Where is tennis heading?

Seems that I'm no alone in finding this one of the most boring finals in years. You have to admire the fitness levels and the retrieval skills but the sheer power over shot making and variety?

It makes you wonder if the demise of Federer also heralds a new era in which just how many times you've worked out in the gym is worth so much more than pure talent and inventiveness on the tennis court. Don't get me wrong there's lots to admire in both Djokovic's and Murray's respective games but put the two together on the same court at the same time and today's match is what you get.

The toll on the players' bodies is a real issue here. Djokovic's powers of recovery maybe legendary but Nadal's knees have paid a seemingly high price from his exertions in these modern day marathon matches. Murray's obviously worked out harder than most to compete which is obviously why he could outlast a fading Federer.

And where's everybody else? Simon couldn't even move his feet against Murray after his exertions in beating Monfils, Ferrer may as well not bothered turning up against Djokovic and none of the youngsters provided anything of a challenge at all. Wawrinka was the only guy outside the usual suspects who appeared to be up for the fight and he was outlasted to no-one's surprise by that awesome retrieving and sheer determination to win at all costs from Novak. Was it pretty? Bloody more like.

The very nature though of these increasingly hard hit baseline rallies means that sooner or later even the likes of Djokovic is going to find recovery for the next match an impossiblity. OK he looked good against Berdych before destroying Ferrrer but then today looked like he'd run out of gas for large periods of the match.

Murray naturally was way too fit and focused for a sadly largely spent Federer but where was all the fight that was needed to see off Djokovic? Was it too much of a case of Murray's strengths simply playing to Novak's? Where were the thrilling rallies and the creativity that this games is best associated with or can we reallly expect more of the same in the next few years when these two inevitably find themselves outlasting all other opposition?

You'll excuse some of us for mentioning that we did warn of this a few years ago.

I didn't watch the final, apart from 30 mins of the second set.

A couple of hours later I was pleasently surprised to find that it was over.

Sounds like Murray was a bit flat and ran out of gas towards the end.

But were people really expecting anything else? Who hand on heart did not think this would be decided by fitness and stamina?

Clearly mens tennis is now mostly about survival of the fittest. I was amazed by the winners to errors stats in this match. Both players had hugely more errors than winners.

The game has become as one-dimensional as it can get. People have been lambasting the WTA for years because the players are basically baseline bashers; isn't the ATP (with a few exceptions) just a glorified version of the same?

I guess some the above had to do with the surface.

Please bring back some pacier courts so that attacking shotmaking tennis can decide the day, rather than who spends more time on fitness.

Murray looks like a rugby player. Jona Lomu-esque.



emancipator

bogbrush it makes you yearn for the return of Nadal (and some posters thought his match ups with Djokovic weren't that entertaining ejther).

Anything please to stop Djokovic vs. Murray 3 (The Return of the baseliners) and it's sequel Djokovic vs. Murray 3 (Last man standing)

Although not a great fans of Rafas style of play I have to agree.

This truly is WTA on testosterone.

Everyone wants the hero back.

Viewer-ship of Chile R2 may be higher than AO final at this rate.

Does anyone else see a very very slow and very very slight trend perhaps starting back towards faster courts and more net play, or am I imagining it?

Henman Bill wrote:Does anyone else see a very very slow and very very slight trend perhaps starting back towards faster courts and more net play, or am I imagining it?

Almost imperceptible, and too little, too late to turn the game around in the next few years.

No evidence today.

Everyone wants the moonballer back, the time waster, the butt picker the water bottle straigtner, the baseliner the Rosol defeated Spaniard... well there you go
IF THATS NOT A TURN UP FOR THE BOOKS... Vamos Rafa
Lets see some excitement back in the game even if it is the Mickey Mouse events on clay.

To be fair, if this match was as dull as some are suggesting, it is the first match void of excitement between these two for some time.

Olympics - excellent.
US open - very exciting I thought, although some on here disagree.
Shanghai - excellent.
WTF - very good.

It's subjective of course, but even Roger v Rafa has had it's duds.

subjective of course, but even Roger v Rafa has had it's duds. .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then maybe those matches I wasn´t watching... so if thats the case I wont argue.
Though I have to say that is a Rivalry I seldom, if ever missed.
Sadly I think those days are over. But this tournament has had a couple of highlights for me... the match Novak v Tsonga and Fed v Warwrinka.. true I have not seen them all by a long shot.. so therefore it maybe unfair criticism by me..but from what I have read by the critics it has been a bit of a lack lustre tournament.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Everyone wants the moonballer back, the time waster, the butt picker the water bottle straigtner, the baseliner the Rosol defeated Spaniard... well there you go
IF THATS NOT A TURN UP FOR THE BOOKS... Vamos Rafa
Lets see some excitement back in the game even if it is the Mickey Mouse events on clay.

