An unfortunate record for Nadal(& the Australian Open)

[Moose Malloy]

2 years ago the Australian Open decided to schedule the men's final at night. This came a few years after they decided to schedule both men's semis at night.

Last year Federer played 5 of his 7 matches at night, which was a record amount of night matches for any one player at any slam, ever(including the US Open)

I thought that was unfortunate, since the drama of the Australian Open is partly due to its extreme heat & seeing how champions cope with it.

Well, it got worse this year. If Nadal makes the final, he will have played all 7 matches this tournament under the lights! Two of those matches were meant to be day matches, but due to the "heat rule" & rain they were both played with the roof closed. Of course this isn't Nadal's fault, but since the Australian schedules the last 2 matches of the event at night, something like this could happen.

I was looking forward to seeing Nadal play under the hot Australian sun & see how his game & his opponent would adjust to those conditions. Guess I'll have to wait till next year, but even that's not a given.

Not a big fan of the heat rule either- the fact that it exists(only started in 2003) & that they now schedule semis & final at night, seems like these guys are having it a bit easy than in the past.

Also it is a bit absurd to play the semis on 2 different days, this is the only slam that does so.

 

[vkartikv]

2 years ago the Australian Open decided to schedule the men's final at night. This came a few years after they decided to schedule both men's semis at night.

Last year Federer played 5 of his 7 matches at night, which was a record amount of night matches for any one player at any slam, ever(including the US Open)

I thought that was unfortunate, since the drama of the Australian Open is partly due to its extreme heat & seeing how champions cope with it.

Well, it got worse this year. If Nadal makes the final, he will have played all 7 matches this tournament under the lights! Two of those matches were meant to be day matches, but due to the "heat rule" & rain they were both played with the roof closed. Of course this isn't Nadal's fault, but since the Australian schedules the last 2 matches of the event at night, something like this could happen.

I was looking forward to seeing Nadal play under the hot Australian sun & see how his game & his opponent would adjust to those conditions. Guess I'll have to wait till next year, but even that's not a given.

Not a big fan of the heat rule either- the fact that it exists(only started in 2003) & that they now schedule semis & final at night, seems like these guys are having it a bit easy than in the past.

Also it is a bit absurd to play the semis on 2 different days, this is the only slam that does so.

Are they going to pull a 2005 and show only one semi live?

 

[Moose Malloy]

To be fair to all the players Haas-Davydenko should be scheduled at night, not Nadal-Gonzalez. But I understand that tv viewers prefer to watch stars.

Are they going to pull a 2005 and show only one semi live?

I believe they will show both live, they have showed night matches live the last 5 days, I see no reason that would change the rest of the week.

 

[dh003i]

Moose,

I generally respect your opinions, and knowledge of the history of the game...in fact, I tend to prefer the creation of an "old school" tennis event, where players play with wood. Just to make the game a bit more interesting -- I'd love to see Federer S&V more, he has great hands at net.

However, regarding the AO and the heat, I think that the heat they sometimes have to play with is just unsafe. So what if past players had to play under it? It's not safe, especially for guys running around like crazy. And this is coming from someone who doesn't much like Nadal's style of play, and is well aware that extreme temperatures disadvantage grinding players, and make it wiser to have more of an all-court game.

Not only that, but what about the ball boys, linesmen, etc, and fans? These people certainly aren't in any condition to be handling that kind of heat. It's dangerous for them as well.

It is a sport, but it's funded by money, and money is why the players are as good as they are (due to the incentives it creates, and the huge talent pool to draw from). And fans are what bring in the money. I don't think it's good for business to put the health of live fans at risk.

 

[Gingerbread Cookie]

Moose,

I generally respect your opinions, and knowledge of the history of the game...in fact, I tend to prefer the creation of an "old school" tennis event, where players play with wood. Just to make the game a bit more interesting -- I'd love to see Federer S&V more, he has great hands at net.

However, regarding the AO and the heat, I think that the heat they sometimes have to play with is just unsafe. So what if past players had to play under it? It's not safe, especially for guys running around like crazy. And this is coming from someone who doesn't much like Nadal's style of play, and is well aware that extreme temperatures disadvantage grinding players, and make it wiser to have more of an all-court game.

Not only that, but what about the ball boys, linesmen, etc, and fans? These people certainly aren't in any condition to be handling that kind of heat. It's dangerous for them as well.

