Was It Really Great?

Already on the BBC website they are calling last night's Marathon Match the greatest of all time. Do tennis fans share the same feeling?

The average stroke rally in the Murray/Djokovic clash was 8.1. Yesterday must've more than matched that. At the US Open Final in 2011 it was 6.9. In 4 months the average has increased by 1 stroke. When you hear pundits/ex-pro's/fans use the term 'Gladitorial' they are not far wrong.

Is tennis in general heading down the right road? I am sure the Australian Open organisers were rubbing their hands in the delight after that match and the players must've been begging for a rub down! Some posters here have sat through phases in the tennis world. Courageous and Brave play was rewarded. Even ugly tennis at times could win a Slam. Nadal is taking February off and that could be something of a regular occurance after yesterday's final. I would imagine Djokovic will be considering the same type of action.

The one thing really that has impressed me about Djokovic is that he can defeat a player in Federer who averages 2.9 strokes per rally and a player in Nadal who averages 5.4 strokes per rally (stats from the US Open 2011). For me it makes it far less depressing that he heads the way in the mens game.

Back to yesterdays game. For me it wasn't 'great' what was 'great' however was Djokovic. 10+ hours of tennis in 3 days is beyond superhuman. It takes something very special to have reserves like that.

As a tennis fan at the moment I am not sure where my interest stands. If Djokovic wins the FO Open I will call him a man for all seasons. A Federer FH winner will still have me saying wow. Djokovic pulling a point out of nothing. Nadal BH passing winner up the line. Murray giving Britain something to cheer about.

Yesterday I was watching part of the match with my club and because I was playing a match away, with another club too.

I can tell you that the excitement those kind of matches provide are wearing fast with tennis players.

They showed the average rally length at some point towards the end of the 4th/start of the 5th and it was 5.something. (Down from 7.something earlier on).
There have been matches with more points (e.g. Edberg v Chang USO 1992 had about 80 more points, in less time) but ave. rally length isn't available for that.
I would imagine many 5 setters from the FO would also have more points in less time.
But, it was a slam final, 5 setter, World nos. 1 and 2 and it went on a loooong time. So it's bound to be flavour of the month for the media.
I enjoyed it by dipping into it at the end of the sets and a bit in between, but I don't have 6 hours to spend watching any match. Quality-wise it was pretty good, but not the best, because it wasn't that often that they were both playing their best at the same time.
But the length alone will obviously have it branded an 'epic'.

I go along with what you're saying lk, in particular I very much recognise Djokovic's achievement in playing Federer in a different way that he does Nadal (or at least, staying competitive in the different match). Nadal could never do that, he handles Federer by playing the stamina match.

The early buzz at work today was that people found a lot of things to do during the match but returned and thought the last 16 games were exciting.

Don't be surprised at the media - isn't everything now the greatest ever?

I felt it somewhat un-inspiring yesterday. Had Nadal won I would've felt even more detatched from the game.

I enjoy the fact that Djokovic can pay 2 styles, but I much prefer it if Federer was playing Djokovic at Slam.

It was jaw dropping great the fans were loving it the media commented on how great it was in every article. I watch sports for the competition and it was intense. And there were great shots and great points through out.

Let's face it,what is exciting is wanting our preferred player to win go by those ups and down but finally prevail. A long rally extends the drama but again, where are the skills tere besides out of this world stamina. I'd say most top 1000 players can play teh same kind of shots...but certainly none can pull them after so much running.

There is no fun in wishing any match over. Yesterday I was doing that. Haven't done that in a final before.

Every bit of short stuff Nadal threw in got thrown back with interest. With Djokovic at the top now will hopefully stop that type of tennis being played on the court. Even Nadal must now be saying this is no longer the effective weapon it used to be. If Murray was able to defeat Nadal more frequently would help enforce that belief onto Nadal to change his game slightly. Be more high risk.

Won't happen though.

I do hope however players like Dolgopolov and Raonic make in-roads as success with variety would not be so bad.

Everyone has their taste. i disliked the late 90s power game of tennis with short rallies. I don't like a completely grinding affair where neither player has the weapons to end a point. But that isn't the case last night, both players hit some great shots and great winners. I find S and V tennis as a primary style of play rather dull. I think the vast majority of the time I favor an aggressive baseline approach and I think that is what we witnessed last night.


I like the modern game, would not make drastic changes. And the vast majority of fans feel the same way. When they get out of their seats for rallies it is not for a two shot rally with a big serve and nice volley it is usually after a long point with both great offense and defense.

