Australian Open 2022

First topic message reminder :

After the Novaxgate saga, we get down to action for the AO 2022 with no Djoko and a chance for someone else to win the men's title.

In Novax's absence, I would think that one of Medvedev, Zverev or Tsitsipas will be crowned champion.

The presence of Halep, Barty and Osaka will strengthen the women's tournament at the AO. I'm not expecting too much from Emma R who, in her first full year on the tour, could find it difficult.

The years after Henin’s first retirement were the worst for the women’s game. It was mindless ball-bashing, combined with a lot of the top players really struggling to hold it together under pressure (Safina, Dementieva for example). Nowadays, the overall standard is definitely higher and the Raducanu/Fernandes runs at the US Open were a phenomenal story. However, they could definitely do with some of the top players getting more consistent. We never see Barty play Osaka in a big match for example, as one of them usually gets dumped out early on. I think there is promise there but it’s very much a work in progress currently.

Also I think SFP is secretly a Berrettini fan - only reason I can think of why he’s advising Rafa to hit to the Berrettini forehand .

Born Slippy wrote:The years after Henin’s first retirement were the worst for the women’s game. It was mindless ball-bashing, combined with a lot of the top players really struggling to hold it together under pressure (Safina, Dementieva for example). Nowadays, the overall standard is definitely higher and the Raducanu/Fernandes runs at the US Open were a phenomenal story. However, they could definitely do with some of the top players getting more consistent. We never see Barty play Osaka in a big match for example, as one of them usually gets dumped out early on. I think there is promise there but it’s very much a work in progress currently.

Henin, Clijsters and Mauresmo all retiring within a few years of each other had a big impact on the women's game, between them they all brought much needed variety. I can appreciate Serena for the great player she is but never found her particularly interesting to watch but watching Henin play Mauresmo trying to find the perfect angle to pass her at the net was exciting. That Henin one-handed backhand was a thing of beauty.

The women's game today is still chaotic but amongst that there are some very good players, i'm hoping that Raducanu keeps developing that slice which was somewhat forced on her as it's important and under rated weapon in the women's game.

Born Slippy wrote:Also I think SFP is secretly a Berrettini fan - only reason I can think of why he’s advising Rafa to hit to the Berrettini forehand .

Whoops. Of course I meant backhand.

Didn't think Rafa would have much trouble with Berrettini. Only surprise for me was that the Italian got even one set.

Matteo has now lost his last eight matches against top 10 players.

Med v Tsitsi coming up. My semi final forecasts in the women's yesterday were way out. But I've failed to learn my lesson and am going for a Medvedev win.

Rafael Nadal, clearly, still many levels above Matteo Berrettini - obviously no shame in that.
Berrettini still a work in progress but he’s progressing decently.
As for Nadal, for me personally, always felt he was deserving a second title in Melbourne. Throw in it’s potentially his ‘date with destiny’. Happy for both players.

Great player that Nadal once was if he was to win the title here it's a death knell for the current generation, if the winner of the second semi final cannot beat him then it further cements my opinion that they're not that great.

Meanwhile, in a faraway land called Serbia, major questions remain unanswered in respect of the veracity of certain Covid tests from last month.

It’s probably the least surprising news of the day :

“We've put all our findings in this report to the Institute of Public Health of Serbia, as well as the government's Office of Information Technology.
We've tried on multiple occasions and through various channels, but have not yet had a response.
We also contacted Mr Djokovic's team and invited them to explain the discrepancies, but haven't heard back from them.”

The latest detailed findings are here :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59999541

Soul Requiem wrote:Great player that Nadal once was if he was to win the title here it's a death knell for the current generation, if the winner of the second semi final cannot beat him then it further cements my opinion that they're not that great.

Well, Medvedev is through to face Rafa. Agree that a really good 25 year old player should have the better of a 35 year old slightly faded great playing on what is far from his favourite surface. Either way, great encouragement for Rafa ahead of the clay court season, that his game is in good shape following his injury absence in the later part of last season.

Medvedev is clear of the other members of the ‘next gen’. He’s got the belief and obviously he’s got the talent.

Tsitsipas is a massive hype job and after bottling the french open final I don’t see him winning a major if he has to faced Medvedev in any event tournament.

Medvedev is the favourite for me. Recent form is staggering: Canada 1000 W, USO W, Paris 1000 F, Tour finals F and now AO F. Arguably he’s now the best hard court player on tour.

Nadal obviously a live dog and Medvedev has lost focus in other finals. Hopefully the crowd don’t ruin it.

