-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
2011 Australian Open - Part 1
- Thread starter tigers71
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
That sounds amazing! Viewer choice for the first 6 days?! I mean, I won't get to experience that awesomeness as I'll be attending the whole first week, but I am seriously happy for those tennis fans who don't get to go, after the crap we were served up by Channel 7 at the 2010 open. Kudos Fox Sports.
Also, am I right in assuming that by Acer arena they actually mean RLA? Acer arena is in Sydney right?
That sounds amazing! Viewer choice for the first 6 days?! I mean, I won't get to experience that awesomeness as I'll be attending the whole first week, but I am seriously happy for those tennis fans who don't get to go, after the crap we were served up by Channel 7 at the 2010 open. Kudos Fox Sports.
Also, am I right in assuming that by Acer arena they actually mean RLA? Acer arena is in Sydney right?
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
Not being subjected to 7's awful coverage, their choice of matches, their commentators, their AO news, their stupid interviews, good stuff for everyone who's interested in getting the best coverage. 
Couldn't agree more. I'll be in Melbourne for the entire first week so this doesn't effect me but this is terrific news for tennis fans around the country.That sounds amazing! Viewer choice for the first 6 days?! I mean, I won't get to experience that awesomeness as I'll be attending the whole first week, but I am seriously happy for those tennis fans who don't get to go, after the crap we were served up by Channel 7 at the 2010 open. Kudos Fox Sports.
Also, am I right in assuming that by Acer arena they actually mean RLA? Acer arena is in Sydney right?
Not being subjected to 7's awful coverage, their choice of matches, their commentators, their AO news, their stupid interviews, good stuff for everyone who's interested in getting the best coverage. Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
It might be what was Hisense Arena. Centre Court in Sydney is called Ken Rosewall Arena I think.
That sounds amazing! Viewer choice for the first 6 days?! I mean, I won't get to experience that awesomeness as I'll be attending the whole first week, but I am seriously happy for those tennis fans who don't get to go, after the crap we were served up by Channel 7 at the 2010 open. Kudos Fox Sports.
Also, am I right in assuming that by Acer arena they actually mean RLA? Acer arena is in Sydney right?
It might be what was Hisense Arena. Centre Court in Sydney is called Ken Rosewall Arena I think.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 29,385
- 84,389
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
Clearly better than US Open(lol5settiebreak) and French Open(lolnooneattends)
Clearly better than US Open(lol5settiebreak) and French Open(lolnooneattends)
- Jul 19, 2010
- 29,385
- 84,389
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
The sooner the Australian Open adopts the fifth-set tie-break the better.
The sooner the Australian Open adopts the fifth-set tie-break the better.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 29,385
- 84,389
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
Why not just go back 100 years and play advantage for every set.
The fifth set advantage rule is outdated, and moronic.
Why not just go back 100 years and play advantage for every set.
The fifth set advantage rule is outdated, and moronic.
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
I think it's you that is moronic. No way should there be a 5th set tiebreaker because of one freak match.
Anyway the AO is already terrific, and when the redevelopment is complete it'll be even better.
I know people who have been to ALL Slams and many said the AO was their favourite. Why? The atmosphere. Now I don't know what players think, I know a few view it as their favourite, but to say so adamantly that it's the worst Slam is a little off.
Every Slam is unique. It's funny because you and probably many other Australians feel ours is the weakest link in the Slams. Yet if you were to do a poll of people around the world and I'm willing to bet the AO would be people's favourite or second favourite GS and very, very few would have it last.
I think it's you that is moronic. No way should there be a 5th set tiebreaker because of one freak match.
Anyway the AO is already terrific, and when the redevelopment is complete it'll be even better.
I know people who have been to ALL Slams and many said the AO was their favourite. Why? The atmosphere. Now I don't know what players think, I know a few view it as their favourite, but to say so adamantly that it's the worst Slam is a little off.
Every Slam is unique. It's funny because you and probably many other Australians feel ours is the weakest link in the Slams. Yet if you were to do a poll of people around the world and I'm willing to bet the AO would be people's favourite or second favourite GS and very, very few would have it last.
