By Owen Lewis

1. The bushfire relief effort

This year’s Australian Open was played under a physical and metaphorical cloud. Whether or not the matches would start on time was being debated up until merciful weather improved the air quality in Melbourne. The qualifiers were still impacted, though, with several players citing difficulty breathing, and Dalila Jakupovic even suffering a coughing fit and collapse that forced her to withdraw from her first-round qualifying match (which she had been leading!).

Players have united to donate to the Australian bushfires, raising almost five million dollars during the Rally for Relief. Nick Kyrgios got the ball rolling on Twitter, asking Tennis Australia if a pre-Australian Open exhibition were possible to raise money. He also pledged $200 per ace that he would hit throughout the Australian summer. Other players have followed suit, also donating money per ace, or even per double-fault (a great gesture and a great sense of humor featured by Belinda Bencic) or per angry conference with coach (props to Simona Halep). Still others have made larger, singular donations — Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal offered a combined $250,000, and Alexander Zverev pledged $10,000 per match he won and all his prize money on the condition that he won the tournament (he didn’t, but won five matches for a total package of $50,000). And these are just the most well-known examples of generosity from the ATP and WTA athletes — Petra Kvitová, Alex de Minaur, Maria Sharapova, Novak Djokovic, and even more players have donated to the Australian Red Cross to help the relief effort. Fans were able to donate through the Australian Open as well, donating an amount per ace from their favorite players.

The giving spirit of the athletes has been inspiring, and reminds the circuits and fans that there are bigger things than tennis.

2. Sofia Kenin scores her maiden major title

Going into the tournament, 23-time major champion Serena Williams was the odds-on favorite to equal the controversial Margaret Court’s all time record of 24. But she fell in the third round, defending champion Naomi Osaka also lost in the round of 32 to teen sensation Coco Gauff (who Kenin beat in a three-set match, bageling the 15-year-old in the final set), and world number one Ash Barty was taken out by Kenin herself in the semifinals. As the draw disintegrated, Kenin looked more and more like a threat for the title, but things were by no means easy as the American had to battle hard to defeat Barty.

But perhaps the best example of Kenin’s mettle came in the final. She lost the first set to resurgent veteran Garbiñe Muguruza, then recovered strongly to take the second. Serving at 2-all in the deciding set, Kenin fell behind love-40. She responded with an astonishing five straight winners, showing impressive poise at the biggest moments of her career. After digging out the hold, the young American broke Muguruza twice, sailing to a 6-2 final set victory.

3. Novak Djokovic edges closer to the all-time major record, while Dominic Thiem draws closer to his first

Dominic Thiem, after enduring heartbreak at the hands of Rafael Nadal at the French Open finals in 2018 and 2019, reached his first hard court major final. Yet his sorrow continued — he had the misfortune of playing Djokovic, the most successful man at the Australian Open. The Austrian was close to breaking through; he took a two-sets-to-one lead and had a break point early in the fourth set, but he fell short of the title. In a match of not especially high quality, in which both players hit more unforced errors than winners, Djokovic had the mental edge in the crucial moments of the fifth set. The now-eight-time Australian Open champion had struggled with his second serve throughout the contest, but produced a beautiful, sliding second serve out wide at 4-3, 30-all in the fifth that Thiem couldn’t handle. He served out the match to 15 with typical poise, and earned his eighth Australian Open title as well as his 17th major overall.

Djokovic’s victory means that he creeps ever nearer to Nadal and Roger Federer, the only two men to stand ahead of him on the men’s all-time major leaderboard (with 19 and 20, respectively). The Serb also regained the number one ranking, and will be the favorite to win Wimbledon and the U.S. Open later this year (Nadal is the favorite to win the French Open, and Thiem is a strong contender as well, but Djokovic has beaten both of them on clay in the last few years, and is one of just two men that have defeated Nadal at Roland-Garros). With that in mind, he could tie Federer’s record by the end of this year, and will likely be disappointed if he isn’t within one or two of the mark by season’s end. He is also the member of the Big Three closest to his physical prime — he may well surpass both his great rivals in the next couple years.

As for Thiem, he should be disappointed at his failure to get over the line, but not depressed — he was three games away from winning his first major, got tight and played a poor service game that left him a break down. He battled well in the fifth, but was unable to take either of his two chances to break back. With the French Open next on the horizon, Thiem may have his best opportunity yet to win a major — Nadal has topped him at Roland-Garros the last three years, but now that the Austrian has finally gotten the best of the clay-court dynamo in a major, he will be confident like never before.

4. Roger Federer battled hard, but fell victim to injury and Djokovic

At tournament’s beginning, Federer seemed to have been blessed with a comfortable draw to the semifinals. But in the third round, it required everything he had to get past John Millman, a scrappy Aussie who had beaten Federer at the 2018 U.S. Open (read about their epic five-set battle here: https://theracket.home.blog/2020/01/24/roger-federer-clings-on/). He then rebounded from a set down to beat Márton Fucsovics in four sets in the round of 16.

Nobody expected Tennys Sandgren, a player arguably talked about more for his fitting first name than his, well, tennis, to take out Federer in the quarterfinals. And he didn’t. But he was perhaps as close as one can come. The American spurned seven match points in Federer’s 6-3, 2-6, 2-6, 7-6 (8), 6-3 victory. This is a loss that is not only disappointing (he was playing for the first major semifinal berth of his career) but potentially career-damaging.

As for Federer, he commented that his groin had troubled him during the match, and after two draining five-setters in three matches, his chances to beat Djokovic appeared slim. The Swiss turned heads when he played a brilliant first half hour against the Serb, but failed to convert crucial break points at 4-1 and couldn’t capitalize on a love-30 lead at 5-2. Djokovic then settled into his rhythm, serving brilliantly for the rest of the match, and won comfortably: 7-6 (1), 6-4, 6-3.

It’s difficult to say where Federer’s year will go from here. He has no plans to retire as of the end of the Australian Open, and could in theory play for years to come. Yet he is having more difficulty beating lower-ranked players in Grand Slams. This prolongs matches that the 38-year-old desperately needs to be short, and he will be a severe underdog, as he was in the semifinal, against Djokovic if he is physically compromised.