Soul Requiem wrote:Great player that Nadal once was if he was to win the title here it's a death knell for the current generation, if the winner of the second semi final cannot beat him then it further cements my opinion that they're not that great.

Broadly in agreement with you here, though I feel it’s perhaps a little more nuanced as regards the old guard versus the current / latest generation.

Is it the case that the big three are simply way, way, more talented than any who have emerged in more recent years ….. ?
Or are the younger players simply not that good when it comes to challenging on the biggest stages …. ??
I guess the evidence points to the latter. It IS significant - and, in many ways, depressing - that only Medvedev has been able to make any serious impact. The others have just allowed Fed, Rafa, and Djoko to continue to clean up at the Slams well into their 30’s ; and that really shouldn’t happen. The guys who are a whole decade or so younger should be taking these titles. Seems they’re just not as good as they’re often cracked up to be.

But …..  for the immediate future : the two best players through the tourney are rightfully into the Final. If Medvedev performs at his best level, he should prove too strong for Nadal. But if he has a sub-par day, it could very easily be number 21.

no signs of Medvedev having a bad day, so...

naxroy wrote:no signs of Medvedev having a bad day, so...

True enough  - but Finals are different.

It will seem like tennis groundhog day if Rafa takes it (and depressing for the sport in so many ways ) but in his favour is the fact that he can draw on a lot more Slam experience than Medvedev. Also ….. Medvedev did come close to going out in the QF’s. Equally, Shapovalov really should have seen off Nadal.

I want Nadal to win, I am a huge fan. But I just dont see it.


Of course, I wish he won

Med might be able to take heart from the fact that Rafa has lost his last four Melbourne finals. There was the one to Stan the Man when Rafa was hampered by injury.

Another was that epic against Djoko while the other two were a five-set affair with Federer and a demolition by Novak.

Med was able to come back from two sets down and make a real match of it when he and Rafa met at 2019 USO final.

The Russian is certainly a worthy number two and, as has been said above, is now clearly the "best of the rest".

Be interesting to see what the bookies' odds are for the final. It's a tough one to call. If Med gets all moody it'll be curtains for him.

Not sure it's right to be too down on the current crop of players if they're STILL not preventing the Big FOUR/THREE/TWO taking most of the GS titles.

We are talking about some of the greatest (THE greatest?) players the sport has seen which means there still pretty good well into their 30s.

I tried in vain to watch the match via tennis streaming website (serves me right for not getting Eurosport) so had to suffice with radio and text commentary. Sounded a pretty even contest for first 3 sets, not sure what happened in the 4th - did Medvedev play a blinder, Tsitsipas drop his level or was it bit of both?

Tsitsipas has more variety in his game but Medvedev clearly the better of the two on hardcourts. Regarding the challenge to Djokovic and Nadal it's important not to forget Thiem, currently recovering from injury - he's beaten both in some big matches though really ought to have won Roland Garros by now.

I take the point about a Nadal win being an indictment of current game, though I would still be excited to see him win record breaking 21st slam given his injury last year - would be a fantastic achievement. Equally I'd be v happy for Medvedev to win - just hope the final lives up to expectations and 'tennis is the winner'.

Yes, if Nadal is to triumph on Sunday, then he has to buck the trend of losing in all subsequent AO Finals since his 2009 win. That was an epic match (with the equally-good sequel coming in 2017 !)

Medvedev made a point of apologising to the Umpire after his meltdown in the semi vs Tsitsipas. He raged at what he believed was (another !) episode of mid-match coaching. He really did go in heavy and you wonder if it could land him with a retrospective fine, so vociferous and seemingly disrespectful was his tirade.  

More importantly in terms of the Final, there could be potential fireworks if Medvedev’s extremely fast pace of play (there are times when he makes the Federer Express seem almost slow ) clashes with Nadal’s tendency to …. er …… push the shot clock to the limit ….. and beyond.

lags72 wrote:Yes, if Nadal is to triumph on Sunday, then he has to buck the trend of losing in all subsequent AO Finals since his 2009 win. That was an epic match (with the equally-good sequel coming in 2017 !)

Medvedev made a point of apologising to the Umpire after his meltdown in the semi vs Tsitsipas. He raged at what he believed was (another !) episode of mid-match coaching. He really did go in heavy and you wonder if it could land him with a retrospective fine, so vociferous and seemingly disrespectful was his tirade.  

