Wimbledon Day 7 - Blow a Gasquet & Bust Agut

First topic message reminder :

Order of play
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/22713811

Dont know about that, Novak is giving Kevin a day to recover

The can't switch surely?

2 sets each. Anderson serving first - don't you dare letting Novak break you! Break him instead, like in second set!

Good break for Anderson; regroup and come out firing in a one-set shootout.

Second slam in a row that Djokovic gets stitched up with the scheduling.

I can't understand what the organisers are thinking starting a bo5 match at 6pm on a court with no lights.

No tie break tomorrow either, so who knows how long it will go.

And then whoever wins is back for the QF the next day.

Farcical.

HM Murdoch wrote:Second slam in a row that Djokovic gets stitched up with the scheduling.

I can't understand what the organisers are thinking starting a bo5 match at 6pm on a court with no lights.

No tie break tomorrow either, so who knows how long it will go.

And then whoever wins is back for the QF the next day.

Farcical.

We both know even with THREE days rest he wouldn't have beaten the Stan that showed up in final day.

It is however dumb of them to start the first pair of mens matches at 2pm.

Golden chance for Djokovic to not choke tomorrow

Come on Andersonnnn

Holy rabbit, he can do it!!!!

(LK u nasty boy (i was late, sorry) )

Djoko tomorrow will go to his little illegal flat in Monaco

Some comfort, their opponent cilic has has 2 five setters and a long four setter today, hes likely to STILL be more tired

HM Murdoch wrote:Second slam in a row that Djokovic gets stitched up with the scheduling.

I can't understand what the organisers are thinking starting a bo5 match at 6pm on a court with no lights.

No tie break tomorrow either, so who knows how long it will go.

And then whoever wins is back for the QF the next day.

Farcical.

I agree. Goodness knows why the Federer match was on centre court rather than Nole v the recent Queens finalist and in form player

Baldings listening face is so frightening. At least the show is now mostly tennis

That was easy for Federer so he treated it as an opportunity to put on a demonstration of creativity & virtuosity; about as close as you can come to insulting your opponent without tipping over.

Like McEnroe said, it was like a highlights reel.

This sport isn't going to interest me anywhere near as much after he's gone.

Well done to Murray. 19 consecutive Slam QF's is very impressive in any era

It deserves more than two slams and it's on his racquet to get a 3rd here

bogbrush wrote:That was easy for Federer so he treated it as an opportunity to put on a demonstration of creativity & virtuosity; about as close as you can come to insulting your opponent without tipping over.

Like McEnroe said, it was like a highlights reel.

This sport isn't going to interest me anywhere near as much after he's gone.

I get the impression you've been watching the game as long as me (mid 70's onwards). What interested you before Roger?

I agree that we have a unique skill that we all won't appreciate until he's gone, but it's Tennis a great game that often re-invents itself with new stars

banbrotam wrote:Well done to Murray. 19 consecutive Slam QF's is very impressive in any era

It deserves more than two slams and it's on his racquet to get a 3rd here

Sorry 18!! Forgot about missing RG13

I'm not sure bout muzz it depends on how federer can switch from an exhibition to batting down the hatches once someone who really can break him comes up

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That was easy for Federer so he treated it as an opportunity to put on a demonstration of creativity & virtuosity; about as close as you can come to insulting your opponent without tipping over.

Like McEnroe said, it was like a highlights reel.

This sport isn't going to interest me anywhere near as much after he's gone.

I get the impression you've been watching the game as long as me (mid 70's onwards). What interested you before Roger?

I agree that we have a unique skill that we all won't appreciate until he's gone, but it's Tennis a great game that often re-invents itself with new stars

Borg, then McEnroe.

Strangely I really liked Lendl but for some reason Edberg didn't wake me up. Becker, Sampras & Agassi left me a touch cold too.

One of my favourite players was Henman; as gifted a volleyer as there's been. Wimbledon sabotaged their own by changing the Courts when they did.

You're right, there'll be another but I think it might be a long wait.

temporary21 wrote:I'm not sure bout muzz it depends on how federer can switch from an exhibition to batting down the hatches once someone who really can break him comes up

It's a toss up

I'm hoping we get a repeat of one of their only three great matches - all when both were fit and fairly firing. The two Wimby's in 2012 or their best ever match (IMO) which was Aus 13

Fair play to Roger for almost reinventing himself in the last 18 months, but I think Murray will win (if they meet)

banbrotam wrote:Well done to Murray. 19 consecutive Slam QF's is very impressive in any era

It deserves more than two slams and it's on his racquet to get a 3rd here

You think Murray's best is better than Feds', djoko's, Stan's etc?

