Here we go, the Murray v. Djoko XVI, the shanghai final

First topic message reminder :

I have to say that this rivalry has been warming up in terms of quality. I think both guys are showing how strong, focused, and mentally engaged they are in the battle for tennis supremacy by being so good at this time of the year. Djoko last two seasons has run out of gas but he looks really capable of having his best indoor campaign in quite some time and maybe ever. Murray for his part just took out federer and I believe it was Craig but not sure who pointed out that he is riding a wave of 5 straight wins against fed and djoko. Novak should be the hungrier player as he has lost his last few against the big 4 when early in the year and last year he was dominating these encounters and he is locked in a number 1 fight. Murray for his part can't but help taking this match seriously as every match against one of his top rivals in a final is going to have significance.

Mathchup wise I think it comes down to who serves better. When the two best returners in the world are playing each other the player who executes better on serve is going to be at a huge advantage even more so than in other matchups. To me Novak has been the form horse but he is also playing with more pressure where Murray can afford to be a bit more relaxed. Novak didn't do a good job of attacking murray's second serve at the USO when in general he has made mince meat of that shot in many of their past encounters. Murray for his part I am sure is also looking for his chance at getting a good look at the Nole second set serve as well in the last match he absolutely abused Fed's vaunted second serve. I think for Murray the slice backhand will be crucial as this is one advantage he possesses over Novak. Novak can't get sucked into over hitting when murray decides to junk ball him, but he does have to come over the ball aggressively and not get baited in a chip and dink contest with murray. He has to attack murray more effectively than he was able to do both in Australia and in the USO final. I think the indoor conditions and his current form will allow him to do that. I look for the aggressor to win the match and I look for Novak to be the aggressor.

I can't say I am overly confident these two have been so close in terms of their head to head for so long and I don't see this match being different. I think Novak wins it in either two or 3 very tough and tight sets. Still can't say I would be overly surprised if Murray wins he has been the best player for my money from the start of the grass court season till now although Novak is perking up finely to finish the season as well.

Ok thanks for the clarification 2011 final, was close for a set and half. Maybe that is why I don't remember it as a close match.

When they play on clay I would give Nadal an 85% chance to win.

90% if it's a 5 setter at Roland Garros.

50% if it's a wierd fast blue Madrid.

Henman Bill wrote:When they play on clay I would give Nadal an 85% chance to win.

90% if it's a 5 setter at Roland Garros.

50% if it's a wierd fast blue Madrid.

That is about what I see it as also. Not a close rivalry or even an entertaining match on clay. The last great clay match I remember them playing was back in the stone age of Rome 05 but just going off memory here.

socal1976 wrote:Ok thanks for the clarification 2011 final, was close for a set and half. Maybe that is why I don't remember it as a close match.

1st set Fed was 5-2 up.
2nd set went to Tie-break.
3rd set Federer won.
4th set Rafa cruised!

So 3 sets were very close...!
Nadal played well when it counted though.

socal1976 wrote:Ok thanks for the clarification 2011 final, was close for a set and half. Maybe that is why I don't remember it as a close match.

Close for a set and a half. Then Federer won the 3rd.

Jeez man, keep going.......

Federer, in the 2011 final, played excellently. Perhaps as well as in his famous semi win against Djokovic. It was perhaps his best performance against Rafa at FO in his whole career. Rafa went 2-0 up, but really Fed could have won either or both of these sets quite easily. it was very close.

Fed took the 3rd set. Rafa won the 4th set 6-1 though.

IMBL, posted at the same time...

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:When they play on clay I would give Nadal an 85% chance to win.

90% if it's a 5 setter at Roland Garros.

50% if it's a wierd fast blue Madrid.

That is about what I see it as also. Not a close rivalry or even an entertaining match on clay. The last great clay match I remember them playing was back in the stone age of Rome 05 but just going off memory here.

Rome 2005 was a stunning match.
Funnily enough that was the match where I became a Nadal fan, I was tired of Fed winning so I just though 'I might as well support this Spanish guy anyway.'
Turns out I loved watching him play- and have been a massive fan ever since!

