Olympic Tennis Event 2012: Mens Final Analysis

Congratulations to Murray on winning Gold at the Olympics. It is quite an achievement in terms of how long British Tennis has not had anything to celebrate since 1977. Murray was the better player this week by far and he was the better player on the day.

Most are viewing this win as being on a par with a slam. Sure this was tough as it was daily play for a week but are people now getting a little bit carried away here? I for one wanted Fed to win this just to tick the box on his CV. Would I have preferred he win the Gold and not Wimbledon? DEFINITELY NOT! I think you are remembered for the slams at the end of day.

Today Federer seemed flat. I cannot help but feel it was that marathon with JMDP that knocked the stuffing out of him just a bit. It was his fault really for not closing that semi sooner but I for one was expecting Murray to come through this one in straight sets. That Gold should be shared with JMDP as I cannot see Fed having put in such a poor performance otherwise. He was tight and nervous as this meant more to him I think than Murray.

Where does this leave Murray on the scale of 'greatness'? All over the media it seems as if he has been elevated to a level of a slam winner which I think is not accurate. If this was best of five throughout would he have won comfortably against Djoko? He did blow a 2 set to love lead at AO vs Djokovic this year. Also, what now for Federer? This is surely his last Olympic games and it seems he is not destined to win an Olympic gold in singles. I always maintained that in his prime he failed to achieve it and the chances of him doing it now were slim. I hoped I would be wrong but I guess I was not.

Good analysis and post. This has been the most open year among the top 4 looks like whoever out of the Murray, Nadal, Djoko, or Fed to win the USopen might be able to claim the player of the year honors if not the number 1. Although for murray he has a lot to do to get #1, finishing the year with olympic gold and his first slam at the USO would probably make him the player of the year even if he didn't finish #1. Roger is playing great and has to feel good about his summer winning wimbeldon and getting silver at the olympics, Novak is slumping, and Del PO is reinvigorated.

FedsFan

Other than the Beeb, can you show me who is comparing it to winning a Slam?

As myself and CC are the so called fanatical fan I can assure you it's not come from us two

Mind you Roger saw it as important as winning a Slam, making it his goal ages ago?

Is that who you mean?

Incidentally, Murray is a better player than he was at the Aus Open - as illustrated by a wrong footing forehand down the line, unheard of in January, that set the tone for this match with Roger wondering where on earth Andy had learnt to that

Muzza has got to go into the USO feeling better than he has for a long time. We'll see a bit more about them all at Cincinatti.

Let's hope that super saturday doesn't end up with the winner of the 2nd SF completely incapable of winning the final.

I think you've got to go back to Fed in 2007, and then Fed in 2005 for a win in the final by the 2nd SF.

Fed made a few chances for himself to come back but Murray wasn't having it. Fed was clearly a few levels below what he could normally produce otherwise the match could have gone to 4 or 5.

I have to reiterate what banbro said. I've not heard anyone apart from John Mac say it is on a par with a slam. It is pretty huge, but Murray knows as well as everyone that people look at slam titles before Olympic titles.

I'm more interested in the mental boost it will give him. In the semi and the final, Murray was much the better player in the big points. He was uninhibited and aggressive. We've rarely seen that before in the big matches. I think the days of him getting to semis and finals and freezing are gone. He now knows what he can do if he goes for it. It really is massive for him.

Oh, and he was 2-1 ahead against Djokovic in Melbourne, not 2-0.

FedsFan... Federer had a day of rest, like a slam. He was emotionally drained, fine. It should not detract from Murray's win in any way.

An athlete in top echelons is trained to overcome such things, but the humanity is always a part of the quest.

Think of Del Potro, he played the same match as Federer, was emotionally drained, but came out and beat Djokovic. Granted he is younger and probably recovers faster.

Federer himself said that he won the silver rather than lose the gold.

