The Hard Sell: Djokovic v Murray

With Federer not always paying attention, Nadal absent and other members of the top ten unwilling or unable to stay in the spotlight long enough for their names to stick in the memories of the more general tennis sports fan Djokovic and Murray have almost by default been forced to take center stage.

Boris Becker does his best to sell their rivalry

The game is in safe hands with the Serb and the Scot replacing Federer v Nadal as the game to watch, writes Boris Becker

We are lucky enough to have two great rivalries in men’s tennis right now. In fact, we have a rivalry between rivalries. But it’s clear which one has the upper hand.

With Rafael Nadal laid up at home, still resting his painful right knee, his famous double-act with Roger Federer has been dormant since March.

Meanwhile Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic have played each other six times already this season, with a score of three wins apiece. You wouldn’t bet against them meeting again in the final at the O2.

These two are a notch above the rest of the field at the moment. Don’t take too much notice of their early exits in Paris last week, where they both suffered their worst losses – on paper, at least – of the year.

The leading players had no great motivation to play in tomorrow’s Paris final, because it would have meant arriving in London feeling footsore and jaded, so bear that in mind.

Some will tell you that the Murray-Djokovic rivalry is not a patch on the Federer-Nadal version. People say they lack the charisma of the two senior pros on the tour. And that is probably true – at the moment, anyway.

But then Federer and Nadal are two of the finest players tennis has ever seen. Djokovic and Murray are still improving, and they have the potential to become greats too.

As for charisma, it’s not a case of being born with it. In the world of sport, charisma develops out of victories. Of course some people have more approachable personalities than others, but I still feel that it is a chain reaction: the more tournaments you win, the more prestige you get, the more comfortable you feel in yourself, and the more people get to know you.

How many times will Murray and Djokovic play each other in their careers? They have already racked up 16 matches, compared to 18 between Federer and Nadal. And you could see them going on until they reach 30, especially if Nadal’s knee keeps rebelling, Federer starts to feel his age – he’ll be 32 next summer – and the young hopes from the next generation continue to stall.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/9652918/Boris-Becker-Andy-Murray-against-Novak-Djokovic-is-the-hottest-ticket-in-world-tennis.html

Are you convinced? Can Djokovic and Murray become greats? Does charisma develop out of victories? What makes a good rivalry? Close matches? Similar play? Nationalist support? Number of matches played? Are you sold on the Djokovic Murray rivalry?

Also a slightly different question. Becker postulated that both Djokovic and Murray lacked motivation and were avoiding being jaded when they played in the Paris Masters this week. Was that true? Does it matter? This was a premier event and they were the top seeds. If players are not totally commuted to winning are we being short changed? If Masters tournaments are no longer important enough for the top players to fight to win are they less interesting to watch? Apathy can be catching.

The Hard Sell??

Tell that to the crowds in Melbourne, Wimbledon for the Olympics, New York and Shanghai.

I know it must be a really tough one for you to swallow HE, but even Federer has gracefully conceded that this is the box office match up in tennis nowadays. And it deserves to be from the unbelievable matches they've played this year.

It's not a hard sell at all. It's the easiest sell in tennis.

It's the Quantum of Solace after Casino Royale. It's either that or nothing, but it doesn't make it as good as the previous one.

lol BB, you're watching it on TV too...

Seen Skyfall? Really good!

Yeah, Skyfall was brilliant!

M's speech in front of the committee was superb.

Danny_1982 wrote:

but even Federer has gracefully conceded that this is the box office match up in tennis nowadays.

I suppose you mean this (cough!)

Assessing a potential Djokovic-Murray period of dominance, Federer said: “It is great for the sport to have a lot of champions out there playing the game and it is natural that they would get more of the limelight for what they’ve achieved in recent months.

“I always knew that Novak and Andy would stay around at the top of the game for a long time and this [at the age of 25] is the time when they should be playing their best tennis.”

