Two days ago, after Djokovic routed Federer at the Australian Open 2008 semi-finals, I wrote in my blog that "...we'd go for a Djokovic win on Sunday."  When my compatriot Greg commented his agreement to that blog, I replied, "My fearless forecast is Djokovic in four sets."

So, less than an hour ago, World No. 3 Novak Djokovic, 20 (right, photo below), won over the unseeded French Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, 22 (left, photo below), at the Australian Open 2008 Men's Tennis Finals, in four sets. My prophesy was correct. That was Djokovic's first Grand Slam and the youngest winner since Stefan Edberg. (A day earlier, I predicted that Maria Sharapova will win. She did.)

I am a prophet.

Or maybe I just read the games and the players too well that I correctly identified both winners, and more accurately the number of sets when Djokovic would topple Tsonga. Whew. I am scared at the accuracy. (I already knew my knack for predictions. Happened quite a few times in the past.)

The Championships fought earlier was the best game I have ever seen since Wimbledon 2002. It had the ferocity of a Sampras and the consistency on an Agassi. Both guys were tireless and ran after each ball like Nadal does.

Anyway, back to the tennis winners. Everybody is already saying that new names for champions have already emerged. Djokovic already had his first Grand Slam. Tsonga would surely hold his Grand Slam trophy very soon. Both guys, Tsonga and Djokovic would be the face of tennis in the many years to come. I give it to the guys; fierce on court, but very polite to each other on the winners' stand during the awarding ceremonies. Both young but yet already possessing the virtue and decorum befitting true champions. It would also be interesting to watch out for Roland Garros (the next Grand Slam, in France) where Tsonga would try to ride on the home court advantage and slug the trophy from three time consecutive champion Rafael Nadal to win his first Grand Slam. And of course, Djokovic will be there to give Roland Garros a very good show.

(Btw, Tsonga was born in France to a French mother and a black father from Congo. Both parents are now teachers at the Le Mans region of France.)

But I think the biggest winner in today's Finals was Adidas. Both Djokovic and Tsonga were outfitted and sponsored by Adidas. I am sure Nike was gnawing its cuticles to bleed with the marketing smarts of Adidas. Just look at the two guys' shirts on their photo above, the Adidas logo is smiling its way happily to the bank.

The officials at the Australian Open said and I agree that the hands of tennis are now in good hands. I am happy now.

And as my another tennis textmate Daisy from Iloilo said, she almost got constipated watching the game earlier, her first tight feeling for a game after Sampras retired. She said that she would have reasons to watch and cheer the ATP and Grand Slam matches to come.

How do you solve the problem like Maria?

The answer came in Melbourne, Australia - January 26, 2008 (that's this afternoon). Maria Sharapova of Russia (right, photo below) pose with her Australian Open 2008 Women's Champion trophy, and Ana  Ivanovic of Serbia, runner-up, holding her plate after the Women's Final match of the Australian Open 2008 at Melbourne Park. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)



Our predictions were proven correct. Maria Sharapova won. It's her third Grand Slam win (1st was in Wimbledone in 2004 when she was 17; then the US Open in 2006 when she was 19; and this Australian Open win at age 20.)

This third Grand Slam win by Sharapova at age 20, (and Ana Ivanovic also 20) proved that tennis champs redefine the meaning of "old" and "retirable". When office workers retire at age 65, tennis could retire a player at a tender age of 25 (to 28). Even the Williams sisters, Venus, 27 and Serena, 26; Martina Hingis, 27, who once ruled the Grand Slams alternately, looked like they are old compared to the new surge of tennis talents. (But Hingis did drugs, so her retirement is justified.) Former champions Lindsay Davenport and Jennifer Capriati who are both 31, are already retired. Tsk tsk tsk.

Another good thing that surprised me in this Rod Laver Grand Slam is it being called the Grand Slam of Asia and the Pacific. In a fitting occasion, Live telecasts were done in Sydney and Shanghai via huge screens in the cities' city centers. The citizens in these cities were acknowledged during the winners' presentation and beamed Live to the audience in Melbourne. I still have to find out which other major cities in the Asia/Pacific region had Live feeds on the Championships. This is one brilliant stroke. So the ever impassioned Asian tennis nit and buff that I am was happy at this touch of geographical association.

Finally, a renaissance in tennis has already happened. The world saw the rise of No. 3 Novak Djokovic of Serbia as he defeated the invincible No. 1 Roger Federer in straight sets, 7-5, 6-3, 7-6 (5) in the Australian Open semifinals early tonight. The game was spectacular as both men exchanged superb volleys and serves. But it was the 20-year old Novak who proved to be the better player when he outplayed the 26-year old Federer who was reduced to seem old. Novak knew that today, he was the better player. (Photo below is Djokovic's parents and brothers sporting N-O-L-E shirts, cheering him on.)

