The 2017 Australian Open - An Alternate Take

[El Dude]

Disclaimer: This is an exercise in make-believe, although I'm trying to imagine a series of upsets that could legitimately happen. I am not predicting this will happen, but that it could.

In Andy Murray's quarter, while I'd love to see Andrey Rublev finally take a big step forward and oust the #1 in the 2nd round, I just don't see it happening. Yet. Andy sails to the 4R, where he relatively easily vanquishes Lucas Pouille. In the lower half of the quarter, Old Man Federer fights his way through and faces Andy in the QF. An epic battle ensues, with the 35-year old emerging victorious, but tired. Semifinalist: Roger Federer.

In Stan's quarter, Stan destroys his first few opponents and then loses to hometown Bad Boy, Nick Kyrgios, in the 4R. In the lower half, the first surprise is Thiago Monteiro defeating JW Tsonga. Thiago loses to Karen Khachanov, who had just come off an epic five-setter vs. Jack Sock. Khachanov faces and defeats Marin Cilic to face Kyrgios, but loses to Nick. Still, everyone knows now that Karen is to be taken seriously. Semifinalist: Nick Kyrgios.

In the Rafa-Raonic quarter, Rafa looks good at first and then Alexander Zverev takes his revenge, defeating him in the 3R. Zverev also beats Gael Monfils in the 4R, to face Milos Raonic in the quarterfinal, after Milos had plowed his way through his section (although hit a slight bump in the road vs. up-and-comer Danil Medvedev, who upset David Ferrer and Robert Bautista Agut to reach the 4R). Zverev and Milos duke it out, but the 19-year old amazingly prevails. Semifinalist: Alexander Zverev.

In Novak's corner, in the top half Thiem looks good and sails to a quarterfinal berth, narrowly beating David Goffin in the 4R. Novak starts strong, losing a set to Verdasco and then nailing him to the wall. But disaster strikes in the 4R, as a resurgent Grigor Dimitrov dances around him and takes the victory. In the quarterfinal, Grigor teaches the younger Thiem a lesson. Semifinalist: Grigor Dimitrov.

Roger Federer vs. Nick Kyrgios
It is a long and epic, but Kyrgios prevails, Roger not quite having his full fitness and form yet. Kyrgios wins, 6-4, 6-7 (7), 7-5, 5-7, 6-3

Alexander Zverev vs. Grigor Dimitrov
At first it seems like the two are a match and it seems a prelude of great battles to come, but Grigor pulls ahead of him and slays the young German in four sets: 6-4, 4-6, 7-6 (8), 6-2.

Final: Nick Kyrgios vs. Grigor Dimitrov
The first few sets are close and angry, but ultimately Kyrgios' rage unbalances him and he seems to give up after losing the third set, with one of the worst fourth sets in Grand Slam history.

Dimitrov wins: 3-6, 7-6 (8), 7-6 (10), 6-0

One can dream...

 

[El Dude]

I initially wanted to see Pouille upsetting Murray, but their h2h is so gruesome--Andy 3-0, but with Lucas never winning more than 3 games in any of their six sets--that I just couldn't stretch plausibility that much.

 

[mrzz]

I guess Murray got away with that one, for now...

You summed up nicely the fantasy draw idea, Dude. But I admit that I need a bit of effort not to root against Kyrgios, so in my case he loses in R2, let alone beating Federer...

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I don't heed much the hate going on about Kyrgios. He is talented, up and coming, improving. He has my support. Not against Roger though.

 

[El Dude]

I don't hate Kyrgios. And just to be clear, this isn't quite what I want to happen, just an alternate path that could...my preference would be for Roger to take the title, of course.

 

[Fiero425]

I initially wanted to see Pouille upsetting Murray, but their h2h is so gruesome--Andy 3-0, but with Lucas never winning more than 3 games in any of their six sets--that I just couldn't stretch plausibility that much.

