fan of Tiriac's because he's a realist, and unlike many other tennis promoters, he's walked in a player's shoes -- and then some. I've seen what he has accomplished over more than three decades in tennis.

After a solid career mostly as a doubles player (he won the French Open partnered with that genius Ilie Nastase), Tiriac went on to coach and/or manage a range of spectacularly successful players starting with Nastase and including Guillermo Vilas, Henri LeConte, Boris Becker and Goran Ivanisevic.

Soon thereafter, he segued to various non-sports businesses, opening Romania's first commercial bank in the post-Iron Curtain era. He scored success after success. He also built and still supports a large orphanage in his industrial hometown of Brasov.

And all the while, Tiriac has kept a hand in tennis as a promoter, with events in Stuttgart and Madrid. The idea circulating among newbies and ill-educated fans is that he's just some other billionaire dabbling in tennis. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We all know that the blue clay in Madrid was problematic; the foundation was too hard; the top dressing too slippery. Novak Djokovic, the world No. 1, and Rafael Nadal, both upset victims, were particularly vocal in their criticism.

The problem was originally ascribed to the fact that the tournament must lay down new courts each year in the Caja Magica ("magic box") arena. And in the aftermath of the blue-clay controversy, the city of Madrid agreed to leave the courts in place in the arena and to maintain them until the next tournament.

But just Wednesday, former French Open champ and Madrid assistant tournament director Carlos Moya also declared that the main problem with the "slippery" courts was the ill-advised addition of salt to clay, which created a kind of super-hard shell on the individual granules. Moya insisted that those who played on the courts before they were treated with salt (a common practice to control the effects of humidity) all judged the court just fine.

Djokovic and Nadal are threatening to boycott next year's event if it remains on blue clay. Just how much support they'll be able to muster among their fellow pros remains to be seen. But to me the cat is out of the bag: The blue courts were a big hit with media and spectators, and the question now will be whether the players embrace innovation and change or choose to play it conservatively.

Granted, I don't have to play on the blue stuff. But the experiment could hardly be called a disaster. Roger Federer didn't seemed to have trouble adapting to the conditions nor did his quality opponent, Tomas Berdych.

The visibility of the ball was clearly better against the blue background. Watching tennis on the tawny clay in Rome makes the case better than do these words. And at least to this fan, the blue was a great respite from the sameness that has come to define the European spring swing. Perhaps three Masters events in just five weeks is a bit much, even for Europhiles?

Tiriac broke new ground with the blue clay, which is unsurprising if you know the man and the way he thinks. I think it would be shortsighted and a wasted opportunity if the players end up rejecting this innovation merely because it displeased Rafa and Nole. This experiment was a great first step toward a better clay-court spectating and, I hope, playing experience.

I've been messing around with tennis statistics lately. The sport has come a very long way in a relatively short time in that area, given that it's a global game with a baffling amount of data (with up to 128 players to track at even a single Grand Slam) -- along with a history of indifference to the art of statistics-based record-keeping.

Nobody would ever confuse tennis with baseball, the sport in which statistics have become an almost romantic dimension of the game. But the volume of statistics now generated by the ATP -- and, to a lesser degree, the WTA -- on a daily basis is impressive.

It also tends to support the theory that tennis statistics are in some ways inadequate when it comes to explaining the ebb and flow at the top of the game. That's because almost all good players are packed together so tightly that you invariably return to the idea that critical matches are determined by a handful of points (even that may be stretching it), which are won or lost for reasons that may have very little to do with anything you can quantify with stats.

Case in point: The ATP tracks 10 critical categories in its Ricoh Matchfacts module. It tracks them for retired as well as active players, in both "career" and "by year" categories. It will even break them down by surface.

This is a formidable bit of data mining, and it does turn up some mind-blowing results: Who knew that Guillermo Coria is the career leader in break-points won percentage (46 percent)? Or that the highest career first-serve conversion rate belongs to Gilbert Schaller (76 percent)?

But the problem arises when you see how close everyone else is to the leaders in these departments, and how many men end up tied with as many as a dozen others not very far behind the leaders. To wit: Eight different men, including Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal, are a mere percentage point behind Coria in the break points won category. Among them as well: Filippo Volandri. Say what?

