Odd concept of quality from Murray

First topic message reminder :

I noticed this comment from Andy and thought it a bit strange, and perhaps revealing;

“I think he played well,” said Murray. “I didn't think it was incredibly high standard in terms of length of points. There were a lot of quick points.

Since when did long points mean quality? Long means quantity, and there's no reason why long points should mean higher quality than short; Federer was playing attacking tennis and looking to shorten the points, and he did it pretty well.
It may just be a slip of the tongue but there's often truth in such slips. The idea that 30 stroke rallies all the time is "quality" is an odd concept that gets an airing on here sometime.

Granollers is pretty good at this kind of quality. Is that what we're after?

There were two points. I agree with the variation of court speeds I just don't see the proof that the current court speeds are protecting the top guys. I think they would still be the top guys even if they make the court speeds more varied.

Calder106 wrote:There were two points. I agree with the variation of court speeds I just don't see the proof that the current court speeds are protecting the top guys. I think they would still be the top guys even if they make the court speeds more varied.

I agree, they would adapt to the conditions.

They wouldn't be as dominant I think.

This may be a bad example, so shoot me down if you want, but when the conditions were changed for madrid the great defenders didn't do so well and the more attacking players progressed.
This may have been down to the slippy surface, but feds still got there, maybe thats why hes the best all rounder?

LuvSports! wrote:They wouldn't be as dominant I think.

This may be a bad example, so shoot me down if you want, but when the conditions were changed for madrid the great defenders didn't do so well and the more attacking players progressed.
This may have been down to the slippy surface, but feds still got there, maybe thats why hes the best all rounder?

Possibly, but isn't their style of play at least partially a product of the conditions? They are all capable of varied play and adaptation so, if conditions were different, different aspects of their game would come to the fore. Would be interesting to find out.

Yes Nadal and Djokovic went out earlyish in Madrid and Murray didn't play (the way he was playing at that time I don't think he would have gone far either). However the semi finalists were Federer, Berdych (lost to Federer in the final), Del Potro and Tipsarevic. So we are talking about four players who made the World Tour Finals in todays prevailing conditions. Although Del Potro gets a lot of praise on this forum (correctly in my opinion) outside of Federer I don't think any of them are considered to be attacking players who look to play quick points.

berdych is a defensive player?

As with all these things, there's been a bit too much read into Andy's comments

Firstly, he's correct. Compared to their last four meetings, the quality wasn't as good and it's fair enough to link that to shortness of points

It appears to me, that as a contrast to the so called boring 'grind fests' that we allegedley now have, lots of people on these boards now think that short point games are better

However, some Tennis fans, me, Andy Murray (I assume he's one!!) disagree with this. Short points don't always mean a good match

Give me a 70 shot rally involving the Top 3 and an agressive accurate 5 point rally and both will be 'quality'. However, if the short play results in one of them hopelessly firing into the net after 5 points - then it's still poor play

Second, there seems to be this theory that Andy doesn't like fast courts (and hence fast play) this might be becasue of his ridiculously sulky first hour against Cilic at the US Open. However, I can't believe this is true as it favours him even more than Novak (Andy tends to have the better head to head on the fastest surfaces they have met on) as such surfaces play into hands- his 'weak' serve is aided and as he's such an instinctive returner, getting the ball back isn't hindered

What Andy hates, and it's achilees heel - is change. i.e. if he goes to an event expecting the courts to do one thing and then they do another, he mentaly goes 'walkabout'. For instance any moaning Andy does is nearly always about the pace of the court "it was playing a bit quick / slow" etc is a familiar carp

In other words his biggest weakness is accepting that he has to accept the conditons as they are and get over it

I mean the points were short because;-

1) After 30 minutes he lost his mojo
2) He insisted on trying to end the points quickly - playing into Roger's hands.

What Andy musn't do is play the game that all his critics want him to play, i.e. 100% aggressive Tennis. Andy's best wins througout the last five years have been when he does that wonderfully effortless counterpunch combination, where he manouveres the ball with medium / fast pace and then releases a killer blow

LuvSports! wrote:berdych is a defensive player?

Don't think that's the conclusion. But he certainly isn't as attacking as say Del Potro or Cillic, which is why he causes the Top 3 problems, i.e. he's quite happy to rally for a bit working an opening. Yes, he never wants to get into 20 stroke rallies with Nole or Andy - but neither does he go for broke straightaway

I don't think anyone said short points are always better.

The reason I wrote the article was that a statement had been made by Andy that appeared to imply that they correlated with lower quality. They don't.

banbrotam wrote:

What Andy hates, and it's achilees heel - is change. i.e. if he goes to an event expecting the courts to do one thing and then they do another, he mentaly goes 'walkabout'. For instance any moaning Andy does is nearly always about the pace of the court "it was playing a bit quick / slow" etc is a familiar carp

In other words his biggest weakness is accepting that he has to accept the conditons as they are and get over it

Very true

banbrotam wrote:What Andy musn't do is play the game that all his critics want him to play, i.e. 100% aggressive Tennis. Andy's best wins througout the last five years have been when he does that wonderfully effortless counterpunch combination, where he manouveres the ball with medium / fast pace and then releases a killer blow

Yes, he will never be an all out attack player and shouldn't try to be.

LuvSports! wrote:berdych is a defensive player?

No, maybe I'm being unfair, but I see him as a big hitter mainly from the back of the court. He will be that in fast or slow conditions. He's not what I would call an attacking player as he often looks awkward when he has to come off the baseline. His game works for him a lot of the time. I always think, on his game, he is a big threat to the top four and a hard opponent to beat. What I was trying to point out was that even though Nadal , Djokovic and the absent Murray were out it was more or less the usual suspects who took their places.