In some ways, the 2020 Australian Open men’s singles was no different to events of years’ past. After two weeks of brutally hot day sessions, enthralling night-matches on Rod Laver Arena and five-set thrillers, Novak Djokovic finished the second Sunday holding the Norman Brookes Challenge Cup aloft for the eighth time, taking his tally of Grand Slam titles to 17. Yet, as both he and runner-up Dominic Thiem addressed in their post-match speeches, there was a distinctive element to this year’s tournament. Thiem phrased it aptly in saying that the Australian Open was a “great distraction” from the bushfire tragedies that ravaged Australia through late December and into the New Year. It has been uplifting to see how the wider tennis community united together in a meaningful attempt to contribute to repairing the overwhelming damage caused to homes and lives across Australia. It all kickstarted with Nick Kyrgios’ pledge to donate $250 Australian dollars for every ace he hit in the Australian summer (through a variety of means Kyrgios alone raised over $90,000), and the majority of players across the ATP Tour jumped on this bandwagon in some degree. Notably, there was also the Rally for Relief event before the tournament began, which raised a staggering $5 million, as well as some individuals who raised the bar to new heights – primarily Alexander Zverev, who donated $100,000 for every match he won and pledged to donate the entirety of his prize money had he won the event (he lost in the semi-finals). The phrase “it’s more important than tennis” became a well-used one throughout the Australian summer, showing how this year’s Australian Open possessed a scope and significance that was undoubtably unprecedented.
Thus, it was to the tournament’s immense credit that it acquired a tangible and separate identity for the quality and drama of the tennis on display as well as the external factors taking place. There were no major shocks in the first few rounds but a trio of young Next-Gen stars: Denis Shapovalov, Matteo Berrettini and Stefanos Tsitsipas, all fell before the second week – somewhat surprisingly considering each had finished the 2019 season so strongly. The third round battles between Roger Federer and John Millman, as well as Nick Kyrgios versus Karen Khachanov, demonstrated the dramatic potential of the final set “super-tiebreak”. Federer recovered from an 8-4 deficit to storm back and win six points in a row for the match, while Kyrgios showed admirable mental strength to banish any demons caused by squandered match points in both the third and fourth set tiebreaks to haul himself over the finish line by the same scoreline (Kyrgios’ on-court interview in the immediate aftermath is worth a watch). Federer followed up his comeback against Millman with another Houdini act; somehow saving seven match points against unseeded American Tennys Sandgren in the quarter-finals. These victories may provide moments of sweet elation for Federer fans but they betray an unfortunate truth; at his age, if he is to continue to challenge for major titles, he can’t afford to expend so much energy and court-time in the early rounds. Before facing Novak Djokovic in the semis, Federer had spent nearly 12 hours on court, subsequently saying he felt he only had a “3% chance” of winning the match. This seems slightly hyperbolic, as he was able to race into a 4-1 40-0 lead simply by taking shots early with little to no arduous movement, yet the point stands that if he had the physical capacity to trade with Djokovic at points in the match; that combined with his supreme ball-striking would’ve given him a significant chance of executing his game-plan in a manner similar to last year’s Wimbledon final.
The tournament also heralded breakthroughs for two potential challengers of the Big Three’s dominance, in Dominic Thiem and Alexander Zverev. Apart from his consistency at Roland Garros, it is fair to say Thiem has flattered to deceive when it comes to results at Grand Slams, only making one other quarter-final at the 2018 US Open. Despite this continuing to be the case in 2019, last year became a breakout season for the Austrian in terms of his hard court game, where he captured three out of his five titles (including his biggest one yet in Indian Wells) and came agonisingly close to winning the ATP Tour Finals in London. This stark improvement has coincided with the appointment of Nicolas Massu as Thiem’s head coach, who has managed to bring together his power, ball-striking ability and athleticism into developing a fully-fledged game-style that can bring Thiem the same level of success on hard that he has had so far on the clay. His quarter-final clash with Rafael Nadal – a match that had always been on the cards from the moment of the draw’s release – proved to be one of the highest quality matches of the tournament. The first set initially appeared to follow typical Thiem-Nadal grand-slam narrative: a tense, even start before a loose game from Thiem seemed to gift Nadal the first set. Thiem’s immediate break-back and subsequent winning of the opening set on a tiebreak was crucial when considering Nadal’s renowned excellence as a frontrunner in matches. The three tiebreaks Thiem won exemplifies how he was able to raise his level in moments of high pressure and intensity – a theme that was reoccurring in his semi-final victory over the aforementioned Zverev.
