It was a great achievement and a forgettable tennis match

First topic message reminder :

Apparently, it is churlish to point out that in my opinion, the tennis wasn't exactly the best in USO 212 final. This is in some way seen as spoiling Andy's moment.

I fail to understand why this is the case. When my favourite player won Wimbledon in 2009 and broke perhaps the most important record in the game, I did not have any problem accepting that it wasn't the best match he had played.

Why is everyone so sensitive to this? How does a comment on the quality of the match take away from the great achievement of winning a slam? I would have thought that the two are almost (Note: I didn't say "completely") independent!

So let me say that again. It was a forgettable match for the quality of tennis, but it was a great achievement by Murray, and I'm so glad for him!

Nore Staat wrote:What made the achievement great was him getting to the moon (and getting back). Did you know he had to land manually as there was a problem with the "automatic" controls.

I remember vaguely now that you mention it. They must have mentioned it on the news the other day.

Bad example then, but I will think of one!!

Maybe I'm on my own here, but I loved it. The first set was really affected by the wind, but the tension generated in a seriously intense tie break made up for it.

However I thought there was some great tennis during the match. Some really intense rallies with players moving each other around. Both players played with great depth I thought. Yes a lot of points were decided by errors, but with 2 such great defenders and 2 players who's games match up so closely that was always going to be the case.

It depends on your taste really, what you want from a tennis match. I like long rallies, athletic defending and variety and tension built up from a really close match. Others may prefer shorter rallies, players blasting winners past less proficient defenders... That's absolutely fine, but it would hold as much interest for me.

Maybe I'm biased, maybe it's tough for me - a Murray fan - to be objective considering the outcome, but I genuinely enjoyed the whole thing. A lot of tennis commentators have talked about it as a great match. Not that this proves or disproves anything, but at least it means I'm not on my own. Haha.

Spot on Danny. I suppose it all comes down to personal taste and the importance of the match to the watching individual. I can understand Federer and Nadal fans talking it down and saying it wasn't great as I have watched many of their matches and felt exactly the same but wouldn't make as big an issue out of it as the OP is intent on doing which I find strange. Heck he has started two topics on the subject!

Now I would wholely understand posters here saying 'Oh it is because he is a Murray fan' but lets remember that pundits, commentators and global tennis fans who are not staunch Murray fans have also came out and said they enjoyed it. Why?

Danny_1982 wrote:Maybe I'm on my own here, but I loved it. The first set was really affected by the wind, but the tension generated in a seriously intense tie break made up for it.

However I thought there was some great tennis during the match. Some really intense rallies with players moving each other around. Both players played with great depth I thought. Yes a lot of points were decided by errors, but with 2 such great defenders and 2 players who's games match up so closely that was always going to be the case.

It depends on your taste really, what you want from a tennis match. I like long rallies, athletic defending and variety and tension built up from a really close match. Others may prefer shorter rallies, players blasting winners past less proficient defenders... That's absolutely fine, but it would hold as much interest for me.

Maybe I'm biased, maybe it's tough for me - a Murray fan - to be objective considering the outcome, but I genuinely enjoyed the whole thing. A lot of tennis commentators have talked about it as a great match. Not that this proves or disproves anything, but at least it means I'm not on my own. Haha.

Exactly Danny and Craig I have to echo both your well reasoned comments. I mean with all this talk on here about speeding this up and banning this technology and that what about those of use who actually like this brand of play and are happy with how the tour is operating. I count myself in that category and a few others I know on the site that have mentioned it. If you listen to posters on this site everything is negative and most of it frankly comes from federer fans which I really don't understand the motivation behind it? You don't here the same acrimony for the style of play from fans of Nadal, Djoko, or Murray. The match was a tough fight of a match in torrential winds, the conditions while hurting the guy I liked to win proved murray's poise and metal even more so than a match in a sunny postcard day.

