Was It Really Great?

First topic message reminder :

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.

Raiders of the ark, very good analysis but I think a bit skewed because it should compare the EXTRA time taken by these two between points as compared to a tour average if there is one

I preferred the Djokovic Murray match to be honest, thought it had a bit more variety and invention, which i guess is what Murray brings to the table over Nadal's incredible intensity.

But I do like modern tennis perhaps more than any other era. That's just a personal thing.

I think the 2008 Wimbledon final is still the best I've ever seen though. Whilst yesterday was more gladiatorial, the SW19 2008 final just had a bit more finesse... Which I guess is what Federer brings to the table.

Danny_1982 wrote:I preferred the Djokovic Murray match to be honest, thought it had a bit more variety and invention, which i guess is what Murray brings to the table over Nadal's incredible intensity.

But I do like modern tennis perhaps more than any other era. That's just a personal thing.

I think the 2008 Wimbledon final is still the best I've ever seen though. Whilst yesterday was more gladiatorial, the SW19 2008 final just had a bit more finesse... Which I guess is what Federer brings to the table.

Nole brings his titanium balls of steel to the table.

noleisthebest wrote:Nole brings his titanium balls of steel to the table.

Don't they slow him down when he is running?

Danny_1982 wrote:
But I do like modern tennis perhaps more than any other era. That's just a personal thing.

Anything to do with Murray playing in it maybe?

To be honest I think it's time someone explained whether his balls are made of steel or titanium, surely it has to be one or the other. Or is steel doped with titanium? Or a steel casing with a titanium interior? Either way he's going to be shooting blanks...

coolpixel wrote:Raiders of the ark, very good analysis but I think a bit skewed because it should compare the EXTRA time taken by these two between points as compared to a tour average if there is one

Why it should be compared to the tour average?? How does that change the fact that the time rule between points was violated on almost every single point played in that match and yet the umpire did nothing? And it wasn't even like they took long time towards the end of the match due to sheer exhausting nature of their play or due to excess heat of the midday sun. I remember by the end 1st set, it showed that Nadal was taking 34 sec and Djo 31 seconds average between points.

If you want the tour average, kindly do your own research of all the matches played in this AO and bring out the point you were trying to imply. I don't want to waste time on things which I think are needless.

Tenez, you claim that a match with two great retrievers can't be a great match. Would you say the same thing for two great attacking players? I think maybe the dullest final I ever saw was Sampras beating Ivanisivic at wimby with neither player even getting close to breaking. If this was two grinders who just couldn't hit winners I would agree with you. But there were plenty of great winners from both players. Djokovic hit what an average 12 winners a set, a pretty respectable number on the slowest hardcourt on tour against Nadal. Winners to unforced errors has to be analyzed in context of the surface and the opponent.

And there is such a thing as forcing errors with aggressive play and aggressive shots.

socal1976 wrote:Tenez, you claim that a match with two great retrievers can't be a great match. Would you say the same thing for two great attacking players? I think maybe the dullest final I ever saw was Sampras beating Ivanisivic at wimby with neither player even getting close to breaking. If this was two grinders who just couldn't hit winners I would agree with you. But there were plenty of great winners from both players. Djokovic hit what an average 12 winners a set, a pretty respectable number on the slowest hardcourt on tour against Nadal. Winners to unforced errors has to be analyzed in context of the surface and the opponent.

And there is such a thing as forcing errors with aggressive play and aggressive shots.

I agree Socal.

Henman Bill wrote:To be honest I think it's time someone explained whether his balls are made of steel or titanium, surely it has to be one or the other. Or is steel doped with titanium? Or a steel casing with a titanium interior? Either way he's going to be shooting blanks...

Solid titanium

carrieg4 wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Nole brings his titanium balls of steel to the table.

Don't they slow him down when he is running?

Only after the 12the game in the 5th set

Tenez wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:
But I do like modern tennis perhaps more than any other era. That's just a personal thing.

Anything to do with Murray playing in it maybe?

No. Of course being a Brit I do enjoy that I have someone to support at the top of the game, but regardless of that some of the Federer v Djokovic and Nadal v Djokovic slam and masters matches in recent times have been just sensational.

Not to mention Nadal v Murray at the 02 arena, and Djokovic v Murray last week... And in Rome last year. Great matches. I love tennis right now.