At the same age, Federer was in his pomp, finishing No 1 for a third straight year, winning 12 ATP titles, including three grand-slam tournaments, becoming the first player to reach all four major finals for the first time since Rod Laver in 1969 and winning the Tour Finals (then called the Masters Cup) on his way to a career-high 92 victories. So Djokovic and Murray have a bit of a way to go yet before they can entertain those sort of bragging rights.

From The Times (PPV)

Federer is not only graceful on the tennis court but manages to say exactly what he thinks whilst still smelling of roses... Neil Harman for once straying off brief too. He reins it in though as there is another article by him in the same edition entitled "Andy Murray to receive full rock star treatment".

.... James Bond? Pfft!

I think Roger and Rafa will still be considered the biggest rivalry. Their battles will live long in many peoples memories. Djokovic and Murray have a long way to go before they can be classed as that kind of rivalry.

The Murray and Djokovic fans seem to very chummy at the moment, I don't think its going to last in the next few years!

Nadal and charisma?

Jeez I guess your not one to see the sheer hatred on the internet that Nadal can generate.

Djokovic and Murray have not had the luxury of contesting big titles. It is only really that in 2012 that the rivalry has come on leaps and bounds. It is like comparing McEnroe and Borg with Wilander and Lendl.

Nadal has rivalries with Djokovic and Murray and they are not really held in high esteem by many fans. Ask yourself this. Why is Nadal v Federer so popular? Easily the appeal can be pointed to the latter. The rivalry itself needs Federer more than Nadal.

The recent Djokovic and Murray matches haven't captured the imagination of the tennis public as of yet. Too much caution and not enough risk have certainly put a dampener on their matches.

Tennis of late has lost a bit of sparkle. And no it isn't down to the butt picker being injured. 2011. Djokovic and Nadal. You want to talk about hard sells? Not many fans embraced the Slam finals they contested. When Federer went into a decline in 2011, fans looked much lower in the rankings for pure of hearts in the tennis forte. Tsonga, Dolgopolov, Paire, Dimitrov. They certainly have enjoyed their far share of the attention of fans looking beyond Federer.

The tennis of Murray and Djokovic has recently worn down many tennis fans. I am a Murray fan and him and Djokovic have certainly hit the blunt your game brand and tactics of tennis. Take Janowicz. Certainly has captured the imagination this week. Giving the fans what they want to see. Something different from the brand of tennis that has decided many titles of late. Take Federer out of the picture and I think you will still be harping on about Federer/Nadal rivalry. Strange given your a Nadal fan. Seems his legacy can't stand up on it's own.

Legendkiller Hawkeye is a Federer and Nadal fan.

Hope this explains things.

IMBL

Haven't seen Skyfall BB....can't wait!
And I believe the next 007 is going to be a 2-parter if rumours are correct.
The Bourne films were the best thing that happened to the Bond franchise and Craig in retrospect was a fantastic casting move.
I'm still sad Vesper met her end in the first one though

I do think Nadal has charisma...that X factor. More so than Djokovic or Murray but his charisma is also part and parcel of being 50% of the rivalry with Federer. As it is with Federer too. But we surely have to acknowledge that what made their rivalry so good was the sheer contrast of styles on display...it's what makes the top rivalries easy on the eye (...like Vesper/Eva Green).

That's why for me Murray vs Djokovic won't capture the general public's (outside UK) imagination in quite the same way because they play the game in a more similar way. What's always been interesting is that Nadal/Djokovic have played more matches than Nadal/Federer and yet Nad-Fed is the rivalry the public will likely always remember the most. But when we say Nadal's legacy can't stand up on its own...I think it can more than Murray's or Djokovic's ever will...after all, Nadal has become the greatest ever player on one surface...will they ever have something truly unique to themselves? Perhaps so if Nadal and Federer aren't around any more...although its only a matter of time until someone else breaks through to nip at their ankles.
But at the end of the day the number of online fans shows how attractive the players are to watch/follow.

Anyway...I think tennis will become more interesting in 2013 if some of the 21-22 you can break through...the operative word being "if". But I do believe tennis always needs big rivalries of contrasting styles..that's what we all remember down the ages...Borg/Mac....Lendl/Mac...Sampras/Agassi....Federer/Nadal. My worry is that these contrasts will disappear because the guys are starting to all play similar ways...so thank heavens for Jerzy in that respect.

