What a blessed relief it is to see Kyrgios looking like a focused, serious, committed tennis player (i.e like pretty much everyone else on tour), rather than a brittle, half-arsed, temperamental brat.
Well played NK. Hopefully this is the future and not just a flash-in-the-pan moment.
Was the better player a lot of the match.... needs a good coach to improve tactically.
Thought he needed to attack Nadal's serve more - Nadal's likely to win the point once it enters rally mode.
Nadal did what Nadal does - few unforced errors, plays the percentages extremely well and works bloody hard.
Thiem should have his chances.
I suppose I picked a sh1t time to stop watching tennis!
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GeI5ke0BENw/maxresdefault.jpg)
The other day Djokovic carried on about age(by that he meant old age) is only a number, and that "they"(Nadal, Djokovic and Federer) know something others don't. We'll the truth is this, age(old age) is only a number, specifically for "them"(Nadal, Djokovic and Federer), and nobody gets to avoid it! (You can add Williams to that list!)
Sandgren is bloody hopeless. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'm sure his social media friends and he can advance alternative facts: he won the match and only the deep state says otherwise. Or maybe George Soros and Hillary's Pizzagate Paedophile Ring is to blame.
Sandgren is bloody hopeless. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Other way around I reckon.
Federer snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.
Roger never gives up.
^^
Its a common theme amongst the more recent Grand Slam winners (and also AFL premiers).
That never say die attitude seems to be the one that gets them across the line more frequently. It actually becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Because you never give up, you are never out of the contest. Because you know you dont give up, when you win one of these points it fuels the belief that no matter how badly you are being beaten at the time, you are never really out of it. This becomes something that makes others worried about you. That mentality is the hardest thing for these guys to overcome.
Ive seen my fair share of tennis players. They are all capable of playing great tennis, and most of them are carbon copies of each other these days with varying strengths and weaknesses, but the one thing that the champions have over everyone else, is an unwaivering belief that they can win. This is a double advantage, because most of their opponents don't believe they can beat them because of that exact same factor.
Listening on radio.
The feeling I get from the commentary is that this is Barty's final, even if she claws her way back will an epic recovery leave her with enough in the tank to overcome Halep in 48hrs from now?
I feel that if Halep can produce a quick result, she is in prime position to win the final.
Barty capitulated, out of the open.
Rolled over very fast, either affected by heat or chucked it in.
I hadn't paid much attention to Thiem before last night, but he is some player. Those ground strokes are serious weapons. Among the most powerful I've seen in ages. The angles, the pace, placement, flight. Wow.
I get the feeling Barty is one of those players who is likely to stay at No.1 for some extended time without actually winning a lot of tournaments. She looks like a fighter who will be a Quarter or Semi finals regular, without the personal desire to be the best all the time. So it will probably take some other player to become a dominant winner before Barty actually slides in the ratings.
Barty likes winning, she has the skills to win, but to me she isn't extremely driven to always win like a Federer or Williams.
For those oldies here, a bit like Stefan Edberg.
Am I being unfair?
Barty capitulated, out of the open.
She was awful today, first serve was around 50%, had set point in the first and choked, had set point in the second and choked again.
I get the feeling Barty is one of those players who is likely to stay at No.1 for some extended time without actually winning a lot of tournaments. She looks like a fighter who will be a Quarter or Semi finals regular, without the personal desire to be the best all the time. So it will probably take some other player to become a dominant winner before Barty actually slides in the ratings.
Barty likes winning, she has the skills to win, but to me she isn't extremely driven to always win like a Federer or Williams.
For those oldies here, a bit like Stefan Edberg.
Am I being unfair?
Yeah, unfair on Edberg. He won 6 grand slams from 11 finals.
Am I being unfair?
Not at all .... she lacks that "killer" instinct
or seemingly happy with second best.
I hadn't paid much attention to Thiem before last night, but he is some player. Those ground strokes are serious weapons. Among the most powerful I've seen in ages. The angles, the pace, placement, flight. Wow.
He was unusually good last night. His service has always been a weakness, and I'm forecasting it wont last.
I've stuck to my word and will not watch tennis again, but listening it's sounds like Joker has used a mystery illness timeout to buy an old man some recovery time.
It's an abortion of the injury timeout rule as it is intended, and as soon as they get rid of it we'll see natural variation in results return to tennis events.
