ReadWrite-grogsgamut

So two weeks ago a bloke write a post for The Drum in which he stated:

“But most certain of all is that the men's tournament will be won by one of the top-seeded players.”

Now in my defence I did mean one of the top 10, but yeah, Stan Wawrinka coming through, and being the first player to beat both Djokovic and Nadal in the one grand slam (Federer has a couple times beaten Djokovic and Murray to win, but not Nadal and one of the other) was not really on the cards.

Even prior to the final it didn’t look that likely. Nadal thrashed Federer who had thrashed Murray (really the last part of the 3rd set was a flub) and Tsonga. He looked to be peaking at the perfect time.

It was time to invite Pete Sampras down to hand out the trophy to Nadal for winning his 14th title (and thus equal with Sampras). It’s a tough game, men’s tennis. Best of 5. Can go for easily over three hours. Anything can happen. But c’mon. Put down your glasses.

No one told Wawrinka however, who came out and pushed Nadal around all the way through the first set. He won it easy, deservedly, and confidently.

But we’re talking Nadal here, El toro. The strongest mental player in the game. The come back is possible even probable.

Winning a grand slam though is both a mental and physical test and the body needs to be able to last the 7 matches. And it can go at any moment. A slip, and lunge, a twinge.

And Nadal’s body, which conversely seems built of steel and at times as fragile as rusted iron, was unkind.

His back twigged. A spasm? A muscle pull?

Who knows. But he was off for an injury break after being broken at the start of the 2nd set.

The crowd booed. Spurred on perhaps by Wawrinka taking a bit of issue with the time out, because certainly it was the precise moment if you were going to indulge in some gamesmanship to call for the trainer.

The crowd was perhaps chastened by memories of Azarenka going off in last year women’s final, perhaps as well by Nadal’s rather oddly timed injury time-out in his semi-final against Federer, and who knows, perhaps even recalling Tomic’s quick default in the first round against Nadal.

And you can say they were unsportsmanlike. But tennis has become victim to players using timeouts at opportune times. The crowds know it, and can sense it especially when the other player seems to be thinking it as well.

It was clear though, as soon as the play restarted, that Nadal was injured. And the crowd, perhaps chastened by their own reaction, cheered for Nadal for most of the rest of the match.

Nadal gave Wawrinka the 2nd set with barely a yelp.

But there was no way Nadal was going to quit. You don’t quit in the final of a grand slam. Justine Henin did it in the 2006 women’s final in Melbourne and it rather hung over her. It seemed disrespectful to Mauresmo.

Grand slam finals tennis etiquette  requires even when you are injured to stay out there and get beaten.

And there was no way Nadal was going to quit because backs are funny things… drugs can dull the pain… swinging for winners at every opportunity can suddenly start being a good strategy – especially if you opponent is not quite sure what to do – kill you off, or take pity, or go through the emotions like Wawrinka sort of only needed to do in the second set?

And so it was with Wawrinka. He gifted Nadal a break at the start of the third set. He played like he assumed Nadal was unable to walk, and then when Nadal began to run he played like someone who felt he had been cheated. 

For a set he was angry and confused with the world.

The Nadal of the second set was gone, replaced by a bloke playing like there was no tomorrow, because there is none. You don’t win 13 grand slams by leaving anything on the court.

And Wawrinka was a wreck. He had thoroughly outplayed Nadal in the first set, and suddenly was acting like the match had been stolen, instead of him playing like he was up 2 sets to love.

He tried to shorten points despite it being Nadal who wanted each rally to finish as soon as possible. He forgot to make Nadal run. He lost timing, lost game play, lost his head.

The second set was lost by Nadal’s back; the third lost by Wawrinka’s head.

The fourth set though seemed to bring normality back to the court. Nadal was running around, but clearly not able to return with the power needed to trouble Wawrinka’s serve. Nadal was down break points in his first serving game, was at 30-30 in his second.

Wawrinka’s serve seemed solid and it looked only a matter of time before Wawrinka realised the match was there for him to take.

And take is he did, when he broke Nadal easily to go up 4-2.

Start the engraving.

And then he was broken to love.

A truly horrible game. No first serves in, a seriously choked forehand to lose the game.

And so everyone started to wonder if this is going to be the biggest choke of all time. Because, while Nadal deserves the credit for sticking it out, it was clearly on Wawrinka’s racquet and he was literally giving the games to Nadal. Balls hit long, shanked forehands, tight first serves, dumb tennis. It was some of the most awful tennis to watch.

I don’t think there was anyone watching or playing the match who thought if it went to 5 sets that Wawrinka would win. He had to win the 4th. To lose it would have been the most gut searing experience that could have been only worsened by the thought that losing 3 sets in such circumstance is worse than 2, and that he was very likely going to do just that.

Thankfully – because it would have been seriously godly horrific to watch – he again broke Nadal straight away to go up 5-3.

This time he served it out like a man knowing it was his time.

The tournament of the body and mind was won by the man who was able to keep hold of both – even if the mind looked gone for a set and a half.

Anyone who thinks this victory is diminished has no idea how sport works. It’s survival of the fittest. There is many a sportsman or woman going around who would’ve had a great career were it not for injuries.

The body needs to hold up in order for you to hold up the trophy. That’s why you do the training, that’s why you have the insane fitness regimes.

Was Nadal unlucky? Yes. But no less than he was lucky Tomic was injured allowing Nadal to cruise through what was expected to be a tough first round. Pete Sampras was getting easily beaten by Mark Philippoussis in the quarter finals of the 1999 Wimbledon Championships when Philippoussis tore the cartilage in his left knee. There’s no asterisk by Sampras’s name on that trophy, and there’s none next to Wawrinka’s for this one.

The body and the mind both have to hold up.

And so is there a changing of the guard? Not really, but yes. Wawrinka is 28 years old. He is never going to be the big thing in tennis (nor even the next big thing). He is not the new generation – he’s older than Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. But it is a changing of the guard because it should let every other player in the top 10 know that it can be done.

Surely Juan Martin del Potro will one day remember he is good enough to win these titles. Tsonga, Simon, Monfils and others should know you don’t need to win a title by the time you’re 25 or you’re done.

But also the tournament showed us glimmers of the future. Grigor Dimitrov has arrived, and he looks set to stick around. At just 22 he is the first of the next generation of players who have had to realise that the old days of breaking through when you’re 19 or 20 are gone.

The men’s game is now a game for men. He beat Canadian Milos Raonic, and he at number 11 in the world is likely to be the next one to break into the top 10. If both he and Dimitrov can do it this year, then a changing of the guard will be more in doing than in the talking.

For Tomic? Well he had a bad one. Injured and also well beaten in Sydney by del Potro. He now sits at around 65 in the world.

But the year is young. Where he is at the US Open is more important than where he sits now. But he’ll have to put up with playing on the back courts and not being given the top 10 treatment he does in Australia.

So too will the two new guns of Aussie tennis, Nick Kyrgios and Thanasi Kokkinakis. They now face the reality of men’s tennis. They might get a couple wild cards but the reality is their rankings are such that they will be having to play qualifiers just to get in the most low level of tournaments on the ATP tour. For the most part they’ll be playing on the 2nd tier Challenger circuit. 

Krygios was ranked 183 in the world coming into the tournament and even after it won’t be in the top 150. Kokkinakis is ranked in the top 500. There is a mountain to climb yet.

They both looked great – but tennis is a cruel fight all the way up the top. The talk of Tomic being replaced is possible, but it is worth remembering Tomic has already made it to the top 30. He has shown he actually does have the game to get seeded in the grand slams, and once you get there, it’s up to you to do the work and make your luck. 

Krygios and Kokkinakis by contrast have played a couple good games in a row.

Anyone who thinks it is a guarantee they’ll get to the top should look at Belgian David Goffin. He is 23. In the fourth round of the 2012 French Open he took the first set off Roger Federer. He got up to number 42 in the world as a 21 year old.

