Australian Open Predictions

The first major sporting event of the year, the Australian Open Tennis Grand Slam at Melbourne Park, is about to start. Here's my attempt at crystal ball gazing.

The men's draw is by far the easier to predict, with four strong favourites for the title. They are world No. 1 Rafael Nadal, three time champion Roger Federer, defending champion Novak Djokovic, and current World No. 4 Andy Murray. Despite being World No. 1 Nadal must be considered, on paper, the least likely of the four to win. He is probably the weakest on hardcourts (his least favourite surface), and the only one yet to reach a hardcourt grand slam final (he has two semi-final appearances at Australia and one in the US to date)

Federer must always be considered a strong favourite at any of the Slams (perhaps excepting the French), and has a sterling record at Melbourne Park. He also has the added incentive of tying Pete Sampras' record for most Grand Slam singles titles were he to win. To win the title though, Federer will have to overcome his recent hoodoo against Andy Murray (though to be fair, Federer comprehensively beat him in last year's US Open final), and the psychological blow of last year's straight sets semifinal loss to Novak Djokovic. However, few will doubt that if Federer is fully on song, he will be the favourite in Melbourne.

Andy Murray was made the joint favourite to win in Australia by the bookies after his excellent early season form, raising the surprise and ire of Federer in the process. Federer does have a point - it seems a bit presumptuous to make a man who has never won a slam the favourite over a player who has won 13 of them, even if he has beaten Federer twice in a month. Nerves certainly got the better of him last year in New York and he folded in straight sets in his first Grand Slam final. Common wisdom has it that the first slam is the hardest to win - just ask Federer about that - but it remains to be seen whether Murray is seasoned enough, and has the nerves to win it all in Melbourne. Also against him is the heat. Murray's fitness levels have improved enormously over the past year, but the grueling conditions and close to forty degree heat definitely puts him at a disadvantage. If he fails to win his matches quickly in the early rounds, and gets stretched to a five setter or two, there are certainly valid questions as to how well his fitness can hold up.

Novak Djokovic must be considered a contender given he is the defending champion, but his recent form hasn't been the best. Still, the high bounce hardcourts of Australia does suit his game quite nicely, and the 'Djoker' should be a good contender for a quarter-final or probably a semi-final place at the least. If his game comes together, he can win it.

Wildcards: Jo-Wilfred Tsonga is a very dangerous player when he is fit, and he was absolutely tremendous in destroying Nadal in the semi-final last year, hitting 49 winners in the process. He had also dumped out Murray, Gasquet and Youzhny to reach the final. He was again plagued by injuries in 2008, and we can only hope that he has recovered his fitness and form in time for the tournament. Marat Safin, the mercurial Russian (finalist 2004, winner 2005), is always a threat, provided he comes out on court with his head screwed on right. His possible third round clash with Federer is certainly going to be intriguing. Tommy Haas is another old hand plagued by injuries in recent years. His hard hitting game (especially his strong forehand) is suited to hardcourts. He is a three time semifinalist in Australia, most recently in 2007 (he missed the 2008 tournament due to injury). He could well make a decent run.

To say that the women's draw is open ended would be a major understatement. World No. 1 Jelena Jankovic has never won a grand slam despite making the final of the US Open in 2008, World No. 2 Ana Ivanovic was a finalist in 2008 and has a strong chance, but in truth any of a dozen players including the Williams sisters, any of five Russians (Safina, Petrova, Kuznetsova, Zvonerava, Dementiava) not to mention other possibles like former champion Amelie Mauresmo. All this despite the absence of Maria Sharapova through injury, and the two top Belgian players (Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin) who retired the previous year.

Let's start with the Williams sister. Serena has an excellent record at Melbourne Park but her recent form has been patchy at best. Still, she has proven on more than one occasion that she is more than able to play her way into a tournament, including the Australian Open. She has to be considered a top contender. Venus, on the other hand hasn't had the best of runs down under, getting knocked out more often than not in the Quarter-finals or earlier. Her record, and a lack of matches in the latter part of 2008 will count against her, so she is a dark horse at best.

