TENNIS: My impressions of the Australian Open
My impressions of the first week of the Australian Open were based on catching up via headlines and scattered, second-hand reports, because I certainly wasn’t going to subscribe to Discovery or Eurosport, given the time difference. But I learned Osaka was playing and winning. Ditto Nadal.
News of British payers’ fate came: Cam Norrie, the male British number 1, was out in the first round but that didn’t seem so bad when I learned it was to Sebastian Korda, who I don’t think any seed would be keen to face. Murray came through in five against Bashisasvili - haven’t they played each other a LOT recently? But every time he wins a five setter, I don’t think that’s going to help him go deep. It didn’t. Raducanu beat an inconsistent former Grand Slam champion, but then lost with a blistered thumb, but she’s got a much longer career ahead of her than Murray or Dan Evans. Of the latter, no shame in losing to Auger-Aliasseme, per se, except it was in three sets without a whimper.
Osaka was out at this stage, but I hope the return to tennis was a positive for her from a mental health and well-being perspective. Barty, the women’s no. 1, playing at home, which is a huge pressure, was through, as was Medvedev, the highest seeded men’s player.
And then I thought to check iPlayer’s Sport category, and for the AO’s second week, there were highlights shows, usually featuring one match and wrapping up the rest of the results, including the doubles and wheelchair tennis (with a British bias.) It was weird, because on the Monday night, I watched nearly three shows, already knowing what the results were because of the time lag. But I got to watch two Nadal matches, and learned he’s been off with a foot injury and caught COVID at Christmas, which added an extra layer to the fact that the man has won 20 Grand Slams and is still playing while Djokovic cannot. He somehow got through the Shapavalov match (and even though I’m a Rafa fan, yes, the Canadian is right, they give Nadal and Djokovic in particular an easy ride over the time violations. I don’t mind umpire discretion after twentysomething point rallies in gruelling conditions, but that didn’t seem to apply here…)
On the men’s side, it felt as if the gooduns after the ‘next gen’ (such a dated concept, but covering Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev, Tritsipas) were coming through: Shapavalov still hasn’t quite put it all together against the very best, but was a quarter finalist here for the first time, Auger-Aliassime almost beat Medvedev at the same stage, where one also found Sinner, although he was more definitely checked. Tsitsipas and Berretini are backing up their status (Zverev had a surprising off day), with the Greek player returning from an elbow injury.
On the women’s side, it was as volatile as ever, with Alize Cornet finally making it through to a quarter final. Otherwise it was a mix of surprises and Grand Slam champions (there are so many of them.) Barty still had to be the favourite, and I hoped that her experiences in the French and Wimbledon helped her not to crumble. The Beeb showed less of all the women’s play, so I felt underinformed about Keys’s comeback or Collins’s play, But I do know that in women’s tennis, they all believe these days.
Suddenly we had Sue Barker presenting these shows, and Andrew Castle and Anne Keothovaong commentating from a British studio. The Barty vs Keys semi final match got most of the airtime. Barty was dauntingly good at first, handling Keys’s first serves and always having an answer. Perhaps the scoreline doesn’t tell the whole story, but she’s barely dropped a game all tournament on her serve.
I expected/wanted Swiatek to face her in the finals, in as much as I expect anything in the women’s game at the moment, but all credit to Collins, especially if these are the results now she’s living pain free. She’d be the fourth American Barty would face in a row.
All Aussie men’s doubles final (the women’s double got no covergae on the Beeb since Heather Watson went out.)
They featured the Nadal v. Berretini semi, and as one of Nadal’s fans, I don’t mind their prioritising his run because he’s the best known player and Berretini was the Wimbledon finalist, and the BBC does pander to the UK’s belief that tennis = lawn tennis. Nadal was focused and able to expose Berettini’s weaknesses for the first two sets, before the Italian managed to impose himself and play his game in the third (he’s still on a trajectory of improvement, and you’d expect him to do best of all at Wimbledon), but Rafa came on top in the fourth. His adaptation to being more aggressive and efficient has paid dividends, and if he was seriously wondering whether he’d have to retire last year, this is even more of a gift of a run than I thought it was.
