Good day for Murray, Dark day for tennis

Let's be honest, from a tennis point of view, the final was deadly dull. The rallies were so similar and consisted of solid baseline play and retreival before an error or a futile net approach. How sad that a player who evidently has good touch and variety is reduced to the human blackboard. How many times did Murray approach the net? And yet this is the no 1 player on grass. I still say well done to Murray. He has worked out that he needed a better forehand, that net play was a superfulous complication, and the best strategy to win is to be solid from the baseline and take very little risk. Such a shame that what should be a glorious day in British Tennis is also a day that fans of real tennis will view with alarm and dismay. There will be no more Federers. This is the future of Tennis, and it is very dull indeed.

You'll be criticised for this but if I understand you correctly you're not in any way taking anything from Andy. Please, Murray fans, lets remember that.

On your key point, I agree 100%. It was gripping because of the event. And the staggering determination of Murray, especially to break at 4-4 3rd set. As I put it myself, if these two meet at a 250 event I won't tune in.

By the way, you're not Andy from old 606 are you?

Andy, did it really take you until July 2013 to work out that the ATP has forced this type of tennis on us?
It's been thus for many years - well before Murray started doing well.

Fair point.

But he's not alone in this.

Also, do you mean human backboard? I'm not sure how he would be a blackboard. Covered in chalk from the baseline maybe?

Andy

Dark days? Why?

What about the semi-finals? Four of the youngest players in the Top 50, producing those good matches. Is that what you mean?

Other than Federer in pristine form - can you tell me what you call Tennis entertainment?

Wasn't the variety on show, i.e. the superb use of slice, enough without moaning on about Tennis at the net?

Wasn't there frequent rallies where the outcome was gripping simply because both were trying to outmanoeuvre the other?

And on the point to get his final match point, there ended up being terrific fireworks at the net!!

I'm a lone voice, because I'd have much rather watch Chis Evert's Tennis than Sampras's who bored me stupid (great admiration for his game) give me a creative baseliner, who has variety in both shot selection and speed any day of the week rather than the boring play of one-dimensional hard hitter

Agassi, Connors, Mecir not necessarily superb net players (Connor was good of course) but would an era with them three at the top been "dark"?

As far as finals go, this was average I can think of plenty more dull ones - pick virtually any from the 1991 to 1997, apart from 1992 and you're on the money. I remember frequent Wimby finals been a let down after the semi's

Serve and Volley / net play is so over-rated. Some think it's the holy grail, simply because we don't have enough of it. This of course is a valid reason - but the carping about recent finals because they don't live up to the ones that Roger is in, is getting a little tiresome. Can't we have a bit more optimism rather than this?

i.e. can't we say that perhaps the final wasn't the best but was OK?

Look at it from the bright sight, at least Nadal didn't win.

Didn't Novak have over 30 net approaches, and Murray over 20?

So over 50 net approaches in a 3 set match... Doesn't sound too bad to me. Plenty of slice, drop shots... Sure a lot of baseline rallies, but whether that's a good or bad thing for tennis is very subjective.

So overall it may have been bad for your taste, but it was bloody good for my taste! When I think of my favourite rallies ever most have been baseline rallies, not 3 or 4 shot points ending with a volley.

Each to their own as I always say, but I think tennis is in a tremendous place.

Ps - dull and risk free Murray had more winners in the match, and a lot more winners than errors.

I think for the Tennis connoisseur's of nearly 40 years watching like me, Murray is an entertaining watch - when he's on song

We might find a more entertaining player as he gets older and gets more wily

I remember Agassi being far more entertaining to watch in latter days than younger days

Plenty of net approaches in the final, but people seemingly wont be pleased until every point finishes with a diving volley. Fact is S & V is boring, if it wasnt they wouldnt have slowed the courts down

Danny_1982 wrote:Didn't Novak have over 30 net approaches, and Murray over 20?

So over 50 net approaches in a 3 set match... Doesn't sound too bad to me. Plenty of slice, drop shots... Sure a lot of baseline rallies, but whether that's a good or bad thing for tennis is very subjective.

