2020 Australian Open Thread

[robed deity]

It's a hard argument to make in my opinion. Remember that Rafa beat him at Wimbledon in his prime and Roger never really came close to Rafa at Roland Garros, though he did manage to win a set against him several times. Thought experiment: how many majors would each have won if one of the hard court majors had been played on clay instead of hard? Nadal's dominance on clay over a 15 year span is incredible. And you have to add that Nadal now has 4 US Open titles to Federer's 5, so it's not like he can't win on the hard courts. Federer may have been more "stylish" though. You are right of course that there will never be an answer we could all accept.

A similar argument can be made for Fed on grass, though. If there were another major on grass, don't you think Fed would have another handful? (And that's not even discussing the amount of master's tournaments on grass vs clay, though I realize Slams are what count the most)

[howardlander]

A similar argument can be made for Fed on grass, though. If there were another major on grass, don't you think Fed would have another handful? (And that's not even discussing the amount of master's tournaments on grass vs clay, though I realize Slams are what count the most)

Agreed, but I've always thought of hard courts and grass courts as more similar because of the dominance of the serve. So from my point of view, three of the four majors are played on surfaces that suit Federer's game already. Also remember that Fed won 8 times at Wimbledon, 5 times in New York and 6 times in Australia. Change the US open to grass, and his total goes to 23. Change New York to clay and Nadal's total goes to 27. Change Australia to clay and Nadal's total goes to 30...

I'll show my bias up front: For years, Wimbledon was to me by far the least interesting major because it became, at some point after the new rackets came in, primarily a serving contest. On clay you actually have to be able to play tennis, not just serve. Classic example is Pete Sampras: a wonderful server and great volleyer who never could get past the Roland Garros semis because his serving was not nearly as important there and he simply didn't have the goods when it came to ground strokes and point construction. BTW, I think the people running Wimbledon agreed with me, because they've gone out of their way to de-emphasize the serve with heavier balls and slower grass in the last few years, and I think the tournament is much the better for it.

One other thing: someone up thread mentioned that Nadal has only one Australian Open. In the open era, there are zero men's tennis players who have more than one title at each of the 4 majors. Laver does, but his titles were not all in the open era.

Great discussion, no obvious answer. I've enjoyed this era tremendously.

Howard

[Troublemaker]

Agreed, but I've always thought of hard courts and grass courts as more similar because of the dominance of the serve. So from my point of view, three of the four majors are played on surfaces that suit Federer's game already. Also remember that Fed won 8 times at Wimbledon, 5 times in New York and 6 times in Australia. Change the US open to grass, and his total goes to 23. Change New York to clay and Nadal's total goes to 27. Change Australia to clay and Nadal's total goes to 30...

You can normalize between the three surfaces by taking the players' hardcourt slam count and dividing by 2. (That way, each of the 3 surfaces will now have equal weight).

This is what that would look like:

	Clay	Grass	Hard	Total
Federer	1	8	5.5	14.5
Nadal	12	2	2.5	16.5
Djokovic	1	5	5	11

* could soon become 5.5


So, this is by far Nadal's best argument since he is now ahead in the modified totals. It's basically, "It's not my fault that I am more dominant on my best surface than you are on your best surface."

Still, for me, 2 on grass and 2.5 on hard is just not enough for Nadal. It's sort of like the Superstar vs All-Star distinction in the NBA. Roger and Novak are Superstars on Grass and Hard while Rafa is a mere All-Star.

I like Fed's spread the best, personally. But I of course have my own biases, namely, Fed's beautiful game.

[Troublemaker]

Agreed, but I've always thought of hard courts and grass courts as more similar because of the dominance of the serve.

Also, forgot to mention, the idea that the serve is dominant on modern hardcourt is nuts. Things have been slowed down to an insane degree, and you never see guys like Isner or Karlovic or Kyrgios making deep runs in the slams. I take it you didn't watch the war of attrition between Rafa and Novak in the 2012 Aussie Open that lasted like 6 hours? :-) Courts are sloooooow.