Now to the two Serbs. Jelena Jankovic managed to claim the top ranking in the world without having won a slam (though she made the final of the US Open losing to Maria Sharapova), and without winning that many tournaments in general. However, she has a good all-around game. However, she has also been plagued by niggling injuries, often in deeper stages of big tournaments, so she has to hope that her health holds up. Ana Ivanovic was a finalist last year, and must be seen as another real threat but she too is battling poor form. It all depends on whether Ivanovic can play her way into the tournament and gain momentum in the process, if she does, expect to see her in the semi-finals at least, and if things go well, she might well go all the way this time.

The upper tier of woman's tennis has been inundated by Russians and the Russian girls will pose a strong challenge even without their belle, Maria Sharapova, who is out injured. Among them is Dinara Safina, Marat's younger sister. Like her older brother, she has a big serve, and powerful groundstrokes. Unlike him, she seems to have her head screwed on right for the most part. Still there are questions whether she will be able to outmaneuver a quicker and more agile opponent on court.

Interestingly, the Russian with the best current form is Elena Dementieva. She's won her first two tournaments of the year and is in fantastic form. Her achilles heel has always been her serve, which is often as fragile as a champagne flute, especially when she is under pressure. Her consistent baseline play, both on the forehand and backhand side, will probably not be enough to overcome that weakness. Kusnetsova is an old hand at the grand slams by now, and has a consistent game, but she will have to play above herself to beat some of the higher ranked players. The same could be said, in many ways of Petrova.

So, it now comes a time when I have to stick my neck out. For the men's side, I predict a Rafael Nadal vs. Andy Murray showdown in the semifinals. Federer will extend his streak in grand slam semi-final appearances, though Djokovic might fall in an upset. It is a really tough call but I expect Rafael Nadal to cement his growing dominance of the men's game and claim the title after avenging his loss to Murray at the semifinals of the US Open. He might well face Roger Federer in the final, where he has the opportunity to extend his dominance over Federer once again.

For the women's draw, it is much too fluid and open to call, but Ivanovic, Jankovic and Serena Williams are the three favourites for me. I will go out on a limb and predict that Jankovic underlines her status as the top ranked women's player by claiming her first slam.

Addendum: My prediction for the Men's draw proved correct. It was indeed Nadal vs. Federer, and Nadal did triumph but what a classic, what a close match it was! He has clearly gotten into Federer's head and the Swiss superstar completely broke down at the prize presentation ceremony.

Saving Federer's Season

It has been a very disappointing year by the stratospheric standards of Roger Federer. Having won at least two grand slams in every year from 2004, he has yet to win a grand slam this year with just the US Open to go. He was humiliated by Nadal in the French Open final, and worst, lost to Nadal on his own turf at SW19 in an epic final that denied him the chance of a sixth consecutive Wimbledon title. He then crashed out to James Blake at the Olympics though he redeemed himself by winning a gold in the doubles for Switzerland. Then, immediately afterwards, he finally lost the world No.1 ranking for the first time in more than 200 weeks, a serious psychological blow enshrining Nadal formally as the top player in the world, something that had been apparent throughout the year in all but name.

But has this really been such a disastrous year for Roger Federer? Perhaps only because he is a victim of the inflated expectations that his dominance of men's tennis over the past three years has created. No wonder that he gets along so well with Tiger Woods. But in a sense, this year has been a disaster because of the very lofty expectations that Federer places on himself. He believes that he deserves to be and is the best player in the world. This isn't the case anymore. It used to be a question of whether Federer could overcome his hoodoo with Nadal at Roland Garros. Now Federer must be asking himself whether he can ever beat Nadal, on any surface, period.

Let's put things into perspective first with regards to the US Open. Federer has already won it an unprecedented four times in a row. Nobody has managed that since the great Bill Tilden in the 1920s and nobody has ever done it in the Open era. John McEnroe won three in a row and so did Ivan Lendl in the 1980s but Federer has already set the standard in terms of his recent dominance of the tournament (it remains to be seen if Federer can match Lendl's record of 8 consecutive finals). History suggests that Federer can't maintain this streak. The fact that he is supposedly having a bad year and is more vulnerable than he has been in a long while, seems to point to a Federer defeat.