Exactly Banbro. In the run up to the Olympics I never once tried to make the Olympic Gold out to be as big as a slam. Personally, for me it depends on each individual how high they rate it. I am puzzled though as there were a number of Fed fans (pre-match) saying they wanted Federer to win as he'd never won one before. Errr why? I mean if the Olympics are so meaningless why want him to win it for that reason. I mean do we hear Man. United fans yearning for their team to win the Crown Paints Trophy? No. Why? Because it is so meaningless. This tells me the Olympics holds importance. People point to the fact that Rosset won an Olympic Gold so proves it means nothing. Nonsense. When Rosset won it then tennis hadn't really been fully recognised as an Olympic sport but since then it has gained a history and gained in importance. This year it grew that bit more as well due to the surroundings - Wimbledon. Plus it had Federer on a high striving to win the last major award to allude him, Djokovic looking to re-establish himself at the top and regain his No.1 spot and Andy Murray desperate to win on his home soil so those factors have made it more sought after for those reasons. Fed wept or at least had a tear in his eyes on reaching the Olympic Final as did Andy whilst Del Potro was very emotional at sealing a bronze medal so don't tell me each player didn't want this tournament win badly.

I'd want Federer to win the Bishops Wood Invitational.

Yes but nobody on this or any other tennis forums across the internet will ever convince me Roger didn't want this badly. Firstly, why compete if it means nothing. He could have left it to Stan to fly the Swiss flag after all. Two other greats of the game - Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal cherish their Olympic Golds and Roger wanted one as well make no mistake about that.

Anyways today is Andy's day and to coin phrases of old when Andy lost in straight sets in the past against the top players, Roger was handed a thrashing. Yes we know it isn't/wasn't a slam but it was a best of five set match and Andy won it, also it is a win that puts him back ahead in the head-to-heads and surely gives him a massive injection of self-belief for future matches against the GOAT and the rest of the top players. I never saw much of the tennis because of work but would concede Federer wasn't at his best but he WAS trying his best. On the other hand Andy was fully-focussed and in a rich vein of form. He just had a look that he wasn't going to be denied and all in all his form and mental mindset is highly encouraging for the bigger challenges that lie ahead such as the US Open and the slams thereafter. Hopefully, the fact that he is now Olympic Champion will take a big burden off his shoulders as well. Very happy and proud tonight.

Murray didn't blow a 2 set lead against Djokovic in the Oz Open semi - he lost the first set.

Both players seemed to really want this title. I mean both were in tears after their SF wins - can you imagine that happening in a Masters or even at the WTF? Of course, it isn't a slam but in terms of prestige I think it would now have to rank up with the WTF.

From Murray's perspective, he beat a top player comprehensively in a 5 set final. That has to be good for him for the grand slam challenges ahead. He maintained a level which anyone would have struggled to deal with. The way he closed it out was supreme.

For Federer, this was clearly a title he wanted badly. I felt his performance seemed inhibited by that - it reminded me a lot of the Roddick final in 2009. The match also wasn't that different to set 2 at Wimbledon. The difference this time was Murray got up a set and a break, hung on in a long game at the start of the second and then went away. I can't really buy into an argument that federer was significantly physically effected by a four hour match with a days rest.

Anyway, a good tournament and a decent result to close the top 4 back up again. Djokovic favourite for the US Open for me - I thought he looked like he will be very hard to beat on slightly slower courts in the SF. However, all the top 4 have realistic arguments why they should be favourite - subject to Nadal returning from injury.

Of course Federer wanted this badly, and for Federer fans to suggest otherwise is a case of sour grapes. It just didn't happen for him.

Is anyone able to point to this person who suggested Federer didn't really want to win this? There seems to be a queue of folk lining up to disagree with him, so I presume you know who you're talking to.

Either that, or it's an attempt to sound really sensible and balanced by making up an argument with someone who doesnt exist.

A link to such a post would be great.

1. Since when does Federer win only 7 games against Murray (or anyone) in a Bo5 grass final? Clearly Rogerr was somewhat flat from the long-haul with Delpo - he just cant recover the same "nowadays" (JMDP in losing ensured Fed wouldnt win either!)

2. Murray was in form of his life and looked mentally and physically strong at the same time.

It really doesnt take Einstein to work out why 1 + 2 = 6-2, 6-1, 6-4.

Yes Fed wanted Gold badly, he made no secret of that, and you could see how much getting a medal meant to him when he kissed his silver medal 3 times I think on the podium. He'll be disappointed to have not been more competitive in the final but as said he was flattish and Murray at peak. Also, he's had a hell of a run since last USO...you felt the wheels were going to come off somewhere down the track.

