Murray Says Fast Courts Suit Federer

by hawkeye Mon 05 Mar 2012, 3:33 pm

First topic message reminder :

This is what Murray said after losing to Federer in the Dubai final on Saturday.

"If there was more tournaments on these courts, I think he could definitely be No. 1 in the world for the next few years," Murray told reporters. "It really suits his game well. Just so many of the courts are so slow now. It’s nice for us to get a change-up like here. Some of the tournaments are so slow it's tough against so many guys that are moving well and serving big. It’s become tougher and tougher to stay at the top of the game longer."

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16761&zoneid=25

I can imagine that many will see this comment and see it as Murray giving respect to Federer. Maybe some will even say he's giving too much respect to Federer. I can imagine a few using it as some sort of evidence to prove that the slowing down of the courts has somehow cheated Federer out of his rightful place at the top of the rankings.

I don't see it that way at all. To me it sounds like Murray is being his usual arrogant self and with this back handed compliment to Federer is "explaining" why he didn't win on Saturday. Also he's implying that Federer won't be so good later in the year. Huh! There is no love lost between these two.

Was Murray's comment a complement or a criticism of Federer?

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 3:10 am

hawkeye wrote:
legendkillar wrote:If tennis is 'dead' then it must be a shame that the leader of the current brand is Nole.

If it is as simple that fitness is the major requirement, then why on earth do we only have 4 players capable of winning the Masters 1000 and Slam events?

Yes I would like to see courts sped up as it balance the field somewhat, but also be less punishing on the players bodies.

There is nothing wrong with Murray praising Federer. He clearly respects Roger and the fast courts suit him down to a tee.

Exactly. Fitness is relatively easy to aquire. If thats all you need to get to the top in tennis why don't players train their way to the top? Easy peasy!

As far as slow courts being punishing on the body. It's not the slowness of the court but the hardness of the surface. More natural surfaces would be a good idea. More clay and grass. The problem with natural surfaces is the expense. The problem with the argument for more natural surfaces here on 606v2 would be that its been put forward by a certain player.

Seriously I don't know about Nadal being the death of tennis. However I'm beginning to think 606v2 is fast becoming the death of any sort of fun discussion about tennis without certain posters listing all the things they hate about Nadal... bla bla bla...

Exactly Hawkeye. I really want to focus the discussion here. Because I have made this point over and over and over again. It isn't all fitness,and never will be, although in today's game it will be questioned and honed. If it was just about being fit any freaking untalented moron who can run laps but is hardworking enough and healthy enough would win the tournament. The world created by the people who buy the fitness and conditioning line of argument does not look like the tour we have. In a world of super fitness just one or two players would not be dominating. Any decent level pro who was the healthiest and had worked the hardest in the gym the last 2 or 3 months would win whatever big tournament we happen to have. That isn't the case a select group of talent shotmakers that are really fit are winning everything. With the shotmaking still having precedence.

Let me clue you guys in a lot of athletes are fitter than Nadal and Djoko's of the world. It is an accomplishment but not precluded to anyone else on tour.

Tenez again with the veiled PED reference is the only answer to this very pertinent line of reasoning that gets brushed off and never addressed by the fitness is everything crowd. Turn on any triathlon and you will see hundreds of people fitter than Nadal and Djokovic none of them will ever be able to return 140 mile an hour serve or whip a passing shot from 5 meters behind the baseline.

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 3:40 am

Laverfan I am talking about the totality of the tournament watched basically the quarters, semis, and the final. And for the number of hours of tennis I watched there was little entertaining stuff frankly.

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 3:41 am

Laverfan I am talking about the totality of the tournament watched basically the quarters, semis, and the final. And for the number of hours of tennis I watched there was little entertaining stuff frankly.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 06 Mar 2012, 7:50 am

I do see where social is coming from as it cannot be denied that the matches lacked drama and tight cliff-hanger finishes in abundance. That cannot be denied. However, I don't think the court speeds can solely be blamed for that but was just how things panned out. I enjoyed Dubai for the differing court speed but the tennis on show was sporadic.

by time please Tue 06 Mar 2012, 8:50 am

the excitement in most tennis matches is sporadic imo - I always think that the highlights on BBC for W make each match look full of non stop excitement and dazzling play - in reality all matches ebb and flow - some more than others.

Can anyone direct me to a match that every single point had them gasping in admiration and afraid to leave the room, or courtside, because they couldn't bear to miss any of the non stop brilliance?

