Australian Open vs Wimbledon

How does the Australian Open viewing experience compare to that at Wimbledon? In this post I will explore some of the differences, focusing on being a ground pass holder rather than a stadium court viewer, as that I have a ground pass here and in my opinion it is the the best way to enjoy the tennis.

- Getting tickets. Wimbledon is notoriously difficult to get tickets for. Those wanting show court seats  have to get lucky in a ballot or camp overnight, while those willing to queue for hours in the morning are rewarded with ground passes. In contrast, any Australian Open ticket can simply be purchased online or even on the day. I collected my 5 day ground pass ($125 / £69) on Monday and now I can casually stroll in each day.

- Crowd size. Wimbledon, outside courts, first four days, it is rammed. When the gates open in the morning, people run to their chosen court like they are starting a 5k, only with more picnics. Once play gets under way try making your way between Courts Four and Five - you won't be able to, it's like trying to walk to the front of the Pyramid Stage during a headline act. A grindfest between two Spanish journeymen who would rather eat grass than play tennis on it will cause spectators to clamber on pot plants to get a view over the crowds. It is a different story at Melbourne Park, where the outside courts can be as barren as some of the country's landscape. I watched the popular Grigor Dimitrov this morning and one side was almost empty. The difference can probably be attributed to two main factors. Most importantly, Wimbledon simply has a far more populous catchment area. There must be 40 million or so living within four hours of London, whereas that number for Melbourne is less than three. Secondly, the Australian heat can make sitting in the sun watching tennis a daunting prospect. On this note, I really think the Australian Open could do a lot better at providing shade for its spectators. Some simple canvasses covering at least part of the stands would make a massive difference and surely wouldn't be too costly. Tiny sections of Courts 2 and 3 are covered, but frustratingly by this blue mesh that doesn't really block the sun.



Am I in the shade or not? It was hard to tell under this blue mesh. Also note the empty seats.

- Idiots. You'll have to forgive me for being rude and snobby for a moment when I say that both Slams are plagued by fools who know nothing about tennis. On countless times at Wimbledon I've come across spectators who have no idea how tennis scoring works. To be fair, it is harsh to criticize someone for their lack of tennis knowledge - they just haven't been fortunate enough to learn and hopefully after a day watching the pros they'll go on to become a fan - but some people are just idiots. On Monday a large number of punters starting weaving through the crowd for seats at 4-4 30-15 without caring about disrupting the game.  On Court 9 a couple of ladies exclaimed "that's Del Potro! Yep, definitely him!" It was actually world number 98 Leonardo Mayer. You can be forgiven for not knowing exactly what Del Potro looks like and Mayer does resemble him in both appearance and technique, but surely you would wonder why the world number five has been stuck on a random outside court? And why there is barely anyone watching his battle with Albert Montanes? And what about looking at the scoreboard?


- Courts. The Australian Open offers more options for the ground pass holder - only two courts are reserved seat compared to three and a half at Wimbledon - but Wimbledon has more variety. There is the hollowed out circle arena of Court 3, the close-to-the-action benches of Courts 4-11, the shaded side stand of Court 12, the 'stop to watch a little as you pass' nature of Court 14, and my favourite - Court 18 - which is surrounded by spectators from all angles and heights. In contrast, here at the Aussie Open, there are simply three circle arenas and two groups of courts with stands of varying height on on the sides. There is certainly nothing with the charisma of Court 18.


- The Umpire's Chair. You may think I'm nitpicking, but the umpire's chair plays a large role in spectating tennis. On the same side as it, the chair can block a significant portion of the view, so its probably best to make it as small and transparent as possible, right? Wimbledon know the score, plumping for a traditional wooden number with a few gaps to see through. However, at the Australian Open the umpire sits atop a ridiculous structure, it is entirely opaque, about twice as wide as it needs to be, and may have once been a disused Star Wars prop.

Could that umpire's chair have been designed more thoughtfully? I'll let you be the judge.

- Atmosphere. If you're thinking that Wimbledon wins this category then you're spot on. Melbourne Park just cannot compete with the tradition, history, and magic that surrounds SW19. The grass, the green Slazenger awnings, the ivy growing up Centre Court...Melbourne Park boasts great city skyline backdrops but just doesn't have the same vibe. There is also nothing at the Australian Open to rival Henman Hill. Its best attempt is the beer garden pictured below (which also features live bands), but both the screen and atmosphere are far smaller - I was briefly there for the end of a Hewitt five setter and it was eerily quiet compared to The Hill.

The Heineken logo being bigger than the screen tells its own story.

The Verdict: I don't want to say one Slam is better than the other. For ease of watching tennis, the Australian Open comes up trumps, but for atmosphere it's Wimby all the way.