5. Serena’s struggles continue

Serena Williams, off the back of reaching the final at the U.S. Open, was made one of the favorites to win Down Under. During her run at Flushing Meadows, she vaporized Qiang Wang 6-1, 6-0, with her opponent not hitting a winner until late in the second set. This is quite a level of dominance. So when they met in the third round of the Australian Open, Serena was an extremely heavy favorite. But Wang played with admirable grit, and amazingly showed no scar tissue from their previous match. She pulled the upset, 6-4, 6-7 (2), 7-5. After Serena made a trademark push late in the second set, Wang kept a cool head and bore down to win the third set anyway. It was a massively impressive victory, but a disappointing loss for Serena.

The 23-time major champion’s comments after the match, which slammed her own performance and did not once mention her opponent by name, made it clear how she felt about the loss. She hit nearly three times as many unforced errors as Wang, and spurned chances to break in the deciding set. Serena will now likely look to Wimbledon as her next realistic chance to win a major. She is still considered a threat at the slams, but with each poor result, her chances of tying Margaret Court’s record of 24 majors are seeming more and more slim.

6. Alexander Zverev’s breakthrough

Zverev’s struggles in the months preceding the Australian Open have been mighty (read about them here: https://theracket.home.blog/2020/01/06/the-enigma-of-alexander-zverev/). He was hitting as many as 20 double-faults in a match, and was consistently losing to lower-ranked players. But just prior to the Australian Open this year, he was on the practice courts for many hours every day in an attempt to right his game.

Zverev’s efforts were rewarded as he made his deepest run yet at a major — he reached the quarterfinals without dropping a set and then beat three-time Grand Slam champion Stan Wawrinka in four sets. Along the way, he beat an in-form Andrey Rublev comfortably, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4, who had already won two tournaments in 2020. Zverev then fought well in the semifinals against Thiem, twice having a set point for a two-sets-to-one lead (and he didn’t do much wrong on those points; Thiem hit winners on both of them). The German should feel optimistic about his year.

By Owen Lewis

Novak Djokovic is the most successful male player ever at the Australian Open, and is 7-0 in finals at Melbourne Park. He hasn’t lost a set since the first round, and has served imperiously throughout his last six matches. His most recent contest was a 7-6 (1), 6-4, 6-3 dismissal of 20-time major champion Roger Federer, during which he did not face a break point for the final two sets.

This is what Dominic Thiem must overcome to win his first major title. He has to physically defeat Djokovic, the human wall whose flexibility allows him to return the unreturnable, and display mental strength and belief in pivotal moments. Given the daunting task, few are picking Thiem to dethrone Djokovic. But there’s a distinct possibility that the Austrian can pull the upset.

Thiem has a 4-6 record against Djokovic, though five of his six losses came before 2018, when the former made his first major final (2018 French Open, lost 6-4, 6-3, 6-2 to Rafael Nadal). He’s won four out of the last five, including an epic five-set win at the 2019 French Open and a three-setter of scarcely believable quality at the ATP Finals. At times during those matches, Djokovic has struggled for answers to Thiem’s firepower from the baseline (during their French Open match, he came to net 71 times, with just 35 successes. This was likely in part due to the blustery conditions, however) — most recently at the ATP Finals, where Thiem blasted 51 winners past the Serb’s incredible defenses. But what may help the Austrian the most is confidence. He has a winning record against Djokovic as of late, and in the quarterfinals beat Nadal in a major for the first time. With the knowledge that he has beaten top players on tennis’s most hallowed courts, Thiem’s self-belief will likely be through the roof when he takes to the court tomorrow.

Thiem hits his groundstrokes with impressive pace, often overpowering his opponents. His one-handed backhand is a crucial weapon, especially when he hits it down the line. That shot, when at its best, produces many winners and attacking shots that open up the court for him to thrash unreachable volleys or forehands. His forehand is powerful, and among the best on tour — in his most recent match with Djokovic, Thiem crushed forehands at an average of over 80 mph across the entire two hours and 47 minutes. He has a good serve, one that delivered 16 aces against Nadal in the quarterfinals, but he may want to focus on making first serves because his second is sometimes a weakness given Djokovic’s incredible return game.

Djokovic’s style is fairly different from Thiem’s. His backhand is indisputably the best in the world, but it’s not as much of a weapon as the Austrian’s; it’s more of a holding shot that comes back over the net ten times out of ten and 100 times out of 100. That’s not to say that he can’t use it for aggression, though — it’s produces formidable passing shots and deep, penetrating groundstrokes. Djokovic is brilliant at redirecting pace down the line off both wings, which allows him to gain the advantage in rallies. Yet perhaps his most important virtue is his defensive ability. His aforementioned flexibility as well as sliding skills result in a nightmare for most players — an opponent who claws back shots they were sure would be winners time and again.

This matchup will likely be decided by Thiem’s offensive ability or Djokovic’s tremendous defense. If Thiem can smash shots past the Serb consistently enough, and for long enough, he’s got a great chance to win. But if Djokovic can weather the storm, badgering Thiem into errors with his unfailing consistency, he will likely own a record-extending eighth Australian Open title.

So, the prediction: Djokovic in five. Thiem is developing into a spectacular hard court player, but Djokovic feels most at home on Rod Laver Arena and it will take a truly memorable performance to deny him in a final on that court for the first time. That being said, I believe Thiem’s power and confidence from winning four of their last five matches will make the final a close encounter. Hopefully we’re in for a classic.

By Owen Lewis

Last night, 34-year-old Stan Wawrinka beat world No. 4 Daniil Medvedev 6-2, 2-6, 4-6, 7-6 (2), 6-2. The victory advanced the three-time major champion to the quarterfinals, where he will play German Alexander Zverev, the only player left in the men’s draw yet to drop a set. Zverev has never made it past the last eight at a major, and with Wawrinka facing this winnable match, the question that suddenly arises is: can he win the Australian Open?