Which is why I believe that Federer will win this year's US Open. What Federer has going for him is that the hardcourt (particularly at the Grand Slams) is probably Nadal's least favourite surface. His previous best showing was a QF defeat to Mikhail Youzhny in 2006, hardly a stellar record. However, Nadal's semifinal performance at the Australian Open earlier this year (where he was defeated by a truly inspired Jo-Wilfred Tsonga) gives an inkling of how much he has improved playing the high bounce hardcourts of the Grand Slams. While the Wimbledon defeat to Nadal was galling, it was not altogether a shock (more pundits had actually backed Nadal to win). Nadal had reached the previous two Wimbledon finals against Federer and had pushed him closer and closer each time. If Federer were to meet Nadal at the US Open (and this can only happen if they both reach the final) it would rank as a far bigger shock to me if he lost than the Wimbledon 'upset'. That defeat, were it to occur, would truly be the final shattering psychological blow, but I don't think it will.

In fact, I will go as far as to suggest that Federer's biggest threat will be Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals. The Serb is oozing with confidence (though less so after a disappointing Olympics and US Open run up) and defeated Federer at the Australian earlier this year en route to winning his first Slam. He is also a smooth operator on the hardcourts and this is his breakout year. Amidst all the hoopla and the struggles with Nadal, the talk of rising stars like Djokovic threatening the established order, it might be easy to forget one thing - Roger Federer is a winner. He is four time defending champion. My bet is at this US Open he will respond like a champion and restore his pride. Discount him at your own peril.

Au Revoir Justine

Justine Henin has just announced her shock retirement from professional tennis, saying that it was the end to a "wonderful adventure". The news could not have come at a more improbable time. Justine is the three time defending champion at Roland Garros, set to begin in two weeks, and has dominated the tournament, winning the previous two years without dropping a single set. Even though she is going through a slump in form at the moment, she would have started as the hot favourite to win for the fourth time in a row. This is no longer to be. Justine will also leave undefended the Olympic gold medal she won at Athens in 2004, and any chance of a career grand slam. Her tenacity and ball-striking ability could never overcome the advantage the power hitters possessed at Wimbledon, though she did reach the final once, even taking a set off Venus Williams.

The advice given to most athletes is to bow out on top, on a high, no longer clinging to faded glory, but the drive and determination possessed by most top tier athletes often prevents this. They always believe that they can have one last shot at the slam they haven't won, that they can always rediscover the form they had shown in their heyday. This will not be the case for Justine - she retires at the very pinnacle, as the top ranked woman in the world, in an era where the woman's game could not be more competitive.

The question is, what could have prompted this? There is no one with any doubt that Justine still has so much left in her. At least a few more Grand Slams and probably even the elusive Wimbledon title. If there was any doubt as to her staying power at the top of women's tennis it was her ability against the power hitters - especially the two Williams sisters, but she had seemed to cross a major hurdle by defeating them both in eventually winning her second US Open title last year. The only other player to defeat both Williams sisters in a single Grand Slam tournament was Martina Hingis.

Justine now shares with Martina and fellow Belgium Kim Clijsters, the dubious honour of early retirement. In all three cases, injuries had a major role to play in them. Martina was forced out of the game due to persistent ankle ligament problems while Kim struggled with wrist injuries for much of the latter part of her career. Justine herself has been affected by injuries, notably the virus that hampered her for much of the early part of 2004, a fractured kneecap and a hamstring problem in 2005 , her retirement in the 2006 Australian Open due to stomach pain caused by the use of anti-inflammatories to treat a persistent shoulder problem, and other assorted niggling injuries that were to constantly plague her. There is little doubt that her retirement will only add fuel to the fire that the modern demands of tennis, and the packed tour calendar is causing female tennis players to burn out.

Her retirement is a great loss to the game of tennis. More than any other player, I greatly admired Justine for her courage, her tenacity and her pluck. She was an inspiration, a 1.66m giantess that refused to be dwarfed by a modern generation of big-grunting power hitters. Her one-handed backhand was truly poetry in motion, a beautiful deadly stroke, and her ability to serve at speeds equal to or greater than players a third larger continues to baffle and marvel me.

