Does Australian Open prove shorter season = better competition?

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Quick summary: 25% of the players to reach the AO semifinals since 2005 were not seeded to get there, making for a "surprising" SF field more often than not

Partly because AO is on my mind constantly and partly because of a recent NBA "scandal," I got to thinking about how many memorable dark horse runs there have been at the AO recently, and if there might be more of these breakthrough performances if players were properly rested going into more tournaments.

The AO is generally accepted as the most surprising major of the year, as players have worked on their games, regained endurance, healed injuries and recharged mentally.

I started to wonder, if the season were scheduled "perfectly" (not going to get into what that would be), would we see more challenges to the top players, since the entire field would be in tip top shape?

I looked at the past eight Australian Open quarter final fields and counted how many players beat their seeding to get there, so any player ranked #9 or lower. I also noted which of the top 4 seeds reached the semis, since in today's game we pretty much pencil the Big Four into the semis.
*Players without a number were unseeded; unspecified result = loss in the QF

Findings:
2005--#20 Hrbaty, #26 Davydenko, #9 Nalbandian (top 4 seeds made semis)
2006--#21 Kiefer (SF), #25 Grosjean, Baghdatis (F) (#1 and #4 reached semis)
2007--Mardy Fish, #12 Haas (SF), #10 Gonzalez (F) (top seed reaches semis)
2008--#12 Blake, Tsonga (F), #24 Nieminen (top 3 seeds reach semis)
2009--#14 Verdaco (SF) (top 2 seeds reach finals)
2010--#10 Tsonga (SF), #14 Cilic (SF) (top seed reaches semis)
2011--Dolgopolov, #19 Wawrinka (#3 and #2 reach semis)
2012--#24 Nishikori, #11 del Potro (top 4 seeds reach semis)

#9 Seed Or Worse At AO Since '05
19 players ranked outside the top 8 have reached QF stage or better. (3 players four times, 2 players three times, 1 player once)
8 players ranked outside the top 8 have reached SF stage or better.
3 players ranked outside the top 8 have reached the Final (two were unseeded).

Top 4 Seeds At AO Since '05
Top 4 seeds reached the semis twice.
Top 3 seeds reached the semis once.
Top 2 seeds reached the semis once.
Two of Top 4 seeds reached the semis twice.
Only the top seed reached the semis twice.

I will have to look at the other majors before fully understanding these numbers, but the stats look encouraging: only 3 of 8 Semi Final fields had more than 2 top seeds.

This makes me think that, as an extreme example, if only the 4 majors were played every year and no other events, the Top 4 would have a much tougher time cruising to the semis.
 
Last edited:

tacou

G.O.A.T.
FRENCH OPEN
2005--Hanescu, #20 Ferrer, #12 Davydenko (SF), #15 Robredo, #9 Canas, Puerta (F) (#1 and #4 reach semis)
2006--#12 Ancic, Bennetau, Djokovic (top 4 seeds reach semis)
2007--#9 Robredo, #19 Canas, #23 Moya (#1, #2 and #4 reach semis)
2008--#24 Gonzalez, Monfils (SF), Gulbis, #19 Almagro (top 3 seeds reach semis)
2009--#23 Soderling (F), #10 Davydenko, #12 Gonzalez (SF), #16 Robredo, #11 Monfils (#2 seed reach semis)
2010--#15 Berydch (SF), #11 Youzhny, #22 Melzer, #19 Almagro (#2 seed reach semis)
2011--Chela, #9 Monfils, Fogini (top 4 seeds reach semis)
2012--#9 del Potro, #12 Almagro (top 3 seeds reach semis)

#9 Seed Or Worse At FO Since '05
30 players ranked outside the top 8 have reached QF stage or better (11 more than AO)
5 players ranked outside the top 8 have reached SF stage or better (3 less than AO)
2 players ranked outside the top 8 have reached the F (one unseeded; 1 less than AO).

Top 4 Seeds At AO Since '05
Top 4 seeds reached the semis twice (same as AO).
3 seeds reached the semis three times (2 more than AO).
2 seeds reached the semis once (2 less than AO).
1 seed reached the semis twice (same as AO).

5 of 8 semi final fields were composed of 3/4 top seeds, two more times than AO.
As expected, a ton of clay specialists have reached the QF stage, but moving to the SF stage, lower seeds perform better at the AO, while the top 4 does slightly better at the FO.