Actually LP he didn't look right to me, wouldn't be surprised if he has a virus of some sort. He got out of jail using his experience and a change of tactics.
Not sure why he gets no love here though? He is the GOAT and now an 8 time champion here.
Actually LP he didn't look right to me, wouldn't be surprised if he has a virus of some sort. He got out of jail using his experience and a change of tactics.
Not sure why he gets no love here though? He is the GOAT and now an 8 time champion here.
It's not just here. It's a much broader societal problem. People just don't like him as much as other players.
I agree with you. Super player.
This injury timeout stuff in tennis seems like recidivist behavior, I wonder if a survey of finals shows it only happens when players are trailing a set or two down!
So can we infer that they only lose when they are injured?
I would accept the miracle recoveries, if they happened occasionally like injuries do, but I'm not sure I can qualify the frequency of miracle recoveries from illness and injury with stirring victories.
This injury timeout stuff in tennis seems like recidivist behavior, I wonder if a survey of finals shows it only happens when players are trailing a set or two down!
So can we infer that they only lose when they are injured?
I would accept the miracle recoveries, if they happened occasionally like injuries do, but I'm not sure I can qualify the frequency of miracle recoveries from illness and injury with stirring victories.
Hmm. His timeout occurred when they were tied at one set all so it sounds like you might be leaping to conclusions.
Actually LP he didn't look right to me, wouldn't be surprised if he has a virus of some sort. He got out of jail using his experience and a change of tactics.
Not sure why he gets no love here though? He is the GOAT and now an 8 time champion here.
Agree.
He just keeps on keeping on. You'd think the youth of today would love him given he's Vegan too.
Great effort from NJ.
He's another of those rare players that never, ever, gives up.
Hmm. His timeout occurred when they were tied at one set all so it sounds like you might be leaping to conclusions.
Which player had the momentum at the time?
They should get his trainers or the ATP Docs working on a cure for the corona-virus, if that the sort of miracles they can work!
Which player had the momentum at the time?
They should get his trainers or the ATP Docs working on a cure for the corona-virus, if that the sort of miracles they can work!
There was really no momentum at that point, the umpire gave 2 time violations to break Novak's serve at 4-4. Thiem held serve to take the set.
There was really no momentum at that point, the umpire gave 2 time violations to break Novak's serve at 4-4. Thiem held serve to take the set.
Are we talking about the same event or a separate incident, Djokovic was trailing 2 sets to 1 when he called the medical timeout?
That was a whole set after he lost the 2nd set due to time and umpire contact violations.
Are we talking about the same event or a separate incident, Djokovic was trailing 2 sets to 1 when he called the medical timeout?
That was a whole set after he lost the 2nd set due to time and umpire contact violations.
Whats the problem? Djokovic won the contest. EOS.
I thought you were talking about when he left the court after the second set.
Either way he looked just as flat in the 4th and 5th sets but he changed tactics. He went old school and started mixing up his shots and coming into the net. Thiem didn't know what to do.
Whats the problem? Djokovic won the contest. EOS.
The discussion was about the use of medical timeouts to halt an opponents momentum, it's a fair question given that even before the Aust Open it's a major topic in tennis at the moment, that and time-wasting. The players are becoming so professional, and the time-outs appear not to be happening randomly, the allegations that they are being used strategically is stronger than ever!
Why have the medical timeouts at all, isn't taking an opponent past their physical brink a legitimate tactic? If you cannot continue the match within a typical time-frame just lose the game or set, you have all the time you need to recover!
So to cut out all this bogus stuff, I think medical time-outs should not be a "free hit", they should come with a penalty and perhaps it costs you a game or at least some points!
Survival of the fittest, except in tennis! :o
In another sport, cricket, look at how bouncers are now being made less effective or ineffective. Rattle some batsmen with a scrape of the grill and they get a timeout for concussion assessment. They are generally unharmed, they get to steady themselves and return to the crease. The safe play is being used beyond the scope it was intended. In the old days they had a scare and if unharmed had to continue on and face another rocket 20 seconds later!
The discussion was about the use of medical timeouts to halt an opponents momentum, it's a fair question given that even before the Aust Open it's a major topic in tennis at the moment, that and time-wasting. The players are becoming so professional, and the time-outs appear not to be happening randomly, the allegations that they are being used strategically is stronger than ever!
Why have the medical timeouts at all, isn't taking an opponent past their physical brink a legitimate tactic? If you cannot continue the match within a typical time-frame just lose the game or set, you have all the time you need to recover!