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ok thanks for the clarification 2011 final, was close for a set and half. Maybe that is why I don't remember it as a close match.

Close for a set and a half. Then Federer won the 3rd.

Jeez man, keep going.......

yes it was close in the from the 3rd set on, I didn't say when the set and half started did I, back to your reading comprehension problem I see.

French Open 2011 BBC live text

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/9504906.stm

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:When they play on clay I would give Nadal an 85% chance to win.

90% if it's a 5 setter at Roland Garros.

50% if it's a wierd fast blue Madrid.

That is about what I see it as also. Not a close rivalry or even an entertaining match on clay. The last great clay match I remember them playing was back in the stone age of Rome 05 but just going off memory here.

Rome 2005 was a stunning match.
Funnily enough that was the match where I became a Nadal fan, I was tired of Fed winning so I just though 'I might as well support this Spanish guy anyway.'
Turns out I loved watching him play- and have been a massive fan ever since!

Best match Fed ever played on clay in my opinion he had match points back when masters finals were 5 sets and it went the distance.

Socal, it was close for 3 entire sets, just admit you got it wrong.

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:When they play on clay I would give Nadal an 85% chance to win.

90% if it's a 5 setter at Roland Garros.

50% if it's a wierd fast blue Madrid.

That is about what I see it as also. Not a close rivalry or even an entertaining match on clay. The last great clay match I remember them playing was back in the stone age of Rome 05 but just going off memory here.

Well we've established your memory is faulty about the 2011 French for sure.

Then again, you were preoccupied with how a bye cost Djokovic the title.........

Best clay court match I ever saw Nadal in (infact probably best clay match I've seen period) was vs. Coria in final of Rome 2005 (vs. Federer was following year)
If you watch Nadal in that match he was uber aggressive, it was an incredible 5th set in particular. However, the match destroyed Coria who was never the same afterwards.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ok thanks for the clarification 2011 final, was close for a set and half. Maybe that is why I don't remember it as a close match.

Close for a set and a half. Then Federer won the 3rd.

Jeez man, keep going.......

yes it was close in the from the 3rd set on, I didn't say when the set and half started did I, back to your reading comprehension problem I see.

Ha! You've now included the one easy set in your 'close' assessment!

Pass this man another spade, this hole is getting bigger.

Yes, never had the pleasure of the Rome 2006 entire match live, but saw a lot of highlights, and it was the best match of their rivalry (up to that point), probably their best ever clay encounter, certainly their best ever non-slam encounter, and perhaps about their 3rd best match ever, even to this day.

I think Nadal-Coria was 2005. Yes, that was a great match too. Have seen highlights on you tube. In those days I only really watched slams and UK tournaments.

Nadal - Federer was 2006.

Socal, just because Nadal won almost all the clay matches doesn't mean they weren't close. Similar thing with Djokovic's 7 finals in a row was it against Nadal, and yet the actual matches often were very close.

And FEderer may have lost 80-90% of the clay matches, but maybe unlucky he didn't get at least 1 or 2 more wins I'd say. Rome, for instance that we mentioned, could have gone either way.

Looking at the BBC commentary, Rafa clearly had a slow start in 2011
"Rafa comes in to dispatch an easy forehand... but dumps it into the net!"
Most unusual. He is often a slow starter I feel, but once he gets inside Federer's head and into his own groove, he tends to take over from there on clay against poor Rog.

I actually think Fed's best match on clay was beating Djokovic in RG11 SF.

I would point out that Rome was/is always faster than Roland Garros so it's a much better bet for Federer to get closer to Nadal on clay. As I said, RG11 had a mis-specification of Babolat balls that made them much faster than intended. Players complained about them and we saw the help they gave Isner vs Nadal. Usually at RG I don't give Federer much chance of beating Nadal, about the same as Nadal beating Federer on a fast indoor court.

Probably, the 2011 RG final could have been a great spectacle though, if Federer could have served out the first set. But 2-0 down against Rafa on clay was too much for him.

