NOVAK DJOKOVIC is the clear bookies’ favourite to win the French Open, which begins on Sunday. There are few signs to suggest the world number one will not emerge victorious at Roland Garros in a fortnight’s time as he has been in a league of his own for the past few years. The world-renowned tennis coach, Nick Bollettieri, said last year that he believes that Djokovic is as close to perfection as he’s ever seen in a tennis player. The Serb has won four of the last five and five of the last seven grand slams. He has almost double the amount of ranking points of Andy Murray, the world No.2. There is a greater gap in ranking terms between Djokovic and Murray than there is between the Scot and the world No.76.
Djokovic’s seminal year was 2011, when he won three of the four grand slams on offer. But it was 2015 in which Djokovic took things to another level claiming three grand slam victories, six Masters series wins and the World Tour Finals to record the greatest tennis season in the modern era. He began 2016 where he left off, winning the Australian Open and so we are now faced with the very real prospect of seeing a player win the golden grand slam, which consists of all four major titles, plus Olympic gold.
How privileged we are to be witnessing such greatness, right? Well, that’s not everyone’s opinion. There are many who believe that Djokovic’s dominance is damaging tennis. Certainly, there is something unarguably predictable about watching Djokovic play; he has, after all, lost only three matches all year and one of those was a withdrawal due to an eye infection. He has won 13 matches against top ten players this year already, and lost only one – to Murray, last weekend.
So everything points to Djokovic continuing his dominance in Paris yet there is undoubtedly an air of disenchantment about this prospect. We are witnessing the progress of a player who, quite possibly, will go on to become the greatest of all time yet many, many people want him to lose.
To fail to appreciate the greatness of an athlete who dominates their sport in the manner that Djokovic is doing is to fail to understand sport though. While it is indisputably exciting to watch an underdog like Leicester City winning the Premier League or Japan beating South Africa in the Rugby World Cup, watching an individual reign over the rest of the world is far more engaging. To dominate like Djokovic is doing is indescribably hard. No men’s player, not even Federer, has been quite so commanding in recent times, which says much about the Serb. In his prime, Federer dominated tennis yet his dominance seemed less stable than Djokovic’s due to the presence of Nadal. Even at Federer’s best, he could not get a handle on Nadal; the Swiss is on the wrong side of a 23-11 win-loss record against the Spaniard, while Djokovic has a winning record against all of the world’s top 10.
Part of the disdain towards Djokovic’s dominance is because he possesses neither the grace of Federer nor the raw, animalistic power of Nadal. Rather, Djokovic overwhelms his opponents with his speed around the court. He counter-punches, grinds down opponents and hits more lines under pressure than any other player. He is branded boring because he invariably wins from the baseline yet it takes a unique level of skill to be able to overcome every game-type that is thrown at him. He is perhaps the most-complete player to play the game.
Yet many observers seem to be put off by perfection, or the pursuit of it. That Djokovic has found a way to be consistently better than every other tennis player in the world is a testament to his genius. And to fail to understand this, is to fail to understand sport.
AND ANOTHER THING . . .
Don’t you just love Muirfield and the portion of its 600-odd members who yesterday voted against allowing the admission of women to their club? “The introduction of lady members is bound to create difficulties”, said a letter written by a 33-strong group of male members who campaigned to retain Muirfield’s men-only status. Such difficulties as the women questioning the existing “lunch arrangements”.
These male members should be applauded for attempting to protect the poor, helpless women who may have joined Muirfield in the wake of a yes vote and would thus have been subjected to whatever form of willy-waving that clearly goes on at these men-only lunches. The women must be protected from this affront, and thank goodness they have.
Golf, indisputably, has an image problem and yesterday’s vote by Muirfield’s members has not only confirmed the existing cliché about golf being dominated by a bunch of out-of-touch men in blazers, it has strengthened it considerably.
Golf clubs are haemorrhaging members and much of this is due to their inability to attract young members, particularly young girls. While the vast majority of golf clubs will be disgusted by Muirfield’s decision against admitting women, the damage will spread to each and every golf club in Scotland. Why, when today’s headlines highlight the sexism that is thriving within some sections of the golfing fraternity, would a young girl be encouraged to pick up a golf club? She won’t, is the simple answer.
The R&A, not always a champion of equality itself, must be applauded for ts swiftly response in announcing that Muirfield will be removed from the Open rota while it remains men-only. To strike one of the best Open courses from the rota may seem drastic, but it is necessary. I have no great issue with private members’ clubs having their own rules about admission but these golf clubs must be cognisant about the damage they are doing to the game as a whole. And the damage inflicted yesterday was severe.