I don't think he has anything to offer to make this more interesting - Nadal v. Djoko, Djoko v. Murray, Nadal v. Murray - all the same attritional warfare as far as I am concerned.

I have no view one way or another as to his comeback, I don't enjoy his on-court presence at all and I don't miss him in the slightest.

barrystar wrote: I don't miss him in the slightest.

Good for you

barrystar wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Everyone wants the moonballer back, the time waster, the butt picker the water bottle straigtner, the baseliner the Rosol defeated Spaniard... well there you go
IF THATS NOT A TURN UP FOR THE BOOKS... Vamos Rafa
Lets see some excitement back in the game even if it is the Mickey Mouse events on clay.

I don't think he has anything to offer to make this more interesting - Nadal v. Djoko, Djoko v. Murray, Nadal v. Murray - all the same attritional warfare as far as I am concerned.

I have no view one way or another as to his comeback, I don't enjoy his on-court presence at all and I don't miss him in the slightest.

And do I give a monkeys

Haddie-nuff wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Everyone wants the moonballer back, the time waster, the butt picker the water bottle straigtner, the baseliner the Rosol defeated Spaniard... well there you go
IF THATS NOT A TURN UP FOR THE BOOKS... Vamos Rafa
Lets see some excitement back in the game even if it is the Mickey Mouse events on clay.

I don't think he has anything to offer to make this more interesting - Nadal v. Djoko, Djoko v. Murray, Nadal v. Murray - all the same attritional warfare as far as I am concerned.

I have no view one way or another as to his comeback, I don't enjoy his on-court presence at all and I don't miss him in the slightest.

And do I give a monkeys

I don't expect you to - just it's no everyone who wants Nadal back - and I don't call him all those names, despite my antipathy for his on-court presence he has plenty of my respect for his record.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Everyone wants the moonballer back, the time waster, the butt picker the water bottle straigtner, the baseliner the Rosol defeated Spaniard... well there you go
IF THATS NOT A TURN UP FOR THE BOOKS... Vamos Rafa
Lets see some excitement back in the game even if it is the Mickey Mouse events on clay.

I think you might be jumping the gun here.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Everyone wants the moonballer back, the time waster, the butt picker the water bottle straigtner, the baseliner the Rosol defeated Spaniard... well there you go
IF THATS NOT A TURN UP FOR THE BOOKS... Vamos Rafa
Lets see some excitement back in the game even if it is the Mickey Mouse events on clay.

Totally agree especially as there seems to be nobody thats going to challenge the top three, I have even given up on Del Potro who seems to have missed the boat now.

Im not surprised that you would disagree with me B B.. all I know is that there are millions out there who wouldn´t ... I won-t be the first to jump the gun on this forum will I ????

As a bit of a technical tennis fan I don't see Rafa's game at all like Murray's or Djokovic's and so don't agree they're interchangeable when playing Federer, or each other. Anyone who knows a thing or two about tennis coaching knows that Rafa's approach to the game is different, he's unorthodox. His BH is strange because the arm that should be dominant (his left arm) isn't, his FH has a unique follow through. His volleying is slightly different because he uses an Eastern grip, etc, etc. He provides a contrast with everyone he plays which is why for many he is very popular. Murray and Djokovic are much more orthodox and similar in their technique and game styles.

But are we so surprised to see Djokovic and Murray at the top of the pile with this type of game? The ATP reaps what is sows...slower courts = WTA type attritional tennis.

The game will only go more and more down the power route, yes shots will flatten out abit but it'll always be baseline based. It'll simply be a case of which personalities out of the same brands of orthodox baseline tennis you like most.

Funnily enough at junior level you actually get a lot more variety but as they cross the 10 year old point they're all converged into playing the same way via drilling on similar baseline play, neutralisation tactics and footwork steps...there is little room for the embracing of the earlier individuality they may have shown. Ok, they need to learn key basics of course, but their individuality isn't embraced as it once was...naturally aggressive kids who love to get forward soon find they get taught how to be a great baseliners as that's the style they're gong to face the most. So in effect, the most aggressive kids are pegged back, their natural tendencies to get forward blunted.

Slower courts have driven a risk-averse mentality into the minds of national tennis societies and its coaches. That's the "current" future I'm afraid...

This is really getting pathetic.

Where to begin? How about here:

newballs wrote:It makes you wonder if the demise of Federer also heralds a new era in which just how many times you've worked out in the gym is worth so much more than pure talent and inventiveness on the tennis court.

