Hands Up If You Enjoyed The Miami Final

A match up between two players in the top four especially if it takes place in a final should be a treat for all tennis fans. But when the two players are Djokovic and Murray do they live up to expectation?

I did watch a little but it was far from riveting. Both players stuck to the baseline hitting drill like ralleys. Limited variety of spin and both were even reluctant to change direction. Lots of power and they were hitting with length but far too little variety.

Did they both have a bad day? Was it the match up that makes both players believe this limited style is the way to get a win?

I'm sure Djokovic and Murray fans would have been looking forward to this match. I wonder if they enjoyed the tennis (I'm sure Djokovic fans enjoyed the result... )

I loved it

beats the boring moonball, towell-down fests.....ANY DAY!

Only saw the second set - I was hoping for a better standard, especially from Murray. Solid, but unspectacular from Djoko.
Quite a lot of UEs (nearly 40 each) for a 2-setter.

I liked it, I think the second set was gripping with murray fighting off numerous break points and some of the rallies were very exciting. Much better than the Dubai borefest everyone here talked up, but again if Fed had won this match I am sure we would be hearing about how incredible the match was and Fed's performance. Novak played great winning a masters without dropping a set.

socal1976 wrote:I liked it, I think the second set was gripping with murray fighting off numerous break points and some of the rallies were very exciting. Much better than the Dubai borefest everyone here talked up, but again if Fed had won this match I am sure we would be hearing about how incredible the match was and Fed's performance. Novak played great winning a masters without dropping a set.

But was it the win you enjoyed or the match?

Did they both have a bad day? Was it the match up that makes both players believe this limited style is the way to get a win?

I don't think Djokovic had a bad day, I thought he played well first set and quite well second set. I thought Murray was way below par, and although not playing for 4 days might have been a factor I actually think its a bad defeat for him.

In fact, I think the score in the second set flattered him. He didn't serve well enough, didn't come forward when he could have and looked like he didn't know how to play the match.

Novak didn't scale the heights he did in the first set against Ferrer, but he was the form player throughout the tournament and was the better player on the day. When both play well at the same time it's maybe my favourite match up, and I think the matches in Rome last year and Melbourne this year show how exciting the matches can be when they both play well.

Well done Novak today, he deserved it.

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I liked it, I think the second set was gripping with murray fighting off numerous break points and some of the rallies were very exciting. Much better than the Dubai borefest everyone here talked up, but again if Fed had won this match I am sure we would be hearing about how incredible the match was and Fed's performance. Novak played great winning a masters without dropping a set.

But was it the win you enjoyed or the match?

Yes hawk, I did like the match. It wasn't a great match but it was a good match. I thought the second set was tense, the fans where getting into it and there was some great shotmaking. Of course you are going to see a high error count when 2 of the best returners and retrievers play each other. But I think it is a misnomer to simply look at winner to unforced errors as an indicator of quality. I think Murray showed a lot of fight getting it to the breaker. And I think in the first set and in the tiebreaker Novak found that 2011 feeling and was very fluid. He made 15 trips to net, made some very fine volleys, mixed up slices and approaches.

I watched a few games in the second set and the second set tie-break. It was "tense" with a few exceptional points and one brilliant point. I've never heard Murray grunt so loud nor Djokovic for that matter in quite a few passages of play suggesting they were giving it everything.

In the second set Djokovic always had that little bit extra in control and talent level over Murray. I don't know what happened in the first set. Djokovic is more reliable and accurate on serve than Murray, although Murray has the more powerful serve when it goes in. Djokovic's flexibility is very much superior to Murray. It enables him to reach, and position his body to the level of the ball, so that when he brings the racket head onto and across the ball he has the better control.

Good observation Nore on the advantage of Novak's flexibility letting him get under the ball in stretched positions. I mean it is hard for a two set match to be really thrilling. But this match got halfway there the second set was really competitive. And in the first set Novak was playing at a very high level.

Murray to his credit fought from start to finish. He just faced a player hitting over 70 percent on his serves. The way I see it is that Andy has a bigger first serve but Novak has a significantly better second serve, which probably is more important. Murray is always going to have a problem with defending his second serve against a returner of Novak's quality.

I saw the first few rallies. Frankly, there was no need to watch after that as pretty much every rally was the same.

Another match that owed it's atrraction to the scoring system and to fans allegiences.