The answer? Yes. But it will be difficult. I named Wawrinka (born in Lausanne, Switzerland) as one of the seven men that could win the men’s title in my article assessing the results of days one and two Down Under, and he remains in the draw. Two of the men on that list, Stefanos Tsitsipas and Medvedev have fallen, while Wawrinka and the other four (the Big Three and Dominic Thiem) have reached the quarterfinals.

Wawrinka has several things going for him. He’s won three majors, so he knows what it takes to claim a slam — something that four of the other quarterfinalists, Tennys Sandgren, Zverev, Thiem, and Milos Raonic aren’t yet aware of. The trio of Grand Slams were also hard-fought; he beat Djokovic and Nadal on his way to winning the 2014 Australian Open, Federer and Djokovic at the 2015 French Open, and Juan Martín del Potro, Kei Nishikori, and Djokovic at the 2016 U.S. Open. He beat Djokovic again at the U.S. Open just five months ago (though the Serb was hampered by an elbow injury). Having beaten the world’s top three men at the highest level, Wawrinka will have a measure of confidence going into a match with one of the game’s titans.

However, the Swiss is by no means the favorite. That distinction goes to Djokovic, the world number two who has seven Australian Open titles to his name. Federer and Nadal are considered the players next most likely to win the tournament. Additionally, Wawrinka is 0-2 against Zverev so far in their head-to-head, so it wouldn’t be a huge surprise if he were to lose to the German.

Yet there is a path that would lead Wawrinka to a second Australian Open title. If he can beat Zverev, he will play Nadal or Thiem in the semifinal. These potential opponents met at the 2018 U.S. Open, and the former won 0-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-7 (4), 7-6 (5) after a massive battle that lasted a shade short of five hours. Nadal, exhausted from the taxing contest, had to retire with a knee injury in the next round. If the pair play a similarly exhausting match tomorrow night, Wawrinka is more than capable of taking advantage of a compromised Nadal. As for Thiem, the Swiss leads their head-to-head 3-1 and would likely go into the match with the odds close to even (Thiem has been more successful at slams over the past two and a half years). In the final, Wawrinka would most likely play Djokovic, who he has beaten in four of their last five major meetings. He would probably still be a slight underdog, as Djokovic is 7-0 in Australian Open title matches, but his power has been telling in their most recent clashes.

Now, for this road to occur Wawrinka would need some considerable luck. The Swiss beating Zverev isn’t a sure thing, and if he plays Nadal in the following round he’ll need to play a fantastic match to win — the Spaniard leads their rivalry by a demoralizing 19-3 (though one of Wawrinka’s wins came at the 2014 Australian Open final; the Swiss overpowered an injured Nadal in four sets). If Wawrinka manages to make a run to the final, he’ll likely have to overcome Djokovic, who plays his best tennis in Melbourne Park.

So it’s possible but not probable that Stan Wawrinka will win his fourth major at this year’s Australian Open. Regardless, he should already be satisfied with his result. After a difficult, injury-strafed two years starting in mid-2017, the Swiss has started to turn in performances at majors that are beginning to resemble his major-winning form from 2014-2016. Even if he loses to Zverev in the next round, it seems that he’s on his way back to the top ten. And he’s not out of the tournament yet.

By Owen Lewis

On September 4th, 2018, during the early morning under the lights of Arthur Ashe Stadium, 20-time major champion Roger Federer sent a forehand well wide of the tramlines. It was his 77th unforced error of the match, and the one that completed his 6-3, 5-7, 6-7 (7), 6-7 (3) loss to Australian John Millman. The Aussie took off his baseball cap, in an almost businesslike fashion, and walked quickly to the net for the post-match handshake.

Fifteen and a half months later, on the bright blue court of Rod Laver Arena, Federer returned a huge Millman forehand with a defensive backhand slice that hung up in the air and fell just past the service line. Millman cracked an inside-in forehand, and anticipating the direction of the shot, Federer ran it down and belted a crosscourt forehand that caught his Aussie opponent out of position, and sped into the left corner for a winner. Federer had gotten revenge for his loss at the U.S. Open with an incredibly dramatic 4-6, 7-6 (2), 6-4, 4-6, 7-6 (8) victory in the third round of the Australian Open.

The 38-year-old Swiss is past his prime, this is unquestionable. Since his 2018 victory Down Under, he’s suffered a series of average results at the Grand Slams, making just one final and one semifinal in the seven following majors. At this year’s edition of the Australian Open, though, Federer seemed to be blessed with a comfortable path to the semifinals — the highest seeds in his quarter, Denis Shapovalov and Matteo Berrettini, were upset in the first and second rounds, respectively. And after the six-time Australian Open champion won his first two matches comfortably, many believed that he would sail to the semifinals, where he would likely face a rematch with Novak Djokovic (who had beaten him in the 2019 Wimbledon final. Federer got a measure of revenge by beating the Serb at the group stage of the ATP finals, but the magnitude of the matches doesn’t compare). But Millman was waiting in the third round, and the Swiss needed all of his poise and experience to get over the line.

Millman signaled his intentions early on, breaking in the third game and going on to take the first set. Federer bounced back to win the next two, but it appeared that a repeat of their Flushing Meadows battle was on the cards when the Aussie evened the match and went up a break in the fifth set. The Swiss managed to break back, and each man navigated through difficult service games at the end of the frame. Yet the moment of highest tension came in the newly-installed fifth-set, ten-point super-tiebreak.

Federer got off to a poor start by hitting long on his opening service point, and for a while it seemed that this could be a fatal error. Millman played beautifully for the majority of the tiebreak, holding his first six points on serve and taking an 8-4 lead with back-to-back forehand passing shots on the run. With the underdog striking the ball so well, few expected a Federer comeback, but a combination of Millman’s nerves and the Swiss’s refusal to capitulate turned the tide.

