Home > Tennis > Australian Open: No tennis thunder down under

Australian Open: No tennis thunder down under

For sports junkies in the USA, there are just too many distractions at home to bother with the tennis from Melbourne - not to mention getting up in the middle of the night.

by Boyce Adams on 18 January 2007

Email this Article (3) Comments

100%

James Blake: serious contender? (www.gettyimages.com)

Related Bet:

Free £25 bet when you register at

It’s January and tennis’s first major of 2007 is being played in Melbourne, Australia at arguably, the finest facility in the world. There are great story lines. Can Roger Federer continue his dominance? Can Rafael Nadal put in a strong performance on a surface many feel suits his game almost as well as his beloved clay? Can James Blake take that next step and move from “feel good story” to “serious contender”? Can Andy Roddick show that his performances at the end of last year’s hard-court season were not a fluke? Which Marat Safin will show up?

On the women’s side, can Amelie Mauresmo defend her title and put to rest once and for all any questions about her mental toughness? Can Maria Sharapova win a second consecutive major title? Is Serena Williams serious about her comeback?

In spite of these positive factors, I’m not particularly interested in the Australian Open. I have my reasons.

1. Are you familiar with the concept of an off-season? Tennis players often complain that their season goes on too long. The final of the year-end Tennis Masters Cup was played on November 20. The deciding match of the Davis Cup Final was played on December 4. Less than six weeks later, they’re playing the first round of the Aussie Open. It’s not only the players who need a break. The fans need one, too. Only golf’s off-season is shorter, and they don’t play the Masters in mid-January.

2. Too many other sports-viewing options: If you’re a sports junkie like me, you’ve got a lot on your plate at this time of year: The NFL Playoffs; college basketball; the NBA and the NHL. Something’s gotta give, and, for me, that something ends up being tennis.

3. Time zone Issues: I know I’m going to sound like the stereotypical “ugly American”, but in order for me to watch any of these matches live, I would have to stay up until the wee small hours of the morning. I love tennis, but I’m not pulling an all-nighter just so I can see whether David Nalbandian can make it to the Round of 16. The matches are re-broadcast the next day, but, in this era of constant sports updates, it would practically require my locking myself in a sensory deprivation chamber in order for me to not find out the outcome of these matches before they’re re-broadcast.

4. The power of history: I became a tennis fan circa 1981. In those days, the Aussie Open was played in December and the top players did not exactly flock to the tournament. In fact, they stayed away in droves. During the early to mid-1980s, I did not find out who had won the Australian Open until I heard the player’s name mentioned during a French Open broadcast that next June. If anyone ever asks you who won the 1986 Australian Open women’s final, and you draw a blank, don’t panic. It’s a trick question. There was no Aussie Open played in 1986. I know it was done because the championship was being moved back to its original January date, but, to my young mind, that still eroded almost all of its credibility. Twenty years later, the Australian Open has regained much of that credibility, but not all.

5. Rebound Ace and the 'Agassi Factor': (If you’re an Andre Agassi fan, read the following at your own risk) In 1988, the Australian Open moved from the grass courts at Kooyong to the Rebound Ace hardcourts of Melbourne (nee Flinders) Park. Little did I know that this would become a source of tremendous bitterness. You see, once they started to play the Aussie Open on Rebound Ace, it meant that, technically, tennis’s four major championships were now played on four different surfaces: Rebound Ace hardcourt; clay; grass; and Har-Tru hardcourt. Fast forward to June 6, 1999, a date which will always be remembered - the date on which Andre Agassi defeated Andrei Medvedev to win the French Open. This gave Agassi his fourth major title and made him one of only a handful of men to win all of tennis’s major championships.

Until Roger Federer wins the French Open, I will have to listen to Agassi fans tell me (ad nauseam) that their beloved ‘Dre is the only male player to win Grand Slam titles on four different surfaces. They will cite it as compelling evidence that a player who wasn’t the greatest of his own era somehow merits consideration as the GOAT (greatest player of all time).

So, these are my reasons for not being as big a fan of the Australian Open as I am of tennis’s other three “slams”.

Do you think the Australian Open is less prestigious that the other Grand Slam tournaments? Let Sportingo have your views.

Comments (3)

by Tim on January 18, 2007

Very well said, and I agree with basically everything you say. In my opinion, there is no room for the Australian Open in the tennis calendar and there is little doubt that it is considered the least important of the 4 slams. I still do not consider Thomas Johannson a Slam winner!

by dez on January 18, 2007

to be honest, you do sound exactly like that. you won't stay up to watch 'david nalbandian make it to the round of 16', because? he's not american? if he was, you probably would, as nalbandian has a very watchable and excellent all round game. if you're a 'sports junkie' and you like tennis as you claim to, then you watch the 1st grandslam of the year. or is new haven more important because it's in america? yes, i mean new haven, not new york. essentially, your basis for not watching, is that it's not to your liking because of time difference and not enough americans. pretty sad if you ask me.

by Boyce Adams on January 18, 2007

Dez, In my defense the time zone issue was one factor out of five and I freely admitted it could be construed as a case of ugly Americaism. One of those factors was that the Australian Open's shift to rebound ace is used to exaggerate the importance of an American player. None of the other reasons I cite has anything to do with Americanism, ugly or otherwise. Thanks for the feedback, though. : )