ATP WORLD TOUR FINALS- LIVE MATCH THREAD

[User 774433]

First topic message reminder :

WIll be updated each day with new schedule:
THE FINALE:

Evening: 8:00 PM Start
NOVAK DJOKOVIC (1) vs ROGER FEDERER (2)


Group standings:
Group A:
Djokovic- 3-0
Murray- 2-1
Berdych- 1-2
Tsonga- 0-3

Group B:
Federer- 2-0
Ferrer- 1-1
Del Potro- 1-1
Tipsarevic- 0-2

Semis:
Djokovic bt Del Potro
Federer bt Murray

[User 774433]

Cmon Djokovic, sweet revenge for the disgraceful British crowd from last night. Booing Murray, applauding Federer far more. Can you honestly imagine the French or Americans supporting a foreigner and booing their own.


Well done Novak!

Well said. Really stupid booing Murray at that point.

Applaud Federer for his skills, longevity etc. but no reason to boo.

At least 3 on here would have been leading the booing at least in front of their TV screens.

Funnily enough I felt the support was more balanced today than it was yesterday.

[socal1976]

Blimey that was good.
Im fairness to Fed he did indeed have break advantage in both sets, but no ones serve is a given against Djokovic nowadays, he'll likely be annoyed at losing 40-15 up again but thats what can happen if you have an opponent who never gives in and has maybe the best return.
How many times has djokovic recovered set/match down and out now? Tsonag at French... Murray in Rome i think it was, Federer 3 times now... Murray shanghai, blimey he is something, he's entertaining thats for sure even if you don't like his tennis

Great post falzy, the cornerstone of Djokovic's success in these close matches is the fact that he is the best returner in the world period. And when you are up against him trying to serve out a set or match and he has had a few service games to get a read on your serve, well you almost feel like the odds are in Djokovic's favor when facing the server in those late match and later in sets. There were so many federer serves that came back that really nobody else could have brought back with that type of consistency. Breaking Fed 4 times in two sets on indoors tells you all you need to know about the quality of Novak's return.

[User 774433]

Socal, congrats to your guy today

The shot on MP was stunning.

[socal1976]

Socal, congrats to your guy today

The shot on MP was stunning.

Yes it always feels good to see your guy end the year like that. I think the thing I liked most was that this year Novak ended it healthy and he started the season by winning the biggest tourney at the beginning of the year and he finished it by winning the biggest tourney at the end of the year.

[Silver]

Just quickly popping in to say congratulations to Novak, what a cracking match. World #1 and he deserves it for his sheer consistency. I'm an ardent Federer fan, but definitely doffing my cap to some excellent defensive play.

I'm glad that we got to see a bit of a spectacle in the final. First time I've ever really see Federer's legs go in a match, but at the end of a long season it's understandable. They both looked a bit knackered!

socal, I do think that the 'beating Federer indoors' statistic no longer has the same meaning it once did. Indoor courts are far slower than they used to be, so Federer's far more beatable on the surface these days - I doubt any player would have much hope against him on a truly quick indoor court. That said, taking nothing away from Novak, and I agree with your comment that the returning was the bedrock of his victory today - even for him, it was bloody magical. I've never seen such flexibility and anticipation on the return, it's a joy to watch!

Damn it though, what a void we have for the next two months. And I've only just started posting on the forum! Let's keep it active, chaps?

[bogbrush]

I have no problem with Djokovic's play, I think he brings something to the game for sure.

I just disappoints me to see it being so hard to hit outright winners any more, and of course to see Federers stamina decline to the point where he can be fagged out after two sets. That's just time I suppose, but it signals the beginning of the endgame for him.

Still, it happens to them all in the end! Nothing anyone can do about it.

[socal1976]

Well Silver fed didn't look like the conditions of the current indoor schedule were too slow for him when he ran roughshod over the tour in 2010 and 2011 during the slowed down indoor circuit. The courts have been slowed down over a decade ago and fed has won 17 slams on these slow conditions so I just don't see how hypothetical conditions of the past really play on the analysis of this match. On Novak's returning that and his speed are the two reasons he has so many comebacks, is there a more unsecure feeling than being up an early break on Djokovic as a server?

