Australian Open 2023 F: Novak Djokovic vs. Stefanos Tsitsipas

[TheSicilian]

The ridiculous thing is the tournament director tells the media about a 3cm tear, no confirmation from the athlete with the injury and we get a ton of Novak wins AO with a 3cm hamstring tear, it's easy to see why there is so much fake news about...

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

The ridiculous thing is the tournament director tells the media about a 3cm tear, no confirmation from the athlete with the injury and we get a ton of Novak wins AO with a 3cm hamstring tear, it's easy to see why there is so much fake news about...

Quite frankly I think Craig Tiley should be reprimanded from the AO board for his statement, he had no right as a Tournament Director to state such things., which are not proven, from medical experts in their fields are now saying that a 3cm tear is not possible for a player to play

 

[TheSicilian]

Quite frankly I think Craig Tiley should be reprimanded from the AO board for his statement, he had no right as a Tournament Director to state such things., which are not proven, from medical experts in their fields are now saying that a 3cm tear is not possible for a player to play

It will be embarrassing for him if he got it wrong lol, I bet somewhere the Dr who did the scan is reading these articles thinking

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

It will be embarrassing for him if he got it wrong lol, I bet somewhere the Dr who did the scan is reading these articles thinking

Actually the normal practice when reading a scan, MRI scan is to get another doctor to also look at it, especially if something on a scan doesnt look normal, sometimes the patient in question may have to take another scan for confirmation

 

[Kieran]

Actually the normal practice when reading a scan, MRI scan is to get another doctor to also look at it, especially if something on a scan doesnt look normal, sometimes the patient in question may have to take another scan for confirmation

Here’s the second doctor to look at the scan - OMG! It looks like an overexcited Tiley in disguise!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I suggest Craig Tiley has a look at the TV ratings, if he has the time to do so, inspecting MRI scans, which he has no experience in and had no right to do so.
For the second consecutive year the women's final had 1.43 million viewers Australian wide and the men's final 1.3 million viewers
This is a appalling stat,
ESPN TV ratings for the men's final was the least watched match in a decade?
Over to you Craig

 

[Kieran]

I suggest Craig Tiley has a look at the TV ratings, if he has the time to do so, inspecting MRI scans, which he has no experience in and had no right to do so.
For the second consecutive year the women's final had 1.43 million viewers Australian wide and the men's final 1.3 million viewers
This is a appalling stat,
ESPN TV ratings for the men's final was the least watched match in a decade?
Over to you Craig

Yeah I saw that the ratings were down. It’s an effect of the Big 3 winning all the time and it’ll be interesting to see how the men’s game recovers from this. They’re a hard act to follow but at the same time, they may inspire ambition in young players that makes it crowded at the top, like the eighties. It might be a more competitive sport, and so, with fewer records…

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Yeah I saw that the ratings were down. It’s an effect of the Big 3 winning all the time and it’ll be interesting to see how the men’s game recovers from this. They’re a hard act to follow but at the same time, they may inspire ambition in young players that makes it crowded at the top, like the eighties. It might be a more competitive sport, and so, with fewer records…

We have been spoilt by Federer, Rafa and Novak competing at the same time, it is kind of a transition period and now the youngsters or the new generation have a good chance to step up and starting winning majors etc, players like Alcaraz for example, who has already won a major and Masters, hoping that his injury that forced him out of the AO is fully healed.Maybe the time difference might have had something to do with those ratings from ESPN, still not good at all
May I say the women's final at the AO was far more competitive than the men's final, I really enjoyed it.

 

[Kieran]

We have been spoilt by Federer, Rafa and Novak competing at the same time,

We have and we haven’t. The downside is that tennis has become too predictable. You always know the Big 3 will find a way. For Rafa fans, last years final was a heart stopper but for Djoker fans and Federer fans it was probably just another example of how ineffective the field are in closing the deal. Likewise the FO final in 2021. My brother texted me that Tsitsipas was up 2 sets and I told him, the match hasn’t even started.

I think in a way Sampras created a monster, in the sense that he was ruthless in pursuing records. Pete begat Roger, who begat Rafa and Novak, and the more they won, the more the field cowered before them. The more they won, also, the more they wanted to win. Had Pete gotten a rival rival like Rafa or Novak to keep him awake, I suspect we’d have seen more from him, but he’d reached the limits thought to be possible then, and inspired others to try to go further than he did.

The next couple of decades will be interesting because I think the field might be more fierce against each other, in ways they weren’t, against the Big 3, and so tennis might actually be better, but will it be as popular?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

We have and we haven’t. The downside is that tennis has become too predictable. You always know the Big 3 will find a way. For Rafa fans, last years final was a heart stopper but for Djoker fans and Federer fans it was probably just another example of how ineffective the field are in closing the deal. Likewise the FO final in 2021. My brother texted me that Tsitsipas was up 2 sets and I told him, the match hasn’t even started.

I think in a way Sampras created a monster, in the sense that he was ruthless in pursuing records. Pete begat Roger, who begat Rafa and Novak, and the more they won, the more the field cowered before them. The more they won, also, the more they wanted to win. Had Pete gotten a rival rival like Rafa or Novak to keep him awake, I suspect we’d have seen more from him, but he’d reached the limits thought to be possible then, and inspired others to try to go further than he did.

The next couple of decades will be interesting because I think the field might be more fierce against each other, in ways they weren’t, against the Big 3, and so tennis might actually be better, but will it be as popular?

Agree with your thoughts on Sampras, not having a rival to keep pushing him, I often thought with Borg who was burnt out and retired at age 25, he is my tennis idol, if he did not burn out and continued playing how many GS would he have won? I know I am talking hypothetical still I often think about it.
Keeping with the present, I feel Alzcaraz is a popular young man, I feel fans can relate to him, he plays great tennis, he is well mannered a sponsors dream in ways.The game of tennis is always changing, better in ways, there are soo many sports out there today that fans seem more interested in,in all parts of the world, tennis has to compete with these sports.Will it be as popular? time will tell.

 

[Kieran]

Agree with your thoughts on Sampras, not having a rival to keep pushing him, I often thought with Borg who was burnt out and retired at age 25, he is my tennis idol, if he did not burn out and continued playing how many GS would he have won? I know I am talking hypothetical still I often think about it.
Keeping with the present, I feel Alzcaraz is a popular young man, I feel fans can relate to him, he plays great tennis, he is well mannered a sponsors dream in ways.The game of tennis is always changing, better in ways, there are soo many sports out there today that fans seem more interested in,in all parts of the world, tennis has to compete with these sports.Will it be as popular? time will tell.

If the benchmark in Borg’s time was simply winning slams and non existent events that would later evolve into MS tourneys, he’d have played Australia several times, and he wouldn’t have skipped the FO in 1977, and he’d have broken Emerson’s record easily before his 25th birthday. But it wasn’t the goal, and so he didn’t.

Bjorn Borg was as great as anyone who played tennis, he just didn’t want to continue…

 

[El Dude]

I agree that Borg was as great as anyone, and this is borne out by stuff like Elo - his 2622 peak Elo is second only to Novak's 2629, and one of only two players to surpass 2600 (I'm pretty sure Laver surpassed it in the 1960s, but we don't have the records).

For me the big question within the larger What If story of Borg is whether or not he would have adjusted to McEnroe, who beat him in their last three pro appearances, including two Slams. But I think we can speculate: they were close matches, and in their case I think the invitationals actually have meaning: In 1982-83, McEnroe won 3 of 5, but Borg won their last appearance in 1983. Meaning, Borg still held his own against Mac, and presumably would have held his own on the regular tour.

I do think that like Mac, Borg would have faltered against Lendl and a younger upcoming field in 1985 and beyond, or at least dropped significantly, so what we're mostly missing is 1982-84...just three years. So we can pad his record with hypothetical wins, but not by too much.

Furthermore, Borg was weak on hard courts. So if we're looking at padding his record with Slams, we probably should assume that he would never have won the US Open. But I think he still would have been the favorite at Roland Garros and Wimbledon for those three years, maybe winning 2-4 of the 6...and then we can add an Australian Open for gits and shiggles...so I'm thinking 3-4 Slams added to his total, so 14-15. Just a guess, though.

Or to be more specific, at Roland Garros, I think he would have fought off a 17-year old Wilander in 1982, and prevented Noah from winning his only Slam in 1983. But I think a surging Lendl in 1984 would have taken it, and he would have been done at RG by then. At Wimbledon, I'd give him one of the three in 1982-84. I don't think he'd have gotten past Mac or Connors at the US Open. If he wanted an AO title, he could have had one in the early 80s, but that's true of Mac and Connors, too. So again, 3 at RG/Wimbledon, and maybe 1 AO if he decided on it.

 

[El Dude]

And of course if we re-arranged the Open Era to put as much focus on Slams throughout as we do now, we have to imagine an early 70s in which Laver didn't skip out and/or de-emphasize Slams for other tournaments. Even after his tremendous 1969 season, he was still the best player on tour for another couple years (1970-71) and a top ten players for a few more (1972-75), so I think if he felt the same way about Slams as players do now, he'd have a bunch more. And we'd probably have to add a Slam or two to the counts of Connors and McEnroe, who would have played in Australia...no way guys like Edmondson, Teacher and Kriek (x2) win a Slam if, well, the AO was really a Slam in that era.

 

[Kieran]

I agree that Borg was as great as anyone, and this is borne out by stuff like Elo - his 2622 peak Elo is second only to Novak's 2629, and one of only two players to surpass 2600 (I'm pretty sure Laver surpassed it in the 1960s, but we don't have the records).

For me the big question within the larger What If story of Borg is whether or not he would have adjusted to McEnroe, who beat him in their last three pro appearances, including two Slams. But I think we can speculate: they were close matches, and in their case I think the invitationals actually have meaning: In 1982-83, McEnroe won 3 of 5, but Borg won their last appearance in 1983. Meaning, Borg still held his own against Mac, and presumably would have held his own on the regular tour.

I do think that like Mac, Borg would have faltered against Lendl and a younger upcoming field in 1985 and beyond, or at least dropped significantly, so what we're mostly missing is 1982-84...just three years. So we can pad his record with hypothetical wins, but not by too much.

Furthermore, Borg was weak on hard courts. So if we're looking at padding his record with Slams, we probably should assume that he would never have won the US Open. But I think he still would have been the favorite at Roland Garros and Wimbledon for those three years, maybe winning 2-4 of the 6...and then we can add an Australian Open for gits and shiggles...so I'm thinking 3-4 Slams added to his total, so 14-15. Just a guess, though.

Or to be more specific, at Roland Garros, I think he would have fought off a 17-year old Wilander in 1982, and prevented Noah from winning his only Slam in 1983. But I think a surging Lendl in 1984 would have taken it, and he would have been done at RG by then. At Wimbledon, I'd give him one of the three in 1982-84. I don't think he'd have gotten past Mac or Connors at the US Open. If he wanted an AO title, he could have had one in the early 80s, but that's true of Mac and Connors, too. So again, 3 at RG/Wimbledon, and maybe 1 AO if he decided on it.

Borg had Connors number before he retired, and he dispatched him in straights at Flushing Meadows in 1981. Borg wasn’t a bad player on hard courts, he just faced huge performances by lefties who he’d beaten at Wimbledon, between 1978-1980, and of course McEnroe in 1981, who’d beaten him at Wimbledon.

The what-ifs with Borg get complicated. First, I think had he retained his drive and hunger he’d be favourite and possibly winner in Paris from 82-84, and possibly even to 85 or 86, though it’s harder to say. Bear in mind that Lendl was slightly fortunate to get the FO title in 1984, with McEnroe imploding. It’s not far fetched to say Borg wouldn’t have lost that match.

But who knows how he’d react to another Swede joining him at the top? He had two come along in quick succession, with Mats and Stefan. That can affect a player - Boris Becker coughed his own arse up when Michael Stich reached the Wimbledon final in 1991.

McEnroe certainly missed Borg in 1982 - to the advantage of Jimmy Connors. So McEnroe might have reached his 1984 level sooner, and not dipped at all, as long as his great rival was playing. McEnroe revelled in that rivalry in much the same way Rafa did in the early Fedal years.

Like I said, if the measure of greatness was the number of slams you win, then I think Borg would visited Australia every year - but so would Connors and McEnroe. Being on grass might not be an issue for Bjorn - Australian grass played differently to Wimbledon. Wilander beat McEnroe at the Australian Open in 1983, but he never got beyond the quarters at Wimbledon.

It gets complicated but I’d see Bjorn getting a couple or few Australian Opens, 3 more French, and look at how Lendl dominated McEnroe even before Bjorn retired - three straight victories in 1981 alone, all in straights, followed by 4 more wins in 1982, dropping only one set.

However, Borg was similarly ascendant against Lendl. Lendl beat McEnroe in the 1982 US Open semi. You can see where I’m going with that - a route to a Borg NY victory. Not so far fetched, in 1981 Vitas Gerulaitus squeaked out a victory over Ivan in the fourth round, only to fall to McEnroe in the semi.

They’re interesting topics, these alt-history ones. Bjorn left too early, that’s the problem. He was so great we still want to see him win - in our dreams!

 

[Jelenafan]

If the benchmark in Borg’s time was simply winning slams and non existent events that would later evolve into MS tourneys, he’d have played Australia several times, and he wouldn’t have skipped the FO in 1977, and he’d have broken Emerson’s record easily before his 25th birthday. But it wasn’t the goal, and so he didn’t.

Bjorn Borg was as great as anyone who played tennis, he just didn’t want to continue…

The important big tournaments were the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open, WCT finals was big, as was the Grand Prix finals. There were probably some other 5-10 tournaments rated above the Australian Open. The problem was tennis was so fractured, competing tours, and yes, labor disputes. Plus players back then didn't have the nutrition/full time cardio/conditioning/fitness teams they have today, nor at the very top, the money of today.

Players today wouldn't dream of skipping a Major, too many agents/endorsements/entourages to pay, as well as rating points.

So It's not as easy as speculating Borg would have won only 14 or 15 today, throw this era's top 3 (Fedalovic) players back there and it could be possibly they only won 10-12, if that.

 

[El Dude]

Borg had Connors number before he retired, and he dispatched him in straights at Flushing Meadows in 1981. Borg wasn’t a bad player on hard courts, he just faced huge performances by lefties who he’d beaten at Wimbledon, between 1978-1980, and of course McEnroe in 1981, who’d beaten him at Wimbledon.

The what-ifs with Borg get complicated. First, I think had he retained his drive and hunger he’d be favourite and possibly winner in Paris from 82-84, and possibly even to 85 or 86, though it’s harder to say. Bear in mind that Lendl was slightly fortunate to get the FO title in 1984, with McEnroe imploding. It’s not far fetched to say Borg wouldn’t have lost that match.

But who knows how he’d react to another Swede joining him at the top? He had two come along in quick succession, with Mats and Stefan. That can affect a player - Boris Becker coughed his own arse up when Michael Stich reached the Wimbledon final in 1991.

McEnroe certainly missed Borg in 1982 - to the advantage of Jimmy Connors. So McEnroe might have reached his 1984 level sooner, and not dipped at all, as long as his great rival was playing. McEnroe revelled in that rivalry in much the same way Rafa did in the early Fedal years.

Like I said, if the measure of greatness was the number of slams you win, then I think Borg would visited Australia every year - but so would Connors and McEnroe. Being on grass might not be an issue for Bjorn - Australian grass played differently to Wimbledon. Wilander beat McEnroe at the Australian Open in 1983, but he never got beyond the quarters at Wimbledon.

It gets complicated but I’d see Bjorn getting a couple or few Australian Opens, 3 more French, and look at how Lendl dominated McEnroe even before Bjorn retired - three straight victories in 1981 alone, all in straights, followed by 4 more wins in 1982, dropping only one set.

However, Borg was similarly ascendant against Lendl. Lendl beat McEnroe in the 1982 US Open semi. You can see where I’m going with that - a route to a Borg NY victory. Not so far fetched, in 1981 Vitas Gerulaitus squeaked out a victory over Ivan in the fourth round, only to fall to McEnroe in the semi.

They’re interesting topics, these alt-history ones. Bjorn left too early, that’s the problem. He was so great we still want to see him win - in our dreams!

All that could be....I think we also need to emphasize that "more Borg" isn't just adding to his record, it is shifting the entire landscape. And as you said, if Slam tallies were more important back then, they're all playing the AO. So it hurts the lesser players like Kriek, but we don't know how they'd be divvied up among the best players.

One thing I feel that younger fans and people who don't read deeply into the history and statistics don't realize, is that you can't look at the Connors-Borg-McEnroe Slam total of 26 and compare that to the Big Three's total of 64 (and counting). I don't know how good those earlier three were compared to the current/recent three, but at the very least, it is a lot closer to that. This is also why I like Elo: it tells us that clearly. Check this chart out, for instance:

Those "peaks" aren't that different. We can see that Connors peaked a bit lower than Borg and McEnroe, which is borne out by other measures (and historical memory). We can also see that Borg and Djokovic peaked a bit higher than everyone else.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

 

[the AntiPusher]

Quite frankly I think Craig Tiley should be reprimanded from the AO board for his statement, he had no right as a Tournament Director to state such things., which are not proven, from medical experts in their fields are now saying that a 3cm tear is not possible for a player to play

Craig Tiley needs to be banned from Australian tennis

 

[the AntiPusher]

If the benchmark in Borg’s time was simply winning slams and non existent events that would later evolve into MS tourneys, he’d have played Australia several times, and he wouldn’t have skipped the FO in 1977, and he’d have broken Emerson’s record easily before his 25th birthday. But it wasn’t the goal, and so he didn’t.

Bjorn Borg was as great as anyone who played tennis, he just didn’t want to continue…

There's a real caveat that comes if Borg would have stayed longer, McEnroe would have won another 4-5 more majors (especially a few more Wimbledons and US Opens) because he had a real rival that he respects like Federer's respect for Nadal's game. IMO

 

[Kieran]

There's a real caveat that comes if Borg would have stayed longer, McEnroe would have won another 4-5 more majors (especially a few more Wimbledons and US Opens) because he had a real rival that he respects like Federer's respect for Nadal's game. IMO

I discussed that possibility further here, brother. Borg’s retirement also affected others…