Horrifyingly poor men's final sends me into a hysterical swoon of depression

I thought I was watching a close fought and enaging US open final. But then when I got out my pen and paper and calculater I found out that this match fails on all the new math of what qualifies as a good tennis match. As I quickly deciphered the results I was depressed and mortified at the death of tennis the game that I have loved for over 30 years.

1. When I took the total shots and divided by the total points i found out that this match had way more than 5 or even 5 and half shots per point. This is a crucial calculation to determine the enjoyability of any tennis match and this final failed miserably

2. The players took to long to wrap it up, as we know if a match last more than 4 hours it is a terrible grinding affair of improper and tedious tennis

3. Both players hit more errors than winners. Who cares if they were playing in tropical monsoon conditions any match decided by an error fest is a fail as entertainment.

4. Was this blue clay, that is it, the concept is self explanatory

5. The players violated the greatest rule ever handed down by god himself to his unworthy children. No, it is not though shall not kill it seems the abrhamic god had a few exceptions in mind for that rule. Though shall not take longer than 20 seconds per point or the match is a complete fail.

6. And the final sodomization of the game of tennis and the bum of global tennis fans came when Novak Djokovic took an MTO in the final set. The horror, the agony of a player following the rules to help him win a match.

7. The match contained a 54 shot rally, any match that boasts any rally of over 30 shots and certainly over 50 shots fails as nothing but a moonballing affair exhibited by pushers.

Once I tabulated the results and determined that this match fails on all 7 factors of the new math of tennis greatness i was sent into a tailspin of melancholy that would make Edgar Allan Poe look like a cheery fellow for some light conversation. After a couple of hours on the suicide hotline and an emergency injection of lithium and xanax I have been able to recover enough of my faculties to type this post. Is this what ladies feel like during their monthlies? Boooooooo, hoooooooooo, whooaaaaa is me, whooaaaa is tennis.

Average shots per point 6.9
3 shots or less - 125
4 or more shots - 176
Longest rally 54 shots

Match length - 294 minutes (4:54) which matches the 1988 Wilander d Lendl (Murray's coach) match at 4:54.

7:47pm US ET - What? Now a time warning? What?? "I was on the line," Djokovic said. "It was already too long," Jake Garner said.

Garner also umpired the 2009 Federer-Del Potro match.

maybe you should stop supporting novak if this match was the death of tennis

I am just asking love according to many critics the Nadal v. Djoko final was the worst match in the history of mankind and the death of the game requiring massive and radical change in the game to keep it viable. So if Djoko wins a 5 hour match it stinks if he loses a match like that we don't see the host of those bemoaning the end of the artistry of tennis.

The word 'slug' was used three times in this article.

I hope these players retire healthy.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/match_reports/2012-09-10/201209101347327662816.html

Neither one of the men play as grinding a style as David Ferrer if he can play a full schedule the last few years and maintain his health into his early 3Os I don't see why it should bother these two. I just haven't seen this correlation between slow conditions and injury shortening careers that you keep harping on LV if anything players are playing better for longer.

socal1976 wrote:I am just asking love according to many critics the Nadal v. Djoko final was the worst match in the history of mankind and the death of the game requiring massive and radical change in the game to keep it viable. So if Djoko wins a 5 hour match it stinks if he loses a match like that we don't see the host of those bemoaning the end of the artistry of tennis.

Actually quite a few posters bemoaned the match during its course. Happy as I am that Murray won, I have no desire to see one set lasting 1.5 hours or one rally last 54 strokes. It was similar to the AO and not entirely my cup of tea, tennis-wise.

Glad to see you back disagreeing with me as usual Julius, don't be mad at me I get a little kooky when I get a bee in my bonnet. Its funny haven't heard the groundswell of criticism about this final as I heard about the AO semi and final. The two were playing in a windstorm by the way it might have had something to do with a little hesitancy to pull the trigger.

Yes, many posters also commented on the conditions contributing.
I thought your article made good use of 'poetic license' - I enjoyed it.

Thanks pal, you are the best moderator in town. But I reserve the right to tell you when you are a crap moderator in the future.

Can't be a poet without the license, this thread is an attempt to get people to focus on the positive the competiveness and high number of athletic shots as opposed to just looking at the negative. For me despite horrofic weather conditions and the loss of Nadal this has been great open.

socal,

The conditions partially contributed to the lack of 'stunning' shot making. Both players looked extremely tight.

Djokovic is down, but not out.

Believe its over for Djokovic now as a player that is able to win more than 1 slam per season, or as a player that can ever be labeled as an entertainer. He was even more pushy than David Ferrer throughout 3 of the 5 sets.