This doesn't advance my initial claim that much, but I think the US Open will be the most apt comparison. Will do that in a bit.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
US OPEN
2005--#11 Nalbandian, Nieminen, Ginepri (SF), WC Blake (#1 and #3 reach semis)
2006--#14 Haas, #9 Roddick (F), Youzhny (SF) (top seed reaches semis)
2007--#10 Haas, #17 Moya, #20 Chela, #15 Ferrer (SF) (#1 #3 #4 reach semis)
2008--Mardy Fish, #17 del Potro, Q Muller (Top 3 seeds reach semis)
2009--#12 Soderling, #10 Verdasco, #11 Gonzalez, #16 Cilic (#1 #3 #4 reach semis)
2010--#25 Wawrinka, #12 Youzhny (SF), #17 Monfils (Top 3 seeds reach semis)
2011--#20 Tipsarevic, #11 Tonsga, #28 Isner, #21 Roddick (Top 4 reach semis)
2012--#12 Cilic (#2 #3 #4 reach semis)

#9 Seed Or Worse At USO Since '05
26 players ranked #9 or worse have reached QF stage or better (7 more than AO).
5 players ranked #9 or worse have reached the SF stage or better (3 less than AO).
1 player ranked #9 or worse has reached the F (2 less than AO).

Top 4 Seeds At USO Since '05
Top 4 seeds reached the semis once (one less than AO).
Top 3 seeds reached the semis 2x/three seeds reached 3x (four more than AO).
Two Top seeds reached the semis once (two less than AO).
Top seed reached the semis once (one less than AO).

Unlike the AO, 7 of the past 8 US Open semifinals have featured at least 2 of the top 4 seeds.
6 of 8 SF have had more than 2 top seeds.

Similar to FO, more players beat their seeds to make it to the quarter finals than at AO, however the SF and F stages are much more surprising at AO, with only 2 USO featuring more or as many surprise semi finalists than seeded semi finalists compared to 4 at the AO.

I might do Wimbledon later, but I suspect it would be similar to FO. You can interpret these numbers however you like, but I think they support my initial claim. When everyone is well conditioned (AO), the final four is usually 2 seeds and 2 dark horses. When everyone is worn out from a long season (USO), the final four is usually 3 or more top seeds.
 

SStrikerR

Hall of Fame
Or top guys don't have enough match play to get into top form and a lesser ranked player gets lucky at the AO. And then the FO is another beast because there are plenty of clay specialists, and the higher seeds may not be good on clay, causing them to be upset which frees the draw up. (See: Roddick, Andy)
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Or top guys don't have enough match play to get into top form and a lesser ranked player gets lucky at the AO. And then the FO is another beast because there are plenty of clay specialists, and the higher seeds may not be good on clay, causing them to be upset which frees the draw up. (See: Roddick, Andy)
Even Federer back in 2004 got upset at the French Open.
 

paulorenzo

Hall of Fame
interesting stuff, as you mentioned, the off season can be to a player's benefit/ detriment depending on how it's treated. i think that's the biggest factor regarding deep runs by lower ranked guys.

one could argue it isn't limited to lower ranked guys, since players like djokovic and murray have won/ made finals when there was a distinct difference between the fedal and the rest of the top 4/5. AO seems subject to deep runs by those who want it badly enough in the off season.

now, if every slam had the same lead up, it would entail a big break with one or two lead up tournaments. it would indeed be more of a tossup at first glance, considering dominant players (players who post the most consistent results week in and week out throughout the year) wont reap the usual benefits of lead up tournaments. however, i don't think it's ideal.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
What the AO demonstrates is that three weeks into the tennis season is too soon too see everyone playing to their level, thus the surprises in Melbourne. Some top players may have partied much of December and thus may not hit their best form until a few months into the season. This is why I've always felt it's idiotic too have such an important tourney just a few weeks into the year.
 

tennisMVP

Banned
Quick summary: 25% of the players to reach the AO semifinals since 2005 were not seeded to get there, making for a "surprising" SF field more often than not

Partly because AO is on my mind constantly and partly because of a recent NBA "scandal,"

Are you trying to say "lockout"? And by recent do you mean "last season"?
 
Last edited:

tacou

G.O.A.T.
No, the Spurs benching their four best players against Miami. Coach did it because his older players need more rest to play their best.

I then thought about the extremely short tennis off season, yet it's long enough to produce a lot of surprises early in the year.
 
Top