So overall it may have been bad for your taste, but it was bloody good for my taste! When I think of my favourite rallies ever most have been baseline rallies, not 3 or 4 shot points ending with a volley.

Each to their own as I always say, but I think tennis is in a tremendous place.

Ps - dull and risk free Murray had more winners in the match, and a lot more winners than errors.

No Danny you must use the internationally 606v2 approved Bogbrush scoring system for volleys. Overheads don't count as volleys even if you hit them before they bounce. Drive volleys since they are too similar to groundstrokes don't count as volleys. If you don't run up on the first or second ball it doesn't count as a volley either. Oh and if it is an easy put away, a point you have already won from the baseline that doesn't count either. I watched the match again using the BB 606v2 approved scoring system and I counted 4 volleys for the whole match.

50 approaches to the net?

Thats more than I expected.

It's a bad match-up.

End of.

You can actually win a net approach without hitting a decent volley at all - e.g. you mishit a volley to Fed's backhand and he shanks his return. Just one example of why these stats are open to interpretation.
Also, I think if your opponent does a drop shot, and you run to get it, that counts as a net approach.

bogbrush wrote:You'll be criticised for this but if I understand you correctly you're not in any way taking anything from Andy. Please, Murray fans, lets remember that.

On your key point, I agree 100%. It was gripping because of the event. And the staggering determination of Murray, especially to break at 4-4 3rd set. As I put it myself, if these two meet at a 250 event I won't tune in.

By the way, you're not Andy from old 606 are you?

Absolutely correct Bogbrush. Murray's style of play is merely a sympton of the conditions he finds himself playing in, and he should be given no less credit just because it is not exciting. Indeed as I alluded to, I think this era lets Murray down as his natural skills are not rewarded and I have no doubt that they will wither away through lack of use. No I wasn't on 606.

kingraf wrote:Plenty of net approaches in the final, but people seemingly wont be pleased until every point finishes with a diving volley. Fact is S & V is boring,  if it wasnt they wouldnt have slowed the courts down  

Oh dear, I knew I should have anticipated this strawman. Its either all baseline or all S & V isn't it? We can't possibly have a situation where there are some all court players, some baseliners, and some serve and volleyers, can we?

You had FIFTY net approaches in three sets, and you complained about it, forgive me for assuming you are the one who wants it one way.

I find the term net approach rather slippery. Does this mean they merely got close to the net ?, which in modern tennis probably means somewhere near the baseline.

Maybe but thats not what it means on the Stat line. There it means you approached the net...

banbrotam wrote:Andy

Dark days? Why?

What about the semi-finals? Four of the youngest players in the Top 50, producing those good matches. Is that what you mean?

Other than Federer in pristine form - can you tell me what you call Tennis entertainment?

Wasn't the variety on show, i.e. the superb use of slice, enough without moaning on about Tennis at the net?

Wasn't there frequent rallies where the outcome was gripping simply because both were trying to outmanoeuvre the other?

And on the point to get his final match point, there ended up being terrific fireworks at the net!!

I'm a lone voice, because I'd have much rather watch Chis Evert's Tennis than Sampras's who bored me stupid (great admiration for his game) give me a creative baseliner, who has variety in both shot selection and speed any day of the week rather than the boring play of one-dimensional hard hitter

Agassi, Connors, Mecir not necessarily superb net players (Connor was good of course) but would an era with them three at the top been "dark"?

As far as finals go, this was average I can think of plenty more dull ones - pick virtually any from the 1991 to 1997, apart from 1992 and you're on the money. I remember frequent Wimby finals been a let down after the semi's

Serve and Volley / net play is so over-rated. Some think it's the holy grail, simply because we don't have enough of it. This of course is a valid reason - but the carping about recent finals because they don't live up to the ones that Roger is in, is getting a little tiresome. Can't we have a bit more optimism rather than this?

i.e. can't we say that perhaps the final wasn't the best but was OK?

Very good points  

To the OP, you should have opened a thread like this when DJoko won the Wimbledon in 2011, that was the death of grass court play, atleast last week a proper grass court player won, Andy is so fluid in grass courts and his movements are sublime in it when most fall and injure themselves.

