From 2001 through 2008, the Australian Open was defined by unexpected finalists. Since then, the trend has been the complete opposite.
Dating back to the epic 2009 final between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, only one man outside the Big 4 (Stan Wawrinka in 2014) has played in the Aussie Open title match. Looking at it another way, zero men outside the Big 5 (Wawrinka, who lifted the winner’s trophy in ’14, has three career Grand Slam titles just like Andy Murray) have appeared in the Australian Open since Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in 2008.
By that measure, Marin Cilic can already be considered a “surprise” finalist. But the 6’6” Croat is a major champion (2014 U.S. Open), was the runner-up at Wimbledon in 2017, and he will be No. 3 in the world on Monday.
Surprise? No.
Hyeon Chung? Now that would be a surprise?
Kyle Edmund saw his chance for a similar feat end at the hands of Cilic on Thursday night, so now it is up to Chung if the Australian Open is going to produce an unseeded finalist. It’s unlikely of course, given that the 21-year-old South Korean has to go up against Roger Federer on Friday, but it would invoke memories of an era not too long ago.
Things got even more surprising one year later, at least up until the championship match. In 2003, No. 31 seed Rainer Schuettler capitalized on a good draw (like Johansson) to reach the final before getting absolutely thrashed by Agassi (just as Clement had been). Younes El Aynaoui stunned world No. 1 Lleyton Hewitt in Schuettler’s section of the bracket and the German eventually faced an injured Andy Roddick in the semis after Roddick had outlasted El Aynaoui 21-19 in the fifth set in their memorable quarterfinal collision.
After a couple of Australian Opens that restored some kind of order to things, a three-year streak of surprise finalists was touched off in 2006. Marcos Baghdatis. Fernando Gonzalez. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.
Baghdatis’ 2006 run was especially amazing. The young Cypriot won three matches in five sets, including against No. 7 seed Ivan Ljubicic in the quarterfinals and against No. 4 seed David Nalbandian in the semifinals. He also upset world No. 2 Andy Roddick in four sets during fourth-round action. Only Federer managed to stop Baghdatis at the final hurdle. Gonzalez’s 2007 charge was memorable for its quality as opposed to being a huge surprise (he was the No. 10 seed). The Chilean, owner one of the most fearsome forehands in tennis history, obliterated everything in his sight starting with the fourth round, disposing of James Blake, Rafael Nadal, and Tommy Haas all in straight sets. Once again, Federer was too much in the final. In 2008, Nadal fell victim to another big-hitting but underdog foe. Tsonga, who was unseeded, took Melbourne by storm and dismantled the Spaniard in the semis before succumbing to Novak Djokovic in the final.
Now on the heels of a nine-year stretch in which Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, just about monopolized spots in the final, the times are changing. Cilic has already bucked the trend to some extent. An appearance by Chung in Sunday’s title match would be on a whole different level altogether.
For now, the up-and-coming world No. 58 is surprised simply to be in the semis.
“Yeah, I’m really surprised,” Chung said. “Because I really [didn’t] know (I could do it). I [made the] semis; I beat like Sascha, Novak, the other good players. I [had never played in the] second week in Grand Slam, so I’m really surprised.”
[polldaddy poll=9925010]
who was your favorite “surprise” finalist?
Sampras 2002 USO.
Going back a long time, and a different slam: New Zealander Chris Lewis, in the 1983 Wimby final (got thrashed by McEnroe).
Anything is possible… but it won’t happen
The AO is famous for surprise finalists, probably Gonzo is my favourite one because of his forehand,even though he beat Nadal (and denied us a Fedal final)
But forgot Tsonga was unseeded, so he’s my favourite.
I still think Cilic is a pretty big surprise. He got dumped out of Pune by Gilles Simon and here he is AO finalist.
I like the surprise that is Verdasco at AO2009 SF; too bad for him, he ran into a Rafa who’s not to be denied. I’ll always remember that amazing SF of high quality tennis played throughout the whole match!
Chung looks sluggish in this match; too bad for him, he runs into a Fed who looks determined to reach the final.
Last year’s AO were a magic throwback with at the time unlikely but in retrospect inevitable finalists – a nostaligic pair who provided a high quality showdown. But does anyone else share my opinion that this year’s AO, while interesting and engaging on the women’s side, are a total dud on the men’s side? Too many injuries of key players have a lot to do with it. Somewhat was probably Kyrgios vs Dimi and to a certain degree Novak vs Chung, although the former lost it’s sparkle when Dimi couldn’t capitalize and went out meekly one round later, and the latter was thoroughly hampered by an ailing Novak. And unless you’re a die hard Fed fan there was hardly anyone left to root for in the semis. Sure, Chung is interesting and it might be worthwhile to follow his progress, but even before his retirement it was perfectly obvious that he wouldn’t be able to mount a meaningful challenge in the semis. Same with Edmund – and what I think about Tennys – enough said. Hopefully in the future his tennis will be on a higher level than his twyyts.