Hopefully for Murray this tells him he can do it on the biggest stages. It doesnt matter where OG sits in comparison to Masters and Slams. Murray in his mind can say I beat the 7-time Wimbledon champion on his turf over 5 sets. Why cant I do that now on HC or grass in future. Having got this monkey off his back I suspect he'll be different in future slams finals. The problem is he just needs to get there.

But with Novak looking more mentally vulnerable, Rafa being physically vulnerable and Federer simply being venerable Murray has he best chance ever! I also think being part of London 2012 will genuinely inspire him for a long time to come...and is for me one of the biggest factors in his better belief yesterday.

The big question I have now is what is Federer's motivation moving forwards? I think 7 Wimbs, #1 weeks and OG kept him going for ages. 2 out of 3 aint bad but what now? The next 2-3 months could be a signal of how much Federer wants to keep pushing himself to the highest level. Hopefully for the game he finds another goal in his mind...whether its 300 weeks, 6 USOs, 7 WTFs, etc...I think Fed is goal-oriented so he'll find new reasons to keep the saw sharp.

I'd agree with much of that lydian but wouldn't put so much on the physical effect. After all the closest Fed got to winning a set was in set three when if fatigue was playing a major part his body would have been shutting down and the scoreline would or should have been in reverse ie 6-4 6-2 6-1. I'd agree Fed wasn't at his best though hence it took him so long to beat Del Potro whereas earlier in the season these wins were coming to him more straight forward so that points to him not being at his best.. However, let that not detract from Andy Murray's win as he has been in the same position as Fed in big finals - where he hasn't been able to produce his best (for whatever reason). For Andy this win is massive and surely will give him that final missing piece of self-belief and confidence needed to push him on to the ultimate prize in tennis - a slam win. If not he can retire an Olympic Champion.

Another thing - massive kudos and credit to Andy for another thing. He has really embraced these Olympics getting into the spirit fully. Leaping around on winning Gold, giving every match his all and it really helps in making tennis a meaningful part of the Olympics. Of course the desire shown by all of the other players helped as well but Andy really seemed to appreciate the great accolade being an Olympic Champion is.

I don't so much agree with the physical edge going to Murray. Federer had a day to recover and also Murray was playing doubles. I think he even played 2 matches on the Saturday.

For me the FH was as flat as I have ever seen it since the FO. When he starts to net the FH and miss the lines, it becomes almost impossible for him to get into the match. He was moving well on the baseline, but he was slow getting up to the net and this allowed him to get passed on the FH and BH side.

It was actually great viewing to see Murray in a tournament set the tone in each of his matches as the aggressor. Similar to Wimbledon he played the big points so well. Hit much flatter than I have seen him before and his 2nd serve again held up.

Federer framed a few shots and missed some easy put away volleys. I felt for him as it is difficult to generate any momentum if everything is consipiring against you.

Everything that could've gone wrong for Federer did and everything that could've gone well for Murray did. Talk about see-saw.

Ah I get it now. Murray didn't win the Gold medal, Federer lost it due to being tired and not bothered about winning. So glad I came on here otherwise I'd have stupidly thought the far better player on the day deservedly won it!

I thought Murray played a solid match, other than that his first serve % was quite low. Probably about the same level as he played in the Wimbledon final. The difference was at Wimbledon he was playing the GOAT and yesterday he was against Swiss Shanky.

Now, how much of that you put down to different conditions (Federer played great once the roof had been closed in the Wimbledon final, but lost the first set and was on the rack in the second until a couple of magic shots) and how much from physical and mental fatigue following the Del Potro marathon is something only he can know.

Still, a great tournament from Andy, and it must help build his confidence to have beaten Djokovic in 2 straight and then Federer in a best of 5 match.