This has been called a golden era for tennis, but it is a golden era encrusted with diamonds and lined with platinum. Novak Djokovic won his third successive Grand Slam title here last night when he beat Rafael Nadal 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7, 7-5 after one of the most sensational finals in Grand Slam history.

An age that has produced two of the greatest players of all time in Nadal and Roger Federer, with Djokovic now hot on their heels, has also featured some of the most memorable matches ever played – and this was up with the best of them. Nadal's 2008 victory over Roger Federer in the Wimbledon gloom has been labelled the finest match played, but that verdict might need to be revised after this epic.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/djokovic-enjoys-the-power-and-the-glory-6296530.html

This from one of the most respected tennis writers in the business.

Yo can't fail to be impressed by the contribution of the two players - and from what I watched (I guess an hour off and on) both were trying to hit winners at times.

As a spectacle it was too long. It started before we got up, we had breakfast, did my son's homework, I cleaned and filletted 4 large pike (for the first time, so I had to read up about it and sharpen the knives and learn on the job, it was a lengthy process), picked vegetables in the garden, prepared lunch, ate lunch, we went for a walk after lunch, and only then did these crazy guys finish playing their tennis match. It was longer than a slow round of golf.

They just need to speed up the conditions marginally, not to overdo it, so that maybe it takes 1-2 winners to win a point, not 5-7.

It's a novelty. It'll become boring and soon the media will switch from declaring every other match the greatest ever to raising questions about interminable matches.

That's the nature of the media, they have to have something to write about.

I'm sure the fans at the match enjoyed it - a 5 set slam final - what's not to enjoy? I'm sure Djoko's fans enjoyed it even more.

Many of the reports emphasize the 'super-human' effort on both the physical and mental side - and yes, it was. It's the endurance that most people seem to be amazed by (rather than the tennis itself) - and yes, it was amazing. Add in 5th set drama and it's an epic.

It's possible that Nadal and Djoko have more stamina than any other player will ever have, but if other players also train to get the same stamina, then in 5 years time, when the top 10 may be more uniform than now, 5 hour+ matches from the 1/4 finals onwards could well be the norm.

Of course it was great. It was fantastic. New level of showing character in a battle.
I am immensely proud of Nole. What a talent!

noleisthebest wrote:Of course it was great. It was fantastic. New level of showing character in a battle.
I am immensely proud of Nole. What a talent!

You just wish you had watched it!

It ceartainly wasn't as good as the Wimby 2008 final.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Of course it was great. It was fantastic. New level of showing character in a battle.
I am immensely proud of Nole. What a talent!

You just wish you had watched it!

Tenez, I've seen enough to know what I'm talking about. Some seem to have seen the entire match blindfolded.

No I agree with you there Eric, I wouldn't rate this as being better than wimby 08. But I think this a better final than 09 AO open final between Nadal and Fed. The 5th set in that final really wasn't that competitive.

socal1976 wrote:No I agree with you there Eric, I wouldn't rate this as being better than wimby 08. But I think this a better final than 09 AO open final between Nadal and Fed. The 5th set in that final really wasn't that competitive.

Why not?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Of course it was great. It was fantastic. New level of showing character in a battle.
I am immensely proud of Nole. What a talent!

You just wish you had watched it!

Tenez, I've seen enough to know what I'm talking about. Some seem to have seen the entire match blindfolded.

Well I did not watch the whole match either ....but for some reasons I feel I have seen it! A bit of a Deja vu!

noleisthebest wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No I agree with you there Eric, I wouldn't rate this as being better than wimby 08. But I think this a better final than 09 AO open final between Nadal and Fed. The 5th set in that final really wasn't that competitive.

Why not?

Why would you?

Wasn't the greatest display of attacking tennis compared to Wimby 2008..

The consensus of the match was down to endurance.

noleisthebest wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No I agree with you there Eric, I wouldn't rate this as being better than wimby 08. But I think this a better final than 09 AO open final between Nadal and Fed. The 5th set in that final really wasn't that competitive.

Why not?

I think 08 wimby because it was the end of fed's domination and the rise of Nadal on something other than clay. It marked a more seismic shift in the sport. Where I think Novak's 7 straight win over Nadal was at as big a shift in the tennis world, the shift came last year at wimby and therefore this wasn't as seismic shift in terms of the sport. Also that match was at wimbeldon adds a small bit of history there. And I think the level of shotmaking was a little better in terms of going for winners. But I think the faster surface played a big part in that.

I can only go on what I seen of the match, as I had to go to work, as the match was in the fourth set but early doors (the first set and a bit) it wasn't really flowing yet and had a few too many errors so wouldn't say it was the greatest match f all-time. It did pick up in intensity, tension and quality as it went on though so it was a classic.