After Millman’s second passing shot, a ferociously angled crosscourt forehand, Federer pulled back to 8-5 with a well-shaped backhand that forced an error. The next point was a brutal forehand-to-forehand rally, and eventually Federer drove a forehand down the line and Millman sent his backhand long. The Aussie then pushed a forehand past the baseline, putting the tiebreak back on serve at 8-7. Back on serve, Federer engaged Millman in another attritional forehand duel, again being the first to change direction and following up with a drop shot. It wasn’t the Swiss’s best dropper, and Millman reached it easily but looped a makeable forehand well long. At 8-all, Federer came to net, forcing the issue, and was rewarded when Millman swung a lob beyond the baseline. Finally, Federer converted the first and only match point of the contest by correctly guessing the location of Millman’s final forehand and belting a winner off that same wing.

In an upset-riddled night in Melbourne that saw Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka crash out of the tournament, Federer had narrowly avoided a similar fate. Had Millman clung on to his lead in the final tiebreak, it would have been Federer’s earliest exit at a slam for five years, and likely would have sparked furious conversation about the Swiss’s decline. Millman looked understandably devastated after the match — for all his brilliant play up until 8-4 in the tiebreak, the string of errors that followed, both forced and unforced, proved his undoing. Federer seemed relieved in the post-match interview, expressing his luck at guessing correctly on match point. He spoke not as if he was already looking ahead to the fourth round but as if a crisis had been averted.

Still, it was no doubt an impressive comeback, and it’s not the first time Federer’s made such a great escape. During the 2009 Wimbledon final against Andy Roddick, the Swiss lost the first set 7-5 and fell behind 6-2 in the second set tiebreak. Federer won the next six points and the breaker, 8-6. After the Swiss celebrated with a passionate yell, commentator Andrew Castle declared, “Now, there is never a bad time to win six points in a row. But to win them from 6-2 down in the tiebreak…well, that was probably the passage of play that will decide the champion of Wimbledon this year”. Spoiler alert: it was, though it required an almighty struggle to put Roddick away in the end — Federer won 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14.

Amazingly, Federer again picked the best possible time to win six points in a row, ten and a half years after that epic Wimbledon final. This time, the streak didn’t just win an important set and signal a key momentum change, but won the Swiss the match altogether.

Still, much has changed since that match in 2009. Back then, Federer was ranked No. 1 in the world and was considered (after defeating Roddick, he held the all-time men’s record for most major titles) the greatest men’s tennis player ever by many. Now, that status is being threatened by Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal, Federer’s two biggest rivals who split the four slams in 2019. The trio are immersed in a Grand Slam race, one that Federer holds a slim lead in (20 slams to Nadal’s 19 and Djokovic’s 16). Federer currently stands at number three in the ATP rankings, while his rivals occupy the top two spots. The Swiss hasn’t won a major title for two years, but such a tense, dramatic victory may help him get deep into the draw. While Federer’s form against Millman wasn’t as impressive as it was in his first two matches, he has now survived an extremely testing match, which could prove beneficial.

A potential semifinal with Djokovic awaits, who has won their last four meetings in majors, dating back to Wimbledon in 2014. In order to win a 21st major, Federer will likely have to overcome the most successful male player at the Australian Open (Djokovic is a seven-time champion in Melbourne), and then win his next match, too. The Swiss is an underdog in this Australian Open, and it is yet to be seen whether the great escape act from Millman’s clutches will prove a springboard that propels him closer to the final or a bright ray from the twilight of Federer’s accomplished career. Time will tell.

By Owen Lewis

2020 Australian Open, second round. Petra Kvitová leads Paula Badosa 7-5, 4-5, and is serving to stay in the second set. She’s the seventh seed, and made the final at the previous year’s Australian Open. Because of this, Kvitová is the heavy favorite in the match. But she falls behind love-30 in this game, and, perhaps gripped by nerves, double-faults for love-40. All of a sudden, Badosa has three set points to even the match, earning the right to play one set on Rod Laver Arena for a third round berth. It would be the biggest win of her life. But just as quickly as the opportunity arose, it disappeared. Kvitová’s nerves that had caused the double-fault faded. Badosa’s awakened. She misses a second serve return for 15-40, then defends well on the next point but misses a backhand pass by about a millimeter for 30-40. Kvitová then produces an unreturnable forehand, a forehand winner, and an ace to hold.

5-all now. I’ve seen many matches with momentum swings like this one, and it was as if I could sense the ending of the match, watching it happen in slow motion. Kvitová, I knew, having survived three set points, would in turn threaten her opponent’s serve. And she did, taking a love-40 lead. The shift in momentum saturates the court. In the space of two minutes, Badosa has seen three set points come and go, and now stands five points away from losing the set (and the match) herself. She saves the first two break points for 30-40, trying to reassert herself, but a huge Kvitová forehand earns the break, and the seventh seed then served out the match to love.

After returning at 4-5, love-40 up, Badosa won two points for the rest of the match. Imagine telling her that at the turning point of the match; she probably wouldn’t believe it. When getting ready to return that second serve at love-40, maybe her mind was already in a third set. Maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the excitement of a potential deciding set on Melbourne Park’s show court caused her to swing too hard at the return. It’s possible that she simply miscalculated. At 15-40, the backhand pass that missed narrowly was by no means a sitter. Had it fallen in, it would have been a remarkable shot. Badosa thought it did. She celebrated with a scream of triumph, then challenged when she realized the ball had been called out.

Something that resonates when watching a tennis match is the transfer from present tense to past tense. This is the case in all aspects of life; one moment moves into another, but I sense it the most acutely in tennis. Badosa had three set points. Then she had two. Then one. Now it’s deuce. But she was just one point away! Now she’s two points away. What was didn’t and doesn’t matter. She needed to erase the previous points from her mind, not allowing missed chances to interfere with her play. In a tennis match, remembering an opportunity that was seized does no more good than ruing one that went begging. Either way, dwelling in the past could interfere with current strokes, causing an overhit forehand here, a netted backhand there.

