TENNIS: The Australian Open singles finals
Feb. 1st, 2023 06:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllAfter all that, due to family circumstances and other things, I didn’t have access to Eurosport on Saturday, but remembered Radio 5 Sports Extra and joined the women’s final in the middle of the first set, which Rybikina won, but Sabalenka, serving first in the second, started that set better and was given more opportunities to deploy her tactics, which included targeting Rybakina’s forehand. So, she won the second set, but you couldn’t call it in at the start of the third – I found I was rooting for Rybakina, but she was getting a little stressed, as this final was not going like her one at Wimbledon. Sabalenka finally broke her, but although she got close she couldn’t break twice to win. The final game was about her controlling the moment. She took her fourth championship point.
During the commentary, it emerged that Sabalenka had had a good 2023, and Rybakina was the first to take a set off her in the Australian Open, while Rybakina had only previously lost one set at the tournament. It was a good final – both can hit big and were playing attacking tennis. Rybikina’s forehand has been shown up, but she’s backed up winning Wimbledon by her string of results and run here. Sabalenka had worked hard to fix her serve after having a torrid time with it 12 months ago, and finally got a slam win.
As for the men, I couldn’t watch or listen to the final live. I saw the headline that Djokovic had won his 10th Australian Open and 22nd slam, meaning he’s drawn equal with Nadal. I got to see highlights on YouTube.
Before the final, I was hoping Tsitsipas had improved enough to make a match of it, but expected Djokovic to win. Pat Cash was arguing on Saturday that Tsitsipas had a chance because of his different, better game than all Djokovic’s previous opponents in Melbourne this year, but Djokovic won in three. He won the second set where Tsitsipas fought so hard. Okay the final two sets went to tiebreaks, but it looked as if Djokovic always had the better of it (and his record against Tsitsipas is even more emphatic than his record against Rublev.) And as well as the slam, the No. 1 ranking was on the line.
Djokovic is younger and his body seems in a better place than Nadal’s, hamstring or no. It might take the youngest guns a little time to mature to play to his level, but he’s just schooled Tsitipas. (Again.) If they get well, Alcaraz and Nadal ought to be forces on clay, and Djokovic’s unvaccinated status means he can’t play in the US, but it’s mainly about the slams for him now, surely. And surely motivation for those shouldn’t be a problem. Thiem is still in the wilderness, I don’t know how Zverev’s recovery is going, and Medvedev had his worst Aussie Open in the past three years. (And will he and the other Russians and Belarussians be allowed to play at Wimbledon, which lessens their opportunities?) Can Kyrigos or Murray burn as brightly as they have in the past for long enough to compete?
(Ha, I dared to speculate about the men, but not women’s tennis.) [Edited to correct names 19/12/25.]
During the commentary, it emerged that Sabalenka had had a good 2023, and Rybakina was the first to take a set off her in the Australian Open, while Rybakina had only previously lost one set at the tournament. It was a good final – both can hit big and were playing attacking tennis. Rybikina’s forehand has been shown up, but she’s backed up winning Wimbledon by her string of results and run here. Sabalenka had worked hard to fix her serve after having a torrid time with it 12 months ago, and finally got a slam win.
As for the men, I couldn’t watch or listen to the final live. I saw the headline that Djokovic had won his 10th Australian Open and 22nd slam, meaning he’s drawn equal with Nadal. I got to see highlights on YouTube.
Before the final, I was hoping Tsitsipas had improved enough to make a match of it, but expected Djokovic to win. Pat Cash was arguing on Saturday that Tsitsipas had a chance because of his different, better game than all Djokovic’s previous opponents in Melbourne this year, but Djokovic won in three. He won the second set where Tsitsipas fought so hard. Okay the final two sets went to tiebreaks, but it looked as if Djokovic always had the better of it (and his record against Tsitsipas is even more emphatic than his record against Rublev.) And as well as the slam, the No. 1 ranking was on the line.
Djokovic is younger and his body seems in a better place than Nadal’s, hamstring or no. It might take the youngest guns a little time to mature to play to his level, but he’s just schooled Tsitipas. (Again.) If they get well, Alcaraz and Nadal ought to be forces on clay, and Djokovic’s unvaccinated status means he can’t play in the US, but it’s mainly about the slams for him now, surely. And surely motivation for those shouldn’t be a problem. Thiem is still in the wilderness, I don’t know how Zverev’s recovery is going, and Medvedev had his worst Aussie Open in the past three years. (And will he and the other Russians and Belarussians be allowed to play at Wimbledon, which lessens their opportunities?) Can Kyrigos or Murray burn as brightly as they have in the past for long enough to compete?
(Ha, I dared to speculate about the men, but not women’s tennis.) [Edited to correct names 19/12/25.]
