Imagine a million-dollar tennis event that leaves some fans cheering and others cringing—welcome to the Australian Open’s controversial One-Point Slam. But here’s where it gets controversial: while amateur player Jordan Smith’s jaw-dropping victory stole the show, AFL legend Kane Cornes slammed the event as an “excruciating watch,” calling it “awful” and the worst televised sport since AFLX. So, was it a groundbreaking success or a cringe-worthy flop? Let’s dive in.
The script couldn’t have been more perfect for organizers. Jordan Smith, an unassuming Australian amateur, turned himself into a “human wall,” playing it safe and keeping the ball in play to secure the $1 million prize. His final match against World No. 117 Joanna Garland ended with a single missed shot, handing Smith the victory and leaving fans in awe. Yet, while many celebrated the underdog story, Cornes wasn’t buying it. And this is the part most people miss: he argued the event lacked substance, criticizing its one-point format as anticlimactic and the interviews as “cringe.”
On SEN radio, Cornes doubled down, questioning why a multimillion-dollar professional couldn’t have won the prize instead. “It was the worst sporting event I’ve ever seen,” he declared, mocking the awkward interviews and the format’s reliance on luck. Even the commentators, like Channel 9’s Toddy Woodbridge, seemed to struggle to make it entertaining. But was Cornes too harsh? Many on social media agreed the event was dragged out, with unnecessary ad breaks and player introductions stretching it to nearly three hours. One fan quipped, “Great concept, but too much fluff.”
Despite the criticism, the One-Point Slam drew a massive audience, proving its unique appeal. Love it or hate it, it’s hard to deny its impact. But here’s the real question: Is this the future of sports entertainment, or a one-time gimmick? Let’s spark a debate—did the One-Point Slam hit the mark, or was it a swing and a miss? Share your thoughts below!
