Australian Open to face challenge from China for Grand Slam

I'm sure the attendence records are greatly exaggerated. Tennis has gone down in Australia which is unable to produce champions. The players are really, bad. Some like Rory are putting down the Uk. But let's not forget economically the UK is really very strong in terms of attendance and certainly in regard to attracting lucrative sponsorships. Australia not so much.France has produced more champions so far in this century( mauresmo & Pierce). Australia is living on past tennis achievement.

Thats great but Guangzhou is not Beijing

You are way out on your history. Australia's tennis pedigree is far Greater than the UK - there is really no comparison. France has had some great Champs but still not quite in Australia's league historically. That has obviously changed now.

Would there be much joy for anyone if Brazil and Italy faced each other in the elimination stages of the World Cup? Surely it's central to any sport that there are rewards for achievement. Minor premiers second chance etc. Seedings are central to the way tennis works.

I have always wondered why Australia had a grand slam event. UK - Great power France - Great power US - Super power Australia - Oceania regional power I think we have done well to keep it this long.

The Australian Open provided marquee quarterfinal match-ups in Federer/Davydenko and Murray/Nadal and two five setters with winners from outside the top 8. I don't see why anyone would want that happening earlier than the quarters. Nothing good ever comes from early upsets in sport.

insert China into any story you like as the supposed winner/new host/new economic overlords, it's the new black! I also hear they will be hosting the AFL grand final soon, in coming years, as there may be some interest in the sport by someone who is of chinese ancestry. Q.E.D, AFL will become the chinese game and only a 2nd tier comp here in australia ( Vic and SA )

Given we are getting record attendances and given that most nights Rod Laver was fully booked out (if not all nights), I am surprised that the redevelopment plans did not call for a larger stadium. Where it would go I am not sure (perhaps the site for the old Olympic Park once that gets demolished? Or perhaps they should have increased capacity at margaret court to 10,000 and redevloped hisense into a 20k+ arena a la Arthur Ashe stadium in New York (or for a fully indercover facility - like Madison Square Garden also in New York). You would then have stadiums that sat about 10k, 16k, and 20k+, with the new bubble dome at 30k, Etihad at about 55 and of course the MCG. Yes it would cost money, but it would be filled to the max for the tennis (bringing in extra dollars). If we want to keep it, we have to spend.

It's 25 degrees in Guangzhou this week.

Yes, of course there's the odd upset. I'd contend that mostly the games that inspire interest beyond the tennis boffins in the first week is when you have unranked players like Henin/Clijsters making comebacks or players whose rankings have slipped way past their true ability due to injury layoffs who get pitched against high ranked players in the early rounds. If it stayed with a 16 player seeded draw you wouldn't have to rely so much on anomalies for early epic clashes. I still think there just needs to be more consistency over the whole 2 weeks. Even if Joe Bloggs pushes Federer in the first round, it's hardly prime time fodder. If he randomly drew a top player in the first round, what drama might that create? What a way to kick off the tournament. The best already get rewarded in so many ways, they shouldn't need an armchair ride to the finals every time.

Jeff The Australian Open had its fair share of upsets this year and i would hardly call the first week pedestrian. The men's draw saw no.9 seed Robin Soderling eliminated in the first round while 12th seed Gael Monfils was eliminated in the third round. Guys like Tommy Robredo hardly lasted despite being seeded and players such as Feliciano Lopez, Phillip Koelscreiber and John Isner really brought out the best in Rafael Nadal, Andy Roddick and Andy Murray. Even Federer himself had it tough in the first round against Igor Andreev and probably should have been 2 sets to 1 down if the Russian coverted one of several set points. The second round match between Del Potro and Blake was an epic five setter despite the difference in rankings between the two. Very competitive if you ask me.

Maybe so, but China has always been a tough market to crack. When the ATP moved the World Tour Finals to London last year, they smashed the record for indoor tennis attendance, which kind of tells me that the money in tennis is still in Europe.

These are good points but another probelm for Australia is that, to some extent, we are seen as a derivative country of the UK and therefore (together with the otherreasons i mentioned above) we will ALWAYS be the most vulnerable to losing our Grand Slam. status.

Lazza, Tennis Australia have seen the light and have a newish program called Hot Shots aimed at the introductory/school level. Better late than never, but the challenge is getting airplay in schools when 50 other sports long ago saw the benefit of getting the kids and modifying the game to meet their needs and attention spans. There has also been opposition with coaches at club level who think they'll lose their bread and butter, when they should be thankful for more kids being exposed to, and taking up the game seriously. Also, tennis is addressing the issue of facilities - so many local courts have disappeared or fallen into disrepair. Just as hard to fix it seems is the prima donna attitudes and lack of drive that our promising players at the pointy end too often exhibit. Countries like Croatia have very average facilities and pathways but the players are seriously hungry for real success. Too many players can get comfortable being #170 in the world or being touted as couldbe champions. But realistically, as you say Lazza, tennis is now a world wide sport and the competition has increased 100-fold on the glory days of Newk, Court, Laver et al - so we also need to have realistic expectations.

The French Open hasn't had a French winner since Mary Pierce in 2000 and Yannick Noah in 1984 and Wimbledon hasn't had a British winner since Virginia Wade in 1977 and Fred Perry in 1936. The Americans have fared much better with Serena Williams winning in 2008 and Andy Roddick in 2003, though it's difficult to see where the next American Grand Slam champion is coming from once the Williams sisters retire. My point is that the Australian Open doesn't need an Australian winner to be a major sporting event on the international calendar. If Australia were to lose the tennis open, you'd probably have a bunch of people who claim they don't care but it would be a major dent in Australia's image as a sporting country. It's all fine and good to say Aussies love a winner and the locals want someone to support but the Australian Open is bigger than that.

Since many more people watch on TV than at the stadium the poor TV ratings must be a worry. Like all professional sports most of the revenue generated would come from TV money as well. Tennis is a far more competitive sport these days with many more countries and athletes involved than in the past. I still haven't heard of any structured plan, new elite acadamies, more money for coaching or anything to make us competitive again? Are we just happy to host this event now and not too bothered that we don't produce any champions?

It's pedestrian when the draw sees so many predictable non-contests, bar the very occasional upset. If tennis was fixtured more randomly you'd have more interesting games throughout the tournament. Doesn't matter how much you're into any sport, too many David v Goliath games in succession become a yawn.

The reasons behind Australia having had and continuing to hold the Australian Open are intersting in themselves. Tennis having been invented by the British, their most 'beloved' colony, Australia was a the beneficiary of Grand Slam status together with the fact that we were very good at it until the 1970's. With the tournament's Grand Slam status under threat (and rightly so in the 1970's and 1980's!!!) we finally built a stadium fit for for a Grand Slam. Now with Australia's Golden Years becoming ever distant (Margaret Court and Rod Laver can't be hauled out every year... eventually they will go to the big tennis court in the sky), and the Liberal Capitalist system completely in the ascendancy, there is no doubt that China and maybe India with their MASSIVELY expanding economies will eventually take the Australian Open away from us. Brumby's investment is only delaying the inevitable.

The first week was fine by me. I guess its pedestrian if you're not really into the sport and you can only get interested if the best few players in the world play each other.

History aside the main reason for the Gran Slam staying in Aus to me seems the weather, how can you play a Grand Slam in China, Japan, Spain or Germany in January or even March. Another Northern hemisphere slam would have to be either played entirely indoors or crammed closer to the schedule of the other 3 slams. Indoors is possible but its a big change for a gran slam, especially when both China & India are yet to ever produce a gran slam champion.