Somewhat surprisingly Cilic has the chance to redeem himself from his abysmal performance at Wimby. but if he deserves that chance and can make it a match remains to be seen. It’s hardly the match up tennis fans have hoped for. Right now I have the suspicion the only danger for Fed is that he has played too little and is undercooked.
Yes, even if you’re a Federer fan, it’s not hard to admit that this tournament has been a dud in the men’s side… The only great story, really, has been the breakout of Chung. I guess there still is the possibility of an epic 5-set classic in the men’s final, right? I’m a skeptic, but we shall see…
Well,Kevin, let’s hope the final will better than last year’s Wimby! Although,that’s not setting the bar very high, lol!
Frankly, I have no idea, how good Fed really is this year. No one was able to challenge him. But I didn’t have the impression that this was because Fed was invincible.
It is hard to get an idea of Fed’s level right now. But the thing is, I think it can be deceiving… Sure, he wasn’t blowing dudes off the court, breaking like 6 times per match. But at the same time, I think he knows that when he plays so aggressively in his service games, he doesn’t necessarily need to go all-out for a break when returning. It just isn’t a good strategy realistically for a 36 1/2 year old to go full-bore all the time. And because of that, it can seem like he’s at a much lower level than he really is. But I think when you take the ball as early as he does, as consistently as he does, it’s going to look ugly at times because he’s going to have a lot of UE. That’s the whole idea- risk taking. But if you’re good enough at it like he is, he knows that he’s going to come out on top most of the time.
For Cilic, I think he needs to just do the whole 2014 USO thing, where HE is the one who manages to completely take the racquet out of Fed’s hands before Fed is able to implement his aggression. But we all know that Cili can come out firing and win the first set, get too cocksure, and Fed can sneakily take over and win the 2nd, so Cilic needs to sustain his attack like he did in 2014. (I’m still skeptical that that day wasn’t an anomaly).
But I honestly don’t want to see a Cilic rout over Federer, or vice versa… I want to see a close match, with a lot of drama. Since they both got a little lucky in their own ways this fortnight, I would love to see the winner really have to earn it in the final. And I’m not at all trying to suggest that the winner would in any way NOT deserve the trophy, as none of the other 127 players were good enough to end up with the trophy… Injust think it would be so much better if there was a battle for the trophy between two Major champions!
Yeah true; there’re only two matches besides Rafa’s R4 and QF matches that I feel are exciting – Dimi/Kyrgios; Djoko/Chung.
I like the Djoko/Chung match and I admire Djoko for fighting hard even when he’s hampered. He’s still formidable despite not being his usual self. I like Djoko’s footwork, he has the best footwork on the HCs imo, because he could slide on the HC as if it’s on clay, without injuring his ankles! To me, he’s like skating on the HC! He’s so light footed and so quick; while Fed skips around like a Giselle, Djoko simply glides as if he’s on ice! Rafa, Murray and Chung simply runs and sprints around on the HCs, very quick of course.
Chung is a bit like young Rafa, he runs, and runs fast like a powerful runner. I can’t remember how Chung moves on clay, I think he played Rafa at Barcelona last year but I think Rafa is simply the best mover on clay; Rafa glides beautifully on clay.
I also feel that the big four are equally quick and well balanced on grass, all of them move so well on grass but Djoko in his earlier days used to slip and fall on grass though.
I have to say Chung moves very well compared to his peers (the younger generation); he may be the best mover among them and it bode well for his tennis career, because good footwork and foot speed is one very important weapon in one’s tennis career. Look at the big four and it’s not difficult to understand why.
Chung can ball on clay as well
Agreed. We needed Fedal again
Benny, even though I was disappointed last year that Rafa lost – it was nevertheless a high quality tournament with great matches, including the final. This year it was really (mostly) terrible. The string of injuries had a lot to do with this of course. But it doesn’t look like Novak/Andy/Stan will be their od selves anytime soon.
And we can’t have Fedal forever; therefore it’s totally annoying that none of the younger players is able to make a lasting break through. Of course Fedfans are over the moon – totally understandable. But I suspect we will look at the same scenario in Paris if Rafa stays healthy. Who’s going to challenge a healthy Rafa on clay? Novak was the only one who could…
In the long run this isn’t good for tennis.
