Was the final a high quality match?

First topic message reminder :

Ignore the result for a moment (tough to do, I know).

Was this really a good tennis match?

If this weren't a grandslam final with a British player in it, would you have watched after the first set?

The last 3 hard court slam finals have now produced incredibly long matches. And there I was thinking that this is a surface that favoured the aggressive players.

It's tough to believe that these are the same tournaments where we saw matches between two aggressive players like Federer/ Safin, Federer/ Roddick etc just a few years ago.

Whenever these two play, they seem to engage in a lot of pointless defensive backhand to backhand ralleys with neither one looking to hit a winner, both just content to put the ball in play.

Until gone 2am - that is unlikely considering I was to be up for work at 6am this morning.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Everyone loved Sampras vs Henman at Wimby as well. Wouldn't it be great if we could have matches like that AND matches like last night?
As CC said earlier to TA "you are asking people to conform to one form of tennis". I suspect you have your own calculus socal, as applied to, say Dubai - if the points are too short, and it doesn't go to a final set, you don't enjoy it. Neither is right, so why not just have both, instead of limiting it to one?
If you had to eat smoked Alaskan salmon every night, you might want some caviar for a change (or vice versa).

The changes to the game favored by those calling for change are radical and do not favor variety they favor giving a leg up to the server and attacker in every single match. Variety is making the slow courts slower and the fast courts faster. The changes the purists seem to want is to make the fast courts faster and the slow courts faster as well. Is that variety or favoring one style over the other? If I was going to pick a style to favor it would not be big serve tennis. Banning strings and racquets at every event favors the bigger server or the status quo at every single event not just the fast court ones. I don't want to radically alter the game till the point that half the tour can run up behind every first ball and still win the point, that isn't tennis that is garbage in my opinion.

They do want variety - perhaps they're mistaken in the effect their proposed changes would have - but they do want variety.
I thought we'd established that point.
Besides, you replied to my post, but directed the reply at other posters and their comments.

They may claim they want variety, but all there proposals involve giving the attacker a leg up in every single match whether it is on a slow surface or a fast surface. That isn't variety. I really don't care what people say as much as what they do. You can tell me that you want variety, but if what you propose is just a series of structural advantages for the server at every match then I don't really buy your assertions about variety. Variety is faster courts faster, slower courts slower. That is not what the proposals being made on this site entail. Personally, I am glad the surface specialists have died and gone away, one trick ponies who basically cheat by selling out their training and game to one surface so that they can beat much better all court players for two months of the year. I can't wait for Juan Hidalgo whatever at 168 in the world to knock the world #1 out of the FO in the first round because he spends 12 months a year playing on clay and waiting for this match. I call him a loser regardless, people here want to favor the cheaters I mean the surface specialists.

As you know, Djoko would like more variety, and he and the ATP could probably come up with better ideas than this forum. Murray was also moaning this year that too many of the courts are too slow, so maybe that's a part of it, in some cases.

I used to love the specialists when they were around - they could make the early rounds of tournaments more interesting and, far from cheating (not sure they'd appreciate the lack of respect - Guga might have something to say about it!) they dedicate themselves to one aspect of the game and strive for excellence in that area.

socal1976 wrote:

newballs wrote:TA's question was a simple one.

"Was it (the final ) a high quality match?"

I can't for the life of me see an answer other than "No" given the type of rallies on offer for most of its duration. Sure the quality improved when Novak started fighting back and Andy needed to see him off in the 5th set. As others have stated this was partly due to the windy conditions but also due in part to their respective games.

If the question had been (for example) "Was it an epic and gripping contest" then the answer is of course "Yes" but that's a different matter .

Any tennis purist will tell you that a "dog's dinner of a match" remains just that and nothing more. Some seem to be confusing quantity with quality here.

Like wine purists, I have drank wine that is 5 dollars a bottle that I think is great, I have drank 700 dollar a bottle of french wine that tasted like cooled down urine. I am sure pursist would talk themselves into loving that 700 dollar bottle of urine because it has a fancy french name and 100 year old winery. Big serve tennis is like a 700 dollar of french swill it sounds good before you actually taste it and are forced to drink it repetively.

A badly needed touch of class to the overall discussion.........

A proper question would insted be: are class and technique still an essential part of the game, or are the technology improvements increasingly confining the most important technical qualities such as: shot variety, touch and creativity to the sport museums? Are those skills still really necessary to win matches and the big events?

Someone pointed out that this process reflects exactly what has heppend in the WTA in the last 10 years or so, and btw what interest is really gathering the WTA those days?

Just as an aside, people seem to think that had Federer played yesterday he would have sprayed errors all over the place. This may well have been the case, but I've always thought he was actually quite a good player in the wind; he beat Nadal pretty easily in Indian Wells this year in very difficult conditions, and won that famous match against Agassi in the wind in the 2004 US Open.

Yeah, I think Fed would have adapted too. Either way, he wouldn't have played the way these two did, that's for sure. Win or lose, the match would probably have been over in less than 3 and a half hours.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

newballs wrote:TA's question was a simple one.

"Was it (the final ) a high quality match?"

I can't for the life of me see an answer other than "No" given the type of rallies on offer for most of its duration. Sure the quality improved when Novak started fighting back and Andy needed to see him off in the 5th set. As others have stated this was partly due to the windy conditions but also due in part to their respective games.

If the question had been (for example) "Was it an epic and gripping contest" then the answer is of course "Yes" but that's a different matter .