He is now ranked 111 in the world.

He last played in the Challenger event in New Caledonia where he had to retire in the 2nd round with an injury, and he wasn’t even able to come to Australia and play in the qualifiers. It won’t matter too much because he was only defending 10 points from last year’s tournament where he got knocked out in the first round.

Potential is great, but the body and mind have to hold up.

And so to the final question that always comes up at any grand slam. How is Federer going?

I think he was playing well enough to beat anyone… except Nadal. Nadal’s game is what would have been created in a lab by the world’s best scientist charged with constructing a player who can beat Federer.

That top spin left-hand forehand to Federer’s backhand is just death. Federer’s weedy arm is just not strong enough to do what Wawrinka did in the final against it.

But the way he played against Tsonga and Murray suggests if the body holds up (that old-man back is always going to be an issue until he retires) he should have a good year. He drops to number 8 in the world, but that won’t matter too much.

Given how few points he has to defend at both Wimbledon and the US Open and a few other tournaments that he skipped last year, his current top 8 ranking is more a victim of time than of how he is playing. He made the semis and there’s no reason to think he can’t get back to the top 4. The trouble is with Wawrinka now top 3 and having the 2000 points from this tournament for the rest of the year, it’ll be hard to shift him. The fight for the 4th spot will be fierce.

Djokovic as well is looking ok. He was probably due a loss, and it took Wawrinka having the fortnight of his life to do it. Murray also looks like once he has a few matches under his belt and few months on the fitness track, he’ll be up there as well, despite his current ranking of number 6.

The status quo is still there for the most part, but Wawrinka showed it can be changed if you play your best and take the opportunities when they present themselves.

***

The other big thing is this stopped Nadal from getting to 14 grand slam titles. He remains 4 behind Federer. He’ll probably get there, but it is amazing how tough those last few can be.

So here’s the graph of the top grand slam winners (open era). I include tournaments missed, because you gotta turn up to win it.

Nadal is still on pace, but the body can go at any time… you don’t count them till they’re sitting on your mantelpiece.

The next graph starts from when each player won their first title onwards. It shows that Nadal’s peak certainly hasn’t been as dominant as Federer’s. When Federer learned how to win them, he learned how to win them a lot, but time is on his side – not perhaps in ever having as good a run as Federer, but in overhauling his career number of titles. The question is if his body will be for the probably 2 more year needed:

***

As usual with me this has been focussed on the men’s side. I will endeavour to do something on the women’s game soon (time permitting). Even with Wawrinka’s win, I think you can make a great case that the women’s game has much greater depth than the men’s – and that is a very odd situation given the past 30 years.

Well bugger.

Last night after all the political back and forth, the waiting around for Rudd to make a speech, the listening to journalist after journalist after journalist talk to journalist after journalist after journalist about what they think might happen, I switched off the TV noting Hewitt had lost his match, and gave nary a thought to Federer’s match against the number 116 in the world, Sergiy Stakhovsky.

And then I woke to news that Federer had lost.

Well that just sucks.

And yet I’m not as sad as I thought I would be. And I thought I would be plenty sad. I am a Federer fan in the same way that I am a fan of the Adelaide Crows. As in, I don’t just admire his tennis, for me he is as important as my footy team. And that is pretty damn important. I mean determining whether or not it’s a good week or not important. It’s a support where the pain of his losing almost cancels out the joy of his winning.

And for the last couple years – since he lost in the quarter final at Wimbledon in 2011, I have been edgy as all heck during the first week of Grand Slam tournaments.

Edgy because I wanted his streak of consecutive Quarter Finals at Grand Slams to continue.

And last night it ended at 36.

Thirty six consecutive times he has reached the final 8.

How long is that time? Put it this way, the only person with any chance at all of breaking it is Novak Djokovic. All he has to do is keep his current streak going until Wimbledon 2018.

And remember as well, Federer’s streak was 36 in a row without missing one tournament either due to injury or because he wanted to skip the French Open because it’s not his best surface or he couldn’t be bothered flying to Australia.