It is a massive IF lydian.

A friend of mine had free tickets to Skyfall and fell asleep through the film!

I did watch the Craig films only as recent as last week. Much better are these new Bond films. Certainly a massive step away from the camp Moore and wooden Brosnan.

What??!! He needs a slap!
A friend of mine was an extra on the film set in London...said it felt amazing just to be 100 yards near the action and the scenes are incredibly demanding on the actors. I suspect they have to earn their crust a little harder than Moore and Co used to.

She needs a slap for sure. She was like oh well the tickets were free.

The torture scene in Casino Royale was certainly not one for the faint hearted. They have come a long way

legendkillarV2 wrote:It is a massive IF lydian.

A friend of mine had free tickets to Skyfall and fell asleep through the film!

I did watch the Craig films only as recent as last week. Much better are these new Bond films. Certainly a massive step away from the camp Moore and wooden Brosnan.

Are you Yoda?

legendkillarV2 wrote:She needs a slap for sure. She was like oh well the tickets were free.

The torture scene in Casino Royale was certainly not one for the faint hearted. They have come a long way

Please don't remind me of that, I can hardly press the keys firmly now....

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:It is a massive IF lydian.

A friend of mine had free tickets to Skyfall and fell asleep through the film!

I did watch the Craig films only as recent as last week. Much better are these new Bond films. Certainly a massive step away from the camp Moore and wooden Brosnan.

Are you Yoda?

Not I am that is Yoda

legendkillarV2 wrote:IMBL

I'm sorry, what did I say wrong.
HE has confirmed before that she is a Federer + Nadal fan, who dislikes Murray.
I don't see what's wrong with my analysis.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:IMBL

I'm sorry, what did I say wrong.
HE has confirmed before that she is a Federer + Nadal fan, who dislikes Murray.
I don't see what's wrong with my analysis.

She is a Nadal fan and Federer arse kisser.

I think that is a more accurate analysis

I like that this has evolved into a Bond discussion.

Skyfall is the second best Bond film ever for my taste, just after Casino Royale. It is better than Casino Royale in some ways, but there's a bit more Roger Moore esq banter in this one which turned me off a bit. Still excellent though.

As for the Murray Djokovic rivalry, I'm surprised that people haven't bought into it thus far as for my taste its fantastic. Maybe there's a bit of bias attached too as I'm a Murray fan, but then it's mainly Rafa and Roger fans deriding it so the same could be said there.

The Rafa Roger rivalry has been the best thing in tennis for not far off a decade, and who can ever forget THAT Wimbledon final or the epic in Melbourne a few years ago. Given that this new rivalry has only just bubbled to the surface I think it's unfair to compare them now, but we'll see where it goes from here.

I believe it could be one of the best, but the next few years will dictate that. Each to their own though.

The most boring match-up amongst the top four, just slightly worse than Djokovic-Nadal.

Two very similar players, where the outcome is more often than not, determined by who is physically strongest on the day. Endless safe rallying. I was actually quite keen on this matchup prior to this year because it was quite rare, but having seen it six times this year, I can safely say I've had enough.

I doubt this rivalry will capture the public imagination. I imagine most casual sports fans outside of Britain and Serbia, in five years time, will still be trying to work out who's who out of this pair.



emancipator

Strong words emancipator.

While neither player has the profile of Roger or Rafa, and probably never will have, the crowds for their big matches seemed to love their clashes. Therefore I don't think people will bore of it, personally.

As I said before, each to their own of course... But it's the best match up around for me.

In fairness though least it is an even match up.

If we go by H2H's with other rivalries we all know who would likely win their matches in the Sampras/Agassi and Federer/Nadal matches

emancipator wrote:I was actually quite keen on this matchup prior to this year because it was quite rare, but having seen it six times this year, I can safely say I've had enough.