I feel the same way legend, as you can tell this piece is satirical of the sort of gloomy outlook that pervades 606v2 about the modern game. I know that every fan in that stadium came out of there with many wonderful memories and they saw a fight that is for sure.

As for Novak as I have written I think in the near term I am concerned but could not be more positive for his chances long term. As I have said many months before at the AO, murray and Novak will be the rivalry that will shape the face of tennis over the next 2-3 years. Nadal will be there as well if knees are willing and Roger isn't done either but I think these two will decide the majority of the big trophies in the near future.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Believe its over for Djokovic now as a player that is able to win more than 1 slam per season, or as a player that can ever be labeled as an entertainer. He was even more pushy than David Ferrer throughout 3 of the 5 sets.

Josiah my good friend you seem to have a wonderful talent of posting the exact 180 degree opposite of what actually happend. Lets see one player had more winners, more errors, more aces, more double faults, and nearly 2 and half times more net approaches in the match. And the name of this player is Novak Djokovic. Both guys were hesitant to pull the trigger but of the two Novak was firing away a bit more often. So as usual if an educated reader takes your post and assumes the exact opposite of your conclusion and assertions he stands a good chance of being right close to 100 percent of the time. There has to be a market for a talent like this maybe you should run what is left of AIG.

Thing is socal both of them seem so wary of the others ability to retrieve and defend that they almost negate each other through the art of rallying down the deuce court.

The Organisers won because of the 5 set marathon and the 3 set marathon the night before even though at times they made a pigs ear of it.

There will be better matches down the line.

Murray was being a boring player in general I agree, not going for winners at all, but Novak tried and succeeded in outdoing him all night I feel. Let's be honest now Djokovic is not mentally strong enough to do what Fed and Nadal have done, he's not even near them really.

Of course legend the wind played a huge role as did the matchup. Neither player could gun his serve because he couldn't be absolutely sure of his toss. Murray dealt with it better early going for the percentages of first serves and Djoko just was not serving well enough early or in the 5th set to win. But when you have to play off your kick serve all night you aren't going to be getting a lot of free points.

Like I said JM I think Novak is pretty near them in that as great as they have been he has won something like 30 matches off those to at the tour level. It really doesn't matter he has carved out a huge legacy against the best of all time. And don't look now despite being down this year he is actually leading the points race so while he is off form he could still finish year end #1, what does that tell you about his ability when he does get his mojo back?

From LF's post :-
Average shots per point 6.9
3 shots or less - 125
4 or more shots - 176
Longest rally 54 shots
Match length - 294 minutes

If the conditions were more conducive to volleying/hitting winners, and less to retrieving, and the stats were, say :-
Average shots per point 4.9
3 shots or less - 155
4 or more shots - 146
Longest rally 34 shots
Match length - 224 minutes
and the scoreline was the same....

Would it have been more, or less, entertaining, I wonder?

Like i said julius you guys need a calculator and stop watch to tell if the match is cracker. I don't, the way I tell is how much i am pacing and hell in suspense as well as wowed by great shots. This was under the conditions the match was played (wind) a great match. Tennis is not a pretty shot exhibition, make no mistake about it at the highest levels it is brutal competition. And when these matches like Tipsy/ ferrer and this match get decided at the end 5 tough sets, and there are plenty of highlight shots I give it the thumbs up. I don't need a calculator or stop watch. I come to watch the shots but I stay for the fight.

Not a stopwatch, but I can tell if I'm sitting there thinking "Will someone hurry up and at least try to hit a winner" or "What's on the other channel - I won't miss much if I channel surf for 15 minutes".
There's a certain style of tennis, which when taken to a certain extreme, loses my interest, that's all.
The AO final, for me, was as uninteresting as a Sampras/Ivanesvic match on grass. Last night I would have stopped watching if it hadn't been Murray.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not a stopwatch, but I can tell if I'm sitting there thinking "Will someone hurry up and at least try to hit a winner" or "What's on the other channel - I won't miss much if I channel surf for 15 minutes".
There's a certain style of tennis, which when taken to a certain extreme, loses my interest, that's all.
The AO final, for me, was as uninteresting as a Sampras/Ivanesvic match on grass. Last night I would have stopped watching if it hadn't been Murray.

So true.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray was being a boring player in general I agree, not going for winners at all.

At all?

So in nearly 5 hours, he didn't go for any winners and yet still won?

Do you actually check what you write, before you post or just say the first thing that comes into your head?

