Dissecting a unique trivalry

Tennis is a game I have been following for about 21 years now. From the time I remember, men's tennis has hardly been more exciting. What makes it tick? Is it the quality of the players or is it the pace of the game? The answer, I firmly believe, lies in the tripartite struggle for supremacy among Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Rivalries have been a part of the game and characterised it for ages. It was Laver-Newcombe in the 1960s, Borg-Connors/Borg-McEnroe and later McEnroe-Connors in the 1970s and early 80s, the outstanding serve and volley exponents Becker and Edberg in the late 1980s who were constantly challenged by the athletic Ivan Lendl and the American greats Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi who played and lived in contrasting styles for much of the 90s. But there never has been a 'trivalry' of the kind that has emerged in recent years following the rise of Djokovic. The Serb, who for years played in the shadow of Federer and Nadal and nursed fitness issues, has raised his game to a formidable level that can consistently challenge and even topple the two greats. But then, providence (three players fighting it out at one time) alone can't quite be a reason for people to love and crave for more contests. The contrast in styles, the variety in approaches, the mental match-ups and above all the personalities contribute to making each match a spectacle. I have waited a while to write this one and analyse this extraordinary 'trivalry'. There can be no better occasion to do so right after one of the finest matches played in my memory between Djokovic and Nadal with the Serb prevailing for the third time in three finals. Rings a bell?? Read on....

Federer turned pro in the late 1990s when Sampras was still in his pomp. Agassi as well had returned from a lay-off and slump to seriously challenge Sampras, who was able to stamp his authority on all Slams except the French where his serve and volley game was seriously hampered by the slowness of the surface. Federer had been junior Wimbledon Champion but no one quite expected him to challenge Sampras in their fourth-round clash in 2001. Sampras had won seven Wimbledon titles in eight years and had given a lesson in grass court tennis to Agassi and Rafter in the two previous finals. On that day, however, Federer played some of the most delightful shots and served and volleyed better than the great man on the other side. He stunned Sampras in five absorbing sets but went on to lose to Tim Henman in the next round. He made a shock exit in the first round in 2002 losing to Croatia's Mario Ancic but was getting better by the day. In 2003, he made his first major breakthrough when he won Wimbledon by beating the big-serving Mark Philippoussis. In 2004, he grabbed the number one ranking after winning three of the Slams with the highlight being the 6-0 7-6 6-0 demolition of former no.1 Lleyton Hewitt. The tennis world seemed to be Federer's to have but he was beaten in the semis of the Australian Open by Marat Safin in a glorious five-setter and then by the 18-year old Nadal in the semis in Roland Garros. However, he added the remaining two slams to his collection and repeated the three-slam year twice more in 2006 and 2007.

Nadal, however, was getting better exponentially. He built his game around a mind-boggling stamina and physique. He had the ability to make the best movers (read Michael Chang in the 90s) look pedestrian. Nadal was comfortably beaten in Wimbledon 2006 and was struggling for impact on the hard courts by virtue of possessing a clay court game centered around top-spin. His learning ability was remarkable and in the very next year, Nadal gave Federer a run for his money before losing in five tight sets in Wimbledon. The warning signals for the great Swiss were there. Nadal had dominated Federer on clay already beating him three times in three years in the finals in Paris and added a fourth scalp when he demolished him in straight sets in 2008. It was to get better soon as he pipped Federer on the lawns of Wimbledon 6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7 in a classic. His hold on Federer continued as he bested the man from Basel in five enthralling sets in Melbourne in 2009. Federer won his first French title in the same year as Nadal was shockingly handed a fourth-round loss by the Swede Robin Soderling. Nadal played Federer twice later in the French Open finals in 2011 and the Australian Open semis in 2012 and there was no respite. He had got into the Swiss' mind and had no intention of letting him go. Nadal had problems of his own though and ran into a brick wall named Djokovic in the final.

Djokovic always had the talent and was considered a huge talent. But his body and temperament deserted him at vital moments for almost four years. He lost his first final (US Open 2007) to Federer despite having the edge in the first two sets. He exacted some revenge in the 2008 Australian Open as he beat a slightly unfit Federer and then the surprise finalist Jo-Wilfred Tsonga to capture his first title. Between then and the start of 2011,Djokovic had to contend with the best form of Federer and Nadal and often failed to match up. His fitness was a huge question mark and he had to deal with it if he wanted to have any chance at all. In the US Open semis in 2010, he staved off two match points and upset Federer only to lose to Nadal in the final. 2011 was the 'annus mirabilis' as far as Djokovic was concerned. He embarked on a 41-match winning streak and won the Australian Open beating Andy Murray before his tremendous run was halted by Federer in a superb contest in the semis in Paris. This was only a minor blip for the now rejuvenated and well-oiled Djokovic as he beat Nadal in the finals of the next two Slams. Perhaps, Djokovic's biggest triumph came not in a final but in the semis in New York when he fought back from two sets down against Federer and edged the 16-time Grand Slam winner. At the end of the year, he was by far the best player in the world and Nadal was the first to admit that the Serb had a psychological hold over him after winning all six finals they clashed in. Nadal would surely know this for he had a similar hold on Federer over the years. Djokovic cemented his vice-like grip over the Mallorcan by coming up trumps in the longest Grand Slam final (5 hours and 53 min) in Melbourne after fighting back from a set down initially and a break down in the fifth.