It was doubly fantastic for me as I have been rallying about the issue of the game when I wrote yesterday and I write again that "...the issue I am concerned about is the monotony of the fact that it is always Federer who wins. If this continues, what challenge and excitement are left to watch on the Grand Slams?"

"Predictability is surely not the ingredient that tennis lovers would want to see. We want challenge. We want excitement. We want surprise. And Roger Federer needs other players to make these much needed sporting ingredients. If his surge continues, then the game that we love so much will be boring. And boring is a sure route to the demise and gasp, extinction of this game."

I waited FIVE LONG YEARS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. And it did happen today.

My soothsaying proved me correct when I said yesterday that "At the start of this Grand Slam, I was hopeful that Rafael Nadal or the Serb Novak Djokovic to give Federer a good beating."

Federer, who is one win shy of Pete Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slams, had been in the last ten Grand Slam Finals, winning seven and losing to Rafael Nadal in the last three consecutive French Open at Roland Garros. This afternoon, everybody who breath and live tennis saw that Federer is after all mortal.

In fairness to the highly heralded Federer, he had always been a good sport and a gentleman. He never curses, rarely loses his cool and does not fight with the umpires. However, due to his incessant winning, I challenged the idea that if he continues to do so, the luster of the game will dissipate and turn boring.

So come Sunday, the world will usher the new superpowers led by Novak and the 22-year old French Jo-Wilfried Tsonga at the Australian Open Finals. Tsonga likewise proved his mighty worth when he beat No. 2 Rafael Nadal in the other semifinals.

After the Djokovic-Federer match, I had conversations with some tennis buffs and we agree that we'd go for a Djokovic win on Sunday. Though Tsonga shows more strength, but Djokovic's  consistency at the baseline and his serves might do him good over the French.

Anyway,  Sunday's Finals could only be good for tennis as finally, we already have a new era of very young guns ready and able to make breathtaking games. Hopefully, we would see the end of a Federer dominance and see the emergence of young guns led by Djokovic and Tsonga to join Nadal, the American James Blake, the British Andy Murray, the Argentine David Nalbandian, the Cypriot Marcos Baghdatis, and perhaps hope for the resurgence of the Russian Marat Safin.

With this spectacular group, we can now witness the re-engineering of tennis and see great games reminiscent of the days when Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Patrick Rafter and Jim Courier alternately ruled the various surfaces of the four Grand Slams.

May I be correct in these assumptions.

----

Wait, the last photo above are the sisters Alona Bondarenko, right, and Kateryna Bondarenko of Ukraine who beat Victoria Azarenka of Belarus and Shahar Peer of Israel in the Final of the Women's doubles at the Australian Open tennis championships in Melbourne, Australia, Friday, Jan. 25, 2008. Look at them closely. (haha I'm such a prick.)

Something monumental is happening in the world of tennis. It is unflolding at the Australian Open 2008 now being played in Melbourne.

FIRST, the French Jo-Wilfried Tsonga beat World Number 2, the Spaniard Rafael Nadal, earlier in their semi-final match. In straight sets. What makes this news amazing is that Tsonga, in defeating the ever strong Nadal, showed an even greater power and grit. What makes this sweet is that finally, tennis fanatics have seen someone with a shining hope who can defeat the undefeated Roger Federer, the Swiss. At the start of this Grand Slam, I was hopeful that Nadal or the Serb Novak Djokovic to give Federer a good beating.

I am harping on this issue since for the past few years, we have seen nothing but Federer holding the Champion's tropy in Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open. (Nadal is the defending Champion at Roland Garros for three years now.) This scenario is of course excellent for Federer who is out to topple all existing records held by the legends past. This is good for one man and the history books, yes. But, the issue I am concerned about is the monotony of the fact that it is always Federer who wins. If this continues, what challenge and excitement are left to watch on the Grand Slams?

Predictability is surely not the ingredient that tennis lovers would want to see. We want challenge. We want excitement. We want surprise. And Roger Federer needs other players to make these much needed sporting ingredients. If his surge continues, then the game that we love so much will be boring. And boring is a sure route to the demise and gasp, extinction of this game.

And besides, I know that Federer is not greedy enough to just hold the winner's trophy via mediocre competitors. Federer would want his wins to be hard fought from the most worthy opponent who also posseses the true make of a great champion and not from someone with so-so abilities. Hey, Nadal could make with other compatriots in court with the likes of Djokovic and now Tsonga, who would once again bring the spark and spunk to the game.