I wish we’d seen more of the Medvedev-Tsitispas match as it got spicy and to understand more about their beef. Medvedev showed him - again - if the scoreline is anything to go by, and emphasised the difference between them. He seems to have come through quite a tough way, even if the talk is that, sans Djokovic, he’s the best player. He seems happy to play antagonist against the romance of Nadal’s improbable return to glory and burnishing of the big three’s legend.
By Saturday night, when I watched the women’s finals, I knew the result and scoreline. At least Collins was playing, but in the first set, Barty was the stronger player. It was clear that two pockets aside, the crowd were all for the home player, so all credit to Collins for stepping up the aggression in the second set and revealing that Barty was nervous. A player couldn’t ask for better than to be stepping up to serve for a set with a double break, except that the Australian started pushing back, and Collins did not have a big enough serve. Despite being the taller player, she never had an easy service point, and it was only after Barty had fought back to 5-5 that Collins was able to halt the momentum, making Barty serve to make it 6-6, which she was able to do. And then Barty played a very strong tiebreak, emphasising why she’s the number 1, with her variety. She was laser focused toward the end, and it’s clear that the two slams under her belt were a big part of making her ready for this.
I found myself agreeing wth Andrew Castle’s blunt assessment that Collins has to work on her serve if she wants to be ‘in the conversation’ (Keothavong said she’d be, but Raducanu and Fernandez didn’t make it to the second week of this tournament.) All credit to Collins if she can build from joining the top 10, but I’d be unsurprised if the churn of women’s tennis continued, Barty aside, but we thought the same thing about Osaka after she won the Australian Open last year, although she’s still to prove herself on clay and grass. Certainly, you need to win mltile slams to separate yourself at the moment.
Castle’s other point was that Australia (especially Tennis Australia) must have been delighted with that day, when Kyrigos and Kokanassis beat another pair of Aussie men as well as the Barty party making it all about the tennis after the Australian Open was in the news for reasons that had nothing to do with tennis before it even started.
As for the men, my heart wanted Nadal to win, I was curious as to whether Medvedev was in a place where, after his tough run, he could stop the return to former glories. After all, I had’t seen Nadal consistently at his best throughout a match.
Somehow (by avoiding the news), I came to watch the highlights of the men’s final without knowing the outcome. It seemed that Medvedev won the first set easily, but in the second, a wily old Nadal tried interesting things to win, and was ahead on games and then in the tiebreak and yet he couldn’t make it. Heartbreaking, I thought, with that set having lasted overran hour, but then (and an excellent selection of games for a highlights show. I was glad I wasn’t watching the whole thing live because I’d have been an emotional wreck) Nadal - well, he was never going to stop competing, but he subverted expectations about his body and game not being able to keep it together, and he was dictating the points and playing better in the third and fourth sets. Medvedev was looking more tired. (He so needs to work on his volley technique, and learn when to deploy a droshot.) And Rafa imposed a break in the fifth and was serving for it, and frm the third set on I was shaing my head and going ‘Rafa, man’ in
But he double faulted and faltered two points away from the championship, and I started to worry because whoever won two more games would win and Medvedev was serving, but Rafa applied pressure where he needed to and broke again. With new balls, out he came to serve for the championship again - his twenty-first Grand Sla, only his second Aussie Open, this thirty-five year old who learned the amazingness of second chances years ago, you knew it was unlikely we’d see another double fault, and we didn’t. Instead, there were strong first serves, and suitably, Rafael Nadal won it on a volley. Staggering. The whole comeback from two sets down, and yet, as the hours piled on in the clock behind the player, there was a sense that Nadal knew from all the finals he’d played, winning and losing, what it took physically, mentally and emotionally to win, something Medvedev is only starting to learn.
And yet, how did Rafa do it? How did he physically look the stronger in the latter stages of the match? I do not know. (Anne Keothavong postulated that the half a year off was good for his body although I’m sure he’d have rather done without the Covid.) He wasn’t thinking about tomorrow or the next week, better the pain of having given everything than the pain of losing. To edge in fron of the rest like this is staggering, and his comments after lifting the trophy spoke of the hunger that drives him. Okay he didn’t face Djokovic, but that’s Djokovic’s fault, he won seven matches against worthy players and the second best player out there - Medvedev was playing to win back-to-back slams, and somehow Rafa won. His brilliant smile said it all.