Well there was a difference. At Wimbledon, Andy had his foot firmly on Fed's throat for a set and three quarters but very slightly his levels dropped and Fed nipped in to steal away the advantage and used the momentum from that to great affect. Yesterday though, Murray had his foot on Fed's throat but never let up, remained mentally focussed and strong and never gave Fed a sniff hence the outcome. By far the best player won on the day but I do find it pathetic that some posters (not on this thread by the way) have not had the decency to offer their congratulations to Andy Murray. Sure you may be gutted your man never won but let that not stop you if you are sporting and generous enough. I was gutted after Wimbledon but offered warm congratulations to Roger so come on some of you Fed fans and some of you Murray-haters where are your balls?

How many agree with me that Murray should enter the mixed doubles in slams (with Laura) in future?

I see that having the mixed doubles as well on the schedule can provide benefits (skip the mens doubles go for the mixed doubles as a regular feature).

That's a good shout NS.

Not sure however how much time Murray would commit to it whilst he is still on the quest of that maiden slam victory. Also I think with Robson still in the beginning of her singles career might just want to immerse herself on the WTA.

Federer said he was fine physically, that the three weeks he had to prepare was fine. He said it was more that his game plan didn't pay off and he didn't make the correct decisions on court.

One thing I noticed about Murrays play was that he seemed to have so much time on the ball; pulling his arm back holding it and then hitting and directing the ball to some part of the opponent court. The only other time I remember him playing this way with so much control of the game was a few times at Queens.

I think the benefits in the mixed doubles is

a) it gives him something else to think about (takes his mind off the singles, perhaps relieving the pressure a little).
b) he is responsible for someone else in the tournament (laura), again helping to take his mind of the singles.
c) the mixed doubles gives him opportunities to be more free in attack, and to think more "versatilely".

I think Murrays biggest strength is the versatility in his play. Murrays biggest weakness is perhaps the mental side (he thinks too much on some points just passed and he can get overly nervous and tight - which can be seen on the serve).

ps: The benefit for Laura is enormous and gives her something to do in the second week of the tournament (after being knocked out in the first or second round etc ). Some might see that it is a bit humbling for Murray to compete in the less prestigious mixed doubles, but I think that would work to his benefit.

So where it says analysis in the title of this thread what it means is denegration of Murrays win

I think the mixed doubles helped Murray a lot. It kept him match sharp all the way through and it was almost like a practice session for him. I think he should definitely enter the mixed doubles in future, at least at Wimbledon. No offence to these mixed players but I can see why they're double specialists. Robson creaming 2 returns off of The Beast's serve was the highlight of the match for me.

Still waiting to be told who said Federer wasn't keen to win this. Come on guys, you keep telling us that this is wrong, so who said it?

Good analysis from Lydian.

Who said Murray was more talented that Djokovic? Are you Annabel Croft?

Croft: "The way Murray is playing will send shockwaves through the men's game. This should lift the mental barrier of beating one of the top players in a Grand Slam final - and that's a scary proposition for his rivals. When he's playing at his highest level, he is virtually unplayable. I wouldn't say he's got more talent than Federer, but he definitely seems more talented than Djokovic. He can do more with his hands. And as for Nadal, he's certainly lost ground having been off the tour for so long."

I am waiting for someone to tell me who said that winning Olympic Gold was on par with a Slam.

Seems a lot has been said which is way off the mark.

Federer did say he WON Silver much rather than lost.

bogbrush wrote:Still waiting to be told who said Federer wasn't keen to win this. Come on guys, you keep telling us that this is wrong, so who said it?

Good analysis from Lydian.

I don't think anyone came right out and said it. The point being that Roger wanted it badly proves that the Olympics are not just a Mickey Mouse tournament. Not on same level as a slam but being best of five and at Wimbledon it elevates the importance of the win to Andy Murray. It could mark a massive mental barrier cleared for him and set him up for THE daddy of them all in tennis prizes - a slam win.

VTR wrote:Ah I get it now...Federer lost it due to being tired and not bothered about winning.

Who's saying that? I said he was flat...that doesnt necessarily mean physical but emotional/mental - the DP match took alot out of him which is not unexpected. Yes the body can recover over 48 hrs but the mind can take longer. But I'd say Federer was very bothered about winning - he loves thhe Olympics and desperately wanted gold.