Regarding the variety? Andy brings in hell lot of variety
Regarding S&V ? yes ATP should do something to encourage S&V players and balance the game between s&V and base liners.

This Wimbledon was an eye opener, Fed got beaten by a S&V player, Nadal got beaten by a proper grass court player and the title was won by a grass court player.  

Is the game sadly titled towards defensive mode? Yes , but it looks better than what it was like 2 years back , and to remind you Andy is playing lot aggressive than what he has done in his entire career, we are looking for a new era, I personally feel the transition era is getting over. 

Are the surface Homogenized? Yup but that problem didn't happen over night and like JHM pointed out it should be atleast a decade now and yes sadly nothing has been done to solve it, and I am not sure anything be done in the near future.

Finally like Banbro pointed, the Wimbledon was very exciting with the Del Po coming back to form, JJ a youngster stepping up and big names falling early, so its not a Sad day for tennis. 

invisiblecoolers wrote:Andy brings in hell lot of variety

This Wimbledon was an eye opener, Fed got beaten by a S&V player, Nadal got beaten by a proper grass court player and the title was won by a grass court player.  

Sorry, can't agree with either sentence.

Yes Andy BRINGS variety, but doesn't USE it. Most guys he faces in matches approach the net more than he does, inc. Djokovic in the Wimb final and even Ferrer in the 2013 Miami TMS final. Djokovic also uses more ground stroke variety, Andy is very much a cross-court guy of guy until an opportunity to attack DTL presents...Djokovic uses DTL more routinely, attacks more, and volleys more.

Which means I can't agree with what follows...i.e. "the title was won by a grass court player".
It wasn't. It was won by an extremely good and consistent baseliner.
Fair play to him, he's won two slams now...fantastic achievement...but please don't try to convince this is an all court player...yes he has the capability of doing but just about everyone attacks and comes into the net more than he does. He plies his trade using a different set of attributes these days, and Ferrer-like consistency, ralley continuance and incredible stamina are at the forefront of that.

I'd just like to question the theory that is is a dark day for tennis. Who says so?

I have trawled across the world for news coverage of the final and what it means for tennis and on none of these sites did I find proclamation of it being a dark day for tennis in any way shape or form. Sites I visited were that of Canada's CBS, Australia's ABC and USA's NBC. None with any British bias and none with news of the impending death of tennis.

lydian wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Andy brings in hell lot of variety

This Wimbledon was an eye opener, Fed got beaten by a S&V player, Nadal got beaten by a proper grass court player and the title was won by a grass court player.  

Sorry, can't agree with either sentence.

Yes Andy BRINGS variety, but doesn't USE it. Most guys he faces in matches approach the net more than he does, inc. Djokovic in the Wimb final and even Ferrer in the 2013 Miami TMS final. Djokovic also uses more ground stroke variety, Andy is very much a cross-court guy of guy until an opportunity to attack DTL presents...Djokovic uses DTL more routinely, attacks more, and volleys more.

Which means I can't agree with what follows...i.e. "the title was won by a grass court player".
It wasn't. It was won by an extremely good and consistent baseliner.
Fair play to him, he's won two slams now...fantastic achievement...but please don't try to convince this is an all court player...yes he has the capability of doing but just about everyone attacks and comes into the net more than he does. He plies his trade using a different set of attributes these days, and Ferrer-like consistency, ralley continuance and incredible stamina are at the forefront of that.

Andy's very much in the Rafa mould, eh Lydian?

If tennis has gone the wrong way it has been doing so far some years already, nothing to do with this match, if anything this tournament seems to have tilted back a tiny notch.

I thought it was a high quality match, but average for entertainment, except for the last game which was awesome.

lydian wrote:

Yes Andy BRINGS variety, but doesn't USE it. Most guys he faces in matches approach the net more than he does, inc. Djokovic in the Wimb final and even Ferrer in the 2013 Miami TMS final. Djokovic also uses more ground stroke variety, Andy is very much a cross-court guy of guy until an opportunity to attack DTL presents...Djokovic uses DTL more routinely, attacks more, and volleys more.