Any tennis purist will tell you that a "dog's dinner of a match" remains just that and nothing more. Some seem to be confusing quantity with quality here.

Like wine purists, I have drank wine that is 5 dollars a bottle that I think is great, I have drank 700 dollar a bottle of french wine that tasted like cooled down urine. I am sure pursist would talk themselves into loving that 700 dollar bottle of urine because it has a fancy french name and 100 year old winery. Big serve tennis is like a 700 dollar of french swill it sounds good before you actually taste it and are forced to drink it repetively.

A badly needed touch of class to the overall discussion.........

A proper question would insted be: are class and technique still an essential part of the game, or are the technology improvements increasingly confining the most important technical qualities such as: shot variety, touch and creativity to the sport museums? Are those skills still really necessary to win matches and the big events?

Someone pointed out that this process reflects exactly what has heppend in the WTA in the last 10 years or so, and btw what interest is really gathering the WTA those days?

Really the WTA was dominated by a golden generation of 4 superstars that pumped up interest in the game, when did this happen JK. The bottom line despite what the tennis purists (whose opinion I value as much as the wine purists) say to reach the pinnacle of the game you need to be an exceptional ball striker be as fit as a triathlete or as fast as USain bolt unless you are a spectacular ball striker you have no chance at the top of the men's game. It is as true now as it has ever been. Except now you got to be fit and fast and have good groundstrokes as well. I am comfortable with the state of the mens game it is as good as it has ever been.

Depends on who you ask that question of. If you support Murray then I think most would say it was. I personally thought Djokovic was all over the place for 2 sets. I think the fact that neither player could serve due to the wind howling made it frustrating as did the constant breaks of serve in the first set.

What was high quality was the drama especially the long rallies on the break points. I recall Mats Wilander speaking of the AO final this year, that it was not a match of the highest quality except the last set compared to the Wimbledon final of 2008 for example. This was an opinion shared by many and I think that it the sort of review this match would get once the excitement has died down.

well as a wine lover living in Bordeaux I take exception to socal's previous post (maybe you just had a bad/corked bottle? a bit jealous as I can't afford anything like 700 dollar bottles, though I do agree you can buy perfectly good bottles for 5 euros or so).

More variety is good, but as socal says that doesn't mean speeding up all conditions. It would mean making grass faster (though not as fast as the 90s) and if possible much lower bounce. Having more carpet would be nice too, it seems to have gone completely out of fashion.

Apparently the players voted carpet off the tour in 2009.
No-one is asking for everything to be fast.
I don't want 5 hour so called "epics" every slam final...why?
Because when every final is 'special' no final is...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well as a wine lover living in Bordeaux I take exception to socal's previous post (maybe you just had a bad/corked bottle? a bit jealous as I can't afford anything like 700 dollar bottles, though I do agree you can buy perfectly good bottles for 5 euros or so).

More variety is good, but as socal says that doesn't mean speeding up all conditions. It would mean making grass faster (though not as fast as the 90s) and if possible much lower bounce. Having more carpet would be nice too, it seems to have gone completely out of fashion.

I was wineing and dining a possible partner for a joint venture, I let him order the wine and he was french from Alsace and he orderered this terrible syrupy sweet mess with our seafood plate. All tax deductible on the corporate account and recouped later when I went back to visit his factory and stuck him with my hotel tab. Plus remember it was at resturant, at a wine shop I am sure I could have got that awful mess for 150, but I wouldn't buy it if it was 1.50. So yes while I paid 700 for the bottle, uncle sam picked up part of the tab, and I stuck the jerk with my hotel charge two months later. I would never willing spend 700 dollars for a bottle of wine, the awhole ordererd it when I let him order the wine, my mistake from that point on I never let a business guest for dinner order the wine at a dinner, if i am paying, i am picking. By the way have had great french wines for cheaper than price of a coca cola on the champs elysee, of course france makes some great wines. I have paid 7 dollars for a coke on the champs elysee 10 years ago at a cafe it was more expensive than most of their wine glasses. But at occassions and fancy dinners I have had some wines that people talk up and they supposedly know wines and it is so and so vineyard and so and so year and costs this much and then you drink it and it is horrible. That is because all the purists love it I am sure and it scored however many points on some wine test.

lydian wrote:Apparently the players voted carpet off the tour in 2009.
No-one is asking for everything to be fast.
I don't want 5 hour so called "epics" every slam final...why?
Because when every final is 'special' no final is...

yes lydian but I think the changes to the racquet headsize and strings you propose would simply give a leg up to the server in every single tournament over what the status quo is now. I don't favor any changes but I could support an incremental speeding up of some of the traditionally faster tourneys through minor adjustments to the ball and courts as an experiment. I guarantee you most sports fans won't like the style of tennis they see compared to what we have been watching. That is why the tournaments in mass slowed down in the early 2000s

It wasn't the highest quality final but the wind did play a big part in that. There were still spells of great tennis. I thought the tiebreak was exceptional and there were some amazing rallies at times. Murray lost his way a bit when he got ahead and went too passive but the way he gathered himself in the 5th was immense.

In relation to the point about 5 hour finals, sure the court speed plays a part in that, although it is also the fact nadal and Djoker are both terminally slow. However the real reason we are seeing so many epics is because of how evenly matched the top 4 are and that's great for tennis.

However the real reason we are seeing so many epics is because of how evenly matched the top 4 are and that's great for tennis.

- I don't agree with this. Evenly matched doesn't equate to such long matches, surely! It's more to do with the attacking styles of play having become a thing of the past.