Australian Open 2011: Novak Djokovic in Final With No Rafa or Roger

If you have been either staying up very late or waking up very early to follow the action from Melbourne, Australia, you know what happened this morning, or was it last evening? 

World No. 3 Novak Djokovic, showcasing a terrific and aggressive, all-around game, drubbed defending champion Roger Federer 7-6, 7-5, 6-4 to reach the Australian Open final.

He will play the winner of the other semifinal match, pitting David Ferrer (a surprise straight-sets winner over Rafael Nadal in the quarters) versus Andy Murray.

Two points clearly emerged from Djokovic’s impressive win:

• Djokovic is playing superbly, and it will take a great effort from either Murray or Ferrer to keep the Djoker from notching his long-awaited second career major title.
• The 2011 Aussie Open final will not feature either Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal: a very rare event in this era that has been dominated by these two men.

To the second bullet point, please consider these facts.

Starting with the 2003 Wimbledon final  (in which Federer defeated the flame-serving Australian Mark Philippoussis) and counting the 2011 Australian Open, 31 major finals will have been contested. This tourney will be only the fifth one to not feature either Federer or Nadal.

If we kept count with Nadal's first major victory (he defeated Argentina's Mariano Puerta in the 2005 French Open), this will only be the second final out of the last 20 to not feature either Rafa or Roger.

And no, I don't remember too much about Mariano Puerta, but that's not the point.

Roger and Rafa have had an amazing hold on men’s tennis, and this tourney should serve as a testament not only to Djokovic and the Ferrer-Murray winner, but also to Federer and Nadal themselves. More on that point in a moment, but let's ruminate on another stat or two.

Of the 31 major tournaments alluded to, Federer has been to 22 finals, winning 16 of them. Pretty impressive, especially when you consider that 127 other professional tennis players also wield rackets with precision and power in all of these events,

Since Nadal had his coming out party in 2005, he has been to 11 finals, winning the big trophy and huge check nine times.

Head to head?  Nadal has a 5-2 record versus Federer in Grand Slam finals. He defeated Fed three times at Roland Garros, and once apiece at Wimbledon and Melbourne. Fed got the better of his nemesis in back-to-back Wimbledons.

So, what does all this mean?

Have Djokovic and Ferrer upset the odds by defeating the two dominant players of their era prior to the finals? Yes.

Did Federer and Nadal greatly upset the "tennis odds," if not the tennis gods, by reaching such a high percentage of major finals all those years? Well, yes.

Is there a changing of the guard afoot? I'm not sure.

On the one hand, there are plenty of brilliant players on the men’s tour not named Roger or Rafael, including but not limited to Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer, Robin Soderling, Tomas Berdych and  Fernando Verdasco.  

Much as he is sometimes derided for his fame eclipsing his results, Andy Roddick still has lots of game, and a healthy and match-tested Juan Martin del Potro is capable of hitting any world-class opponent off the court.

But for all of this collective talent, it just feels strange to not see Roger or Rafa playing on the second Sunday of a major.

It's like seeing the sun rise in the west, the rooster missing the morning call or Tom Brady playing a poor game. Well, one of those fluke events happened recently.

The last time men’s tennis had one of these mailman-bites-dog finals, Djokovic defeated Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the 2008 Australian Open.

Before that, it was the 2005 Aussie, when Marat Safin got the better of Lleyton Hewitt. Nadal's 2005 title at Roland Garros was the next major tourney.

What were the other two instances during the dominant Federer (and pre-Nadal) era?

Gaston Gaudio outlasted his Argentine compatriot Guillermo Coria by the unlikely score of 0-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1, 8-6 to take the 2004 French Open. At least the last set was competitive.

Andy Roddick won his only major at the 2003 US Open, overpowering Juan Carlos Ferrero in straight sets.

That is the whole list of Grand Slam finals played without Roger or Rafa.

One hopes that Sunday’s (or is it late Saturday night’s?) final between Djokovic and Murray or Ferrer will feature some great tennis, even if it won’t have all the star power that Roger and Rafa bring to the court. Still, there is no reason to expect tennis to be played at anything but a very high level.

Whoever wins the final—and my early money would be on the Djoker—deserves all the spotlight and kudos that the tennis world has to offer.

And perhaps there is a new changing of the guard at work, given Federer’s (relative) age and Nadal’s premature wear-and-tear, but I’d have to see it to believe it.

The next major will be contested on the red clay of Paris, where Nadal has won six of the last seven, defeating Federer in three of those finals. Federer defeated Robin Soderling the other time.

Then, they move on to the grass of Wimbledon, where Federer has won six of the last eight. The other two? Some guy named Nadal won.

And then, it’s on to the hard courts and leather lungs of New York, where Federer has won five of the last seven, the other two taken by del Potro and Nadal. Of course, del Potro beat Roger in that 2009 final.

So, kudos to Djokovic and Ferrer/Murray for their achievements in Melbourne. All of you are great players.

At the same time, such is the shadow cast by Federer and Nadal that this rare event once again highlights how amazing these two champions have been. So dominant that there is a good chance that the last three majors of 2011 will be won by either Federer or Nadal.

Yes, the mailman could bite the dog once again. I just would not bet on it.

For more information on Matt Goldberg’s new books, other writings and appearances, please e-mail: [e-mail]