Which means I can't agree with what follows...i.e. "the title was won by a grass court player".
It wasn't. It was won by an extremely good and consistent baseliner.
Fair play to him, he's won two slams now...fantastic achievement...but please don't try to convince this is an all court player...yes he has the capability of doing but just about everyone attacks and comes into the net more than he does. He plies his trade using a different set of attributes these days, and Ferrer-like consistency, ralley continuance and incredible stamina are at the forefront of that.

Exactly

lydian wrote:Yes Andy BRINGS variety, but doesn't USE it. Most guys he faces in matches approach the net more than he does, inc. Djokovic in the Wimb final and even Ferrer in the 2013 Miami TMS final. Djokovic also uses more ground stroke variety, Andy is very much a cross-court guy of guy until an opportunity to attack DTL presents...Djokovic uses DTL more routinely, attacks more, and volleys more.

Which means I can't agree with what follows...i.e. "the title was won by a grass court player".
It wasn't. It was won by an extremely good and consistent baseliner.
Fair play to him, he's won two slams now...fantastic achievement...but please don't try to convince this is an all court player...yes he has the capability of doing but just about everyone attacks and comes into the net more than he does. He plies his trade using a different set of attributes these days, and Ferrer-like consistency, ralley continuance and incredible stamina are at the forefront of that.

Perfect summary of a view that I share wholeheartedly. I saw two baseliners in the final, and one of them was trying new things and forcing the play a little more - it wasn't Murray. Part of that is because Djokovic was looking for an answer to a riddle that he couldn't solve, but it's also a continuation of a trend that's been continuing with Murray for some time. Compare and contrast his style of play from his two Wimbledon finals, even though they're only a year apart. He's a very good player, and has a lot of variety, but simply chooses not to deploy it. I actually came out of that match with a bit more respect for Novak, he's clearly been working on his net and approach play recently, and was willing to try it out on the biggest stage. A few years ago, I would've laughed at anyone who told me that Novak would appear to be a more 'complete' player than Andy in terms of variety, but it's now a justifiable opinion to hold.

This is the exact reason why I used to like Murray a great deal more than I do now. He has huge variety, we know this - it frustrated Federer in particular, hence the H2H stats. He's recognised himself, in interviews and repeatedly no less, that 'nobody approaches the net anymore' and speaks of such skills relatively disdainfully. It's not his fault; he knows full well that he doesn't need anything beyond rudimentary volleying skill, and that's something that has changed over the course of even his own career. Murray is an excellent tactician and will only utilise what works, within the current court conditions combined with his own skillset - the end result is what we've seen from him this year. And all power to him, it's brought him great success and I've no doubt that his fans don't give a fiddlers about how it looks.

Before anyone lays into me, I like Murray as a man and enjoy seeing him succeed. His fans deserve the moment in the sun, and far be it from me to tarnish it. But as a fan of the sport, his matches no longer captivate or even interest me, and I find him dull to watch. Frustrating, perhaps...he has the tools, but refuses (for good reason?) to sharpen them up and join battle with them. As for the net approach stats, go and check the 2012 Wimbledon final. 68 net approaches from a single player (Federer), and conditions were supposedly faster this year. That speaks volumes to me. And not everyone who decries this type of baseline play wants a return to S&V - I sure as hell don't. A balance is needed, though...and that's something that virtually the entire forum has recognised on previous threads.

Phew, bit of a monster post. Ultimately though, Murray's won, and congratulations again to him. He deserves every bit of the adulation that's coming his way.

socal1976 wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Didn't Novak have over 30 net approaches, and Murray over 20?

So over 50 net approaches in a 3 set match... Doesn't sound too bad to me. Plenty of slice, drop shots... Sure a lot of baseline rallies, but whether that's a good or bad thing for tennis is very subjective.

So overall it may have been bad for your taste, but it was bloody good for my taste! When I think of my favourite rallies ever most have been baseline rallies, not 3 or 4 shot points ending with a volley.

Each to their own as I always say, but I think tennis is in a tremendous place.

Ps - dull and risk free Murray had more winners in the match, and a lot more winners than errors.

