TENNIS: Australian Open 2020
Feb. 4th, 2020 08:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllHere's my 2020 Australian Open post
On the women’s side, if you’d have asked me who I thought was going to win at the start of the championship, I’d have said ‘Anyone, but probably not Serena Wiliams’ although she had won a tournament going in. Like every year, I’ve followed the Australian Open via headlines, because I only have Freeview and the vaguest idea of what the time difference is between the UK and Melbourne.
So, I knew that the tastiest round 1 match was a rematch between Venus Willliams and young Coco Gauff. Poor Venus. The youngster won and got the headlines. I remember reading Naomi Osaka, the defending champion, saying she felt protective of Gauff, and thinking ‘You won’t if you’re playing her.’ I must have read that they were drawn to play. Gauff won another notable victory, but was halted by someone six years her senior. I’d heard of Kenin during last year’s French Open, but many hadn’t.
Next it was semi-finals and I was reading a piece putting Ash Barty and Simona Halep into the final, the first because it would be tremendous for Australia to have a woman champion and the second because she’d showed Wimbledon-winning form in the quarters. I remember thinking, ‘Hold on, though, Kenin and Muguruza have played well enough to get this far,’ and was vindicated by the results.
So, the no. 14 seed and an unseeded player were in the finals – oh, women’s tennis – and Muguruza’s two previous slams suggested she ought to be the favourite, but would Kenin’’s self-belief and better results recently tell? Thanks to the BBC highlights show, I got to see how formidable Kenin’s backhand was. Muguruza got the first set under her belt, but Kenin fought back, and won some stunning points, while Muguruza had trouble on her serve – double double-faults at the worst times.
Kenin was exciting – did she truly expect to be this good this soon? After all the false dawns, one makes no predictions – it could very well be another year with four different female slam winners, and those outside tennis will be as surprised by Kenin as they were by Andreescu or Ostapenko. But with all these young players stepping up, it’s only getting more and more difficult for Serena Williams.
The BBC also showed Jamie Murray not winning his eighth doubles slam. It feels somewhat improper that a doubles final is decided on a 10-point tiebreak after one set each.
As for the men, I suppose I’d have given the same answer as last year – Djokovic had to be favourite. The men’s side had fewer stories than the women’s – the British men lost early, Nadal hit a ballgirl, Kyrigos was behaving himself, but still couldn’t maintain the high standards needed to beat Nadal in five sets. Federer had several close ones. Thiem proved that he’s not just competitive on clay by putting out Nadal and Zverev, making him the vanguard of the next gen. But Djokovic has sailed through, especially against an off par Federer...
I watched this highlights programme in three stints. First, I must mention Thiem’s unfortunate frosted tips. But my impression of him, particularly in the second and third sets, was that he was hungry and he’d improved. He won a lot of points offensively with winners. But after a mental lapse in the third, Djokovic came back – I’m aware I didn’t see the full rhythm of the match – and the Djokovic who’s won the Australian over and over, and Thiem could not beat him.
Winning an eighth Australian Open (and regaining world no. 1) is impressive. I wonder how disappointed Thiem will be. He’s improved, taking two sets, although surely he’d want to take three, but he’s in that bind where you probably have to beat two of the big three to get there. Still, it’ll be an interesting clay-courts season with him, Djokovic and Nadal surely jostling for primacy in the build up to the French Open.
On the women’s side, if you’d have asked me who I thought was going to win at the start of the championship, I’d have said ‘Anyone, but probably not Serena Wiliams’ although she had won a tournament going in. Like every year, I’ve followed the Australian Open via headlines, because I only have Freeview and the vaguest idea of what the time difference is between the UK and Melbourne.
So, I knew that the tastiest round 1 match was a rematch between Venus Willliams and young Coco Gauff. Poor Venus. The youngster won and got the headlines. I remember reading Naomi Osaka, the defending champion, saying she felt protective of Gauff, and thinking ‘You won’t if you’re playing her.’ I must have read that they were drawn to play. Gauff won another notable victory, but was halted by someone six years her senior. I’d heard of Kenin during last year’s French Open, but many hadn’t.
Next it was semi-finals and I was reading a piece putting Ash Barty and Simona Halep into the final, the first because it would be tremendous for Australia to have a woman champion and the second because she’d showed Wimbledon-winning form in the quarters. I remember thinking, ‘Hold on, though, Kenin and Muguruza have played well enough to get this far,’ and was vindicated by the results.
So, the no. 14 seed and an unseeded player were in the finals – oh, women’s tennis – and Muguruza’s two previous slams suggested she ought to be the favourite, but would Kenin’’s self-belief and better results recently tell? Thanks to the BBC highlights show, I got to see how formidable Kenin’s backhand was. Muguruza got the first set under her belt, but Kenin fought back, and won some stunning points, while Muguruza had trouble on her serve – double double-faults at the worst times.
Kenin was exciting – did she truly expect to be this good this soon? After all the false dawns, one makes no predictions – it could very well be another year with four different female slam winners, and those outside tennis will be as surprised by Kenin as they were by Andreescu or Ostapenko. But with all these young players stepping up, it’s only getting more and more difficult for Serena Williams.
The BBC also showed Jamie Murray not winning his eighth doubles slam. It feels somewhat improper that a doubles final is decided on a 10-point tiebreak after one set each.
As for the men, I suppose I’d have given the same answer as last year – Djokovic had to be favourite. The men’s side had fewer stories than the women’s – the British men lost early, Nadal hit a ballgirl, Kyrigos was behaving himself, but still couldn’t maintain the high standards needed to beat Nadal in five sets. Federer had several close ones. Thiem proved that he’s not just competitive on clay by putting out Nadal and Zverev, making him the vanguard of the next gen. But Djokovic has sailed through, especially against an off par Federer...
I watched this highlights programme in three stints. First, I must mention Thiem’s unfortunate frosted tips. But my impression of him, particularly in the second and third sets, was that he was hungry and he’d improved. He won a lot of points offensively with winners. But after a mental lapse in the third, Djokovic came back – I’m aware I didn’t see the full rhythm of the match – and the Djokovic who’s won the Australian over and over, and Thiem could not beat him.
Winning an eighth Australian Open (and regaining world no. 1) is impressive. I wonder how disappointed Thiem will be. He’s improved, taking two sets, although surely he’d want to take three, but he’s in that bind where you probably have to beat two of the big three to get there. Still, it’ll be an interesting clay-courts season with him, Djokovic and Nadal surely jostling for primacy in the build up to the French Open.