More importantly in terms of the Final, there could be potential fireworks if Medvedev’s extremely fast pace of play (there are times when he makes the Federer Express seem almost slow ) clashes with Nadal’s tendency to …. er …… push the shot clock to the limit ….. and beyond.

That is one of the major reasons why Roger Federer will probably be regarded as the GOAT by most, he just got on with it, the same isn't true of either of his rivals. Some will say it doesn't make a difference but in that case why bother doing it, I think it's the difference between winning and losing certain grand slams.

The reality is Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are the greatest players of all time and therefore comparing the breakthough players to them is meaningless. They are just not as good. Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev and the likes of Thiem are all really good players. The problem is the top 3 were just so exceptionally good. They are basically freaks of the game and I dont think you can just say the younger generation are not good enough.

Also I would argue Thiem definitely put it up to the big 3, he dominated Federer in their match up, he beat both Nadal and Djokovic at different grand slams. I think Medvedev is a brilliant player, although rather boring to watch. His game is difficult on the eye but there is no doubt he is super effective. Tsitsipas and Zverev can beat the very best on their day but again it just comes down to how good the big 3 were.

I think Medvedev is the favourite in the final but equally it wouldnt stun me if Nadal won it even at the age of 35, the reality is he is one of the 3 greatest players ever and can still play amazing tennis at his current age. There is no shame in younger players still losing to these guys, they are just sooooo good. I do think the final will be a complete slug fest and not overly easy on the eye even if it is competitive and goes to 5 sets.

The women's on the other hand I wont even bother commenting on anymore, I just think its a complete joke.

Unfortunately while Federer was a brilliant player and one of the all time greats, he was dominated by his main two rivals, particularly at the biggest events. It is therefore pretty impossible to see how he could be considered the greatest. Surely if he was, he would have been beating his main rivals, he hasnt beaten Djokovic at a single grand slam since 2012!!!!!!!!! He also lost to Djokovic in 3 wimbledon finals on his favourite surface with the whole crowd behind him and still couldnt beat him.

A great player but definitely not the greatest. The speed that you step up to hit a serve is the most bizarre measure of greatness i have ever heard

Soul Requiem wrote:

lags72 wrote:Yes, if Nadal is to triumph on Sunday, then he has to buck the trend of losing in all subsequent AO Finals since his 2009 win. That was an epic match (with the equally-good sequel coming in 2017 !)

Medvedev made a point of apologising to the Umpire after his meltdown in the semi vs Tsitsipas. He raged at what he believed was (another !) episode of mid-match coaching. He really did go in heavy and you wonder if it could land him with a retrospective fine, so vociferous and seemingly disrespectful was his tirade.  

More importantly in terms of the Final, there could be potential fireworks if Medvedev’s extremely fast pace of play (there are times when he makes the Federer Express seem almost slow ) clashes with Nadal’s tendency to …. er …… push the shot clock to the limit ….. and beyond.

That is one of the major reasons why Roger Federer will probably be regarded as the GOAT by most, he just got on with it, the same isn't true of either of his rivals. Some will say it doesn't make a difference but in that case why bother doing it, I think it's the difference between winning and losing certain grand slams.

The three of them are legends of the sport
Probably Djokovic is the more complete, but 20 is so crazy, the three of them are the best ever.

It would be poetic if they all ended in 20, but I am sure Novak will win 2-3 more, so Nadal better take this chance.
His problem is Medvedev will be a wall, and he is stronger and younger than him.

Nadal needs a super good day (ala RG2020 final)

OF the big 3, Federer at his best had for me the most pleasing game to watch, of which his pace of play and lack of idiosyncrasies definitely plays a part (compared with Djokovic's interminable ball bouncing and Rafa's wedgie adjustment). Yes, he had something of an aloof arrogance about him that was a great contrast to Rafa's passion, but I have no problem with someone having an attitude saying they are very good if they can actually back it up with a performance.

As for his slam record against Djokovic, I think everyone is still wondering how Novak won their last Wimbledon final - I don't think I've seen anyone lose while being as dominant at Fed was that day. Terrific determination from Djokovic to stay in the contest. For those with a long memory, they may remember a Champions League match between Blackburn and Celtic in the mid 90s - Blackburn absolutely battered Celtic all game and somehow lost 1-0.

Although Rog has failed to get the better of Novax in recent years he did avenge two of his most memorable defeats against Rafa (Wimbledon 08 and AO 09) by beating the Spaniard at the 2017 AO and the 2019 Wimbledon.

But the GOAT debate will go on for ever....