I actually have sometimes wonder if Rafa is more likely to beat Federer on a fast indoor court than Federer to beat Rafa on slow clay (even though results don't bear this out and Rafa has never managed this). Federer is inconsistent and can play a stinker, and Rafa can get in his head on any surface.

I actually had a bet on Rafa to beat Federer at the WTF, and I got 3-1 I think. You would get better than that for Federer at FO I think.

Well at the end of the season Federer normally maintains his body better than Nadal, so in WTF it's pretty comfortable for Federer.
If they played on indoor HC at any other time of the year, I think it would be a bit close.

I agree HB, the problem is that usually post-USO Nadal's motivation for year end events seems low. For a guy who has won Queens on fast grass beating Karlovic on the way, and winning USO10 in the aggressive manner he did, he should do well in theory indoors. But he never does.

It Must Be Love wrote:Well at the end of the season Federer normally maintains his body better than Nadal, so in WTF it's pretty comfortable for Federer.
If they played on indoor HC at any other time of the year, I think it would be a bit close.

We'll never know I guess, if Rafa misses this year Federer will be 32 going on 33 the next time they have a chance.

Federer has been the best player at the world tour finals by a mile since it moved to London.

It is an interesting stat, that while he won 2 out of 3 of these and reached at least the semis in all 3, no other player has reached more than one semi final in the last 3 years. Every year Federer is there in the semis, but the others are different.

Sad for Federer that there was never a fast indoor slam.

Wow we stopped talking about the FO final pretty abruptly!

Did I twist the facts too much? Maybe I should have admitted Federer played Nadal at Madrid 2012 and the French final was clear cut the first two sets but close for half the 4th set.
Maybe I'd even have got a 'good post' accolade!

WFT 2009
Final Davydenko BT Del Potro
Semis Del Potro BT Soderling and Davydenko BT Federer

WTF 2010
Final Federer BT Nadal
Semis Federer BT Djokovic and Nadal BT Murray

WTF 2011
Final Federer BT Tsonga
Semis Tsonga BT Berdych and Federer BT Ferrer

6 out of last 9 WTF isn't too shabby for Fed either.

I'm sure Becker, Goran, Mc, Sampras and Henman would say similar too!
I wouldn't be against the calendar changing so that AO was an indoor slam in November preceded by indoor season as usual. WTF could follow in Dec, then off season until Feb.

An indoor Slam would be great, then we'd have one for each.

Some would argue we had a go at Wimbledon this year.

Not sure I'm actually in favour of an indoor slam, as I'd like to maintain the existing traditions, and the Australian summer is a part of that too. I would just like to see Wimbledon and the US Open sped up. We had some serve and volley this year at Dubai and Madrid, so must be possible to create some of that at the slams.

I personally like US Open a touch later, WTF a touch earlier, and eliminate some European tournaments that come between.

Also, if you think about it, all 4 slams might have a roof in about 10-20 years, so ultimately every slam might end up being played partially indoors, at least on the main stadium court.

Indeed we did.

It would also make AO relevant. Through its history it's been the poor grass slam relation to Wimbledon, then poor HC relation to US Open. It could define the end of the year and provide genuine interest in who makes the WTF to follow...WTf feels too much like a procession to me after September, a slam just before would create a lot more possibilities and put extra importance on the results.

Fair point HB. I'm in favour of moving AO to November regardless of indoors or outdoors...would make the calendar much more interesting and create a genuine off season.

Henman Bill wrote:Yes, never had the pleasure of the Rome 2006 entire match live, but saw a lot of highlights, and it was the best match of their rivalry (up to that point), probably their best ever clay encounter, certainly their best ever non-slam encounter, and perhaps about their 3rd best match ever, even to this day.

I think Nadal-Coria was 2005. Yes, that was a great match too. Have seen highlights on you tube. In those days I only really watched slams and UK tournaments.

Nadal - Federer was 2006.