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
+111111111111. 5th set tiebreak is where its at, going by Slippery's logic we should get rid of deuce games and just play sudden death as well. One of the aspects of tennis that makes it what it is. **** people who say and do otherwise (hello US Open).
I think it's you that is moronic. No way should there be a 5th set tiebreaker because of one freak match.
Anyway the AO is already terrific, and when the redevelopment is complete it'll be even better.
I know people who have been to ALL Slams and many said the AO was their favourite. Why? The atmosphere. Now I don't know what players think, I know a few view it as their favourite, but to say so adamantly that it's the worst Slam is a little off.
Every Slam is unique. It's funny because you and probably many other Australians feel ours is the weakest link in the Slams. Yet if you were to do a poll of people around the world and I'm willing to bet the AO would be people's favourite or second favourite GS and very, very few would have it last.
+111111111111. 5th set tiebreak is where its at, going by Slippery's logic we should get rid of deuce games and just play sudden death as well. One of the aspects of tennis that makes it what it is. **** people who say and do otherwise (hello US Open).
matt_897
Premium Platinum
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
Not this arguement again It's alright just at the US open but there should be no tiebreaker in the 5th at other slams. Please don't bring up this dumb topic again.
Not this arguement again
It's alright just at the US open but there should be no tiebreaker in the 5th at other slams. Please don't bring up this dumb topic again.
- Thread starter
- #65
Who will win the womens title at the Australian Open?? I think Justine Henin has a great chance of winning because she always plays well here
Caroline Wozniacki is World number 1 and she has had a great year at tour level and its Grand Slams that she has to start playing well at
Vera Zvonareva had a great 2010 season and she will go in as one of the favourites.
Overall Its Carolines title to win and I am hoping she wins the title in Australia
Caroline Wozniacki is World number 1 and she has had a great year at tour level and its Grand Slams that she has to start playing well at
Vera Zvonareva had a great 2010 season and she will go in as one of the favourites.
Overall Its Carolines title to win and I am hoping she wins the title in Australia
TOSSER ALERT.Hamish McLachlan WILL BE ONE OF THE HOST FOR 7S COVERAGE THIS YEAR. WON'T WATCHING IT WHEN HE IS ON. THANK GOD FOR FOX
How can Fox Sports have plenty of female hosts who are easy on the eye and manage to do their job well, while seven keep serving up pretentious knobs like Hamish Mclaughlin?
- Jul 19, 2010
- 29,385
- 84,389
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
Fans I'm not sure, but do a poll of the players and I bet 80% say the Australian is their least favourite slam. Mostly due to the incredibly bad timing of the event in relation to the off season, coupled with the distance, and of course, the searing heat. Throw in the incredibly moronic programming and lack of sack shown by tournament organisers in recent years (ie - Hewitt's match until 5am a few years ago) along with the omni present controversy over the speed of the surface, and you've just about got all bases covered.
The Australian Open historically has been the Grand Slam most likely to throw up a surprise winner due to these factors. Is that good or bad? You be the judge. But if a player skips a Grand Slam for any reason other than injury, it's usually the Oz Open.
I think it's you that is moronic. No way should there be a 5th set tiebreaker because of one freak match.
Anyway the AO is already terrific, and when the redevelopment is complete it'll be even better.
I know people who have been to ALL Slams and many said the AO was their favourite. Why? The atmosphere. Now I don't know what players think, I know a few view it as their favourite, but to say so adamantly that it's the worst Slam is a little off.
Every Slam is unique. It's funny because you and probably many other Australians feel ours is the weakest link in the Slams. Yet if you were to do a poll of people around the world and I'm willing to bet the AO would be people's favourite or second favourite GS and very, very few would have it last.
Fans I'm not sure, but do a poll of the players and I bet 80% say the Australian is their least favourite slam. Mostly due to the incredibly bad timing of the event in relation to the off season, coupled with the distance, and of course, the searing heat. Throw in the incredibly moronic programming and lack of sack shown by tournament organisers in recent years (ie - Hewitt's match until 5am a few years ago) along with the omni present controversy over the speed of the surface, and you've just about got all bases covered.
The Australian Open historically has been the Grand Slam most likely to throw up a surprise winner due to these factors. Is that good or bad? You be the judge. But if a player skips a Grand Slam for any reason other than injury, it's usually the Oz Open.