Apparently, the umpire finally issued a warning about coaching for Tsitsipas later in the match today. Why does Tsitsi do this? First there were the toilet breaks (he was really and literally taking the p*ss on that one) and then various accusations of coaching ever since.

sirfredperry wrote: ……………………………..

But the GOAT debate will go on for ever....

………………...

THIS …….. more than anything.

When Pete Sampras made 14 Slam titles, it clearly brought him a unique status in the game at the time. But it did not suddenly bestow upon him unquestioned GOAT-dom. Professional sport is as much about entertainment as what ends up in the record books, and many players (I immediately always think of Bjorn Borg here) create a legacy and sense of awe that stretches beyond the sheer numbers.

And then Federer later took tennis into another dimension for so many fans, whilst raising global interest in the game to new levels, and in a way that Djokovic has never quite managed to do. It’s unfortunate for Novak - though clearly of his own making - that in this twilight part of his career, he is talked about more in relation to misdemeanours and dubious behaviour off the court, than for achievements on it.

You could also argue in the 2019 Wimbledon final that Djokovic played very poor and still managed to beat Federer in another wimbledon final. There is no doubt Federer played really well in that match and as you said was probably the better player but that was probably one of the worst performances by Djokovic in a slam final, its quite incredible that he manged to turn that match around saving match points when I would say he was hardly playing at 60%

I know I am probably biased as a Djokovic fan in the GOAT debate but for me the key indicators are not only his 20 slam wins but the fact that he won all the slams at least twice (admittedly Nadal may join him on Sunday there) but he beat Federer in all 3 Wimbledon finals, won twice vs Nadal at the French Open (federer never beat Nadal there), he has by far the most weeks at number one of any player and he has a winning record against every single top player he has faced, both old gen and next gen. In addition he is the only player to win all Masters series titles on all surfaces and even at that he has managed it twice for good measure. I think his ability to beat his greatest rivals on their own favourite surfaces in the slams really stands out.

I agree though that the debate will go on forever and everyone is entitled to their own opinion

dummy_half wrote:OF the big 3, Federer at his best had for me the most pleasing game to watch, of which his pace of play and lack of idiosyncrasies definitely plays a part (compared with Djokovic's interminable ball bouncing and Rafa's wedgie adjustment). Yes, he had something of an aloof arrogance about him that was a great contrast to Rafa's passion, but I have no problem with someone having an attitude saying they are very good if they can actually back it up with a performance.

As for his slam record against Djokovic, I think everyone is still wondering how Novak won their last Wimbledon final - I don't think I've seen anyone lose while being as dominant at Fed was that day. Terrific determination from Djokovic to stay in the contest. For those with a long memory, they may remember a Champions League match between Blackburn and Celtic in the mid 90s - Blackburn absolutely battered Celtic all game and somehow lost 1-0.

Misdemenours off court are completely irrelevant when dictating who is the greatest player. I find Tiger woods unbearable most of the time and his behaviour off the course has been atrocious. However, as much as I dont like him off the course, I am in no doubt that he is arguably the greatest golfer of all time despite never wanting him to win (though many would argue Jack Nicklaus was better as he won a lot more majors). What matters in sport is what you win, as John McEnroe so accurately said Sport is not a popularity contest, you are judged by what you win in the game, end of story

lags72 wrote:

sirfredperry wrote: ……………………………..

But the GOAT debate will go on for ever....

………………...

THIS …….. more than anything.

When Pete Sampras made 14 Slam titles, it clearly brought him a unique status in the game at the time. But it did not suddenly bestow upon him unquestioned GOAT-dom. Professional sport is as much about entertainment as what ends up in the record books, and many players (I immediately always think of Bjorn Borg here) create a legacy and sense of awe that stretches beyond the sheer numbers.

And then Federer later took tennis into another dimension for so many fans, whilst raising global interest in the game to new levels, and in a way that Djokovic has never quite managed to do. It’s unfortunate for Novak - though clearly of his own making - that in this twilight part of his career, he is talked about more in relation to misdemeanours and dubious behaviour off the court, than for achievements on it.

sirfredperry wrote: …………..

Apparently, the umpire finally issued a warning about coaching for Tsitsipas later in the match today. Why does Tsitsi do this? First there were the toilet breaks (he was really and literally taking the p*ss on that one) and then various accusations of coaching ever since.

There was a report that a second umpire was keeping a very close watch, and those observations eventually prompted the warning.

