The 2016 Australian Open is in full flow. This is supremely exciting to me for two reasons:
1) I am a massive tennis nerd 2) Over the past few years, the AO has become my favorite slam to watch and follow. There are several factors to this, not least of which (and this may seem counter intuitive) is that I have to wake up at 3am to catch a lot of the big matches.
In light of all of this, I decided to revisit a few of my old postings from this time in 2014.
Allow me set the stage for this lengthy monograph - I am an active member of the Talk Tennis forums and write contributing posts occasionally. Truthfully, I spend a good portion of this effort messing with other posters and generally goofing around. However, after the final of the 2014 Australian Open, I wrote a little exposition about the outcome of the last match. Strangely, I do not have any recollection of writing this, but felt it was surprisingly readable considering the substance and structure of many of my other contributions.
Since this match, Stan has won another slam (2015 French Open), maintained strong results throughout 2014-2015, and solidified himself as a top 5 player on the ATP World Tour.
If you do not follow tennis, or don't care to read due to the length, that is quite alright. It was posted with a specific audience in mind and, quite frankly, I am just putting it here so that I don't have to dig back through 2 years of posts should I need to reference it again.
______________________________________________________________________________
(Let it be first said that I like Stan and Rafael and respect them both as players)
This Australian Open this year was very interesting from a spectating perspective.
It seems that there has been an undue amount of controversy drummed up
over the proceedings and results of the final. Additionally, it would
seem that there is no middle ground to be had on the subject, based on
the largely unreadable polarizing stances taken by most people who have
been posting recently.
I would like to submit that, while there was the factor of a
less-than-100% competitor in the final, the tournament ended how it
should have, and most probably would have.
Stan played an exceptional 2013, and either defeated or took to the wire
all members of the top 4 at slams and large arenas. He played with
consistency and heart during big moments, and began to develop the
mentality and tactics of someone who could challenge any top player on
any given day. He reached a well-deserved high in the rankings and made
a significant impression on the tour, both with fans and with other
players. All said, he’s been knocking on the door for a while now.
Additionally, he worked his tail off during the off-season, and his
results have been indicative. He marched through the Chennai Open.
Coming into the Australian Open, he looked to be on a mission, like he
believed he could make a run. I know that many people on this forum had
him selected as a dark horse to push deep or possibly win the whole
thing.
He played very well through a supremely tough draw, finally ousting the
defending champ at his favorite tournament. I will not say that beating
Novak at the Aussie is as meaningful as taking out Rafa at the French
Open, but it is up there. In my opinion, this was the Final Boss.
He then beat Berdych in the SF, who remained unbroken the entire
tournament. Again, he was playing solid, tough tennis. Credit to him
for not taking the typical ATP route and allowing a big win on a big
stage to cause you to lose focus and fall to a lesser opponent in the
next round.
We now come to the final.
Stan was playing lights-out, completely dominating the court. Even he
said after the match that the first set-and-a-half of the final was some
of the best tennis he has ever played. If you doubt that go watch a
few highlights. Again credit to him for not folding when reaching the
big stage, as many predicted this final would be a walkover.
As far as Nadal’s injury goes, I do not think that he was faking. I
also do not think that he was suffering with the injury to any
significant extent during the first set of the match. He was moving
well and playing well. However, Stan was, on this day, obviously the better
player.
As far as the controversy on the Medical Time Out goes, I think that
Rafael is generally a pretty sporting guy. As the rules stand now, he
was within his rights to take the MTO (I personally believe that the
rules should be amended a bit to only allow for MTOs at the end of sets
or before the injured player serves). However, I also believe that Stan
was well within his right to challenge the umpire and ask what the
issue was. This MTO was probably entirely legitimate, but the problem
was, as Stan stated, that this had happened multiple times in the last
few matches and just generally did not look favorable. That combined
with the issue of some repeated on-court coaching made this in to more
of a talking point than it should have been.
(As for Rafa’s press conference, I thought he did a fair job giving Stan
the credit for the win and the solid two weeks, but I felt he could
have done without alluding to his back being injured prior to the match.
I don’t know if this was necessarily accurate, and shouldn’t have been
a considered a factor throughout the first set.)
At the end of the day, although Nadal is a warrior and has been known to
fight back, we cannot suddenly speculate that if not for a sore back
he would have simply turned everything around and began dominating Stan
for the next three sets. Any guesses on the result of the match based
on the first set-and-a-half would result in Stan winning cleanly.
Again, credit to Stan for composing himself and finishing a job
against an opponent who was playing unexpectedly and erratically. It
would have been very easy for him to let the situation and the occasion
get in his head, but he remained focused and displayed the mental
discipline of a champion.
If we are concerned with such things, the facts of the matter are:
• In 35 previous Slam appearances, he never made a final.
• No eighth seed had won Oz since 1980.
• No player had beaten the top two seeds en route to a Slam title since Sergi Bruguera in 1993.
• No player had ever vanquished Nadal and Novak in the same Slam.
• Stan was 2-27 against the world's top two heading into the Aussie
But, when all is said and done, stats are just stats. They’re numbers
about the past. It did not seem that Stan cared much about stats, and
came in playing like he would win the trophy throughout the tournament.
I do not think that the conclusion can now be drawn that “Stan is in
Rafa’s head” based on the result of one match. But all in all, I hope
that we can all agree that for two weeks Stan was clearly the best
player and more than earned the title.
He does not deserve an asterisk of any kind next to this victory.
