When Novak Djokovic won the Olympic Gold Medal in Paris, he declared it was “his greatest achievement in tennis.” Not an idle claim from someone who has won 24 Grand Slam titles, more Men’s Masters 1000 titles than anyone and has spent most weeks ranked as the world’s No.1 male player.
As the US Open begins its final week, Djokovic must find solace in this observation. Once again, he has been denied a record 25th Grand Slam title. For Djokovic, his exit came at a remarkably early stage of the tournament. A day after the defending Men’s Champion, Carlos Alcaraz, was upset in the second round by Dutchman Botic van de Zandschlup, Djokovic lost in the third round to Australia’s Alexei Popyrin.
For Popyrin, it was a case of third time lucky. At this year’s Australian Open and Wimbledon, Popyrin had taken a set off Djokovic and had unsettled the supreme Serb. In New York, Popyrin limited Djokovic to one set. His four set victory has taken Popyrin to the fourth round of a Grand Slam tournament for the first time. For Djokovic it was the first time he had lost in the third round at New York since 2005. His conqueror then? Another Australian- Lleyton Hewitt.
There are 63 days until America’s Presidential election. Super Tuesday seems an eternity ago. Remarkably, this Saturday is the fortieth anniversary of tennis’ ‘Super Saturday’, arguably the most compelling day of play in Grand Slam tennis history. Starting at 11.00 a.m. and finishing 12 hours later, the tennis titans of the day battled like never before. Flushing Meadow became a forum for history. First, Ivan Lendl took five sets to subdue Australia’s precocious Pat Cash in a Men’s semi-final who would have his revenge in the 1987 Wimbledon final. Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert-Lloyd then competed for the Women’s championship in what was their 61st match. Navratilova prevailed 4-6 6-4 6-4 to eke out a 31-30 lead in their rivalry.
Finally in a battle of the southpaws, John McEnroe took five sets to defeat Jimmy Connors in their semi-final. It was sport at its finest: enthralling, excellent and, ultimately, historic.
Of course, thanks to George Orwell*, 1984 was always to be a notable year. His futuristic novel written in 1948 predicted a political superstructure where the liberties of individuals would be destroyed by the intrusions of an all-powerful State.
Little did he know! 1984 was a year when Western politics was dominated by conservative governments and political figures that sought to wind back the role of the State. Margaret Thatcher, still rejoicing after reclaiming the Falkland Islands for Britain was busy selling State owned industries and making the word ‘privatisation’ part of the vocabulary. Her conservative counterpart in Washington, Ronald Reagan, practised supply side economics and preached against the perils of an interventionist State. Together they mounted a stern resistance to the Soviet State. They were aided in their championing of political liberty by the Polish Pope, John Paul II, who expressed his solidarity with the Polish labour movement of the same name that sought greater freedom.
Even left wing governments were embracing the dilution of government control and regulation. Labour governments in New Zealand and Australia deregulated exchange rates, slashed tariffs, reduced protectionism, slashed government spending and lowered the highest marginal tax rates.
These were profound policies and decisions. They raised a social racket and changed how we lived. Governments’ policy focus was on the whole of society. Today, too many governments seem paralysed and unwilling to discuss important policy questions. By either seeking not to offend, or cobble support from a variety of noisy and indignant groups, policy outcomes have become either flawed or non-existent.
Forty years on and one despairs at the lack of depth in the actions and policies of contemporary governments. The US Presidential race has become a hyperbolic showdown with wild promises being made by both candidates without any indication of what policies will achieve their goals.
In Australia, a country beset with persistent inflation and declining productivity, the government’s recent priority has been to reinstate a question in the next census about sexual identity. Meanwhile the Treasurer whose increased government spending has created inflationary pressures has spent even more money compensating citizens for the inflationary effects of the government’s energy policies which have reduced its supply and increased its cost. If ever there was a chimera, the energy rebate is it.
