Nadal- Djokovic , French Open 2013- One old guy's view

Nadal- Djokovic , French Open 2013 may still be available to watch on the Tennis Channel reruns or the Internet,  but I decided to get up early to catch it live-well almost, as the time shifting DVR allowed me to sleep until seven.   This is one match up where the hype, if anything, fell short of the actual event.

This is being addressed to those whom I play with, either occasionally or with some regularity.  We, a bit past our prime,  play at a slightly lower level then these two men,--slightly!  I take comfort with the words of Ron Laver, when, as we waited our turn at the butcher counter at Stater's Supermarket a few years back, responded to my query of whether he still plays tennis with a smile, "Yes, I guess so, if you can call it that."  He knew his game was a far cry from that which he so excelled at.

Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic both are more than magnificent athletes at their prime, but also consummate scholars of the game in a way that I could never imagine. For them, it's like playing chess but with additional dimensions including wind, fatigue, humidity and how much fluff is left on the ball.  This time, I wasn't annoyed by John McEnroe's commentary, as he brought these additional levels into the drama of the match.  I assume everyone who is interested knows the results of the game, how the lead changed several times over the course of the five sets, but never the level of play.  In fact, there was an escalation of performance, as each was focusing on doing whatever was needed to win the point.

This higher strategy was illustrated in the third set when Novak was down by two breaks; and given the closeness of their games  he knew he couldn't win the set without extraordinary effort.  He did a calculation that it would inordinately deplete him, even if he pulled out the set, so he eased off just enough not to make it obvious.  Although he lost the set 6 to 1 , he started off the fourth smoking hot;, the rest had revived him, winning the set to prepare the stage for the final no-tie breaker fifth.

As an example of the level of play, at 7 to 6 in the last set, with Novak serving at 40 to 15 for a win to keep the match going, he hit a lob over Rafael's head for a winner, that is, it would have been for any other player.  Nadal returned a perfect winning lob, which he happened to pull off by running full speed and hitting it between his legs.  This brought no smile from him, since he wasn't grandstanding, but making the only shot that was possible.  His concentration on the game was never diverted for a second.  He was the craftsman doing a difficult days work, ignoring the distraction of it being done better than anyone ever on this surface.

Since we get to look at every expression and response of these two men,  I will share my own observations that I see could have made the critical difference in who won.  Rafael Nadal is probably most everyone's ideal friend, brother, or son.  When he loses a point, or a decision goes the wrong way, I've never seen even the hint of anger.  As he says in his interviews in three languages, he feels "special" meaning honored, privileged to be where he is in life and is thankful for it.

Novak Djokovic is also a terrific guy,  but he has flaws like most of us humans, that are magnified by the hi definition television that leaves nothing to the imagination.  Both men want to win, but Novak somehow, seems to take losing just a bit harder, and because of this tends to locate the cause outside of himself. The first example is an out call that lost the second game of the third set.  Novak responded in a way that wasn't clear to the T.V. commentators or the stadium audience, but seemed to start some animosity towards the referee that may have cost him the match.   (Here's the link to research on Hawk Eye, line calls and commenter confusion-- but this is a side trip I won't make now.)

There is no tie-breaker for the last set at every grand slam event except the U.S. This means that when the score is tied at six games during the fifth set, a single break of serve can win the match.  This was the case when Djokovic was down 7 to 8 and had to hold to have the match continue.  Novak rarely loses his serve, so this match could have gone on for a long long time as both men had the motivation and stamina to do miraculous things to win a point.

There is a minute and a half break between games that players use to unwind, recite mantras, pray--who really knows?   But this time the camera flashed to Djokovic in an intense discussion with the referee, Pascal Maria.  The words were audible:  "You have to make a decision.  Of course, we won't always agree on everything but you're not making a decision, Pascal.  You're not even looking at the court."

This was not especially hostile, as the referee responded that this could be brought up at the regular meeting where such criticisms were aired.  Yet, this was not a conversation over a beer, rather at a crucial time at one of the most touted tennis games in history.  If anything, Novak Djokovic, who is such a national hero in his country of Serbia, where many serious observers believe he could be elected president, was firm as well as civil in expressing his displeasure.

But when he went back to the court moments later,  he had just told the person who was officiating that he was incompetent in the discharge of his responsibilities, which is a serious accusation against anyone.  I won't go further in my speculations of his intra psychic landscape, except in what must be a rare event, he lost this crucial game-set-match at love, that is without winning a single point on his serve.

For me this meant something.  There are those who are fortunate enough to be like Rafael Nadal - not in his tennis ability-but in his rather serene comfort in life.  To him he seems always surrounded by that family that nurtured his tennis skills and would not think of saying anything hurtful to anyone.  This hasn't hampered his drive to win,  yet in doing so he never feels that he is harming anyone, nor does he have to.

Djokavic is not to be so lucky.  An outgoing, witty, intelligent man who, when his tennis days are over will have many options in life, also has imperfections, some of the scars of living that emerged here at the wrong time. The last thing he needed was to sharpen a controversy between the official whose presence would loom over the court when he needed absolute focus on the challenge of winning the rare career grand slam, which until this "debate" he has an even chance to achieve.

Beyond the hype of who is the greatest clay court player, this match was a vignette of human interaction.  It went beyond the joy of victory and the agony of defeat, to the example of the universality of human defects, whether on Roland Garros  or Pointsettia Tennis Courts.  Whether like Rod Lever said, the game we play is really "tennis" or only a mere shadow of the professional game, the enjoyment is there nevertheless.  And like the pros, we all have our human failings that we often have no control over, whether it means losing a grand slam championship, or just leaving a public court with something less than the pleasure that is there for the taking.