The fifth set I feel was extremely high quality craig but the whole match wasn't nearly as good as the fifth set. I think both guys hit some amazing shots and I wouldn't say it was lacking in shot making. But i think the level of shotmaking was bit higher at wimby possibly because of the matchup and the faster surface as well.

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No I agree with you there Eric, I wouldn't rate this as being better than wimby 08. But I think this a better final than 09 AO open final between Nadal and Fed. The 5th set in that final really wasn't that competitive.

Why not?

Why would you?

Wasn't the greatest display of attacking tennis compared to Wimby 2008..

The consensus of the match was down to endurance.

I don't buy anything media throw at Fedal. Their matches are massively overrated and pumped-up.

Which match will you remember from this AO Fedal semi-final or the final?
To me, all Fedal matches are the same: very predictable and hence boring to watch.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No I agree with you there Eric, I wouldn't rate this as being better than wimby 08. But I think this a better final than 09 AO open final between Nadal and Fed. The 5th set in that final really wasn't that competitive.

Why not?

Why would you?

Wasn't the greatest display of attacking tennis compared to Wimby 2008..

The consensus of the match was down to endurance.

I don't buy anything media throw at Fedal. Their matches are massively overrated and pumped-up.

Which match will you remember from this AO Fedal semi-final or the final?
To me, all Fedal matches are the same: very predictable and hence boring to watch.

Recent history suggests that slams benefit from Djokerer or Fedovic matches if you want drama, variety, attacking play, and time to do something else in the day beyond watching tennis. I think the window during which Fed can really push Djoko in a slam is closing so I'd like to see them on the same side of the draw a few times this year.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No I agree with you there Eric, I wouldn't rate this as being better than wimby 08. But I think this a better final than 09 AO open final between Nadal and Fed. The 5th set in that final really wasn't that competitive.

Why not?

Why would you?

Wasn't the greatest display of attacking tennis compared to Wimby 2008..

The consensus of the match was down to endurance.

I don't buy anything media throw at Fedal. Their matches are massively overrated and pumped-up.

Which match will you remember from this AO Fedal semi-final or the final?
To me, all Fedal matches are the same: very predictable and hence boring to watch.

How about the Djokurray semi which had far more attacking incentive play than Nadovic affair?

The only matter separating the 2 was the final was for a trophy

I don't think in any part of the match yesterday that Djokovic looked in real trouble.

Take the Murray v Djokovic match where Murray took the match to Djokovic. Nadal was simply hoping he could outlast him.

legendkillar wrote:
I don't think in any part of the match yesterday that Djokovic looked in real trouble.

I agree that there's very little between the Murray/Djoko SF and the Final, but I thought Djoko looked pretty screwed a break down in the fifth, didn't you?

noleisthebest wrote:To me, all Fedal matches are the same: very predictable and hence boring to watch.

In what way predictable? The last 7 matches are 5-2 to Rafa. The last 7 Rafa/Djoko matches are 7-0 Djoko.
Surely the Rafa/Djoko matches are now more predictable?

"Which match will you remember from this AO Fedal semi-final or the final?
To me, all Fedal matches are the same: very predictable and hence boring to watch."

i think you are biased to anyways you would say this was a classic. i watched most of the match whilst multitasking and it wasnt a consistently high quality match. no one can maintain a consistently high quality for 6 hours, not even novak and nadal.

however novak and nadal were well matched and equally determined and hence this was a thrilling match.

the problem with calling any match a classic and the greatest of all time is recent memory.

whatever is most recent in memory becomes the greatest.

and re your comments about Fedal matches being predictable and boring, that might be. but then so are Nodal matches.

for me the best match still remains the Mc/Borg match.

legendkillar

"I don't think in any part of the match yesterday that Djokovic looked in real trouble."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon !

Surely when Nadal was serving in the final set leading 4 - 2 and 30 -15 and having and easy bh to make it 40 - 15 ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16780203.stm

One or two people getting carried away but most will know that this was not the greatest match ever. In fact, the first 3 sets were rather average.

Personally speaking, I would rate the AO 09 final comfortably higher. The first 3 sets of that were a mile better than yesterday's first 3 sets, the 4th set of each was about on a par, and yes the 5th set was better yesterday, but overall AO 09 was a better match.

Wimbledon 2008 I would rank as higher than yesterday as well, in fact W08 was in a whole different league of its own.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
I don't think in any part of the match yesterday that Djokovic looked in real trouble.