I think the final was full of some great quality, varied play from both players. Unfortunately for Andy, his reliable backhand let him down and the first serve percentage (once again) became less solid after TMF broke the first time.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 06 Mar 2012, 8:55 am

socal1976 wrote:Let me clue you guys in a lot of athletes are fitter than Nadal and Djoko's of the world. It is an accomplishment but not precluded to anyone else on tour.

It is generally acknowledged by the media and other players, however, that Nadal and Djoko are the two fittest players on the tour. Murray has set himself the goal (again) of getting fitter.
When someone like, say, Patrick McEnroe, says "It's as much about fittness these days as it is about technique", your reply seems to be "It's not all about fitness", as though someone has said "It's all about fitness".

Similarly, when someone says "I'd like a couple of tournaments with faster courts" your reply is "I'm not the one who wants drastic and wholesale changes" as though someone has said "We need drastic and wholesale changes".

It's nearly impossible to state a view that is even mildly opposed to your own without it getting thrown back as something radically and diametrically opposed.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue 06 Mar 2012, 9:40 am

socal1976 wrote:

Put the AO semi or final in front of any viewer and then the semi and finals of the dubai tournament and then ask them which is tedium.

Do you think its only you, your girl, your father, your dog who qualify in this 'any viewer' category? Everyone on this 606v2 is just as important a viewer as you and your tribe is. I saw both AO semis ( especially the Murray-djo) and finals and both were poorly played matches in terms of tennis quality.

socal1976 wrote:I don't hear this outcry from fans, players, and the media for faster conditions contrary to the portrait that you and other posters on this site are posting.

You would hear and see if you keep your eyes and ears open. ATM they are shut to anything other than your own supreme 'extremist' viewpoint. There are 1000s of posts on 606v2 asking for the fast conditions for the variety and . There are many players saying everything is slowing down and its hurting their game. I heard a lot of commentators talk about how great tennis was in Bercy 2010 when they quickened the surface. It was great to watch the variety of tennis skills and for once a S&V Llodra have a chance in a match. I speak to a lot of old tennis fans who want the surface specialist back in the game. They want to see some real talented players whose all court is so adaptive and skilled that they can still beat all despite the surface variations. They want all skills of tennis to have a chance of winning.

you say you don't here anyone? Not sure about it.

socal1976 wrote: In fact, after watching this dullfest at Dubai and contrasting it with the AO, I would say dump a truck load or two more sand for every single hardcourt.

Why not instead dump those on your head? Laugh

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 4:51 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Let me clue you guys in a lot of athletes are fitter than Nadal and Djoko's of the world. It is an accomplishment but not precluded to anyone else on tour.

It is generally acknowledged by the media and other players, however, that Nadal and Djoko are the two fittest players on the tour. Murray has set himself the goal (again) of getting fitter.
When someone like, say, Patrick McEnroe, says "It's as much about fittness these days as it is about technique", your reply seems to be "It's not all about fitness", as though someone has said "It's all about fitness".

Similarly, when someone says "I'd like a couple of tournaments with faster courts" your reply is "I'm not the one who wants drastic and wholesale changes" as though someone has said "We need drastic and wholesale changes".

It's nearly impossible to state a view that is even mildly opposed to your own without it getting thrown back as something radically and diametrically opposed.

Wrong Julius, actually Tenez and the extremist fed fans are making the argument that it is all about fitness. When you chalk up almost every Federer loss to Djokovic and Nadal at slam since 06 to exhaustion. When according to Tenez and this is his exact words, Nadal is just another 100 or top 50 player with lungs. You might not be making these extreme arguments maybe my posts aren't directed at you.

And as for wholesale changes you haven't heard people like a BB come in here and talk about banning modern equipment? I take that as a radical change of the game that I would oppose. Just because your arguments are not as extreme as some doesn't mean others aren't making these suggestions.

by hawkeye Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:00 pm

For what its worth I think Murray is fitter than Nadal and Djokovic.

by Guest Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:00 pm

Y I Man wrote:
hawkeye wrote:When Djokovic and Murray played in the AO final in 2011 the number of television viewers plummeted.
Source?

by Josiah Maiestas Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:04 pm

Y I Man wrote:
Y I Man wrote:
hawkeye wrote:When Djokovic and Murray played in the AO final in 2011 the number of television viewers plummeted.
Source?

he is probably talking about worldwide viewers not just UK, which would be true.

by Guest Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:06 pm

Im just interested to read about this and how it compares to the other matches, but I couldnt find anything on the internet. hawkeye, can you pop the link up for me please.

