The Australian Open Draw...

First topic message reminder :

Is live! Here's a stream: http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/video/live.draw.html

I'll try and stick up the important points as we proceed.

Not too bad a draw for Andy. The first round could be a nail-biter but nothing to really terrify Andy until he potentially meets Del Potro in the quarters.

Screech can sleep walk to the final

well looking at that, Federer has the toughest draw you feel: Paire, Davydenko, Tomic, Raonic, Tsonga, Murray. None of those are easy matches. Djokovic other than a potentially tricky opener against Matthieu will be delighted, onlly Berdych in the QF as a serious threat you feel.

Murray also has a potentially tricky opener against Haase, though Haase isn't playing anything like the level he was back around the Us Open 2011 where he gave Murray a huge scare. After that, it's pretty straightforward for Murray until Del Potro in the QF.

As a Murray fan, I'm happy with that

That is a horrific draw for Federer. I'd be willing to count him out right now, but he is Federer, so that'd be silly. He's got it all to do though, he needed a decent draw more than the others.

Murray vs Novak? Can't see past the latter. He'll become the first man to win it three times consecutively if he does it, incidentally.

Fourth Round - Rosol v Federer.

Another man who will be very happy with that draw me thinks is David Ferrer. No real terrors in his quarter.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well looking at that, Federer has the toughest draw you feel: Paire, Davydenko, Tomic, Raonic, Tsonga, Murray. None of those are easy matches. Djokovic other than a potentially tricky opener against Matthieu will be delighted, onlly Berdych in the QF as a serious threat you feel.

Murray also has a potentially tricky opener against Haase, though Haase isn't playing anything like the level he was back around the Us Open 2011 where he gave Murray a huge scare. After that, it's pretty straightforward for Murray until Del Potro in the QF.

As a Murray fan, I'm happy with that

To be fair though I'd say the first real challenge Roger will face is Raonic. I cannot see him having any trouble against Paire or Davydenko and as for Tomic well look at the thread discussing youngsters and he isn't exactly talked about in glowing terms. Should Fed reach the quarters he will face Tsonga and that could be a humdinger.

Here's the draw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles

i know it was just an exhibition, but novak took it seriously and was comprehensively beaten in straight sets by tomic, i deffo think he will give him a tougher game than last year, even though that isn't saying much.

Yes LuvSports there is that to consider. I'd still back Roger to come through pretty comfortably though. Besides it is not out of the question that Tomic won't even get that far as he needs to beat Leonard Mayer and then perhaps Martin Klizan to earn the right to play Fed.

I do also have a sneaky feeling that Raonic may not even survive to face Federer. He is pretty brittle in slams early doors.

Roger all ways does well against the huge servers, so he won't be too fearful of Raonic.

I hope both Roger and Murray make it to the semis!

In the qualifiers Jamie Baker has lost the first set 6-3 against Italian Matteo Viola.

Jamie Baker now a break up in the second set and leads 3-0.

Roger has by a country mile the worst draw of the top 3. The only silver lining is that I would say that he has the friendliest QF opponent out of the three - though many may disagree.

The second quarter is empty. Could be a chance for Grigor or Nishikori to break through.

Hi tennis people (I usually stick to the golf section)

I am thinking of heading to the aussie open next week and would like to catch a murray match. Is there any way to work out from the draw and the schedule what court and time his matches will be?

It would be best to check online the order of play. Not sure exactly how the ticketing works down under.

McLaren, it will be pretty difficult to work out more than a day or two in advance, certainly for the time of the match at least.

Yes the order of play is normally released twenty four hours in advance throughout the tournament.

This might help.

"Watson will play on Monday, Murray and Robson on Tuesday."

Of course, the BBC are known to be wrong often about these things so take it with a pinch of salt.

Just to add that both Jamie Baker and James Ward won their second qualifying matches overnight. It leaves them one win away from a place in the Australian Open.

Well Murray is very likely to play his first match on Tuesday I would say. He is in the bottom half of the draw and the top half of the draw will probably play on Monday as the defending champion normally kicks the tournament off on day one if I am not mistaken.