He turned up each time, and each time he was there after the middle Sunday. Always in the second week.

In the great Australian film Sunday Too Far Away, Jack Thompson’s character, the gun shearer, Foley, is asked if he rung a shed a few years back (ie was the fastest shearer in the shed). Foley replies, “If I was there, I rung it”.

And so it was with Federer, if he was there (which he always was) he was there in the final 8.

But no longer.

Of course this marks the end of an era, but it is an era that really ended a while ago.

I have long liked to compare tennis players in this era to rock bands, and for me Federer is The Beatles. There is the before and after. And you can’t deny it, regardless of whether you like him or not.

When he lost in the QF at Wimbledon in 2011 I suggested he had released “Let it Be”, and thought, “Tennis fans, and especially Federer loyalists, will hope that there is time for an “Abbey Road” – that one last Grand Slam where the stars align and for 7 matches he comes back. It is more likely to happen than not.”

And it did last year when he won Wimbledon, and indeed it was “Abbey Road”. A glorious final flourish.

But after that tournament, after the Olympics and after he broke Sampras’s record for number of weeks at Number 1, I think it was pretty clear he was packing up the band.

When he announced that he was cutting back his schedule and focussing on the Grand Slam that was really the end. The reason he won Wimbledon last year, and the reason he regained the number 1 spot is he was prepared to play the circuit week in week out, to commit all the way.

Tennis is a sport where you’re either all in, or you’re essentially retired.

As soon as Sampras went from caring about being number one to just focussing on grand slam, it was over. He won a last tournament, but it was never going to be more than that. The same with Federer. Once the focus goes from the week in week out, the mind drifts just enough that the ability to win at the top level is no longer there.

And so last night we saw what happens after the band splits up. Out comes the disappointing solo album. In this case it is more “McCartney” than “John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band”, but in either case it was a long way from the magic that once was.

Will Federer release an “Imagine”? Who knows. He still seems to love playing, and he can still at times sing on a tennis court in a way that reminds you that this guy was once better than anyone else ever has been.

But while there might be flashes of brilliance and the odd good single, the great album is tough to produce. And to win a grand slam you need an album of good songs, not one or two singles that might be enough to make the charts.

So today I am sad that it is over, but in some ways it is a relief. This Federer fan has for too long been worried about a record of Federer getting to the last 8 – so long that the record had become in my mind to be the goal.  And that’s not how it should be. Federer’s greatness was not in just getting to the final 8 of a tournament, it was in winning the whole damn thing.

And his 17 grand slam titles will take a heck of a lot of beating:

Again, Djokovic is the only current player who has a hope of getting even close (Nadal’s knees will prevent him). But he is currently on 6. So he only needs to win another 11. It’s possible, but let’s wait till he gets over 10 before really contemplating it.

It would require him to pretty much keep up the pace of titles won over the past two year for another 4 years or so. Doable but tough.

And so the era ends. There will still be a few reunion tours, but we all know it’s not the same thing.

Thankfully I still have last year’s Wimbledon final recorded on our DVDR, and so like getting out an old album and listening to great music I can still get to watch and remember the times when if Federer was there, he rung it.

OK, well we’re at the semi final stage in both the men’s and women’s.

The women will be playing soon, but before I get to that, let’s go back to my preview post wherein I covered the women’s side of the tournament like this:

In the women’s?

Serena Williams. She might even lose a set along the way.

At the time Sally Jackson tweeted to me:

Nice analysis but women's tennis is more interesting than just Serena.

And she was right.

I’ve never been a big fan of Williams. Mostly because of things like this:

And this. And because of things like this in her press conference after losing to Sloane Stephens:

Q.  What did you think of the quality of the match before you tweaked the back?

SERENA WILLIAMS:  I don't think my level was high.  I don't know how many unforced errors I ended up hitting, but for sure more in one set than I probably did in the whole tournament.

So I think her level was high.  But as for my end, I mean, you can tell.  You each can say this is definitely not my best match in months.