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:07 pm

Raider, it isn't just my father and my girlfriend. I have talked to several fans and outside of a few posters online have not seen an outpouring of desire for tinkering with the speed of the game. I would love to have the AO final and semi take a real taste test with the borefest of Dubai. Take 100 tennis fans at random and have them watch the the dubai semi and final and compare that with the AO semi and final. I doubt you would have more than a small percentage say the Dubai matches were more entertaining. I read dozens of articles about the AO final, and for every 10 positive reviews there was one semi lukewarm review and that often wasn't negative in saying that the match wasn't dramatic but that there were too many errors.

Lets remember the courts were slowed down for a reason, to create more watchable matches and win over more viewers. If for one second the tournament directors and broadcasters who hire people to do extensive market research and ratings analysis believed that fast courts would make the game more popular they would switch in a fraction of a second. After watching a 20 shot rally the fans routinely get up to give a standing ovation I have yet to see a standing ovation for an ace during the middle of the match.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:14 pm

socal1976 wrote:If for one second the tournament directors and broadcasters who hire people to do extensive market research and ratings analysis believed that fast courts would make the game more popular they would switch in a fraction of a second.

What were the Dubai tournament directors thinking, I wonder?

by bogbrush Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:22 pm

Socals view appears to be that the current state must always be ideal as otherwise the organisers would change it, meaning I suppose that in the 90's everyone wanted it fast and short.

Of course it could be more to do with temporary aspects like the desire to extend the highly lucrative Fedal rivalry, which is soon to disappear as one or both falls back. Then what? Murray/Djokovic to be the flagship? Are you kidding?

by hawkeye Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:33 pm

Y I Man wrote:Im just interested to read about this and how it compares to the other matches, but I couldnt find anything on the internet. hawkeye, can you pop the link up for me please.

I don't have a link just remember reading at the time how viewers for the AO final featuring Djokovic and Murray was way down on previous years. Of course it was world wide viewers. I would guess many or even more than usual watched in the UK and Serbia but tennis is a global sport and it is world wide viewers that count. Are you surprised by that?

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:40 pm

No that isn't my position BB, I remember the tennis late 90s and early 2000s would not trade it for today's game. But, the courts have been slowed for a decade now and I am sure that the broadcasters and tournament directors didn't just wake up one day and say lets slow all the courts down because there is this up and comming swiss guy and we want to make it tough for him. There was a reason the courts were slowed, and I am not saying that their analysis is wrong or right but I am certain that the decision was based out of a desire to expand the games reach and grow the game.

I am sure if you spend your time on 606v2 and a couple of websites you will think that there is a grass roots revolution demanding faster conditions. I haven't seen it from fans at my club, or others I have talked to. in fact this site might be the mecca for this type of discussion online. Even on other tennis sites you don't see as many people aggressively pushing this topic. The media reviews of the current game is strong, fan interest is there, and we are seeing some great matches. I would posit that we have had an inordinate amount of great matches during the slow court era.

1. Rome 05
2. Miami 04
3. AO 09
4. wimby 07
5. wimby 08
6. wimby 09
7. Ao final and semi 2012
8. USO semi 2011 and 2010
9 Madrid 09
10 Rome semi 2011
11. Safin Fed 05 AO
12. Isner v. Mahut

Not in any order but I think we have had a great run of matches wimby alone had 3 epic finals in a row all better than anything we saw in the late 90s and early 2000s. That comes from having matches where a single break or one or two points in tiebreak doesn't control the result.

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:43 pm

hawkeye wrote:
Y I Man wrote:Im just interested to read about this and how it compares to the other matches, but I couldnt find anything on the internet. hawkeye, can you pop the link up for me please.

I don't have a link just remember reading at the time how viewers for the AO final featuring Djokovic and Murray was way down on previous years. Of course it was world wide viewers. I would guess many or even more than usual watched in the UK and Serbia but tennis is a global sport and it is world wide viewers that count. Are you surprised by that?

There will definelty be a transition time when Roger is on his way out into the sunset. This year the ratings are way up from last years final as Djokovic and Nadal and their rivalry start to garner a bit of attention. Plus the ratings I saw that was down was in Australia itself and many people stated that was because of a major cricket championship that was taking place sunday. This year the ratings in Australia were very strong as basically the entire nation watched even into early in the morning. You are right murray v. Novak down ratings, however that wasn't the case this year for the final, but it was the case in 2010.

by hawkeye Tue 06 Mar 2012, 5:57 pm

Do you think it was Nadal or Djokovic or their match up that put the ratings up?