I agree. I was relatively interested in seeing them play before, but it has gotten rather repetitive this year. I don't think that it's a question of charisma by any means, it's just that both players are very much the archetype of the modern day player. To tar them with the 'baseline grinder' tag does both players a disservice, but they certainly don't have the uniqueness and willingness to utilise variety that some of the more popular players do. Murray in particular has all the shots, but increasingly doesn't seem willing to use them, which is a genuine shame. Let's be honest, you don't reach the top of the game without being at least somewhat competent in all areas, even if Novak's slice might indicate otherwise. Perhaps such tactics just don't work on the slower courts these days, and trying to bash people off court from the back is simply the most effective tactic? Not great for viewer participation, though.

Nadal and Fed are both unusual players by comparison (particularly Federer), and styles make fights - their matches will always be more interesting to me. It's telling that the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry never really took off massively either, despite meeting in slam finals repeatedly.

No offense intended to fans of Andy and Novak

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:IMBL

I'm sorry, what did I say wrong.
HE has confirmed before that she is a Federer + Nadal fan, who dislikes Murray.
I don't see what's wrong with my analysis.

She is a Nadal fan and Federer arse kisser.

I think that is a more accurate analysis

Yeah, well my analysis was a bit similar to that anyway.
Either way it's her right, people are allowed to be Fedal fans if they want.

Of course personally I can't see how it is possible to support two massive rivals, but each to their own

Silver wrote:

emancipator wrote:I was actually quite keen on this matchup prior to this year because it was quite rare, but having seen it six times this year, I can safely say I've had enough.

I agree. I was relatively interested in seeing them play before, but it has gotten rather repetitive this year. I don't think that it's a question of charisma by any means, it's just that both players are very much the archetype of the modern day player. To tar them with the 'baseline grinder' tag does both players a disservice, but they certainly don't have the uniqueness and willingness to utilise variety that some of the more popular players do. Murray in particular has all the shots, but increasingly doesn't seem willing to use them, which is a genuine shame. Let's be honest, you don't reach the top of the game without being at least somewhat competent in all areas, even if Novak's slice might indicate otherwise. Perhaps such tactics just don't work on the slower courts these days, and trying to bash people off court from the back is simply the most effective tactic? Not great for viewer participation, though.

Nadal and Fed are both unusual players by comparison (particularly Federer), and styles make fights - their matches will always be more interesting to me. It's telling that the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry never really took off massively either, despite meeting in slam finals repeatedly.

No offense intended to fans of Andy and Novak

Look I don't think that two 25 year old's with arguable 5 years left at the Top are going to compete with a rivalry involving a 31 year old GOAT and a 26 year old nearly GOAT, who've clashed in slam finals more than half a dozen times

There is nothing on these boards from fans of the two 25 year olds, that even tries to make out that the rivalry is as riveting

What we (fans of the 25 year olds) have is a right for our players to be respected, rather than the disrespectful stance that HE takes or the "it's not like the good old days" rubbish we have to hear about

It reminds me of the days when I moaned about Mac/Connors getting usurped by Lendl / Becker

banbrotam wrote:

Silver wrote:

emancipator wrote:I was actually quite keen on this matchup prior to this year because it was quite rare, but having seen it six times this year, I can safely say I've had enough.

I agree. I was relatively interested in seeing them play before, but it has gotten rather repetitive this year. I don't think that it's a question of charisma by any means, it's just that both players are very much the archetype of the modern day player. To tar them with the 'baseline grinder' tag does both players a disservice, but they certainly don't have the uniqueness and willingness to utilise variety that some of the more popular players do. Murray in particular has all the shots, but increasingly doesn't seem willing to use them, which is a genuine shame. Let's be honest, you don't reach the top of the game without being at least somewhat competent in all areas, even if Novak's slice might indicate otherwise. Perhaps such tactics just don't work on the slower courts these days, and trying to bash people off court from the back is simply the most effective tactic? Not great for viewer participation, though.

Nadal and Fed are both unusual players by comparison (particularly Federer), and styles make fights - their matches will always be more interesting to me. It's telling that the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry never really took off massively either, despite meeting in slam finals repeatedly.