Assuming you do think before you write, why not beat Hawkeye and write an article "Is Andy Murray the most boring Slam winner ever"

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not a stopwatch, but I can tell if I'm sitting there thinking "Will someone hurry up and at least try to hit a winner" or "What's on the other channel - I won't miss much if I channel surf for 15 minutes".
There's a certain style of tennis, which when taken to a certain extreme, loses my interest, that's all.
The AO final, for me, was as uninteresting as a Sampras/Ivanesvic match on grass. Last night I would have stopped watching if it hadn't been Murray.

End of the 4th set onwards was good. But there was some turgid stuff before. In fairness, the weather couldn't have helped - you're not going to keep going for winners if you're not confident about your control of the ball

banbrotam wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray was being a boring player in general I agree, not going for winners at all.

At all?

So in nearly 5 hours, he didn't go for any winners and yet still won?

Do you actually check what you write, before you post or just say the first thing that comes into your head?

Assuming you do think before you write, why not beat Hawkeye and write an article "Is Andy Murray the most boring Slam winner ever"

Murray has still not achieved what Tsonga, Soderling or Berdych have, by beating Federer in a slam.

Just letting you know.

banbrotam wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not a stopwatch, but I can tell if I'm sitting there thinking "Will someone hurry up and at least try to hit a winner" or "What's on the other channel - I won't miss much if I channel surf for 15 minutes".
There's a certain style of tennis, which when taken to a certain extreme, loses my interest, that's all.
The AO final, for me, was as uninteresting as a Sampras/Ivanesvic match on grass. Last night I would have stopped watching if it hadn't been Murray.

End of the 4th set onwards was good. But there was some turgid stuff before. In fairness, the weather couldn't have helped - you're not going to keep going for winners if you're not confident about your control of the ball

That's how I saw it.

The match overall was awful but it was compensated by the particular circumstances for Murray which meant I watched it all. But if the same match was played out between, say, Ferrer and Berdych would anyone honestly have stayed up? I very much doubt it.

socal1976 wrote:Thanks pal, you are the best moderator in town.

I am very deeply offended. I challenge you to a slugfest on a roofed Arthur Ashe Stadium @ USO 2026. Please bring your balls and luxis.

socal1976 wrote:But I reserve the right to tell you when you are a crap moderator in the future.

I have Repetitive Stress Syndrome (RSS) already. I protest at such inhumane treatment. I will take this to the ICJ for arbitration.

socal1976 wrote:Can't be a poet without the license, this thread is an attempt to get people to focus on the positive the competiveness and high number of athletic shots as opposed to just looking at the negative. For me despite horrofic weather conditions and the loss of Nadal this has been great open.

The fear is that such finals between the same two players are difficult to repeat. AO SF 2012 and USO F 2012. I was concerned for both. Djokovic falling down a couple of times as reason enough.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Thanks pal, you are the best moderator in town.

I am very deeply offended. I challenge you to a slugfest on a roofed Arthur Ashe Stadium @ USO 2026. Please bring your balls and luxis.

socal1976 wrote:But I reserve the right to tell you when you are a crap moderator in the future.

I have Repetitive Stress Syndrome (RSS) already. I protest at such inhumane treatment. I will take this to the ICJ for arbitration.

socal1976 wrote:Can't be a poet without the license, this thread is an attempt to get people to focus on the positive the competiveness and high number of athletic shots as opposed to just looking at the negative. For me despite horrofic weather conditions and the loss of Nadal this has been great open.

The fear is that such finals between the same two players are difficult to repeat. AO SF 2012 and USO F 2012. I was concerned for both. Djokovic falling down a couple of times as reason enough.

You got me there Laverfan, sorry to hear about the repetive stress syndrome I find booze to be a good cure all to your life's problems despite what they say about it in the public service announcements. I just don't see your concern for longterm injuries if anything the slowed down conditions seem to have extended the window for tennis success. Nadal seems to genuinely have chronic knee problems but Murray and Djoko have played a full schedule the last 5 years relatively injury free, so has federer. So I just don't see much evidence for the theory that gets repeated like fact that long points bring on injuries that shorten careers. Not what I am watching and I'd like to see some facts, cites, and numbers before i draw that conclusion.

I think this is supposed to be ironic but you lay it on too thick and it is a little aggressive. Those saying the match was poor quality shouldn't be watching it and have no demonstrable understanding of the game.

socal1976 wrote:You got me there Laverfan, sorry to hear about the repetive stress syndrome I find booze to be a good cure all to your life's problems despite what they say about it in the public service announcements.