IMO it was Nadal. If Nadal or Federer are in a GS final the ratings will go up. If they are both there the ratings will go through the ceiling. The general tennis viewing public are slow at picking up on "new" names (sorry Novak...) and sometimes fickle when it comes to who it chooses to watch. Sometimes they never do.

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 6:16 pm

hawkeye wrote:Do you think it was Nadal or Djokovic or their match up that put the ratings up?

IMO it was Nadal. If Nadal or Federer are in a GS final the ratings will go up. If they are both there the ratings will go through the ceiling. The general tennis viewing public are slow at picking up on "new" names (sorry Novak...) and sometimes fickle when it comes to who it chooses to watch. Sometimes they never do.

I agree Fed in the final big ratings, Nadal in final big ratings, both in the final huge ratings. To an extent Djoko is just starting to really put his mark on the tennis and sports world at large. I think there will be a transition and a loss of ratings draw when Fed leaves. But I do believe that if Murray and Novak keep winning and Nadal is still there that there is enough drawing power to sustain and grow the game. Roger can't play in every final for eternity this transition will happen eventually. Novak I think is engaging enough and has the game to be the flagship, Nadal has shown he can do it. And I think Murray will get that first slam and I think at that point interest in GB will skyrocket for tennis. Of course a Novak v. Andy matchup in the first ever slam meeting isn't going to be as big a draw right now as a fedal final. But in two years if these guys keep having memorable matches and continue to win I think it will become a bigger draw.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 06 Mar 2012, 6:21 pm

socal1976 wrote:But in two years if these guys keep having memorable matches and continue to win I think it will become a bigger draw.

Keep having? How many memorable matches have they had so far?

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 6:39 pm

2 very memorable matches Julius. Rome 2011 was probably the second best match of the year for me after Fed Djoko in the US open. Then this last semi. 2 matches that were frankly ridiculously good. I would rate both those matches as being easily, easily in the top half percent of matches I have seen. The AO semi was spectacular.

One thing that I have noticed about the Novak's matchups against Murray and Nadal is that he is the aggressor in most of the matchups. He is the one moving in and dictating the points. To Novak's credit. Although he was just off in Dubai. I really think subconsciously on some level he just wants to get to RG with as few heavyweight scraps as possible. I mean did you see how many times Novak came to the net against Murray and he didn't do to bad although he was often forcing it. That was a sign that his groundstrokes were just off.

by hawkeye Tue 06 Mar 2012, 6:57 pm

socal1976 wrote:2 very memorable matches Julius. Rome 2011 was probably the second best match of the year for me after Fed Djoko in the US open. Then this last semi. 2 matches that were frankly ridiculously good. I would rate both those matches as being easily, easily in the top half percent of matches I have seen. The AO semi was spectacular.

One thing that I have noticed about the Novak's matchups against Murray and Nadal is that he is the aggressor in most of the matchups. He is the one moving in and dictating the points. To Novak's credit. Although he was just off in Dubai. I really think subconsciously on some level he just wants to get to RG with as few heavyweight scraps as possible. I mean did you see how many times Novak came to the net against Murray and he didn't do to bad although he was often forcing it. That was a sign that his groundstrokes were just off.

Rome 2011 semi and Dubai 2012 semi? Mmmm I think they may have to do a little better than that to rival Nadal and Federer...

IMO Djokovic is charismatic, has an interesting personality and is good with the media. He has also played some very memorable matches against both Nadal and Federer over the last few years. Not to mention he's also won a few big trophies... But the public is fickle and he is still a long way from Nadal and Federer in terms of popularity. I have to say I don't think he ever will come close but there is no shame in that. The British media and his fans would so love Murray to get even a little close to Nadal and Federer in terms of popularity but he hasn't a chance. I don't think he is interested in being popular. Sometimes I doubt that he understands that he is in the entertainment business...

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 7:06 pm

Hawkeye, I was talking about the AO semi, I think people did respond to the match it was good entertainment. Lets remember Fedal is the greatest rivalry in the sports history. But I think people are underestimating murray and Del Po, both I think are going to do some wonderful things. Novak I think if he continues to dominate can have just as big an appeal as anyone. Only the future will tell. He got a lot of good face time doing all the big late night talk shows and he got great reviews. Face time does bring greater fan recognition eventually.