Justine has been determined to go her own way since the early stages of her career - breaking with her family (though now reconciled) over objections to her marriage with Pierre-Yves Hardenne. The shock announcement of her retirement is no different, and we can only wish her a fond au revoir, and all the best.

Fearless Federer

I came back from lunch with Debs and turned on the TV to the Australian Open Tennis and a quite stunning sight greeted me. Roger Federer, Mr Cool, Mr Nearly Unbeatable, a man who has participated in the last 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals (winning eight of them), was down two sets to one in the third round of the tournament.

Sure, there was talk of the illness that forced him to pull out of his usual warm-up tournament leading up to the Open, but he had absolutely demolished his previous two opponents, Diego Hartfield and Fabrice Santoro, for the loss of a mere three games in each match. His imperious displays had led to the possibility of him repeating his 2007 feat of winning the Australian Open without dropping a set.

Instead, when I picked up the action at the start of the fourth set, Federer was looking far from cool and he was down 6-7, 7-6, 5-7 against Jarno Tipsarevic, an unheralded Serb. Federer soon set things aright by taking the fourth set 6-1 after a few lapses in concentration by Tipsarevic, but the match soon turned into an almighty struggle.

Tipsarevic was taking the match to Federer, showing a complete lack of nerves, saving break points with huge serves and huge forehand winners, painting the lines and showing no fear at all. It was supremely telling that Federer had 25 break points by the end of the match, succeeding on only 5 occasions. Federer was often impregnable on serve, hitting well over 30 aces and winning 90% of his first serve points, but Tipsarevic was able to make the big points count and took all 3 of his break points.

In the fifth set, the match turned into a marathon battle of wills. From 1-1 when Federer had break points on the Tipsarevic serve till 8-8, i.e. for 14 consecutive games, both men stared each other down and neither deigned to blink. There was not a single break point in those 14 games. Lesser men than Federer would have become disheartened as opportunity after opportunity was either squandered, or more often saved by a terrific Tipsarevic winner. But he is a man already considered one of the all-time greats, with one eye on history.

The end of the match was a tribute to Federer's refusal to give up and his determination to play every single point. Tipsarevic was leading 40-0 on his serve and anybody would have been forgiven for giving up and having one eye on the next service game. Federer somehow managed to claw it back to deuce, and on a second break point in the game (and the umpteenth of the match) things finally went his way when Tipsarevic dumped a lunging backhand volley into the net. Federer naturally closes the set and match out 10-8 on his serve but not before exhibiting nerves (yes, even he is capable of them!), ending the nearly four and a half hour marathon.

The relative rarity of Federer's involvement in five set marathons - he quipped that he isn't often involved in five setters unless it involves Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon - is a testament to just how good he is. Federer involved in an almighty struggle, now that is a rarity given that he more regularly crushes his opponents, and it made for quite the spectacle. The crowd certainly appreciated it, giving both players a relentless standing ovation when the match was over. This was tennis of the highest quality, a true test of will and determination, profoundly captivating.

Take no credit away from Tipsarevic who played bravely, and often brilliantly, but faced with the relentlessness, the confidence and the coolness of Roger Federer, the bets were always on him to crack first, no matter how much he played outside of his skin. Because, at this rate, this is now about a battle between Roger Federer and history, and there is only ever going to be one winner there.

Wimbledon Predictions

I can't see anybody touching Roger Federer at his favourite tournament and on his favourite surface. It is now going on 4 years since anybody has managed to defeat him on grass and I don't see that trend changing. Andy Roddick, the next biggest threat to Federer on grass isn't at his best form at the moment. Nadal despite his positive comments before the tournament is not truly at home on grass and will be happy to repeat last year's fantastic run to the final.

It is quite stunning to think of Federer matching Bjorn Borg's record of 5 consecutive titles and beating Sampras' 4 straight victories. It would be fitting as well, as Federer was the man that ended Sampras' streak, beating him in the fourth round in 2001. For me, that was the defining moment for Federer - elevating him from merely being a very talented player to the perennial champion he is today. If Federer is to win his fifth consecutive title, he will have to work for it. A tough match against Marat Safin - one of the few players on tour with the capacity to beat Federer on his day - beckons in the third round with James Blake and Andy Roddick to follow.