[robed deity]

While I still feel like Novak will win, I've come around to thinking Thiem can give him a match tomorrow. I've been impressed with his defense and mental strength. Djokovic's A plus game will dominate, but if it's any less, it could get interesting.

On the women's side, you have to be impressed with Kenin. She is such a competitor. I'll take Muguruza here because she's looked great, but I'm not at all confident.

[budwom]

A similar argument can be made for Fed on grass, though. If there were another major on grass, don't you think Fed would have another handful? (And that's not even discussing the amount of master's tournaments on grass vs clay, though I realize Slams are what count the most)

I love the term "Fed on grass," not sure if this is about tennis or beef.

[howardlander]

Also, forgot to mention, the idea that the serve is dominant on modern hardcourt is nuts. Things have been slowed down to an insane degree, and you never see guys like Isner or Karlovic or Kyrgios making deep runs in the slams. I take it you didn't watch the war of attrition between Rafa and Novak in the 2012 Aussie Open that lasted like 6 hours? :-) Courts are sloooooow.

Well, whether or not you agree that the serve is dominant on hard courts or not, I hope you would agree that it is far less important on clay, which is really the point I was trying to make. Clay requires more of the skill of the actual game, not the "special teams" aspect of it.

You are right that none of the serve bots have advanced all that far recently, though Raonic, did make the round of 8 just now. I also agree that the courts and balls have been mercifully slowed down: otherwise we'd see hardly any actual tennis played.

But on to another question: how much chance do you give Thiem against Djokovic in the final? I actually think he has a pretty reasonable chance: he beat him on an indoor hard court surface at the ATP final in London in their last match and their lifetime record is 6 - 4 in favor of Djokovic, so it's not like Thiem shouldn't feel fairly confident. And it's not his first final either, so he does have some experience to draw on.

[robed deity]

Well, whether or not you agree that the serve is dominant on hard courts or not, I hope you would agree that it is far less important on clay, which is really the point I was trying to make. Clay requires more of the skill of the actual game, not the "special teams" aspect of it.

You are right that none of the serve bots have advanced all that far recently, though Raonic, did make the round of 8 just now. I also agree that the courts and balls have been mercifully slowed down: otherwise we'd see hardly any actual tennis played.

But on to another question: how much chance do you give Thiem against Djokovic in the final? I actually think he has a pretty reasonable chance: he beat him on an indoor hard court surface at the ATP final in London in their last match and their lifetime record is 6 - 4 in favor of Djokovic, so it's not like Thiem shouldn't feel fairly confident. And it's not his first final either, so he does have some experience to draw on.

I would have agreed with you through the mid to late 90s about the "serve bots", but personally, I think it's gone too far in the other direction. I like a good backcourt rally but some of these matches are ridiculous because the courts are so slow. Different strokes for different folks, of course. While I appreciated the greatness of the 2012 Djokovic/Nadal final, I also didn't really think it was the most interesting match ever either. And then you have matches like Monfils Simon around that time, and wow. THAT was some boring tennis.

Somewhere in the middle seems right to me, but I'm not sure how to achieve it.

[Reddevil]

I would have agreed with you through the mid to late 90s about the "serve bots", but personally, I think it's gone too far in the other direction. I like a good backcourt rally but some of these matches are ridiculous because the courts are so slow. Different strokes for different folks, of course. While I appreciated the greatness of the 2012 Djokovic/Nadal final, I also didn't really think it was the most interesting match ever either. And then you have matches like Monfils Simon around that time, and wow. THAT was some boring tennis.

Somewhere in the middle seems right to me, but I'm not sure how to achieve it.

Standard sized wooden racquets, shorty shorts, headbands, wristbands, and white Slazenger tennis balls.

[Troublemaker]

Well, whether or not you agree that the serve is dominant on hard courts or not, I hope you would agree that it is far less important on clay, which is really the point I was trying to make. Clay requires more of the skill of the actual game, not the "special teams" aspect of it.

You are right that none of the serve bots have advanced all that far recently, though Raonic, did make the round of 8 just now. I also agree that the courts and balls have been mercifully slowed down: otherwise we'd see hardly any actual tennis played.

But on to another question: how much chance do you give Thiem against Djokovic in the final? I actually think he has a pretty reasonable chance: he beat him on an indoor hard court surface at the ATP final in London in their last match and their lifetime record is 6 - 4 in favor of Djokovic, so it's not like Thiem shouldn't feel fairly confident. And it's not his first final either, so he does have some experience to draw on.

I don't like the "special teams" comparison. Whereas in football the special teams only come onto the field at the end of drives, in tennis, every single point starts out with two shots: serve and return-of-serve. If you're not good at those two shots, you better get good at them, and we should appreciate those players who excel at those two shots. Likewise, I appreciate a nice low slice on a fast court and a perfectly placed volley with touch at the net. I appreciate all the various skills required to play tennis, not just the regular forehand and backhand groundstrokes.

One other thing: for most of the world, playing tennis means playing hardcourt tennis. The real life ratio of hardcourts to clay courts or hardcourts to grass courts is way higher than 2 to 1. Don't get me wrong -- I love the "natural" surfaces, but the required maintenance and upkeep of clay and grass mean there are just more hardcourts out there. Especially if you're American, tennis is hardcourt tennis. All of this is to say that I don't think it's necessarily unfair that 2 of the slams are played on hard.

[Troublemaker]

Novak was clutch in sets 4 and 5 while Thiem sprayed errors all over the place. Gotta be disappointing for Thiem, as he was in control and bullying Djokovic around Wawrinka-style before that. Still, in the big picture, a great result for Thiem.

Novak is now 8-0 in Australian Open finals and has bagged his 17th slam.

[Green Wave Dukie]

Novak was clutch in sets 4 and 5 while Thiem sprayed errors all over the place. Gotta be disappointing for Thiem, as he was in control and bullying Djokovic around Wawrinka-style before that. Still, in the big picture, a great result for Thiem.

Novak is now 8-0 in Australian Open finals and has bagged his 17th slam.

Turned it on this morning at about 2-3 or so in the 4th. About turned it off, felt like I was jinxing Thiem. He lost like 10 of 13 points as soon as I started watching. Was really bad the part of the 4th set I watched. Will say I was impressed he hung in there in the 5th and made it competitive. Think he had a few break points at like 4-3, and won the first point of the last game where Joker served it out. Missed the whole 'Joker had no energy' in the 3rd set. Not sure what that wound up really being all about. Like your 'Prince of Clay' moniker you have bestowed upon Thiem. Feel like he'll win the first French Nadal doesn't, although obviously Novak sure could. Just get sick to my stomach thinking about Fed not being able to close out Wimbledon last July. Djokovic's return game is just so good. Tough to deal with. 8-0 in the Australian finals is just incredible.

[Troublemaker]

Turned it on this morning at about 2-3 or so in the 4th. About turned it off, felt like I was jinxing Thiem. He lost like 10 of 13 points as soon as I started watching. Was really bad the part of the 4th set I watched. Will say I was impressed he hung in there in the 5th and made it competitive. Think he had a few break points at like 4-3, and won the first point of the last game where Joker served it out. Missed the whole 'Joker had no energy' in the 3rd set. Not sure what that wound up really being all about. Like your 'Prince of Clay' moniker you have bestowed upon Thiem. Feel like he'll win the first French Nadal doesn't, although obviously Novak sure could. Just get sick to my stomach thinking about Fed not being able to close out Wimbledon last July. Djokovic's return game is just so good. Tough to deal with. 8-0 in the Australian finals is just incredible.

Yeah, the Wimby loss killed me. I couldn't talk about tennis (here or elsewhere) for weeks, haha.

Interesting stat (I think): Novak has actually made just as many US Open finals but happens to be 3-5 in those finals instead of 8-0 at the Aussie. Now, that could just be statistical randomness but I've always had a pet theory. Unless there's a rainout*, the US Open final is played in the afternoon ~3pm-ish under the sun whereas the Aussie final is played at night. Djokovic is most comfortable in the cool, slow conditions at night whereas on Ashe he has to deal with quicker court and a higher bounce.

* Now that there's a roof on Ashe, there's never a rainout anymore.