It's hard to recall a men's grand slam final between the world Nos. 1 and 2 in which the latter is given so little chance of winning.
In 1996, No. 1 Pete Sampras played No. 2 Michael Chang in the final of the US Open - and swotted little Mike like a blowfly. But Chang's ranking flattered his true capabilities in that period.
Andy Murray is a legit No. 2, narrowly ahead of Roger Federer. He's lost four finals here, Novak Djokovic has won five. The personal scorecard is 3-0 in the Melbourne Park final and, based on results in 2015, the distance between Novak and Andy (between Novak and everyone) has widened further.
Murray celebrates his victory over Milos Raonic. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
If Murray was fortunate to survive Milos Raonic's thunderbolts, he can't be said to have enjoyed an easy or uneventful tournament: His father-in-law collapsed in the stands, he had to endure the Bernie Tomic show then David Ferrer and has just escaped a nasty five-setter against Raonic.
Meanwhile, his wife Kim is eight-and-a-half months pregnant. Murray has said if she's suddenly in labour, he'd pull the pin on whatever match is next, though we assume Kim won't call with contractions if he's serving at 6-5 in a tiebreaker.
So Murray has plenty on his mind. He will need to exercise it for this final and, in Amelie Mauresmo, he might have the right Gallic cornerwoman to help devise a Djoker-slaying plan.
It will not have been lost on Mauresmo that her countryman Gilles Simon unexpectedly gave Djokovic a serious five-set fright. The most notable number from that game was this stunner: Novak made 100 unforced errors.
How did this happen? We cannot discount that Djokovic simply had a downer. Unfortunately for Murray, that's hardly the basis for a successful game plan.
But Simon, who's ranked No. 15, did bring something quite different to the round-of-16 match, compared with nearly every other Djoker victim.
"I know exactly what I was doing, but I won't say it," Simon said after pushing Djokovic to five sets. "I had a plan. I mean, I know him well. We all know which player he is and how hard it is to find any solution against him, to somehow stop the fight and feel better on the court."
What Simon did to Djokovic was to regularly slow down the pace from the backcourt, often hitting to a central position (in width, not depth), rather than the lines. But having taken pace off for some shots, he would abruptly unload a powerful, fast shot.
It's called mixing it up. Bowlers try this on batsman they can't get out.
Djokovic is comfortable with pace on the ball and is nonpareil in covering angled shots. Simon gave him neither. Djokovic, for once in a while, didn't know was coming.
Older tennis people with a remembrance of finals past would know that Simon's - ultimately unsuccessful - attempt to slay this serial winner had a famous historical parallel, just over 30 years ago.
In 1975, Jimmy Connors was the game's El Supremo - he's gone 99-4 the previous year. Jimmy hit the ball hard, fast and flat. If you belted it at him, he'd send it back with compound interest.
The late and great Arthur Ashe, then 32, devised a plan for that final: hit the ball softly, slice it, keep it low; don't give Connors anything to whack back.
Ashe won in four sets, in what was a popular upset - the considered Ashe was a champion of his fellow players' rights, Connors a pugnacious, solitary figure who had boycotted the USA Davis Cup team
Djokovic is no less affable than Murray, and Ashe moved Connors around more, so the comparison has some wrinkles. But the overriding point is this: Simon slowed the tempo against a counter-puncher and removed Djoker from his comfort zone, seemingly irritating him.
Simon says: "If some players can realise what I was trying to do to bring him there, it's good for them."
Simon doesn't have secret herbs and spices. Anyone can watch the match. Murray and Mauresmo surely will, if they haven't yet.
Borrowing elements of the Simon plan doesn't necessarily play to Murray's natural game. "The problem with Andy," said one British tennis insider. "is that he's at his best when he's aggressive."
The Brit insider also noted the Ashe v Connors and Simon v Djokovic parallels, calling this approach "passive aggressive" rather than plain aggressive. "It's a plan of attack based on taking the pace out."
Murray and Mauresmo might find what Simon says (what that match says) too radical to contemplate, since it would mean a major departure from what has brought the Scot success. Typically, players play to their own strengths.
Unfortunately for Murray, he's up against a player with similar strengths - return of serve, court coverage, defensive mastery - but simply better.
He could do worse than watch a clip of Ashe and Connors. If nothing else, it's inspirational.