Come, come BB the man would have beaten 99 percent of the rest of the tour with that match, he would have won the first set for sure and probably stomped the guy in the second. This was a very close match which I think was in no way decided by conditioning. Every time fed loses it can't just be because he is tired. One guy played the bigger points a little better and that is all that separated the two today. You have been acting like fed is ancient and decrepit really since 09, is he at his best, no probably not. But the man himself said in the post match that he played about as well as he could have. Doesn't sound like a man who has lost it or is losing it rapidly. I think he will be in the top 5 for sure next year what is so terrible with that?

[socal1976]

Lets dispel this tiredness thing and hear what the man himself had to say on the subject.

For Federer, it was "a great match", despite twice blowing handy leads. "I couldn't have played much better but it doesn't matter; you still have to get over the line. He was the better man today. Even in defence, he stays on the offensive and that is what separates him from the rest."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/12/roger-federer-novak-djokovic

“Today we had times where we had longer rallies, we had times where we had shorter rallies,” said Federer. “Like I mentioned, I think we had some great stuff out there. It was good playing such points. I think the quality was good. I shouldn't have been broken as often as I was broken today. But then again, that obviously has something to do with Novak, as well. It was extremely close today.”

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/11/45/London-Finale-Monday2-Djokovic-Federer.aspx

I just don't see any basis to this federer got tired in a two set match argument. The man himself felt like he played a good if not a great match and just lost because of few a big points. He seems to have a much more balanced view of the match than most other commentators. He just can't be tired every time he loses.

[Silver]

Courts weren't too slow for all of Fed's slams, particularly the early US Open wins. Point taken though, he's certainly won plenty on slower courts. I just meant that until fairly recently, indoor courts were the last bastion of speed, hence Federer's record.

Novak played a great match, and I agree that it could've gone either way on the big points. He certainly knows how to maximize his considerable capabilities, and his work ethic is admirable.

[socal1976]

No worries good posts rookie, I agree with most of what you have to say but I don't buy that the courts have been slowed down continually. It seems that whenever fed loses to the more defensive younger players the courts have been slowed down or this is one of the slowest courts on tour. The year end final court was the same court he straight setted Nadal and Tsonga last year. The courts were slowed down in the early 2000s, the director of the USO is on the record that they haven't changed the courts since 2002. I didn't see any difference in the speed of this years O2 vis a vis 2011 or 2010.

I agree completely with your last paragraph. Probably the best two set match I can remember watching especially with Novak repeating the Shot II on matchpoint. But fed could have really won this match and early on was virtually untouchable. I don't buy all these doomsday predictions about him in 2013 and 14.

[Silver]

Hmm, I didn't know that about the USO. Perhaps I need my eyes (and memory) refreshing! No doubt the current top guys are good counters for Federer's attacking game though. Incidentally, what do you make of a future where the Murray/Novak brand of tennis is the dominant one? I can see plenty of youngsters wanting to model their game on that style.

Yes, that shot on match point was magnificent. How he made that stretch is beyond me! That's the key to beating Fed when he's on fire though, staying with him until his level inevitably drops at some stage. When it doesn't, you get massacres like Nadal last year at the 02, but they're very rare. Novak did a phenomenal job of hanging in there and taking his chances when they came along. I don't buy the doomsday stuff either! 2013 is going to be awesome, I think Federer will throw the kitchen sink at both the AO and RG next year, so the early stages will be fascinating, particularly with Murray a renewed force, and Nadal as a bit of a wildcard. Novak remains the man to beat, no doubt about it.

[socal1976]

Yes I think 2013 if we see the top 4 remain healthy is going to be an excellent year for tennis like fine wine. Del Po I think is also making noises that he is over his injury and he can hurt anyone with his weapons. JJ and Raonic are two exciting power player youngsters.