I think the clear divisions here are the different appeals of the game. We clearly have Roger Federer fans who love to see him hitting winners left, right and centre at the first possible opportunity. No one can deny Fed's talent for this and his fans love that and I have no qualms for that and that comes from a staunch Andy Murray fan. However, flip the coin and look at the games of Djokovic and Murray and they have different traits that we can watch in awe. They may not hit winners left, right and centre like Fed but they have another talent - they have the ability to retrieve shots and return balls that other players just cannot do. What's more they can be boxed totally into a corner and find a way out to hit a winner. It is fantastic for fans of those players to watch but it would seem fans of other players cannot see or recognise this marvellous talent. In short Federer has his strengths that we can all marvel at which he does better than anyone else but likewise Djokovic and Murray have strings to their bow that are better than anyone else.

We could look at tennis matches a bit like snooker. Fans love a big break of that there is no doubt but in a poll run by the BBC recently just as many loved a safety battle frame as well. So you see entertainment and quality comes in various guises not just who hits the most winners.

Has anyone sat a five hour exam? I have sat three hour exams (sometimes two in a day). That's an awful lot of time to remain absolutely focussed. ...

... which is exactly what both Murray and Djokovic had to. It's not even like running back to back marathons, because when you run you can switch your mind off. Murray and Djokovic couldn't do this they had to be focussed and in the moment for every second of those five hours they were on the court. Mano a Mano.

Then there was the wind to cope with.

Then there was five hours of physical exertion to cope with.

Then there was the game tactic and set by set strategy.

Then there was the range of skill sets they needed to execute, first serves, second serves, ground strokes, return strokes ....

The best man won and that was Andy Murray - beating the best opponent on the day the defending champion.

It was a great match.

It was a great tournament.

These guys are supreme athletes, supreme sportsmen.

None of the other British men players made it past the first round of the qualifiers!!

I can agree with that craig, I love the way murray and Djoko return serve. It is phenomenal really otherworldly. I like how they hit dazzling passing shots and wicked backhands up the line. what is there not to like about all of that? No one here denies fed's talent or genius, bar none the most excellent tennis player of the modern era. But it seems that the fed fans want to deny any redeemable and wonderful quality in the play of the other top 3 players. I love watching these two crank backhands or absorb punishment and yes occassionally suffer to win points. Therefore from my perspective I am not negative on the outlook of everything in the game.

Of course socal.

Federer fans are amazed by his winners he hits and that is fair enough.

Djokovic and Murray fans are amazed by their ability to return the unreturnable and that is fair enough is it not?

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think the clear divisions here are the different appeals of the game. We clearly have Roger Federer fans who love to see him hitting winners left, right and centre at the first possible opportunity. No one can deny Fed's talent for this and his fans love that and I have no qualms for that and that comes from a staunch Andy Murray fan. However, flip the coin and look at the games of Djokovic and Murray and they have different traits that we can watch in awe. They may not hit winners left, right and centre like Fed but they have another talent - they have the ability to retrieve shots and return balls that other players just cannot do. What's more they can be boxed totally into a corner and find a way out to hit a winner. It is fantastic for fans of those players to watch but it would seem fans of other players cannot see or recognise this marvellous talent. In short Federer has his strengths that we can all marvel at which he does better than anyone else but likewise Djokovic and Murray have strings to their bow that are better than anyone else.

We could look at tennis matches a bit like snooker. Fans love a big break of that there is no doubt but in a poll run by the BBC recently just as many loved a safety battle frame as well. So you see entertainment and quality comes in various guises not just who hits the most winners.

All that is true CC, but in the past, the most popular rivalries have been between players with contrasting styles - Borg/Mac, Sampras/Agassi, Fed/Nadal, even Becker/Edberg - where you can see different styles of play in the same match. Djoko and Murray aren't identikit, but perhaps are too similar for their matches to truly grab my imagination - apart from the fact that Murray playing gives me more emotional investment.

Great post Nore, yes it was a great tournament. How about Tipsy ferrer, both turned in probably the match of the year and it didn't feature any big 4 guy in it. There is a lot to be happy about with the tour these 4 guys at the top are all really pushing it to higher levels. By the way the fact that these events run longer is better for the networks assuming a final at the USO out draws their average run of the mill program that they would be running which in the vast majority of cases that is what happens.