For example, during the time of Pete Sampras, we knew that his wins were well deserved by battling giants with the likes of Andre Agassi, Patrick Rafter, Goran Ivanišević, Jim Courier and Boris Becker. There were lots of them who displayed the true grit of real tennis champions. So each of Pete Sampras' win was well deserved.

So now, who do we hear? If it's not at Nadal's Roland Garros, it's all Federer who we keep on hearing. So with the advent of Tsonga's emergence and Djokovic's staying power, perhaps, we could see a new dawn of great tennis played at the Grand Slams.

In hoping for a winner other than Federer, I will put my hopes on Tsonga, basing on his handling of Nadal's defeat earlier in Melbourne. Tsonga was powerful at the baseline and his volleys matched Nadal's superb shots. Even his athleticism matched Nadal's who always ran after every ball. But we still have to wait for the other semi-finals tomorrow between Federer and the Serb Djokovic. If Djokovic won't prevail, then we would witness a Federer-Tsonga Finals. And I would cast my lot with Tsonga. If he wins, then he will be the first French to win the Australian Open since 1928. Whew, 1928 was a looooong time ago.

SECOND, the Serbians are sponsoring a revolution in tennis as seen at the Australian Open. And this is spearheaded by the Serbs. (Serbia is a break-away province of the former Yugoslavia, that already gained independence in 2006.)

I already mentioned Novak Djokovic as a Serb who is now on the semi-finals in Melbourne. But he is not the only Serb to attain such dominion and fame. The women have even more combatants there now. First is Jelena Jankovic who beat Serena Williams in straight sets on their quarter final match. Then came Ana Ivanovic (left photo), who beat Venus Williams in the other quarter finals also in straight sets. And we thought that the Williams sisters were invincible. However, Jankovic was beaten by the Russian Maria Sharapova in straight sets at this morning's semi-final match. (Sharapova handily beat World Number 1 Justine Henin 6-4,6-0 in their quarter final match the other day.)

This morning, I also watched the semi final match of Ivanovic versus the other Serb Daniela Hantuchova. (Erratum: Daniel Hantuchova is Slovak not Serb. Thanks to Karen for this correction.) I thought Hantuchova would beat Ivanovic. But I was dead wrong. Ivanovic trailed Hantuchova 4-6, 0-2 and then made a magnificent come back in beating Hantuchova in three sets. She gave Hantuchova a tough game that left the audience at Rod Laver in frenzy. I was amazed. If Ivanovic would maintain her momentum, then by all means would she be a match to Sharapova (photo below) on Saturday's Finals.

So we saw three Serbian ladies in the semi-finals of the Australian Open. That was unprecedented from a newly independent nation whose population is only a little over 10 million, which is even lesser than Metro Manila. So this is the second best news I have in tennis. And who do we have from the Philippines in the top 100 in women's tennis? Nada. Not even in the top 500! That is crazy.

The current ranking of world's women's tennis (WTA) have Russians, Serbs and other Eastern European nations in the top 10. Gone are the days when American women dominate the top ten. Only a sprinkling of American women are left, with the likes of the Williamses. Even men's tennis have a dismal representation from the US which dominated the top ten in previous years.

The emergence of Eastern Europeans in world tennis, especially in the WTA (women's) might probably be because of the women's need to liberate themselves from the bondage of poverty and war. For years, we witnessed how Eastern Europe had been plagued with war, political upheavals and poverty. This might be the signal in which the women are empowering themselves to be known throughout the world that hey, they also have strength, power and ability to make it big in the world stage. (Martina Navratilova did this. When she was winning for Czechoslovakia, she deflected to the US and opted to play for USA, to escape gender repression (she was open about her sexuality), political persecution and poverty, which caused the ire of the Czech government.)

Serena Williams made a remark last year in Wimbledon that amused me. She said she "surprised to see a hundred of Russian and Eastern European women with surnames ending in -ova and -ic to be in the top ten". Williams further remarked that those WTA tours they weren't entered or didn't win had winners with such surnames. That is already the reality.

I am writing about this sport with such a passion because I believe that this is one sport that does not require height in order to win. And that is where we Filipinos could stand a chance. But sadly, our government is not doing anything to promote and support this sport. We Filipinos are agile and fast-runners and ergo, we could do well in this sport.

And besides, I enjoy watching competitive sport that engages countries. I treat it as a spectator watching a war. Hey, if anyone watched the stands in these games, we see nationals of  the athlete's countries shouting their chants hoarse. I love watching that.
 
