Paris Masters 2015

First topic message reminder :

Last Masters of the year with Novak winning 5 so far, Murray 2 and Fed 1. Will Paris return to its previous status as the "underdog" Masters or will 2013/14 champ Djokovic reign supreme again?

The draw is out:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/current/paris/352/draws

Potential last 16:

Djokovic v Simon
Tsonga v Berdych
Wawrinka v Lopez
Anderson v Nadal
Ferrer v Cilic
Isner v Federer
Gasquet v Nishikori
Goffin v Murray

Big 5 starters:

Djokovic : Gabashvili or Bellucci
Wawrinka: Tomic or Fognini (ouch!)
Nadal: Rosol(!) or GGL
Federer: Seppi or Cuevas
Murray: Coric or Verdasco

R1 To Watch

Tomic v Fognini
Paire v Monfils
Vesely v Dolgopolov

Predictions

Q1: Djokovic - best player in the world by a distance. Monfils in his 2nd match could be tricky but should reach the QF with ease. Dismantled Tsonga with ease in Shanghai and always crushes Berdych. Should cruise to the SF.

Q2: Nadal - could well face Rosol again but have to feel he should handle him better with the confidence gained this week. Think he will have too much for Wawrinka in a potential QF.

Q3: Federer - great draw for Roger. Won't enjoy playing Isner but should get through. Only possible danger is Cilic and I doubt he will get past Ferrer. Federer v Ferrer the easiest call in tennis.

Q4: Murray - assuming he has some focus this week - and the number 2 ranking should mean that he does - should reach the QF easily. Given Kei's questionable current fitness have to pick him to also reach the SF.

Not picking beyond that until I have seen the relative form!

BTW, does anyone know what the scoop is on Rafa's racquet?  Is he still planning to switch to a new racquet for the next season (as I believe his team were suggesting earlier in the year)?

Wow, crazy momentum shifts in that set, but Andy takes it in the end. Imperious at times, but had a really ropey middle section and almost lost 4 consecutive games at one point. It's on Andy's racquet you feel, but, as always, Daveed is unlikely to make it easy.

Well done Andy and commiserations to Ferrer. Murray wins 6-4 6-3 to reach the Paris Masters Final. A match with its ebbs and flows but Murray always had the answers when the going got tough. Hopefully, he can do himself justice in the final as in recent big matches he has disappointed.

Nicolas Mahut under threat of one year suspension for doping control infractions
http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Nicolas-Mahut-under-threat-of-one-year-suspension-for-doping-control-infractions-articolo27663.html

Another top ten win for Andy. Incredible to think that, not that much more than a year ago, he came into the 2014 US Open without a single top 10 win all year. That 4th round win against Tsonga seemed a big deal at the time. Now he's dispatching top tenners for fun. Obviously, he's had big losses against Novak and Roger this year, but the other top players haven't been able to lay a glove on him. In fact, I'm not sure he's lost against any other top ten player this year.

Anyone else think that Andy's game has become noticeably more expansive the last few months? The number of net approaches seems way higher and he also seems more comfortable rolling the dice and giving away more errors as a result. Great to see, as, up to now, I don't think he's ever truly realised his potential for an aggressive all court game.

No surprise that he's set to finish the year at number 2. Alas, no slams, but arguably playing the best tennis of his career. I wouldn't have dreamt of such a turnaround from the lows of 2014, where it looked like he'd lost that undefinable edge that separates the best from the chasing pack.

Of course, he will probably bomb against Novak tomorrow.....

I'd disagree about him playing the best tennis of his career this year. In the matches that count he has been soundly slaughtered or beaten comfortably - whereas in years gone by he has found ways of beating Novak and Fed. It may be the most pleasing on the eye but it isn't his most effective tennis.

I don;t see Andy as more expansive at all.

LuvSports! wrote:I don;t see Andy as more expansive at all.

He's looking to take control of rallies a little bit more certainly but I would agree with you in that I don't call that being more expansive.