Tipsy vs Ferrer was like a sporting version of a Shakespearian Drama. Sport, supreme athleticism, and drama all rolled into one. In fact many of these matches including the final were sporting theatre at its best.

Popular rivalries are fine but they don't always insure classic tennis matches either. Classics can come in many forms in my opinion - ones with the highest quality tennis throughout (that wasn't possible the other night due to wind) and ones with a really tight finish to a match where the result is on a knife edge. Now that is where Fed's strength comes back to bite him in the bottom. There are many matches (some finals) where you weren't gripped as the result wasn't in question hence don't make it into classic or even epic category. Andy won't scale the heights that Fed has but he invariably lends himself to some memorable matches where he comes back from the dead. This US Open was a prime example. Murray's run through to the final served up exciting matches V Lopez, Cilic and Berdych but look at Roger's run - pretty mundane stuff (not talking about his tennis by the way) just the way his matches panned out. No real dramas and straight-forward until his surprise exit.

Nore Staat wrote:Tipsy vs Ferrer was like a sporting version of a Shakespearian Drama. Sport, supreme athleticism, and drama all rolled into one. In fact many of these matches including the final were sporting theatre at its best.

I like that turn of phrase Nore it was very Shakespearian, there was Ferrer the steady rock like Octavian in Julius CAeasar the play, and Tipsy was the brash and flamboyant Anthony swashbuckling his way to an eventual and tragic defeat. The open was great this year with or without Rafa I enjoyed almost every match I watched.

I sat a six hour exam once NS, it was exhausting. The worst is I was acutely aware of writing mostly rubbish for the last half-hour or so but couldn't be bothered to make it any better

thankfully it was the only exam of the day (not even the French are that sadistic ). I did do a couple of four hour exams in one day on a few occasions, which was also knackering, but less so. Of course, even when you're sitting an exam you can take a short break to switch off/eat some food...

MFC
Check your inbox

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Calder106

Not yet as I am still waiting to find out who won the FO!

Murray won it. Now you know!

Ha ha! You are funny JuliousHMarx. I know for a fact that if Murray had won it would have been reported in depth. Whole rainforests would have been cleared to allow Neil Harman to analyse it in detail. I can still remember the full colour glossy souvenir supplement to mark Murrays practice set win over Nadal (Nadal used this set to practice his through the legs top spin lob and subsequently decided to stick with the loopy forehand to Federer's backhand in future matches).

I like Neil Harman, he is Murray-centric, but at least he knows what he's talking about, and seems to know the inner-workings of the ATP tour better than most. Easily the best tennis journo out there, and probably the singlest greatest reason I suscribe to The Times online.

The conditions were rubbish, there was a blustery wind most of the match, doesn't matter who was playing it wouldn't have been a pretty match. I still thought it was a good match and more importantly a really entertaining final. Frankly i couldn't care less how Murray won, except Rafa on clay the only genuinely amazing performance i've seen in a final in recent years is Djokovic 2011 AO final performance. Even the 2008 Wimbledon final is vastly overated in quality terms, there was just a constant stream of errors of Federers racket thankfully for him he always had that great serve.

To clarify my earlier posts I actually enjoyed the match. There were some great passages of play and it is certainly a match that I would re-watch.

I can however understand that, unless you are somehow invested in the match, it may not be an all-time classic. It was very windy which hampered the players ability to go for their shots as they are both eminently capable of doing. I look forward to many more finals between these two and think that there will be some classics among them.

I don't think some people understand the difficulties playing in the wind. I am sure Julius would back me in saying that playing on exposed courts with a strong breeze is intolerable!! Sometimes you have to serve wide just to land the ball up the middle and vice versa. I even remember hitting a FH to the BH side and the ball blew back onto my partners side of the court!! I don't think the players could've done any more in such conditions.

