The 2011 ATP season kicked off this week Down Under where the top men’s players in the world have congregated to decide the year’s first major: the Aussie Open.
There are a plethora of thick, juicy, marbled storylines to chew on throughout the season but, truth be told, I’m having a tough time really caring about any of them at this point. It always feels like the Australian Open is kind of like the red-headed stepchild of the tennis world.
The tournament takes place in mid January; looking out the window at the dreary wintry weather, complete with freezing rain and a howling wind that chafes my nipples, does not really put me in the mood for tennis. I don’t even want to step foot outside, let alone spend a couple of hours swinging a racket on the court. Not only that, but the time change from here to Australia always leaves me confused.
I never know if I’m watching live coverage or not. Trying to calculate the day/time Down Under makes me feel like John Nash breaking codes in A Beautiful Mind; I don’t know what’s real. For me, my tennis viewing starts with the French Open when the storylines for the year are drawn in the sand.
This year is a little bit different as there is one big story currently dominating the headlines: Rafael Nadal’s attempt to capture his fourth major title in a row, something that hasn’t been done since Rod Laver in 1969.
I’m not sure what I want to happen. I am a big fan of both Federer and Nadal (Rafa has really grown on me over the past two years). I don’t know who I want to be the dominant force in tennis. Part of me wants to side with Federer only because he’s older. Truthfully, I wouldn’t mind if they traded Grand Slam titles only with each other for the next four years.
Much has been made about what to call Nadal’s achievement if he wins the Aussie Open, since he will hold all four major titles, but not in the same year. Laver complicated matters somewhat by declaring that he won’t consider Nadal to have won the Grand Slam because his wins will take place over two years.
The press and fans have been ripping Laver apart for that comment basically saying that he’s an old, jealous codger who should just mind his own business. I completely disagree. Laver is the only man alive who has completed the Grand Slam, thus he has the authority to say what he wants on the matter. If he doesn’t think it counts as Grand Slam, then it isn’t one. All of these jerkoffs who’ve never picked up a racket can keep their mouths shut and defer to a tennis legend.
If Nadal does manage to win in Melbourne, then he is completely deserving of unparalleled praise. Holding all four major tennis titles, on three different surfaces, is an incredible accomplishment. If he wants to call that achievement a Grand Slam, then so be it. If he wants to call it a Rafa Slam, he can.
Exhibiting such tennis mastery allows an individual to say whatever he wants. The best part about Nadal is that he won’t say anything about this if he wins. He’ll raise his trophy in the air, smile, and then start focusing on Roland Garros (hopefully with Federer nipping at his heels).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment