Most boring AO in recent memory?

[El Dude]

The Australian Open tends to be the most boring of the Slams, at least for me. Maybe it is because of the time difference and we here in the States can't watch it (except for the diehards) and there's a sense of distance from the whole process. Maybe it is simply that the AO doesn't have a unique "sex appeal" like the other three Slams.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The Australian Open tends to be the most boring of the Slams, at least for me.

From a match-quality perspective, it's been known to produce some serious classics. But I understand your point re: time difference.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Well it is the exact opposite for me,after the tour leaves Australia,I then become a 'Walking Zombie' for the rest of the year,usually having to get up at 1.00am to watch matches.
The AO has produced over the years some great matches,I have lucky to be there live.I also believe being the first Grand Slam of the year,we have also seen some early upsets.
Roland Garos still remains my favorite Grand Slam,it is the hardest slam to win,also being in Paris is just an added bonus.

 

[Kieran]

In terms of the big picture stuff, whether one slam is better than another, obviously the European slams are better for me, to watch, especially Wimbledon, but really they all have a stand alone character that makes them singularly compelling, none better or worse than another...

 

[auto-pilot]

Wimbledon will improve now because its been rescheduled and there is an extra week of rest/preparation available for Nadal.
He wasn't far off in 2014, had a 5-4 lead in the 3rd set tie-breaker versus Kyrgios in R4.
Win that tie-breaker and Nadal leads 2 set to 1 and probably wins the match.
Nadal was in good enough form to take out Raonic in QF and enjoy a semi-final versus Federer.

 

[Front242]

Except he wasn't in good enough form to beat Kyrgios so it's all imaginary and irrelevant. There are infinite what if scenarios in tennis but the bottom line is he didn't win and we can't say he'd have won even if he won that 3rd set. He was up 2 sets to 1 against Rosol in 2012 and still lost.

 

[Kieran]

Except he wasn't in good enough form to beat Kyrgios so it's all imaginary and irrelevant. There are infinite what if scenarios in tennis but the bottom line is he didn't win and we can't say he'd have won even if he won that 3rd set. He was up 2 sets to 1 against Rosol in 2012 and still lost.

No, he was 2-1 down in sets against Rosol in 2012, but I agree about "what if", it doesn't help us here. However, the extra week between RG and Wimbo does help, hopefully, if Nadal takes Paris and has to make the transition. This is another "if", however, though a more likely one...

 

[Front242]

Sorry yeah, read the score backwards as if Nadal won that match

 

[Riotbeard]

Wimbledon will improve now because its been rescheduled and there is an extra week of rest/preparation available for Nadal.
He wasn't far off in 2014, had a 5-4 lead in the 3rd set tie-breaker versus Kyrgios in R4.
Win that tie-breaker and Nadal leads 2 set to 1 and probably wins the match.
Nadal was in good enough form to take out Raonic in QF and enjoy a semi-final versus Federer.

Glad that rafa's inability to get past an 18 years old barely in the top 100 meant Raonic and Federer were gonna be slam dunks...

 

[auto-pilot]

^ Nadal vs Raonic is the most lopsided match-up in tennis.
Nadal has won 8 of their 9 hardcourt sets, and believe me when I tell you that Nadal will make Raonic fall over on grass more than once (when they play on hardcourt it looks comical, even when Raonic reached the final of Canada, Nadal hammered him 6-2 6-2).
Raonic is so bad versus Nadal that Raonic has only held serve for ONE set, EVER.

And Federer.....well we know what's going on there.....

Nadal was playing REALLY well last year at Wimbledon, and Kyrgios did the Rosol thing and tried to hit the cover off the ball repeatedly (which he doesn't usually do to quite that extent) and its worked for others over the years such as 116th ranked Stakhovsky versus Federer, as grass is the surface you can hit through.

 

[DarthFed]

If he was playing well he wouldn't lose to a nobody like Kyrgios. Nadal has proven he can lose to anyone on grass.

 

[auto-pilot]

^ So has Federer (Berdych, Tsonga, Haas, Stakhovsky), so what's your point?
Grass has upsets because if you go for broke you beat anyone you want (if you are on fire).

Plus Knee-dal has the disadvantage of playing the often draining French Open just before Wimbledon.
There is a reason why nobody won the Channel Slam for a couple of decades after Borg, and nobody would expect Nadal to keep doing it after 2010 considering his knee troubles.

