Olympic Tennis Event 2012: Mens Final Analysis

First topic message reminder :

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.

bogbrush wrote:

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.

Oh right so all those posters who have frequently called Andy mentally weak are wrong then? Thanks for clearing that up.

banbrotam wrote:

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'

Not entirely Banbro. How many regualtion FH's did he net yesterday. Quite a few. 4 weeks ago when he hammered the Murray 2nd serve with the FH he had Murray on the backfoot for last 3 sets of that match. Yesterday the FH's sprayed long.

This isn't a case of Murray drawing out rallies in the hope of errors, far from it. Let's call this what this is. Murray attacked more yesterday than he did at Wimbledon. Federer once the break points went in the 2nd set just made a load of errors. In the first set he made about 8 UE's IIRC. Once Federer had to chase the game, he was likely to generate more errors.

The match was a different reflection of 28 days ago. Had Murray held serve in the 2nd set, he might have won a Slam. This match showed that once he could build on the momentum and keep the pressure on, he can see out such matches. The 2nd set Murray did go a bit passive. Take the first break in the 2nd and the 2 net chords Murray got to break him, he nearly handed it back. It shows Murray has dips in his focus and if Federer was on song, it might have been a different colour medal. If's and but's don't win matches though.

For most of the match Djokovic looked the more dominant, he was putting more pressure on Murray's serve than the other way around. Shoddy play opened up chances for the 2 breaks at the end of both sets and Murray did well to take them. Murray never looked the stronger player and it'd be foolish to think that somehow Murray has 'has Djoko's number'. However, Murray is finding new power on the forehand side, irregularly at the moment. Something is clicking into place, and it will have an effect on the balance in the meetings between the top players.

Watching the Djoko/Murray match it's clear how much more economical Djoko's strokes are, whether Murray can win a slam will depend on whether he can maintain this current form over more gruelling best of 5 matches. He's generating more easy power and it looks like his game is becoming more economical, but in the past once some tiredness sets in his level drops hugely, his first serve disappears etc.

We shall see.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

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.

Oh right so all those posters who have frequently called Andy mentally weak are wrong then? Thanks for clearing that up.

And you subscribe to that idea?

Grass GOAT is implied if you believe Murray beats top Fed on grass. Only Pete Sampras can make that argument.

Fantastic win for Murray - as everyone has said, not up there with a slam, but a tournament which all the players wanted badly and which threw up some very competitive matches. To have won on CC vs. Fed in a Bo5 final so soon after losing at Wimbledon must have done Murray the world of good.

Let's hope he can take positives from that to a slam, get in the final and do the business.

I wonder whether being the Olympics and playing Mixed Doubles helped surround the tournament with hoopla and distractions and joy which helped Murray's state of mind rather than the narrow and somewhat dry focus of slam singles over two weeks with lots of time in between matches to stew. Whether he should play mixed doubles again is open to doubt - it could throw some really duff scheduling his way, but if the general distraction has helped he (more likely his team) needs to find a way of re-creating that in future. He has often hinted at liking NY best because there's so much going on.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

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.

Oh right so all those posters who have frequently called Andy mentally weak are wrong then? Thanks for clearing that up.

And you subscribe to that idea?

He has a habit of getting down on himself a lot .mentally as strong as the other main contenders up until now I would say not. However, he still has time to change that and he is heading in the right direction.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

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.

Oh right so all those posters who have frequently called Andy mentally weak are wrong then? Thanks for clearing that up.

And you subscribe to that idea?

He has a habit of getting down on himself a lot .mentally as strong as the other main contenders up until now I would say not. However, he still has time to change that and he is heading in the right direction.

I hope your not saying in that post that each Murray defeat at Wimbledon essentially has come down to poor mentality?

I big to differ in a big way if that is the case. It hasn't been just the negative mindset that has resulted him in losing big matches, but lack of execution and poor tactics as well as the opponent playing much better and turning matches around with better execution.

Yes Murray defeated Federer in a 5 set match, but let's not kid ourselves that this was the best performance he has put in. A lot of Federer's poor play contributed to the result.

I am still not taken with Murray's whipped CCFH alas Nadal. It looks just totally out of sync and many a time he can not generate the height needed for it to be such an effective shot. It either lands short of the length or goes into the net. Whilst I am happy with the result and performances, I think that shot in particular needs looking at. On a HC big hitters will eat that up.

No I am not saying that legend. As I have said on many occasions on this and old 606 there are many areas Andy can and has had to improve his game. Those reasons lead me to believe we have not seen the best of Andy Murray yet.

Guys,

I did say that Murray was in top form the whole week and anyone would have had a task to beat him this week. He played freely without the pressure of Wimbledon and in a way the loss 4 weeks ago probably motivated him to do better this time around.

I did not think Murray served well. He offered up 2 bps in the first game and his 1st serve was only 51% but made up for it with his 2nd serve %. In the previous rounds he served quite a few aces and the way the first few games went to me it suggested he may be broken fairly soon. Fed made 31 UEs and some were shockers especially at the net. That I attribute to nerves and the pressure he put himself under due to Murray's play.