It is a sport, but it's funded by money, and money is why the players are as good as they are (due to the incentives it creates, and the huge talent pool to draw from). And fans are what bring in the money. I don't think it's good for business to put the health of live fans at risk.

I agree dh003i, but I also agree with Moose's point that it's not fair that one player or two always has/have night matches for the entire tournie while others slug it out in the heat. More balanced scheduling choices may have been preferable. And absolutely, have both semis on the same day!!!

 

[Moose Malloy]

However, regarding the AO and the heat, I think that the heat they sometimes have to play with is just unsafe. So what if past players had to play under it? It's not safe, especially for guys running around like crazy. And this is coming from someone who doesn't much like Nadal's style of play, and is well aware that extreme temperatures disadvantage grinding players, and make it wiser to have more of an all-court game.

Not only that, but what about the ball boys, linesmen, etc, and fans? These people certainly aren't in any condition to be handling that kind of heat. It's dangerous for them as well.

It is a sport, but it's funded by money, and money is why the players are as good as they are (due to the incentives it creates, and the huge talent pool to draw from). And fans are what bring in the money. I don't think it's good for business to put the health of live fans at risk.

Well, I wasn't just talking about the heat rule, but about the decision to have both semis & the final at night. That decision wasn't due to the heat, but a way to get a larger tv audience.
By doing that, stars like Nadal & Federer get an unfair advantage since they likely get early round matches at night & are guaranteed night matches for their last 2 matches. Haas & Davydenko aren't getting one night match this year before the semis, Nalbandian didn't get any last year.
I realize fans want to see stars, but since they already have an advantage with scheduling, making the final & semi played at night gives them even more of an advantage.

And as far as the heat goes, there really aren't that many truly brutally hot days during the AO. Usually only one or 2. I think players can deal with one or 2 days of that. Grand Slams are meant to be played outdoors, not indoors, which is a factor in outcomes of matches. Maybe Becker or Edberg would have more AO titles if they used that heat rule when they were playing, since they were so tough indoors.

I'm trying to imagine the uproar if Roddick or Blake played all their matches at night at the US Open, yet no one notices that Federer & Nadal play even more night matches at the Australian.

 

[Sagittar]

well i guess that if nadal played in the sun he would be still better than most players because he's mainly a more developed physically player than others and farther more he comes from a country that's not cold like russia or germany ..
regarding the OP note of the matches now easier than older days especially after the extreme heat policy i disagree because now these players can perform better in better wether cinditions so we can enjoy more ..

yeah i find it really absurd also that the semis get played in two days not one ..

 

[dh003i]

Moose,

Ok, you've definately got a point there -- it's an additional unfair advantage to top players, aside from the schedule.

I'd also say that the uneven use of ShotSpot is an unfair advantage, and has it's problems (as Fed has pointed out). What do u think there?

--Dave

 

[OrangeOne]

I'm with Agassi, who I believe was interviewed the other day and said (from what I remember) that play should continue in the heat, the players are trained professionals.

If they do stick with the policy, however, they need to change it so that all play pauses immediately. Right now it's ridiculous that the matches in progress are to be completed. Ridiculous. How can it be unsafe to start a match, and yet perfectly safe to finish a match that's only in the first set of a potential 3 or 5?

 

[AndrewD]

Also it is a bit absurd to play the semis on 2 different days, this is the only slam that does so.

It's the only major that is well enough organised and the only one that puts enough thought into their schedule to do so.

1) The semi-finals start on Thursday
2) People work during the day
3) If you played both men's semis on the one day then at least one of them would have to be on during the day session.
4) If you do that then people who work are disadvantaged as they only have one session they can attend
5) You can't play both at night on the same night
6) So, common sense says, play them in the evening on seperate days
7) The players and fans have yet to complain.

Absolutely nothing absurd about it and, in fact, it is considerably better thought out and far more considerate of the general public than any of the other majors.

 

[omniexist]

I would think playing under hot conditions..this would benefit Nadal. With his superb shape and grinding style the opponent should wear down that much faster.

 

[callitout]

It's the only major that is well enough organised and the only one that puts enough thought into their schedule to do so.