So to cut out all this bogus stuff, I think medical time-outs should not be a "free hit", they should come with a penalty and perhaps it costs you a game or at least some points! There needs to be some checks and balances.
Survival of the fittest, except in tennis! :o
In another sport, cricket, look at how bouncers are now being made less effective or ineffective. Rattle some batsmen with a scrape of the grill and they get a timeout for concussion assessment. They are generally unharmed, they get to steady themselves and return to the crease. The safe play is being used beyond the scope it was intended. In the old days they had a scare and if unharmed had to continue on and face another rocket 20 seconds later!
She was awful today, first serve was around 50%, had set point in the first and choked, had set point in the second and choked again.
She was beaten by a better player on the day. These days we tend to ignore the pressure that it applied by opposition players and teams and head straight for the 'C' word. They faulter, they lose concentration, they run out of steam, they tighten up, they are outplayed by their opponent........but they don't simply choke.
These days we tend to ignore the pressure that it applied by opposition players and teams and head straight for the 'C' word.
They faulter, they lose concentration, they run out of steam, they tighten up, they are outplayed by their opponent........but they don't simply choke.
Sometimes they go and have a little nap and return stronger than ever!
Maybe Ash needs to have a look at how the big boys do it!
She was beaten by a better player on the day. These days we tend to ignore the pressure that it applied by opposition players and teams and head straight for the 'C' word. They faulter, they lose concentration, they run out of steam, they tighten up, they are outplayed by their opponent........but they don't simply choke.
No doubt she was beaten by the better player, she did lost to the eventual winner of the AO. She had her chances though.
Imagine if Kyrgios told the crowd to "Shut the f#$% up" or touched a the chair umpire's foot during an AO match. Just saying.
Imagine if Kyrgios told the crowd to "Shut the f#$% up" or touched a the chair umpire's foot during an AO match. Just saying.
How dare you highlight our hypocrisy! :o ...... ;D
I read a comment from someone on line who claims to travel the world watching tennis, and they state that the behaviour of Australian crowds is among the very worst. They said that the behaviour displayed at the AO would never be tolerated at Wimbledon.
I read a comment from someone on line who claims to travel the world watching tennis, and they state that the behaviour of Australian crowds is among the very worst. They said that the behaviour displayed at the AO would never be tolerated at Wimbledon.
I commented to my wife many times during the AO this year that the crowds seemed to yell stuff out just as players were preparing to or about to serve. I'm all for a vocal crowd getting into the game but there is a certain etiquette that goes with games like tennis and golf that must be adhered to. The umpires did SFA to nip this in the bud IMO.
Imagine if Kyrgios told the crowd to "Shut the f#$% up"
We don't have to imagine.
I commented to my wife many times during the AO this year that the crowds seemed to yell stuff out just as players were preparing to or about to serve. I'm all for a vocal crowd getting into the game but there is a certain etiquette that goes with games like tennis and golf that must be adhered to. The umpires did SFA to nip this in the bud IMO.
That was true all tournament.
Particularly when you combine it with some arbitrary timer in their serving preparation. 30 seconds, started by the chair umpire, whilst the crowd are STILL making noise, and then they wonder why both Rafa nadal, and Novak Djokovic ended up with time violation warnings.
I spent the whole day at the Tennis on day 1. Crowd making lots of noise, and walking around the stadium whenever they felt like it. People are very rude and disrespectful. Very few attempts to quieten the crowd, and only hurrying them up to take their seats right at the end of the process. During this time I watched the courtside "timers". They counted down to 0 frequently whilst the crowd were making noise. Its been common for players hearing noise "restart" their service preparation.
Why do they need perfect silence to serve? At local tennis they have cars driving past, kids walking dogs and talking to each other, planes flying overhead. Too precious to expect complete silence, you're getting paid millions, just block it out and get on with it
Why do they need perfect silence to serve? At local tennis they have cars driving past, kids walking dogs and talking to each other, planes flying overhead. Too precious to expect complete silence, you're getting paid millions, just block it out and get on with it
I think the stakes are way higher in pro tennis, and the margin for error way less. And i don't think they expect perfect silence.
Far too self indulgent for my liking and stands populated by the "beautiful people".