This match lasted a mere 6 minutes longer than Fed's Wimbledon win. So let's just abandon the whole "test of endurance" angle because that wasn't the case today. I know it's unfashionable to think Novak might win a match without it being a grinding test of fitness but, if you are going to criticise it, take a moment to check your facts.

"Pure talent"? Always good to use an intangible as measure. And is the suggestion that Andy and Novak have a lack of talent?

Any why on earth would players not want to get fit? A grand slam competition means they potentially have to play 5 set matches with just a day of rest inbetween. It's sensible to be capable of doing this!

newballs wrote: You have to admire the fitness levels and the retrieval skills but the sheer power over shot making and variety?

Novak today made 41 net approaches and won 25% of his points there. That compares to Fed making 44 net approaches (in 5 sets!) and scoring 19% of his points there in the semi. But no, we all know that Novak doesn't use variety, let's moan about it without actually checking anything out.

Shot making? Novak hit 47 winners. In Fed's last hard court final that was longer than 3 sets (5 sets v Del Po at USO 2009) he hit 56 winners. Similar rate, if not a little slower. But, as usual, Novak's just a retriever, he doesn't go for shots.

Today was not a classic final by any stretch. Sometimes that happens. Check out the back catalogue of Fed v Rafa, there's a few clunkers in there too.

But so many people on here are using that as a stick to beat the players with and as an opportunity to trot out some trite clichés. And the whole "Fed = great, everyone else = less talented grinders" sentiment that frequently engulfs this forum is starting to stink.

Spot on HM. Just like we had a nutcase of a poster on here the other day calling Murray 'a pusher' yet stats showed Murray hit almost 20 winners more than Federer.

Agreed

HM -

Ok so they didn't produce a great match today... For maybe the first time in 5 matches!! If every 4 out of 5 matches are as good going forward, I'll be a happy man.

Net approaches to put away a short recovery shot don't make a varied game. How many times did Novak go to the net as part of a forecourt strategy? Once? twice?

Federer was hardly serving and volleying against Murray

Yes but if we look at the match stats...

Wimbledon 2012 final... 204 mins and 288 points
Australian 2013 final... 220 mins and 265 points

So had they played the same number of points in both matches, the match today would have been 35 minutes longer. That's an awful lot more running at the level of intensity they played today.

In my opinion it was, or rather became, an attritional match. Djokovic, who I thought wasn't actually near his peak in sets 1 and 2, ran Murray ragged using short angles in sets 1 and 2. This took its toll by the 3rd set after they had been playing 2.5 hrs of high energy, long ralleys with their anaerobic, oxygen debting effects. You don't have to play for 4 hrs to become quickly fatigued...as the old saying goes, it's not the hours you put in but what you put into the hours. Murray put an awful lot of running left and right into those first 2sets and I predicted he would fatigue by the 4th which he did. IMO the high winds at USO stopped Djokovic moving Murray around as normal like today, so that was an unusual match for me. I predict Djokovic will now continue to beat Murray 3 out of 4 times they meet in slams. I also believe that Murray is too bulked up now, all that muscle needs feeding with sugar and oxygen during a match...more so than Djokovic. If he's heavier and running more distance then he's going to deplete his reserves quicker...and if its an intense start then even quicker.

But I don't merely state that Djokovic won by attrition, I do think he's the more potent and penetrating player in general and thats what really told in end. Surely today raises a number of questions for Murray because even had he won set 2 I'm still not convinced he have won the match given his energy level by end of set 3.

They're only 1 month apart in age but Djokovic has 6 slams and 13 Masters across all surfaces to Murray's 1 slam and 8 Masters on one surface. Is the gap in current results closing? Possibly. Can the gap close so Murray wins 50/50 or more of their encounters across all surfaces in future? I'm really not so sure after today.

lydian wrote:Yes but if we look at the match stats...

Wimbledon 2012 final... 204 mins and 288 points
Australian 2013 final... 220 mins and 265 points

So had they played the same number of points in both matches, the match today would have been 35 minutes longer. That's quite a difference actually at this level of intensity.

Wimbledon was 214 not 204.

But one's grass, one's a medium-slow hard court. Do we expect the points to be the same length?

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html

No, 204.

Wimbledon plays like a slower HC these days so why not expect similar ralleys.

Yes but that doesn't count time between sets.

HMH sorry but I'm going to have to beg to differ here.

This match might not have been quite the endurance test Djokovic's two previous wins of late against Nadal and Murray were but it was often IMHO nevertheless a case of "bludgeoning" your opponent with a tennis racquet till he surrenders.