Not your style clearly, which is fine. A lot of people do enjoy it though, which is also fine. Each to their own.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

coolpixel wrote:Raiders of the ark, very good analysis but I think a bit skewed because it should compare the EXTRA time taken by these two between points as compared to a tour average if there is one

Why it should be compared to the tour average?? How does that change the fact that the time rule between points was violated on almost every single point played in that match and yet the umpire did nothing? And it wasn't even like they took long time towards the end of the match due to sheer exhausting nature of their play or due to excess heat of the midday sun. I remember by the end 1st set, it showed that Nadal was taking 34 sec and Djo 31 seconds average between points.

If you want the tour average, kindly do your own research of all the matches played in this AO and bring out the point you were trying to imply. I don't want to waste time on things which I think are needless.

do you have the manners to reply politely? did i ask you to do the research? if so point out where i have done so?

re the point i am making which you dont seem to have grasped is that everyone takes time between points. to compare absolute time taken by nadal and djokovic is meaningless because there is no baseline reference. the baseline reference should be not even the rule of 20 secs but what the average of the tour is. and again i am not asking you to do any research, so have the manners to read properly and comment politely in keeping with replies.

All this GOAT talk is such a load of rubbish,its impossible to prove as its just an opinion
You cant compare players from different eras just like you cannot compare matches played in different eras,too much has changed which makes it an unfair comparison
Was it the greatest match of this generation?
I would rate it up there as one of the greatest of this generation,personally my top 3 finals Wimbledon 08,AO 09 and AO '12

I think a lot of how much I enjoy a match depends on how much I care about the outcome. I was not at all bothered who won out of Nadal and Djokovic, which made it pretty easy to stop watching and go and do something else last Sunday (I actually left with Djokovic 2 sets to 1 up, and expected him to cruise through the 4th set...guess I was proved wrong!)

Still, you can't blame the two players for my own apathy about the result. For me what stops this match being a classic is the lack of variety in the two players' games. In the parts I saw it was just endless baseline bashing with hardly a volley in sight. There's also something that I can't quite put my finger on...the lack of a wow factor, the absence of truly amazing shots that you didn't see coming; Nadal's and Djokovic's play is so much about grinding the opponent down to present themselves with the chance for a winner that it almost seems too robotic at times.

I have no problems with players playing a retrieval style of game, or playing tactically, or whatever. I'm not going to sit in the Tenez camp, where it seems that if a player isn't hitting a winner with every shot then they aren't playing the sport properly. Tennis is about making your opponent get the ball into play one less time than you do, and there are lots of different ways to do this - this is what makes the sport interesting. Nadal and Djokovic have developed very effective ways of putting together points and playing attacking minded but controlled tennis. I think the problem arises when they meet each other and it all becomes a little bit too methodical, with some of the flair and invention replaced by grinding and more grinding.

Veejay wrote:All this GOAT talk is such a load of rubbish,its impossible to prove as its just an opinion
You cant compare players from different eras just like you cannot compare matches played in different eras,too much has changed which makes it an unfair comparison
Was it the greatest match of this generation?
I would rate it up there as one of the greatest of this generation,personally my top 3 finals Wimbledon 08,AO 09 and AO '12

Veejay if we can't have goat conversations or compare different players in different eras then we would have to shutdown this and almost every other tennis website. You are right you can not get a definitive objective correct answer to these types of questions. It is more the process of discussing them that is fun as opposed to arriving at the scientifically and objectivally correct answer.

Veejay out of curisiosity which Bjorn do you think is better Bjorn Phau or Bjorn Bjorg, and why?

Chazfazzer wrote:
I have no problems with players playing a retrieval style of game, or playing tactically, or whatever. I'm not going to sit in the Tenez camp, where it seems that if a player isn't hitting a winner with every shot then they aren't playing the sport properly. Tennis is about making your opponent get the ball into play one less time than you do, and there are lots of different ways to do this - this is what makes the sport interesting. Nadal and Djokovic have developed very effective ways of putting together points and playing attacking minded but controlled tennis. I think the problem arises when they meet each other and it all becomes a little bit too methodical, with some of the flair and invention replaced by grinding and more grinding.

If you speak on my behalf, you might as well know what I think. I never said a player has to to hit winners all the time. I actually loved Coria's game (a genius in defensive skills) and was a big fan of Borg.

Tenez wrote:If you speak on my behalf, you might as well know what I think. I never said a player has to to hit winners all the time. I actually loved Coria's game (a genius in defensive skills) and was a big fan of Borg.

Coria

See this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HymGHfzkU4A

Point from 4:05 really shows a long rally can also be good...

But hang on, wasn't this from the weak era...