Stan is the Man!

I had a semi full schedule last Sunday, or as full as it could be for Sunday afternoon to night time. I was going to go do yoga, hit the shops with a friend (she needs a dress for an event), and have dinner somewhere new. I begged my friend to adjust our schedule so that I could potentially rush home to watch the Australian Open Men’s finals (This was post Stan’s win over Djokovic and Pre Nadal’s win over Roger).

I had been hoping for an all Swiss final (what a treat that would have been – and if that did happened, I won’t even be upset if Stan wins over Roger) but hey, Nadal played so much better against Roger (semis) vs his level of play against Nishikori and Dimitrov (4th round & quarters). So, no all swiss final.

Stan, Federer’s buddy, was in the finals and since Federer had believed in his friend's chances, I decided to be supportive and watch the game as well. (It should be noted though that of all the predictions, analysis, and articles that I read before the finals, only 1 person said Wawkrinka had a chance against Nadal and that person was Roger Federer).

To be honest, I had perhaps believed Stan’s chances of winning were at about the 25%. That is, I thought: If Stan played as good as he did against Djokovic and if Nadal played at a lower level than he did against Roger, then Stan will have a chance.

And this is what actually happened for the first set and a half of the match. That part was what I had deemed the only legitimate part of the finals and the rest of it, I don’t know, I will just call it a freak occurrence. It was so bizarre that for a while there I think Wawrinka got confused and suddenly wasn’t sure if his initial game plan against a fierce Nadal should be tempered so as not to look too brutal against an injured Nadal. (I suppose he was thinking that at first he was the underdog then suddenly he was not?)

That was the sad part, the “injured” Nadal. I wanted Stan to win convincingly and given his performance during the first set, I believe that he really deserved a better victory. I wanted him to win but not like that.

I respect Nadal’s talent and his impressive come back from a major injury and from months of being out of the tour. What had always bothered me about him (and not just against Federer but against everyone) was his consistent grey-area on court behavior: time delays tactics / violations, (suspect) timeouts, coaching violations and everything else that he does (such as touching himself in all places before he finally serves).

What happened last Sunday wasn’t pretty. Yes, Nadal might have really been injured (was this just a sudden cramp thing or did he just break something there or was this an old problem, who knows?) but the way it all panned out, it just felt iffy.

Headlines then read that Wawrinka won over an “injured” Nadal, which just takes so much out of Wawrinka’s well deserved win, which is just unfortunate because I believed that even if Nadal hadn’t been injured Stan could have won anyway the way he was playing.  Stan had really really really been that good in that first set. If things progressed the same way, then Nadal would have lost justly, sans all this injury drama.

It should be noted though that instead of retiring, Nadal stayed in there to let Stan finish the match, which is a nice gesture and which is also what I would have expected him to do.

photo from the ausopen.com

BUT no matter, a win is a win. Again, we must remember that this is Stan’s moment.  At the end of the day, you’ve won a Grand Slam #Stanimal! Congratulations, you deserve it! I am happy for you!

Notes on Roger (even if this is Stan’s moment):   

Roger played unbelievably well this whole Australian Open vs. his not so great performance of last year (or the last few years). This fact alone gives me enough satisfaction. This gives me some hope. This makes me happy. (I am a fan of his so why wouldn’t I be?)

He is a 32 year old guy who still plays this good, who can still beat top ranked guys, and who still brings so much to the tennis world. He has worked for it too. How can he not, when all these odds against him now? He may not be #1 but he is still this good. It is what it is. (Haters, stop raining on this parade please.)

Also, forgot to comment about this: VERY VERY VERY Happy for Li Na! 

photo from the ausopen.com

I like her. I still remember her as being this semi good, semi consistent, Chinese player who played at the time of Kim Clijster and Justine Henin.  Well, she’s still here and she’s come a long way. She’s so funny and so real. She’s a good representative of the Asia Pacific (as the Aussie Open is the Grand Slam of the Asia Pacific, is it not?). She is Chinese, 31 and still competitive on tour, her story is definitely one of the good ones!

This is one of those tournaments wherein I’m happy about both the men’s and women’s champion.