In the 10 categories tracked by the ATP, the only one in which Djokovic places above Nadal is "Aces." You can't look at career stats for that category, because the two present-day stars are nowhere near done. (The top ace-maker, by the way, was Goran Ivanisevic, with 10,183.) In the year-to-date rankings, Djokovic is way ahead of Nadal, 140 aces to 82. But Djokovic is just No. 18 in the rankings, and Nadal is No. 41.

Djokovic and Nadal are among the very best who ever played (since the stats have been kept, anyway) in every percentage-based category. But Nadal is consistently ranked above Djokovic, albeit by more than one ranking spot in just three of the nine categories.

The rivals are ranked equally in two categories: Each man has converted break points at a 45 percent clip (along with six other players), and their first-serve points won stats are identical (72 percent). Interestingly, though, that makes them 11th-best on the list, with fully 87 players ahead of them.

If you take the long view, the stats bear out what most fair-minded pundits believe, and all those other career numbers (including Grand Slam events won) bear out. Nadal has been just that much better, on a consistent basis, in almost all departments. There's a reason he has so many Grand Slam titles, right? Even the amazing numbers Djokovic put up in his enchanted 2011 haven't quite turned the tide.

The most useful stat, in terms of showing a significant edge one way or the other? Nadal's first-serve conversion percentage of 69 percent puts him No. 4 on the all-time list; Djokovic is No. 9, with a 64 percent rate.

If you saw how many points Nadal won thanks to his first serve in last week's Monte Carlo final, you might even think it's worth wading through all those stats to come up with that telling nugget.

In the big picture, maybe No. 1 Novak Djokovic would have been better off letting sleeping dogs lie. Rafael Nadal, his main and most bitter rival, had won the Monte Carlo Masters tournament a surreal seven times going into this year's edition. On Sunday, he made it eight in a row with a surprisingly easy 6-3, 6-1 triumph that ended his seven-match losing skid against Djokovic.

Last year, Djokovic skipped this event to rest from his perfect start to the year. He put off his return until the minor event in Belgrade, Serbia, a tournament his family created and owns. Djokovic then continued to build on his newfound mastery of Nadal by getting the best of him on the red clay courts of Madrid. Nadal was No. 1 at the time and had the entire world convinced he was invincible on clay.

This year, Djokovic played just two fewer matches than he had in 2011 and took two losses (both in semifinals) into the match. Yet he entered Monte Carlo instead of replicating his game plan of 2011. You have to wonder how much pressure he felt to enter one of the showcase events hosted by the tax haven that has saved him a bundle by granting residence.

It's all moot now; the damage is done. After taking seven straight losses at the hands of Djokovic, Nadal has temporarily turned the tables. He dominated Djokovic in every phase of the game in the Monte Carlo final, but if you had to single out a single area of excellence, it would be Nadal's serve.

Nadal's serve was every bit as effective back in those halcyon summer days of 2010, when he rode those lefty kickers and sliders to the completion of his career Grand Slam at the U.S. Open.

The most startling statistic served up on the day: Djokovic's inability to win more than four points off Nadal first serves (at 4 of 26, his percentage was a cringe-inducing 15 percent). Nadal made his first serve nearly 70 percent of the time, and he won 50 percent of the points when he didn't.

Those numbers, and what they say about the role of the serve in this match (and, Nadal partisans fervently hope, going forward), will give some comfort to Nadal and his fans when critics rightly suggest that Djokovic was off-kilter all day. He certainly was making more unforced errors than usual, and he looked passive and uncharacteristically dispirited throughout the match.

Most pundits put it down to the fact that Djokovic has been on an emotional roller coaster after losing his grandfather Vladimir, with whom he was very close, just a few days ago. Although distracted, he decided to soldier on and finish the tournament, saying, "I'm a professional one hand, and life goes on." Give him credit. It would have been easy for him to milk the family's loss for all it was worth, but he eschewed the drama.

For Djokovic and his minions, the takeaway from this match is that he's still the one calling the tune once the ball is in play -- and that's an edge no other player today can claim, at least not on red clay or outdoor hard courts.

Nadal did many things right Sunday, starting with his service selection and execution. But he didn't do the single thing that might enable him to turn the tide permanently against Djokovic; he didn't step into the court and establish a no-passing zone at the baseline. Those familiar heroic sprints and gets, those spectacular counterpunches and those heavy, spinning forehands that jump right up and threaten to bite an opponent were enough to get the job done.

We all know that Nole took up residence in Rafa's head last year, because Nadal himself has told us so. Whether this shellacking was enough to evict Djokovic remains to be seen. Given Nadal's record on clay, and the fact that Djokovic no longer has anything to prove at this time of year (beyond the French Open at some point), the one thing that seems certain is that this win came at a most opportune time for the eighth-time lucky champ.

Pundits will never make a place for this match on the list of all the great ones Novak Djokovic has played. It won't make the short list of best comebacks that invariably will be complied by statisticians and tennis historians. It won't even make the long list of close calls.

But Djokovic has earned the right to put his third-round win over Alexandr Dolgopolov in the Monte Carlo Masters right up there among his best efforts, and it undoubtedly will take a place among his most memorable -- as well as most painful -- moments in tennis.

That's because Djokovic had learned just a few hours before playing that he'd lost his beloved 83-year-old grandfather, Vladimir. Distracted and loaded up with grief, Djokovic made a hash of the first set but then pulled himself together to ultimately prevail in three sets over the mercurial Dolgopolov.

Djokovic was able to pull that off partly because, although Vladimir had left him, some of the things he taught his grandson, the No. 1 player in the world, had not. As Djokovic has said, "He always told me to fight." The boy learned well. And Thursday, he fought, battling a volatile, talented opponent as well as his own distracting melancholia.

Those words of Vladimir's will resonate in the coming days and weeks as Nole tries to balance his feelings, desires, obligations and abilities in what looms as the most challenging segment of the tennis year -- the part traditionally owned by his great rival, No. 2 Rafael Nadal.

Djokovic displaced Nadal as the master of the red-clay universe in 2011, but he has yet to prove that he wasn't just on an extended vacation in what players like to think of as "the zone." In all fairness, it wasn't as though all Djokovic had to do was swipe at the ball to hit a winner. But his degree of focus, his timing, his stamina and his serene, confident attitude all confirmed that he was in the midst of something rare.

The events of this year, compared to 2011, bear that out. Djokovic is having a great year. He's already won a Grand Slam and a Masters title, and he's lost just two matches, both semifinals. Playing within himself, overcoming the occasional lapse, he's an outstanding 21-2. But it's not 2011, and everyone, including Djokovic, knows it.

It won't be very long, given the demands and nature of clay-court tennis, that Djokovic will have to call upon Vladimir's rallying cry to fight. And it may take more effort to answer it the way he did through that gilded 2011 for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that he knows as well as anyone else that until someone proves otherwise, it's impossible to sustain the degree of perfection he attained in the first half of 2011.

Some portion of this fight will have to be settled within his own heart. For starters, does he pull out of Monte Carlo and return to Serbia to attend the funeral of his grandfather, should that event take place before Sunday, or does he stay and fight it out? Which would do Vladimir prouder?

Djokovic entered the court at the Monte Carlo Country Club with his head hanging Thursday and appeared to wipe away a tear as he prepared to launch his first serve. He seemed a million miles away as he sleepwalked through an error-strewn first set. You have to wonder, how long will his mourning period last, and how will it impact his performance?

We had a pretty good inkling of just how shaken Djokovic is when he politely but firmly declined to take part in the obligatory postmatch news conference. The ATP issued a statement, cryptically declaring: "After he won, he just felt totally exhausted physically, mentally and emotionally."

Djokovic clearly needs and deserves his space. But this is a time of year when, for a top tennis player, space is largely unavailable outside the confines of the court and stadium. Nole has known for a long time that life at the top isn't easy, but I think he's about to discover that it can be difficult in unexpected and conflict-ridden ways.

One of the commendable qualities of the top ATP players today is that they don't duck one another. In fact, they often seem to go looking for one another, with the tacit understanding that great players ought to have great rivalries.

This wasn't always true. We remember how Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg spent a fair amount of time circling and sniffing instead of tearing into each other. Ivan Lendl also tap-danced around his rivals a bit early in his career as a contender.

And one of the caveats hung on the Pete Sampras-Andre Agassi rivalry is that they just didn't play often enough, especially in Grand Slam tournaments. Sampras finished 20-14 up on Agassi, including nine Grand Slam meetings (6-3 overall and 4-1 in finals for Sampras).

Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal already are just four matches shy of the total played by Sampras and Agassi (Nadal leads 16-14), and they've already met in eight majors even though both of them are younger than 26. And judging by their actions, they might end up in Chris-and-Martina rather than Pete-and-Andre territory.

Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert played a whopping 80 times, with Navratilova emerging triumphant 43-37.

ATP No. 1 Djokovic and No. 2 Nadal are favored to play their second big final of the year at the end of this week in Monte Carlo. This is a tournament that Nadal has won seven consecutive times. He's lost just once in that picturesque setting above the Mediterranean Sea, way back in his first year on the tour, 2003. He was beaten by Guillermo "The Magician" Coria, who would go on to lose the French Open final just more than a year later after having match point.

More notably, Djokovic never has won at Monte Carlo, and last year he didn't even play the event. He chose, instead, to rest after bumping his perfect record on the year to 24-0 at the end of the American hard-court swing. He was next seen at the end of April, playing in the modest ATP 250 tournament his family owns in Belgrade, Serbia.

Players are notorious for sticking with routine that has borne fruit, so you have to wonder why Djokovic is in Monte Carlo when his schedule worked out so well in 2011. Is this a show of hubris? Does he feel obliged to tempt fate? Has Princess Caroline of Monaco begged him to come and trash Rafa for the good of the event?

Djokovic certainly didn't enter Monte Carlo because he now resides there (unless, of course, it's some undisclosed aspect of the deal that earned him residency) or because he needs matches -- he's played just two fewer matches this year than last (and is 20-2 in 2012). He knows full well how proprietary Nadal feels about the event. No matter how you cut it, it looks like Djokovic is sticking out his jaw, looking for a fight.

How refreshing.

One explanation for Djokovic's eagerness to lock horns with Nadal again is his sense of lost opportunity. Together, they've blown two opportunities to meet since Djokovic won that epic Australian Open final at the end of January. They both lost in the Indian Wells semifinals, and in Miami, Nadal pulled out of their projected semifinal with a bum knee. Monte Carlo is their fourth window of opportunity as the No. 1 and 2 seeds.

This is a golden opportunity for Nadal, who must be smoldering from the shock of having lost to Djokovic the past seven times they've met. What better place than Monte Carlo, where Nadal is 39-1, to turn around that record?

It's certainly a brazen move by Djokovic, for the reasons we've seen. It's funny, but plumbing the psychological depths here seems both valid and irrelevant. These guys have simplified this thing to him-versus-me -- and probably for long time to come. That's cause for celebration.

With the clay-court season upon us, it's a good time to evaluate what's at stake for the players who will soon constitute a true "dirty dozen" -- the top six ATP and WTA pros, who will spend much time in the coming weeks trying to wash away caked-on red clay and pink stains from their socks and shorts.

Let's take them in order of ranking:

ATP No. 1 Novak Djokovic: Given what Djokovic did in 2011, it's easy to forget just how tough Rafael Nadal is on clay. Djokovic has said he feels under no obligation to repeat his feats of 2011, but even a slight drop in his level of intensity would open the door for his rivals. Nole has said he's targeting the French Open title, but his prospects of winning it will decline if we see a Nadal resurgence.

No. 2 Rafael Nadal: Can you say "payback"? This is the first time since he was ambushed by Djokovic in 2011 that Nadal will be back on his home turf of Euro clay, starting Monday in Monte Carlo. He's been the champ for seven years in a row (his record at the Monte Carlo Masters: 39-1). Given that, it took guts for Djokovic to enter Monte Carlo. Should they meet in the final, the results will probably have long-term repercussions.

No. 3 Roger Federer: At 30, and with his record, Federer has nothing to prove. But another excellent clay-court season will keep him in good shape physically and mentally for Wimbledon and the Olympic Games, both of which will be on grass. And bear in mind that it was Federer who ended Djokovic's unbeaten streak in 2011 in the Roland Garros semis -- proving, once again, that for most of his career he's been far and away the second-best player on clay (behind Nadal).