The prize at stake can often make the most mundane match exciting. I was lucky enough to be at Wembley for the 1966 England World Cup win. Frankly, the football was fairly average. But it was the most exciting soccer match I've ever seen, or will ever see, simply becasue it was the final and England won.
Now it could be that those British fans fortunate to be in New York will regard the Murray final in the same light, purely down to what the match meant.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I don't think some people understand the difficulties playing in the wind. I am sure Julius would back me in saying that playing on exposed courts with a strong breeze is intolerable!! Sometimes you have to serve wide just to land the ball up the middle and vice versa. I even remember hitting a FH to the BH side and the ball blew back onto my partners side of the court!! I don't think the players could've done any more in such conditions.

Exactly, I don't think any players could have done any better. The final was as much of a classic as it could possibly be.

sirfredperry wrote:The prize at stake can often make the most mundane match exciting. I was lucky enough to be at Wembley for the 1966 England World Cup win. Frankly, the football was fairly average. But it was the most exciting soccer match I've ever seen, or will ever see, simply becasue it was the final and England won.
Now it could be that those British fans fortunate to be in New York will regard the Murray final in the same light, purely down to what the match meant.

Yep, Nadal has won some boring finals in his time such as Berdych at Wimbledon, majority of his French Opens, they never found those boring.

If you are a tennis fan, you cannot admire a match that has double the errors than winners through a big match.

sirfredperry wrote:The prize at stake can often make the most mundane match exciting. I was lucky enough to be at Wembley for the 1966 England World Cup win. Frankly, the football was fairly average. But it was the most exciting soccer match I've ever seen, or will ever see, simply becasue it was the final and England won.
Now it could be that those British fans fortunate to be in New York will regard the Murray final in the same light, purely down to what the match meant.

Wow! That must have been amazing. The only thing is you would have missed the commentary... They think it's all over....

hawkeye wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:The prize at stake can often make the most mundane match exciting. I was lucky enough to be at Wembley for the 1966 England World Cup win. Frankly, the football was fairly average. But it was the most exciting soccer match I've ever seen, or will ever see, simply becasue it was the final and England won.
Now it could be that those British fans fortunate to be in New York will regard the Murray final in the same light, purely down to what the match meant.

Wow! That must have been amazing. The only thing is you would have missed the commentary... They think it's all over....

He gave the commentator somethign to say, he was one of the guys who thought it was all over.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:The prize at stake can often make the most mundane match exciting. I was lucky enough to be at Wembley for the 1966 England World Cup win. Frankly, the football was fairly average. But it was the most exciting soccer match I've ever seen, or will ever see, simply becasue it was the final and England won.
Now it could be that those British fans fortunate to be in New York will regard the Murray final in the same light, purely down to what the match meant.

Yep, Nadal has won some boring finals in his time such as Berdych at Wimbledon, majority of his French Opens, they never found those boring.

If you are a tennis fan, you cannot admire a match that has double the errors than winners through a big match.

No if you are a tennis fan you would never write a line like the last one and post it. It shows a fundamental failure to understand the game. Most matches on grass feature more winners than errors, most matches on clay feature more errors than winners. So under JM's silly criteria only grass court tennis is worth cheering for. Errors to Winners ratio is a function of weather, conditions, the surface, and the opponent that you are playing. Without looking at the match through that context it actually tells you absolutely nothing about the quality of the match played.

And yes when two of the best returners and retrievers play in a windstorm no MATTER HOW WELL they hit the ball the players are going to find it very difficult to hit more winners than errors. A completely bogus criteria although a lot of socalled purists overvalue this statistic and look at in isolation. It is clear sign that they don't know much about the game and shouldn't be commenting in the first place.

When Novak and Andy play each other, they get to virtually everything. They are so good defensively that shots which would normally be clean winners they get a racquet on. So even if the shot wins the point it doesn't go down as a winner.

That's why stats in their clashes can be deceiving. Even if both are being aggressive the stats won't show it as they both let so little get past them without getting something on it.

I love that about them. The athletic side of it is fascinating for me. The reason I like watching Andy as much as I do (apart from the fact he's a Brit) is that he can mix this this athletic ability with great variety and imagination. Also, he can hit through the ball which he is doing more and more nowadays. You never know what you're going to get, but usually it's a bit of everything.