This is the margin in a tennis match. One millimeter? you ask. That’s how much Badosa’s passing shot missed by. Sure. But that’s not the point; on any other day that pass might have fallen in or missed by five feet. The margin in this match was the difference between the past and the present. After double-faulting at 4-5, love-30, Kvitová instantly forgot about it. After missing the second serve return and the backhand pass, Badosa was still dwelling on the missed chances as she served at 5-all. And at such crucial moments, what needs to pass through a tennis player’s head for them to win the match is not I was one point away from winning the set. Now I’m eight points away. It should be where do I want to place this serve? What’s going to win me this point? What do I need to do in order to win this service game?

Kvitová lived in the present. Badosa let the past haunt her, no matter how recent it might have been. And this was the difference.

You might think this sounds like criticism. It’s not. To avoid thinking about missed opportunities is one of the most difficult things for an athlete. Serving at 8-7, 40-15 up in the fifth set of the 2019 Wimbledon final against Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer (who is considered by many the greatest men’s tennis player ever) may have been thinking about when he was serving at 5-3, 40-15 up in the fifth set of the 2011 U.S. Open semifinals against Djokovic. He failed to take either match point in 2011, and he failed to take either match point in 2019. Coincidence? Perhaps. But those two points passed in under a minute. A single thought of the past when the present looms large can cost players points, sets, matches, and even careers, and it’s incredibly difficult to keep the past at bay.

Back to the Kvitová-Badosa match. The former advances to the third round. People will see the 7-5, 7-5 final score and see a straight-set victory. That’s what it was, but it was also much more than that. But it doesn’t matter now, not for Kvitová or Badosa. It’s etched in stone. It can’t be changed. Kvitová will likely be consumed by thoughts of continuing her Australia Open campaign, while Badosa might use the missed opportunities as motivation to improve. But whether they do or don’t, the result is unchangeable.

Some say that there’s a universe in which Badosa took one of the three set points and went on to win the match. One where she didn’t, but still won the match. One where she did and still lost the match. But these universes exist only in hypotheticals and analysis of the past. The present marches purposefully, remorselessly, brutally and mercifully forward, and the only universe that has material value is the one in which Petra Kvitová won a tight, straight-set second-round match at the Australian Open against Paula Badosa.

By Owen Lewis

The 2020 Australian Open is underway, and the first round has concluded. Here are some observations from the first two days.

The Big Three

Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, and Rafael Nadal have combined to win the last twelve majors (taking three, four, and five respectively), and look on track to grab a thirteenth in a row. Federer was imposing in his first round victory over Steve Johnson, defeating the American 6-3, 6-2, 6-2 and saving the only break point he faced. Nadal lost even fewer games, rolling Hugo Dellien 6-2, 6-3, 6-0 (though the Spaniard got broken twice and the first set lasted fifty-two minutes). Djokovic had the most difficult first round opponent in Jan-Lennard Struff, and while it ended up being a comfortable win in the end, Djokovic lost the third set 6-2, striking consecutive double-faults to drop the set when serving at 2-5 and deuce. He recovered quickly, sailing through the fourth set 6-1, but it was a bit strange to see him lose a relatively lopsided set. Still, he is known for playing his best in big matches, and he will likely round into form by the second week. His draw until the quarterfinal (where he is slated to play sixth seed Tsitsipas) is fairly comfortable, with the highest other seed in his eighth of the draw being Diego Schwartzman, against which Djokovic has won all three of their meetings. Federer is in a similar situation, besides a potentially testing third-rounder with either an in-form Hubert Hurkacz or John Millman (who beat Federer at the 2018 U.S. Open), Federer’s draw is smooth until the quarterfinals (and even at that stage the highest seed he can face is eighth-seeded Matteo Berrettini). Nadal’s draw is tougher — the world number one may have to play the enigmatic yet dangerous Nick Kyrgios in the fourth round and fifth-seeded Dominic Thiem in the quarterfinals. Federer and Djokovic are on the other side of the draw, but Nadal has by far the most rocky route to the semifinals out of the trio. Overall, it’s looking good for one of the Big Three to win the Australian Open title, and with the Grand Slam race extremely close at 20-19-16, the stakes are high. Djokovic is the favorite to claim his seventeenth major, based on his splendid record Down Under (seven-time champion), Nadal’s inability to beat Djokovic on hard court since 2013 (hasn’t won a set against Djokovic on hard court since the 2013 U.S. Open) and Federer’s age (38).

Other threats for the men’s title (and why it’s virtually impossible for anyone except a select group of seven to win)

Daniil Medvedev, Dominic Thiem, Stefanos Tsitsipas, and Stan Wawrinka. Those are the four men outside the Big Three with a chance to win the tournament. Medvedev and Thiem have both made slam finals in 2019, and Wawrinka is a three-time major champion capable of beating anyone on his day (he knocked out top-seeded Djokovic at the U.S. Open in September). Wawrinka is ranked considerably lower than the others on this list, but his firepower and ability to play big matches well make him the only player outside the top six with a realistic shot at the title. Tsitsipas is the least accomplished of the four at slams, but made the semifinals at last year’s Australian Open, has recently won the ATP Finals and has beaten Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer in 2019. So it wouldn’t be an earth-shattering shock if one of the quartet listed above took the title. But it would be if anyone else outside Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, or Wawrinka did. Here’s why.

Andrey Rublev began his 2020 magnificently, claiming titles in Adelaide and Doha. He is on a nine-match winning streak, and overcame a second-set bagel to win his first round match in Melbourne in four sets. Yet his chances to win the Australian Open are incredibly slim. Looking at his form, one might think that he could ride his momentum into the tournament, improbably beat a top player, and if the draw opens up, who knows? But taking a look at the draw, we see that Rublev will likely have to play eleventh seed David Goffin in the third round, seventh seed Zverev in the fourth round, Medvedev in the quarters, Nadal in the semis, and Federer or Djokovic in the final. Add this to the fact that Rublev hasn’t made it past the quarterfinals at a major before and it seems that the young Russian’s slam breakthrough won’t come at this tournament. Now, it’s unlikely that all of the players above would make the rounds listed, but Rublev would be an underdog in most or all of the matchups (his best shot would come against Zverev or Goffin), so even if four of the five lost early, the fifth could still topple Rublev. Not since the 2014 U.S. Open has a major final taken place without a Big Three player on court.