Yeah Williams was up 6-3 2-0, but you see, she really wasn’t playing very well. Her opponent? Well she was playing “very high” – you have to don’t you know to beat Serena (and of course you also need Serena to play really bad). Every defeat is always like that for Williams. There’s usually an injury or she really didn’t play well at all, unlike her opponent who obviously played the match of her life.

That said, I think the injury – both ankle and back were the key – let’s be honest, Serena Williams doesn’t serve 135km/h if healthy. Sloane played very well, but I don’t see her winning unless Serena twigs the back.

But even saying that – how great is it to see Stephens win? Talk about a breathe of fresh air in the game. Genuine delight, and certainly no flash in the pan. This win probably came earlier than expected, but that’s sport – it’s a test of body as well as skill, and there is many a player who “could’ve won” were it not for an injury. Winners get their body through the match somehow.

OK. Who wins from here? Hard to go past the two top seeds, but as I write this La Ni (or Ni La) just beat Sharapova. That means at least for a quieter match than would have been Sharapova v Azarenka. I’ll go for Azarenka to win her semi in straight sets, and the final in 3.

***

Here’s what the past 10 days have taught us about men’s tennis:

1. Novak Djokovic is now a legitimate candidate for the Top 10 of the ATP era.

If we go from 1973 when the ATP began – which is a few years after the “Open era” started in 1968 – it’s pretty easy to reel off the top 8 (the order more tricky):

Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal.

Without any doubt these are the best 8. They own it not just in Grand Slam titles but in time spent as number 1.

But who comes 9th and 10th? Strong cases can be made for Edberg (6 Grand Slams), Wilander (7 Grand Slams), Becker (6 Grand Slams), and maybe Courier (4 Grand Slams). I’d leave Leyton Hewitt out of that top 10 even though he was number one for the 9th longest period, because with only 2 grand slam titles he really didn’t cash in when he was at the top, and I doubt he was ever the prohibitive favourite in any Grand Slam he entered.

Djokovic with (thus far) 5 grand slam titles has to now be part of that conversation. And what really has elevated him into the top 10 for mine is his consistency. By reaching the semi final he has now made 11 consecutive grand slam semi finals. Only one other person has done that – Federer. Third best is Lendl with 10 in a row. So Djokovic is in big company. Incidentally Federer’s record is 23, so Djokovic only needs to keep making the semi finals until the Australian Open of 2016 to tie it.

By making the Quarter Finals here, Djokovic also extended his consecutive run of QFs at grand slams. Lendl had made 13 in a row, Djokovic is now on 15. Federer by beating Raonic took his streak to 35. Which is so long that it’s almost a bit silly. Djokovic will only need to keep making the QF until the Australian Open in 2018 to tie that. He will only be 30 by then, so it is certainly doable, but it requires no injuries and lapses at all.

Djokovic’s defensive play is beyond that anyone else has ever played. He just gets everything back, and gets it back in a manner that quickly turns defence into offence. It is the one area that I think he is better at than Federer ever was. 

At this point I put Djokovic 9th all time ATP era, and he’s only a couple titles away from being part of a top 9 in which his place in the order is up for strong debate.

2.  Generation Next ain’t there yet.

Ryan Harrison was pretty well embarrassed by Djokovic in the 2nd round, and Federer took care of first Tomic and then Raonic. Along the way Gigor Dimitrov lost in the first round as did Goffin. Jerzy Janoicz made it to the 3rd round, which will put him into the top 25 as he didn’t play in the Open last year. Andrey Kuznetsov did very well to beat 11th seed Juan Monaco in the first round, but he was then “bundled out” in the second by Kevin Anderson.

No one really stood up and said, I’ve arrived.

3. Generation Next is coming.

The 3rd round match against Federer was an excellent reality check for Tomic, and also for his critics.

It showed the BIG difference between playing an exhibition match against a jet-lagged Djokovic and playing a Grand Slam match against number 2 in the world. If there is one thing this summer of tennis should remind everyone it is that exhibition matches like the Hopman Cup and Kooyong Classic do not count for anything!

Here’s why – go to the ATP tour website and look at the Tomic-Djokovic match up. It is 3-0 to Djokovic. The Hopman Cup does not count. It is slightly as relevant as a pre-season AFL practice match.

For Tomic it was a big match – good for profile if he wins it, good for sponsorship, good all round. Djokovic was just hoping to have a good hit out and not get injured.

If the match is worth no ranking points, then that is how much it is worth in terms of reality. Sure players like to win, but it is a paid practice match. For Tomic the Hopman Cup showed he was in good form, but the Sydney International was the one that really mattered, and it was also the one that provided the true guide to his form.

At Sydney the highest ranked opponent Tomic beat was Andreas Seppi at number 23. In the Oz Open he beat the number 72 and number 120 in the world. So he didn’t really claim any scalps. BUT he did show he was good enough to be in the top 20.

His game against Federer was very good. He was able to stick with Federer for a number of shots, and probably deserved to win the 2nd set. But in tennis probably deserving doesn’t cut it.

Tomic’s serve is quality, and his forehand is very good. His movement needs to improve, but he is much better than this time last year.

Top 20 must be the goal this year and his game is certainly good enough – he troubled Federer for 2 sets, and while he went away in the 3rd, that is more about age and the difference between tournament best of 3 and grand slam best of 5.

So if you don’t like him, get used to not liking him for a while, because he will rise up the rankings. But it’s tough. How tough? Well after his great summer, where he won his first title, he leaves the Australian Open with only 70 extra rankings points than he had this time last year. To put that in context, he currently lies 765 points behind the number 20 in the world. He needs to play as good has he did this month, every month. And that is hard when you’re a long way from home, and you’re playing on the outside courts.

It is a tough, tough grind to get to the top.

Raonic as well is going to get “there”. He is now number 15 in the world. He reached the 4th round like he did last year, but he now has a couple tournaments where he has to defend points – San Jose which he won last year, and Memphis, where he came runner up. But for Raonic the big prizes are Masters events. At Indian Wells and Miami last year he lost in the 3rd round – to Federer and Murray respectively. With a higher ranking he might get a better draw that will see him face the big guys in the QFs – and every improvement gets him that much closer to the top 10.

His serve is such that in a best of 3 he really can do some damage. If he’s on, he’ll be impossible to break and even if he can’t break his opponent, you’d back him in a tie breaker. Oddly he has only made the 2nd round at Wimbledon the two times he has played it. I can’t see that remaining the case for much longer.

4. Nadal is a big loss, but the top 4 is closer to the rest than it has been

The top 4 seeds made it to the semis, but no one – perhaps not even David Ferrer considers Ferrer a tougher match up for Djokovic than would have been Nadal. But that aside, the QFs played by Djokoivc and Federer were top matches. Wawrinka stepped up and really should have won. A bit of luck, a few line calls… but there’s a reason why Djokovic is number 1, and it ain’t because he has won matches because of a bit of luck and a few line calls.

Similarly Tsonga played all over Federer at times. Federer stole the third set tie breaker when Tsonga’s game seemed bigger and better. Federer’s class rose to the top in the 5th, but Tsonga is coming, and looks like he has decided this is the year. He’ll become number 6 in the world after this – although until Nadal comes back that is effectively number 5. That means he has very good draws in the Masters events, and he has the game to win 2 sets off anyone – and in best of 3 that’s all you need.

The biggest disappointment of the tournament for me was Juan Del Potro losing in the 3rd round. He was my sneaky outsider tip. His loss meant Andy Murray played Chardy in the QF and, to be honest, by that stage Chardy had done his dash. At 25 Chardy will certainly rise up the rankings, but he was never going to challenge Murray in the way that Del Potro could have. But to win a QF you got to first get there, and Del Potro didn’t.