The toilet breaks are one thing ; the ‘coaching’ (such as it is) is another - and of course, totally different.

I really want to give Tsitsipas the benefit of the doubt on the coaching. I believe - call me naïve if you wish ! - that he himself does not want this. It seems to me that his Dad just ignores whatever pleas Tsitsi has made for him to avoid doing anything that could give cause for warnings. He must surely be frustrated by the ongoing saga …… surely … ??

slashermcguirk wrote:
Misdemenours off court are completely irrelevant when dictating who is the greatest player. I find Tiger woods unbearable most of the time and his behaviour off the course has been atrocious. However, as much as I dont like him off the course, I am in no doubt that he is arguably the greatest golfer of all time despite never wanting him to win (though many would argue Jack Nicklaus was better as he won a lot more majors). What matters in sport is what you win, as John McEnroe so accurately said Sport is not a popularity contest, you are judged by what you win in the game, end of story

Aah ….. how nice & simple it would be if all athletes were judged in this way. But we live in a more nuanced world than that. And just because Johnny Mac (who I happen to respect deeply) says ‘end of story’ it doesn’t automatically render his personal view irrefutable or worthy of universal acceptance.

There are just too many metrics by which ‘sporting icons’ come to be assessed in later years. Behaviour off the field of play does have an impact, however irrelevant it might seem. And even if you prefer to narrow things down to ‘what you win in the game’ ….. things are still far from straightforward. Mac himself won more tennis titles (singles & doubles combined) than anyone in the sport’s history. But is he considered a better player than, say, Federer ? ; for most people (inc. Mac himself !), the answer is NO. And so it will be with Djoko, and perhaps even Nadal too.

slashermcguirk wrote:What matters in sport is what you win, as John McEnroe so accurately said Sport is not a popularity contest, you are judged by what you win in the game, end of story

That's what makes Connors a greater singles player than McEnroe!

You can't compare eras with any certainty. Mr Newton said something about standing on the shoulders of giants.

No name Bertie wrote:You can't compare eras with any certainty.   Mr Newton said something about standing on the shoulders of giants.

I definitely think that once one person has achieved something, it makes it slightly easier for those that follow, as it a) has proved it can be done and b) provides motivation having a target to beat.

So wait Tiger Woods is a better golfer than Jack Nicklaus despite winning fewer majors but in tennis the record books are all that matters?

Entertainment plays a huge part in GOAT debates and it's why Federer is for me the greatest player I've seen. I don't care if Novax wins more, he's dull and his tennis is dull. The quite clearly manipulated covid tests highlight his win at all costs mentality, brings into question the legitimacy of his whole career. It also ignores that he's racked up countless slams after his main rivals starting their physical decline.

Grand slams at 30

Federer- 16
Nadal- 14
Djokovic- 12

Yes just choose to forget Federer won many of his grand slam titles against the mighty Baghdatis, philipousis, gonzalez, an ageing Agassi. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were teenagers although nadal and Djokovic started beating him in slams as early as 2006 and 2008.

Look at the list of who Federer beat in finals to win his 20 slams and then look at who Djokovic beat in his finals

Women's final about to start and, surely, Barty will never have a better chance to win the AO.

Collins played fantastically in the semi but will she be able to do it again in her first GS final and with the crowd against her? I think not.

But Barty has hardly dropped any games so far and has never been up against it in the whole tournament. So if the American can make a solid start she might have a chance.

A win would give Barty her third Slam and strengthen her position as number one.

slashermcguirk wrote:Yes just choose to forget Federer won many of his grand slam titles against the mighty Baghdatis, philipousis, gonzalez, an ageing Agassi. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were teenagers although nadal and Djokovic started beating him in slams as early as 2006 and 2008.

Look at the list of who Federer beat in finals to win his 20 slams and then look at who Djokovic beat in his finals

 The same old nonsense that addresses none of the issues and makes excuses for blatant cheating. Manipulating a fake covid test in order to enter a country is just shameful but expected.

Ashleigh Barty wins the Australian Open beating Danielle Collins 6-3 7-6. Collins was 5-1 up in the second set, but Barty found that extra gear to fight back.
3rd major title for the Aussie and probably many more to come.

Yawn, vaccination status has nothing to do with greatness debate. Talking about accomplishments in the game

Soul Requiem wrote:

slashermcguirk wrote:Yes just choose to forget Federer won many of his grand slam titles against the mighty Baghdatis, philipousis, gonzalez, an ageing Agassi. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were teenagers although nadal and Djokovic started beating him in slams as early as 2006 and 2008.