1) The semi-finals start on Thursday
2) People work during the day
3) If you played both men's semis on the one day then at least one of them would have to be on during the day session.
4) If you do that then people who work are disadvantaged as they only have one session they can attend
5) You can't play both at night on the same night
6) So, common sense says, play them in the evening on seperate days
7) The players and fans have yet to complain.

Absolutely nothing absurd about it and, in fact, it is considerably better thought out and far more considerate of the general public than any of the other majors.

Well said. We get so much "res ipsa loquitur" (the thing speaks for itself) instead of argument here, when people want to shout there own opinion.

...But I think the argument is supposed to be that there is even more of an advantage to the first semifinalist when he gets an extra day, rather than merely an extra few hours of rest...but it would be interesting to see if historically the guy who played earlier and got more rest actually won more often.

 

[Moose Malloy]

It's the only major that is well enough organised and the only one that puts enough thought into their schedule to do so.

1) The semi-finals start on Thursday
2) People work during the day
3) If you played both men's semis on the one day then at least one of them would have to be on during the day session.
4) If you do that then people who work are disadvantaged as they only have one session they can attend
5) You can't play both at night on the same night
6) So, common sense says, play them in the evening on seperate days
7) The players and fans have yet to complain.

Absolutely nothing absurd about it and, in fact, it is considerably better thought out and far more considerate of the general public than any of the other majors

In the entire history of grand slam tennis, mens & womens, both semifinals are played on the same day. no advantage or disadvantage to the players, fans get their moneys worth-2 matches, not just one which is what they get under this format. The AO just wanted to get more money by separating the semis into 2 sessions. I can imagine what ticketholders would say if the French, Wimbledon, or US tried this.

And the other slams schedule both semis during the day, not night, which seems fair to both players. Tennis is meant to be played outdoors, especially grand slam semis/finals. Again this is just about money/tv ratings with the night matches in Australia, nothing else, they only started separating the semis into 2 sessions in 2001, wonder why they didn't come up with this idea sooner, if it was so much better?

But I think the argument is supposed to be that there is even more of an advantage to the first semifinalist when he gets an extra day, rather than merely an extra few hours of rest...but it would be interesting to see if historically the guy who played earlier and got more rest actually won more often.

Here are how the guys that played the 2nd semi fared:
2001-Clement
2002-can't find info on who played first
2003-Shuettler
2004-Federer-champion
2005-Hewitt(was struggling with injury, sure he could've used an extra day)
2006-Federer-champion

don't think the scheduling ultimately matters in the outcome of the event, it just doesn't seem right(just like US Open's Super Saturday seems wrong as well, for different reasons)

 

[Nadal_Freak]

I would think playing under hot conditions..this would benefit Nadal. With his superb shape and grinding style the opponent should wear down that much faster.

I agree and Murray would wear down easier in the heat for sure. No way Murray plays that well in the heat.

 

[LowProfile]

The commentators have repeatedly stated how the ball tends to "jump" off the court more when it is hot. The courts seem to take spin better when their temperatures are higher. While the heat would disadvantage Nadal's high-energy and heavy-mileage game, I also think that it would make his topspin forehand even heavier and more difficult to deal with.

While I don't know whether it is an equal trade-off or not, I don't think the heat would be a pure disadvantage to Nadal.

 

[DashaandSafin]

Its because there is a conspiracy for Nadal. The tourtament directors obviously favor him so he gets Mickey Mouse draws and nighttime matches. They used to favor Roddick, but Nadal is being asskissed by them now.

Oh barry you make me laugh.

 

[armand]

I think there's going to have to be a huge change if the Australian Open is going to last any longer than 10 yrs. Every year it's getting hotter and fans and players alike are suffering and the Heat Rule will be in effect more+more. Pretty soon, there's only gonna be night and indoor sessions...

Solutions? Maybe change the Australian Open into an indoor Slam? Sounds funny. Maybe shift it in the calendar?

 

[caulcano]

Here are how the guys that played the 2nd semi fared:
2001-Clement
2002-can't find info on who played first
2003-Shuettler
2004-Federer-champion
2005-Hewitt(was struggling with injury, sure he could've used an extra day)
2006-Federer-champion

don't think the scheduling ultimately matters in the outcome of the event, it just doesn't seem right(just like US Open's Super Saturday seems wrong as well, for different reasons)

Take out Federer & the 2nd Semi didn't fare well at all.

Anyway, moving the AO to March sounds like the best solution.