This illustrates how difficult it is for any player outside the Big Three to win a major. To get across the line, they often have to beat not one but two of the almighty trio. Wawrinka, to win his three majors, had to beat two of Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer in order to grasp tennis’s most prized trophies. Remember John Millman, who beat Federer at the 2018 U.S. Open? That was in the fourth round, and Djokovic was waiting in the quarterfinals. Millman lost in straight sets. Physically, mentally, and emotionally, it’s so hard for a player to maintain an intensity high enough to meet one of the Big Three on an even plane. Only Wawrinka and Andy Murray have been able to do so over the past five years, and it’s extremely unlikely that a player outside the seven mentioned above will break through over the next fortnight.

Serena Williams seeks major #24

Serena Williams is already regarded as the greatest female player of all time, but one barrier remains that she has not shattered. Margaret Court owns the all-time record of major titles won (24), and though it is decidedly less impressive than Serena’s 23 and even Steffi Graf’s 22 (11 out of Court’s 24 slams are Australian Opens, and when she won them it wasn’t a particularly prestigious tournament, so she didn’t face very tough opposition. Also, the Grand Slam draws were 32 players back then), Serena has been pursuing a 24th major for a few years now. Since mid-2018, she’s made four slam finals, but she hasn’t been able to close the door, losing each final in straight sets. Though the record-tying major remains just out of reach for the great American, many believe she will get it; she is the oddsmakers’ favorite to win the Australian Open title.

Serena was imperious in her first round match, demolishing Anastasia Potapova 6-0, 6-3. If she keeps up such form, she will surely go deep into the draw, but to win she will likely have to topple players at the height of the women’s circuit. Though she is often in contention for majors, Serena’s victory at the ASB Classic in Auckland was her first tournament win since 2017, and her ranking has suffered as a result. She is the eighth seed, and a potential quarterfinal with third-seeded Naomi Osaka, who beat Serena in the final of the 2018 U.S. Open, looms large on the horizon. And should she make the final, she will need to remove the mental block that has been built by her recent performances in slam finals.

Other contenders

The top of the women’s game is far more competitive than that of the men. While there is a huge disparity between the Big Three and the rest of the ATP players, the top female athletes are closer in level. While three men have won all the majors in the past three years, there have been nine different women that have seized the Grand Slams on the WTA circuit. Every time a major comes around, pundits say that there are fifteen or twenty different women that could win it. This is often true — at the French Open in 2019, the draw utterly disintegrated and just five of the top fifteen seeds made the fourth round (eighth-seeded Ash Barty ended up winning, and is now ranked number one). And at almost every major, a top seeded woman is unceremoniously taken out by a much lower-ranked player.

Barty lost the first set of her opening match, but rolled to the finish line, 6-1, 6-1 afterwards. Simona Halep, the winner of two majors over the past two years, dug out a close first set before cruising in the second: 7-6 (5), 6-1. Petra Kvitová, a finalist at the Australian Open last year, romped to a 6-0, 6-1 victory. And Osaka, the defending champion, won comfortably, 6-2, 6-4. But those are some of the top players — dark horses include Coco Gauff, a fifteen-year-old who beat Venus Williams in the first round, Danielle Collins, the in-form 26th seed who was a semifinalist last year, Caroline Wozniacki, the 2018 champion who is retiring after the tournament, and Madison Keys, a ferocious ballstriker capable of overpowering virtually every player in the draw.

Predictions

On the men’s side, the Big Three have to be the favorites. A potential Djokovic-Federer semifinal, I think, would determine the champion. Djokovic is the favorite to win that match if it happens, given that Federer hasn’t beaten him in a major since 2012. Medvedev may challenge for the title, though; he is slated to play Nadal in the semifinals, who he’s pushed to the brink the last two times they’ve clashed. It’s worth noting that he’s also won two of his last three matches against Djokovic.

I expect Naomi Osaka to defend her title from 2019, but this pick is much more of a guess. Other players such as Karolina Pliskova, Serena, Halep, Barty, Belinda Bencic, Keys, and Elina Svitolina are perhaps equally capable of winning or going deep into the tournament. But Osaka has an all-around game, one anchored by a powerful serve and penetrating groundstrokes, and I think it will win her the 2020 Australian Open.