Murray you are right about sometimes he forgets he is in the entertainment business. But the guy is pretty entertaining game wise when he turns up the shotmaking when not truely under pressure. The between the legs half volley stuff at least shows a very technically gifted side to murray.

by noleisthebest Tue 06 Mar 2012, 7:09 pm

Socal,

worry not. Enjoy Nole's fantastic success, and let the fans of those whose favourite players he's supplanted fret and find excuses Wink

The more they fret, the better they admit Nole is Smile

by socal1976 Tue 06 Mar 2012, 7:13 pm

Yes, Nitb one can not teach people taste. You either got it or don't. I don't care if more fans don't jump on the bandwagon. Nobody else I would rather watch on tour.

by hawkeye Tue 06 Mar 2012, 9:23 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Socal,

worry not. Enjoy Nole's fantastic success, and let the fans of those whose favourite players he's supplanted fret and find excuses

The more they fret, the better they admit Nole is

Mmmm. So if I say Nole is the best he is the best? Also if I say Nole isn't the best he is the best? I think you've covered all angles here...

by Tennisanorak Wed 07 Mar 2012, 1:04 am

NITB can write some really good and unbiased posts when she wants to comment on tennis in general. But when she talks about Nole, you can see that she is not very unbiased (which is not to say that what she writes about Nole is always wrong). I guess this is the territory that comes with being a passionate fan.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed 07 Mar 2012, 6:28 am

socal1976 wrote:Raider, it isn't just my father and my girlfriend. I have talked to several fans and outside of a few posters online have not seen an outpouring of desire for tinkering with the speed of the game. I would love to have the AO final and semi take a real taste test with the borefest of Dubai. Take 100 tennis fans at random and have them watch the the dubai semi and final and compare that with the AO semi and final. I doubt you would have more than a small percentage say the Dubai matches were more entertaining.

Is this your best argument that you keep bringing it every time? That you have talked to several fans and outside of a few posters online??? Do you think I and others are totally incapable of taking to fans and people outside of online world? If you have talked to people outside and so have I and almost all of the tennis knowledgeable fans want to see variety and various skills in tennis.

As i told before most people do not even understand things like how court speed can transform the kind of game played on them. They can't see the various skills and techniques that are needed to play various shots. Most people at my work and club loved the AO2012 semis. But they don't know anything about surfaces, balls, racquets, etc. They don't understand how playing on clay, grass, and hard or indoor hard may be different from each other. They don't understand anything when I say Federer's great shot-making has got to do with his great foot-work. Some didn't even know what are all the rules of the game. 2 women who are big Nadal fans and who loved the AO 12 final but were sad that Rafa lost it, didn't even know what is a break-point. They don't enjoy tennis, they just enjoy the drama it can produce. they also enjoy the B-brother reality show TV show featuring celebrities fighting and insulting each-other. They love to gossip and discuss about it. Tennis is just like that for them. For them its just a show, no different than movies or a night club party or a daily soap or a peeping-tom reality tv show. The more drama it produces, it more entertainment for them. They are almost blind to the skills of the game.

Are we going to count their vote too for how tennis should be played? People need to reach a level of understanding of the game before they can be asked any such questions. Its like the age-limits set to voting in democratic governments. The government's policies will affect everyone ( kids, infants, teens as well), but only 18 and above are considered eligible to vote. why??? because its believed that the below 18 are not mature enough to understand a lot of things of life. On same lines votes of such viewers can't be counted. For them tennis and a reality-tv show with celebrities fighting is no different. If tennis becomes dead, they don't care, they can happily replace it with any other show.

But sports doesn't have to become like that. Anything that is starting to be created for the masses, it becomes cheap. I'm sure people enjoyed the sword battles and bloody killings of gladiators in ancient Rome. But is that a good thing, killing and enjoying their pain? I read in many articles and even some commentators using the word 'gladiators' to refer to tennis players these days. This is such a shame.

socal1976 wrote: I read dozens of articles about the AO final, and for every 10 positive reviews there was one semi lukewarm review and that often wasn't negative in saying that the match wasn't dramatic but that there were too many errors.

Media has a job to sell news. Do you understand that?

socal1976 wrote: Lets remember the courts were slowed down for a reason, to create more watchable matches and win over more viewers. If for one second the tournament directors and broadcasters who hire people to do extensive market research and ratings analysis believed that fast courts would make the game more popular they would switch in a fraction of a second. After watching a 20 shot rally the fans routinely get up to give a standing ovation I have yet to see a standing ovation for an ace during the middle of the match.