Oh, and Murray will have a problem defending that second serve against anyone in the top 50.

Yes BB, that is why he has so much trouble against everyone ranked from 5-50. Another one of your posts that actually argues the exact opposite of reality and the facts. Maybe you have trouble acknowledging Djokovic as the best returner in the world but the ATP statisticians and their numbers for 2010, 2011, and so far 2012 seem to disagree with you. In case you haven't noticed that wasn't just anyone returning Murray's serve.

As a Murray fan no it wasn't enjoyable.

As a tennis fan? I guess the only enjoyable moments were the attacking points that Djokovic created and won. Which weren't high in quantity.

Murray played some lazy shots. Didn't eat into the Djokovic second serve and basically once Djokovic got into the Murray 1st serve, there was only one winner.

A massive step back for Andy.

socal1976 wrote:Yes BB, that is why he has so much trouble against everyone ranked from 5-50. Another one of your posts that actually argues the exact opposite of reality and the facts. Maybe you have trouble acknowledging Djokovic as the best returner in the world but the ATP statisticians and their numbers for 2010, 2011, and so far 2012 seem to disagree with you. In case you haven't noticed that wasn't just anyone returning Murray's serve.

Who beat Murray in Indian Wells? Was he in the top 4?

But don't let me get in the way of another crudely crafted effort to fawn at Djokovic.

I could have sworn that a couple of weeks ago there were complaints of the top 4 guys never losing to those outside the top 4. Murray does not have a great second serve no argument there. But in particular facing a returner of Novak's quality his second serve becomes a much bigger liability. Now tell me what exactly is fawning about my post and what exactly about my logic is giving you difficulty?

I just thought you said you didn't see Murray having any trouble with anyone outside the top 4, then I mentioned the last tournament where he... er....... did.

Yes that one match proves everything BB, I guess if you say it makes sense it doesn't to me. Especially, in light of all the moaning for weeks and months that the Big 4 guys don't lose enough to those ranked outside the top.

Again, what part of my point don't you want to accept. I grant that murray has a weak second serve have said it 100 times on this website before. But against Djoko, the best returner in the world that weakness will be exposed even further. What exactly are you in disagreement with?

Murray v Djokovic remains my least favourite top 4 match up and on this occasion it just looked like Murray was having a very off day, made it a little boring to watch unless of course you're a Djokovic fan.

Murray was fortunate to make the final of Miami as Tipsarevic certainly had the better of him and yet he managed to underperform worse than Murray in their encounter. All it required was a better serving % from Tipsarevic and Murray would've been out in 2.

Murray out of the top 4 is more vulnerable and sceptical to defeats to players outside of the top 20. Some would argue that Federer might be heading the same direction with his defeat to Roddick, but lets not be under any illusions. There is a difference in the calibre of player between a Roddick to a Tipsarevic or Garcia Lopez.

What is there in the Murray game that can dig him out of tricky encounters where he is up against it? Nadal, Djokovic and Federer show all depth in their games to up their performance levels. To put it bluntly they can hit more varied winners than a Murray.

socal1976 wrote:Yes that one match proves everything BB, I guess if you say it makes sense it doesn't to me. Especially, in light of all the moaning for weeks and months that the Big 4 guys don't lose enough to those ranked outside the top.

Again, what part of my point don't you want to accept. I grant that murray has a weak second serve have said it 100 times on this website before. But against Djoko, the best returner in the world that weakness will be exposed even further. What exactly are you in disagreement with?

My observation about the lack of depth in the game today has no connection to this.

I agreed that Murrays 2nd serve would be badly exposed by Djokovic. I simply added the other 48 members of the top 50.

Sorry No.

I'm not greedy, I want players to go after points and try to win them, it was nothing like that.

It was more like, lets get in to a base line rally and see who will miss?

How many winners?
How many unforced errors?

Only on few occasions both of them bothered to win a point. If you are a fan of one of them you would have enjoyed it.

If you are fan of tennis, that was the most boring final.

Congratulations to Djokovic for defending his tittle.

If you are fan of tennis, that was the most boring final.

I dodged a brass bullet avoiding this final thanks for confirming it.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

If you are fan of tennis, that was the most boring final.

I dodged a brass bullet avoiding this final thanks for confirming it.

I don't know who wrote the quote, but can have a guess
This match was not the top 10 matches of the year candidate, but it's way better than Dubai or IW finals (and by saying that I am not claiming they were bad or boring) and I don't remember anyone moaning there...