I just pointed out Federer seemed a step slow and the footwork was poor too. That I attribute to fatigue. After the Benneteau match he had 2 full days recovery. Boris Becker said that to recover from a 5 setter when you are 30 is not the same when you are 20 as it does take its toll on the body. I am not making this as an excuse but a factor to consider. He pulled out of Toronto as he admitted needing a rest and said he was drained. Fed is 31 on Wednesday. Murray turned 25 two months ago. 6 years makes a huge difference especially after a 4 and half hour marathon a day and a half before.

He did want it badly because I think Nadal won it and somehow it probably irks him he has not got a gold medal. He said after the Isner match he looked on it as a final. When has Fed ever said that about a QF win in anything? I think he got too carried away in the moment whereas Murray, maintained his composure.

Whether he is going to use this as a springboard to improve in the slams only time will tell. He has the USO in a few weeks and we shall see how he gets on. With Nadal's lack of match practice and Murray's form, I think should they meet he will win. Don't under estimate Djokovic. When the slams come around the top players find that extra motivation. Federer included.

Can I point out that Murray was playing doubles as well as mixed doubles. what would be a good measuring stick would be the amount of time on court both players had going into the final. Murray played in total 9 matches going into the final. I think Federer played 7 including the doubles too.

Fatigue aside, Federer made some very un-characteristic errors, especially at the net. As player when his 2 best plays are not working, he hasn't got something else he bring out to hurt a player like Murray. I thought Federer returned well in most parts of the match, Murray at least took the ball on more compared with 4 weeks earlier. I think once his head was down, it was only going one way.

Murray on the plus side was able to hurt Federer with his FH which is a first and also he was hitting much flatter and not offering up the short stuff which saw him shot down weeks ago. He attacked the Federer BH much more instead of going CC like he did in the final.

Pre final:

Federer time on court = 832 minutes

Murray time on court = 833 minutes

Good stuff there TSJ. Dispells the myth in regards to fatigue being a 'major' part in Federer's defeat.

Looking at fed's No. 1 ranking and Wimbledon win it's easy to forget how poorly he's often played recently. The fact that he found form at the most important moments during Wimbledon might lead one to think that he simply 'turned it on' when he needed to. I think it's clear that fortune was a big factor there, his bad days are bad indeed, as they have been for many years now.

I might be tempted to pick Nadal as the likely winner for the next couple of slams since that'd be a reversion to the mean of the last few years.

Interesting stats Special One

Its a funny discussion this...its one of those discussions that gets more polarised the longer it goes on so that Murray's performance gets better and better and Fed's worse and worse. In truth Murray played very well but Federer was some way below his best. He just was...he as spraying shots all over the place and didnt seem to have the ability to get pumped up like normal. I think the past 3-4 mths finally caught up with him yesterday, the DP match being the straw that broke the camel's back. Ok Murray had a very good match yesterday but he wasnt on a different planet tennis-wise to everyone else. Despite the win his FH still looked ropey and his first serve went AWOL for large sections of the match. Federer just didnt look secure in the ralleys...and its not like Murray played any better than Djokovic or Nadal have done against Federer despite all their close battles.

I think Murray has plenty of talent, talent he's starting to realise more fully. This match is a watershed for Murray no doubt for his confidence (London 2012 helping him no end), but I wouldnt read too much more into it vs the top guys...they'll be back come USO'12...and of course once you win big you become the hunted too.

lydian wrote:Interesting stats Special One

Its a funny discussion this...its one of those discussions that gets more polarised the longer it goes on so that Murray's performance gets better and better and Fed's worse and worse. In truth Murray played very well but Federer was some way below his best. He just was...he as spraying shots all over the place and didnt seem to have the ability to get pumped up like normal. I think the past 3-4 mths finally caught up with him yesterday, the DP match being the straw that broke the camel's back. Ok Murray had a very good match yesterday but he wasnt on a different planet tennis-wise to everyone else. Despite the win his FH still looked ropey and his first serve went AWOL for large sections of the match. Federer just didnt look secure in the ralleys...and its not like Murray played any better than Djokovic or Nadal have done against Federer despite all their close battles.

I think Murray has plenty of talent, talent he's starting to realise more fully. This match is a watershed for Murray no doubt for his confidence (London 2012 helping him no end), but I wouldnt read too much more into it vs the top guys...they'll be back come USO'12...and of course once you win big you become the hunted too.

Agree with a lot of that - Murray played well (I'd give him 8/10, a mark lost for the poor first serve), while Federer this time didn't (probably 4/10 by his standards). Pity for Andy that it wasn't this Federer that showed up for the Wimbledon final.

I wonder if the highly partisan crowd actually got to Federer a bit - he's not used to that sort of reception on centre court. It was certainly more vocal and poorly controlled than a typical Wimbledon crowd. He was also getting tetchy with the officials, which seems to only happen when he's playing poorly. So it all became a bit of a vicious circle -his game not being in its best shape, perhaps a bit fatigued, the crowd being strongly for Murray (who I think responded brilliantly to them) and Fed feeling the world was against him (Andy's two net cord winners to break early in the 2nd probably did little for his mood as well).