No. 4 Andy Murray: He came into the clay-court season last year in a serious slump, and used the red dirt to sort out his game and get back in his top-five groove. This year he'll sally forth more confidently, having avoided another post-Australian swoon. I don't think Murray's full clay-court potential has been tapped yet. Last year he played a sneaky-good four-set match against Nadal in the Roland Garros semifinals. He could surprise everyone and bag his first major on red clay.

No. 5 Jo-Wilfried Tsonga: The Frenchman made great progress over the past six months, but he's had serious trouble cracking the code on clay. Admittedly, this is kind of a French thing; you do well at Monte Carlo or Rome and -- heaven forbid -- the next thing you know your countrymen are thinking you might win at Roland Garros! Tsonga didn't win three matches in a row on clay during the entire spring last year; he needs to show he can perform on the dirt and contend for his national championships.

No. 6 David Ferrer: It's simple. This guy needs to show that he can beat the top players in the top events. Beyond that, it's all been-there, done-that for Ferrer at this time of year.

WTA No. 1 Victoria Azarenka: I don't know why there's so much talk about Azarenka's need to demonstrate that she can play on clay; she won Marbella last year and lost only to players who went on to win the title at every other spring clay tournament but one (Stuttgart, where Azarenka retired during her first-round match). But given her start to the year, she needs to do well on clay only to enhance her chances at the French Open.

No. 2 Maria Sharapova: I'd bet she wants to maintain the momentum she's built up this year, to keep the youngsters ranked below her at bay. And that is a tougher job for her on clay than any other surface. Last year, Sharapova surprised everyone, including herself, when she won Rome. But she has a lot of points to defend and will certainly feel some pressure.

No. 3 Petra Kvitova: She came within a hair's breadth of taking the year-end No. 1 ranking in 2011, but she's been a bust since she made the semifinals of the Australian Open two months ago. She needs to win matches. Many matches. And soon.

No. 4 Agnieszka Radwanska: This young lady has one big problem: It's called Azarenka. Radwanska has lost to the No. 1 four times this year, and she's won every other tournament she's played (we won't count that match she had to surrender via walkover in Kuala Lumpur). Radwanska has to put her foot down and take a stand, because her tricky, counter-punching game is ideal for clay.

No. 5 Samantha Stosur: It's getting to the point that she needs to do something, and pretty quickly, to retain her credibility as a player of the first order -- a reputation she earned with that great win at the U.S. Open last year. You can play your way back into form on clay (just ask Murray, who did it last year), and that's just what this former French Open finalist needs to do.

No. 6 Caroline Wozniacki: The assignment is simple: Stop the bleeding. Wozniacki embarked on the year at No. 1, but she's been eclipsed and has left many thinking that her window of opportunity to win a major is closing -- fast. She needs to show that she can fend off the threats represented by vastly improved players like Kvitova, Radwanska and Azarenka, as well as veterans like Sharapova, Li Na and Serena Williams. It's a tough assignment for the defense-minded Dane.

KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. -- Some tennis pros and fans complain about the fact that tennis is a year-round interval sport, but isn't it sweet how the calendar can be divided on an almost purely seasonal basis?

The winter quarter just ended April 1, and as Novak Djokovic & Co. fly off to spend the second spring quarter in Europe, it's a good time to take stock of what the winter wrought.

The big takeaway for me is that the WTA and ATP have engaged in a bit of role reversal. Victoria Azarenka dominated the women's field as thoroughly this year as Djokovic lorded it over the men in 2011. This is big news -- and great news for the women's tour. All it has wanted in the past few years is a more clear and credible hierarchy.

Azarenka's amazing 26-1 start was not just a great story, it also demonstrated how important it is for the tour, or the ATP for that matter, to have a dominant player or players. It seems that when a new intimidator matures, it jolts everyone else out of their complacency. That's a pretty good explanation for why the Sony Ericsson Open produced so many high-quality WTA matches.

Or, think of it this way: When was the last time a woman rolling along with the record and confidence of an Azarenka was pushed to the brink in back-to-back matches -- by women who have never won a Grand Slam title or had a sniff at the No. 1 ranking?

I'm talking about Dominika Cibulkova and Marion Bartoli, whom Azarenka met in the fourth round and quarterfinals, respectively. It wasn't that Azarenka was tired, or off her game in either of those matches. Both of her challengers came to play, and Bartoli ultimately accomplished her mission.