People may criticise the Murray v Djokovic matches, but they are actually my favourite match up these days. All 3 of their big matches this season I was absolutely glued to. I can't wait to watch more of them over the next few years.

I've watched it again and no longer agree with the title of this article. Novak's late third and early 4th set play coupled with Andy's 5th set - were enough on their own to justify the word 'memorable' and the rest wasn't that bad

Not the best match final ever, involving the Fab 4 (for me that's Fed / Del Po) but up there

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

If you are a tennis fan, you cannot admire a match that has double the errors than winners through a big match.

No if you are a tennis fan you would never write a line like the last one and post it. It shows a fundamental failure to understand the game.

Extraordinary, to think that there would be no errors in such condtions.

And the criticism coming from a Fed fan, who will all admired last year, when he made the same number against Nole and is regularly error strewn. No double standards though!!

banbrotam wrote:I've watched it again and no longer agree with the title of this article. Novak's late third and early 4th set play coupled with Andy's 5th set - were enough on their own to justify the word 'memorable' and the rest wasn't that bad

Not the best match final ever, involving the Fab 4 (for me that's Fed / Del Po) but up there

Banbro - I've watched it since too, and it was just as good second time round. Towards the end of the fourth they both started playing near their best. And the 2 games at the start of the fifth were an amazing level. Especially Murrays hold to make it 2-0 in the decider.

Djokovic threw everything at him in that game and Murray not only met that challenge head on but was returning Djokovic rockets to the baseline. At the end of that game the whole crowd rose to their feet and applauded them both. Sensational tennis.

I thought it was a tremendous match. One of my favourites certainly.

Danny_1982 wrote:Especially Murrays hold to make it 2-0 in the decider

Loved it when he did the 'fist pump' and the "come on's" - reminded me of Jimmy Connors when he caught up and overtook Lendl to win, 20 years ago (at least he didn't scream "chicken" to Novak like Jimbo did to the visibly cowering Ivan - imagine what Hawkeye would have said )

Right from that moment, I think Novak knew that was it

I don't think it was a fantastic match to watch, (although no one can say it wasn't significant or memorable), for the following reasons:

-Wind for the first few sets was heavy. This didn't allow either player to get into their rhythm.
-They play very very similar style, and have quite similar games. There wasn't a huge contrast in styles.
-Djokovic's backhand slice=

banbrotam wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Especially Murrays hold to make it 2-0 in the decider

Loved it when he did the 'fist pump' and the "come on's" - reminded me of Jimmy Connors when he caught up and overtook Lendl to win, 20 years ago (at least he didn't scream "chicken" to Novak like Jimbo did to the visibly cowering Ivan - imagine what Hawkeye would have said )

Right from that moment, I think Novak knew that was it

That was tremendous to watch. That game point that you talk about... Wow. The defence from Murray was unbelievable, and then from another Novak rocket which he had no right to get he fired a bullet onto the baseline and that was the game.

My favourite moment of the match, maybe even of Murrays whole career.

IMBL - as Murray said, the wind died down in the fourth and fifth, and that's when a good match turned into a great match for me. That's when they both started driving it rather than guiding it.

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

If you are a tennis fan, you cannot admire a match that has double the errors than winners through a big match.

No if you are a tennis fan you would never write a line like the last one and post it. It shows a fundamental failure to understand the game.

Extraordinary, to think that there would be no errors in such condtions.

And the criticism coming from a Fed fan, who will all admired last year, when he made the same number against Nole and is regularly error strewn. No double standards though!!

To me Banbro I get very fed up with some people's obsession with the winners to unforced errors number. They believe that if they somehow look that box score up online that it shows some form of knowledgable or refinement on their part when it comes to understanding tennis. In actuality in isolation it tells you nothing about a match and can actually deceive you about its quality more than inform you. By these people's standards I can predict the greatest match in the history of all time. If quality is measured by winners to errors ration then here is my prediction, the most high quality match in history will be the first time Isner plays Raonic or Karlovic on grass. The winners to unforced errors number will shoot through the roof as these two lumbering behemouths watch routine balls skid by them on the grass and as aces rain from the sky. Based on winners to unforced errors as a sole or principal measure of match quality the first time two of the giant servers who can't move a lick play each other on grass will be the greatest match in the history of mankind.