I understand that court were slowed down for a reason. I remember commentators talking about slowing of the surface as back as in the Indianapolis final between Goran and Pete sampras. But what they have done is they have gone way too far. They have slowed down surfaces to ridiculous proportions. There are almost no fast courts and its killing the variety in game. ..............

I have repeated this 1000 of times here, but i know you are too blind to even see this. So you can continue your whining about how dull the fast pace tennis in Dubai was and how great the AO 2012.

by banbrotam Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:31 am

The event was a refreshing change and I think Murray's comments are 100% genuine - look at the facts and fast courts suit him nearly as much as Federer, that's why they were in the final here and that's why they've contested more hardcourt finals than Murray v Nole or Nadal

Bogbrush is correct, inevitably the game will speed up as money will talk - after a while schedulers will get bored with average matches of 4hrs

All I want is a speeded up Wimbledon and US Open - we actually have enough variety on the Masters and below hardcourt circuit

by time please Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:21 am

banbrotam wrote:The event was a refreshing change and I think Murray's comments are 100% genuine - look at the facts and fast courts suit him nearly as much as Federer, that's why they were in the final here and that's why they've contested more hardcourt finals than Murray v Nole or Nadal

Bogbrush is correct, inevitably the game will speed up as money will talk - after a while schedulers will get bored with average matches of 4hrs

All I want is a speeded up Wimbledon and US Open - we actually have enough variety on the Masters and below hardcourt circuit

I always think of Murray as a brilliant fast court player. I know he likes to play defensively but he is often much more exciting to watch on a (rare) fast court.

by banbrotam Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:31 am

time please wrote:
banbrotam wrote:The event was a refreshing change and I think Murray's comments are 100% genuine - look at the facts and fast courts suit him nearly as much as Federer, that's why they were in the final here and that's why they've contested more hardcourt finals than Murray v Nole or Nadal

Bogbrush is correct, inevitably the game will speed up as money will talk - after a while schedulers will get bored with average matches of 4hrs

All I want is a speeded up Wimbledon and US Open - we actually have enough variety on the Masters and below hardcourt circuit

I always think of Murray as a brilliant fast court player. I know he likes to play defensively but he is often much more exciting to watch on a (rare) fast court.

Being negative, it could be said that fast courts favour those who rely on the serve and a good follow up short. However, they also favour those who have a great "instinctive" game - of which Fed is the best in the and Murray is second best. When I say "instinctive" I mean those who are fantastic at changing the pace and varying their shots without thinking - given that the 'thinking time' is less on a very fast court

Fed was very impressive. I take my hat off to him

by time please Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:38 am

banbrotam wrote:
time please wrote:
banbrotam wrote:The event was a refreshing change and I think Murray's comments are 100% genuine - look at the facts and fast courts suit him nearly as much as Federer, that's why they were in the final here and that's why they've contested more hardcourt finals than Murray v Nole or Nadal

Bogbrush is correct, inevitably the game will speed up as money will talk - after a while schedulers will get bored with average matches of 4hrs

All I want is a speeded up Wimbledon and US Open - we actually have enough variety on the Masters and below hardcourt circuit

I always think of Murray as a brilliant fast court player. I know he likes to play defensively but he is often much more exciting to watch on a (rare) fast court.

Being negative, it could be said that fast courts favour those who rely on the serve and a good follow up short. However, they also favour those who have a great "instinctive" game - of which Fed is the best in the and Murray is second best. When I say "instinctive" I mean those who are fantastic at changing the pace and varying their shots without thinking - given that the 'thinking time' is less on a very fast court

Fed was very impressive. I take my hat off to him

thanks banbro - great explanation. I certainly enjoyed the speed of the shots and the variety of play. Why do you think, given that Murray is a player with great feel and instinct, that he has stated he thinks the slow courts suit him better - true he has been the closest, with Fed, over the last year of upsetting Nole on the baseline on slow courts, but with triumphs in the past over Rafa on a faster court, and Nole too you would think he might prefer the other.

by banbrotam Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:45 am

time please wrote:thanks banbro - great explanation. I certainly enjoyed the speed of the shots and the variety of play. Why do you think, given that Murray is a player with great feel and instinct, that he has stated he thinks the slow courts suit him better - true he has been the closest, with Fed, over the last year of upsetting Nole on the baseline on slow courts, but with triumphs in the past over Rafa on a faster court, and Nole too you would think he might prefer the other.