I think if Murray plays well, he can stop them from playing at their best. I would say it's probably on his racquet. But its hardly a case of only a supernatural occurrence stopping Murray from winning.

banbrotam wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I'm not sure bout muzz it depends on how federer can switch from an exhibition to batting down the hatches once someone who really can break him comes up

It's a toss up

I'm hoping we get a repeat of one of their only three great matches - all when both were fit and fairly firing. The two Wimby's in 2012 or their best ever match (IMO) which was Aus 13

Fair play to Roger for almost reinventing himself in the last 18 months, but I think Murray will win (if they meet)

PS. Their 2012 O2 meeting wasn't bad either. Roger went into super indoors mode to recover from a break down in a game where both played well

And there's Dubai earlier that year, as well!!

In fact all their meetings during that 12 months from Dubai 12 to Aus 13, which coincided with them not meeting at all in 2011, were actually pretty good matches

If both bring their 'A' game on grass, it's easily the most entertaining of the four - due to the sheer variety they naturally have

The fact that Roger is still at least 45/55 at his age, relative to Murray, shows us all how good he is

LuvSports! wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Well done to Murray. 19 consecutive Slam QF's is very impressive in any era

It deserves more than two slams and it's on his racquet to get a 3rd here

You think Murray's best is better than Feds', djoko's, Stan's etc?

I think his best is better than Nole's. But Mac's best was better than Sampras (to me).The number of slam wins are not necessarily an indicator of skillset, i.e. as we're clearly seeing this tournament Gasquet is still one heck of a player but is hopelessly lost in the titles stakes

And I do think Warwinka's best is better than Murray's - as he found out nearly 5 years ago, when Stan became the last man to stop him reaching a slam QF

Murrays best is better than djokovic! Are you having a laugh banbrotam? You really think Murray can produce what Novak did in 2011 for example??

The only shots that Murray is superior is superior are volleys and overhead. Novak has a better serve (particularly 2nd serve), better return, forehand and backhand. How you can say murrays best is better is beyond me.

Murray's best is better to watch than Djokovic's best.

I don't think it is better in quality.

HM Murdoch wrote:Murray's best is better to watch than Djokovic's best.

I don't think it is better in quality.

And Federer's best is still better to watch than either, yet I think if they were to meet in this tournament I'd rate Djoko>Murray>Fed.

Actually, I think Murray's very best level is capable of taking anyone apart including Djokovic. The problem is that he struggles to sustain that level for long, and his average level is slightly poorer than Djokovic's average level, plus he's more likely to play 20 minutes at well below average, whereas Djokovic stays much more consistent over the course of matches and tournaments.

Also, with this being on grass, Andy's better ability (than Novak) on the sliced backhand and in handling the low bounce in particular are brought forward, so probably off-setting Djokovic's advantages on 2nd serve and (arguably) on serve return.

I'd probably make the same case for Federer (i.e that his best is better but his average and consistency is not so good), but he is also slightly behind the other two in terms of athleticism and court coverage - not a surprise at nearly 34 and compared to two of the best movers to have ever played the game (Agassi, Hewitt in his early days and Nadal being others in the same group - it's one area where modern players have taken the game forwards a long way).

dummy_half wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Murray's best is better to watch than Djokovic's best.

I don't think it is better in quality.

Actually, I think Murray's very best level is capable of taking anyone apart including Djokovic. The problem is that he struggles to sustain that level for long, and his average level is slightly poorer than Djokovic's average level, plus he's more likely to play 20 minutes at well below average, whereas Djokovic stays much more consistent over the course of matches and tournaments.

Absolutely spot on in my opinion.

The nirvana for Murray is canning that hot streak he can get on when he can pull winners off from any angle for a run of points that can turn a match in his favour. The problem is that those streaks come along far too infrequently for my liking and also mentally he is not as strong as he goes through spells where his mind wanders and level dips for a few games whereas Novak has (to coin HM Murdoch's phrase) 'brain fart' moments whereas Murray's are longer than moments. If he can avoid such moments and stay at a high level he has as good a chance as anybody.

temporary21 wrote:Baldings listening face is so frightening. At least the show is now mostly tennis

Agree! She has this madly insane intense look! Bring Inverdale back!