The Australian Open has come a long way, from top players not even bothering to turn up for it several decades ago to it jostling for the position of the best attended grand slam.
The happy slam now has the most advanced infrastructure – three roofed stadiums – and many players say it has the best facilities and it ranks second in slams in terms of prize money.
Simply put, the Australian Open is no longer the ugly duckling grand slam of tennis. It belongs.
However, one part of it needs addressing.
It, like the US and French Opens, should dispose of the system whereby some players get an extra day to rest at the business end of the tournament.
Take the Australian Open men’s final, in which Novak Djokovic edged out Dominic Thiem in a topsy-turvy five-setter.
(Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
The Austrian had spent nearly six hours longer on court than Djokovic – which is no fault of the Serbian’s, I hasten to add – and had to contend with one day’s less rest.
In the early stages, the fifth seed looked flat. His shots appeared to have less pop on them than usual and he seemed a little lethargic – not surprising after two very physical matches against Rafael Nadal and Alexander Zverev.
Thiem grew into the match and almost won it, thanks in no small part to his immense fitness, perhaps running on adrenaline, being six years younger as well as his huge ground strokes.
But it is not too much to ask to have a fairer and more level playing field heading into one of the biggest matches of the year.
Before Sunday the win-loss record since 2000 for men who played their semi-final a day earlier was 11-9. Now it’s 12-9. It is surprising that the extra day off seems to bring with it little advantage, going by the numbers.
This is an insufficient amount of data, however, to draw an accurate conclusion from this. Such a trend could be masked by the quality of the opponent, injuries, time on the court for their previous six matches, distance run in those matches and many other things.
Nevertheless, players should start from a level playing field or at least as close to one as possible. It just makes more sense to have what Wimbledon has and not give a player more time to recover.
Why do the French Open, US Open and Australian Open stick to this system? Money, perhaps?
For instance, tickets for the men’s final at Wimbledon are more expensive than the women’s final due to the demand. Is it more profitable to have days on which both men and women play together? Who knows.
Regardless, this staggered system should be changed.
It’s time for the Australian Open to be at the forefront of change yet again.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Having both Women's Semi's and one men's Semi on the Thursday and then just one Men's Semi on Friday night as the only singles match that day does seem a bit strange. Any way you shake it, the fact that some players start on the Monday and some on the Tuesday mean that you are always going to get some players having that bit extra rest at some point compared to others. If you did just have both Semi's played on the Thursday, you would have to have one as an afternoon game and one as an evening game (they aren't going to play the semi's simultaneously on separate courts!). So potentially that could still be a massive disadvantage to one, if it's a really hot day and the first semi final is a long match during the heat of the day, while the other gets to play in the cooler evening conditions. It's one of those things where you just never know how much break you are going to get between games or how much each game is going to take out of you, so you just need to be as fit as you possibly can and know what to do in order to recover as well as possible in order to get through to win a grand slam. I suspect one of the other reasons why they like to have that Friday sparsely filled with games is that it gives some space in the scheduling to catch up on games if there is significant rain. Of course, with 3 courts having roofs they are also best equipped to deal with that, really only a major issue if there's a lot of rain through the first 2 rounds.
Simoc
Guest
I totally agree. The five setters often turn into marathons which I find boring as. Best of three sets would bring the mens grand slams into line with the woman, create more upsets and see the end of the Nadal, Federer, Djokovic dominance. Playing longer doesn't make the tennis better. As to rests. Well if it's best of three they should be right to play every day.
HR
Roar Rookie
You seem to be a little lost. The story you're looking to comment on is this one: https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/02/03/the-goat-debate-has-become-a-djoke/
Stix
Guest
Nadal was the number 1 seed coming into the Aus Open and had he made the final would have 1 day less rest than Djokovic not that it would have mattered anyway. Nadal VS Federer 24–16 (overall) 10-4 (grand slams) 6-3 (grand slam finals) Nadal vs Djokovic 26–28 (overall) 9–6 (grand slams) 4-4 (grand slam finals) Djokovic vs Federer 27–23 (overall) 11–6 (grand slams) 4–1 (grand slam finals) ===================================== Nadal-Djokovic-Federer Rivalry Nadal 50 wins, 44 losses (53%) 19-10 (grand slams) (65%) 10-7 (grand slam finals) (58%) Djokovic 55 wins, 49 losses (52%) 17-15 (grand slams) (53%) 8-5 (grand slam finals) (61%) Federer 39 wins, 51 losses (43%) 10-21 (grand slams) (32%) 4-10 (grand slam finals) (28%) Federer (20 titles – 11 runner ups) beat up on Roddick (4-0), Murray (3-0), Cilic (2-0) in grand slam finals Nadal (19 titles – 8 runner ups) Djokovic (17 titles – 9 runner ups) (5-2 vs Murray is grand slam finals) FAKE GOAT FEDERER (FGF) in grand slam finals versus Djokovic and Nadal is 4 wins and 10 losses at 28% – 4 out of 14 in the most important matches of his career = fake goat/tennis propaganda!
Tony Kelly
Guest
Totally agree with this analysis. No matter who one supports both men's finalists need to have the same amount of rest days. That is common sense and a no brainer. It is known as equity and equality.
Nick
Roar Guru
But come, quarter's, semi's and final time there will still be a player who had the benefit of a 3 day break between R3 and R4 while the other didn't. And depending on how the early stages went, that extra day could be invaluable. And ultimately, as you pointed out, the author's fundamental point is predicated on absolutely perfect weather. Any washed out day (which has occurs in 90% of all wimbledons, french and US opens) blows the draw fairness apart anyway. Leave the draw as it is. Having the men play on the same day in Australia is cruel, for the players and spectators alike.
Brian
Guest
without bothering about my grammer or linguistics my understaing of the mens draw at Wimbeldon is Mon R1 Tue R1 Wed R2 Thu R2 Fri R3 Sat R3 Mon R4 - 4 games between winners on Friday and 4 between winners on Saturday Wed QF Fri SF Sun Final Therefore at no point is a game played where one player had a longer rest then his opponent (weather permitting)
Nick
Roar Guru
Look at your comment again, and see if you can spot the flaw in what you just said.
But not every 5 set match is a 5 hour slog, sometimes they are rather quick if there are a couple of 6-2 games for instance.
Brian
Guest
Whilst I don't agree with the author because the Aus open draw is essentially random as to which day you get WImbledon is different because everyone gets the Sunday off and then players who got 3 days off play each other and players who got 2 days off do the same. Not one player having 2 against a player having 3 as happened on Sunday night.
Mango Jack
Roar Guru
What are the equivalent stats for women? I imagine playing best of 3 sets means exhaustion is less of an issue. Personally I think 5 sets is too much. Reducing the men's games to 3 sets solves a few problems, the one mentioned here among them, most likely. It also eliminates the recurring argument about equal prize money being unfair to the men because they play more tennis. Apart from that, games just drag on too long. It's a personal view, I know, and I'm sure the traditionalists will say that all the classic matches are 5 set thrillers, but I just can't maintain attention for that long on a tennis match.
Nick
Roar Guru
Yeah, but you are forgetting the mandatory rest day in the middle of Wimbledon. Some players get a day off, some people get 2 days off. All slams are equal in that regard, it's just more when the day off occurs...either in the middle or the business end of the tourny. You need to acknowledge that, and then do stats analysis on whether the timing of the rest day at Wimbledon impacts the overall winner, before your argument can be made with any validity.