Azarenka seems to have lit a fire under her peers, and that includes the woman who would go on to win the Miami title after Azarenka was upset by Bartoli, Agnieszka Radwanska. The Polish player, who has now climbed to No. 4, has lost a match to just one player this year: Azarenka.

Coming off an artful win over No. 2 Maria Sharapova in Miami, you could argue that Radwanska is the de facto No. 2 in the WTA. She's had trouble with the very top players in the past, but this win suggests that she's earned a place among them. Life gets more complicated by the day for the old guard led by Venus and Serena Williams.

On the ATP side, Djokovic is off to a great start, but this is not a repeat of 2011 and probably will not become that any time in the near future. As he said after his win over Andy Murray in Miami on Sunday, "It's different -- different approach. I still want to fight for every title, as everybody else, have this positive mindset, not really defending or calculating how many points I can lose and things like that."

Roger Federer has a history of holding his own with Djokovic. The player who suffered the most at the hands of the reigning No. 1 last year was the man whose ranking Djokovic stripped away, Rafael Nadal. If you noticed how often Murray won the longer rallies during the Miami final, or the extent to which David Ferrer and even Juan Monaco were able to hold their own in long points with Djokovic, you may share the feeling that Djokovic isn't quite the monster he appeared to be as recently as the Australian Open.

Of course, it may be that these Masters and sub-Grand Slam titles just don't mean as much to him anymore, but that's irrelevant. Anything that boosts his rivals' confidence, or may in any small way diminish his own, is a plus for his challengers.

That's the thing with tennis: It's always changing, like the four seasons that it emulates (the spring season ends with the French Open, and the summer -- always the best time of year -- includes two majors, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open). It leaves us with a lot to look forward to during the clay-court season.

The big question hovering in the air while the Indian Wells draws gets pared to a manageable 32 players by Monday is whether the lengthy proceedings will end with Novak versus Rafa XXXI.

It's a better draw and bigger story than ever, even though No. 1 Novak Djokovic has won their past seven dust-ups.

It's also a particularly interesting question because, whether the "dream final" happens, and how it turns out, will probably give us a pretty accurate forecast for the upcoming heart of the tennis season -- that period that begins with Indian Wells and Miami and continues through the U.S. Open.

So let's look at why the clash might -- or might not -- come to pass.

On the "might" side:

• Although No. 4 Andy Murray scotched Djokovic's hopes of recreating his near-perfect first half, let's not forget that it remains the only match Djokovic has lost this year. The No. 1 from Serbia didn't look like the player we'd grown accustomed to seeing for the better part of a year now, but everyone is entitled to have a bad day now and then -- especially when his opponent is having a great one, as Murray did in that Dubai semi.

• No. 2 Rafael Nadal comes into Indian Wells fresh, well-rested and off what he suggested was a highly targeted training regimen with one goal: Figure out how to beat Djokovic.

This doesn't mean that Nadal will stroll out on the stadium court at the Indian Wells Tennis Garden and start playing with his dominant right hand and/or serving and volleying like a regular Pat Rafter. What "changes" Nadal has made are more likely to be subtle matters of shot selection and/or tactics.

• By again putting Nadal and No. 3 Roger Federer in the same half of the draw, the tennis gods have voted for XXXI; Nadal has pretty much had Federer's number lately, while Federer has been a greater threat than Nadal to Djokovic. Federer is 1-2 in Grand Slam matches against Djokovic over the past five majors, while Nadal is 0-3.

• Djokovic and Nadal have outstanding records at Indian Wells. Nadal is 31-5; Djokovic is 22-4. Both men have won the title twice, but Djokovic has a 2-1 edge on Nadal in those desert shootouts. But here's something interesting: Djokovic is 1-0 against Federer at Indian Wells, while Nadal never has played the No. 3 there.

Now, to the "might not" ...

• Djokovic's gluttonous run may be over, which means he may not feel nearly as motivated, or pressured, to prove himself the best player in the world week after week -- especially now that he bounced back from his struggles at the end of 2011 to reassert his dominance at the Grand Slams via his win in Australia.

With five of the ATP's best and most effective servers (ace-machine and No. 7 seed Tomas Berdych, No. 8 Mardy Fish, No. 11 John Isner, No. 30 Andy Roddick and No. 29 Kevin Anderson) in his half of the draw, along with Murray, task No. 1 for Djokovic will be to just get the danged ball back and see what develops from there.