Another guy who will be rather happy with the draw is local here Lleyton Hewitt. He landed in the 'empty quarter' with Ferrer and Tipsarevic.
Also youngsters Nishikori, Janowics and Dimitrov are in this quarter - maybe one of them will take this chance!

Do I remember right that also in the US Open Ferrer and Tipsy met in the QF?! Both very consistent players, but they are clearly the least dangerous opponents in the top 8 IMHO.

Murray's section of the draw doesn't look too bad - OK, QF and beyond is potentially tough, but it's a Slam event. These titles aren't just given away.

As for Robson and Watson: Both have winnable first round matches, but Robson's 2nd round is properly tough, and even if she could beat Kvitova she's then have Sloane Stephens (who beat her this week) in the 3rd.

Watson has a better chance of making R3, but I can't see her challenging Radwanska. Am I right to recall that they met at Wimbledon last year, with Aggie coming through quite easily (something like 2 and 1).

Interesting match potentially in R2: Ferrer v Karlovic. Is little David allowed to bring a ladder on to the court?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just to add that both Jamie Baker and James Ward won their second qualifying matches overnight. It leaves them one win away from a place in the Australian Open.

Very pleased to see this. Baker has a tough last qualifying game against Donald Young who beat Blake but Ward has what appears to be a very winnable game against Reister (?) who is ranked 296.

Here's hoping

I like Baker, he gave Roddick a good match at Wimbledon

I think if they all get to the SF, then the tougher draw, will be Roger's undoing as I'm not certain that he can beat Andy in straight sets in a Slam, anymore

Hence, a tiring route to the SF becomes more of a problem

I actually think that Tomic, who plays similar to Andy - willl be a problem tie for Fed and that Tomic will make strides this year

Federer has no chance here, regardless of draw. This court is all about endless rallies, has been ever since they changed it after 2007.

Murray / Djokovic final, almost certain.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I do also have a sneaky feeling that Raonic may not even survive to face Federer. He is pretty brittle in slams early doors.

Raonic lost all his three matches @Kooyong (to Hewitt, Dodig and Fognini). Does not bode too well. Hewitt plays DelPo on Saturday there.

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I do also have a sneaky feeling that Raonic may not even survive to face Federer. He is pretty brittle in slams early doors.

Raonic lost all his three matches @Kooyong (to Hewitt, Dodig and Fognini). Does not bode too well. Hewitt plays DelPo on Saturday there.

Happy New Year LF

I admit I haven't been impressed with Raonic. Certainly at the US Open he was very woeful and his tactics were bizarre.

Quite un-decided how he will fare at the AO.

bogbrush wrote:Federer has no chance here, regardless of draw. This court is all about endless rallies, has been ever since they changed it after 2007.

You sound just like Virginia Wade

Raonic is not in the same League as an on the ball Nole, Roger or Andy- he simply does not have the mental know-how to adapt to the situation

bogbrush wrote:Federer has no chance here, regardless of draw. This court is all about endless rallies, has been ever since they changed it after 2007.

Murray / Djokovic final, almost certain.

Nice try BB. But you're fooling no-one

The courts could be playing fast, like during the 'heatwave' of 2009 or hot weather of 2010. I agree, that despite hot weather the courts are still slow for a hard court, but I also think Roger has upped his game tactically and just wouldn't be bullied in the same way that Nadal did in 09'

I make him third favourite - but that's only beacause of the draw

Either of the Top 3 could win it and it wouldn't be a surprise if Roger did

bogbrush wrote:Federer has no chance here, regardless of draw. This court is all about endless rallies, has been ever since they changed it after 2007.

Murray / Djokovic final, almost certain.

Federer won the Australian Open in 2010 (at Murray's expense), reached the Final in 2009; reached the SF in 2008, 2011 and 2012. Who has he lost to in Australia since the new surface? The same two guys he's historically had tough matches against: Nadal (2009 & 2012) and Djokovic (2008 and 2011). That's a pretty good set of results, I'd say.

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Federer has no chance here, regardless of draw. This court is all about endless rallies, has been ever since they changed it after 2007.

Murray / Djokovic final, almost certain.