Taken under advisement, next Murray-Djokovic final @ Ao 2013 will be celebrated under the influence.

socal1976 wrote:I just don't see your concern for longterm injuries if anything the slowed down conditions seem to have extended the window for tennis success. Nadal seems to genuinely have chronic knee problems but Murray and Djoko have played a full schedule the last 5 years relatively injury free, so has federer. So I just don't see much evidence for the theory that gets repeated like fact that long points bring on injuries that shorten careers. Not what I am watching and I'd like to see some facts, cites, and numbers before i draw that conclusion.

Do you recall the age matrix I had posted a couple of months back? At 25/26 there is much easier recovery. The after-effects take a longer window. These may not be immediately visible. I am not advocating all-out attacking short-point Tennis as a panacea, either.

Federer is a bad example to use to support my case. Nadal has a documented history of foot and knee issues, as does Murray. If you recall, after AO 2012, Nadal and Djokovic took February off. Murray skipped Madrid. We can argue about a shorter calendar vs. shorter points or variety in surfaces, there is never a conclusive debate, because it becomes a debate for eternity.

Rallying on clay, a softer and gentler surface, is much better. HC can have long-lasting impacts. The sport would be poorer if careers were cut short due to injuries, which may get hidden due to players' youth. Raonic is one example with his injuries as he was rising up and some notable withdrawals.

But as I said that is anectodal. If we were seeing a large number of players beeing knocked out by injury and having careers shortened that would be one thing. Look at Novak he has played an average 80 plus matches a year for the last 5 years. For every example you bring of someone whose suffered injuries there are plenty of examples of second springs in the modern game and lengthy careers. I agree HC is more damaging on the body than the natural surfaces but HC has been the dominant surface for 30 years the beef of the fast court proponents is not that we have too many hardcourt tournies but that they should be on faster surfaces.

Unlike many of the very young I watched S and V in the 80s and I remember a great deal of burnout issues and players at that time exploding on the scene and then completely dissappearing by their mid 20s, we see much less of that today and i actually think that it is a good thing.

There is no right and wrong here. Each has there own preference in terms of what they want out of a tennis match. For me, I love that kind of match. Great athletic ability and cat and mouse rallies. I personally love long rallies moving each other about the court.

Some prefer shorter rallies and players blasting winners. That's fine. For me, if these two keep having matches like last night and the semi in Melbourne then I'll be a happy man because it's exactly the kind of play I like to see.

Nore Staat wrote:I think this is supposed to be ironic but you lay it on too thick and it is a little aggressive. Those saying the match was poor quality shouldn't be watching it and have no demonstrable understanding of the game.

Wonderful I am freed from the evil clutches of the tennis purist only to fall into the fire of the comedy purists. Everyone is a critic, few are true artists.

Danny_1982 wrote:There is no right and wrong here. Each has there own preference in terms of what they want out of a tennis match. For me, I love that kind of match. Great athletic ability and cat and mouse rallies. I personally love long rallies moving each other about the court.

Some prefer shorter rallies and players blasting winners. That's fine. For me, if these two keep having matches like last night and the semi in Melbourne then I'll be a happy man because it's exactly the kind of play I like to see.

Absolutely Danny, I play tennis i love technique and shots. There was plenty of that last night despite horrific playing conditions at the end of the tourney. Most fans feel that way that is why the baseline game was preferred by the tournaments 10 years ago to begin with. But my thoughts on a tennis match is that I come to see the shots but I stay for the fight. I mean if federer comes out and plays magnificient tennis and beats his opponent 0,1, and 2 can that possibly be entertaining despite a large number of pretty shots being hit by the winner?

I used a boxing analogy elsewhere on this topic and I'd liken Roger Federer to Mike Tyson (capable of those knock-out blows) whilst your likes of Novak and Andy are different type boxers the sort that like to use a jab to probe for weaknesses before going to work to score their points. Now personally Tyson's fights were explosive but classics? No I would say not as they were invariably over in the first couple of rounds. Whereas the style of the jab-type boxer and range of punches these turn out to be the real scraps with potential for memorable fights.

Roger Federer don't get me wrong is the GOAT but if you want a guaranteed match with stacks of twists and unexpected moments then Murray matches win hands down. His dips add to the entertainment value for me whereas the purists will always swoon over Fed's silky skills but at his pomp his matches were invariably walkovers with the result of the match never in question. Great to watch the GOAT at work but without the trappings of an exciting finale. Hope people understand that in the context it is meant.

