Competition can only make tennis more compelling

It would not only be premature but downright foolish to sing a dirge for Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, but such was the quality of play in the Aussie Open men’s final by Novak Djokovik and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga that the world’s top two ranked players were barely missed. No change of guard at the top in men’s tennis yet, but some interesting times ahead for sure.

The 20-year-old Djokovic is a cheeky — some would say rude — fellow who has been snapping at the heels of Federer and Nadal for more than a year now and Tsonga is the ‘boy from nowhere’ who has suddenly hit the right chords. Between them, they did the unthinkable: Djokovic beat Federer in straight sets, and Tsonga did likewise to Nadal.

Djokovic mixes gamesmanship with steely resolve, but that’s not enough to reach the top of the sport.

What helps is that he also has terrific court-craft, including the best approach shots after Federer.

Such comparisons with arguably the best player the game has ever seen would have seemed reckless a few months ago, but assumes enormous credibility after his Aussie Open triumph.

Tsonga, by contrast, comes across as a blithe spirit — someone who relishes a challenge, and expresses his talent freely, with no holds barred.

He is a big fella, in the mould of a heavyweight boxer, which makes his resemblance to Muhammad Ali even more pertinent. He has jumped places to be ranked 18th now, and unless this was a flash in the pan, will be pushing hard for a place in the top 5 this year.

What this suggests is that the rivalry for supremacy in men’s tennis could possibly get redefined in the coming months.

Federer’s utter domination had virtually eliminated all competition for him, save Nadal on the Roland Garros clay. With Djokovic and Tsonga showing that both Federer and Nadal could be beaten, a host of young players should get the inspiration and self-belief that there is room at the top.

I don’t see either Federer or Nadal surrendering their podium places easily, but heck, more competition can only make men’s tennis more compelling.
***** ***** *****
Adam Gilchrist’s retirement could not have been better timed. He has struggled in the recent series, and it is always better to leave on your own than be stumped by the selectors.

Yet, how does a cricket lover negotiate the departure of one of the game’s greatest players?

For more than a decade, the ebullient wicketkeeper-batsman has played in such brilliant fashion that not only was he his team’s most decisive match-winner in Tests and one-dayers, but also perhaps reshaped the way cricket would be played in the new millennium.

He has been bold, uncaring about personal records, and much against advice from his own dressing room, a man who walked when he thought he was out even if the umpire believed otherwise.

There have been skeptics about his technique, yet Gilchrist retires with the wicketkeeping record under his belt, which speaks of his prowess behind the stumps.

But it is his uninhibited approach in front of the wicket which made him the most dangerous player for opponents.

So much has been written about Australia’s domination of cricket over the past 15 years, the batting of Ponting and Hayden, the bowling of McGrath and Warne. But without Gilchrist, my submission is that the record of the Aussies would have been modest.

Gilchrist will be remembered for his derring do, passion and a rare sense of fairplay that should serve as inspiration for future generations.

He was a bionic cricketer for his approach and his success, and for all things put together, an iconic one too.