Thoughts on the Australian Open, Part 2: The Men’s Draw

As with yesterday's piece, this goes out to Michael and Jeff. Hope you enjoy, fellas.

While keeping in mind that what I said about the Australian being a weird tournament still holds true, and thus it may be perilous to draw conclusions about the entire year-to-come:

5. Roger Federer. Against Djokovic, particularly when hitting backhand to backhand, Federer finally looked truly past his prime, unable to match either Djokovic's power or movement. He got pummeled in the first two sets. He played brilliantly to win the third, but at the same time there was a sense that Djokovic's attention had wandered somewhat, that Roger could continue playing at that level and so long as Djokovic refocused, Djokovic would win the fourth set. And that's basically what happened.

Roger's game remains the most beautiful in tennis, but he's six years older than Djokovic and Murray and four years older than Wawrinka. They're all at their peak, and he is clearly in decline. He won't win another Slam without the help of major upsets elsewhere in the draw. He says that he keeps playing because he loves tennis, but I wonder, how long will it still be fun when he simply no longer has the physical skills to compete against the best when they're playing their best? He's apparently happy being third-best player in the world. How about the sixth? The sixteenth?

6. Andy Murray. The Derp King of tennis. I described the way he mutters to himself between points when things aren't going well as "psychotic" until I thought "schizophrenic" might be more accurate. I mean, tell me you can't imagine that face and bearing on a homeless dude, pushing a shopping cart and wearing socks for gloves.

Initially, I didn't care for Murray, but I've come to really enjoy his touch and imagination. He's a fighter, too. But he lives within his head sometimes and it gets in the way of his play.

7. Djokovic. Somehow, he's still getting better. He hit shots in this tournament that I would literally describe as impossible had I not seen him do it. He played a terrible match against Gilles Simon in the round of 16, hitting 100 unforced errors, and still won. Really think about that. He gave away twenty points per set and still won, against the 15th-ranked player in the world. That's simply amazing.

But despite his best still getting better, I think I saw chinks in the armor in this tournament. He walloped Federer for two sets and Murray in the first, and while it's clear that both men elevated their games in the the subsequent sets, it seemed, too, that Djokovic let off the gas a little. Indeed, had Murray had the presence of mind to challenge a clear fault on Djokovic's serve at 30-40 6-5 in the second set, what would have been Djokovic's fifth-straight fault, Murray would have had a second-serve break point chance to force the tiebreaker. With a little good luck, he then levels the match at a set apiece. Sure, it didn't work out that way, but you see Djokovic hit five straight faults in a crucial game and you can't help wondering if Djokovic's previously impervious-to-everything mental game is beginning to show a few cracks.

The tour is too long for anyone to be one-hundred-percent focused all the time. Trying to maintain that level of intensity would lead anyone to burnout. If you think back to last year, Djokovic occasionally lost matches that weren't deeply important. He lost to Federer in the finals of Cincinnati, but won in the Open two weeks later. He lost to Federer in the round-robin of the Tour Finals, but won in the finals.

It's well known that Djokovic wants more than anything to complete his career Grand Slam by finally winning the French Open. I wonder: if he wins there, does the need for a little mental relief, plus the signs we saw here that his attention is flagging, mean that he can't quite be at 100% at Wimbledon a month later? At the Olympics, a month after that? At the U.S. Open just a few weeks later still? As great as he clearly is, there comes a point when he simply has to let down. It will be fascinating to see when that happens.