The wish to “throw more money” at a problem is an insidious policy direction. It is seen in Australia in reaction to concerns about declining educational standards and a growing shortage of teachers.
Education is a critical staple in our society. The positive correlations between an educated and prosperous society are too many and obvious to mention.
Bread, the Biblical staple of life has simple ingredients: yeast, flour, water and salt. The elements needed to produce the next generation of teachers are equally simple: knowledgeable graduates, productive and content rich curricula, and a renewed cultural focus on the importance of disciplined and effective lessons within schools. For too long these foundations have been weakened by ideologically driven curricula, schools becoming pre-occupied with endless and dubious social causes, a dilution of academic and classroom discipline, and universities producing graduates without either the knowledge or competence to effect powerful learning. No amount of money will overcome these deficiencies.
The greatest tennis players have never needed more money offered to them to achieve their goals. They practise, practise and practise some more their skills and the money and titles follow. In the same way people who take care for their health do not need money as an incentive to maintain fitness. To paraphrase President Truman, “we need to stop throwing the bucks.” The quality of the teachers we wish to have will reflect the personal and intellectual qualities we are willing to insist on and uphold.
In England, the new Labour government appears to be more preoccupied about whether to introduce an outdoor smoking ban at pubs than restructuring an economically enfeebled and socially divided nation.
Back to Flushing Meadow. Australia can look forward to at least one quarter-finalist as Alex de Minaur will play compatriot Jordan Thompson in the fourth round. Thompson upset seventh seed Hubert Hurkacz in the second round. The winner of that match will have a good chance of reaching the semi-finals against the winner of a likely quarter-final between Sinner and Medvedev.
Sinner entered the tournament under a cloud of controversy, having been exonerated for his use of a potentially performance enhancing steroid in March on two occasions . In the contemporary zeitgeist of a vengeful rush to judgement which sees the presumption of innocence annihilated, Sinner is now damaged goods in the eyes of many. The Tik-Tok commentariat do not seem to wish to take time to read the findings of the official investigation.
If Popyrin can overcome the popular and pugnacious Frances Tiafoe in his fourth round match, he will play the determined Grigor Dimitrov who proved his age, 33, and experience could triumph over youth by beating the rambunctious Rublev, 26, in five sets in their fourth round match.
In the Women’s draw, the seeds are starting to scatter to the winds. A repeat of last year’s final between Sabalenka (2) and Gauff (3) seemed likely in a semi-final; however, Gauff, the defending champion, who has been the darling of the parochial fans could not overcome fellow American, Emma Navarro, in their fourth round match.
On the other side of the draw a repeat of the French Open final- Swiatek (1) vs Paolini (5) -seems likely. Swiatek is seeking her sixth Grand Slam title and her second US Open. After being runner up at Paris and Wimbledon, Paolini is seeking her breakthrough maiden Grand Slam title.
Outside of the tennis courts, one senses that Western democracies are increasingly struggling to convince their citizens of their importance and purpose. The West, for so long the liberating, emancipating and prosperous engine of individual freedoms, is struggling to hold its metaphorical serve and its literal nerve. It is supremely ironic that Keir Starmer’s current tagline is “Fixing the Foundations.”
And it's not just a nation's budgetary structural deficits in need of repair, but rather the consensus of the worth of representative government itself.
*Orwell’s reputation as one of the supreme writers and thinkers of the twentieth century is unquestionable. In an age where the personal is the political, his reputation, however, is unlikely to be enhanced by the observations of Anna Funder in her book, Wifedom. Using letters from Orwell’s first wife as her reference, she paints a picture of an insensitive, uncaring and oppressive husband who enslaved his erudite wife to a grim, penurious existence that debilitated her both physically and mentally.
And another thing! 'Aptronym'- I discovered this charming word recently: it means “a person's name that is regarded as amusingly appropriate to their occupation.” I might have the winner for 2024. On a trip to Noosa, Queensland, I discovered the town’s eponymous real estate agency of choice is called “Offermann.”
Comments