TENNIS: Australian Open 2024
Jan. 29th, 2024 08:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllI followed this from a distance, via news stories and some extended highlights on YouTube. The build-up talked about a big 4 on both the women and men’s sides, and in the UK about Murray, Raducanu and Draper’s chances. Although the latter had done well in the tournament the week before, I thought the priority for him and Raducanu would be staying healthy. There was another woman on the comeback trail in Osaka, but like Raducanu, she was soon out, as was Wosniacki and, due to injury, Svitolina. Andreeva got some headlines by beating Ons Jabeur, but it’s probably Linda Noskova who will be the upcoming teenager we’ll remember as having made her mark, having beaten Swiatek, after Rybakina had been beaten, leaving one half in chaos with one a guaranteed novice finalist. In the other half, Gauff and Sabalenka of that much touted big four, continued to meet in their semi.
Things were mostly much calmer on the men’s side. The last Brit standing was Norrie, who beat Ruud by playing aggressively and lost out in five sets to Zverev. He’ll be hoping for form like that for the rest of the year rather than 2023’s level. Although there were a few ‘upsets’, the top 4 played on, with the Australians getting a better chance to see Alcaraz, who hadn’t played last year, but there were a lot of matches that went on until the wee hours local time, which can’t be good for the players. At the quarter final stage, though, a slow-starting Alcaraz lost to a Zverev playing at the top of the game, meaning that three of the four expected men got through to the final and a not too shabby (tenniswise) seed in the mix.
Sabalenka, the defending champion, beat Gauff to be the favourite in the final. In the second semi, qualifier Yastremeska played seeded Zheng (although I can’t say she’d registered with me before). Both players’ nerves were a factor. The Chinese player won (good for her as an individual, obviously, and probably a big deal in China, with whom the WTA used to have a strained relationship after what happened with Peng Shuai, but had to run back to because of the money.) So, a Belarussian player will be facing a Chinese player, not the various other permutations possible had the American or Ukranian players won. Unlike Aryna Sabalenka, one does have to think about these things, and I say that as someone who has some sympathy for a tennis-mad athlete who needs to work with the system she’s grown up with and lives under, but a bit more sympathy for Ukranians and women forced to have sexual relationships with more powerful men…
Anyway, I tended to think the men’s likely champion would be from the first semi-final, but apparently Djokovic was not himself for two sets, and Sinner was able to capitalise, stay solid despite losing a tiebreak in the third, and win handily in the fourth set, underlining his improvement to get to his first Grand Slam final and be the first Italian playing in the Australian Open final. (But Djokovic! He’s owned the Australian Open for so long; the stat was that he’d had a 33-match winning run there. I wonder if he’ll be able to work out what went wrong – there was talk about a cold and a wrist injury at the start of the slam. Is the fact that he’s 36 finally catching up with him, making his excellence harder to achieve?) What followed was Zverev beating Medvedev in two sets and then the Russian (who’d played more all championship) came back and came back again. Zverev could have won the match, but lost in five. He must be devastated (and he’s going to have legal issues around the time of the next two slams.) Medvedev has improbably got himself into another final and must be proud of himself and has experience on his side, but Sinner is going to be the fresher. Both men’s mental resilience as well as everything else would be tested in the final.
Sabalenka was just too (brutally) good for Zheng, although I don’t think that three double faults in your first service game in the second set is going to help. Apparently, Zheng hadn’t played anyone in the top 50 before the final, while Sabalenka was reported to have been playing at a higher level than anyone else throughout the tournament. Ah well, Zheng is young. Meanwhile, Sabalenka has backed up her first grand slam and presumably learned from all the losses at the back end of other slams where she was in the lead, setting down a serious marker for the rest of the year.