By Owen Lewis

The tennis circuit leads players around the world, and onto different surfaces. Matches take place on three surfaces: grass, clay, and cement (hard court). There is a distinct difference between these courts, in speeds, movement, and the impact they have on a player’s tactics.
Why is it often a good play to serve and volley at Wimbledon, but is sometimes a near suicide mission at the French Open? It’s all about the speed of the surface. Wimbledon is played on grass, which is the material that makes the fastest courts. So, a big serve will reach the returner quickly, limiting their reaction time. As a result, following a good serve into the net is likely to work because the return might be weak or hit down the middle of the court (depending on how good the serve is and how good the returner is). But on a clay court, the slowest of the surfaces, the returner will have more time to plan their return and a serve-and-volley is much less likely to work. The effectiveness of serves is limited considerably — at the French Open last year, in a match between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, each player hit three aces. But when they played again at Wimbledon, Federer hammered 14 and Nadal managed 11. Also, the points are shorter on grass and longer on clay. Because of the difference in speeds, a groundstroke that is a winner on grass might be reachable on clay. Again, at Wimbledon in 2019, a 45-shot rally took place between eventual champion Novak Djokovic and Roberto Bautista Agut. This is virtually unheard of on grass, because almost all the time a player makes an unforced error or finds an unreturnable shot, be it a volley or groundstroke, earlier than the rally than the 45th shot (for the record, Djokovic won the point with a beautiful backhand winner down the line). But on clay, long rallies are the norm. To be clear, a 45-shot rally is abnormally long for any surface — but in a clay-court match, grinding points of 15, 20, or 30 shots come at a surprise to few. With the effectiveness of serves reduced, a rally reaches the neutral stage much more quickly and more often, and it’s more difficult to hit a winner. Also, players can slide on clay. This makes it easier to reach shots; as athletes can utilize the slide to change directions faster. Some players like Nadal or Djokovic can slide into their shots, making the process of changing direction even quicker. It’s much, much harder to slide on grass — some freaks of nature like Djokovic can manage it — so this is another reason rallies are shorter.
“What about cement?” you might be wondering. Well, hard court is the happy medium. 60% of matches on tour take place on the surface, and it is neither as slow as clay nor as fast as grass. As a result, there are more hard court specialists than grass or clay experts. It’s possible to slide on hard court, but players don’t slide as often as they do on clay. On cement, the slide is used more as a defensive maneuver — it’s similar on clay, but athletes can slide whenever they want, sometimes even sliding into a shot when it’s not necessary. It’s also more taxing on hard court; like it’s name, hard courts are firm and it’s more challenging to change directions than on the softer clay.
Hard courts have a lot of variation to their speeds; some are nearly as slow as clay and others are even quicker than the lawns at Wimbledon. Overall, though, the speed of hard court falls between that of clay and grass, and because of this, players can either serve and follow it to the net, or stay back at the baseline and grind out rallies, each with varied success. Because of the intermediate speed of the courts, a net-rusher is in more danger of being passed than they would be on grass, and in more danger of being hit through on the baseline than they would be on clay. So, a balance is best — only coming to the net behind strong approach shots, and playing aggressively but with prudence from the baseline is a winning strategy.
Because of the varying effectiveness of these strategies on the different surfaces, it’s common for specialists to emerge, thriving on one surface and suffering on another. For example, huge servers like John Isner and Milos Raonic often perform well on grass but crash and burn on clay, where their serves come back tine and again. Similarly, some clay court experts can’t make headway at Wimbledon, where they don’t get as much of an opportunity to engage in long, exhausting rallies (an exception to this is Nadal, who, although having endured his share of losses at Wimbledon, has won it twice and made the final three other times). And some hard court specialists can’t adapt to either extreme, with the grass courts being a little too fast and the dirt a bit too slow.
The system of three surfaces is a great one — if a player manages to dominate, such as by winning the French Open and Wimbledon in a single season, it shows their mastery of both fast and slow courts (Recently, Federer has done this in 2009, and Nadal accomplished the “Channel Double” in 2008 and 2010). Very rarely, a player will manage to win four consecutive Grand Slams, which Djokovic managed to do from 2015 to 2016 (he won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 2015, then the Australian Open and the French Open in 2016). But for the most part, the variation in speeds allows for a variety of champions at tournaments. For example, Nadal dominates clay year after year, Federer has been historically strong on grass, and Djokovic has been the man to beat in hard court for most of the last decade (admittedly, the “variety” I referred to is only three players for the most part, but surfaces do play a role — Federer and Djokovic usually can’t keep up with Nadal on clay, but the Spaniard has suffered against the other two on hard court and grass over the past few years). On the women’s side, Serena Williams has often dominated regardless of surface, but she’s had the least success on clay, where her powerful serves and groundstrokes have limited effect.
In 2007, in an exhibition inspired by Federer’s reign on grass courts and Nadal’s ironclad grip on the clay (at the time, Federer had won 48 straight matches on grass and Nadal had been undefeated for an astonishing 72 matches on clay), the pair dueled in the “Battle of Surfaces”. A half-grass, half-clay court was constructed, with the intention of creating the perfect environment for Federer and Nadal to utilize their strengths. While an exhibition, the match was extremely intense and desperately close, with Nadal winning 7-5, 4-6, 7-6 (10). This contest shows the margins of skill level on a surface and of a tennis match — Federer and Djokovic are arguably two of the best clay courters ever besides Nadal, but they has one French Open title each while the Spaniard owns a mind-boggling 12. In the Battle of Surfaces, it was clear that Nadal was an amazing grass court player and Federer a great clay-courter — just not quite as good as the other.
Overall, surfaces play a huge role in who lifts trophies each year thanks to the differences in speeds having an impact on which tactics have success.
Did I leave anything out? Comment, email me at owenlewis11801@gmail.com, or tweet @tennisnation. Thanks for reading!