Can you also correct me as to where I suggest there was a lack of talent on display? It's actually rather "pathetic" (borrowing your terminology) to throw comments intimating I think everyone bar Federer is "a talentless grinder"

bogbrush wrote:Net approaches to put away a short recovery shot don't make a varied game. How many times did Novak go to the net as part of a forecourt strategy? Once? twice?

Strangely definitive judgement for someone who earlier said they were dipping in and out of the match.

And so he had about 40 putaways? Unlikely. He even said afterwards it was a deliberate tactic.

So I went for my shots, especially in the third and fourth; came to the net quite often. I was quite successful in that percentage, so it worked well for me.

lydian wrote:http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html

No, 204.

Wimbledon plays like a slower HC these days so why not expect similar ralleys.

Sorry, you're right on 204.

If they play the same, why does everyone think Fed's best chance of a slam is at Wimbledon at not Australia?

Average ralley length for Wimb is now 5.6 strokes per ralley.

Can anyone find similar stat for AO? I wouldn't expect it to be vastly higher.

BTW, Wimbledon pre-grass change ralley length was 2.3, so ralleys are now 250% longer than before despite racquets getting more powerful. AO if anything speeded up after the change from Rebound Ace to Plexi so as said wouldn't expect a huge difference now.

Novak today made 41 net approaches and won 25% of his points there. That compares to Fed making 44 net approaches (in 5 sets!) and scoring 19% of his points there in the semi. But no, we all know that Novak doesn't use variety, let's moan about it without actually checking anything out

Ok this stat is Wee weeing me off.

Of the 41 trips how many volleys did he make? 10? 20?

4. That is total amount of volleys he made. So before we bang the drum of variety, lets check the stats out properly eh.

Right I recall you slated one David Ferrer, but if someone mentions a bad word about Novak well thats it. Tears and toys are thrown from the pram.

Bad Slam finals are not uncommon. US Open 2009 final, Wimbledon final 2010, French Open 2011 final. So if we can all stop sucking each others d1cks with all this un-necessary praise and call the match what it was.

So much of the play today was bogged down in the middle of the deuce court and the lengths by both were poor. I doubt anyone will be calling this match a classic.

Now to the OP. It is well documented that the game as it stands favours long rallies. As for the guys who play this style better the likes of Djokovics, Murrays, Nadals. It isn't just rallying though the reason they are top of pile. Djokovic and Murray possess the better BH but Nadal the better FH. Nadal and Djokovic are very good servers, Andy is the better slicer. All 3 ridiculously good on the baseline and the best returners on tour. Federer for all of his young 31 years can rally with the best of them and even defend with the best of them. It's not just 'pure' talent that keeps him there, the elements that make the main strengths of the other 3 linger in small parts in the Federer game.

It's not like Djokovic, Nadal and Murray have ruined the game. Far from it. In fairness you would argue it is only in the last 5 years that these guys have dominated the top end of the rankings. Murray and Djokovic are 25. Not old by any stretches of the imagination. Some take longer to reach their peak than others. It happens. Murray, Djokovic and Nadal use different racquets and string tensions. It isn't carbon copies is it.

Changing conditions and technology may blunt these guys, but it doesn't prevent other monopoly's at the top of the game. That would leave more saying what we are now. Wheres the upcoming talent? Wheres the compeition?

Let's just roll with this current game. It isn't eye wateringly bad. Today's final was 2 guys who literally blunted the crap out of each other. It isn't new as it has happened in other matches.

This wasn't a classic and people have the right to criticise. Where is the harm? Do you think the players will be sitting at home right now saying wow what a classic that was?

Murray and Djokovic without a doubt spent most of their energy in their 5 setters. Wawrinka literally battered Djokovic who refused to lay down and toughed a win from that match. Murray had to play himself out of trouble against Federer who was playing the bigger moments better. I would argue that those were their better performances in the fortnight.

Bad matches happen. Not all the time. They do. Don't take the right of people's choice to criticise if they so wish to just because you find it offensive. You can guarantee if they play again and the levels are up, people will praise them.

newballs wrote:This match might not have been quite the endurance test Djokovic's two previous wins of late against Nadal and Murray were but it was often IMHO nevertheless a case of "bludgeoning" your opponent with a tennis racquet till he surrenders.

By what measure? I've dealt in numbers - I've given you net points, duration and winners. If we are only dealing in "it looked that way to me", then there is no discussion to be had. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

newballs wrote:
Can you also correct me as to where I suggest there was a lack of talent on display? It's actually rather "pathetic" (borrowing your terminology) to throw comments intimating I think everyone bar Federer is "a talentless grinder"

Your reflection on today's match was:

It makes you wonder if the demise of Federer also heralds a new era in which just how many times you've worked out in the gym is worth so much more than pure talent and inventiveness on the tennis court.