Yes it was some time ago that is probably my mistake I stand corrected Rome 2005. I actually would rate that match Henman Bill as the second best match between fed and Nadal. The 08 final was only, only better in their rivalry in my opinion because of the stage being at wimbeldon. In terms of the quality of play and execution the 06 Rome final was its full measure and then some. Fed played an exceptionally aggressive match on clay and that strategy on that day looked like it was going to work as he I had I think a couple of match points. I rate it much higher in my opinion that both 07 wimby final and the 09 AO open that people often point to.

bogbrush wrote:I'm confused about Craig's perspective on Djokovic / Federer at Slams. In the last 6 it's been two clear wins for each man, and two where the winner saved match points.

And he finds that predictable?

As for recent meetings, well they both went to Federer.

Remember this is my opinion on the top match ups as a Murray fan. Now Rafa, Fed and Djoko fans will all have their own favourite match ups and opinions.Fair enough.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm confused about Craig's perspective on Djokovic / Federer at Slams. In the last 6 it's been two clear wins for each man, and two where the winner saved match points.

And he finds that predictable?

As for recent meetings, well they both went to Federer.

Remember this is my opinion on the top match ups as a Murray fan. Now Rafa, Fed and Djoko fans will all have their own favourite match ups and opinions.Fair enough.

I wouldn't challenge that, it just seems odd that you classed this one as predictable on recent meetings, then when Julius challenged on Cincinatti & Wimbledon you switched to the last 6 Slams as evidence, and now the way the 6 actually fell contradicted that.

It's not a basis for an argument, but it does intrigue me.

I suppose it comes from years of discussion forms where it has been drilled into Murray fans that stuff anything else and the only thing to judge players by are slams.

Henman Bill wrote:Socal, just because Nadal won almost all the clay matches doesn't mean they weren't close. Similar thing with Djokovic's 7 finals in a row was it against Nadal, and yet the actual matches often were very close.

And FEderer may have lost 80-90% of the clay matches, but maybe unlucky he didn't get at least 1 or 2 more wins I'd say. Rome, for instance that we mentioned, could have gone either way.

Right now the two of them meeting on clay would be more than a formality than a tennis match. I mean the matches are close, kind of but not really. In a five setter fed usually takes a set and plays a tough set or two as well. But what I mean as close is a match that has some actual suspense as to who is going to win or lose.

The same guy by the way that claims the 2011 final was close also thinks that Djokovic was lucky to play Nadal in a rain storm and that 2012 final flatters Djokovic and really wasn't that close. In actuality 2012 was much closer than 2011 and was much more in doubt when Djokovic won 8 straight games. Then we heard the nonsense from this individual that oh Novak was only winning because it was a rainstorm and they should have stopped the match early (as soon as Rafa started losing). In short if 2012 wasn't a close RG final than Rafa's clay court executions of federer in the past are never close. I am glad that you who actually went to the final, shed some light on the lies being told by this smear monger run wild. For days we heard how Rafa lost that set and those games in a row because the weather got torrential and the spin wouldn't kick up in the rain. Eventhough it was raining mildly at the start of the match, when Rafa wins in the rain it is because he is great when Djoko does it well its because of the rain of course. Funny you were the very person who shot this wild made up hypothesis down because you were actually there and you stated "I didn't have an umbrella and hardly got wet". If I do remember.

If Nadal's routine win against Fed in 2011 was a barn burner and close what makes Djokovic's 2012 match that actually did have some doubt as to who would win flattering and not really as close as the scoreline indicated. So if Nadal's routine wins over Roger are considered close matches what do we call last nights match? That is a close match no Nadal's routine executions of Federer on the clay are for the most part formalities.

Henman bill, I love do love your posts in general so don't take this the wrong way. The last good fedal clay match was Rome back then I didn't have a single grey hair, what was that 2006 did you say. I'd almost rather watch Isner v. Nadal on clay than fed v. Nadal on clay frankly. NOt to pick on fed I don't like to see murray get kicked down on clay by Nadal either. That is part of the thing that I don't like about Nadal on clay is that he really had no one to even give him a bit of fear till Djoko in 2011, so it isn't so much an indictment of fed.