No offense intended to fans of Andy and Novak

Look I don't think that two 25 year old's with arguable 5 years left at the Top are going to compete with a rivalry involving a 31 year old GOAT and a 26 year old nearly GOAT, who've clashed in slam finals more than half a dozen times

There is nothing on these boards from fans of the two 25 year olds, that even tries to make out that the rivalry is as riveting

What we (fans of the 25 year olds) have is a right for our players to be respected, rather than the disrespectful stance that HE takes or the "it's not like the good old days" rubbish we have to hear about

It reminds me of the days when I moaned about Mac/Connors getting usurped by Lendl / Becker

But the media insists on pushing aside two of the best players ever to play the game when they are still very much at the top in what to me is the mistaken belief that everyone has the attention span of a goldfish. New is not always better.

I think I would have agreed with your younger self. McEnroe, Connors (and Borg) being replaced by Lendl! That is something to moan about. Not all eras are equal. There is light and shade.

It Must Be Love wrote:Yeah, well my analysis was a bit similar to that anyway.
Either way it's her right, people are allowed to be Fedal fans if they want.

Of course personally I can't see how it is possible to support two massive rivals, but each to their own

It Must Be Love

You have very good taste if you appreciate Nadal. But what I don't understand is how can someone with such good taste not also appreciate Federer? They are two of the greatest players to ever walk on a court and we are lucky enough to (sometimes) see them walk... or run on the same court.

What are the media supposed to say HE?

Andy and Novak have produced the tightest rivalry of the year at the top of the game this year, pretty much all of their 6 meetings have been separated by a few points and a few of them have gone to the wire.

Are they supposed to ignore that? Why do you take it so personally? Rafa v Roger will never be repeated in terms of contrast of styles, charisma, and box office appeal. They have produced some of the finest matches ever seen.

Novak and Andy are miles off their legacy... but today, right now, it is THE match up in tennis. That isn't insulting Roger or Rafa. Roger agreed with it in his press conference, said they deserved it and that it gave him motivation to push forward...

So why not just accept that's its how it is without the petulance?

HE... times change, new players come on the scene. Would it be fair if I constantly talked about Laver-Rosewall or Laver-Pancho?

Danny_1982

We are not going to agree. But just as you like to express your enjoyment at watching your favorite player and agreeing with what the media has to say I have my opinion too. Djokovic has played some great matches particularly against Nadal and Federer. However against Murray the life is sort of sucked out of his game.

That is perhaps what Murray does on a tennis court? I watched some of the Murray/Berdych match today. It was to me totally joyless. Granted the O2 arena doesn't help. The crowd in the dark and the sort of forced circus atmosphere. When you did see glimpses of the crowd it wasn't surprising that they looked less than engaged. Tennis looked like something that had to be endured rather than something entertaining and fun.

Also noticed Murray must have been doing some serious work in the gym. He has muscles on his muscles. He even has visible muscle mass on his neck. Is this the impact of Lendl?

laverfan wrote:HE... times change, new players come on the scene. Would it be fair if I constantly talked about Laver-Rosewall or Laver-Pancho?

Feel free! Were they as interesting to watch as Nadal Federer? That's a different question to "Would they beat Nadal or Federer" but maybe a more valid one?

As a spectator maybe I'm a little fickle... or choosy. Not all tennis is the same. This does at least mean I really appreciate it when something good comes along...

I disagree (with various people) on three counts.

1. It's not a hard sell.
2. Skyfall is overrated.
3. I am feeling a need to bash this rather weak analysis:
Also a slightly different question. Becker postulated that both Djokovic and Murray lacked motivation and were avoiding being jaded when they played in the Paris Masters this week. Was that true? Does it matter? This was a premier event and they were the top seeds. If players are not totally commuted to winning are we being short changed? If Masters tournaments are no longer important enough for the top players to fight to win are they less interesting to watch? Apathy can be catching. Paris is often considered less important by the big 4 in the last 10 years or so, they often tank it before the world tour finals. Yes Federer won it last year but before that there was Soderling, Davydenko, Berdych, Nalbandian, Tsonga. Good players all but the others masters haven't seen so many non-top-4 winners in recent years. And if Paris is being more tanked, it's going to be because of the removal of the rest week between Paris and London probably.