I don't think Federer was struggling much physically, but I think he was a bit out of it mentally after the long SF and the longer run of success he's had.

droogle wrote:For most of the match Djokovic looked the more dominant, he was putting more pressure on Murray's serve than the other way around. Shoddy play opened up chances for the 2 breaks at the end of both sets and Murray did well to take them. Murray never looked the stronger player and it'd be foolish to think that somehow Murray has 'has Djoko's number'. However, Murray is finding new power on the forehand side, irregularly at the moment. Something is clicking into place, and it will have an effect on the balance in the meetings between the top players.

Watching the Djoko/Murray match it's clear how much more economical Djoko's strokes are, whether Murray can win a slam will depend on whether he can maintain this current form over more gruelling best of 5 matches. He's generating more easy power and it looks like his game is becoming more economical, but in the past once some tiredness sets in his level drops hugely, his first serve disappears etc.

We shall see.

Yes I think between Murray and Djoko in their rivalry really neither side can come and claim that they have the number of the other player. Even last year when Djoko was doing really well and winning most of the matches against his rivals he never looked to be comfortable or to dominate his exchanges with Andy. Droogle has hit on a point that I agree with, Djokovic does have a much more natural and smooth forehand, murray's forehand has progressed and when it is on he can hit with the best of them. Also Novak does take the ball earlier and I think has a smoother ability to change direction on the ball. Technically, in these crucial areas I would rate Novak slightly ahead of Andy. He just played the big points very poorly this summer it wasn't like anyone dominated he lost a lot close sets to his best rivals on less than his favored surfaces.

lydian wrote:Interesting stats Special One

Its a funny discussion this...its one of those discussions that gets more polarised the longer it goes on so that Murray's performance gets better and better and Fed's worse and worse. In truth Murray played very well but Federer was some way below his best. He just was...he as spraying shots all over the place and didnt seem to have the ability to get pumped up like normal. I think the past 3-4 mths finally caught up with him yesterday, the DP match being the straw that broke the camel's back. Ok Murray had a very good match yesterday but he wasnt on a different planet tennis-wise to everyone else. Despite the win his FH still looked ropey and his first serve went AWOL for large sections of the match. Federer just didnt look secure in the ralleys...and its not like Murray played any better than Djokovic or Nadal have done against Federer despite all their close battles.

I think Murray has plenty of talent, talent he's starting to realise more fully. This match is a watershed for Murray no doubt for his confidence (London 2012 helping him no end), but I wouldnt read too much more into it vs the top guys...they'll be back come USO'12...and of course once you win big you become the hunted too.

Very good post lydian. How did you read the way fed played on the grass the last two rounds? He didn't look like a 30 year old at wimbeldon but he did look like a thirty year old the last couple of rounds of this tournament. To me he is starting wear down and look a bit jaded, he has played the most tennis in the last 12 months out of all of the top guys and he is the oldest. He does have the advantage however of having the most economical game of all the top guys.

He to me didn't look like he wanted to fight, like he knew he couldn't last. So went for winners in positions that were low percentage, but being as great as he is he can risk it but it didn't pay off. Murray also smelt blood in my opinion, winning the first set 6-2, that was the writing on the wall. When was the last time Fed lost a set that badly to someone other than Nadal or Djokovic in best of 5? Im thinking Berdych over 2 years ago? Then it got even worse after that

socal1976 wrote:

droogle wrote:For most of the match Djokovic looked the more dominant, he was putting more pressure on Murray's serve than the other way around. Shoddy play opened up chances for the 2 breaks at the end of both sets and Murray did well to take them. Murray never looked the stronger player and it'd be foolish to think that somehow Murray has 'has Djoko's number'. However, Murray is finding new power on the forehand side, irregularly at the moment. Something is clicking into place, and it will have an effect on the balance in the meetings between the top players.

Watching the Djoko/Murray match it's clear how much more economical Djoko's strokes are, whether Murray can win a slam will depend on whether he can maintain this current form over more gruelling best of 5 matches. He's generating more easy power and it looks like his game is becoming more economical, but in the past once some tiredness sets in his level drops hugely, his first serve disappears etc.

We shall see.

Yes I think between Murray and Djoko in their rivalry really neither side can come and claim that they have the number of the other player. Even last year when Djoko was doing really well and winning most of the matches against his rivals he never looked to be comfortable or to dominate his exchanges with Andy. Droogle has hit on a point that I agree with, Djokovic does have a much more natural and smooth forehand, murray's forehand has progressed and when it is on he can hit with the best of them. Also Novak does take the ball earlier and I think has a smoother ability to change direction on the ball. Technically, in these crucial areas I would rate Novak slightly ahead of Andy. He just played the big points very poorly this summer it wasn't like anyone dominated he lost a lot close sets to his best rivals on less than his favored surfaces.

Both of these posts are spot on.

Even though Murray beat Djokovic, I certainly didn't feel at any point that he was certain to win. In fact Novak looked to me to be the more comfortable player in the rallies. But he became frustrated, as he's been wont to do these last few months, and in the end I think that cost him. At a slam match, Novak is still favourite. No doubt. As for Murray being more talented than Novak, which a few people have now suggested, I mean really? I though last year would have ended this silly talk. Novak - smoother, more economical, technically better strokes (serve, FH) and better mover (except on grass).

emancipator wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

droogle wrote:For most of the match Djokovic looked the more dominant, he was putting more pressure on Murray's serve than the other way around. Shoddy play opened up chances for the 2 breaks at the end of both sets and Murray did well to take them. Murray never looked the stronger player and it'd be foolish to think that somehow Murray has 'has Djoko's number'. However, Murray is finding new power on the forehand side, irregularly at the moment. Something is clicking into place, and it will have an effect on the balance in the meetings between the top players.