• Nadal may be fresh, but he may also be soft and lacking the match toughness that playing Dubai provided to some of his rivals. But Nadal has blown off playing ATP tournaments between the end of the Australian Open and Indian Wells for years now, with no apparent ill effects. Still, will five matches be adequate preparation for meeting Djokovic again?

Granted, every draw looks easy -- or impossible -- at the outset and often ends up anything but. Still, when the most dangerous guy en route to the semifinals looks to be Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and your quarterfinal opponent is projected to be your countryman and Davis Cup pal (Feliciano Lopez), you have to figure that Nadal has clear sailing until the very end -- which is the only part of the tournament that counts for a player of his status.

• Federer has been playing great and freely talking about what a difference it makes to be brimful of confidence. He's also said that one big difference in his game this year is that he's been much better at making a transition from playing defense to offense. Nadal, or anyone else, writes off Federer at his peril.

We also know how leery Rafa is of big servers, and if Milos Raonic somehow gets past Federer, a semi against Nadal isn't inconceivable. The other roadblock in Rafa's path to the final would be No. 9 seed Juan Martin del Potro.

The Roman numerals XXXI look grand, but they aren't exactly chiseled in stone at the Indian Wells Tennis Garden just yet.

To fully understand what has happened in the past 12-plus months of ATP tennis, and in the worlds of Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal, all you need to know is that the most compelling question raised after Sunday's Australian Open, while premature, is a reasonable one: Can Djokovic become the first man since Rod Laver to win a calendar-year Grand Slam?

Funny, but we were wondering the same thing at this time last year, except the subject was not Djokovic, but Rafael Nadal. It was a reasonable question then, because Nadal already had a career Slam on his résumé and had shattered Federer's image of invincibility.

It's even more relevant now, though Djokovic has yet to win the French Open. But having hammered Nadal on his beloved clay in Masters Series finals last year, and given his 70-6 final record, who'd rule it out? And -- irony of ironies -- Djokovic forced Nadal to feel the same emotions the Spanish No. 2 inflicted upon Federer when he began to beat him routinely on surfaces other than clay.

Could anyone have predicted that, even 18 months ago? Djokovic clearly has raised the bar beyond the seemingly unapproachable level Nadal had placed it until the 2011 season. Here are the main reasons:

• Superior fitness: Up until the time Djokovic embraced a strict gluten-free diet and became more serious about his general fitness in all phases (preparation, maintenance, recovery), Nadal had a reputation as a man who would not finish second to anyone because of fatigue or loss of explosiveness.

Both Nadal and Djokovic were wobbly toward the end of their epic, 5-hour, 53-minute battle of Melbourne on Sunday, but Djokovic looked slightly more aggressive (which is partly a dividend of energy). Given that he had one less day of rest and had played a 4-hour, 50-minute semifinal against Andy Murray, it's safe to say we have a new beast in town.

• Court position: Just as field position is critical to success in football, court position can be an enormous asset -- or liability -- in tennis. Djokovic's aggressive ground game and accuracy enables him to play from inside the baseline against quality opponents more than anyone with the possible exception of Roger Federer.

But Djokovic can do more damage than Federer with his basic tools during a typical point because he's better at redirecting the ball as part of his rally strategy, rather than as an attempt to hit a winner or approach shot, and also because of his superior backhand.

• Service return: Nadal said it all in his postmatch presser: "Is something unbelievable how he returns, no? His return probably is one of the best of the history. That's my opinion, no? I never played against a player who's able to return like this. Almost every time."

Nadal was talking about that critical 4-2 game in the fifth set, when a hold would have given him a seemingly insurmountable lead of 5-2. Granted, Nadal missed that backhand pass that would have given him 40-15 instead of 30-all. But it was Djokovic's return in the ensuing points that earned him back the break that kept him alive.

• The backhand: Djokovic has raised the two-handed backhand's status as a weapon much higher, even if the monster forehand is destined to remain the weapon of choice for most players.

Nadal dominates Federer partly because his lefty topspin to Federer's backhand is his go-to play. At best (on clay), it makes Federer hit his one-handed backhand from impossibly high. At worst, Nadal can use it to put Federer back on his heels, enabling Rafa to control the rally.

