Do fans want superstars or Cinderellas? Chalk or havoc? In Melbourne this year, there's both

Order or mayhem? Big stars or fresh faces? Chalk or havoc? Which do tennis fans want?

We can never seem to make up our minds. If upsets abound in the early rounds of a few tournaments, we start grumbling about how none of today’s players can measure up to the gods of yesteryear. But if new gods show up again, and start winning everything in sight, we yawn and say, “Show me something new, please.”

This year’s Australian Open has been a showcase for both of those reactions.

On the women’s side, there was significant carnage early, especially in the top half. Iga Swiatek and Elena Rybakina, two former Slam champs, were the highest seeds there, but they were gone by the third round. Instead, in Tuesday's quarterfinals, 50th-ranked Linda Noskova will take on 93rd-ranked Dayana Yastremska, and 75th-ranked Anna Kalinskaya will play No. 12 seed Zheng Qinwen. Before this tournament, those four women had reached just one Grand Slam quarterfinal between them. On Saturday, one of them will play for the AO title.

On the men’s side, the draw has gone to form. The top four seeds—Novak Djokovic, Carlos Alcaraz, Daniil Medvedev, Jannik Sinner—have all safely arrived in the second week. Medvedev was briefly driven to racquet-flinging madness by Emil Ruusuvuori, and Djokovic nearly mixed it up with an annoying fan; otherwise, their march to the quarterfinals has been drama-free. They’ll be joined there by four other familiar faces: Taylor Fritz, Alexander Zverev, Hubert Hurkacz and Andrey Rublev.

The negative reactions to these divergent outcomes have been predictable. On one side, the dreaded and (rightfully) banished c-word—chaos—has been brought back to describe the women’s tournament. On the other side, the men’s event has been referred to as the Novak Djokovic Invitational—he’s won it 10 times, after all—and the ATP Tour as “Novak +.”

The results on both sides are extensions of long-running trends.

For two decades, since Roger Federer kicked off the Big 3 era by winning his first major at Wimbledon in 2003, the ATP has been in an unprecedented period of top-player domination. Since 2004, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have won 66 of the 79 majors played. Djokovic, at age 36, is coming off a season where he won three of four, and appears ready to do the same until he’s 40 or beyond.

The WTA, by contrast, saw its own 23-Slam superstar, Serena Williams, call it quits two years ago. Since her last major victory, in 2017, 16 different women have won Slam titles. Swiatek and Sabalenka have begun to change that; while they may not be Serena’s successors, exactly, they seem to be champions for the long haul. Yet as Iga was reminded by Noskova, her talented 19-year-old conqueror Down Under, danger still lurks around every corner at the women’s majors.

If you think this is just how it is with the men and women, think again. Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova dominated like no other pair of players in the Open Era; from 1982 to 1985, they combined to win 15 straight majors. Steffi Graf and Serena followed in their footsteps by winning 23 and 22 Slams apiece. As for the men, in between the Sampras-Agassi and Big 3 eras, the ATP went through its own chaotic interregnum. From 2001 to 2003, Goran Ivanisevic, Thomas Johansson, Albert Costa, Juan Carlos Fererro, Andy Roddick and Gaston Gaudio each won a single Slam and never won another.

As for why that has changed over the last 20 years, and why the men have been ruled by such a tiny elite for so long, I don’t know if there’s an all-encompassing explanation.

The fact that the men play best-of-five at the Slams and the women play best-of-three does give the better male players an edge. But the Big 3 have been every bit as dominant at the Masters 1000s, where they play best-of-three. There are more big servers in the men’s game, and that always helps, but Nadal won 22 majors without one. There’s good depth on the women’s tour these days, and the top players are challenged even in the early rounds. But the same can be said for the men. Maybe it’s just that Federer Djokovic, Nadal, and Serena are and were unicorns—special athletes whose consistent excellence may never be duplicated. The ATP has produced a potential successor in Alcaraz, but for all of his brilliance, he doesn’t look like he’s going to win everything, forever, Big 3-style. He looks human, in other words.

In an ideal world, each tour would have one or two or three stars who win enough to (a) develop mass fanbases, and (b) get people’s hearts racing when someone challenges or beats them. But even when things aren’t ideal, both scenarios—order and mayhem—have their upsides. When superstars win, they give the moment stature and a sense of history, as well as emotional connection to their fans that has been built up over years—they mean something to people. When Cinderellas win, they give us that sudden, berserk, liberating feeling that anything on God’s green earth is possible.

In truth, neither draw at the Australian Open is completely one way or the other. Aryna Sabalenka and Coco Gauff, the No. 2 and 4 seeds, are still alive on the women’s side. And even though Djokovic has won the Aussie Open 10 times, there’s still suspense and potential upheaval ahead. Alcaraz, Sinner and Medvedev have all proven they can beat him in matches he’s desperate to win.

The genius of the Grand Slams is that, with their two separate tournaments running side by side, they so often give us both—superstars and Cinderellas, chalk and havoc. Tennis fans are the only sports fans who don’t have to choose.