Who is the favorite for the Australian Open Moral Title?

Who'll win the moral crown?

  • Nadal

    Votes: 11 61.1%
  • Djokovic

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • Murray

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • Federer

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Total voters
    18

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
While the field for the Men's Singles Title may be looking barren indeed, we might be looking at one of the strongest moral fields for some time.

Let's consider the main favorites:

Rafael Nadal
Case for: Unrivaled experience in winning moral titles; planted the seeds of a moral AO victory already at the end of last season; exceptional humility increases moral sympathies.

Case against: The eternal conundrum of the boy who cried wolf one too many time.

Novak Djokovic
Case for: Long injury layoff; has won many actual AOs, which should improve chances of winning a moral title if he's hindered this time; amped up tournament prep by pulling out of Exo.

Case against: Reportedly believes that "we are the creators of our own destiny and our own paths and what we really want," which would paradoxically entail that a potential loss would be exactly what he really wanted and deserved.

Andy Murray
Case for: The most dramatic-looking injury of all; theatrical expertise; can be counted on to make tactical political/humanitarian press statements to increase his moral stock; tragical record in AO finals induces sympathy.

Case against: Overly dramatic expressions of suffering may backfire and decrease moral sympathies.

Roger Federer
Case for: The sneaky dark horse, might be planning an elaborate tragic arc where he looks like a sure favorite going into the tournament but eventually dramatically succumbs to a broken back and a court slowed down more than TTW's server during the AO final.

Case against: Preparation seemingly not as thorough as his main rivals; unmatched self-confidence might reduce moral sympathies.

Whom do you favor for the coveted moral title?
 
Last edited:

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
Very strong field here.

Other contenders:

King Kyrgios, who really had the talent to do it but just wasn't in the mood ok.

Sasha Zverev, the up and coming next gen for realzies, who loses in the first round again, because reasons.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Very strong field here.

Other contenders:

King Kyrgios, who really had the talent to do it but just wasn't in the mood ok.

Sasha Zverev, the up and coming next gen for realzies, who loses in the first round again, because reasons.
Some excellent contenders there.

Kyrgios might have achieved something unparalleled in that he's already contending for moral slams without having ever won an actual big title. That's what the promise of unfulfilled talent can do for you.

Some other dark horses to keep in mind: Stan Wawrinka, a former champ who's gone under the knife. If Kei Nishikori loses one or more limbs out on court — which by now may conceivably happen — his moral stock would skyrocket as well.

Muzz has nearly run out of digits on which to count his major final losses


He gets my moral voat.
MuryGOAT.
Excellent point, I'll add this to Murray's "case for."
 

George Turner

Hall of Fame
What about the Thieminator? Moral winner of Rome and Roland Garros last season.

Has been upsetting his fans by losing, losing and losing, he's due a big moral comeback. Would be an amazing redemption story.

If not, at least the Clay court season is closer after the Australian Open than before.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
While the field for the Men's Singles Title may be looking barren indeed, we might be looking at one of the strongest moral fields for some time.

Let's consider the main favorites:

Rafael Nadal
Case for: Unrivaled experience in winning moral titles; planted the seeds of a moral AO victory already at the end of last season; exceptional humility increases moral sympathies.

Case against: The eternal conundrum of the boy who cried wolf one too many time.

Novak Djokovic
Case for: Long injury layoff; has won many actual AOs, which should improve chances of winning a moral title if he's hindered this time; amped up tournament prep by pulling out of Exo.

Case against: Reportedly believes that "we are the creators of our own destiny and our own paths and what we really want," which would paradoxically entail that a potential loss would be exactly what he really wanted and deserved.

Andy Murray
Case for: The most dramatic-looking injury of all; theatrical expertise; can be counted on to make tactical political/humanitarian press statements to increase his moral stock; tragical record in AO finals induces sympathy.

Case against: Overly dramatic expressions of suffering may backfire and decrease moral sympathies.

Roger Federer
Case for: The sneaky dark horse, might be planning an elaborate tragic arc where he looks like a sure favorite going into the tournament but eventually dramatically succumbs to a broken back and a court slowed down more than TTW's server during the AO final.

Case against: Preparation seemingly not as thorough as his main rivals; unmatched self-confidence might reduce moral sympathies.

Whom do you favor for the coveted moral title?
Robin Haase, obviously, he's the king of moral victories if you are to believe the Dutch satirical sites

https://speld.nl/2015/07/02/uitstekende-gevoelsuitslag-voor-haase-tegen-murray/

"Robin Haase got a great moral result versus Andy Murray. In reality, he got defeated : 1-6 1-6 4-6, but for Haase, the moral score was impressive: 6-2 7-5 6-1. He also morally reached at least the 3rd round of the tournament.

Haase: "You know people predict a loss, but you know that the moral result may be better than expected due to unmeasurable factors, like a net cord or the illusion that you're playing fantastic and are just unlucky.

Haase is happy about his morale: "With a moral victory like this you make a big impression internationally. It's also a great boost for my moral rankings." Due to his moral victory against Andy Murray, Haase feels like he entered the moral top 10 in the world.

In the 3rd round Haase feels like he's playing the Croat Borna Ćorić. In reality, Andy Murray is playing Italian Andreas Seppi
 
Last edited:

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
While the field for the Men's Singles Title may be looking barren indeed, we might be looking at one of the strongest moral fields for some time.

Let's consider the main favorites:

Rafael Nadal
Case for: Unrivaled experience in winning moral titles; planted the seeds of a moral AO victory already at the end of last season; exceptional humility increases moral sympathies.

Case against: The eternal conundrum of the boy who cried wolf one too many time.

Novak Djokovic
Case for: Long injury layoff; has won many actual AOs, which should improve chances of winning a moral title if he's hindered this time; amped up tournament prep by pulling out of Exo.

Case against: Reportedly believes that "we are the creators of our own destiny and our own paths and what we really want," which would paradoxically entail that a potential loss would be exactly what he really wanted and deserved.

Andy Murray
Case for: The most dramatic-looking injury of all; theatrical expertise; can be counted on to make tactical political/humanitarian press statements to increase his moral stock; tragical record in AO finals induces sympathy.

Case against: Overly dramatic expressions of suffering may backfire and decrease moral sympathies.

Roger Federer
Case for: The sneaky dark horse, might be planning an elaborate tragic arc where he looks like a sure favorite going into the tournament but eventually dramatically succumbs to a broken back and a court slowed down more than TTW's server during the AO final.

Case against: Preparation seemingly not as thorough as his main rivals; unmatched self-confidence might reduce moral sympathies.

Whom do you favor for the coveted moral title?
It is beyond my comprehension that this masterpiece has been out of its cage for over two hours and no one has liked it yet.

OP is to sardonic, absurdist tennis wit what Jeff Sackmann is to insightful tennis analysis

Bravo my Lord!
 

ojo rojo

Hall of Fame
It is beyond my comprehension that this masterpiece has been out of its cage for over two hours and no one has liked it yet.

OP is to sardonic, absurdist tennis wit what Jeff Sackmann is to insightful tennis analysis

Bravo my Lord!
Oops- I genuinely was so wrapped up in my own amateur-by-comparison poasting, that i forgot.
Soz Sizzy!
 
Top