Look at the list of who Federer beat in finals to win his 20 slams and then look at who Djokovic beat in his finals

 The same old nonsense that addresses none of the issues and makes excuses for blatant cheating. Manipulating a fake covid test in order to enter a country is just shameful but expected.

Another woeful womens final, no surprises there. Collins losing a 5-1 lead is comical stuff.

Really pleased for Barty. Imagine if she'd lost today. Every year she'd have to turn up at Melbourne with all of Australia saying can she do it this time.

Older posters will remember the weight of expectation on Virginia Wade at Wimbledon each June. Wade would then tumble out on court two to some unknown. When everybody thought she'd never win it, she did.

What the women's game could do with now is some fine, close GS matches between, say, Barty, Osaka and Halep. There has been a tendency for a young player to win a Slam and then not be able to back it up.

slashermcguirk wrote:Another woeful womens final, no surprises there. Collins losing a 5-1 lead is comical stuff.

Pretty sure you said you wouldn't comment on the women's tennis anymore.
I'm surprised you watched it.

slashermcguirk wrote:Yawn, vaccination status has nothing to do with greatness debate. Talking about accomplishments in the game

Soul Requiem wrote:

slashermcguirk wrote:Yes just choose to forget Federer won many of his grand slam titles against the mighty Baghdatis, philipousis, gonzalez, an ageing Agassi. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were teenagers although nadal and Djokovic started beating him in slams as early as 2006 and 2008.

Look at the list of who Federer beat in finals to win his 20 slams and then look at who Djokovic beat in his finals

 The same old nonsense that addresses none of the issues and makes excuses for blatant cheating. Manipulating a fake covid test in order to enter a country is just shameful but expected.

It all matters, you might want to ignore it but I choose not to.

Feel good factor for the Australians continued as Kyrgios and Kokkinakis win the men’s doubles over fellow Australian pairing Ebden and Purcell.

Big congrats to Ash Barty Slam number three, and in some style ……. not too many players go all the way without dropping a single set.

As the first home winner in several decades, she has restored a lot of national pride - not least after the AO’s global standing was somewhat tarnished in the wake of Novax-gate and tacky deceitful shenanigans.

I flicked it on when a neighbour told me it was about to go into a deciding set, Collins was 5-1. I thought crikey might get a decent final with a decider. Instead Collins collapsed inexplicably to lose the set with a 5-1 lead and serving. Pretty much sums up the womens game. The tie break was atrocious with Collins not even turning up in it


quote="JuliusHMarx"]

slashermcguirk wrote:Another woeful womens final, no surprises there. Collins losing a 5-1 lead is comical stuff.

Pretty sure you said you wouldn't comment on the women's tennis anymore.
I'm surprised you watched it. [/quote]

slashermcguirk wrote:I flicked it on when a neighbour told me it was about to go into a deciding set, Collins was 5-1. I thought crikey might get a decent final with a decider.

You must have been very disappointed with last year's men's Australian Open and Wimbledon finals.

Just watched highlights of the final. Collins played poorly after getting 5-1 up in that second set.

One of Barty's strengths is her serve. Quite capable of banging down aces. At 5-6, 15-30 she hit three big first serves and that was the end of Collins' challenge.

I'd like to see some of the other top women challenging Barty. Pliskova was just awful in the Wimbledon final against Ash and Collins, although feisty and a fighter, is by no means a top player.

I'd like to see Osaka playing a full season and Halep staying injury free. Also it would be good to see one of the young guns showing some consistency.

Swiatek, who has reached the second week in five successive Slams, has done better than most. But some have sparkled brightly only to fade quickly.

Men's final coming up. Am going to sit on the fence for this one. A good case can be made out for either winning.

Med was good enough to win in straight sets in New York against a history-seeking Djoko and, with Rafa after a record 21st GS, the Russian could well be a party pooper here. (Danielle Collins was trying to be a Barty pooper).

Conversely, Rafa , although not quite the force he was, is still good enough to come out on top.

I don't go along with any talk of "this will be bad for the game if a 25 year old can't beat a 35 year old."

If Med triumphs he'll become the first guy in the Open Era to win a second slam at the next Slam event having won his first. I thought he could get to number one, as well, but I see last year's Melbourne points don't drop off until next month.

An early break for Medvedev in the 5th game.

Medvedev breaks again and serves out to take the first set 6-2.

Medvedev in control so far

....but now it's Rafa who breaks and goes 4-1 up in the second set.