I personally love the Djokovic brand of tennis, I have always loved the aggressive baseliners. Agassi, Connors, and Djoko are my three favorites of all time, also becker but he is about the only serve and volleyer I really liked. So I love the modern game, but on this site I seem to be part of the minority.

[CAS]

I am always waiting for the error from Federer in the baseline rallies, I never feel comfortable when he's in an exchange. I never used to feel that way, it doesn't seem like he hits the ball too cleanly all the time. However, when Rafa or Novak hit the ball out I think you really notice it because they rarely do it once they sink their teeth into a match

[socal1976]

Well CAS fed hits a lot flatter and earlier with less margin. That is why Rafa and Novak do better in the longer rallies, they just aren't going to miss and can still hit aggressive shots that are very safe. Where fed is going for winners earlier and hitting a more high risk and high reward shot. YOu still have to be able to hurt fed with your own shots you can't just run and retrieve all match and expect to win. Roger has too many weapons if you can't also take the initiative during points as well.

[CAS]

oh I know the reasons Socal, but I dont think he used to miss as much personally. His forehand doesn't seem as monsterous either, he hits more Nadal-esc forehands than he ever used to. I get so frustrated during those rallies when those guys tie him up in a rally I want him to go Lopez on them and hit all slice, so he wont miss! Then wait to get it on his forehand

[socal1976]

I don't think fed loops the forehand very much unless he is in a completely defensive position. I mean he has always been prone to errors even in his heyday because of the manner that he plays. However that being said I am sure fed isn't quite as good today as lets say 2006 but I also don't think he is as far off as a lot of people claim. His opposition has just become stronger, Djoko and Murray certainly have.

[CAS]

I agree completely agree with Rogers comment "what he does so well, is even when defending he's still offensive' its what I felt, he doesn't just track them down, but when he gets to it he makes something happen, not just get it back. I also don't agree with the advantage of the returner, unless we are bringing in courts speeds again. Jim Courier used to say, 'Agassi is the best returner, Sampras is the best server, but Sampras has the ball, he decides where it goes'

[socal1976]

It isn't about the returner having the edge CAS, but being a great returner helps a great deal in being able to make comebacks when down in sets. Djokovic is probably the hardest guy to serve out a set or match on, and that is mainly due to the return, and thus it gives him a big edge in terms of making comebacks in sets. Plus in my opinion the returner does gain an advantage as the match goes along, I think and I don't have anything other than my own match play that the returner gets better and better at reading the serve as the match goes on. It is just about the number of looks you get at the guy's delivery; you start feeling where the next one is going, and you get used to how much you have to shorten your backswing to deaden the pace, and how explosive your first step has to be. The advantage of the returner only is in regards to be easier to make comebacks in sets and matches.

[socal1976]

I agree completely agree with Rogers comment "what he does so well, is even when defending he's still offensive' its what I felt, he doesn't just track them down, but when he gets to it he makes something happen, not just get it back. I also don't agree with the advantage of the returner, unless we are bringing in courts speeds again. Jim Courier used to say, 'Agassi is the best returner, Sampras is the best server, but Sampras has the ball, he decides where it goes'

PS by the way 4 of the top 5 players in the ATP rankings are also the 4 best returners in the world, while the best servers by the numbers other than fed don't really figure that prominently in the rankings. I am not going to say that the return is more important than the serve but I don't know if I completely buy that Courier quote as being applicable to the modern game. At this point the return is probably as important as the serve, in my mind it is pretty much equal.

[CAS]

I wouldn't go that far, serve is still the most important because players still hold more than they break. The womens game maybe its even, where breaks matter little.

[bogbrush]

Lets dispel this tiredness thing and hear what the man himself had to say on the subject.