After a women’s final that ended in about an hour, it looked as though the men’s final was going to be a wipeout. Medvedev was playing aggressively, taking the ball early, but it seems as though Sinner raised his level gradually, took the third and started to dictate the type of tennis that was getting played, while all the time Medvedev had spent playing on his way to the final told. (On the one hand, that’s the second time he’s lost a slam final despite a two-set lead, on the other, if he brings that net play in other matches, he ought to do even better.) Sinner has proved that what seemed to be brewing at the end of last year, although everyone has known he had potential for two or three years, really was in him. Coming back to win this must mean so much, let alone winning your first slam. Well done, him.
Things were mostly much calmer on the men’s side. The last Brit standing was Norrie, who beat Ruud by playing aggressively and lost out in five sets to Zverev. He’ll be hoping for form like that for the rest of the year rather than 2023’s level. Although there were a few ‘upsets’, the top 4 played on, with the Australians getting a better chance to see Alcaraz, who hadn’t played last year, but there were a lot of matches that went on until the wee hours local time, which can’t be good for the players. At the quarter final stage, though, a slow-starting Alcaraz lost to a Zverev playing at the top of the game, meaning that three of the four expected men got through to the final and a not too shabby (tenniswise) seed in the mix.
Sabalenka, the defending champion, beat Gauff to be the favourite in the final. In the second semi, qualifier Yastremeska played seeded Zheng (although I can’t say she’d registered with me before). Both players’ nerves were a factor. The Chinese player won (good for her as an individual, obviously, and probably a big deal in China, with whom the WTA used to have a strained relationship after what happened with Peng Shuai, but had to run back to because of the money.) So, a Belarussian player will be facing a Chinese player, not the various other permutations possible had the American or Ukranian players won. Unlike Aryna Sabalenka, one does have to think about these things, and I say that as someone who has some sympathy for a tennis-mad athlete who needs to work with the system she’s grown up with and lives under, but a bit more sympathy for Ukranians and women forced to have sexual relationships with more powerful men…
Anyway, I tended to think the men’s likely champion would be from the first semi-final, but apparently Djokovic was not himself for two sets, and Sinner was able to capitalise, stay solid despite losing a tiebreak in the third, and win handily in the fourth set, underlining his improvement to get to his first Grand Slam final and be the first Italian playing in the Australian Open final. (But Djokovic! He’s owned the Australian Open for so long; the stat was that he’d had a 33-match winning run there. I wonder if he’ll be able to work out what went wrong – there was talk about a cold and a wrist injury at the start of the slam. Is the fact that he’s 36 finally catching up with him, making his excellence harder to achieve?) What followed was Zverev beating Medvedev in two sets and then the Russian (who’d played more all championship) came back and came back again. Zverev could have won the match, but lost in five. He must be devastated (and he’s going to have legal issues around the time of the next two slams.) Medvedev has improbably got himself into another final and must be proud of himself and has experience on his side, but Sinner is going to be the fresher. Both men’s mental resilience as well as everything else would be tested in the final.
Sabalenka was just too (brutally) good for Zheng, although I don’t think that three double faults in your first service game in the second set is going to help. Apparently, Zheng hadn’t played anyone in the top 50 before the final, while Sabalenka was reported to have been playing at a higher level than anyone else throughout the tournament. Ah well, Zheng is young. Meanwhile, Sabalenka has backed up her first grand slam and presumably learned from all the losses at the back end of other slams where she was in the lead, setting down a serious marker for the rest of the year.
After a women’s final that ended in about an hour, it looked as though the men’s final was going to be a wipeout. Medvedev was playing aggressively, taking the ball early, but it seems as though Sinner raised his level gradually, took the third and started to dictate the type of tennis that was getting played, while all the time Medvedev had spent playing on his way to the final told. (On the one hand, that’s the second time he’s lost a slam final despite a two-set lead, on the other, if he brings that net play in other matches, he ought to do even better.) Sinner has proved that what seemed to be brewing at the end of last year, although everyone has known he had potential for two or three years, really was in him. Coming back to win this must mean so much, let alone winning your first slam. Well done, him.