Some people unfortunately allow their fan bias to taint the enjoyment of tennis as a game. Almost every player brings something to the table and is worth watching.

Almost every player brings something to the table and is worth watching.

Not sure what Andy was bringing in that final his intentions are only ever to let the opponent tire himself which is weird when youre ranked number 4. Novak also tires himself out with his incessant ball bouncing.

Murray and Ferrer are so dam weak hitting forehands

2 hours and 15 minutes to play 7 games in the first set and 12 in the second with a tie break - how long would this have gone on if it had been bo5?

Djokovic is still aggressive on a very slow court, but I prefer watching him in even more aggressive mode, and I think Murray would definitely benefit from some faster courts - not the most exciting striking from either of them, apart from the odd shot, yesterday.

noleisthebest wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

If you are fan of tennis, that was the most boring final.

I dodged a brass bullet avoiding this final thanks for confirming it.

I don't know who wrote the quote, but can have a guess
This match was not the top 10 matches of the year candidate, but it's way better than Dubai or IW finals (and by saying that I am not claiming they were bad or boring) and I don't remember anyone moaning there...

Some people unfortunately allow their fan bias to taint the enjoyment of tennis as a game. Almost every player brings something to the table and is worth watching.

Exactly, Nitb now you are seeing what I have been saying. The dubai final was way worse than this and a certain group of fed fans (that I am not allowed to call extremist again...feel free to edit this portion Julius) called that match wonderful and a refreshing display of attacking tennis. If Fed wins a yawner against someone well then it was a great match. I agree this match was not great but it was a pretty entertaining second set and match overral. Next time FEd wins a snoozer final watch how effusive they are with their praise of the match and Fed's shotmaking. I for one saw some great shotmaking and a lot of oohs and ahhs from the crowd during some great points. Was there enough of it, no but it takes two to tango.

When you say the Dubai final was way worse than this, presumably you mean 'I enjoyed it less than this'?
There are many people, some of them not even Fed fans particularly, who found the Dubai final equally, if not more enjoyable.
Eye of the beholder, and all that. It's subjective, and therefore an objective statement doesn't really apply.

noleisthebest wrote:Some people unfortunately allow their fan bias to taint the enjoyment of tennis as a game.

And some people allow their anti-fan bias to taint their enjoyment

The quality wasn't great for a Murray V Djokovic match to be honest and I would say that the Dubai Final was better and more competitive - in my opinion that is.

enoughisenough wrote: ... If you are fan of tennis, that was the most boring final.

Surely only a fair weather "fan" of tennis would say this? A proper "fan of tennis" would actually be able to analyse what is happening as the match progresses, seeing the drama in the encounter, the skill sets on display, the energy and fitness levels, assessing the thinking and mental state of the players as the game progresses, considering what effect the court conditions has on their play, considering the strategies being used and whether or not the player is able to adjust their strategy as the game progresses etc. You need to be careful not to be accused of being of the "prawn sandwich brigade" of tennis viewers [that is a reference to a comment made by Roy Kean on some of the Man Utd "fans"].

Nore Staat wrote:

enoughisenough wrote: ... If you are fan of tennis, that was the most boring final.

Surely only a fair weather "fan" of tennis would say this? A proper "fan of tennis" would actually be able to analyse what is happening as the match progresses, seeing the drama in the encounter, the skill sets on display, the energy and fitness levels, assessing the thinking and mental state of the players as the game progresses, considering what effect the court conditions has on their play, considering the strategies being used and whether or not the player is able to adjust their strategy as the game progresses etc. You need to be careful not to be accused of being of the "prawn sandwich brigade" of tennis viewers [that is a reference to a comment made by Roy Kean on some of the Man Utd "fans"].

true enough, but at one point Murray's 1st serve % was like 46% - that's pretty gruelling viewing

Never mind Murray'll be back with better - if he makes a breakthrough it would really liven up the top 4!

CaledonianCraig wrote:The quality wasn't great for a Murray V Djokovic match to be honest and I would say that the Dubai Final was better and more competitive - in my opinion that is.

I agree - but then I enjoy seeing Fed in full flight, super aggressive striking mode. Murray played very well indeed I thought, and looked brilliant physically - he just came across Fed playing wonderfully on a fast surface, but the way Murray played had me looking forward, very much, to seeing him in IW and Miami.