Socal - don't you think Murray v Djokovic is the perfect example of how winners v unforced can lie about the quality of the match. The fact is these two get a racquet on everything, making it near impossible to have a higher winner count than unforced.

For me, great defense is a must for a high quality match. Much as Novak, Andy and Rafa are criticised for their style I think it makes tennis more enjoyable than ever. For my liking anyway.

That service hold point to give Andy 2-0 in the 5th, showed the remarkable skill of both - but some will insist all it showed us was how the passive Murray 'waits for errors'!!!!

the UEs/winners one is an interesting point (and one I side with socal and banbro on). It can be very misleading: for instance Murray hit more winners, and had a better winners/UEs ratio against Bogomolov than against Dodig (to take two similar levels of opponents). Now there's no way Murray played better against Bogomlov than against Dodig, and yet a cursory glance at that line of statistics would seem to suggest it

Danny_1982 wrote:Socal - don't you think Murray v Djokovic is the perfect example of how winners v unforced can lie about the quality of the match. The fact is these two get a racquet on everything, making it near impossible to have a higher winner count than unforced.

For me, great defense is a must for a high quality match. Much as Novak, Andy and Rafa are criticised for their style I think it makes tennis more enjoyable than ever. For my liking anyway.

Absolutely Danny these are the two best guys at absorbing pace and returning serves playing in a windstorm. They extend rallies beyond a few shots by getting to balls that other mortals have no chance of getting a racquet on. Also the unforced error stat is a bit subjective if someone hits a wicked shot and you can get your racquet to it but you are surprised by the depth and weight and shot and you error that is an unforced error, which credits my bad play for the point when it actuality the point was won by opponent unleashing a brutal shot up the middle of the court and right at me. There are such a thing as forced errors that often are difficult to track as well.

Additionally, when two guys who don't return well you get a lot of meatball returns that I could hit by lets say a John Isner or Raonic. Give me a bunch of nice fat floated returns around the service line and I could hit winners off that all day and I am no tennis genius. But when even quality first serves have to be half volleyed off the baseline or at worst neutralized with a nice deep floated return now guess what you are in a long point. That is what Murray and Djoko do more than anyone else in the game.

I mean if this winners to unforced ration is dispositive of quality than John Isner is the most high quality tennis player in history. And the second most high quality player on tour that day is the guy who plays Isner and has the benefit of slamming meatball returns on the court for this poor giant to try to chase down.

I thought the defence of the USO final 2012, was very good, but not as high quality as the USO 2011. The defence in that match was simply unreal.

banbrotam wrote:That service hold point to give Andy 2-0 in the 5th, showed the remarkable skill of both - but some will insist all it showed us was how the passive Murray 'waits for errors'!!!!

Maybe someone should inform those people that score is kept over the course of a tennis match and it might not be a smart idea to go banzai in those kind of winds. But of course there are certain people who have a very warped understanding of the game and when facts don't conform to their theories they just ignore them.

It Must Be Love wrote:I thought the defence of the USO final 2012, was very good, but not as high quality as the USO 2011. The defence in that match was simply unreal.

I think Nadal, Djoko, and Murray all are amazing not only for their defense but contrary to many defenders they can be extremely aggressive from desperate defensive spots on the court, winners or shots that win the point from defensive positions. It is that one shot transition from defense to offense that is so special about all three. Of the three nadal with his deeper position and more spin is maybe a hair better at one shot defense to offense switch.

Bear yourselves for controversy folks and Fed fans look away now.............

Sorry but although the US Open Final wasn't an absolute classic (a bit impossible considering the windy conditions) it was far from dross and certainly not in the forgettable category.

Now for the controversy......

I am not here to deny Fed's stance as GOAT as that is what he is but does that qualify him as Mr. Entertainment? I say not. His greatness affords him many an easy stroll to victory so we very seldom get gripping finales or tense finished in Federer matches. There have been many times when you can switch off once he has a set or two in the bag as you know it is game over. He has been involved in mundane slam finals as well so why is so much being made out of this final which can't be called mundane.

