>why do you say that the Australian Open is the least important major?
The importance or prestige of winning the tournament has nothing to do with Novak.
It boils down to tradition, remote location vs. participating player demographics, historical surface changes, and harshness of climate.
But that's my point: that those were factors in the past. In this day and age, remoteness of location is irrelevant: everybody's there, ready to start the season. I don't know what you mean about player demographics, but in the past 10-15 years I haven't heard of a single top player deciding not to play in Australia because it's too far or the climate is too harsh. Also, other grand slams have changed surfaces: the USO used to be played on grass and on clay. It has changed surfaces and that hasn't made it less important.
We have to move with the times: thhe fact is that nowadawys (not 40 years ago) all the players who can play, do in fact play. After an off season when they can heal injuries, relax, recharge batteries, tinker with their games, and start the new season full of enthusiasm. If anything, all players are even more competitive, ready to start the season on a good note, not tired or diappointed.
It has less tradition, it's true, but it's as important for players as any other slam, and fewer players pull out with injuries here than in the other slams, due to the position in the calendar.
I really don't think any of the reasons you gave are sufficient to consider it the least important grand slam.
Maybe you like watching it less... That's a question of taste. Not of intrinsic importance, in my opinion.