OK the semis:

In last year’s semi final Djokovic beat Ferrer  2-6 6-1 6-4 6-2. And if I had to predict the games scores as well as the result, I’d go with that line again. 4 sets. Sportsbet has Ferrer at $7.10 which is just stupid, and almost worth a punt. $7.10 in a two horse race? Absurd, especially when Ferrer is 5th best in the world.

The Federer-Murray one is juicy. Murray has hardly been stretched. He played Simon in the 4th round when Simon was physically exhausted just by getting out of his chair to go do the coin toss, and Chardy was not a great guide.

In the past the key aspect would have been does Murray have the mental game to win at this level. After the Olympics and US Open that question no longer arises (though I think it still will when it comes to Wimbledon). Since the Olympics, they have met twice – Murray won in Shanghai, and Federer won in London. These two are very even but Murray is slight favourite with the bookies and I think he should be. This has 5 sets written all over it. I think Murray will win, even though (as ever) I’ll be hoping for Federer.

I just think had Murray been playing last night against Federer he would have won, so Federer will need to play better than he did in that match (getting in more than 61% of his first serves would be a good start).

Next week the first tennis Grand Slam of the year begins, a year I have a feeling might see a bit of a changing of the guard.

In my Drum piece this week I had a bit of a squiz at Bernard Tomic and his hopes to be in the top 10 by the end of the year. I should state at the outset that I am not a fan of Tomic. Maybe I just am an old miserable cuss who can’t stand 20 year old braggarts driving around in muscle cars and telling everyone that they’re going to be the greatest player in the game. I’ve never been big on the “you have to support them because they’re Australian”  line either. In Davis Cup? Sure. But tennis is an individual sport, so I’ll pick the individuals who I wish to cheer for.

That said I will be shocked if he’s not in the top 20 by the end of the year. Top 10 is a bigger ask mostly because it requires someone dropping out for him to get in.

Here’s the current top 25 (Tomic is 64, but it’s really around 50 because he skipped the Brisbane International and played in Sydney, so he lost the points he won there last year, but he’ll essentially get them back with a few more from his play in Sydney):

Rank, Name & Nationality	Points	Week Change	Tourn Played
1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)	12,920	0	18
2 Federer, Roger (SUI)	10,265	0	20
3 Murray, Andy (GBR)	8,000	0	20
4 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)	6,600	0	17
5 Ferrer, David (ESP)	6,505	0	26
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE)	4,680	0	25
7 Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG)	4,480	0	23
8 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA)	3,375	0	25
9 Tipsarevic, Janko (SRB)	3,090	0	28
10 Gasquet, Richard (FRA)	2,720	0	24
11 Almagro, Nicolas (ESP)	2,515	0	26
12 Monaco, Juan (ARG)	2,430	0	24
13 Isner, John (USA)	2,215	1	26
14 Cilic, Marin (CRO)	2,210	1	24
15 Raonic, Milos (CAN)	2,175	-2	24
16 Simon, Gilles (FRA)	2,145	0	27
17 Wawrinka, Stanislas (SUI)	1,900	0	22
18 Nishikori, Kei (JPN)	1,870	1	23
19 Kohlschreiber, Philipp (GER)	1,770	1	27
20 Dolgopolov, Alexandr (UKR)	1,750	-2	26
21 Haas, Tommy (GER)	1,681	0	20
22 Querrey, Sam (USA)	1,650	0	27
23 Seppi, Andreas (ITA)	1,560	0	30
24 Verdasco, Fernando (ESP)	1,490	0	25
25 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS)	1,335	0	25

OK the top 4 I can’t see dropping out. Nadal has his injury, but his ranking is protected, and the guy has won Grand Slams on one knee before, so he ain’t dropping down too far yet. Federer I think is the one in danger. Age surely must hit at some point (though I have been thinking this for a few years now). The first 6 months of 2012 were great for him, so he has a ton of points to defend – a semi at the Aust Open, and wins at Indian Wells, Dubai and Rotterdam. The Madrid tournament won’t be on blue clay this year – a surface that seemed to suit his game more than others, so that’ll be tough to defend. That said – it’s a long way for him to fall out of the top 10.

Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro and Tsonga should be ok – I especially think Del Potro could be the one to rise. Ferrer could fall – and I doubt he’ll be number 5 in 12 months time. Tipsarevic has the win in Chennai in the bank for 12 months, and really doesn’t have much at the Grand Slams to defend – his best is a QF at the US Open. So there’s a fair bit of upside for him. But he is 28, so maybe he’s peaked. Gasquet has the win in Doha in his bank, and he made the 4th round of every Grand Slam, so a QF in any of them will give him 180 extra points – and every extra point put you further away from those trying to catch you. He also has made a solid and steady rise up the rankings from being number 30 this time 2 years ago. At the age of 26 he would be feeling like the next 2 years are his peak.

Then come the others in the top 20. Roanic, Cilic, Nishikori and Dolgopolov are the “young ones” (if 24 is young in the case of Cilic and Dolgopolov) on the rise. Both Cilic and Nishikori made the QF of last year’s Aussie Open, and both also missed the US Open. So while they have big points to defend in the next fortnight, they won’t have any when they get to Flushing Meadows. Nishikori didn’t make it past the 4th round of any Master event last year, so there’s points there to be made.

Those four are guys on the improve, for Tomic to make the Top 10 he not only has to displace one of the current top 10 he also has to get in front of these 4 (and the other 6 in the top 20). Tomic’s current rankings points are loaded mostly with the 4th round at last year’s Aussie Open. In his favour are that he was poor at Wimbledon, so he can improve there.

As I say, top 20 is a big show – but I will go so far as to say anything less than top 20 by the end of the year will be a disappointment. Top 10 would be a very good effort – certainly possible, but the year is long, and he had a great Australian summer last year as well, so it’s in the long months away from Australia where he needs to improve.

OK to to the Australian Open draws.

Djokovic has a quarter that has him set to play number 5 seed Berdych in the QF. To get there Djokovic might have to play young USA up and comer Ryan Harrison. Harrison at 20 years of age is a few steps behind the same aged Tomic at the moment, but the match would be a nice one to watch to see where both are at. Wawrinka or Querry in the 4th Round should be no danger for Djokovic. Berdych meanwhile will have to go through Juan Moncao or Verdasco to get to the QF. He should.

In the same half of the draw is David Ferrer who is due to meet Tipsaravic in the QF. Ferrer will likely have to go the dangerous Ivo Karlovic, Baghdahtis, Mikail Youzny or Nishikori. Depending on Nishikori’s fitness, I’m thinking he could be the upset factor here.

Tipsarevic faces Leyton Hewitt first up. I don’t think an upset is out of the question, but I wouldn’t put money on it. In his 16th of the draw I’m interested to see how Grigor Dimitrov goes. He faces number 32 seed Julien Bennetau in the first round. I’d like to see an upset.

In the bottom half we start with Del Potro who is slated to meet Andy Murray in the QF. I can’t see anyone stopping Del Potro getting to the final 8. Similarly Murray has a cruisey draw. Their QF would be a cracker.

Roger Federer has easily the toughest draw of the top seeds. He is slated to meet Tsonga in the QF, but to get there he needs to beat firstly the young Frenchman Benoit Paire, then probably the veteran Davydenko. The 3rd round is tough – likely a very in-form Bernard Tomic, and then a 4th round if he makes it against Raonic. It really is a case of the old man having to defend himself against the wannabe future. Federer’s run of 34 consecutive Grand Slam QF’s will face a supreme test. To be honest I am not sure he’ll get there. If he does it’ll mean he is playing very good tennis, and I'd back him against Tsonga, who has a pretty clear run to the QF.

The toughest aspect with Federer is he hasn’t played any tournaments of late so there’s a risk he’ll be too rusty in the early rounds. A few years ago he might have got away with it, but this year, with his draw, he’ll need to be sharp from the get go.

And that will bring us to the second week.

In the women’s?

Serena Williams. She might even lose a set along the way.