So for Saturday, the Russian Sharapova (in right photo) averted a history-setting All-Serbian Australian Open Women's Final by beating Jankovic. On the other hand, the other semi-finals with both Serbs had Ivanovic emerging the winner. Between Sharapova and Ivanovic, I would root for Sharapova. In being pretty and statuesque, both girls are stand-out. But in ability and new found confidence, I'd bet for Sharapova.

We'd know on Saturday if my sooth-saying will prove correct.

It is Wimbledon season once again and I dread to see these two weeks end like how it had been ending four years in a row: Federer winning it with neither a bang or a whimper. Just plain old-fashioned winning. Federer's consistency is boring. Not because he does not play great, becuase he does, but due to lack of consistent fierce threat on grass. 

Ho-hum.

As of this writing, the Live game is between Andy Roddick and the Thai Danai Udomchoke. If the Thai is any sterner like his compatriot at the greens, Tiger, I'd be rooting for him, I being Asian and a fan of any rising Asian athlete. But since I know that he's just one fodder, for the current greats like Roddick to reach the latter matches, I'd rather root for Roddick - for very good measure: I want Roddick to provide that grass master Federer some consistent competition. And so do I want the Spaniard Nadal and the Russian Safin to give the same. Phillippousis, the other big-serving figure at the current tour would not be a shoo-in to give this Federer the much needed threat. Where is he, anyway?

Sure, if  Federer wins this year, he will match Bjorn Borg's record five consecutive titles in Wimbledon and would catch up to Sampras' record seven wins on the same Club.

But there is a court of difference in the wins of Federer compared to the wins of Sampras and Borg. The two latter champions had very consistent threats to their crowns. Borg had Nastase, Connors & McEnroe. Sampras had The Goran Ivanisevic, Courier, Becker, Agassi and Rafter. These competitors had given either Sampras and Borg hard times in other surfaces and had one their own Grand Slams too.

And who does Federer have? Philippoussis, Roddick and Nadal.

Now I am not saying that Philippoussis, Roddick and Nadal are weenies. They have their share of winning Grand Slams, well, except for the inconsistent and the injury-hounded Phillippousis who could be the next greatest tennis player not to have won any Grand Slam, if he isn't already. It's just that Roddick is also playing inconsistently after winning his only Grand Slam title in Flushing Meadows. But with Jimmy Connors as new coach, he is expected to show some fierce consistency to beat Federer.

And Nadal? For those who just came back from Eris, he is just trying his sprints and volleys in surfaces other than Roland Garros' clay where he lords it over Federer in lifetime matches. Nadal was runner-up to Federer last year in Wimbledon after his first finals there. So Nadal is expected to wind up standing in the other half of the draw in this year's Wimbledon to have a rematch of last year's finals, and hopefully Nadal to show some fierce Federer-beatings to provide the world with some gruesome matches in grass we deserve to see.

Another possible Federer-slayer is Marat Safin, who equals Federer in volleys but even better in serves, but I don't the hey know what's keeping Safin for keeping consistency in making winners instead of unforced errors to finally win matches over Federer. Ah yes, Federer is way too consistent. But Safin is still expected to give Federer some beatings.

Like millions of fans worldwide, I too have my two-cent's worth of acidic issues to tackle. I fiercely want to see some spectacular action from other players other than Federer to give Wimbledon a much needed fire lest it falls down into boredom and ignominy.

Again, this is not to say that I am pulling down Roger Federer. No. What I want is for the other players to give him great tennis so his wins would be worth it. A lot of people, including myself say that Federer's win is like a walk in the park for lack of better opponents. Or worse, that Federer's budding legend is undeserved. This is my point in saying that his wins is nowhere near like the wins of the two other Wimbledon legends Sampras and Borg. I want Federer to really deserve his wins and to really be considered a true Wimbledon legend.

The last truly legendary match ever fought in Wimbledon was in 2001 when Goran Ivanisevic won over Patrick Rafter in the greatest five-sets I have ever seen in Wimbledon.

The finals, years after that were a ho-hum.

I know that there are millions of other nuts like me around the world who have this simultaneous desire and grunt to let either Nadal or Roddick or Safin give a good fight this year so that if ever Federer wins, it will be truly deserved. I know that our collective desires and grunts will cross oceans to reach those who are concerned and possible propel either Nadal, Roddick or Safin to win over Federer. By God, we need a real classic match to be considered truly legendary. We are so hungry for that. This way, there is some real battle before this Wimbledon ends and something to look forward to when the US Open comes and beyond.