As you can see from the quote above, Murray doesn't like slow courts, but probably favours the hard courts that are slightly slower than Dubai or Paris, i.e. the next set

His record shows that he wins nearly all his events on these (let's call them the 2nd fastest of the hardcourts) types of surfaces (when outdoors), i.e. he likes the speed, but recognises that it makes his job harder against a big server and he gets little benefit from his (relatively) poor serve

That, for me, tends to affect in the early rounds. If he's playing Nadal or Nole on these surfaces he actually inevitably wins

But get a very fast court and the genius skills of an on form Fed 'kills' everyone - which I think is why some may get the impression that Andy is against them, when I think, on balance, he prefers them to the slow ones

by Tenez Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:57 am

I cannot agree that Murray is better than Djoko on fast courts. The number of finals Djoko and Murray played is irrelevant. Djoko has been unlucky to have faced the best of Federer many times in the USO swing and essentially only Djoko managed to beat Federer there.

by time please Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:07 am

I must admit that I always think of Novak as a very good fast court player - but I was a bit hesitant because I am aware that I am talking to some good active players on here, and as a retired 'player' of muppet like standards I don't bring that added perspective to my viewing.

I know that Djokovic has become the grand master at grinding away, wearing down all in his wake, but he is just as exciting to watch in faster conditions imo

by noleisthebest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:32 am

Tenez wrote:I cannot agree that Murray is better than Djoko on fast courts. The number of finals Djoko and Murray played is irrelevant. Djoko has been unlucky to have faced the best of Federer many times in the USO swing and essentially only Djoko managed to beat Federer there.

Murray is well behind the top 3. He just is not in the same class as them If he was, he would have won at least one slam by now.

Unless/until that happens, it's all media hype as usual.

by banbrotam Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:32 am

Tenez wrote:I cannot agree that Murray is better than Djoko on fast courts. The number of finals Djoko and Murray played is irrelevant. Djoko has been unlucky to have faced the best of Federer many times in the USO swing and essentially only Djoko managed to beat Federer there.

Tenez. By your own comments you know very well that we've hardly seen any contests on the very fast courts - simply because there are hardly any

Nole is better than Fed on hard courts, simply because most of them as you, I and Bogbrush agree on are far too slow

Get very fast courts like Dubai and Fed becomes the best and Murray 2nd best with Nole very close and yes, you can argue he would be 2nd.

by banbrotam Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:36 am

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:I cannot agree that Murray is better than Djoko on fast courts. The number of finals Djoko and Murray played is irrelevant. Djoko has been unlucky to have faced the best of Federer many times in the USO swing and essentially only Djoko managed to beat Federer there.

Murray is well behind the top 3. He just is not in the same class as them If he was, he would have won at least one slam by now.

Unless/until that happens, it's all media hype as usual.

Nole's success is making you more smug than normal - a shame, but I can understand why. I mean after that Australian SF how on earth can you say that

However, you are missing the point, so let me clarify

1) On clay I agree
2) On the 'average' hard courts of today, i.e. the two slams. I disagree. Murray is probably just behind Federer
3) On the very fast hard courts, I think he is second to Fed - but wouldn't argue that Nole is 2nd to Fed
4) Overall not a long way behind

Can the humble NITB make a return?

by noleisthebest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:50 am

banbrotam wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:I cannot agree that Murray is better than Djoko on fast courts. The number of finals Djoko and Murray played is irrelevant. Djoko has been unlucky to have faced the best of Federer many times in the USO swing and essentially only Djoko managed to beat Federer there.

Murray is well behind the top 3. He just is not in the same class as them If he was, he would have won at least one slam by now.

Unless/until that happens, it's all media hype as usual.

Nole's success is making you more smug than normal - a shame, but I can understand why. I mean after that Australian SF how on earth can you say that

However, you are missing the point, so let me clarify

1) On clay I agree
2) On the 'average' hard courts of today, i.e. the two slams. I disagree. Murray is probably just behind Federer
3) On the very fast hard courts, I think he is second to Fed - but wouldn't argue that Nole is 2nd to Fed
4) Overall not a long way behind

Can the humble NITB make a return?

Banbro,

you know I'm not into mincing words, otherwise I'd be called "noleisthehumblest" Wink

by legendkillar Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:59 am

If Nole can win on fast Grass then I will back the statement he is better than Murray on faster surfaces.

by noleisthebest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 10:00 am

Banbro,

as for Murray and fast courts, this is how I look at it all.

When both you and I started our fandom on the old 606, both Nole and Murray had their surges and downs.

You obviously had huge support of tens of other posters and media who never missed an opportunity to diminish Novak's one slam and elevate Murray's H2H with Federer etc.