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
It is funny how wrong you are. Having worked at the AO the last few years and hearing from players directly as well as evidence through player based surveys, the AO rates as the favourite grand slam tournament overall ahead of the 3 others. The organisers are continually raising the bar. You probably don't understand how much works go on behind the scenes to make this tournament run as smooth as it does.
I agree that in the 80's and 90's the AO would not have been a favourite gs tournament for the players, but that has changed over the last 10 years.
No player is allowed to skip a Grand Slam. The only reason you are allowed to miss a grand slam is through injury and you have to show medical proof that you have an injury.
The weather can be extreme at times, but they have changed the heat policy to reflect a fair level at which players are expected to perform. Plus 2 courts with a roof, Wimbledon has 1, US and French have none.
The Hewitt-Baghdatis match was a mistake and should not have happened. But once again, the organisers have fixed their mistakes and now you can have either the mens or womens match as the first match up on the night program, with no match now allowed to start after 11.
Why is it bad if one of the grand slams throws up a surprise? Meanwhile the winner of the tournament in the last few years have been Nadal, Federer, Safin, Serena Williams, Henin and Mauresmo, hardly and big surprises there.
Last year's attendance figure was the 2nd highest attended grand slam tournament ever. Biggest prizemoney of all the grand slams (and with the Aussie $$ going gangbusters that is even better).
Have you ever actually been to the tournament?
It is funny how wrong you are. Having worked at the AO the last few years and hearing from players directly as well as evidence through player based surveys, the AO rates as the favourite grand slam tournament overall ahead of the 3 others. The organisers are continually raising the bar. You probably don't understand how much works go on behind the scenes to make this tournament run as smooth as it does.
I agree that in the 80's and 90's the AO would not have been a favourite gs tournament for the players, but that has changed over the last 10 years.
No player is allowed to skip a Grand Slam. The only reason you are allowed to miss a grand slam is through injury and you have to show medical proof that you have an injury.
The weather can be extreme at times, but they have changed the heat policy to reflect a fair level at which players are expected to perform. Plus 2 courts with a roof, Wimbledon has 1, US and French have none.
The Hewitt-Baghdatis match was a mistake and should not have happened. But once again, the organisers have fixed their mistakes and now you can have either the mens or womens match as the first match up on the night program, with no match now allowed to start after 11.
Why is it bad if one of the grand slams throws up a surprise? Meanwhile the winner of the tournament in the last few years have been Nadal, Federer, Safin, Serena Williams, Henin and Mauresmo, hardly and big surprises there.
Last year's attendance figure was the 2nd highest attended grand slam tournament ever. Biggest prizemoney of all the grand slams (and with the Aussie $$ going gangbusters that is even better).
Have you ever actually been to the tournament?
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 29,385
- 84,389
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
Do you have any actual evidence of this, or ir it just what you've heard around the traps? If more than half the players prefer winning the Oz Open over Wimbledon or the US Open, I'll eat my hat.
Unlike you I don't work there. I also don't have a vested interest in making it sound better than it is. Of course a lot of work goes into running a Grand Slam event. That's completely irrelevant to the topic. Is it any more work than any of the other three? No. We're not discussing how hard the organisers work, we're discussing how it rates compared to the other slams.
The reputation has certainly improved, I agree with you there. Not like the bad old days of the eighties, when players like McEnroe showed open disdain for showing up.
Oh please. So you need a note from your mum saying you're injured - big deal. You think every player in history who has missed a Grand Slam has been legitimately injured? As I said earlier - because of the distance involved and the fact it's so close to the off season, it's STILL the Grand Slam most likely to be skipped (Serena Williams this year)- and of course players will use injury as the reason. They're not going to say "I'm not coming because I can't be assed travelling to Australia and I'm still worn out from last season, which only finished weeks ago," which was exactly the reason Sampras skipped in 1999 despite being one slam away from equalling the then all time record.
The US Open haven't got a roof because they don't want one. The roof completely changes the conditions of the match - suddenly it's indoors and the balls play different, the surface is a different speed. Not to mention the problem of players who played on outside courts fronting up for a match against a guy who played indoors. It's great for spectators, but a roof at an outdoor tournament isn't necessarily a point in favour of the tournament, or what the players want. Why do you think the US Open doesn't have one? Wimbledon's was only installed to deal with the unique frequency of rain delays that mar that particular tournament year after year - but even they resisted for a very, very long time for the afforementioned reasons.