Why do they need perfect silence to serve? At local tennis they have cars driving past, kids walking dogs and talking to each other, planes flying overhead. Too precious to expect complete silence, you're getting paid millions, just block it out and get on with it
The tennis has always been about decorum and silence. Very high brow and clapping. It's always been a sport that takes itself seriously. Possibly too seriously, and the fans have always traditionally been quietened down by the umpires. They have been woeful at this of late.
The players have the right to expect that the fans are quiet. Djokovic has never felt the love from the Australian supporters and frankly my experience growing up says it's a deep seeded racial thing to people who hail from the Balkan area.
It is very common for a player to halt their service motion and wait for silence prior to serving. Add a timer and you have a recipe for time violation if one feels the noise is going on for too long and the umpire doesn't agree. I'll remind you at this point that the umpire starts said timer.
The players have the right to expect that the fans are quiet. Djokovic has never felt the love from the Australian supporters and frankly my experience growing up says it's a deep seeded racial thing to people who hail from the Balkan area.
Rrrrriiiighhhtttt!
Except it was the travelling entourages of Djoko, Raf and Fed as well as some from other EU opponents that were the biggest offenders! :o
What Aust Open failed to do was control the crowd in a typical EU totalitarian fashion, we had no sub-machine gun armed para-military on hand, not a single flak-jacketed special force to be seen, it was completely free. The exact opposite of Wimbledon and the French Open which is like going to a tennis match at a prison!
The same travelling supporter crews do not cause much trouble in the US, because they can't get a visa to get in!
Why do they need perfect silence to serve? At local tennis they have cars driving past, kids walking dogs and talking to each other, planes flying overhead. Too precious to expect complete silence, you're getting paid millions, just block it out and get on with it
At local level if someone outside the court screams out while you're about to serve it's usually a "take two".
The players have the right to expect that the fans are quiet. Djokovic has never felt the love from the Australian supporters and frankly my experience growing up says it's a deep seeded racial thing to people who hail from the Balkan area.
Spot on.
The players have the right to expect that the fans are quiet. Djokovic has never felt the love from the Australian supporters and frankly my experience growing up says it's a deep seeded racial thing to people who hail from the Balkan area.
Spot on.
I see, it's all about race! :o
Except it's been asserted
fans screaming during the serve helps the server more than the receiver, it's analogous to the cheating grunters who scream to mask the sound of the serve. A few years back after the controversial revelations from some Florida based players and coaches, the ATP even conducted a study which apparently showed when hearing is removed a top end players ability to to assess the speed and direction of the serve is significantly degraded.
It's one of the main reasons the grunting exists, and not at all to do with breathing or peak energy, that's just a lie the grunting cheats propagate.
^^
Do not dismiss my experience based on real world examples of "f**k off back to where you came from" with some hyperbole.
I don't care about grunting. The players are not supposed to do things like that either, and there are on court violations available. They stopped dishing them out, because Serena and Venus Williams are the worst proponents of this and then ATP didnt want to appear hypocritical.
Trust me, grow up with a surname ending in opoulos, and you will experience first hand just how racist Australia can be. We are just greatful the hatred is now being aimed at the Asians for a change but every so often you get a reminder that you arent fully accepted you are just the best of the "bad bunch".
Do not dismiss my experience based on real world examples of "f**k off back to where you came from" with some hyperbole.
Firstly, the is no hyperbole in what I wrote, I've exaggerated nothing just described it as it is!
If you want a critical assessment of the racism references in your earlier statements. Firstly, I never discussed race, but I'd say you've used inclusive language and grossly generalised your private and personal experiences of racism and applied them to the wider community.
You know as well as any the entourages are not monocultural, I never stated that they were monocultural, which is specifically why I used the term entourage. In fact the supporter base is mutlicultural, it's the media that narrowly focuses on and reports some specific subset usually because a small segment have a specific flag or uniform that makes a great picture!
The assertion that Djoko isn't supported here because of a race thing is rubbish, as rubbish as Williams claiming her lack of support is due to skin color and not her abhorent behavior.
Djoko's probably not supported here for multiple reasons, highly likely because culturally Australia barracks for the underdog, nothing more nothing less, Djoko hardly fits the bill! Why isn't he liked like Federer, I expect the answer truly lies in their different behaviors on court rather than where they were born or who their parents were!
Undoubtedly there is a small percentage of the supporter base who are racist, just like football, but that doesn't excuse the use of inclusive language. You even must accept that in the case of those hating Balkans heritage players it may well be a percentage are culturally indoctrinated EU expatriates! Hardly a case for use of globally inclusive language!