Nice try BB. But you're fooling no-one

The courts could be playing fast, like during the 'heatwave' of 2009 or hot weather of 2010. I agree, that despite hot weather the courts are still slow for a hard court, but I also think Roger has upped his game tactically and just wouldn't be bullied in the same way that Nadal did in 09'

I make him third favourite - but that's only beacause of the draw

Either of the Top 3 could win it and it wouldn't be a surprise if Roger did

Nice "try"? Try "statement of fact".

This court is accumulating a reputation for endless matches and that doesn't really sit well with a guy well into his 32nd year. Not really all that controversial is it?

It isn't a statement of fact though as Antonico pointed out. Roger has had a pretty damned impressive record since 2007. I agree with banbrotam that Roger is a strong third favourite and the reason he may struggle to topple Murray or Djokovic is the tough run he would have to get to the semis.

The federer interview that CAS posted is very interesting. He talks about how slow the court is especially at night. He actually says he thinks it's at least 30 percent slower at night. The AUS open now plays the quarters, semis and final at night. Really can't see Fed grinding through that.

Djokovic has a str8 forward run to the final. Whilst Berdych can be dangerous he hasn't bothered Screech much in the past and on this slow HC he's gonna turn into an error machine.

Djokovic will also likely have the distinct advantage of playing the first semi (on thursday). If Murray or Fed meet him in the final they're gonna have to get through that semi in quick time to leave enough in the tank. Murray can probably do it without too much difficulty given his age and fitness. Fed's gonna struggle big time if he has a tough semi, kinda of like at the OG.

This is probably gonna be as routine as it gets for Screech.

Great, and then Socal will be back to declare him the greatest thing since sliced bread.



rotapicname

One side of the draw is top heavy. Without a doubt Djokovic will make the final. No real threats there. Berdych cannot produce the goods except when it comes to Federer who he seems to have a winning formula for.

By all accounts it seems Murray will reach the final. JMDP will not be a problem for Murray. I think the trickiest section is Fed's quarter. He could potentially go out at any round. Raonic has always taken him to a decider when they have played but come up short. He may do it this time. There is also Tomic, Tsonga or who knows, maybe Rosol might repeat his famous Wimbledon win over Federer should they meet.

Cannot really look beyond Djoko/Murray for this title. I think Murray may have a bit of an edge. Don't know why, just feel he can win this.

I wouldn't be so down-hearted about Federer as some are being. He won't be stretched by Paire and Davydenko has never been one to cause him problems even when he was in his prime. I can't understand the blind panic about Tomic considering so many were scoffing at the terribly poor quality of the youngsters coming through. And as for Raonic I have a feeling he won't even make it that far to face Federer. Sure Tsonga could pose a threat or equally he could go out with a whimper. My only concern if I were a Federer fan is how much energy he'll use up before reaching the semis. Just my opinion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I wouldn't be so down-hearted about Federer as some are being. He won't be stretched by Paire and Davydenko has never been one to cause him problems even when he was in his prime. I can't understand the blind panic about Tomic considering so many were scoffing at the terribly poor quality of the youngsters coming through. And as for Raonic I have a feeling he won't even make it that far to face Federer. Sure Tsonga could pose a threat or equally he could go out with a whimper. My only concern if I were a Federer fan is how much energy he'll use up before reaching the semis. Just my opinion.

I actually think Tomic will be a problem. Simply because I think he's better than he's shown previously and he has the unpredictable variety that sometimes gets to Fed

However, I never understand why everyone thinks Raonic is such a threat

And Tsonga? Fed like Andy has already had one shock from the Frenchman and will be set to make sure it doesn't happen again

I predict Federer to win.



You have been warned.
Amritia3ee

The thing is we could all find ways of playing down our favourite players chances in order to reduce expectation, anticipation and pressure etc. I mean I could now rule out Andy's chances as he has an even poorer record at Melbourne than Federer since 2007 AND he would do what no other player has done before in the men's game by winning his first two slams back-to-back which even Federer, Nadal and all the other legends of the sport have failed to do. Surely, that rules Andy out much more than it does Federer?