Mistake is very generous. It was an utter disgrace and an embarrassment, and wouldn't have happened anywhere but the Australian Open. It's a joke that it took this level of bungle for them to fix the situation. That kind of fiasco had been threatening to occur for years. It also cost Hewitt any chance of winning the tournament that year.
It's great if you're not really into tennis, and only watch it for two weeks a year. But for the purists, Wimbledon and the US Open are the premier Grand Slams of the year - the slams when the whips are really cracking for the top seeds. You have to be playing the tennis of your life to cause an upset there. Where else could Thomas Johansson have won a Grand Slam but the Australian Open?!!
So it should be. A Grand Slam in January is a total pain the a*s for players.
Yes, I have.
Do you have any actual evidence of this, or ir it just what you've heard around the traps? If more than half the players prefer winning the Oz Open over Wimbledon or the US Open, I'll eat my hat.
Unlike you I don't work there. I also don't have a vested interest in making it sound better than it is. Of course a lot of work goes into running a Grand Slam event. That's completely irrelevant to the topic. Is it any more work than any of the other three? No. We're not discussing how hard the organisers work, we're discussing how it rates compared to the other slams.
The reputation has certainly improved, I agree with you there. Not like the bad old days of the eighties, when players like McEnroe showed open disdain for showing up.
Oh please. So you need a note from your mum saying you're injured - big deal. You think every player in history who has missed a Grand Slam has been legitimately injured? As I said earlier - because of the distance involved and the fact it's so close to the off season, it's STILL the Grand Slam most likely to be skipped (Serena Williams this year)- and of course players will use injury as the reason. They're not going to say "I'm not coming because I can't be assed travelling to Australia and I'm still worn out from last season, which only finished weeks ago," which was exactly the reason Sampras skipped in 1999 despite being one slam away from equalling the then all time record.
The US Open haven't got a roof because they don't want one. The roof completely changes the conditions of the match - suddenly it's indoors and the balls play different, the surface is a different speed. Not to mention the problem of players who played on outside courts fronting up for a match against a guy who played indoors. It's great for spectators, but a roof at an outdoor tournament isn't necessarily a point in favour of the tournament, or what the players want. Why do you think the US Open doesn't have one? Wimbledon's was only installed to deal with the unique frequency of rain delays that mar that particular tournament year after year - but even they resisted for a very, very long time for the afforementioned reasons.
Mistake is very generous. It was an utter disgrace and an embarrassment, and wouldn't have happened anywhere but the Australian Open. It's a joke that it took this level of bungle for them to fix the situation. That kind of fiasco had been threatening to occur for years. It also cost Hewitt any chance of winning the tournament that year.
It's great if you're not really into tennis, and only watch it for two weeks a year. But for the purists, Wimbledon and the US Open are the premier Grand Slams of the year - the slams when the whips are really cracking for the top seeds. You have to be playing the tennis of your life to cause an upset there. Where else could Thomas Johansson have won a Grand Slam but the Australian Open?!!
So it should be. A Grand Slam in January is a total pain the a*s for players.
Yes, I have.
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
If I can interject with an irrelevant thought on the merits of the Grand Slams:
US open has always felt like a made-for-TV tournament.
"Can I speak in Spanish?"
...OK, carry on with your arguments
If I can interject with an irrelevant thought on the merits of the Grand Slams:
US open has always felt like a made-for-TV tournament.
"Can I speak in Spanish?"
...OK, carry on with your arguments
- Thread starter
- #72
I never watch the coverage
As I am at the event, Fox Sports has the best coverage because they get ex players to do it, seven get clowns who know nothing about tennis. Its a pain in the butt when you like Rafa and hes always on RL Arena. I can imagine what they serve the person at home in the regards to viewer. It would make me sick what they could serve up.