I came across a particularly good tweet saying if someone had posited on the eve of the tournament that Zverev would be in the final four, they would have been chased around the room with a butterfly net. This tells you everything about the German’s circumstances going into the first major of the year – having just endured a chastening ATP Cup to say the least. Zverev though, when reflecting on his run in press after his loss to Thiem, argued the clear lack of expectations was one of the most significant factors in making the semi-finals. His assessment is a fair one – “the first two matches I struggled but because I had no pressure, I was able to take it match by match, which maybe I haven’t done in other tournaments.” Zverev’s well-documented problem at Slams is his inability to make efficient progress through the early rounds, meaning that, similar to Federer in this tournament, he has no capacity to produce his best tennis in second weeks of major tournaments. Notwithstanding expectations, anyone who has followed Zverev over the past year knows how integral his first serve is within the mechanisms of his game – and how the whole machine can completely combust if this component misfires. Zverev averaged 78% first serves across the entire tournament – an astonishing number when considering 60-65% is perceived as a good showing. This element proved the difference for Zverev; a good example being his quarter-final against Stan Wawrinka, where he was steamrolled 6-1 in the first set but his ironclad grip on serve placed immense pressure on the Swiss, forcing continuous errors and a breakdown in confidence on his backhand side. The semi-final he contested with Thiem was a scrappy, nerve-filled affair, yet Zverev had his chances and will rue giving Thiem 3-0 headstarts in both the third and fourth set tiebreaks. Even with the serve in place, there are still weaknesses within the Zverev game – notably his passivity on big points and seeming inability/reluctance to consistently inject pace off his forehand wing, but this showing will give him a confidence and conviction that has been sorely lacking from his tennis in the last 12 months.
When it comes to Novak Djokovic and Melbourne Park, there isn’t much that hasn’t already been said. Irrespective of the fact there was a two next to his same, he entered this event as the overwhelming favourite – affirmed by his 5-0 showing in Serbia’s inaugural ATP Cup triumph. Ironically his toughest challenge before the final was the potential banana-skin of Jan Lennard Struff in the first round – who handed Djokovic his only set loss prior to his title challenge against Thiem. In the final, however, Djokovic displayed a kaleidoscope of moods and form that ran very contrary to the unwavering consistency he had modelled throughout the tournament. The first set was typical Djokovic – quality returning with a specific focus on being the aggressor and not letting Thiem dictate the rallies. The second set saw a slight drop off from both, but it all came to a head at 4-4. Djokovic was twice time-violated for going over the 25-second-shot-clock (the second time at 15-40, which resulted in a loss of his first serve); instigating an emotional hangover that carried on well into the third set, both physically and emotionally. At this stage in the match, Djokovic looked finished – taking on a haggard figure who looked short of ideas and a shadow of the 16-time major champion we have been used to watching dominate the world stage for so many years. Credit should be not be taken away from Thiem – who responded very strongly to his own mental fragilities in gifting Djokovic the first set with a double fault. The key moment of the match was Thiem’s break point opportunity at 2-2 in the fourth set, but saving this seemed to ignite an inner strength within Djokovic and both the fourth and fifth set took on a cruel type of inevitability for Thiem. The scoreboard pressure told at 4-3 and the 16 unforced errors committed in the fifth set suggests that Thiem finally may have exceeded his physical limit, having been on the court six whole hours longer than his opponent. Similarly to Medvedev in the US Open final, Thiem refused to go without a fight, fighting off four break points to keep the score to one break, but it was a case of nearly but not quite for the likeable Austrian. I may be biased, but there is no doubting that his moment of Grand Slam glory will come – it’s seems only a matter of time.
Site Title 