Australian Open 2012 (1/16 to 1/29)

[Doctor MJ]

Anyway, thank god Djok made the final. Nadal would have received zero credit for destroying Murray.

What's funny about this statement is that the only people who'd try to dismiss Nadal beating Murray for the title are the type of people who overrate the importance of head-to-head matchups in determining overall greatness, and thus have typically been overrating Nadal in the past.

[Slava]

For those complaining about Azarenka winning, she's been the most consistent player through this tournament and I think she even had a nice build up to the slam. She had a tougher draw than Sharapova and was quite mentally tough when it counted.

I was hoping Li Na would take the next step and be a consistent performer over the calender year but so far if someone will take the mantle on the women's tour it more than likely is Azarenka imo.

[Dr Positivity]

I agree, and I see nothing good on the horizon. They need 2 consistent top flight performers, to build a rivalry. They need to separate themselves from the pack and meet regularly in the finals.

I would say there's a legitimate chance of that happening with Kvitova and Azarenka. Both are completely different from the Jankovic and Woz #1s who don't have dynamic offense. These two can both hit huge and are full court athletes and now have the confidence having won their first majors. I was a bit disappointed that wasn't the Final this year

IMO the days of paper tiger women's #1s are now over. Being #1 now goes through Azarenka and Kvitova

[oberyn3]

PATHETIC!! Women's tennis can be so embarassing at times.

Seriously if I were going to pay big money for a tennis slam finals I would NEVER pay for a women's final because 9 out of 10 times you're going to get a stinker like this. Its been how many years now that we've had an exciting, edge of your seat women's finals? How about not for many, MANY years?? I really can't remember one in years now and it sucks!

The last one I can remember was Williams (Serena) vs. Henin at the Australian Open back in 2010. It was a great storyline (Henin's comeback) and the match itself was pretty compelling. It's sad though that that's the most recent one I can think of.

[nadalwon2012]

Anyway, thank god Djok made the final. Nadal would have received zero credit for destroying Murray.

What's funny about this statement is that the only people who'd try to dismiss Nadal beating Murray for the title are the type of people who overrate the importance of head-to-head matchups in determining overall greatness, and thus have typically been overrating Nadal in the past.

Murray is a whole step below Nadal/Djok. Head-to-heads are irrelevant to the fact that Murray has no slams. He is a step far below the slam winners. He has a huge mental barrier that separates him from being a champion. So why on Earth would Nadal get credit for beating a non-champion compared to beating a 4-time champion in Djok? Also, Murray hasn't even won a set in GS finals. If Nadal beat Murray in straight sets, the media would highlight that 'Murray has now been in 4 grand slam finals and is yet to win a set' which points to a mental problem (especially since he's been able to takes sets in GS semis, including the 5-setter vs Djok). Nadal needed Djok in this final, for all kinds of reasons.

[oberyn3]

Anyway, thank god Djok made the final. Nadal would have received zero credit for destroying Murray.

What's funny about this statement is that the only people who'd try to dismiss Nadal beating Murray for the title are the type of people who overrate the importance of head-to-head matchups in determining overall greatness, and thus have typically been overrating Nadal in the past.

Murray is a whole step below Nadal/Djok. Head-to-heads are irrelevant to the fact that Murray has no slams. He is a step far below the slam winners. He has a huge mental barrier that separates him from being a champion. So why on Earth would Nadal get credit for beating a non-champion compared to beating a 4-time champion in Djok?

Hmm. You play who's in front of you. I don't any slam wins should have some imaginary asterisk next to them. Now, I've seen some draws part like the Red Sea, but it's not the fault of the player that ends up winning. In this situation, if Djokovic hadn't played well enough to make the final, why would that have diminished the achievement? I've never understood this one. In 2009, when Federer won Roland Garros it was not his problem that Nadal lost early.

[nadalwon2012]

I agree, and I see nothing good on the horizon. They need 2 consistent top flight performers, to build a rivalry. They need to separate themselves from the pack and meet regularly in the finals.

I would say there's a legitimate chance of that happening with Kvitova and Azarenka. Both are completely different from the Jankovic and Woz #1s who don't have dynamic offense. These two can both hit huge and are full court athletes and now have the confidence having won their first majors. I was a bit disappointed that wasn't the Final this year

IMO the days of paper tiger women's #1s are now over. Being #1 now goes through Azarenka and Kvitova

I hope so, their peak level is extremely high. Who knows if they will maintain it, since women never do in this era. We've just gone a year with each slam being won by a first-time slam winner. And then there is the problem of Wozniacki winning a bunch of non-slams which will probably continue to keep her near the top and maybe regain the number one ranking soon. And then there is the part-timer Serena....

[nadalwon2012]

Hmm. You play who's in front of you. I don't any slam wins should have some imaginary asterisk next to them. Now, I've seen some draws part like the Red Sea, but it's not the fault of the player that ends up winning. In this situation, if Djokovic hadn't played well enough to make the final, why would that have diminished the achievement? I've never understood this one. In 2009, when Federer won Roland Garros it was not his problem that Nadal lost early.

I agree. But I'm looking at how the media (and bloggers) will report this. Like it or not, the media shapes reality for others (not for real tennis fans, but for the mainstream), and records history. Nadal beating a guy who hasn't won a set in slam finals vs Nadal beating the guy who dominated 2011? I know which one I'd take, for the sake of Nadal's legacy. And even astute tennis commentators like John McEnroe continue to bring up the lack of a Fedal meeting at Roland Garros 2009 when they speak of Federer winning it. They don't bring it up in an offensive way, but they note 'Of course that was the French Open Nadal lost early in'....

[UGA Hayes]

Man this is a long match

[UGA Hayes]

E-P-I-C

[5DOM]

Djokovic serving for the title

[UGA Hayes]

D-joke serving for it all, rafa gets a little rattled.

[UGA Hayes]

Its amazing how hard they are still hitting the ball

[5DOM]

That was an amazing point by Nadal

[UGA Hayes]

Lol even their grunts are exhausted sounding

[5DOM]

Djokovic wins but that was awesome

[UGA Hayes]

That one is going to hut for Rafa. He had it and couldn't quite put it away.

[Jugs]

unreal

[Turk Nowitzki]

Absurd.

An all-time classic.

[Turk Nowitzki]

That one is going to hut for Rafa. He had it and couldn't quite put it away.

To be fair Djokovic probably should've won it in 4 sets. Superhuman effort to even get it that far but I do agree, he's not going to forget this one.