Don't wish to insert myself into this "to and fro" beyond this comment, but to suggest "Australia is racist" Thry (paraphrasing your words) is certainly not my life experience.
You can't homogenize nationalities any more than you can neighbours.
Siding with LP on this one, especially the pathetic attempts to pushing the rules. THAT'S what we despise. It's transparent and playing the victim.
Capcom, side with whomever you like. The crowd was against Djokovic, before the match was in full swing, and were clearly not on his side and this was before any perceived rule bending which dismisses your entire argument.
It also says a bit about you that you have to paraphrase my point with "Australia is racist".
Poor form.
That's a straw mans fallacy if I have ever seen one.
Capcom, side with whomever you like. The crowd was against Djokovic, before the match was in full swing, and were clearly not on his side and this was before any perceived rule bending which dismisses your entire argument.
The crowd does have a memory doesn't it, surely your not claiming history means nothing?
Capcom, side with whomever you like. The crowd was against Djokovic, before the match was in full swing, and were clearly not on his side and this was before any perceived rule bending which dismisses your entire argument.
It also says a bit about you that you have to paraphrase my point with "Australia is racist".
Poor form.
That's a straw mans fallacy if I have ever seen one.
So you didn't imply the racism quote?
You said it, I didn't. You used present tense
just how racist Australia can be
^^
Look up a straw mans fallacy:
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Trust me, grow up with a surname ending in opoulos, and you will experience first hand just how racist Australia can be. We are just greatful the hatred is now being aimed at the Asians for a change but every so often you get a reminder that you arent fully accepted you are just the best of the "bad bunch".
Thry you wrote the above, quoted for future reference. Capcom quoted you without paraphrasing, alteration or amplification, how can Capcom be the one making a Straw Man argument!
Neither Capcom or anyone else introduce prejudice towards Balkans as an pseudo defense for Djoko in this debate, and if it's a deep seated racism that you gratefully no longer experience how can it be so specific to Australian's and how can it be persistent and current?
The bulk of Australian's have no history or experience of conflict or division from within Balkan states like those who are expatriate Balkans do!
Further, what specific relation do Australian's have in general to the disruptive entourage that travels with the player's?
Subjectively, it seems convenient to make the claims of previous and persistent racism as some sort of weird defense for Djoko's history of poor sportsmanship and bad on court behavior. But the two are not connected, and it's not going to fly with most observers, the bulk of who won't engage in the debate because of the propensity for Djoko's apologists to label critics as racist!
The accusation of racism is neither a widely valid point or an generally accurate observation, it's just become a silencing tactic used in many debates and as a tactic it's effectiveness is wearing out!
^^
I stated grow up with the surname opoulos and you will find out how racist Australia can be.
Not that Australia is racist.
Don't wish to insert myself into this "to and fro" beyond this comment, but to suggest "Australia is racist" Thry (paraphrasing your words) is certainly not my life experience.
^^
I stated grow up with the surname opoulos and you will find out how racist Australia can be.
Not that Australia is racist.
I think that your statement would be more acceptable if was along the lines, "Some (or many) Australians are racist." To state that "Australia is racist" or "Australians are racist" is falling into the same basket as those racists who believe that they can categorise folk on the basis of race or ethnicity.
I fully accept how difficult it must have been as a migrant or child of a migrant in the mid 20th century. I was from one of three protestant families in our street and the overt and covert bigotry from the catholic majority was relentless. Times have changed and no-one gives a fat rat's clacker about one's religion now ... unless you happen to be Muslim.
Australians elected Pauline Hanson to office. Twice. It's hard to argue we're not a racist country (although I acknowledge that the majority of Australians are not racist, but there are many among us who are)
There are people, all around the world, who are predjudiced against others for various reasons including race, ethnicity, religion.
Australians elected Pauline Hanson to office. Twice. It's hard to argue we're not a racist country (although I acknowledge that the majority of Australians are not racist, but there are many among us who are)
In fact, "Australians" didn't elect Pauline Hanson. Taking the 2016 election as an example, 4.3% of voters voted for One Nation and it is our voting system that enabled Hanson and others to secure Senate seats - no One Nation candidate has ever been elected to the House of Representatives.
It would be more accurate to state that it is reasonable to assume that many of the 4.3% of voters who voted for One Nation are racist. Of course, that doesn't mean that some of those voters who voted for other parties aren't racist too. However, that doesn't mean that Australia is a racist country even if many of our citizens struggle to come to terms that our nation is founded on attempted genocide.