News of British payers’ fate came: Cam Norrie, the male British number 1, was out in the first round but that didn’t seem so bad when I learned it was to Sebastian Korda, who I don’t think any seed would be keen to face. Murray came through in five against Bashisasvili - haven’t they played each other a LOT recently? But every time he wins a five setter, I don’t think that’s going to help him go deep. It didn’t. Raducanu beat an inconsistent former Grand Slam champion, but then lost with a blistered thumb, but she’s got a much longer career ahead of her than Murray or Dan Evans. Of the latter, no shame in losing to Auger-Aliasseme, per se, except it was in three sets without a whimper.
Osaka was out at this stage, but I hope the return to tennis was a positive for her from a mental health and well-being perspective. Barty, the women’s no. 1, playing at home, which is a huge pressure, was through, as was Medvedev, the highest seeded men’s player.
And then I thought to check iPlayer’s Sport category, and for the AO’s second week, there were highlights shows, usually featuring one match and wrapping up the rest of the results, including the doubles and wheelchair tennis (with a British bias.) It was weird, because on the Monday night, I watched nearly three shows, already knowing what the results were because of the time lag. But I got to watch two Nadal matches, and learned he’s been off with a foot injury and caught COVID at Christmas, which added an extra layer to the fact that the man has won 20 Grand Slams and is still playing while Djokovic cannot. He somehow got through the Shapavalov match (and even though I’m a Rafa fan, yes, the Canadian is right, they give Nadal and Djokovic in particular an easy ride over the time violations. I don’t mind umpire discretion after twentysomething point rallies in gruelling conditions, but that didn’t seem to apply here…)
On the men’s side, it felt as if the gooduns after the ‘next gen’ (such a dated concept, but covering Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev, Tritsipas) were coming through: Shapavalov still hasn’t quite put it all together against the very best, but was a quarter finalist here for the first time, Auger-Aliassime almost beat Medvedev at the same stage, where one also found Sinner, although he was more definitely checked. Tsitsipas and Berretini are backing up their status (Zverev had a surprising off day), with the Greek player returning from an elbow injury.
On the women’s side, it was as volatile as ever, with Alize Cornet finally making it through to a quarter final. Otherwise it was a mix of surprises and Grand Slam champions (there are so many of them.) Barty still had to be the favourite, and I hoped that her experiences in the French and Wimbledon helped her not to crumble. The Beeb showed less of all the women’s play, so I felt underinformed about Keys’s comeback or Collins’s play, But I do know that in women’s tennis, they all believe these days.
Suddenly we had Sue Barker presenting these shows, and Andrew Castle and Anne Keothovaong commentating from a British studio. The Barty vs Keys semi final match got most of the airtime. Barty was dauntingly good at first, handling Keys’s first serves and always having an answer. Perhaps the scoreline doesn’t tell the whole story, but she’s barely dropped a game all tournament on her serve.
I expected/wanted Swiatek to face her in the finals, in as much as I expect anything in the women’s game at the moment, but all credit to Collins, especially if these are the results now she’s living pain free. She’d be the fourth American Barty would face in a row.
All Aussie men’s doubles final (the women’s double got no covergae on the Beeb since Heather Watson went out.)
They featured the Nadal v. Berretini semi, and as one of Nadal’s fans, I don’t mind their prioritising his run because he’s the best known player and Berretini was the Wimbledon finalist, and the BBC does pander to the UK’s belief that tennis = lawn tennis. Nadal was focused and able to expose Berettini’s weaknesses for the first two sets, before the Italian managed to impose himself and play his game in the third (he’s still on a trajectory of improvement, and you’d expect him to do best of all at Wimbledon), but Rafa came on top in the fourth. His adaptation to being more aggressive and efficient has paid dividends, and if he was seriously wondering whether he’d have to retire last year, this is even more of a gift of a run than I thought it was.