The women's draw is far more open with any of 10 players standing a good chance of winning it. Serena Williams with her power is always a threat here, as it Maria Sharapova. I have been very impressed by Jelena Jankovic of late, but she is too much of a baseliner and lacks the all-round game necessary to win the title. The defending champion Amelie Mauresmo remains a big threat if she can play consistently and hold her confidence together. Such is the depth of the women's game now that you cannot rule out a great run from any of Ivanovic, Chakvetadze, Safina or Vaidasova. However, I will go with my heart rather than my head (which leans towards another Williams win) and plump for Justine Henin to complete the career grand slam. It has been a tumultous year for her and winning Wimbledon would be just rewards for the determination she has shown.

One other thing I would love to see at this Wimbledon is a good run from Tim Henman. Ironically, what may just help his cause is the fact that there hasn't been a huge fanfare over his chances at the tournament this year. He faces a tough opening match against Carlos Moya but what follows is a relatively safe passage through to the fourth round. If Henman can build confidence and form over the course of the tournament, he may well find himself in the thick of another run at Wimbledon. Hopefully, he can cause more of a stir that last year where he was absolutely hammered by Federer in the second round. A good run would be just brilliant for Henman who has stuck with it despite having a terrible year so far.

Update: Federer did indeed win the title though it was a mightily close fought thing against Nadal in the final. My head (as opposed to my heart) triumphed and Venus Williams did take the title. One of the many outsiders did fight their way through to the final in the form of Marion Bartoli (defeating my beloved Justine in the process).

An Issue of Equality at Wimbledon

This year's Wimbledon championships are about to begin at the All England Club. The news thus far has centered around the organizers decision to award equal prize money to men and women players, finally caving in to protests and pressure from many of the leading women on tour. They are also introducing the hawkeye system allowing players to challenge line calls after its success at last year's US Open and this year's Australian Open (the system is redundant at the Roland Garros because of ballmarks left on clay).

I can't say that I fully support the decision to award equal prize money (a statement which is liable to provoke the fury of the feminists out there). This stems from my general unease with the feminist movement's attempts to obtain "equality" for women in all areas. To begin with, the very fact remains that the men play best of five set matches and the women play only best of three. So perhaps one could justify the fact that the men were given more prize money by the simple fact that on average, they spent a lot more time on court.

A friend of mine argued that this was an unfair argument to make, given the physical differences between the two sexes. Since men have greater stamina and endurance, it is natural that their matches can go on for longer, and in any professional sport the aim is to test the athletes to their limits which differs for men and women. Once this goal is attained, we should reward both sexes equally.

I accept that in principle, but I can simply point out that we do discriminate based on naturally occurring characteristics. People who are naturally more intelligent tend to get rewarded in society with higher salaries (which come after they get into elite academic institutions that purport to discriminate on intelligence). The great failure of the communist and socialist system was their attempt to apply the principle of equality in a way where everyone was rewarded equally for working to the best of their ability. Nobody is going to remotely reach their maximum potential without some incentive to do so, especially if you are not going to taste the fruits of your additional hard work or talent.

My great uneasiness lies in the fact that the feminist movement has trumped everything with their pressure based on political correctness. It isn't so much a debate on equality anymore insofar as it is one of fairness. It just isn't fair that women earn less than men at Wimbledon because they women are equal to men. To suggest otherwise would be to risk severe social censure. I wonder how fair it is that a small group of individuals have decided that they have a monopoly on determining what is fair and what is not.

Sidenote: A similar debate has surfaced in Golf, with the participation of women in PGA tour events. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club recently amended its regulations allowing for women to take part in the Open Championship if they qualified. Why is it only deemed fair if women have the opportunity to take part in the men's tour (and in their majors such as the Masters and the Open) and decidedly unfair if men were to demand the same for women's events? Perhaps it is because it is perceived that men would have an unfair physical advantage over women at Golf? In other words, that they are unequal?