I feel the same way craig, tennis isn't a pretty shots exhibition it is a sport and they keep score. I always enjoyed Connors because despite his boorish ways he was a fighter. I like your boxing analogy in that for a fight to be entertaining it can't just be one way traffic, tennis is the same way. Now the modern game that allows for more breaks of serve allows for more momentum swings in matches and great comebacks.

Despite all of that there were still quite a few jaw dropping plays and shots last night sometimes many on the same point so i frankly don't see what is bad about seeing the ball coming back and having to hit multiple good shots to win a point.

socal1976 wrote:...Wonderful I am freed from the evil clutches of the tennis purist only to fall into the fire of the comedy purists. Everyone is a critic, few are true artists.

You make it sound that everyone who is not you is not right.

No Nore they are entitled to whatever opinion they like just like I am entitled to believe I am right, this is not anything particular to me.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I used a boxing analogy elsewhere on this topic and I'd liken Roger Federer to Mike Tyson (capable of those knock-out blows) whilst your likes of Novak and Andy are different type boxers the sort that like to use a jab to probe for weaknesses before going to work to score their points. Now personally Tyson's fights were explosive but classics? No I would say not as they were invariably over in the first couple of rounds. Whereas the style of the jab-type boxer and range of punches these turn out to be the real scraps with potential for memorable fights.

Roger Federer don't get me wrong is the GOAT but if you want a guaranteed match with stacks of twists and unexpected moments then Murray matches win hands down. His dips add to the entertainment value for me whereas the purists will always swoon over Fed's silky skills but at his pomp his matches were invariably walkovers with the result of the match never in question. Great to watch the GOAT at work but without the trappings of an exciting finale. Hope people understand that in the context it is meant.

Federer is Ali.

Becker was Tyson

Djokovic is Audley Harrison

Your earlier reply suggested that my suggestion that the OP is attempting to be ironic is untrue? That you actually believe all this?

What are you talking about Nore you got me confused, this is a joke thread I thought the part about 2 hours of suicide hotline would clue you in on that. If you don't like the thread or think my tone is aggressive that is fine but it was not meant in that manner, lets just chalk it down to you not being a fan of my comedy it has happened before.

Nah because Ali floated like a butterfly and we know Fed's movement is good but not the best.

Becker and Tyson I may agree with.

Na sorry Djokovic is far superior to Audley Harrison. Perhaps Lennox Lewis.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nah because Ali floated like a butterfly and we know Fed's movement is good but not the best.

Becker and Tyson I may agree with.

Na sorry Djokovic is far superior to Audley Harrison. Perhaps Lennox Lewis.

Give me a player who floats lighter than Federer and I'll reconsider. Anyway, they're both The Greatest so I stand by it.

As for Novak, I think Tommy Hearns is the man.

bogbrush wrote:
Federer is Ali.

Becker was Tyson

Djokovic is Audley Harrison

Ali MacGraw

Cathy Tyson

Audrey Hepburn

Those names just popped into my head, so I thought I'd share them.

No I wouldn't say Ali for Fed as we are basing Fed on going for winners so would be a knock-out specialist and Ali wasn't that. Ali worked boxers over with his jabs and combinations.

Point is that boxers with varying strengths and weaknesses exist as in tennis players and each had their fair history of entertaining bouts except knockout specialists ie Tyson as their fights were normally so one-sided ie Federer in early years.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I wouldn't say Ali for Fed as we are basing Fed on going for winners so would be a knock-out specialist and Ali wasn't that. Ali worked boxers over with his jabs and combinations.

Point is that boxers with varying strengths and weaknesses exist as in tennis players and each had their fair history of entertaining bouts except knockout specialists ie Tyson as their fights were normally so one-sided ie Federer in early years.

Oh he could finish them fast when it suited him.

Plus Federer hasn't bitten anyone's ears off.

Anyway Craig, I'm disappointed in you. How about you getting a big time Murray article up there?

Edit; apols, just seen & bumped

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I wouldn't say Ali for Fed as we are basing Fed on going for winners so would be a knock-out specialist and Ali wasn't that. Ali worked boxers over with his jabs and combinations.

Point is that boxers with varying strengths and weaknesses exist as in tennis players and each had their fair history of entertaining bouts except knockout specialists ie Tyson as their fights were normally so one-sided ie Federer in early years.

Oh he could finish them fast when it suited him.

Plus Federer hasn't bitten anyone's ears off.

Fair point but Ali lacked the real big knock out blow. Point I am making is that it isn't always your knock-out specialists that guarantee the best entertainment and invariably their fights are explosive but not real classics.