Nadal had 44 winners and 18 unforced errors and was only broken ONCE. Kyrgios hit 37 aces (in only 4 sets).
And Kyrgios backed up that performance by beating Federer's conqueror at the AO.

 

[DarthFed]

Federer had one awful loss at Wimbledon and by no coincidence it was by far his worst year since he won his first slam. Lets not compare losing to Berd and Tsonga vs. losing to Kyrgios, Rosol, and Marcy Darcy. I didn't see Djokovic struggle so badly at Wimbledon after playing the RG final last year so that excuse is outdated.

 

[auto-pilot]

^ That's because Djokovic is in his prime (and not injury-prone).
And Nadal actually said that in the last few years he's been scared to get down low for the ball at Wimbledon because his knees can't do that anymore (on grass especially in week one you have to bend your knees more than you ever do on hardcourt/clay).
Even in 2010 Nadal was complaining of major pain at Wimbledon, and he escaped a couple of 5-setters in the first week.
So Djokovic and Nadal may both play 7 matches at RG, but the comparisons end there.

BTW Federer has lost in the 1st Round of Wimbledon 3 times.
It was before his prime, but its a good comparison with Nadal because Nadal peaked early on grass and has declined early.
So Federer's early exits at Wimbledon match-up with Nadal's early exits, albeit at opposite ends of their careers.

 

[Kieran]

I didn't see Djokovic struggle so badly at Wimbledon after playing the RG final last year so that excuse is outdated.

So, losing a final is the same as winning it?

5 times after winning the French, Rafa reached the final at Wimbledon. It's obvious he's taking longer to recover between these slams than he used to...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's obvious he's taking longer to recover between these slams than he used to...

Perhaps Rafa should consider getting out in 1st rd at RG to improve his chances at W.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I didn't see Djokovic struggle so badly at Wimbledon after playing the RG final last year so that excuse is outdated.

So, losing a final is the same as winning it?

5 times after winning the French, Rafa reached the final at Wimbledon. It's obvious he's taking longer to recover between these slams than he used to...

Or maybe he's not as good on grass as he used to be.

Also, can everyone please stop responding to auto pilot? We all know who he is.

 

[Kieran]

I didn't see Djokovic struggle so badly at Wimbledon after playing the RG final last year so that excuse is outdated.

So, losing a final is the same as winning it?

5 times after winning the French, Rafa reached the final at Wimbledon. It's obvious he's taking longer to recover between these slams than he used to...

Or maybe he's not as good on grass as he used to be.

Also, can everyone please stop responding to auto pilot? We all know who he is.

I don't know who auto-pilot is.

Rafa may not be as good on grass as he used to be, but it also coincides with the fact that he's found defending his clay patch to be more difficult since the rise of Djoker. He's been beaten in all the MS finals there by Novak, and also been less sure in his matches with Nole at RG than he was, say, against Roger, who beat him twice on clay but these weren't indicative of anything going into Paris.

Rafa's getting older and he's not recovering as quickly as he used to, it's taking more out of him. I think the extra week can only help...

 

[DarthFed]

I didn't see Djokovic struggle so badly at Wimbledon after playing the RG final last year so that excuse is outdated.

So, losing a final is the same as winning it?

5 times after winning the French, Rafa reached the final at Wimbledon. It's obvious he's taking longer to recover between these slams than he used to...

In regards to energy spent during the tournament, losing the final could be the same as winning it or even worse. They both played 7 matches there, both made the final of Rome 3 weeks earlier too. One guy won Wimbledon and one lost early to another chap ranked outside of the top 100 at the time.

Rafa almost always struggled first week but was able to barely beat back the stiffs by just outlasting them. Rafa's defense isn't as good and now those struggles have turned into defeat. The fatigue excuse has always been misplaced for his recent struggles at Wimbledon.

 

[Kieran]

How do you know its misplaced? Have you seen many players achieve the Channel Slam, since Borg? Only two have, and coincidentally they both have made nine finals in their better slam, and five in their tougher one, out of Paris and Wimbledon. And nor is it simply fatigue. There's no question that it's taking more out of Rafa to defend his clay patch, so getting preparation time is more problematic. If wimbledon came before RG, with six weeks build-up, I'm sure he'd do a lot better there, but it's a surface where he needs more time to get ready as he's aging, and maybe the extra week this year will be the tonic he needs.

There is, of course, GSM's solution, which would help him too, but I wouldn't recommend it...