Yes Murray played a blinder and was a deserved winner, plus he did embrace the Olympic spirit - to his benefit too - but we cannot also negate that Federer was abit off-par. But thats the way it goes sometimes. I suspect a fully functioning would have lost anyway...but it would have been a little closer...perhaps. I say perhaps because Murray was on great form all week, only losing 1 set and not broken by Djokovic or Federer, 2 of the best returners in the game.

Well done Andy

Federer wanted Gold. He was clever prior to the tournament in alleviating the pressure on him by saying 'There wasn't much pressure on me due to me winning doubles gold in Beijing'

It was good of him to do that given what had transpired only a coupe of weeks before the Olympics.

There's a new addition to Dunblane...

How Long Before a Ned Graffitis It?:

I did say it wasn't Federer at his best but was he allowed to play at his best? That is the question. Murray played at a consistently high level throughout unlike the Wimbledon Final where his level dipped ever so slightly in the final two sets. That doesn't negate or belittle Fed's win though as when you step onto the court then it is a case of the best man wins and yesterday that was Andy Murray.

Federers comments

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/07/31/London-Olympics-Final-Federer-I-Won-Silver.aspx

Sounds like he got a bit lost in the Olympic thing, but as he says he got what he really needed from the grass. He's got to be very happy with that.

Does anyone have the Federer UE count yesterday as my comp at work is being crap!

bogbrush wrote:Federers comments

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/07/31/London-Olympics-Final-Federer-I-Won-Silver.aspx

he got what he really needed from the grass. He's got to be very happy with that.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Does anyone have the Federer UE count yesterday as my comp at work is being crap!

31

CaledonianCraig wrote:I did say it wasn't Federer at his best but was he allowed to play at his best? That is the question. Murray played at a consistently high level throughout unlike the Wimbledon Final where his level dipped ever so slightly in the final two sets. That doesn't negate or belittle Fed's win though as when you step onto the court then it is a case of the best man wins and yesterday that was Andy Murray.

Are you suggesting the match up at Wimbledon was on Murrays racquet? Seems to be the implication, yet the evidence for a reason for one player to be off-form is absent at Wimbedon but present at the Olympics.

Andy ran himself into the ground in those first two sets 4 weeks ago to pressure Federer and was flagging later on.

I'd have thought it fairly obvious that Federer was flatter yesterday, otherwise you're asking us to believe that Andys level is such that it can do what no other player since Antic donkeys years ago, and beat fully functioning Federer on grass in three straight sets. I rate Andy, but not quite that highly!

Thanks TSJ

So for those who don't follow tennis and feel Murray is been given a dis-service 31 UE's would nearly quantify for 8 games in a match. That is a set.

You can see why some Federer supporters feel that not only was it just Murray out-performing Federer, but a below par Federer performance which aided the result too.

I always think of the UE count as a bit false in a way. A lot of Federer's errors yesterday were "forced" unforced errors where he tried to hit winners as he wasn't getting past Murray's defences. There were some utter shockers from him though such as that overhead when he was at the net.

Here's the stats:

http://www.london2012.com/tennis/event/men-singles/match=tem001101/index.html

Anyway back to the match and it's sometimes good to have an overnight break to coldly look back

For me, whilst fitness came into it - I just think Roger became totally perplexed with the intensity of play, as has happened with some of other big defeats (Nadal, Nole, DP)

In fact it started off in classic Roger style - him dominating the opening 4 games, with Andy lucky (in some ways) not to be a break down. I was just praying at this time, that maybe Andy was stiff after the doubles matches

Then out of nowhere and admittedley following a couple of basic errors, Murray broke

And that's where the match was won and lost - I'd wager anything that Roger's plan was to throw 'the kitchen sink' and at least get ahead knowing that allowing Andy to win the first set nearly always ends up in him winning. In fairness to Fed, that's a great compliment to Murray that despite Fed turning it around 4 weeks ago - he knew he wouldn't get the same 'fortune' again

Hence, Fed, then from 4-2 down had the look of a person who had one game plan and was stunned when it didn't work. Add that wrong footing forehand down the line, that Andy smoked him (around the same time) and he suddenly must have felt very exposed

You see the fascinating them with Roger and something I've argued numerous times (only to be shouted down as though I'm knocking him) is that his god given talent - doesn't really allow for a 'Plan B'. Ironically four weeks earlier, was the first time I'd seen him change his tactics and we can only conclude that this was becasue Annacone probably told him to do so

So Roger's a flawed genius. Which for me is another reason why he's way ahead of the others in the GOAT stage. 17 Slams. Even though he's prone to such elementary errors of judgement he looks like a novice. What a player!!