Not only can Nadal not do this to the Djokovic backhand, he courts disaster by trying. It certainly helps Djokovic that he's 6-foot-2, and thus has a big wheelhouse. But when you remember how often Nadal just treaded water with that slice backhand, the value of Djokovic's penetrating backhand jumps out at you.

• Second-serve conversion: Wasn't it only 18 or so months ago when everyone was whispering that Djokovic was falling off the pace set by Nadal and Federer because of his unreliable serve? There were even matches in which he hit more double faults than aces.

Djokovic has rebuilt that serve, and his second serve recently has paid particularly high dividends. Against Nadal, there was scant difference between his winning percentage on first and second serve points (68 to 63 percent). Nadal, by contrast, was 66 to 45 percent. It's the key statistic of that titanic battle.

It can tell you a couple of things when your second-serve conversion percentage approaches that of your first-serve stats: You have a lousy first serve (you can throw that one out in this discussion); your second delivery is of extra-high quality in terms of spin, placement or power, or a combination of all three (that's relevant) and you are very good at keeping your opponent from taking control of rallies (also relevant).

Whether Djokovic wins the French Open and advances the discussion about a calendar-year Grand Slam, he's already taken the game to a place it hasn't been before. Didn't we just go through all this a year ago? Yes, but that was then and this is now.

World No. 1 Novak Djokovic and No. 2 Rafael Nadal will play the Australian Open men's final in the match everyone has been hoping to see. Credit both men for making the appointment; getting there is never as easy as it may look.

The question de jour is: What can Nadal possibly do to turn around Djokovic's mastery, which includes a 6-0 record against Nadal in 2011?

First of all, he can place a thank-you call to Andy Murray, the No. 4 pro who forced Djokovic to play for almost five hours in their semifinal (a repeat of last year's final) before the Scot capitulated. As fit and determined as Djokovic may be, a five-hour match is never good preparation for the next round. Especially if that match has the resonance and epic feel of a final.

Beyond that, here are the three main things Rafa must do to halt the Djokovic juggernaut:

1. Play from atop or inside the baseline: Murray put up a great fight in the epic five-set semi, and he made some spectacular shots. But he was never more effective than when he was inside the baseline, hitting those suddenly rock-solid forehand crosscourt shots to set up his backhand.

Of course, Nadal is a lefty, and his natural advantage (that his forehand goes to Djokovic's backhand) is mitigated by the quality of Djokovic's backhand. Last year, Nadal was burned by that backhand on more occasions than he'd like to remember. But he still needs to get inside that court and put Djokovic on the run. The other day, Nadal revealed that he's been working hard on hitting his backhand from farther inside the court. Doing so would help his cause.

2. Return aggressively: If I had to pick a single decisive element in this match, I'd go with service return. The better returner will likely get more looks at break points, as well as standing a better chance of establishing court position and threatening to break.

Both men have good serves. Although not blessed with a classic lefty serve (think Goran Ivanisevic), Nadal has excellent placement and mixes up his serves very well. The big challenge for him will be making the most of Djokovic's second serves, which played a big role in his ultimate success against Murray in that five-set war of a semi.

3. Focus on big opportunities: Lost in all the well-deserved praise for the quality of the Djokovic-Murray match was the fact that it featured some very sloppy play from both men. To wit: The match featured a remarkable 50 break points -- 24 for Murray.

Sure, Djokovic served and defended those points well (Murray converted only seven) -- but big matches are usually won by the players who capitalize on chances. In his semifinal win over Roger Federer, Nadal had a look at 16 break points, and he converted six. He'll need to do better than that if he wants to turn the tables on Djokovic.

On the "intangibles" front, Nadal probably holds an edge. Murray really beat up on Djokovic, while Nadal had a comparatively easy time of it with Federer. And Djokovic seems to have an allergy problem. It was so severe in the semi that he played poorly because of it in the second set, and the early part of the third.

Nadal, though, is coming in with a powerful allergy of his own -- to Djokovic, and that muscular, athletic game that stunned him six times last year. The conventional wisdom says that Djokovic is "in Nadal's head." But like many leases, this one might expire in as little as a year, and this is, after all, 2012.