Are you not expressing the opinion here that today's match was more to do with the gym than talent and inventiveness?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Novak today made 41 net approaches and won 25% of his points there. That compares to Fed making 44 net approaches (in 5 sets!) and scoring 19% of his points there in the semi. But no, we all know that Novak doesn't use variety, let's moan about it without actually checking anything out

Ok this stat is Wee weeing me off.

Of the 41 trips how many volleys did he make? 10? 20?

4. That is total amount of volleys he made. So before we bang the drum of variety, lets check the stats out properly eh.

Irrelevant point, LK. The claim that was being refuted was lack of variety, not lack of volleying.

Or do net points not count as variety? If not, please inform the World Number 1, because he considered that a change of tactic.

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Novak today made 41 net approaches and won 25% of his points there. That compares to Fed making 44 net approaches (in 5 sets!) and scoring 19% of his points there in the semi. But no, we all know that Novak doesn't use variety, let's moan about it without actually checking anything out

Ok this stat is Wee weeing me off.

Of the 41 trips how many volleys did he make? 10? 20?

4. That is total amount of volleys he made. So before we bang the drum of variety, lets check the stats out properly eh.

Irrelevant point, LK. The claim that was being refuted was lack of variety, not lack of volleying.

Or do net points not count as variety? If not, please inform the World Number 1, because he considered that a change of tactic.

Explain the variety of it. I am all ears.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Novak today made 41 net approaches and won 25% of his points there. That compares to Fed making 44 net approaches (in 5 sets!) and scoring 19% of his points there in the semi. But no, we all know that Novak doesn't use variety, let's moan about it without actually checking anything out

Ok this stat is Wee weeing me off.

Of the 41 trips how many volleys did he make? 10? 20?

4. That is total amount of volleys he made. So before we bang the drum of variety, lets check the stats out properly eh.

Irrelevant point, LK. The claim that was being refuted was lack of variety, not lack of volleying.

Or do net points not count as variety? If not, please inform the World Number 1, because he considered that a change of tactic.

Explain the variety of it. I am all ears.

You head to the net rather than staying at the baseline.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Novak today made 41 net approaches and won 25% of his points there. That compares to Fed making 44 net approaches (in 5 sets!) and scoring 19% of his points there in the semi. But no, we all know that Novak doesn't use variety, let's moan about it without actually checking anything out

Ok this stat is Wee weeing me off.

Of the 41 trips how many volleys did he make? 10? 20?

4. That is total amount of volleys he made. So before we bang the drum of variety, lets check the stats out properly eh.

Irrelevant point, LK. The claim that was being refuted was lack of variety, not lack of volleying.

Or do net points not count as variety? If not, please inform the World Number 1, because he considered that a change of tactic.

Explain the variety of it. I am all ears.

You head to the net rather than staying at the baseline.

Tell how the points are won

In my eyes lk variety comes in all guises as in variety of shots and we certainly saw that today as there were all manner of forehands, backhands, slices, volleys and drop shots.

Well hmh the one thing we agree on was it's my opinion. Other than that we beg to differ.

newballs wrote:Well the one thing we agree on was it's my opinion. Other than that we beg to differ.

Which you're not allowed it seems

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Explain the variety of it. I am all ears.

If there's no difference, why do they give it its own category in the match stats?

Why did the world's best player consider it a change of approach?

I'm all ears.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

newballs wrote:Well the one thing we agree on was it's my opinion. Other than that we beg to differ.

Which you're not allowed it seems

lk2 maybe I should change the title to "Where is this forum heading?"

Where is tennis heading?

In the pit that Nadal dug.

I'm watching the recording of it now, and I'm on 1-1 second set and Murray is by far the better player... Are you lot sure he lost?

Seriously though, how much did Murray let Novak off the hook in Novak's first service game of the second set? It was 2011 Murray... He didn't commit to a single shot on any of the BP's. how different it could have been as was was right on top. Nobody to blame but himself.

Anyway.... Sorry to interrupt. You guys can get back to your arguing now.

Chydremion wrote:Where is tennis heading?

In the pit that Nadal dug.

Federer tried to fill it in but Novak and Andy kept digging away I guess

Like I said elsewhere Danny I just think he went too passive after winning the first set.

Short sighted chydremion, Nadal is a) unorthodox b) product of slow court environment. If you want to blame someone blame ATP/ITF for allowing courts to slow.

The most aggressive tennis we see all yea is now at Cincy, probably is the quickest court now...and that's HC outdoor. Most players go to the net to smash, put easy shot away or pick up a drop shot.