Watching the Djoko/Murray match it's clear how much more economical Djoko's strokes are, whether Murray can win a slam will depend on whether he can maintain this current form over more gruelling best of 5 matches. He's generating more easy power and it looks like his game is becoming more economical, but in the past once some tiredness sets in his level drops hugely, his first serve disappears etc.

We shall see.

Yes I think between Murray and Djoko in their rivalry really neither side can come and claim that they have the number of the other player. Even last year when Djoko was doing really well and winning most of the matches against his rivals he never looked to be comfortable or to dominate his exchanges with Andy. Droogle has hit on a point that I agree with, Djokovic does have a much more natural and smooth forehand, murray's forehand has progressed and when it is on he can hit with the best of them. Also Novak does take the ball earlier and I think has a smoother ability to change direction on the ball. Technically, in these crucial areas I would rate Novak slightly ahead of Andy. He just played the big points very poorly this summer it wasn't like anyone dominated he lost a lot close sets to his best rivals on less than his favored surfaces.

Both of these posts are spot on.

Even though Murray beat Djokovic, I certainly didn't feel at any point that he was certain to win. In fact Novak looked to me to be the more comfortable player in the rallies. But he became frustrated, as he's been wont to do these last few months, and in the end I think that cost him. At a slam match, Novak is still favourite. No doubt. As for Murray being more talented than Novak, which a few people have now suggested, I mean really? I though last year would have ended this silly talk. Novak - smoother, more economical, technically better strokes (serve, FH) and better mover (except on grass).

I think most miss the point.

Djokovic did to Nadal what Nadal did to Federer. That was blunt the others game. Nothing spectacular. If you are talking talent, for me Murray is much more talented. If you broke down the weapons aside from the FH and serve, I can't see in any other area that Djokovic is better than Murray. Murray has much more variation to his game than Djokovic. Where Murray falls short is that for all his talent, it is undone because the serve does not back up the rest of the talent. Djokovic has very solid and under-rated serve.

Take 2011. Djokovic's BH was so solid it was just painting the lines. His serve and FH backed up his strongest shot. Nadal tried to take on his BH and lost many times.

We talk economical and Djokovic has been anything but that. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs the crap wiped from their eyes. You just have to watch the clay season where Djokovic was engaged in un-necessary rallies. Seppi and Tsonga at the FO could've easily taken him out had they been more clinical. Take Wimbledon and against Stepanek in that first set. Gifted Stepanek a set he was holding serve so comfortably.

Djokovic is showing the lack of focus which cost him matches in the past. He tends to go walkabout and seems to allow his opponents back into matches. Something he was not doing in 2011.

This 'new' Murray has a much better mindset on court and emotionally in self control. Also he is backing up his play with the FH and more recently the second serve. Now I am a swallow doesn't make a summer kind of guy, but this belief that is now backing his play up is yielding some good results. Without a doubt he goes into the American Swing as the player everyone wants to avoid.

The Special Juan wrote:Pre final:

Federer time on court = 832 minutes

Murray time on court = 833 minutes

Unless I have miscalculated, the timings should be-
Federer - Singles 597 mins, MD 235 mins, Total up to the Semis: 832 mins.

Murray - Singles 447 mins, MD 143 mins, XD 194 mins. Total up to Semis 784 mins.

Murray lost the MD on Saturday and played singles on Sunday. 48 minutes should not be a huge deal but what is key here is the singles time. The semi final played for 4 hrs 26 minutes in the mid day heat would have had its effect on Federer. He is 6 years older and in tennis terms that is a lot. This should not be a whole excuse. I think it was tiredness, immense pressure by Murray's game and Federer's own nerves.

No one is taking away from Murray's success here. He was playing well and the fact that Federer put in a relatively poor performance ensured no comeback was possible. As I said, let's see if this is what launches Murray's slam success.

Anyone claiming Murray is the more talented is erasing almost all athletic prowess from their definition of talent as Murray moves like a wooden puppet.
Blunting Nadal's game required a level of consistency unseen / unreached previously by any player and that consistency was based in a superb technical execution of shots, economical enough to stay sharp for 5 marathon sets.

droogle wrote:Anyone claiming Murray is the more talented is erasing almost all athletic prowess from their definition of talent as Murray moves like a wooden puppet.
Blunting Nadal's game required a level of consistency unseen / unreached previously by any player and that consistency was based in a superb technical execution of shots, economical enough to stay sharp for 5 marathon sets.

And that is why I admire Djokovic. How he did it on hard, grass and clay was amazing last year.

droogle wrote:Anyone claiming Murray is the more talented is erasing almost all athletic prowess from their definition of talent as Murray moves like a wooden puppet.
Blunting Nadal's game required a level of consistency unseen / unreached previously by any player and that consistency was based in a superb technical execution of shots, economical enough to stay sharp for 5 marathon sets.