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
I don't know why you don't appreciate the 5th set tiebreak, and if you yourself are a tennis purist, as you put it then surely you'd be all for it? At the end of the day its your opinion, which your entitled to. The US Open got rid of the advantage in the 5th because as someone mentioned, they play for TV. Can you imagine the 08 Rafa/Roger Wimbledon final ending in a 5th set tiebreak? To go all that way and then end it with a final set tiebreak is just a crappy anti-climax IMO, there have been many matches which are great due to the final set being advantage. I'll admit I'm a huge traditionilist when it comes to sport, but tennis is also a war of attrition, and that's how it should be in a GS. AO would not be as good without it.
I don't know why you don't appreciate the 5th set tiebreak, and if you yourself are a tennis purist, as you put it then surely you'd be all for it? At the end of the day its your opinion, which your entitled to. The US Open got rid of the advantage in the 5th because as someone mentioned, they play for TV. Can you imagine the 08 Rafa/Roger Wimbledon final ending in a 5th set tiebreak? To go all that way and then end it with a final set tiebreak is just a crappy anti-climax IMO, there have been many matches which are great due to the final set being advantage. I'll admit I'm a huge traditionilist when it comes to sport, but tennis is also a war of attrition, and that's how it should be in a GS. AO would not be as good without it.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 29,385
- 84,389
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Re: 2011 Australian Open!!
Unfortunately no. I'm coming more from a players perspective rather than a fan's though. I'm aware the Australian Open has often been referred to as "the fans' Grand Slam," and that's part of my point. I think it has this reputation but struggles on the other side - i.e the players and the integrity of the actual tournament itself. I could go into the whole annual fiasco with the rebound ace surface before it was changed etc - but I wont bore you with all that. Suffice to say rebound ace was far too slow, and made for some very boring matches. Some players compared the speed of the courts at the Australian Open to the French Open, which is not good. In an age where serve and volley tennis is all but extinct, I thought the Australian Open was the first Grand Slam to really get the ball rolling on that slow death. We were never much help to our own guys with the court speed - first Rafter, then Hewitt.
Del Potro was certainly unexpected. Krajicek was a genuine big serving, serve and volley talent who had the potential to beat anyone. He just didnt get his sh*t together very often. We don't see players like Krajicek and Ivanisevic anymore - big serving guys who can blow anyone off the court on their day - because tournaments like the Australian Open were obsessed with slow surfaces and heavy balls which killed that style of tennis. But I won't harp on that again..... Except to say that watching Nikolai Daveydenko play tennis makes me want to do serious damage to my TV. And to think he's been in the top 5 for around a decade..........No surprise, he always does well at the Oz Open.......
The main reason I dislike it is not if it happens in a final, but in any earlier match than a final. If you have a fifth set that goes on for hours and hours with no sign of any conclusion, it not only becomes a farce, but it practically rules out any chance you have of winning your next match.
Unfortunately no. I'm coming more from a players perspective rather than a fan's though. I'm aware the Australian Open has often been referred to as "the fans' Grand Slam," and that's part of my point. I think it has this reputation but struggles on the other side - i.e the players and the integrity of the actual tournament itself. I could go into the whole annual fiasco with the rebound ace surface before it was changed etc - but I wont bore you with all that. Suffice to say rebound ace was far too slow, and made for some very boring matches. Some players compared the speed of the courts at the Australian Open to the French Open, which is not good. In an age where serve and volley tennis is all but extinct, I thought the Australian Open was the first Grand Slam to really get the ball rolling on that slow death. We were never much help to our own guys with the court speed - first Rafter, then Hewitt.
Del Potro was certainly unexpected. Krajicek was a genuine big serving, serve and volley talent who had the potential to beat anyone. He just didnt get his sh*t together very often. We don't see players like Krajicek and Ivanisevic anymore - big serving guys who can blow anyone off the court on their day - because tournaments like the Australian Open were obsessed with slow surfaces and heavy balls which killed that style of tennis. But I won't harp on that again..... Except to say that watching Nikolai Daveydenko play tennis makes me want to do serious damage to my TV. And to think he's been in the top 5 for around a decade..........No surprise, he always does well at the Oz Open.......
The main reason I dislike it is not if it happens in a final, but in any earlier match than a final. If you have a fifth set that goes on for hours and hours with no sign of any conclusion, it not only becomes a farce, but it practically rules out any chance you have of winning your next match.
- Status
Similar threads