I would say that Australians generally are no more racist than folk from most other countries, and probably less racist than many.
Xenophobia seems to be part of the human condition and it's great that many Australians have embraced multiculturalism and and are more willing to accept diversity.
As a generalisation (which is all we can deal in given the nature of the beast), if you want explicit racism, look no further than the vast majority of the Asian nations.
In fact, "Australians" didn't elect Pauline Hanson. Taking the 2016 election as an example, 4.3% of voters voted for One Nation and it is our voting system that enabled Hanson and others to secure Senate seats - no One Nation candidate has ever been elected to the House of Representatives.
It would be more accurate to state that it is reasonable to assume that many of the 4.3% of voters who voted for One Nation are racist. Of course, that doesn't mean that some of those voters who voted for other parties aren't racist too. However, that doesn't mean that Australia is a racist country even if many of our citizens struggle to come to terms that our nation is founded on attempted genocide.
I would say that we, as a country, are no more racist than most other countries, and probably less racist than many.
Xenophobia seems to be part of the human condition and it's great that many Australians have embraced multiculturalism and and are more willing to accept diversity.
Firstly, I'm not a Hanson booster or critic, I try to stay away from offering an opinion and just look at the numbers. But on Hanson's election it appears it could be even worse than a minority racists getting a say DJC, and somewhat ironic.
At first the following seems bogus, fake news, but apparently it's a real effect and I'm not sure where to go to verify the data.
Preliminary analysis of polling after Hanson's re-election showed in some marginal electorates her party experienced disproportionate support from recent immigrants and the indigenous. Which of course we all understand given Hanson's public statements and policies and how Hanson is lambasted in the media but various segments! :o
Why, apparently the voters want tougher immigration laws! I understand the Indigenous support for this, but from immigrants? It seems the polling which covered primarily European expatriates who had have moved to Australia, showed they came here to get away from the political and religious trouble, and they don't want it following them!
But isn't the act of voting that way fulfilling that fear?
Rinse and repeat!
LP, this relates to the 2016 election:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-28/who-elected-one-nation-xenophon-lambie/7825106
Key points are that the One Nation vote was higher in electorates with more Australian-born voters, those with greater disadvantage and those with fewer tertiary graduates. It was lower in electorates with more Indigenous voters and marginally lower in electorates with more Muslim voters.
As a generalisation (which is all we can deal in given the nature of the beast), if you want explicit racism, look no further than the vast majority of the Asian nations.
Some hatreds run deep and I agree fly ... I've been to many many countries and could easily label the worst. But as you say, you get the good with the bad. We are incredibly tolerant by comparison.
LP, this relates to the 2016 election:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-28/who-elected-one-nation-xenophon-lambie/7825106
Key points are that the One Nation vote was higher in electorates with more Australian-born voters, those with greater disadvantage and those with fewer tertiary graduates. It was lower in electorates with more Indigenous voters and marginally lower in electorates with more Muslim voters.
Thanks DJC, I think that's a fairly cursory voter analysis of the general electorates, importantly a generalization and that is exposed but the summary at the very bottom of the article. I'd be hypocritical if I didn't point out this, as it appears to be correlation not cause.
The report I'd read previously was prepared based on post election exit polling, who you voted for, what's your religion, sexuality, ethnicity, age, nationality. If I find it I'll post a copy. As I understood the exit poll it was the voting from "The children of immigrants", if you like 2nd generation Australian's, who were the primary supporters of Hanson. The reason I gave it some weight at the time was because it was an analysis of why the major parties lost certain seats despite what seemed to be a joint effort to eliminate minor parties. The exposed trend was alarming, because it portends an uncomfortable shift in Australian Politics in years to come.
I realise there are some conflicts in discussing this. Just as one analysis might generally categorize one group as immigrants and the other report the same people as born in Australia, they are all Australians. So in that regard Thry's generalization becomes reasonable if you assume ultrabroad categories, but of course Thry originally was very specifically discussing the Balkans.
A problem I have is how broad or selective the boundaries appear to be, and how those boundary definitions seem to be plastic pending a desired political position.
Finding the root cause seems to be almost impossible, primarily due to the complexity of social influences. It's certainly not something we can do in a few hundred or thousand words here, even in voluminous philosophical tomes there are unresolved contradictions.