What a load of lovesacks that is. Murray is one of cleanest movers in the game. Behind Federer.

The 2011 Djokovic is no more. Living in the past is dangerous thing to do. Could Djokovic live with Nadal in 2010? Nope. Could the Djokovic of 2011 live with the 2010 Nadal? Not a chance.

If Djokovic is to have any chance of future success in the Slams, then he needs to re-focus himself and stop going walkabout in matches. Giving sets away is not going to help him at the back end of tournaments. French Open he spent far too much energy in previous rounds and at Wimbledon went passive for far too long in the Federer match. Against Murray he had no answer to length he played. Murray once hitting flat put Djokovic's retrieving skills to pot.

FedsFan wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Pre final:

Federer time on court = 832 minutes

Murray time on court = 833 minutes

Unless I have miscalculated, the timings should be-
Federer - Singles 597 mins, MD 235 mins, Total up to the Semis: 832 mins.

Murray - Singles 447 mins, MD 143 mins, XD 194 mins. Total up to Semis 784 mins.

Murray lost the MD on Saturday and played singles on Sunday. 48 minutes should not be a huge deal but what is key here is the singles time. The semi final played for 4 hrs 26 minutes in the mid day heat would have had its effect on Federer. He is 6 years older and in tennis terms that is a lot. This should not be a whole excuse. I think it was tiredness, immense pressure by Murray's game and Federer's own nerves.

No one is taking away from Murray's success here. He was playing well and the fact that Federer put in a relatively poor performance ensured no comeback was possible. As I said, let's see if this is what launches Murray's slam success.

What Olympics were you watching??? He played 2 matches on Saturday.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
The 2011 Djokovic is no more. Living in the past is dangerous thing to do. Could Djokovic live with Nadal in 2010? Nope. Could the Djokovic of 2011 live with the 2010 Nadal? Not a chance.

Could the Andy Murray of 2012 live with the Djokovic of 2011 who couldn't live with the Nadal of 2010? Not a chance.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

FedsFan wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Pre final:

Federer time on court = 832 minutes

Murray time on court = 833 minutes

Unless I have miscalculated, the timings should be-
Federer - Singles 597 mins, MD 235 mins, Total up to the Semis: 832 mins.

Murray - Singles 447 mins, MD 143 mins, XD 194 mins. Total up to Semis 784 mins.

Murray lost the MD on Saturday and played singles on Sunday. 48 minutes should not be a huge deal but what is key here is the singles time. The semi final played for 4 hrs 26 minutes in the mid day heat would have had its effect on Federer. He is 6 years older and in tennis terms that is a lot. This should not be a whole excuse. I think it was tiredness, immense pressure by Murray's game and Federer's own nerves.

No one is taking away from Murray's success here. He was playing well and the fact that Federer put in a relatively poor performance ensured no comeback was possible. As I said, let's see if this is what launches Murray's slam success.

What Olympics were you watching??? He played 2 matches on Saturday.

I meant he played MD on the first Saturday and lost and on the 1st Sunday he had his first match. I believe was watching the same Olympics everyone else is/was watching.

FedsFan wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Pre final:

Federer time on court = 832 minutes

Murray time on court = 833 minutes

Unless I have miscalculated, the timings should be-
Federer - Singles 597 mins, MD 235 mins, Total up to the Semis: 832 mins.

Murray - Singles 447 mins, MD 143 mins, XD 194 mins. Total up to Semis 784 mins.

Murray lost the MD on Saturday and played singles on Sunday. 48 minutes should not be a huge deal but what is key here is the singles time. The semi final played for 4 hrs 26 minutes in the mid day heat would have had its effect on Federer. He is 6 years older and in tennis terms that is a lot. This should not be a whole excuse. I think it was tiredness, immense pressure by Murray's game and Federer's own nerves.

No one is taking away from Murray's success here. He was playing well and the fact that Federer put in a relatively poor performance ensured no comeback was possible. As I said, let's see if this is what launches Murray's slam success.

Where did you get your timings?

[quote="emancipator"][quote="socal1976"]

droogle wrote:Novak - smoother, more economical, technically better strokes (serve, FH) and better mover.

And backhands, netplay, shots on the run, drop shot and natural instinctive play isn't included in this debater

Nole is a more powerful player, not certain that makes him a smoother player

Personally, I think Andy has slightly more to his game - but Novak has the greater power.

One things for certain, they're set to be dominant and in the shake up for the next few years

legendkillarV2 wrote:

droogle wrote:Anyone claiming Murray is the more talented is erasing almost all athletic prowess from their definition of talent as Murray moves like a wooden puppet.
Blunting Nadal's game required a level of consistency unseen / unreached previously by any player and that consistency was based in a superb technical execution of shots, economical enough to stay sharp for 5 marathon sets.

What a load of lovesacks that is. Murray is one of cleanest movers in the game. Behind Federer.

The 2011 Djokovic is no more. Living in the past is dangerous thing to do. Could Djokovic live with Nadal in 2010? Nope. Could the Djokovic of 2011 live with the 2010 Nadal? Not a chance.