Disagree Benny.
Fedal at this point is a symptom of a problem.
Rafa was perhaps 80% at best compared to his peak and finished No. 1.
And post 35 yr olds have no place winning three slams when tennis where it should be.
Agassi’s back was destroyed and Sampras, five years retired, was playing Fed in exhos at that age.
Fed at 36 is far better than Agassi at 32 . Agassi also had considerable success post 30. . Age has no relation to success. Players are fitter in this era as compared to Sampras era.
#EndOfWeakEraRant
Agassi’s “considerable success post 30” (despite a less fit era).
Yes, fedexol can stop ranting now since she proved my point.
Brilliant.
#RevisionismIsEverywhere
#AsIsHomophobia
Gratuitous again, Hawkeye.
Why can’t you confine your disagreement with Fedexal to tennis, or keep it on the non-tennis forum page?
NNY, Benny, and others who have counselled people to chill out, I invite you to join me in telling Hawkeye to please refrain from extra-curricular insults, even in hashtags.
Hawkeye, I didn’t use the word weak era, but that’s of course what I was getting at. And this year’s AO seem to confirm it.
And before this becomes another Fedal war: Rafa has profitted as much as Fed last year; and he might well do again this year.
Disagree LF.
Rafa would have at least been a co-favourite at the French Open whereas Federer would have continued to come up short at slams as he had for the last 17 slams over five years.
So Rafa picked up the USO because of this Weak Era and Fed picked up AO and W. An in form Nole would have won Wimby in 2017 (as he did in 2014-15 prior to his burn out from listening to fedfan crowds showing him no respect after he completed the first Grand Slam on three different surfaces (four surfaces according to Joe).
I’m not quite following you, Hawkeye. If Rafa picked up the USO last year because of weak era, then he was profitting, too, right? Which was my point. While your argument re: Novak’s prior strength is correct, I don’t think it makes sense to pin this whole argument about a weak era mainly on Novak’s burnout. That a top player is suddenly done or at least gone for a while can always happen – no matter how great or dominating he was. And Novak isn’t that young anymore either. However, that a whole generation plus several promising young guns aren’t able to even remotely challenge the remaining older generation hints at a weak era. Novak’s and to a certain extent Andy’s absence from the top ranks makes it more obvious, though.
Fed’s fitness and longevity is unsurpassed by anyone at this point. He isn’t like any other post 35 year old (for now at least)
No disagreement there.
No one is/was remotely close.
Yup, Benny, that’s certainly true.
I say we needed Fedal to have that really incredible match that was missing from the tourney. But I don’t wish to see Fedal at each tournament they play in or anything.
A Dud on the mens side, Tennys Sandgren, Chung, and Kyle Edmund were the stand out players for me ….
I’m a bit disappointed with Dimi and Berdych.
Dimi as no.3 seed should be doing better than losing to Edmund after beating Kyrgios. A Dimi vs Cilic match I bet will be more interesting than a Cilic vs Edmund match. Dimi disappoints when we expect something big from him, but when we don’t expect anything (from him), he would suddenly impress us. Very strange, don’t know what to expect from him next.
Berdych missed a chance for a slam title; when he only had to deal with one Big four member instead of the usual two or three of them, he still couldn’t cross over the hurdle. I think this was his last chance and he failed again; no more chance for him I feel, especially with the young guns steadily doing better and better.
Lucky, I really thought all along that Dimi was overrated after his London title. He did well of course, but again: whom did he have to beat for the title? Thiem (who isn’t that great on fast hardcourts), C-B, Goffin, Sock (who wouldn’t even have been in London if Novak, Wawa and Andy hadn’t been MIA), and then again Goffin. Dimi has exactly one win each over Rafa and Fed (both of whom he didn’t have to face in London), although he played them often. Right now Dimi is the best of the B-cast. It’s probably not because he isn’t good enough, but he just can’t sustain it.
Actually, Cilic with one slam title and two finals, is now officially the most successfull player of the generation following the Big Four and Wawa. Unfortunately I can’t get very exited about him. This has nothing to do btw with his doping suspension because in his case I’m inclined to believe that he was mostly very stupid.
Actually Delpo is the one that I feel most regretful about; he’s awesome when his game is on, has the mental toughness and calm that most non big four guys lack. He’s hampered by injuries so often and wasted a few of his prime years being sidelined by injuries.
He’s better than Cilic imo, and more popular. Cilic lacks the mental toughness that Delpo has; and he’s not consistently good throughout a season and thus despite his bigger weapons than Thiem or Dimi, was still ranked behind them last season. Cilic best surface is grass (reaching two finals at two events played last year) but maybe because grass is a short season hence Thiem who’s good on clay and not so good on other surfaces, still could gather more points and be ranked ahead of Cilic.