I agree that there's very little between the Murray/Djoko SF and the Final, but I thought Djoko looked pretty screwed a break down in the fifth, didn't you?

He did look screwed at the change of ends, but once Nadal started the looping crap, Novak was always going to get back into it.

I thought it was incredible.

I think mountain stages of the Tour de France are incredible.

barrystar wrote:Recent history suggests that slams benefit from Djokerer or Fedovic matches if you want drama, variety, attacking play, and time to do something else in the day beyond watching tennis. I think the window during which Fed can really push Djoko in a slam is closing so I'd like to see them on the same side of the draw a few times this year.

So does Rafa!

coolpixel wrote:"Which match will you remember from this AO Fedal semi-final or the final?
To me, all Fedal matches are the same: very predictable and hence boring to watch."

i think you are biased to anyways you would say this was a classic. i watched most of the match whilst multitasking and it wasnt a consistently high quality match. no one can maintain a consistently high quality for 6 hours, not even novak and nadal.

however novak and nadal were well matched and equally determined and hence this was a thrilling match.

the problem with calling any match a classic and the greatest of all time is recent memory.

whatever is most recent in memory becomes the greatest.

and re your comments about Fedal matches being predictable and boring, that might be. but then so are Nodal matches.

for me the best match still remains the Mc/Borg match.

The real problem is the constant media pushing for "the greatest". For me personally, Nole's greatest match is going to be played on the 4th of August 2012.

Media hava always been heavily biased towards Fedal matches and since most if not all people here are either Federer or Nadal fans, they are obviously going to have a different choice for what they think "the greatest" match.

Personally, one of the greatest matches I have seen was last year's French open semi-final between Federer and Novak.

noleisthebest wrote:

coolpixel wrote:"Which match will you remember from this AO Fedal semi-final or the final?
To me, all Fedal matches are the same: very predictable and hence boring to watch."

i think you are biased to anyways you would say this was a classic. i watched most of the match whilst multitasking and it wasnt a consistently high quality match. no one can maintain a consistently high quality for 6 hours, not even novak and nadal.

however novak and nadal were well matched and equally determined and hence this was a thrilling match.

the problem with calling any match a classic and the greatest of all time is recent memory.

whatever is most recent in memory becomes the greatest.

and re your comments about Fedal matches being predictable and boring, that might be. but then so are Nodal matches.

for me the best match still remains the Mc/Borg match.

The real problem is the constant media pushing for "the greatest". For me personally, Nole's greatest match is going to be played on the 4th of August 2012.

Media hava always been heavily biased towards Fedal matches and since most if not all people here are either Federer or Nadal fans, they are obviously going to have a different choice for what they think "the greatest" match.

Personally, one of the greatest matches I have seen was last year's French open semi-final between Federer and Novak.

The thing is NITB, the press are more concerned with time consumed in the match itself. On the same lines as Isner/Mahut.

Like I said on a different topic I started, the campaign in whole for Djokovic ranks up there as one of the greatest when his last 4 opponents were your typical baseline grinders. That in itself is a greater achievement/spectacle than the final itself.

noleisthebest wrote:
Personally, one of the greatest matches I have seen was last year's French open semi-final between Federer and Novak.

Like I was saying - the Fed/Djoko rivalry throws up by far the most interesting matches at the moment, but I expect it to become more lop-sided in Djoko's favour soonish.

Try to watch such a match once you know the outcome! It's torture. Drama was great, but unlike betautiful displays of tennis you may enjoy watching again on youtube, I doubt anyoe is going to spend 6 hours watching the same rally agains and again.

I don't think this match was great because of its length,although the length is a contributor for media as you put it.

For me, it was great because it had two players with phenomenal will and grit having a brutal go at each other.
A tennis match can offer a lot more than tennis artistry.

There are many players on the tour at the moment who have great shot-making ability, great forehand/ bakchand, volley etc...but that's just one reason why people love watching tennis.
Shots are tools for the battle, and it's the battle that is the most prized element in a tennis match.

This particular match had a big question to answer (for some) and that was whether Nadal could beat Djokovic.

In men's tennis domination is crucial, and Nadal, known for his perseverance and stamina had a lot to offer in that battle.

It proved it was not enough, but the process of it happening was quite thrilling.

That's what people will take away from the match.
Lobs, drop-shots, passes, spectacular shots, there were plenty of during this AO, and provided by many players.
It's the drama and the adrenaline roller-coaster that will be remembered by most this time next year.

Same as that cross-court return two match points down against Federer. It's not the shot itself. It's what it meant.

