Who What Where When How?

On Friday Novak Djokovic played tennis for four hours and fifty minutes. This is only about 30 minutes short of the longest semi-final in tennis. Two days later he was on court for five hours and fifty three minutes, breaking the previous record for longest final by over an hour. He was on court for ten hours and 43 minutes in two matches alone. And while utterly irrelevant to the rest of the article, it should be noted that it was about as much time on court in two matches as the womens champion spent on court in the entire tournament. So much for "equal" prize money.

While it is far too early to have any sense of perspective to be able to properly define just how incredible an achievement this Slam victory was, there are certainly a few points that can be made.

• This was by no means the greatest match of all time quality-wise. While allowances probably should be made for the difference in surface, the 2008 Wimbledon final included 149 winners and 79 unforced errors. Today's match included 101 winners and 140 unforced errors, the most noticeable of which was Nadal missing with a simple backhand in the fifth set. But the match today was not about who played the best tennis, it was simply about who would be the last man standing. It was an endurance test like no other, while still playing tennis that would have beaten every other tennis player on the planet right now.

• The stats show how Nadal had switched his game plan in the last few months. Djokovic hit 57 winners, Nadal hit 44. In the US Open last year Djokovic hit 55 winners in 4 sets, Nadal 32. Nadal made 71 unforced errors compared to only 37 at the US Open final. Djokovic made only 57, compared to 55 in the US Open. Nadal was going for aggressive tennis but was making too many errors as a result. Djokovic was going for his shots less, and as a result was hitting less winners but also making less errors. Given how close Nadal was to winning it is an approach he should persist with. He turns only 10 of those unforced errors into winners and he is likely winning the match. In fact today, he only had to turn one unforced error into a winner and he would likely have won.

• Has anybody, in any other sport, ever done what Djokovic has done the last two days? For a start any footballer that complains about playing twice a week should consider this. While I am sure absolutely no stat exists for this, I am certain in both his semi final and final Djokovic was "in play" for near 90 minutes. In addition to the sheer endurance Djokovic has battled back from two sets to one down in the semi-final, while saving three break points at 5-5 in the fifth set, then came back from a break down in the fifth set in the final. He is the tennis Rasputin, incapable of being finished off no matter what the opposition throw at him.

• The top four appear to be pushing each other to ever higher levels. A year ago Murray was defeated in straight sets in quite frankly embarrassing circumstances. This year he was more or less a point away, or at the very least a competent start to the fourth set away, from defeating Djokovic. Nadal may have now lost the last seven finals to Djokovic but he was able to push him all the way this time. Ferrer might well be right when he noted that the gap cannot be closed.

• As for Murray's semi final, the stats again suggest a more aggressive approach to his game. Unfortunately the current approach seems to be leading to more unforced errors than before. At the US Open semi final Murray made 55 unforced errors while hitting 44 winners. Murray hit only 47 winners against Djokovic while making 89 unforced errors. Yet Djokovic made 69 unforced errors compared to Nadals 23 in the US Open. While the idea is that "unforced errors" are by their nature unforced, I would argue that the aggressive play Murray presented was indeed 'forcing' these unforced errors from Djokovic. You will either understand what I mean or think that is the stupidest suggestion ever made. 

• Regardless of the end result, Murrays performance has to be encouraging. He was far calmer throughout and the aggressive tennis was paying off. I was concerned that Djokovic would perhaps capitulate against Nadal, suggesting that he only ran Novak close because he was so far off form. Djokovics astonishing victory suggests to me there is now a legitimate big four when it comes to slams.

• Federer only won one of his 16 Grand Slams by beating Nadal/Djokovic/Murray in consecutive matches. Djokovic has won three. By the time he beat Ferrer in the quarters, Djokovic had already won the equivalent of a 'Federer Slam' in 2005 and 2006 or so. He then had to play a further 10 hours on court to beat Murray then Nadal. There is an argument that winning a Slam now is worth three times what it was in 2004, and any "Greatest of all Time" discussions would do well to keep that mind.

• The tennis was so good that Arsenal coming back from 2-0 down seemed positively boring in comparison. 

• Finally, the BBC showed two matches this tournament and cut away from the presentation to show bowls. They do not deserve this standard of sport at all. For shame BBC, for shame.