Now that the players have been analysed, it is time to dissect the 'trivalry'. Three greats with different game plans and styles pitted against each other often enough in a year almost surely means one can learn from his mistakes and come back better the next time. But this does not always happen because the mind has been scarred after certain battles. A player's style gives him the edge over another but is a liability against the third. One's strength becomes a weakness against another player. A detailed examination of the playing styles is an interesting exercise and reveals the reasons behind the dominance of one player in the head-to-head record.

The Federer-Nadal rivalry was the first of the major match-ups. Federer was easily the more gifted and was capable of playing surreal tennis with an almost impossible ease. He glided across the court and bemused opponents with his languid motion. Till he came up against Nadal in 2005, no player had the answer to the Swiss genius' abilities. Nadal was a different cup of tea. He played a very different game centered around brute force and stamina. He could run all day and muscled the ball from virtually all corners of the court. His heavy top spinning forehand created a difficult angle and the prodigious bounce meant that Federer with his single-hand backhand could not never force the issue. Nadal read this early and made sure he would pound the Federer backhand with his spinning forehand. Short replies from Federer inevitably meant that Nadal would dictate the points. Also the natural left handers angle on the ad court gave Nadal an advantage serving wide to the Federer backhand from where the Swiss could never get into a winning position. Federer thus was at an obvious disadvantage whenever he faced a breakpoint or was on the verge of trying to convert one. The breakpoint conversion stats for the two players tell the story. Thirdly, Federer had to rely a lot on his serve to stay in points against Nadal. If Federer got into a rally, he never was quite sure about the shot placement and how to time his arrival to the net as he feared Nadal's pace across the court. Nadal's style may have given him the wins and the mental edge over Federer but it has fallen right into the hands of Djokovic.

The Nadal-Djokovic match-up is an interesting case. It is another example of how defeats leave lasting impressions. Nadal led Djokovic comfortably for the first four years before the Serb beat Nadal for the first time im a Slam in iImbledon 2011. Before the Wimbledon triumph, Djokovic had got the better of the Spaniard on the hard courts in Indian Wells and Miami and on the clay in Rome and Madrid. What did Djokovic have that the enormously gifted Federer did not? And what made Nadal look so helpless as he became the first man in the Open Era to lose three consecutive finals (seven finals so far against the Serb). Djokovic has a much improved double-handed backhand which is the best in the business. He can be aggressive with it hitting both cross court and down the line winners at will. He is able to target the Nadal forehand with his powerful backhand and run the left-hander off the court to set up the point. His forehand is also more powerful than Federer's as he hits it down the line flat with more venom. His cross court forehand torments Nadal's backhand and weak returns often mean the Spaniard can never gain control. Djokovic is also moving as well as anybody and has the best service return going around. He cancels Nadal's advantage from the ad court by virtue of being able to return powerfully with the two handed backhand unlike Federer who can mostly chip or slice when the ball goes away. With Djokovic matching his pace, Nadal struggles to come up with an alternative plan. His top spin serve and shots fall into the Serb's hands. Djokovic is able to impart more ball speed and strike better when the ball is high than when it is played flat like in matches against Federer.

The Federer-Djokovic contest is unique. Federer has the game to trouble Djokovic and beat him nearly every time. But age and reflexes are fast catching up on the Swiss. He has failed to close out matches from winning positions in two consecutive US Open semis but was able to pull off a remarkable win in Paris when he stopped the red-hot Djokovic in four sets. Federer serves suoerbly and disguises the angles well which means Djokovic cannot quite get a pattern in returning. Federer hits a single-handed backhand which is a liability against Nadal but not so against the Serb who also hits the ball flat. Federer mixes up his game and uses the slice more often than the other two to control the play. His low ball (slice) makes it much harder for Djokovic to hit winners. The Serb, however, has won three of his last four meeting in Grand Slams against Federer and is succeeding mostly not because of his playing style but because of his mental strength and newly-gained endurance.

The three players have given much to savour and promise much more in the near future. Men's tennis hardly needed a boost but has got its shot in the arm now. Andy Murray was brilliant in the Australian Open and is getting ever so close to that elusive title. When that happens, the state of the game can only get better. Lip smacking fare indeed. Bring it on guys!