 

[West Coast Ace]

AndrewD, your points are fine - if maximizing profits are the concern. With all due respect, I can't believe Aussies can't get one day off work to attend an afternoon semi. Moose is right - both semis should be on the same day. Giving one player more time to prepare for a Final is not a good thing.

dh003i, the heat rule isn't necessary and it's not unsafe. At least on the men's side they are in amazing shape. And there are better alternatives. How about 3 minutes for every changeover break? And 10 minutes between sets? Also there are devices - you stick your hand in it - that quickly cool the body. The AO could buy these and have them on every court. I could also argue that the Heat Rule could be dangerous. Suppose a player's match doesn't get played and is pushed back a day. Then he/she plays 2 days in a row, without the day off to recuperate.

Agree with Moose. The AU is supposed to be played outdoors, in the heat. Don't mind some night sessions but they've gone too far.

 

[idj49]

I think there comes a point that even the fittest athlete will have problems with extreme heat. At certain temperatures it is unsafe for any human being to be running around. Death is the ultimate loss and I don't think they want that responsibility on their shoulders. They should change it though to stop all matches being played.

 

[AndrewD]

In the entire history of grand slam tennis, mens & womens, both semifinals are played on the same day. no advantage or disadvantage to the players, fans get their moneys worth-2 matches, not just one which is what they get under this format.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Tradition might apply to only playing best of 5 set matches or the 5th set always being an advantage set (didn't stop one from going to the tiebreak) or players wearing all white at Wimbledon but it sure doesn't apply to scheduling.

You did realise that the men's and women's events weren't always played at the same time and that Wimbledon used to have a challenge format, didn't you? If so, how in the world could, in the entire history of 'grand slam' (sic) tennis, the semi-finals always be played on the same day? Simply put, what you're talking about isn't tradition, it's habit and that isn't a good enough reason not to change it, if you can make it work (again, who is complaining, apart from yourself?)

Fans get their money's worth? Yep, some fans get their money's worth because only those who attend on that one day get to see a semi-final. Splitting them over the course of two days gives a far greater number of people the chance to see at least one of the semis.

The AO just wanted to get more money by separating the semis into 2 sessions. I can imagine what ticketholders would say if the French, Wimbledon, or US tried this.

Prior to 2001 the Australian Open played the men's semis, one during the day SESSION and one during the night SESSION. That's still TWO sessions that required TWO tickets. Whether they're played on the same or separate days, it doesn't matter at all. Of course it's a decision driven by money but it works out far better for the fans.

Okay, I have no idea what people would say at the French, Wimbledon or US Open but we're not talking about them, are we? The system appears to work at the Australian Open, for the Australian people and that's all that matters, not what someone from France, England or America might think.

And the other slams schedule both semis during the day, not night, which seems fair to both players. Tennis is meant to be played outdoors, especially grand slam semis/finals. Again this is just about money/tv ratings with the night matches in Australia, nothing else, they only started separating the semis into 2 sessions in 2001, wonder why they didn't come up with this idea sooner, if it was so much better?

How many of the other majors have night matches? If the answer is, 'only the US Open' then that hardly counts as a precedent.
Who says that tennis is meant to be played outdoors - you ?
Who says that the semis and finals of the majors must be played outdoors - you?

So, just because an idea is recent (and really, how do you know they didn't come up with the idea 50 years ago) means it isn't a good one? Isn't it obvious that it took until 2000 (the year before the change) for the attendence figures to increase to the point where splitting the semis seemed like a good and viable option?

West Coast Ace,

With all due respect, you've got to be joking. Do you really believe that we could just take the day off to go and watch the tennis or any sporting event? I'm not sure what it's like where you live but out here it'd only be a very small number who could do that. Playing in the evening gives everyone - working or not- the exact same opportunity and doesn't require them taking any time off work. Ultimately though, if the players aren't complaining and the Australian public isn't complaining then what is the problem?

Of course maximising revenue (profit is a dubious claim) is vitally important. Why would you think it isn't? That revenue pays for the players and, more importantly, it goes directly into tennis in Australia (Melbourne Park isn't a private club). Now given where that money comes from (the Australian people) and where it goes (Australian tennis) can you explain to me why we should be upset and why its bad for tennis (tennis in Australia) that both semis aren't played on the one day and for only the one attending audience?