If Djokovic is to have any chance of future success in the Slams, then he needs to re-focus himself and stop going walkabout in matches. Giving sets away is not going to help him at the back end of tournaments. French Open he spent far too much energy in previous rounds and at Wimbledon went passive for far too long in the Federer match. Against Murray he had no answer to length he played. Murray once hitting flat put Djokovic's retrieving skills to pot.

I think LK you go a bridge too far to claim that if "djokovic is to have any chance of future success at slams" talk. I mean it is pretty funny to count the guy out. No he hasn't hit 2011 form it doesn't mean he doesn't have ability to go on more slam and dominate runs and that there is anything drastically wrong with his game. Talent wise I don't know if I would rate murray as more or less talented, what I do know is the Djokovic has consistently been the more successful player over the course of the first 7 or 8 years of their pro career, to me one three set defeat by murray after losing the other two matchups against Djoko this year while Murray is playing on his homecourt is drawing a bit much. This Murray performance while very good and which will only help his performance doesn't change the tennis landscape all that much till murray follows it up with a slam win.

I think there's a danger of Novak being written off way too easily here. He's hardly in free fall. It's only 2 slams since he last won one.

Plus that match at Wimbledon was in the balance for 3 sets before Fed found another gear. Similarly at the Olympics he played really well against Murray and only lost because Andy played the bigger points better.

He's a bit of confidence away from being the same player he was at the start of the year. He's going to be challenging for and winning slams for a long time.

Novak Djokovic certainly isn't finished. However, he does have to rediscover that aura of invincibility of 2011. That came with consistent results in key matches which just haven't been there this year. This is not to say that he cannot go on to win 10+ slams but he is now back where he was mentally in 2010 and he needs to change that. As for Andy Murray (if we had a graph) I'd say Murray's career direction shows clear signs of being on the up with us seeing clear improvements in his mental strength which is a big plus and is now playing more consistently aggressive tennis. Whether that will propel him on to bigger and better things such as a slam win only time will tell but it looks more likely now than it did pre-Wimbledon without a doubt.

The one thing I'll say about Djokovic in the match v Murray was that he was suffering from Murrayitis, a terrible condition that makes the sufferer rant on court to themselves for no apparent. Even Federer had a minor case on Sunday. Novak's not finished at all and anyone who thinks so is loopy, but I think Murray knows how to play him. Like Ferrer, Murray (and anyone) has to go out and hit him off the court otherwise he will not win. Whether he can do so or not over a BO5 match remains to be seen.

It looks more likely this whole year Craig. In Australia, at Wimbledon and at the Olympics Murray played well enough against the big boys to give himself a chance of winning. He's never consistently done that before.

It's a massive step forward, and a lot of the credit has to go to Lendl. Most aspects of his game has gone up a notch.

Well if we look at the key matches in the key tournaments he is evidently competing far better against the very best players. He had a cracking end to last year stringing together a nice little unbeaten run winning three back-to-back tournaments and then Lendl came onboard.

The first crunch match came in the Australian Open semi-final V Djokovic. He competed so much better and it really could have gone either way it was that close but Djokovic came through. We then had the Wimbledon Final V Federer and for a set and three quarters he was the better player and was looking good but then it all slipped away but Murray's dip wasn't as pronounced in slam finals that we have seen in the past. Finally, the Olympics and Andy had deserved back-to-back wins against Djokovic and Federer and mentally he looked totally focussed and he had that air of a man who wasn't going to be denied.

Now if we look ahead to the final slam of the year then it really is interesting. Roger Federer is back winning slams so will have renewed lofty ambitions, Novak is perhaps going through a crisis in confidence but if he can rediscover last year's mindset and standards he will be a strong contender whilst Rafael Nadal will be back by then and challenging but on the back of a lay-off through injury and the memory of that shock defeat at Wimbledon he will not be super high on confidence. Andy will be feeling good right now and feel that he is heading in the right direction and if he can continue his rich vein of form and improved mental strength then he should be fancying his chances.

The Special Juan wrote:Pre final:

Federer time on court = 832 minutes

Murray time on court = 833 minutes

Not to quibble, but one man's thirty-first birthday is in two days and the other is twenty-five years old. As a thirty-something, I can tell you that the human body does not recover as quickly from physical exertion as before. Fair play to Murray, he did well, but Roger has many more miles on his body and his form has not been as consistent.

Having said all this, I think that Murray would still have beaten a peak Federer yesterday. The match would have been more competitive though. Simply put, Murray showed the killer instinct that was lacking in his first four slam final appearances and I believe that he is well and truly ready to win a slam. If he advances to the US Open 2012 Final, he stands a chance of winning his maiden slam.

kemet wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Pre final:

Federer time on court = 832 minutes

Murray time on court = 833 minutes

Not to quibble, but one man's thirty-first birthday is in two days and the other is twenty-five years old. As a thirty-something, I can tell you that the human body does not recover as quickly from physical exertion as before. Fair play to Murray, he did well, but Roger has many more miles on his body and his form has not been as consistent.

Having said all this, I think that Murray would still have beaten a peak Federer yesterday. The match would have been more competitive though. Simply put, Murray showed the killer instinct that was lacking in his first four slam final appearances and I believe that he is well and truly ready to win a slam. If he advances to the US Open 2012 Final, he stands a chance of winning his maiden slam.