For Federer, it was "a great match", despite twice blowing handy leads. "I couldn't have played much better but it doesn't matter; you still have to get over the line. He was the better man today. Even in defence, he stays on the offensive and that is what separates him from the rest."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/12/roger-federer-novak-djokovic

“Today we had times where we had longer rallies, we had times where we had shorter rallies,” said Federer. “Like I mentioned, I think we had some great stuff out there. It was good playing such points. I think the quality was good. I shouldn't have been broken as often as I was broken today. But then again, that obviously has something to do with Novak, as well. It was extremely close today.”
All that dispels really is the stuff about Federer being ungracious.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/11/45/London-Finale-Monday2-Djokovic-Federer.aspx

I just don't see any basis to this federer got tired in a two set match argument. The man himself felt like he played a good if not a great match and just lost because of few a big points. He seems to have a much more balanced view of the match than most other commentators. He just can't be tired every time he loses.

All that dispels really is the stuff about Federer being ungracious.

[bogbrush]

Well Silver fed didn't look like the conditions of the current indoor schedule were too slow for him when he ran roughshod over the tour in 2010 and 2011 during the slowed down indoor circuit. The courts have been slowed down over a decade ago and fed has won 17 slams on these slow conditions so I just don't see how hypothetical conditions of the past really play on the analysis of this match. On Novak's returning that and his speed are the two reasons he has so many comebacks, is there a more unsecure feeling than being up an early break on Djokovic as a server?

Come, come BB the man would have beaten 99 percent of the rest of the tour with that match, he would have won the first set for sure and probably stomped the guy in the second. This was a very close match which I think was in no way decided by conditioning. Every time fed loses it can't just be because he is tired. One guy played the bigger points a little better and that is all that separated the two today. You have been acting like fed is ancient and decrepit really since 09, is he at his best, no probably not. But the man himself said in the post match that he played about as well as he could have. Doesn't sound like a man who has lost it or is losing it rapidly. I think he will be in the top 5 for sure next year what is so terrible with that?

Whether he'd have beaten others isn't really the point. We know he can play on everything from 1990's grass to painted sandpaper;
He lost the first set on a wafer, the second too, but the third wouldn't have been close as he was clearly tiring. He didn't
He didn't lose the match on that, he lost it on a few points here or there, and on a slow indoor court it was very tight.

Becker talked about this pretty much all the way through. Boris must be glad he wasn't playing now, he'd rarely make a Slam semi.

[HM Murdock]

I have no problem with Djokovic's play, I think he brings something to the game for sure.

I just disappoints me to see it being so hard to hit outright winners any more, and of course to see Federers stamina decline to the point where he can be fagged out after two sets. That's just time I suppose, but it signals the beginning of the endgame for him.

Still, it happens to them all in the end! Nothing anyone can do about it.

I think 30 winners in two sets against the best mover and defender in the game is pretty darn good! The court may have been a little slower than previous years but I don't think it inhibited Fed much.

I agree he looked like he was running out of steam though. By the same measure, I don't think I've ever seen Novak look so tired after a set, set and half. It looked like the end of a long season for both players. Difference is one is 25, one is 31, so that probably counts for something.

[lydian]

I think Djokovic is done a disservice. Many of his shots would have been winners against Fed too on faster surfaces. Djokovic is no grinder, he hits the ball very hard and flat...flatter than Federer despite his Western grips. Also you may argue the slower surface gives the older Federer more time to get to balls. I don't see how the slow indoor court is relevant to Djokovic's favour...it's Federer who has the better record on slow courts! Hamburg....French Open....etc.
When it comes to 90s grass, Federer doesn't have a great record pre-2001, nor on truly quick surfaces against fast court players. In my opinion he's best on fast paced hard courts like Cincy, or the speed Wimbledon was between 2003-2007. That's not to say he can't play the others, and we know he's very versatile across the surfaces but he's not the master of them all.

Agree both looked tired, not surprising, great match, great skills on display and the passing shot on match point was tremendous. Novak is going to be the man to beat for the next 3-4 years...he could rack up a serious number of slams...