Anyway, this all makes the US Open almost impossible to call. I don't believe Rafa can win it. Nor DP - simply because I question his fitness from the 4th round onwards, given the likely tougher matches

As for the 'other' three - it's a toss up, but I favour Nole, particularly if it's cool and Andy is daft enough to play Toronto and Cincy

We all know what Federer can do at his best - that is not open to debate. Do we know what Andy can do at his best? I am not so sure to be honest. Certainly in his slam final appearances (not counting Wimbledon) he never brought his best onto the court for whatever reason. Wimbledon he put in his best for a set and three quarters before he lost momentum and his levels dipped whilst Fed's went through the roof. Yesterday Fed wasn't at his best of that there is no doubt but Murray stayed focussed and never gave Fed an ounce of encouragement and sealed the win. So Federer wasn't at his best and Andy mentally hasn't looked stronger and was aggressive so you may say he was approaching his best. Just remember though that this was a straight sets thrashing so even Fed playing two or three notches higher would it have been enough? We will never know. All I know is it makes for an intriguing future for Andy.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Thanks TSJ

So for those who don't follow tennis and feel Murray is been given a dis-service 31 UE's would nearly quantify for 8 games in a match. That is a set.

You can see why some Federer supporters feel that not only was it just Murray out-performing Federer, but a below par Federer performance which aided the result too.

Yeah but I think we forget that UE's are also triggered by not knowing what to do against your opponent, i.e. Murray had 50 odd against Ferrer at the French and let's be honest got taught a lesson

I don't think people give enough credit to the opponent for offering them know hope

I can see that this will be spun as Murray only won, becasue he 'waited for Feds error'

Murray's forehand is evolving still.

Federer played terribly, he looked hung over. Actually he looked bad through most of wimbledon and was close to going out, it was only in the last 3 matches that the GOAT appeared. This final was a reversion to the mean, unfortunately.

banbrotam. Don't write off Rafa. He'll be fresher for the last part of the season than he usually is (as long as he's fully fit). It's said by some Nadal aint suited to the US, but he's reached the final there for the last two years.
As for the Olympic final, Fed was below par some of the time but also lost points and games when he was playing quite well. Murray at one point looked capable of winning from any position on the court and Fed could not find a way past him.

CaledonianCraig wrote:We all know what Federer can do at his best - that is not open to debate. Do we know what Andy can do at his best? I am not so sure to be honest. Certainly in his slam final appearances (not counting Wimbledon) he never brought his best onto the court for whatever reason. Wimbledon he put in his best for a set and three quarters before he lost momentum and his levels dipped whilst Fed's went through the roof. Yesterday Fed wasn't at his best of that there is no doubt but Murray stayed focussed and never gave Fed an ounce of encouragement and sealed the win. So Federer wasn't at his best and Andy mentally hasn't looked stronger and was aggressive so you may say he was approaching his best. Just remember though that this was a straight sets thrashing so even Fed playing two or three notches higher would it have been enough? We will never know. All I know is it makes for an intriguing future for Andy.

Yeah, we know. Federer at peak on grass wins. He just does.

I say good for Murray, he on fair and square. but the grass GOAT he isn't.

Of course Federer at his peak wins playing Murray with mental demons in his head. As for Murray being grass GOAT who said he was? However, he is certainly well placed for future Wimbledon challenges I'd say would you not?

Mind you Roger saw it as important as winning a Slam, making it his goal ages ago?

he only said that to please his swiss followers, duh!

i was impressed with murray yesterday, but its not like Federer was ready and raring to go.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course Federer at his peak wins playing Murray with mental demons in his head. As for Murray being grass GOAT who said he was? However, he is certainly well placed for future Wimbledon challenges I'd say would you not?

Nice try, but you didn't need the mental demons get-out.

For those aching, wishing to belittle Andy's win (directed at JM) can someone please find an excuse for why Murray beat Djokovic in straight sets as well?