No Danny you must use the internationally 606v2 approved Bogbrush scoring system for volleys. Overheads don't count as volleys even if you hit them before they bounce. Drive volleys since they are too similar to groundstrokes don't count as volleys. If you don't run up on the first or second ball it doesn't count as a volley either. Oh and if it is an easy put away, a point you have already won from the baseline that doesn't count either. I watched the match again using the BB 606v2 approved scoring system and I counted 4 volleys for the whole match.

For a guy who cries buckets if he thinks he's been misrepresented, sometimes you do take liberties with the truth.

I disregard simple tap aways after a baseline exchange as having any value in a net game discussion. That was it, though maybe I wouldn't look too close a Novak's overheads as they are barely club standard.

It's hard to say what Silver said and not look as if you mean even slightly to pull Murray's great achievement down. For what it's worth I agree with every word, including the sincere congratulations to Andy.

kingraf wrote:You had FIFTY net approaches in three sets, and you complained about it, forgive me for assuming you are the one who wants it one way.

50 successful approaches to the net. In total, there were officially 89 net approaches. Federer made 25 in the final in 2005 and 33 in the final of 2006 (4 sets) by way of contrast.

I do agree with those who say Murray should volley more. It's the way for him to get on top in the Djokovic rivalry. He has plenty of variety in his baseline game but re-introducing the odd serve volley and going in the odd bit more when he is on top in a rally could only improve his fortunes.

89 net approaches? Well that's a lot. 30 per set, just under 3 per game!!

An unusually large amount for the modern game. Yet still it's the death of tennis?!

The bits of the final I saw were a bit boring to be honest but Djokovic playing reasonably poorly didn't help the match. Let's not write off tennis yet the start of the tournament was rapid and saw a lot of net play

To be fair many of Djoko's approaches were due to his interesting tactical approach and Murray's due to the trillion drop shots from Djoko. The rallying that did occur was often very much just whacking it at each other which was the dull thing about it but it may have improved after I left

lydian wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Andy brings in hell lot of variety

This Wimbledon was an eye opener, Fed got beaten by a S&V player, Nadal got beaten by a proper grass court player and the title was won by a grass court player.  

Sorry, can't agree with either sentence.

Yes Andy BRINGS variety, but doesn't USE it. Most guys he faces in matches approach the net more than he does, inc. Djokovic in the Wimb final and even Ferrer in the 2013 Miami TMS final. Djokovic also uses more ground stroke variety, Andy is very much a cross-court guy of guy until an opportunity to attack DTL presents...Djokovic uses DTL more routinely, attacks more, and volleys more.

Which means I can't agree with what follows...i.e. "the title was won by a grass court player".
It wasn't. It was won by an extremely good and consistent baseliner.
Fair play to him, he's won two slams now...fantastic achievement...but please don't try to convince this is an all court player...yes he has the capability of doing but just about everyone attacks and comes into the net more than he does. He plies his trade using a different set of attributes these days, and Ferrer-like consistency, ralley continuance and incredible stamina are at the forefront of that.

I find the bold a bit of a dis-service.

Let's put things into perspective a bit. The only true all courter is Federer and that is based on results and consistency. Djokovic I have no doubt might have the numbers, whether that is reflected in his Slam count who knows at this stage and will probably go down as an all courter in time. Nadal will go down as a The Greatest Clay Courter of all time. Not an all courter.

Comparing Murray with Ferrer is a bit of cheek. Ferrer would dream of Murray's stats and thus doesn't have them so it is a fruitless comparison. Murray's stats on Grass are like something like 84% which is quite remarkable. I am not calling Murray a 'Grass Court' player, but what I will say is that his game as it stands is more suited to Grass than it is Hard as it relies on assistance from the surface. If Murray was a baseliner in every sense of the word his stats on Clay would be much more better than what they are.

Andy has variation, but when you have BH and FH that probably come off the surface at the same speed as a slice kind of makes the variation a null and void. The pace is with the BH and FH shots and I believe that Andy tries this tactic because of the fact that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will jump on the slower pace groundstrokes. Yes it's boring, but let's not kid ourselves that negative tennis is a new fad with Murray. First there was Safin and Hewitt. Then we had Nadal and Djokovic. Murray has now joined that queue which is a shame given the talent and variation he has.