By Owen Lewis

In the legendary Rafael Nadal-Novak Djokovic rivalry, the head-to-head is an extremely close 29-26 to Djokovic. But what that record doesn’t show is that the Serb leads 20-7 on hard court (Nadal leads 17-7 on clay, which almost balances things out, and they are tied 2-2 on grass). Their first four meetings on hard court were split two apiece, so why the lopsided 20-7 score now?
First of all, Djokovic is a fantastic hard court player, some even say the best ever (I’m not buying that yet; Roger Federer has won 11 hard court majors to Djokovic’s 10 and has more overall titles on the surface. Yet in the future, Djokovic will almost certainly surpass this total). Nadal is also strong on hard courts, but his favorite surface is clay and his level isn’t as high on the cement. So that’s the brief explanation, but as their careers have gone on the reason for Djokovic’s dominance seems to be more down to playing style, patterns, and mental blocks.
Let’s start with the serve. Nadal isn’t a great server; he hits fewer aces than hundreds of players ranked below him. Add that to the fact that Djokovic is the greatest returner of serve in history and it’s safe to say that many of Nadal’s service games are a battle to hold. Djokovic, on the other hand, has an understated but impressive serve, one that has become more and more effective in matches against Nadal (in their most recent contest, Djokovic hit four straight aces to serve out the first set 6-2!).
Djokovic plays with a two-handed backhand, which is one of the best in the world (click here: https://theracket.home.blog/2019/12/13/novak-djokovic-and-kei-nishikori-two-beautiful-backhands-summed-up-in-one-point/ to see it compared to another fantastic backhand and why it’s just a bit better). His hitting this shot crosscourt is the key to winning the matchup. Djokovic is a righty, and Nadal is a lefty. The Spaniard plays with a vicious topspin forehand that gives many players on the circuit fits, but Djokovic has figured out how to neutralize it. With his crosscourt backhand, he can attack Nadal’s forehand with increasingly aggressive shots while earning increasingly short, weak replies. When the right moment comes, the Serb changes direction, hitting the backhand down the line. This shot often finds the open court, or sets up a putaway. In the past, Nadal has had success with the forehand down the line — changing the direction of the crosscourt rallies before Djokovic can bash his backhand down the line. But in recent matchups, the Spaniard has seemed reluctant to hit down the line with his forehand, even as Djokovic constantly gets the better of the crosscourt rallies. Another pattern that the Serb works to his favor is firing his own forehand down the line to open up the court. But the main deciding factor in recent Nadal-Djokovic matches on hard court has been the ability of the Serb to win the majority of crosscourt rallies. In the most recent matchup, at the ATP Cup (which Djokovic won 6-2, 7-6 (4)), the decisive moment came at 4-4 in the second set tiebreak. Nadal was serving, and Djokovic got into the rally. After about ten shots, he fired three aggressive crosscourt backhands at sharp angles. The last one earned an extremely short forehand reply from Nadal, and Djokovic pounded a punishing backhand winner down the line that the Spaniard was nowhere near reaching. Serving the next two points, Djokovic won both after Nadal errors and took the match in straight sets.
What does Nadal need to do in order to turn around the matchup? First of all, the forehand down the line is key. He needs to hit it much more often to break the crosscourt pattern that Djokovic feeds off of. Also, moving closer to the baseline to return might be beneficial. Nadal stands far back on the return, sometimes even shadowing the wall at the end of the court. He does this so that he has more time to reach big serves, but the trade-off is that it’s harder to return deep or aggressively off weaker serves. Against Djokovic, however, he still seems to get aced regardless of his return position — the Serb blasted 12 aces past Nadal in their most recent match. So standing closer in to attack second serves might pay off — in that ATP Cup match, standing so far back didn’t seem to help Nadal. The big serves he did hook back were often weak returns that Djokovic casually swatted away, and many of his the Serb’s service games were straightforward holds. If Nadal moves forward a few feet to return, a few aces are inevitable, but he would be in a better position to aggressively return second serves.
Whenever Nadal plays Djokovic on hard court from now on, he will likely be the underdog. Djokovic is one of the best hard court players ever, and their strengths match up well for the Serb to play many of the aforementioned crosscourt rallies. But there are tactics Nadal can employ to turn things around.
Do you think Nadal has what it takes to beat Djokovic on hard court again? Comment, email @owenlewis11801@gmail.com or tweet me @tennisnation. Thanks for reading!

By Owen Lewis

The Australian Open is due to start on January 19th. The qualifying tournament began on the 13th — but it shouldn’t have. The bushfires that have raged throughout Australia have resulted not only in the death of hundreds of millions of animals and 28 people, but in terrible air quality that has an effect as far away as New Zealand. Yesterday, the City of Melbourne Twitter account sent out a tweet that included: “The #airquality in Melbourne is hazardous today due to the bushfires. The @EPA_Victoria advises Melburnians should try to stay indoors, keep windows and doors shut, and keep pets inside.” So why on earth were tennis players expected to not only spend hours outside, but engage in intense physical activity?
Already this decision by the Australian Open has had consequences. Heartbreakingly, Dalila Jakupovic, a 28-year-old from Slovenia, had to retire while ahead in her first-round qualifying match. Ahead 6-4, 5-6 and serving, one point away from forcing a tiebreak, Jakupovic was attacked by a coughing fit. She doubled over, then sank to her knees after a few seconds. A medic rushed to her side, and her opponent, Stefanie Vögele, helped a second aide bring ice towels in a gracious gesture. Yet, the match was over. Jakupovic was unable to continue playing, and the blame falls upon the Australian Open organizers for rushing the qualifying tournament. Forecasts had shown that the smoke would begin to clear by the next day, but for whatever reason, the qualifiers began anyway after a brief delay. Jakupovic said after the match “It was very hard for me to breathe for the whole match. After 20 minutes I already had difficulties”. She also stated “I wasn’t able to make more than three shots running left and right because I was already getting like an asthma attack. I don’t have asthma normally”. It’s clear that players aren’t able to compete to their potential in the dangerous air, but more importantly, it could have long-term impacts on their health. The Slovenian isn’t the only casualty of the hazardous air — Genie Bouchard, a former semifinalist at the Australian Open, complained of a sore chest during her opening match and left the court after the second set (she would return and later win the match). Bernard Tomic, in his first qualifying hurdle, took a medical timeout early in the second set, telling his trainer “It’s not like I’m the fittest guy, I just can’t breathe”.

Tennis players have united to support those affected by the fires. Nick Kyrgios took the initiative, pledging to donate $200 per ace that he hit during the Australian summer, while other players have followed his lead, pledging similar amounts per ace, double-fault, or even angry consultations with their coach. Others still have donated outright amounts, with Maria Sharapova and Novak Djokovic donating $25,000 each. The philanthropy is inspiring, and serves as a fantastic example to others, and the same players that have donated to help control the fires should not be subjected to the conditions resulting from them. Player health needs to be a priority not just in written statements but in action. It would undeniably be a shame to compromise the tournament in any way, be it scheduling matches later into the night on the courts with roofs, shortening matches, or changing the venue altogether, but endangering the players’ welfare is a far worse situation. Especially in the qualifying draw, players are unlikely to withdraw because of the allure of the guaranteed $90,000 AUD in the case of a first round berth. Even a single win in qualifiers earns $20,000, which is significant to many lower-ranked players trying to stay on the circuit. So it’s up to the tournament to look out for player health.
With luck, conditions will improve over the next few days and play will proceed as normal. But until conditions improve, the Australian Open’s top priority should be to postpone the matches until it is safe for play to resume.
Update: a rainstorm has luckily rolled through Melbourne, improving the conditions. Still, Tennis Australia should take care to start the tournament only when the air quality is above a certain threshold.