Tenez wrote:Try to watch such a match once you know the outcome! It's torture. Drama was great, but unlike betautiful displays of tennis you may enjoy watching again on youtube, I doubt anyoe is going to spend 6 hours watching the same rally agains and again.

+100

This has long been a rule I apply to any tennis match to see if it is "great". Tennis can rarely stand a 2nd viewing because it is the tension of the scoring system that elevates it - imagine if they played first to 150 points, it would be awful. However sometimes a match can stand repeated viewings. I have found that they always require shotmaking that takes the breath away and I didn't see much of that yesterday, incredible though the achievement in playing at that intensity is.

yes the fed djojovic french open match was fantastic, so was the fed delpotro us open match and so also thfed rode wimby 2008 and so also fed roddick match at wimbledon.

a long match does not make it a great match. the isner mahut match was absolutely crap and yet in the immediate aftermath of it the media, the fans and its dog were calling it the greatest match of all time.

yesterday's match was good, not great. obviously novak's fans have more emotional investment in the match and will want to rate it higher.

tenez makes a good point about watching it on youtube.

tenez does make a good point now and then, when his federer bias does not blinker his viewpoint

coolpixel wrote:

tenez does make a good point now and then, when his federer bias does not blinker his viewpoint

I don't have any. Find one and I will hapilly admit it.

The Semi's didn't cover themselves in glory. Both could've provided higher standards of tennis. Simply put the top 4 didn't play to their full levels.

Earlier rounds provided much more enjoyable tennis. Hewitt and Djokovic had people engrossed. Purely because Hewitt gave his all and upped his game and Djokovic then put his foot down and beat him in 4. Djokovic dismantling Giraldo. Gasquet destroying Tipsarevic.

Federer last year put in some superb performances. v Monaco at the US Open was grace and brutality at it's best. A match that demonstrated control in a match albeit in 3 short sets, Federer played the perfect match.

Djokovic did similar in the earlier rounds this time.

I did a thread yesterday called "Never mind the Quality, Feel the length" and lks post sums it up perfectly.

To be great a match might only last an hour, but if that hour is crammed with glorious memories then it's wonderful.
I admit this match was "great" in the sense it was awesome and long, but memorable? Will anyone really remember this for the quality of the tennis?

I suspect the tennis itself is largely forgotten already. What remains is the sense that something enormous happened in terms of human endurance and guts.

Anyone watching the biathlon tonight?

I turned the channel over 3 times due to the stoic and dull nature of this afterthought. Nadal played great as usual, no run of winners whatsoever is just what we all like to witness in tennis.

Federer >> Djokovic

Djokovic >> Nadal

The match was always going to be like this, grueling . Djo in his pre-match interview even mentioned it. The Longest Slam final match in tennis history is just one side of the story. Both played slow as snails taking ages between points.

Total points played between them : 369

Average Time between points taken by Djo and Nadal in that match: about 32 seconds
Delay = 32 - 20 = 12 sec/point

So delay in match : (12 * 369 ) / 60 min = 73.8 min

So for about 1 hour and 14 min of extra time was spent only in picking butt, arranging water bottles in a certain way, frequent toweling, and ball bouncing.

Stranger was that despite the time rule being broken almost on every single point, the umpire had no guts to impose the rules on them. Only poor
Harison and Cilic are the real rule violators, aren't they?

Winners: UE Djo 57:69 , Nadal 44:71

High on drama, but poor in quality.

For me the best match this AO was Isner vs Nalbandian.

Winners: UE Djo 57:69 , Nadal 44:71

Is that right? Well says it all!

Yes Nalby/Isner and Baghy v Wawrinka not bad either.

Tenez wrote:

Winners: UE Djo 57:69 , Nadal 44:71

Is that right? Well says it all!

Yes Nalby/Isner and Baghy v Wawrinka not bad either.

No it doesn't. Winners to unforced errors has to take into account that his is a very slow hardcourt and that two top notch defenders and returners were playing each other. I think fed hit way more errors in his match against Nadal than he did winners. Looking at winners to unforced errors with it taking into account the opponent and the conditions is really irrelevant.

socal1976 wrote:
No it doesn't. Winners to unforced errors has to take into account that his is a very slow hardcourt and that two top notch defenders and returners were playing each other. I think fed hit way more errors in his match against Nadal than he did winners. Looking at winners to unforced errors with it taking into account the opponent and the conditions is really irrelevant.

Exactly whereas v Delpo or other players his winners ratio was probably much better. SO I can't see how we can say a match between 2 retriever can be a great match. AT least Djoko certainly tried to hit winners in teh first set....that cost him the set.

Something is seriously wrong with tennis nowadays.