Cilic could have done better if not for his mental weakness (against Fed at Wimbledon 2016; against Djoko at Wimbledon 2014; against Delpo at DC final in 2016 for examples).
the second half of this tournament has been reall y bad. all started with delpo vs berdych
Ricky, I think it already started badly with Andy being out, Wawa flaming out and Novak not being quite himself. As it turned out, Rafa wasn’t quite in top form either. I’m not even mentioning other players who weren’t fit like Raonic. And yes, Delpo disappointed, too. How often has he been cast as a secret favorite, and how often has he been miscast in that role? Same with Zverev… And all this led indeed to a really terrible second week.
I agree about the second week being terrible. Even those who were healthy didn’t play the way they are capable of doing. Dimi is a perfect example. As the #3 seed, one would have expected more than one good match to get him past Kyrgios. If Kyrgios had won, then I think he might have gone to the finals. At least he was playing well. But Dimi showed up for that one match and then was beaten by Edmund.
Delpo has lost too much precious time in his career due to the wrist injuries. He also tends to get injured. He has done well to get back to #10 in the rankings. But I don’t know if he can win a slam at this point in his career. I don’t see him in the favorite role now. He will have his moments and go deep in a slam the way he did at the USO. But I don’t see him being a serious threat.
There are so many good players who have been out with injuries. Murray, Novak, Stan, Nishikori, Raonic.
That is how you get a Chung to get through to a semifinal.
I must have missed the part of the first half that wasn’t really bad.
Kyrgios matches against Tsonga and Dimitrov being the lone exceptions IMO.
I hear Thomas Johansson is coming out of retirement.
#DudSlam
#ReturnOfTheWeakEra2.0AllOverAgain
There’s gotta be a better example than Thomas Johansson… He at least had to beat the guy who beat Sampras in the USO final less than a year and a half earlier (and got to #1), in the final to win his title.
More like, I heard that Marcelo Rios is coming out of retirement. 🙂
Thomas Johansson isn’t a good example at all. He at least WON a slam as a total outsider. He didn’t just take out a few big guys like Tommy Haas – only to flame out. He followed up with a win against Safin. Thas’s not so bad!
And Marcelo Rios wasn’t the cuddliest personality, but he was a really very talented player!
Lucky, I like Delpo a lot, too, and I wish him all the best. He has been robbed of a few good seasons because of his injuries. He was never quite the same when he returned. But I also think that he is not a mental giant. He can come up with a stirring victory now and then (as over Thiem and Fed at the USO or over Rafa in Rio), but it never adds up to a title or even a solid run anymore. As it seems, he isn’t prepared these days to go all the way.
Cilic has been quietly putting together quite a good career by now after he came back from his suspension. So, he cannot be that weak mentally. He has actually been more solid than Delpo. Last year’s Wimby final has really tainted his image badly. He came across as a male Lisicki – which he most certainly is not. I wonder if that will motivate or hamper him on Sunday.
Cilic is talented and has the game to do well in this sport. But there is no question that he is mentally weak. It’s not just about what happened at last year’s Wimbledon. He has lost matches when he was in control in the past.
Now he can take advantage of a depleted field. Rafa got injured in the midst of what was a compelling match. He was never able to follow up on his 2014 USO win. Only last year did he finally get to another slam final. We all know what happened there.
We will have to see if things turn out better this time. But I am not convinced that he will contend for slams on a regular basis.
NNY, I disagree that Cilic is mentally weak! He’s doing too well on a regular basis for this. He’s certainly not a mental giant, but there’s a middle ground.
Tomorrow’s match will tell us more…
Cilic is known for folding under pressure at critical moments. 2014 USO being the lone exception.
Sunday will be a straight set win.
#CilicIsTheNewRoddick
Na, Roddick had far more personality. I miss his interviews.
Yes but they are both one-hit-wonders. I don’t miss how he treated umpires/line judges.
#RememberJohansson
littlefoot,
Cilic has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory too many times for me. But his big serve and powerful groundstrokes have given him a place in the top ten. It’s not like he is so mentally weak that he can’t win. But it is a liability that stands out to me.,it has hurt him in the past.
I agree that we will have to see what happens in the final.
Feel for spectators who paid for today’s match to come and watch Chung’s immature decision.
Fedexal, dunno if it was immature or not. Allegedly his blisters were really very bad – all raw meat. But even if he had continued to play, I don’t think it would’ve been very rewarding for the paying spectators.