CaledonianCraig wrote: Surely, that rules Andy out much more than it does Federer?

Personally I don't think it is that relevant.

Federer and Nadal both won their first slam when they were young, Murray is peak now.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Surely, that rules Andy out much more than it does Federer?

Personally I don't think it is that relevant.

Federer and Nadal both won their first slam when they were young, Murray is peak now.

Just showing how stats/past history and other stuff can be used however you want to relieve the pressure/expectation/anticipation on your favourite player and then if he wins you can use those amazing things against him to make the achievement even better.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Surely, that rules Andy out much more than it does Federer?

Personally I don't think it is that relevant.

Federer and Nadal both won their first slam when they were young, Murray is peak now.

I don't think nobody has won their first 2 back to back because they were young IMBL, I think it's more of a mental thing. How can motivation and hunger be the same directly after achieving ones dream?

Agassi said in an interview today that he relaxed after winning his first, but it actually worked against him. He thought things would come easier but it didn't work out that way. It wasn't until he became desperately wanted to win again that it happened.

Hopefully it won't be the case with Andy, but it can't be ruled out. If nobody has ever done it can't be ignored as a reason why Andy may fail.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I wouldn't be so down-hearted about Federer as some are being. He won't be stretched by Paire and Davydenko has never been one to cause him problems even when he was in his prime. I can't understand the blind panic about Tomic considering so many were scoffing at the terribly poor quality of the youngsters coming through. And as for Raonic I have a feeling he won't even make it that far to face Federer. Sure Tsonga could pose a threat or equally he could go out with a whimper. My only concern if I were a Federer fan is how much energy he'll use up before reaching the semis. Just my opinion.

I would generally agree with this. Fed would need to have a nightmare in order to lose to any of those guys, except Raonic. Not because I think he's all that special but he does have a huge serve which can make the match a bit of a lottery. Not in a million years should Tomic beat Federer.

However all of these guys are capable of taking a set or even two off this version of Federer and none of them will be blow outs, which means Roger is likely to expend a fare amount of energy before he even gets to the quarters.

Yes emancipator that is the real danger for Roger. He must get through to the semis with the minimum fuss and time spent on court and he may find that difficult to achieve. I will be surprised if he doesn't reach at least the semis though.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Surely, that rules Andy out much more than it does Federer?

Personally I don't think it is that relevant.

Federer and Nadal both won their first slam when they were young, Murray is peak now.

That's just supersition not a tangible reason. It has no relevance. If anything given how long it took Murray to get that first slam and all the pressure he faced in the process, I think he can swing more freely now. That makes him even more dangerous. Realistically (in relative terms) I think he's the one who has a good shot against Screech. Still would be the underdog though.

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Surely, that rules Andy out much more than it does Federer?

Personally I don't think it is that relevant.

Federer and Nadal both won their first slam when they were young, Murray is peak now.

I don't think nobody has won their first 2 back to back because they were young IMBL, I think it's more of a mental thing. How can motivation and hunger be the same directly after achieving ones dream?

Agassi said in an interview today that he relaxed after winning his first, but it actually worked against him. He thought things would come easier but it didn't work out that way. It wasn't until he became desperately wanted to win again that it happened.

Hopefully it won't be the case with Andy, but it can't be ruled out. If nobody has ever done it can't be ignored as a reason why Andy may fail.

Don;t think that will be a problem for Andy. He's not one to relax and clearly has been working harder than ever during the off season. I hope he stops the Screech.

I hope it won't happen to Andy emancipator, I guess we'll see quite soon.

In terms of Andy being the main threat to Novak, I guess he is... But I'm loath to write off Federer. How many times has it been assumed he's won his last slam? Quite a few. I've been surprised at Rogers approach to his matches against Djokovic in recent years though. Andy troubled Novak last year with his variety. Sometimes hitting through the ball, using the slice a lot, playing a few drop shots... Being aggressive but really mixing it up too.

Roger has that variety too, but always turns it into a hitting contest which I feel is when Novak is most comfortable. Roger has a gorgeous slice and Andy has shown it can extract errors from Novak as his isn't nearly as good... But Roger doesn't use it nearly enough against him for me.