1 to go: Novak Djokovic into US Open final, nears year Grand Slam
New York (AP): If Novak Djokovic does complete the first calendar-year Grand Slam for a man since 1969 and he is headed to the U.S. Open final, just one victory away he, and everyone else, will remember one particularly pivotal, and epic, game along the way.
It came at the conclusion of the third set of what eventually became a 4-6, 6-2, 6-4, 4-6, 6-2 victory over Tokyo Olympics gold medalist Alexander Zverev in the semifinals at Flushing Meadows on Friday night, making Djokovic 27-0 in major championships this season.
The game featured one extended exchange after another, including a 53-shot, minute-plus point that was the longest of the tournament and actually was lost by Djokovic on a forehand winner by Zverev, who hunched over with his hands on his knees as most of Arthur Ashe Stadium's 21,139 spectators rose in unison on a cool, crisp evening.
But that one outcome didn't matter. Never seems to with Djokovic, especially in best-of-five-set matches on his sport's most prestigious stages. As usual, he used his superb returning and never-take-a-rest defense to wear down Zverev.
So, yes, Djokovic lost that point which was preceded by others lasting 13, 19, 22 and 31 shots, and followed by one that went 16 but he won that game, and that set with it.
Just as he had lost the first set about 1 1/2 hours earlier but turned things around, with the help of a dip in level from the fourth-seeded Zverev. And just as, later, Djokovic lost the fourth set but immediately rebounded and was nearly untouchable while going ahead 5-0 in the fifth then held on.
Djokovic, who has spent more weeks at No. 1 in the ATP rankings than anyone, figures out what is required to emerge on top and does it. In each of his past four matches and 10 in all at the Slams this year he trailed by a set and won.
Beating No. 2 Daniil Medvedev on Sunday will allow Djokovic to secure two significant milestones. He would add the 2021 U.S. Open trophy to those he won at the Australian Open in February, French Open in June and Wimbledon in July. And the 34-year-old from Serbia would collect his 21st Slam title in all, breaking the men's career mark he currently shares with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.
He also equaled Federer on Friday by getting to a 31st career Slam final; Djokovic's total now includes a record nine in New York, where he has won three championships.
It will be Slam final No. 3 for Medvedev, a 25-year-old from Russia, who eliminated 12th-seeded Felix Auger-Aliassime of Canada 6-4, 7-5, 6-2 in the afternoon. Medvedev was defeated by Djokovic in this year's Australian Open final and by Nadal in the 2019 U.S. Open final.
The more you lose something, the more you want to win it. The more you want to gain it and take it, said Medvedev, who has lost only one set over the past two weeks.
I lost two finals. I want to win the third one.
Djokovic is trying to go 4 for 4 at the majors over the course of one season, something last done in men's tennis by Rod Laver 52 years ago. It was also done by Laver in 1962 and Don Budge in 1938. Three women have completed what's known as a true Grand Slam, most recently Steffi Graf in 1988. Serena Williams' attempt in 2015 ended at the U.S. Open with a semifinal loss to Roberta Vinci.
As Friday night's semifinal began, the 81-year-old Laver literally was looking over Djokovic's shoulder, seated front and center behind a baseline in the President's Box at Ashe.
A year ago in New York, when fans were banned because of the coronavirus pandemic, Zverev came oh-so-close to collecting his first major, taking a two-set lead and getting two points away from the championship before frittering it all away and losing to Dominic Thiem in a fifth-set tiebreaker.
Zverev came into Friday on a 16-match winning streak, a run that includes beating Djokovic in the Summer Games semifinals on July 30. That was in a best-of-three-sets format, though, which changes everything when it comes to Djokovic. He is now 36-10 in matches that go five sets.
Here's the thing about Djokovic, who occasionally rubbed his lower back with his left hand or hit his legs with his racket: Whatever the outward signs seem to say, his racket stays steady, he never stresses and he waits for the other guy to slip.
This time that was Zverev.
Things really came alive six games and 20 minutes in, thanks to a terrific 24-stroke point in which Djokovic tried a drop shot. Zverev got to it, replied at a seemingly impossible angle and after Djokovic sprinted wide of the doubles alley and stretched to retrieve that, sneakers squeaking all the way came up with a winner.
The crowd went wild. Zverev raised his right hand and wagged his fingers: Louder! Ten minutes later, three missed forehands and a double-fault by Djokovic put him in a 5-4 hole. Zverev, a 24-year-old from Germany with a game built on power, served out that set with the help of aces at 128 mph and 132 mph, and, on the last point, a serve at 128 mph that Djokovic shanked off his frame, sending the ball into the seats.
Zverev went from six unforced errors in that set to 13 in the second, and the match was even. In the third, some loose play by Djokovic, and a backhand passing winner by Zverev, created a pair of break points. But Djokovic saved them and held to 3-2 with a forehand that clipped the baseline.
Zverev put a hand on his hip, disagreeing that the ball was in, but there is no recourse at the U.S. Open this year: All rulings come via electronic line-calling and can't be disputed. There are no line judges to doubt or to argue with.
Last year, there were, and Djokovic was disqualified from Flushing Meadows in the fourth round when a ball he hit after losing a game inadvertently struck a line judge in the throat. At the following major tournament, the pandemic-delayed French Open, Djokovic lost in the final to Nadal.
Since then, there have been deficits in Grand Slam matches for Djokovic, but no defeats.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