If you look at the fact that Ferrer's win is the first non-big-4 masters win since 2010, that's hardly indicative of a trend for Masters tournaments to be "no longer important enough for the top players to fight to win".

Henman Bill wrote:I disagree (with various people) on three counts.

1. It's not a hard sell.
2. Skyfall is overrated.
3. I am feeling a need to bash this rather weak analysis:
Also a slightly different question. Becker postulated that both Djokovic and Murray lacked motivation and were avoiding being jaded when they played in the Paris Masters this week. Was that true? Does it matter? This was a premier event and they were the top seeds. If players are not totally commuted to winning are we being short changed? If Masters tournaments are no longer important enough for the top players to fight to win are they less interesting to watch? Apathy can be catching. Paris is often considered less important by the big 4 in the last 10 years or so, they often tank it before the world tour finals. Yes Federer won it last year but before that there was Soderling, Davydenko, Berdych, Nalbandian, Tsonga. Good players all but the others masters haven't seen so many non-top-4 winners in recent years. And if Paris is being more tanked, it's going to be because of the removal of the rest week between Paris and London probably.

If you look at the fact that Ferrer's win is the first non-big-4 masters win since 2010, that's hardly indicative of a trend for Masters tournaments to be "no longer important enough for the top players to fight to win".

Agree with all of that HB.

Apart from the Skyfall bit.

emancipator wrote:The most boring match-up amongst the top four, just slightly worse than Djokovic-Nadal.

Two very similar players, where the outcome is more often than not, determined by who is physically strongest on the day. Endless safe rallying. I was actually quite keen on this matchup prior to this year because it was quite rare, but having seen it six times this year, I can safely say I've had enough.

I doubt this rivalry will capture the public imagination. I imagine most casual sports fans outside of Britain and Serbia, in five years time, will still be trying to work out who's who out of this pair.



emancipator

Strangly enough this is something I disagree with, certainly this year. I think people sometimes confuse the ability to get a ball back with the shot being safe. When you look at the shots these two get back, almost noone else could have got them back

The shots they hit are sometimes fantastic, angled, attacking and into the corners - yet the speed of these two allows them to get to it - against anyone else it would have been a winner!

Sometimes the fact that these guys stay in rallies makes people say it is boring safe tennis - and quite frankly I disagree

Granted I was exaggerating.

I think Djokovic does tend to go more for the lines and Murray has definitely improved in that respect over the last 18 months. He does however tend to still play it a little too safe on the BH wing which is strange considering how great a shot it is.

But really I can't blame them. It's almost suicidal to keep hitting close to the lines under these conditions. The chances of hitting an outright winner are slim (and not just against these two but against a lot of the tour; just take JMDP struggling against Ferrer, and Federer too unable to put the ball away from the baseline) and the likelihood is that you'll UE yourself into oblivion.

Welcome Riskysports, if you are new that is



emancipator

banbrotam wrote:

Silver wrote:

emancipator wrote:I was actually quite keen on this matchup prior to this year because it was quite rare, but having seen it six times this year, I can safely say I've had enough.

I agree. I was relatively interested in seeing them play before, but it has gotten rather repetitive this year. I don't think that it's a question of charisma by any means, it's just that both players are very much the archetype of the modern day player. To tar them with the 'baseline grinder' tag does both players a disservice, but they certainly don't have the uniqueness and willingness to utilise variety that some of the more popular players do. Murray in particular has all the shots, but increasingly doesn't seem willing to use them, which is a genuine shame. Let's be honest, you don't reach the top of the game without being at least somewhat competent in all areas, even if Novak's slice might indicate otherwise. Perhaps such tactics just don't work on the slower courts these days, and trying to bash people off court from the back is simply the most effective tactic? Not great for viewer participation, though.

Nadal and Fed are both unusual players by comparison (particularly Federer), and styles make fights - their matches will always be more interesting to me. It's telling that the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry never really took off massively either, despite meeting in slam finals repeatedly.