I wish we’d seen more of the Medvedev-Tsitispas match as it got spicy and to understand more about their beef. Medvedev showed him - again - if the scoreline is anything to go by, and emphasised the difference between them. He seems to have come through quite a tough way, even if the talk is that, sans Djokovic, he’s the best player. He seems happy to play antagonist against the romance of Nadal’s improbable return to glory and burnishing of the big three’s legend.
By Saturday night, when I watched the women’s finals, I knew the result and scoreline. At least Collins was playing, but in the first set, Barty was the stronger player. It was clear that two pockets aside, the crowd were all for the home player, so all credit to Collins for stepping up the aggression in the second set and revealing that Barty was nervous. A player couldn’t ask for better than to be stepping up to serve for a set with a double break, except that the Australian started pushing back, and Collins did not have a big enough serve. Despite being the taller player, she never had an easy service point, and it was only after Barty had fought back to 5-5 that Collins was able to halt the momentum, making Barty serve to make it 6-6, which she was able to do. And then Barty played a very strong tiebreak, emphasising why she’s the number 1, with her variety. She was laser focused toward the end, and it’s clear that the two slams under her belt were a big part of making her ready for this.
I found myself agreeing wth Andrew Castle’s blunt assessment that Collins has to work on her serve if she wants to be ‘in the conversation’ (Keothavong said she’d be, but Raducanu and Fernandez didn’t make it to the second week of this tournament.) All credit to Collins if she can build from joining the top 10, but I’d be unsurprised if the churn of women’s tennis continued, Barty aside, but we thought the same thing about Osaka after she won the Australian Open last year, although she’s still to prove herself on clay and grass. Certainly, you need to win mltile slams to separate yourself at the moment.
Castle’s other point was that Australia (especially Tennis Australia) must have been delighted with that day, when Kyrigos and Kokanassis beat another pair of Aussie men as well as the Barty party making it all about the tennis after the Australian Open was in the news for reasons that had nothing to do with tennis before it even started.
As for the men, my heart wanted Nadal to win, I was curious as to whether Medvedev was in a place where, after his tough run, he could stop the return to former glories. After all, I had’t seen Nadal consistently at his best throughout a match.
Somehow (by avoiding the news), I came to watch the highlights of the men’s final without knowing the outcome. It seemed that Medvedev won the first set easily, but in the second, a wily old Nadal tried interesting things to win, and was ahead on games and then in the tiebreak and yet he couldn’t make it. Heartbreaking, I thought, with that set having lasted overran hour, but then (and an excellent selection of games for a highlights show. I was glad I wasn’t watching the whole thing live because I’d have been an emotional wreck) Nadal - well, he was never going to stop competing, but he subverted expectations about his body and game not being able to keep it together, and he was dictating the points and playing better in the third and fourth sets. Medvedev was looking more tired. (He so needs to work on his volley technique, and learn when to deploy a droshot.) And Rafa imposed a break in the fifth and was serving for it, and frm the third set on I was shaing my head and going ‘Rafa, man’ in
But he double faulted and faltered two points away from the championship, and I started to worry because whoever won two more games would win and Medvedev was serving, but Rafa applied pressure where he needed to and broke again. With new balls, out he came to serve for the championship again - his twenty-first Grand Sla, only his second Aussie Open, this thirty-five year old who learned the amazingness of second chances years ago, you knew it was unlikely we’d see another double fault, and we didn’t. Instead, there were strong first serves, and suitably, Rafael Nadal won it on a volley. Staggering. The whole comeback from two sets down, and yet, as the hours piled on in the clock behind the player, there was a sense that Nadal knew from all the finals he’d played, winning and losing, what it took physically, mentally and emotionally to win, something Medvedev is only starting to learn.
And yet, how did Rafa do it? How did he physically look the stronger in the latter stages of the match? I do not know. (Anne Keothavong postulated that the half a year off was good for his body although I’m sure he’d have rather done without the Covid.) He wasn’t thinking about tomorrow or the next week, better the pain of having given everything than the pain of losing. To edge in fron of the rest like this is staggering, and his comments after lifting the trophy spoke of the hunger that drives him. Okay he didn’t face Djokovic, but that’s Djokovic’s fault, he won seven matches against worthy players and the second best player out there - Medvedev was playing to win back-to-back slams, and somehow Rafa won. His brilliant smile said it all.