US Open 2012: Heralding a New Set of Competitiveness

As important as the two Masters tournaments preceding the US Open are, they are also primetime indicators of partisanship towards a certain set of players going into the last slam. As platitudinous favourites, not only do these players become highly discussed specimens of tennisdom for a fortnight, but counteractively, their performances await critiques as if under the clichéd Sword of Damocles.

This year combined with Rafa’s withdrawal and Roger’s regaining of the world no. 1 crown, Murray’s Wimbledon success – both at the slam and at the Olympics – and Nole’s not-so-replicating-performance have really put an onus – and not an unpleasing one – on the whole US Open paradigm. But do the players themselves determine the thrill that the slam provides? Definitely they do. For without them, who would we watch, admire and ogle at? But in the broader sense, maybe they don’t. Because, while players and entrants may change over courses of time, the tangibility of the slam by in itself remains intact and inerasable.

And it’s this blend of the tangibility along with the presence of players that makes prioritising a slam event indispensable, with the US Open being no different. As the final slam of the tennis season, US Open adds its own allure to the tennis world and as different as it is from the other slams, it’s in this difference that its uniqueness lies. Effervescent, justifying the acronym that the city proudly holds, the US Open is all about transition. Not in terms of the playing surface, but in terms of the individualistic attributes pinned to it.

All slams have certain attributions added on. More than adjectives and denoted sub-consciously, these attributes over the years become a major identifying and associative factor reflecting our perceptions, descriptions and imagery about the slams. And since no two slam attributions are similar, each slam event thus gets further distinguished and distinctive from another.

In case of the US Open, the transition is that of a playing arena regarded to be imperial to one that’s viewed as laidback and casual. Yet even as the transition is effected, the name of the podium and the title is changed, the event’s significance and implication doesn’t alter at all; as doesn’t diminish the intensity of the competitiveness. Attempts to equal and break records are as loud and strident as they were in the previous three events, just like competing and surviving to the next rounds is difficult as in the previous three slams. Though contrarily, the fact that US Open is a season finale somehow becomes a much more concentrated catalyst to motivate the players to push their limits.

And this brightly feverish atmosphere generated by the slam gets transferred from the professionals to the fans by default. Late night encounters turning into awkward early morning matches don’t make a dent on otherwise rigidly held personal lives, just as sleep doesn’t become an excuse for not wanting to view matches throughout the course of an exciting fortnight. Time, which before the event seems to drag slowly, becomes a blur as soon as the event starts. And looking at this frenzy spread across perhaps wouldn’t be wrong to call the tournament the perfect finish to an already exciting season – as corny as it sounds.