No offense intended to fans of Andy and Novak

Look I don't think that two 25 year old's with arguable 5 years left at the Top are going to compete with a rivalry involving a 31 year old GOAT and a 26 year old nearly GOAT, who've clashed in slam finals more than half a dozen times

There is nothing on these boards from fans of the two 25 year olds, that even tries to make out that the rivalry is as riveting

What we (fans of the 25 year olds) have is a right for our players to be respected, rather than the disrespectful stance that HE takes or the "it's not like the good old days" rubbish we have to hear about

It reminds me of the days when I moaned about Mac/Connors getting usurped by Lendl / Becker

You are absolutely right that the players deserve to be respected, and they are fantastic athletes. Some of the shots that they can play pretty much beggar belief. I suppose it's just a case of personal taste - there was certainly no disrespect intended, banbrotam

I almost feel like they're both shackled by the slowing down of the courts, I think they'd produce some truly enthralling matches on a regular basis if given the opportunity to paint the lines more often.

Silver wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Silver wrote:

emancipator wrote:I was actually quite keen on this matchup prior to this year because it was quite rare, but having seen it six times this year, I can safely say I've had enough.

I agree. I was relatively interested in seeing them play before, but it has gotten rather repetitive this year. I don't think that it's a question of charisma by any means, it's just that both players are very much the archetype of the modern day player. To tar them with the 'baseline grinder' tag does both players a disservice, but they certainly don't have the uniqueness and willingness to utilise variety that some of the more popular players do. Murray in particular has all the shots, but increasingly doesn't seem willing to use them, which is a genuine shame. Let's be honest, you don't reach the top of the game without being at least somewhat competent in all areas, even if Novak's slice might indicate otherwise. Perhaps such tactics just don't work on the slower courts these days, and trying to bash people off court from the back is simply the most effective tactic? Not great for viewer participation, though.

Nadal and Fed are both unusual players by comparison (particularly Federer), and styles make fights - their matches will always be more interesting to me. It's telling that the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry never really took off massively either, despite meeting in slam finals repeatedly.

No offense intended to fans of Andy and Novak

Look I don't think that two 25 year old's with arguable 5 years left at the Top are going to compete with a rivalry involving a 31 year old GOAT and a 26 year old nearly GOAT, who've clashed in slam finals more than half a dozen times

There is nothing on these boards from fans of the two 25 year olds, that even tries to make out that the rivalry is as riveting

What we (fans of the 25 year olds) have is a right for our players to be respected, rather than the disrespectful stance that HE takes or the "it's not like the good old days" rubbish we have to hear about

It reminds me of the days when I moaned about Mac/Connors getting usurped by Lendl / Becker

You are absolutely right that the players deserve to be respected, and they are fantastic athletes. Some of the shots that they can play pretty much beggar belief. I suppose it's just a case of personal taste - there was certainly no disrespect intended, banbrotam

I almost feel like they're both shackled by the slowing down of the courts, I think they'd produce some truly enthralling matches on a regular basis if given the opportunity to paint the lines more often.

Totally agree.

They're almost forced to play like this, because it's the surest option.

You don't need to "paint the lines" to look good. In fact painting the lines is a sign of desperation. This week Federer managed to look pretty playing in similar conditions and also playing against opponents that he outclassed. (Although I don't really understand how he manages to outclass Ferrer as on paper it's difficult to understand the complete mismatch). He does it by playing with variety. He doesn't always go for winners (that would be crazy) but he uses the full court and puts the ball in difficult places. The most impressive winners are when an opponent has been out maneuvered and the ball can be hit into an open court NOT when a player is forced to hit the line as the only way of getting it past an opponant. If Federer plays extended rally's they are less likely to be repetitive cross court baseline ones as he has the game to force them out of position. It's far more entertaining to watch someone who can do so many different things.

When Djokovic and Murray play it looks like some sort of Macho "I can outlast you" game rather than "I can outfox you". In a strange way this sort of tennis reminds me of the Sampras era... "I can hit my server harder than you". Of course some people enjoyed watching that too...