For all Murray's failings and faults his matches benefit from that as there is more of an air of uncertainty lending itself to drama, gripping finishes and plenty of surprises. Look at his US Open run and spot the drab matches and they are out-numbered by the thrillers whereas Federer's matches were one-sided yawn fests until his quarter-final defeat which wasn't exactly gripping either.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Bear yourselves for controversy folks and Fed fans look away now.............

Sorry but although the US Open Final wasn't an absolute classic (a bit impossible considering the windy conditions) it was far from dross and certainly not in the forgettable category.

Now for the controversy......

I am not here to deny Fed's stance as GOAT as that is what he is but does that qualify him as Mr. Entertainment? I say not. His greatness affords him many an easy stroll to victory so we very seldom get gripping finales or tense finished in Federer matches. There have been many times when you can switch off once he has a set or two in the bag as you know it is game over. He has been involved in mundane slam finals as well so why is so much being made out of this final which can't be called mundane.

For all Murray's failings and faults his matches benefit from that as there is more of an air of uncertainty lending itself to drama, gripping finishes and plenty of surprises. Look at his US Open run and spot the drab matches and they are out-numbered by the thrillers whereas Federer's matches were one-sided yawn fests until his quarter-final defeat which wasn't exactly gripping either.

When Federer is playing well he generally steam-rolls opponents (apart from Nadal).

With Nadal even when he is winning easily there is always a battle. He doesn't finish off the point in 2-3 points, he normally starts off the rally on the defence and then turns the point around.
My friend is a Federer fan, and he said that he still prefers to watch Nadal live as the points are more interesting and enthralling (but he prefers to watch Fed on the tele).

People obsess over hitting winners but like I said there are many ways to win points in tennis. Sure Federer goes for outright winners and people label this as brave but for me it is just another way of wining points as it is just as brave to trust oneself to win the point over an extended rally by probing for that opportunity then taking it.

CC

Roger fans are going to kill us for uttering these words

*Just want to clear up that Roggie is still the bestest out of the bestest, and all his matches are worth pure Lindt chocolate mixed with Swiss cheese

It Must Be Love wrote:CC

Roger fans are going to kill us for uttering these words

*Just want to clear up that Roggie is still the bestest out of the bestest, and all his matches are worth pure Lindt chocolate mixed with Swiss cheese

Oh! I see where your coming from now. You don't like Federer? Anyone but Federer?

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:CC

Roger fans are going to kill us for uttering these words

*Just want to clear up that Roggie is still the bestest out of the bestest, and all his matches are worth pure Lindt chocolate mixed with Swiss cheese

Oh! I see where your coming from now. You don't like Federer? Anyone but Federer?

Federer, in my eyes, is the second greatest player of all time

Are you upset because today morning I said you were too anti-Murray? Apologies for that, didn't meant to offend.

Just to clear up with Federer fans, when I said he was second greatest, I was implying that Lukas Rosol is the greatest.
Obviously.

Who else could I have been referring to?

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:CC

Roger fans are going to kill us for uttering these words

*Just want to clear up that Roggie is still the bestest out of the bestest, and all his matches are worth pure Lindt chocolate mixed with Swiss cheese

Oh! I see where your coming from now. You don't like Federer? Anyone but Federer?

Err where did anyone say that. It is just that some people don't buy into this Federer-love in. Facts are facts when one is so good as Fed is. You get a career largely devoid of nail-biting matches compared to other players as he is/was so flawless it means a stack of his games are devoid of that necessary element for a classic match - nail-biting finish and drama. Fed the GOAT but doesn't mean he is the king of entertainment is my point.

I enjoyed the match hugely. It was partly the narrative with Murray and all that went with it, but it had a lot going for it in terms of drama, ebbs and flows in sets, games and countless times even during points. Nothing bores me more than a big server getting free points, with these two that was at a premium.

On the wider entertainment point, I am always more engaged when it is a contest.