Murray v Djokovic - The Nice Rivalry

My nan bless her. One of the rare people in this country to have listened to Perry's last Wimbledon triumph and also watch Murray break the mens hoodoo that has plagued mens tennis in Great Britain. At the tender age of 91 she can recount Perry's last triumph. It was quite surreal to listen to someone who has lived through that period.

I was more relieved to have watched Murray win Wimbledon just so that I don't have to listen to the Fred Perry bandwagon that just keeps on camping when Wimbledon comes round. However yesterday saw the 2 best players in the game today and whilst it was an exhausting encounter many will still think of Federer and Nadal and whether they have that final push in them to remain relevant in the higher order of the game.

Now we have Djokovic and Murray and this is expected to pick up the baton left by Federer and Nadal. Tennis's new rivaly. It is strange. For me it seems Djokovic v Murray for me might go down as the nicest rivalry in the sport. How strange. They both have a healthy respect for each other on and off the court. I just feel it is lacking a bit of spice. There isn't anything wrong with this of course. My favourite rivalry that was Becker and Edberg, both players had a mutual respect for one another. Almost like the other couldn't bring himself to even crack a joke about the other. It seemed however their tennis did the talking. Connors and McEnroe had this intensity that they could bring to a rivalry. Almost like a different dimension that was so unique that it threw some of the top players. McEnroe granted post Borg struggled, but still had an intensity that put him in the frame. Even when he played Lendl and despite Lendl being a breed of player never witnessed before, McEnroe could find an edge no matter how small. Sampras and Agassi was a very intense rivalry. Agassi wanting to represent everything Sampras wasn't and it gave the rivalry the spice it needed. However, Sampras was able to dominate Agassi and no matter what Agassi threw at Sampras it was in vain as Sampras had all the answers.

Federer and Nadal. Really and truly this rivalry didn't take off the ground until Nadal defeated Federer at Wimbledon in 2008. We could argue peaks, but however the rivalry was what tennis folk wanted to see. Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 was when the rivalry for me was at it's peak. Yes Roger wasn't a match for Nadal on Clay, but it for me it was always could Nadal suceed on Grass or HC and he did. Many would say that the BO5 encounters came down to fitness, but I don't place so much of that as the main reason for Nadal's success. Was it because Nadal attacked the BH relentlessly? Maybe. You had Nadal that represented the new mental and physical toughness in the game. Federer was for the tennis purest who believed he was the last of the skilled players dying breed who could win a match on the swing of his racquet. Beyond that even though they had a professional respect for each other, I do sense a bit of needle somewhere in that rivalry. Like the Agassi and Sampras rivalry before that it has a major H2H variance in favour of one player.

This brings me right round to Murray and Djokovic. Their last 3 Slam meetings you could argue have been the ultimate in Iron Man contests. The endless retrieval and defence skills that defies logic. Djokovic who stretches more than Stretch Armstrong and Murray that is like the Roadrunner. Both men have reset the boundaries for physical endurance. I would say Djokovic the more pure athlete than Murray, however Murray for me is physically just a beast. The last 3 meetings may have left the tennis fan feeling short changed, but the rivalry for me needs a little more edge to it. Djokovic and Murray granted seem nice guys and I have no qualms with that, but it would be nice just for a little needle to bring the rivalry to the boil. Yesterday was much more attacking and brutal than past encounters. Djokovic going all out not because physically he was spent, but more respectful for Murray's endurance hence pushing himself into one stroke more which the mantra has served Murray so well. Murray was also respectful for Djokovic's defence and did not want to concede court postion to the Serbinator. Andy showed a serving clinic yesterday and for me served superbly. Mixed it up a bit. Whilst yes the match came down to physical brutality, there were glimpses this rivalry could go up a few notches. I look forward to their next encounter hoping for that 'blockbuster' encounter that could elevate their rivalry. If not, please someone spark a mini battle that makes the encounter a bit more feisty as I am craving it!

actually the ultimate iron man meeting between Novak and Andy was semi final of oz open in 2012. That was their longest battle to date and most physically draining.

I am still not a big fan of their matches though, I far rather the Djokovic vs Nadal, Djoko vs Federer and Federer vs Nadal matches.

I think that the playing style of Murray and Djokovic is too similar. They do have some great rallies but it doesnt carry the same excitement for me. I still cant believe how poor Djokovic was yesterday, really expected a lot more from him but maybe he just ran out of gas.

slashermcguirk wrote:actually the ultimate iron man meeting between Novak and Andy was semi final of oz open in 2012. That was their longest battle to date and most physically draining.

I am still not a big fan of their matches though, I far rather the Djokovic vs Nadal, Djoko vs Federer and Federer vs Nadal matches.

I think that the playing style of Murray and Djokovic is too similar. They do have some great rallies but it doesnt carry the same excitement for me. I still cant believe how poor Djokovic was yesterday, really expected a lot more from him but maybe he just ran out of gas.

Agree with that - their matches are usually brutal physical encounters based on running, retrieval and not making mistakes, but neither have the firepower to out-hit their opponent reliably from the back of the court. Yesterday was Andy's day because he got more free points on serve and because he was more reliable from the back - Djoko made quite a few uncharacteristic errors in the first set (particularly on the dtl backhand - hitting a touch late and so having the ball drift into the tramlines), and I think this was why he tried changing up his tactics by coming to the net more than normal and including some serve-volley.

I don't think it was particularly that Djoko was physically tired after the Del Potro match, and really although it was a 5 setter it shouldn't have been that emotionally draining because he was ahead almost the entire match (not like the Del P v Federer Olympic SF, where the deciding set had both living on their nerve ends for 20-odd games). He just simply wasn't as good on the day and in the conditions - I think the faster conditions just give Andy the edge over him (unlike say medium or medium-slow hard courts, where Djoko has the edge).

Andy v Novak has its moments - Rome 11 was excellent, Shanghai 12 was also pretty exciting - but I'm not that keen on the match up.

I'm not averse to a good baseline war (I enjoy Rafa v Novak) but I think Andy and Novak are too similar in style to be consistently exciting.

I think Murray / Djokovic needs a major reason to watch, the tennis match up itself isn't interesting.

Imagine them playing at a 250 event nobody cares about. Would you really sit through it?

Fair point but I have say through drab match-ups between other players as well. It is the similarity between their games that negate each other but they still have had cracking matches as well. Just as in the Rafa V Roger match-ups some were a lot better than others.

bogbrush wrote:I think Murray / Djokovic needs a major reason to watch, the tennis match up itself isn't interesting.

Imagine them playing at a 250 event nobody cares about. Would you really sit through it?

Very much agree. I think that's why there needs to be an extra bit of something else that warms you to it. Tennis has had rivalries with similar players being the equivalent of the guy opposing, but either the quality or an extra fizz made it much more entertaining. Take Connors and McEnroe. Had they not had a more personal rivalry, maybe it wouldn't have captivated us in the way it did.

I would sit through a 250 event, but that's the loyal hardcore element of me speaking more than the neutral tennis viewer.