I can't disagree with much of that kemet.

kemet wrote:Having said all this, I think that Murray would still have beaten a peak Federer yesterday.

Interesting - you think Murray played better on grass yesterday than Federer has ever played? Controversial

Erm, what was the unforced error count?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kemet wrote:Having said all this, I think that Murray would still have beaten a peak Federer yesterday.

Interesting - you think Murray played better on grass yesterday than Federer has ever played? Controversial

That was the part I may not have agreed with as there really is no way of knowing just how well Murray played and how poorly Federer played yesterday.

droogle wrote:Erm, what was the unforced error count?

Federer 31 - Murray 17

Can't say I have known Federer to serve a double fault on break point...

True CC. Yesterday was all about the joy of winning that Gold. I'm not that into the post-match analysis - too much other Olympic stuff going on!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kemet wrote:Having said all this, I think that Murray would still have beaten a peak Federer yesterday.

Interesting - you think Murray played better on grass yesterday than Federer has ever played? Controversial

Perhaps it is a stretch to make such a claim, but let me put it this way. Roger would have had to play flawless tennis to deny Andy yesterday and he would have had to be in 2006 Wimbledon form, where he beat Rafa Nadal 6-0 in the first set of that final. I just do not underestimate how much Andy's game has improved over the last few years and Lendl has been a godsend for him as far as 'm concerned. Ivan does not suffer fools gladly and I think this has brought a bit of stability to Andy in terms of his training patterns. His serve has improved by leaps and bounds and he is even playing the second serve points very well now.

The Wimbledon final offered a glimpse of how formidable Roger was at his peak and it still very close. Andy still played very well in that final despite capitulating in four sets. 2006 Roger versus Murray yesterday would have probably gone four or five sets, but I still think that Andy would have prevailed, because he is beginning to believe and is not as prone to the histrionics and emotional outbursts as he has been previously.

That's over 25 games, averaging at more than one per game for Roger.

droogle wrote:That's over 25 games, averaging at more than one per game for Roger.

I never saw the match as was working so could only go by highlights. How many of those 'unforced errors' were forced as he was left to return a very tough shot?

You'd have to watch it and decide for yourself. I think it was somewhere in the middle, Fed playing very badly and Murray making it very hard for him to find any form.
However, anyone getting too exited by the result might do well to pay attention to these stats.

It is not a case of people getting too excited as it meant Andy Murray became Olympic Champion which is more than enough to get excited about. Even ig people choose to take the stats on board there are still a few things to take into account.

1. It was the first time Andy had beaten Roger in a best of five sets match and that alone must give Andy a big boost for the matches that lie ahead.

2. It was a tournament that saw him beat Djokovic and Federer in back-to-back games.

3. Rumour has it this was Roger's heaviest defeat at Wimbledon. That is either a worry for Federer or a big piece of kudos to Andy.

End of the day lets just wait and see what the coming months and years bring. This may indeed prove to be a false dawn for Murray but at least he'll retire an Olympic Champion.

kemet wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kemet wrote:Having said all this, I think that Murray would still have beaten a peak Federer yesterday.

Interesting - you think Murray played better on grass yesterday than Federer has ever played? Controversial

Perhaps it is a stretch to make such a claim, but let me put it this way. Roger would have had to play flawless tennis to deny Andy yesterday and he would have had to be in 2006 Wimbledon form, where he beat Rafa Nadal 6-0 in the first set of that final. I just do not underestimate how much Andy's game has improved over the last few years and Lendl has been a godsend for him as far as 'm concerned. Ivan does not suffer fools gladly and I think this has brought a bit of stability to Andy in terms of his training patterns. His serve has improved by leaps and bounds and he is even playing the second serve points very well now.

The Wimbledon final offered a glimpse of how formidable Roger was at his peak and it still very close. Andy still played very well in that final despite capitulating in four sets. 2006 Roger versus Murray yesterday would have probably gone four or five sets, but I still think that Andy would have prevailed, because he is beginning to believe and is not as prone to the histrionics and emotional outbursts as he has been previously.

Start Rant.

This has to be the most ridiculous piece of nonsense I've ever read. Talk about hyperbole and bandwagonning, and surprisingly, from a normally level-headed poster. It's pretty embarrassing.

Murray played well yesterday. That's it.

You make it sound like he put in the greatest performance ever seen on a grass court. 51% 1st serves, a small number of winners and he beat a 31 yr old opponent who, for whatever reason, was clearly playing below his best, far below it. Does that constitute some all time great performance? It's not like Murray blew him off the court. Fed made error after error. The result was a combination of good play from Murray and poor play from Roger. It's not like Murray put in a performance of incredible virtuosity with magical shotmaking. In fact I think their winners count were pretty much equal. Besides, have you stopped to consider that the same player lost to Federer just four weeks ago. Has Murray suddenly become a much better player in the space of four weeks. Of course not, so obviously there were other elements at play here.

Compare this with peak Federer, the guy who is THE most successful player on grass ever; arguably the greatest grass court player ever. You really think the Murray of yesterday would likely prevail over peak Federer, you know the guy who would regularly romp through the draw losing one or two sets the whole tournament? So Federer has never put in a performance as 'brilliant', 'majestic', with unmatched 'shotmaking' (the inverted commas are my own) as Murray yesterday? You'd give the edge to Murray in a peak vs peak match against Federer on W centre court, where Federer has regularly dismantled quality opponents and actually put in better performances than Murray's performance yesterday, for streches lasting a whole tournament - not two hours.