Totally agree with the author.  The match was a victory for "counter pushing".  For 3 sets Novak deployed drop shots and attacking shots that should be winners, only to see them countered or just pushed back into play.  Murray seldom did anything else, and only approached the net when he was being forced to.  On a faster surface, Murray would have been toast.  It's a real shame what's happened to tennis.  Had Novak not been tired, the pushing tactic still would have failed.  Murray should send his trophy to Del Potro haha. Won him Wimbledon and the Olympics....

I agree with a lot of what has been said regarding Andy's unwillingness to use the variety he has within his game. However, I think it's something that tends to be amplified in his matches against Djokovic - both are primarily defender/counter-pumchers who are looking to exploit openings given by a tactical error by their opponent. Because of their speed around the court, the openings sometimes come from an opponent hitting aggressively to get them on the run - it gives an angle for the counter-attack. This is why they spend so long locked in cross-court ground-stroke battles.

Andy doesn't play the same way against Rafa, as he knows he haas to be more aggressive otherwise Rafa will unload one of the big off forehands, while Federer's more attacking game leaves more openings. However, my favourite Murray matches of recent years have been when he has come up against Llodra or Santoro, who will give him a target at the net - it allows him the chance to show off the range of shots he has, either taking them on volley for volley or with his lob and passing shot skills.

Ah poor old homogenised I think you lost your credibility with this post from just over a fortnight ago:-

'Not really, Murray is getting older and only has a few more realistic shots at the Wimbledon title. Time is running out. He was predicted to win it by many for years. It took him all this time to win just 1 slam. He is overhyped enormously every year, and it just breeds disappointment. It is better to accept that he is a fair distance from Djokovic and Nadal (and even Grandpa Federer on this slow grass). I am sure he has a chance to win it, but it simply isn't as good a chance as everyone is making out. I await yet another loss this year.... and then another "he is favourite" next year.'

Andy11 wrote:There will be no more Federers.

I don't really understand how this sentence fits in your article.

I agree that Murray and Djokovic don't always produce interesting matches due to similar syles - though they've had some extremely high quality matches, including in my opinion the Olympic semi which was a mix of what might be called baseline slugfest and some brilliant all court play.

But there was only no more Federer because he was beaten by someone playing mainly S&V. And in his first round match, he played some beautiful stuff. He's only not competing with Murray and Djokovic in the big tournaments right now because he's slowing down, but that doesn't mean someone playing his style can't compete. It was only last year that he won this tournament!

So it is unfortunate for you that Murray and Djokovic are the guys at the top of the game right now so this is what they are going to produce, but I guess you need to hope someone like Dimitrov makes that leap physically and mentally to challenge them.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah poor old homogenised I think you lost your credibility with this post from just over a fortnight ago:-

'Not really, Murray is getting older and only has a few more realistic shots at the Wimbledon title.  Time is running out.  He was predicted to win it by many for years.  It took him all this time to win just 1 slam.  He is overhyped enormously every year, and it just breeds disappointment.  It is better to accept that he is a fair distance from Djokovic and Nadal (and even Grandpa Federer on this slow grass).  I am sure he has a chance to win it, but it simply isn't as good a chance as everyone is making out.  I await yet another loss this year.... and then another "he is favourite" next year.'

And had he not had the easiest draw in history, and met Djokovic after a 5 setter with Del Potro, he would have lost. Extreme Luck was the only way I was going to be wrong. Murray still nearly bottled that final game, and he almost lost to Verdasco as well. My credibility is in tact, and once again, you attack a person rather than what is being said. Seems to be a habit?

Or maybe he had his lucky pants on?

Maybe he had a Rabbit's Foot in his pockets?

The rest of the field bar Andy walked under ladders hence the bad luck they experienced?

I tell ya all this luck. Now I know how Roger got to 17, Sampras 14, Nadal 12, Agassi 8, Djokovic 6. Bloody lucky the lot of them!