[sirfredperry]

There were probably too may UEs from both players to call it a great match. But it was a very good one, with some outstanding rallies and some tremendous play from both.
Reckon Djoko would still have won even if it had gone to a third as he had the edge in most of the long rallies. Fed could have done with more first serves and some easy points.
I used to think that the only person Fed could play really or fairly well against and still lose was Rafa. But you have to add Djoko to that list now, too. Djoko is so rock solid in attack and defence, moves exceptionally, jis strong mentally and fights like mad. No wonder he is number one, where he could now put in a long run.

[JuliusHMarx]

Novak is going to be the man to beat for the next 3-4 years...he could rack up a serious number of slams...

It looks that way at the moment, but we said that after the USO 2011. If he fails to win the AO, he's looking at
minimum 17 months without a slam.

[HM Murdock]

Novak is going to be the man to beat for the next 3-4 years...he could rack up a serious number of slams...

It looks that way at the moment, but we said that after the USO 2011. If he fails to win the AO, he's looking at
minimum 17 months without a slam.

He'd also be the #1 player but the only one of the top 4 who doesn't hold a slam! I think that matters. The number 1 player not holding a slam just doesn't feel right. AO will be very important for him.

[sirfredperry]

HM - Take your point about the "slamless" number one. But it's nine years since the slams have been shared in this way so it was always likely that you could get this situation.
It's not as if Djoko has NEVER won a slam and he'll still have some major tournament wins on his active points CV.
Incidentally, the winner of the AO has failed to win another slam in that year in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012, with only Djoko in 2011 bucking this - rather strange - trend. So Melbourne does not necesarily give us a big clue as to how a year will pan out.

[bogbrush]

Novak is going to be the man to beat for the next 3-4 years...he could rack up a serious number of slams...

It looks that way at the moment, but we said that after the USO 2011. If he fails to win the AO, he's looking at
minimum 17 months without a slam.

Ah yes - AO 2012 to FO 2013 at earliest. That's quite a stat!

Funny how it goes.

[barrystar]

I don't like booing anytime ever, don't care if the crowd is partisan or not. Sure go one way or another for support, but be respectful, I hate the Parisian and football crowds for that, they're giving it their best they don't deserve to be booed. .

Well yes, and I hate partisan crowds too, cheering errors is my real bugbear. You talk about respect, but what if they break their racquet in an unprofessional show of petulance, or start behaving badly in some other way. I'm not advocating booing, but I think its far too precious to describe it as disgraceful in such a situation. People pay good money to watch these guys and if their behaviour falls short of legitimate expectations such that they aren't exactly respecting the crowd, then the crowd can surely indicate it's dissatisfaction?

[Guest]

The punishment for those things is with the umpires, not the crowd. I suppose if theyre REALLY acting up, you might get some boos... but thats rarely how it happens, they get booed for contesting a line call, for taking too long, or sometimes with Paris crowds cause they just don't like them.
Wimbledon crowds are a good example, they rarely boo, but withold applause if the player acts up.

[teassoc]

The punishment for those things is with the umpires, not the crowd. I suppose if theyre REALLY acting up, you might get some boos... but thats rarely how it happens, they get booed for contesting a line call, for taking too long, or sometimes with Paris crowds cause they just don't like them.
Wimbledon crowds are a good example, they rarely boo, but withold applause if the player acts up.

Wimbledon crowds have got it right. Even at the Olympics I don't recall booing.

Being an evening event, perhaps there were some drunks egging on the more easily led in the audience.

Did the umpire say anything to the crowd?

[The Special Juan]

The punishment for those things is with the umpires, not the crowd. I suppose if theyre REALLY acting up, you might get some boos... but thats rarely how it happens, they get booed for contesting a line call, for taking too long, or sometimes with Paris crowds cause they just don't like them.
Wimbledon crowds are a good example, they rarely boo, but withold applause if the player acts up.

They shake their heads and tut and focus on their Pimms and strawberries!!

[Sponsored content]