Murray can frustrate these young players when they feel the point should have been won 4 winners ago; the ball coming back "1 more time!" It can frustrate Nole for a while except Murray's tongue is usually hanging out of his mouth by the 3rd set! This "genius" who could finish off many players in a timely fashion gets into extended wars with nobodies in early rounds! How soon we forget Štěpánek & French WC Bourgue in Murray's 1st 2 matches at the FO last season! He went 5 sets both times and it was a wonder he had anything left by the final against Nole! :nono :cover

 

[El Dude]

In just about every sport, Fiero, there are teams that have a stronger defense than offense and there's no shame in that. American football teams have won Super Bowls with great defenses and only mediocre offenses. Obviously a balance is preferred, though.

 

[Fiero425]

In just about every sport, Fiero, there are teams that have a stronger defense than offense and there's no shame in that. American football teams have won Super Bowls with great defenses and only mediocre offenses. Obviously a balance is preferred, though.

And it costs teams year after year after year! When you don't score when opportunity knocks, the odds catch up with you, no matter how well it's worked in the past! I used to follow football more in the past; a fave coach was Marty Schottenheimer! I go back to his tenure with the Browns and KC where his strict coaching style with a strong defense gave his teams success during the regular season! In the playoffs, his record isn't so good and he never coached a Super Bowl! The majors are the playoffs of our sport and playing that silly defensive game has gotten Murray where he is right now, but donated by Nole when all he needed to do was win 1 more match sometime last fall to retain his #1 ranking! The same is already happening to Nadal, defensive play just wears you down! It's even caught up with Nole who's the best conditioned athlete out there! I don't think Murray will continue this run more than a few more months! Sooner or later the upsets will start! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[herios]

Too much phantasy in these scenarios. Zverev is not making more than R4 and Nick, Grigor or Roger QF the most IMO

 

[El Dude]

In just about every sport, Fiero, there are teams that have a stronger defense than offense and there's no shame in that. American football teams have won Super Bowls with great defenses and only mediocre offenses. Obviously a balance is preferred, though.

And it costs teams year after year after year! When you don't score when opportunity knocks, the odds catch up with you, no matter how well it's worked in the past! I used to follow football more in the past; a fave coach was Marty Schottenheimer! I go back to his tenure with the Browns and KC where his strict coaching style with a strong defense gave his teams success during the regular season! In the playoffs, his record isn't so good and he never coached a Super Bowl! The majors are the playoffs of our sport and playing that silly defensive game has gotten Murray where he is right now, but donated by Nole when all he needed to do was win 1 more match sometime last fall to retain his #1 ranking! The same is already happening to Nadal, defensive play just wears you down! It's even caught up with Nole who's the best conditioned athlete out there! I don't think Murray will continue this run more than a few more months! Sooner or later the upsets will start! :angel: :dodgy:

Here's a question for you. If defensive play wears players down prematurely, why is it that Andy and Novak are still elite players at age 29, an age when most greats of the Open Era were in serious decline?

Andy and Novak are both 29 years old and 8 months, turning 30 in May. Here is where past Open Era greats were at the exact same age:

Rafael Nadal (Feb, 2016): #3-4. Declined from his best, but still better than almost everyone else on tour.

Roger Federer (April, 2011): #3. With the ascendancy of Novak, Roger finally slipped to the third best player on tour, a title he would hold for most of the next five years.

Pete Sampras (April, 2001): #4, but would slip to #10 by the end of the year. In significant decline, but would win one more Slam the following year.

Andre Agassi (December, 1999): #1. Just had his best year, and only two-Slam season. Would remain an elite player for another four or five years.

Boris Becker (July, 1997): #11. Won his last Slam the previous year, finishing 1996 at #6. Would decline sharply, finishing 1997 at #62 and win no further titles as his career peetered out over the next couple years, retiring in 1999.

Stefan Edberg (September, 1995): #19-20. In steep decline. The previous year, 1994, was his last in the top 10 but he hadn't won a Slam or Masters in three years.

Mats Wilander (April, 1994): Ranked in the 200s. Mats, as you know, had his last and greatest year six years previously, in 1988, then collapsed but lingered on in a rather gruesome way. He would slightly "resurge" in 1995, finishing #46, but hadn't been an elite player since the 80s and his mid-20s.

Ivan Lendl (November, 1989): #1. His last year-end #1, although he would remain an elite player for another year or two, winning the 1990 AO (his last) and finishing #8 or higher through 1992, before slipping to #19 in 1993 and #54 in 1994, his last year.