Until Novak singlehandedly went on an unprescedented tear last year and won all he won and in the fashion he did, I have always believed he was able to do it.
In our various and numerous discussions on who was better,my main gripe was that Nole hadn't been fully developed physically i.e.e not strong enough to play against kings of fitness: Federer and Nadal, he looked like a boy next to them.
Obvioulsy, there were a few technical improvements he made, but more or less, as soon as he filled out a bit and improved his fitness, he was able to execute his tennis talent.
Now Murray fans, never came across (to me) as waiting for stg concrete in his game /development to click into place, it was always this "he deserves a slam" '"best player not to have won a slam" media regurgeration....

Don't get me wrong, Murray is a very good player, better than ever at the moment, and full praise and credit to him for persevering and trying. He may well break through this year.

You begrudge me being proud of the player I supported wholeheartedly against all odds and call me smug.
Well, you won't hear any hypocritical talk from me but I'll be the first to congratulate you when/if Murray starts winning slams

by Tenez Wed 07 Mar 2012, 10:04 am

banbrotam wrote:...Get very fast courts like Dubai and Fed becomes the best and Murray 2nd best with Nole very close and yes, you can argue he would be 2nd.

But you are only basing this on one result in Dubai. When the USO was still decent pace, it was Djoko who gave Federer the toughest tests...not Murray.

by legendkillar Wed 07 Mar 2012, 10:05 am

I wouldn't call NITB 'smug'

She is basking in Nole's success and why wouldn't you?

You may not agree with her about the fast courts/conds debate, however given Nole is form man and has adapted his game superbly to de-throne Nadal, I can see her logic for feeling Djokovic is better on fast conds. If he can adopt his game on both Hard and Clay to beat Nadal, why could he not make the transition on faster conds?

Take Dubai. Nole has won it twice. Poor execution let him down against Murray, however Nole does have the shots to be superb on fast stuff.

by time please Wed 07 Mar 2012, 10:18 am

I think Nole has actually won Dubai 3 times. It was the first tournament he was able to successfully defend in 2010 I seem to remember

by Tenez Wed 07 Mar 2012, 10:27 am

Dubai was fast but not as fast as this year I think.

by noleisthebest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 10:54 am

Tenez wrote:Dubai was fast but not as fast as this year I think.

I know where you are coming from, but I think it was the same.
Nole played much better last year, being a number 3 at the time it was a whole different game.

I think he gave himself a longer rest after AO which took a lot out of him, esp those last two long physical matches. I am sure you can appreciate the toll it must have taken on his body.
Bu I'm glad he didn't disappear completely like Nadal and chose to play in Dubai.

He is definitely timing himself for RG and not being too worried about winning everything in the meantime.

In our daily micro tour dissection we tend to lose sight of the bigger picture.

by Tenez Wed 07 Mar 2012, 11:00 am

I have not watched much of last year's Dubai so I can't say for last year but I do remember 2 years and before. It wasn't nearly as fast.

They may have changed the balls...or else.

And I agree that the pace did not contribute much in Djoko's loss. He did not seem too bothered about retaining Dubai....Though one felt he did not want to lose v Murray.

by noleisthebest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 11:04 am

Tenez wrote:I have not watched much of last year's Dubai so I can't say for last year but I do remember 2 years and before. It wasn't nearly as fast.

They may have changed the balls...or else.

And I agree that the pace did not contribute much in Djoko's loss. He did not seem too bothered about retaining Dubai....Though one felt he did not want to lose v Murray.

He didn't. But chose the perfect time and place to.

by hawkeye Wed 07 Mar 2012, 2:57 pm

banbrotam wrote:The event was a refreshing change and I think Murray's comments are 100% genuine - look at the facts and fast courts suit him nearly as much as Federer, that's why they were in the final here and that's why they've contested more hardcourt finals than Murray v Nole or Nadal

Bogbrush is correct, inevitably the game will speed up as money will talk - after a while schedulers will get bored with average matches of 4hrs

All I want is a speeded up Wimbledon and US Open - we actually have enough variety on the Masters and below hardcourt circuit

IMO Murray wasn't saying fast courts suited him. He was saying that fast courts suited Federer implying that was the reason he lost. He was also saying that the fast Dubai surface was not the usual ATP surface... if it was Federer would win more. And he was also implying that he thought he could have beaten Federer on a (more "legitimate"?) slower surface

What he wasn't doing was saying he would like to play more on fast hard courts like Dubai.

You people are rubbish at reading between the lines...

by Sponsored content