Man, this is the patent nonsense I was arguing against yesterday, when someone quipped that Federer fans were showing sour grapes because they were insisting that Federer didn't really care about this tournament - despite NO Fed fan actually making this statement - yet today it seems to have reached a new level.

I guess we should just declare this 'peak' Murray, that lasted for all of two hours, as the greatest player ever seen on a grass court. Let's now stick him above Borg, Federer, Mac, and Sampras.

Rant over



emancipator

kemet wrote:Perhaps it is a stretch to make such a claim, but let me put it this way. Roger would have had to play flawless tennis to deny Andy yesterday and he would have had to be in 2006 Wimbledon form, where he beat Rafa Nadal 6-0 in the first set of that final.

This is a self-contradictory statement, is it not?

kemet wrote:I just do not underestimate how much Andy's game has improved over the last few years and Lendl has been a godsend for him as far as 'm concerned. Ivan does not suffer fools gladly and I think this has brought a bit of stability to Andy in terms of his training patterns. His serve has improved by leaps and bounds and he is even playing the second serve points very well now.

Lendl has done a marvellous job so far with Murray.

kemet wrote:The Wimbledon final offered a glimpse of how formidable Roger was at his peak and it still very close. Andy still played very well in that final despite capitulating in four sets. 2006 Roger versus Murray yesterday would have probably gone four or five sets, but I still think that Andy would have prevailed, because he is beginning to believe and is not as prone to the histrionics and emotional outbursts as he has been previously.

There was a world of difference between Federer of the W final and Federer of Olympic final.

Regarding the highlighted part, as an opinion, it is perfectly fine, but general consensus may not be as forthcoming.

Murray is progressing, which is wonderful. USO 2012 is not very far. Let us see what happens. Cautious optimism rather than irrational exuberance is what I would gently recommend.

emancipator wrote:This has to be the most ridiculous piece of nonsense I've ever read. Talk about hyperbole and bandwagonning, and surprisingly, from a normally level-headed poster. It's pretty embarrassing.

All GOAT/GOTEs eventually lose, I have 50+ years of evidence to support it, starting with Pancho and currently at Federer, in a long line of mighty Kings of Tennis. An opinion does not change Federer's legacy an iota.

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

droogle wrote:Anyone claiming Murray is the more talented is erasing almost all athletic prowess from their definition of talent as Murray moves like a wooden puppet.
Blunting Nadal's game required a level of consistency unseen / unreached previously by any player and that consistency was based in a superb technical execution of shots, economical enough to stay sharp for 5 marathon sets.

What a load of lovesacks that is. Murray is one of cleanest movers in the game. Behind Federer.

The 2011 Djokovic is no more. Living in the past is dangerous thing to do. Could Djokovic live with Nadal in 2010? Nope. Could the Djokovic of 2011 live with the 2010 Nadal? Not a chance.

If Djokovic is to have any chance of future success in the Slams, then he needs to re-focus himself and stop going walkabout in matches. Giving sets away is not going to help him at the back end of tournaments. French Open he spent far too much energy in previous rounds and at Wimbledon went passive for far too long in the Federer match. Against Murray he had no answer to length he played. Murray once hitting flat put Djokovic's retrieving skills to pot.

I think LK you go a bridge too far to claim that if "djokovic is to have any chance of future success at slams" talk. I mean it is pretty funny to count the guy out. No he hasn't hit 2011 form it doesn't mean he doesn't have ability to go on more slam and dominate runs and that there is anything drastically wrong with his game. Talent wise I don't know if I would rate murray as more or less talented, what I do know is the Djokovic has consistently been the more successful player over the course of the first 7 or 8 years of their pro career, to me one three set defeat by murray after losing the other two matchups against Djoko this year while Murray is playing on his homecourt is drawing a bit much. This Murray performance while very good and which will only help his performance doesn't change the tennis landscape all that much till murray follows it up with a slam win.

I agree there socal. I was caught up in the annoyance of a ridiculous statement a few posts back.

It is silly to write Djokovic off for future Slams, though what concerns me thus far this year is lapses he is having in matches. What I won't discount from him is that he is starting quick in matches and is in control of the first set of his matches. What I am finding is that beyond the first set in matches he tends to go into cruise control and stay a bit one paced. The danger in this is allowing an opponent who is chasing the game to get back into the match. This is so similar to the Djokovic of old of where he breaks down in matches. I go back to the FO when in his matches with Seppi and Tsonga. You could easily tell that the aura of Djokovic 2011 was still in existence because both players found it so difficult to see Djokovic off in those respective matches. My fear now is that the aura is starting to get broken through. I didn't expect Djokovic to lose to Del Potro for the fatigue reason alone with Del Potro. To lose in 2 was quite bizarre for Djokovic and I wonder where he goes from here.

I thought the Olympics might have the DC 2010 kick effect with him that may have inspired a rich vein of form. I think Cincinatti will tell us more of what to expect from Djokovic come the US Open.