By Chris Oddo | @TheFanChild | Wednesday June 12, 2019
Was 2019 Roland Garros the one that got away from Novak Djokovic? That’s the question I find myself asking three days after the tournament’s conclusion, long after I’ve filed my piece on the otherworldliness of Rafael Nadal and how his 12th Roland Garros title might be the single greatest achievement that tennis has witnessed during an era where singular achievements have become the norm for the game’s three megastars.
I half-expected that #RG19 would end with the King of Clay crowned, but I didn’t expect that it would be Dominic Thiem who stared across the net at Nadal in the final. No offense, Dominator, but I believed that man would be Djokovic. Truth is, I was sold on Djokovic and had been ever since he took the Wimbledon title last season. Ten months later the World No.1 had a second Nole Slam in his sights and it genuinely felt like he was willing to walk through fire to get it.
In terms of legacy, winning Roland Garros this year would have been massive for the 32-year-old. Holding all four Slams at the same time—something that either Federer or Nadal have never managed—is amazing. But doing it twice? Now that would have been a chart-topping tennis achievement and one that speaks volume about Djokovic’s greatness as an all-surface player.
Tennis’ tectonic plates were set to shift this spring in Paris and most felt it was going to be either Nadal or Djokovic who emerged from the fray with the Coupe des Mousquetaires and bragging rights to take across the English Channel to Wimbledon. If it was Djokovic, he’d be doing so with all four majors under his belt and the Calendar Slam in play.
We now know that it didn’t happen. So what does that mean for Djokovic’s legacy and what should we expect from him moving forward? At 32, he certainly has a lot to look forward to, once he shakes off the sting of a very disappointing loss to Thiem in Paris.
It might not be so easy…
Truth is, it was a weird finish for Djokovic at Roland Garros, especially given how spectacularly efficient he was through the first five rounds (he got through them in under nine hours, a clear sign of laser-sharp focus and readiness for the battles to come).
History probably won’t remember the draw at Roland Garros, but Djokovic’s problems in Paris started on the Thursday before the main draw began when he was drawn to face Thiem in the semi-finals. And history likely won’t recall how the rains came on Wednesday and forced Djokovic and Thiem into the unfortunate position of having to play three matches in four days (while the other half of the draw would need to play two in five days) to win the trophy.
Those challenging circumstances made life tricky—physically but also psychologically—for both Djokovic and Thiem, and when their Friday fiasco stretched to Saturday (it was called after four games in the third set in bizarre fashion) things certainly didn’t get any less complicated.
Playing in each of the final four days of a major? Not ideal.
But none of what we’ve just mentioned helps to explain Djokovic’s decision-making in the match, or his inability to reconcile the difficult playing conditions (extreme wind made high-quality tennis a near impossibility) and simply find a way to win in spite of them. Granted, the World No.1 was close, and he showed resiliency. Djokovic didn’t quit on the match and on Saturday when the held over semi-final resumed, he took the fourth set to force a decider. In the decider Djokovic battled back from a break down twice and had things level at 5-all.
Opportunities were there for Djokovic to raise his game and show us why it was his destiny to take his place in the final with Nadal.
But the necessary level of conviction, sadly, was not. Djokovic could not find peace in his head during his battle with Thiem and it held him back. As a tennis player and a tactician, he was diluted by his own frustration with the conditions. There would be no higher level, no next gear on Friday or Saturday for Djokovic. Just a level of impatience that proved too difficult to overcome.
The real moral of the story is this: Thiem won not only because he is a better wind player (he is), but because he accepted the conditions and the challenge that they presented better than Djokovic did. This is the most disappointing element of Djokovic’s failure in this match—he didn’t back himself in this contest the way that he should have and the way that he normally does. With margins as thin as they were last weekend, that minute psychological deficiency likely was the tone that turned the tide in Thiem’s favor.
“Obviously when you're playing in hurricane kind of conditions, you know, it's hard to perform your best,” Djokovic said. “You know, it's really just kind of surviving in these kind of conditions and trying to hold your serve and play, you know, one ball more than your opponent in the court.”
Djokovic’s struggles with conditions also manifested themselves tactically. There was not the usual crisp clarity to his game plan. He was at the net 71 times and didn’t manage to win half of those points (35 to be precise), and yet he continued to push forward. Many times he elected to serve and volley on crucial points, making things easy for Thiem who simply had to execute topspin drives to put the Serb on the defensive.
We must also consider the fact that Djokovic was carrying the additional burden of a 26-match Grand Slam winning streak. As we saw with Naomi Osaka and her 16-match winning streak on the women’s side (it came to a shuttering halt), the pressure has a way of building over time and it can manifest itself on court, creating shards of nerves that can inhibit a player and serve to take him or her down a notch.
We also saw it in 2015, when Serena Williams was a shell of herself in a loss to Roberta Vinci in the U.S. Open semi-finals—she was just two wins from the Calendar Slam at that time.
The good news? If there were excuses to make, Djokovic wasn’t in the mood to make them after falling to Thiem on Saturday. “I don't want to point out some reasons or find excuses for this loss,” he said. “I mean, he took it, he won it, and well done to him.”
All good things must come to an end and an incredible run of success has ended in Paris for Djokovic. He won 26-straight Grand Slam matches and upped his Grand Slam title total to 15 with wins at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open and the Australian Open. He’s firmly established himself as one of the three greatest men to ever play the game and perhaps he’ll eclipse Federer and Nadal when all is said and done.
But for now Novak Djokovic is the one who let one slip away, and in the process given some valuable momentum to Thiem. The Austrian will loom even larger at next year’s Roland Garros having reached consecutive finals and even taken a set from King of Clay Nadal in the final.
What could have been a pivotal match for Djokovic has been just that for Theim. Long thought of as the heir to Rafa's empire in Paris, he now has more reason to believe that he is closer than ever before to making good on his promise.
Full credit to Thiem for making the most of this opportunity in Paris. He has made it extremely difficult for pundits to determine who is the second best ATP player on clay--Djokovic or Thiem? For now, one has to say Thiem.
Because of what has transpired over the last two weeks at Roland Garros, winning in Paris may prove to be that much tougher for Djokovic when 2020 rolls around. There will be scar tissue after coming so close to a crowning achievement and not delivering. But Djokovic has dealt with hardship before. He was written off by many just about a year ago to the day and since then all he has done is win three Slams and finish a season as year-end No.1.
Perhaps this loss, and the self-analysis that will inevitably come with it, will make Djokovic even better as the summer progresses. If that’s the case, the future is bright. But if he wants to win Roland Garros again in the era of Nadal, he’ll have to dig deeper.