John McEnroe (October, 1988): #14-18. Mac was 3-4 years removed from his prime but still soldiering on and would win one more big title: the WCT Finals in 1989, which gave him a year-end #4 ranking that year, his best since '85. But he was pretty much a top 10-20 player at this point.

Bjorn Borg (February, 1986): Retired. Would try a comeback in the early 90s, but we won't talk about that.

Jimmy Connors (May, 1982): #3? Rankings are unclear, but Jimmy was, at this point, the perennial third best player on tour--having been surpassed by Borg and McEnroe, and then Lendl. But 1982 would be a great year for Jimmy as he would win both Wimbledon and the US Open, and one more US Open in '83. He remained a top 10 player through 1988 and played into the 90s, retiring at the age of 40 in 1992.

OK, there you have it. We can group the players by where they were relative to their prime years. First, some definitions:

Peak: A player's very best years.
Prime: Still elite and not too far from peak, but not as good as best.
Decline: Far from their best and in obvious decline.

Peak: Murray, Agassi
Prime: Lendl, Connors, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic?
Declined: Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, McEnroe
Retired: Borg

So the point being, Andy and Novak are doing quite well relative to the greats of the Open Era, in terms of age. In fact, some of the more recent attacking players--Edberg, Becker, and Sampras--were in far worse shape, while a defensive player like Agassi was still playing quite well.

So it may be that you've got it backwards - that strongly defensive players actually last longer than attacking players.

 

[El Dude]

Too much phantasy in these scenarios. Zverev is not making more than R4 and Nick, Grigor or Roger QF the most IMO

My guess is that you don't like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings

 

[Fiero425]

... and your point is? There are exceptions to every rule and you gave plenty of examples of what I've been saying about defensive play; BORG at the top of the list with burnout! Wilander should be the poster boy for what I've been saying! Players like Becker can't be used as an example of anything but a playboy lifestyle who didn't take the game seriously after so many years on the tour! His drop wasn't unexpected; IMO, his so called greatness was exaggerated just because he won on the slick grass of Wimbledon at such a young age! Even with all his aggressive gifts, he never won another one after '89 against a depleted Edberg who played a 5 set marathon in Paris just a week before!

 

[El Dude]

My point is, if nothing else there is NO proof that defensive players decline quicker than offensive players, which is what you were saying above ("defensive play wears you down"). I think ALL play wears you down.

Not to mention that all true greats aren't solely defensive or offensive. We can't call Rafa's ridiculous topspin or ability to hit winners from a defensive posture as lacking in offense. I'd suggest that the true greats are always both...and this may be what separates Andy from Novak for instance. So maybe we can agree on that?

 

[herios]

Too much phantasy in these scenarios. Zverev is not making more than R4 and Nick, Grigor or Roger QF the most IMO

My guess is that you don't like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings

That is right. I never watch sci-fis

 

[Fiero425]

Too much phantasy in these scenarios. Zverev is not making more than R4 and Nick, Grigor or Roger QF the most IMO

My guess is that you don't like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings

That is right. I never watch sci-fis

You're missing out on a lot; esp. since real life is becoming more futuristic and sci-fi like all the time! It was just 30 year ago, a remote cell phone was more like one from an army M.A.S.H. unit of the 50's; heavy battery and case, now no bigger than a hand-held calculator! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[El Dude]

herios, you might like the show Black Mirror - it is on Netflix. Not for the faint of heart, but very good - sort of like contemporary Twilight Zone.

 

[herios]

herios, you might like the show Black Mirror - it is on Netflix. Not for the faint of heart, but very good - sort of like contemporary Twilight Zone.

Thanks. I may check it out

 

[mrzz]

Too much phantasy in these scenarios. Zverev is not making more than R4 and Nick, Grigor or Roger QF the most IMO

My guess is that you don't like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings

That is right. I never watch sci-fis

Just to be a bit picky, but Lord of the Rings is not Sci-Fi. it is clearly "Fantasy". Technically Star Wars belongs to a Sci-Fi sub-genre called "Space Opera". Some would classify it yet as Science-Fantasy, which is also a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. IMO is basically Fantasy with space ships.