Nore Staat wrote:

enoughisenough wrote: ... If you are fan of tennis, that was the most boring final.

Surely only a fair weather "fan" of tennis would say this? A proper "fan of tennis" would actually be able to analyse what is happening as the match progresses, seeing the drama in the encounter, the skill sets on display, the energy and fitness levels, assessing the thinking and mental state of the players as the game progresses, considering what effect the court conditions has on their play, considering the strategies being used and whether or not the player is able to adjust their strategy as the game progresses etc. You need to be careful not to be accused of being of the "prawn sandwich brigade" of tennis viewers [that is a reference to a comment made by Roy Kean on some of the Man Utd "fans"].

Well that all sounds very fair minded but using that criteria all matches could be considered equally entertaining. In fact it would be possible to analyse any tennis match that way from club level down... I think I'm a little more demanding as a viewer. I'm off now to get a prawn sandwich...

reckoner wrote: ... true enough, but at one point Murray's 1st serve % was like 46% - that's pretty gruelling viewing

It depends on what you expect to get from sitting down to watch a tennis match. Sure for some it was gruelling viewing but not for all and certainly whether one found it boring or not is not a measure of being a "fan of tennis". I wouldn't call myself a "fan of tennis" because I don't tend to watch a lot of it, but I do from time to time watch it to assess the various state of certain players level of tennis. I watched a few games of that match in the second set and it showed there is still quite a gap between Djokovic and Murray.

hawkeye wrote:... but using that criteria all matches could be considered equally entertaining. In fact it would be possible to analyse any tennis match that way from club level down... I think I'm a little more demanding as a viewer. I'm off now to get a prawn sandwich...

Following on to what I mentioned above, "wanting to be entertained" and being a "fan of tennis" are two separate issues, and it is wrong and disrespectful to say that anyone being "entertained" by that match is not a "fan of tennis".

People are "entertained" by watching television soap operas, watching reality television shows, watching football, playing video games etc, yet others might think their "entertainment" is boring.

They brought the worst out of each other, thats for certain. They both played to not lose than to put the pressure on, especially Andy which is a shame after his performances in Melbourne and Dubai.

I don't want to be entertained, I want to be thrilled and inspired.

Yesterday's match was anything but that.

I'm a triathlete and a long distance swimmer i fully understand the skill and the fitness on display and i appreciate the effort both players put in to reach the finals and go for the tittle.

Well i'm not getting in to a argument here, Been watching tennis and playing tennis for 10yrs i'm happy to learn.

Please enlighten me.

What was the strategy used by the two to win the game?

Who can rally longer?

well for what its worth Djokovic believed in himself and went after a few points, Andy Murry for whatever reason still lacks that self belief and the courage to go and win even after so many years and wins in the tour.

i had to google your term to understand what you mean by "prawn sandwich brigade". hahaha ..

Mr Roy Keane has to understand, a fan is a fan no matter in what color, shape they come, after a sport wouldn't be sport with out its fans.

As I have said before this match is not the most visually stimulating of big 4 rivalries because Novak and Murray both play a very similar style and their skills in defense and returning ends up resulting in matches with a lot of long points decided by errors. This certainly wasn't the best match I have seen but I found it to be very good in certain stretches especially in the second set. I take this over the dubai borefest anyday, of course it is a matter of taste.

Nore Staat wrote:

hawkeye wrote:... but using that criteria all matches could be considered equally entertaining. In fact it would be possible to analyse any tennis match that way from club level down... I think I'm a little more demanding as a viewer. I'm off now to get a prawn sandwich...

Following on to what I mentioned above, "wanting to be entertained" and being a "fan of tennis" are two separate issues, and it is wrong and disrespectful to say that anyone being "entertained" by that match is not a "fan of tennis".

People are "entertained" by watching television soap operas, watching reality television shows, watching football, playing video games etc, yet others might think their "entertainment" is boring.

Ok I think I get your meaning and I think I may have got mixed up argueing for someone else. I certainly wasn't trying to define what a true "fan of tennis" should be. If anyone enjoyed watching the Miami final of course they could still be a true fan of tennis. I think that being a fan should be self defined. If you say you are then of course you are. It's just that personally I found that final less than interesting.... Of course I am a true fan of tennis too.

My article was also meant as an invitation for those that enjoyed the Miami final to say why they did.