Good luck Stan!

Oh dear, Stan cant penetrate Novak here

Edit: Giggity...

The Stan that can hit through Novak has only shown up now. Too little too late?

Stans turned on full power, a break up!

No Novak, use the GROUND to break a raquet, not your feet

Use your head and break the racquet and not your feet, as the fault is in his head, not his feet.


Crush him Stan for ffs, wipe him off the court.

Big tennis from Stan but Novak's form has also dipped dramatically. Expect normal service to be resumed shortly!

Whats with French? They don't like Djoko to win RG, now even this Masters, they are against him

Stan takes second set 6:3

Go Stan goooooooo

Born Slippy wrote:Big tennis from Stan but Novak's form has also dipped dramatically. Expect normal service to be resumed shortly!

Novak looks rattled.  The first game where Stan broke back Stan really had to earn it but after that Novak started to give up many more errors.

Novak still peed off with the crowd, throwing balls etc.

He is mommies little boy, needs love

Tough for Stan to win from here. Novak has righted the ship while Stan himself has made a few cheap errors.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I'd disagree about him playing the best tennis of his career this year. In the matches that count he has been soundly slaughtered or beaten comfortably - whereas in years gone by he has found ways of beating Novak and Fed. It may be the most pleasing on the eye but it isn't his most effective tennis.

Well, I didn't say this year, but, thinking about it, I don't think that's too much of a stretch. For starters, he's heading for his highest year end ranking. Sure, he's not won a slam, but I don't think it's a given that, just because he won slams in 2012 and 2013, he was automatically playing better in those years. What else did he do in 2013, for example? Not a lot I'd hazard. OK, he did also beat Roger at the Aus Open, but then what happened in the final? Obviously, beating Novak with the pressure of a Wimbledon final is not to be sniffed at, but it was hardly a vintage performance from Novak.

Your point re big matches is a little harsh. The reality is that Andy coming up short in the biggest of matches is the norm. In the slams this year, he has had two close encounters with Novak. By Andy's standards, I reckon those were above average for a big match performance. Don't forget, he played multiple slam finals before even managing to win a set. He was soundly beaten by Roger at Wimbledon, but Roger was playing out of this world and, in any case, has always had the upper hand in slams against Andy (the only win for Andy being the Aus Open one, where Roger was arguably some way below par). Novak has, indeed, been more dominant against Andy than in some previous years, but I think that's more a reflection of the quality of Novak's play than anything else. Probably the only really bad big match result was the loss to Anderson at the US, but the South African played out of his skin.

In terms of big-match results, Andy's best period was undoubtedly the summer of 2012, but that period probably only really encompassed 3 big match wins (Olympics semi and final and US final) and I would be wary of elevating the Olympic matches too highly in terms of big match significance. There's no doubt that Andy enjoyed a purple patch then, but he still conspired to throw away a winning position in the Shanghai final against Novak and his year fizzled out after that.

Coming back to this year, Novak has been his bogeyman, but that's largely out of Andy's control. The truth is that Novak's A game is simply better than Andy's. His results against the rest are hard to fault. When you factor in the massive strides he's made on clay and his Davis Cup heroics, this year starts to look pretty darn good.

Anyway, which year do you think Andy was playing better overall than this one?

Anticlimactic third set. Well done Novak.

Stan punished for taking a set by being crushed 6-0 in the third

Playing better is a very loose term. If playing better is more pleasing on the eye that by no means equates to being successful. This year in big matches he has lost heavily in matches (in the past) he made a real fight out of so it may be pleasing to the eye but it is not as effective/successful as form displayed in 2012/2013. That is my opinion anyway.

Novak crushes Stan in the third set. Novak untouchable at the moment.

The big question is does LK have enough space on Sky+ to record a Murray/Djokovic match!

Congrats to Novak for the win and commiseration to Stan, who had a tougher condition due to his midnight match with Nadal.
One thing was too obvious, Novak does not think about the records, that bounds him too much, so very glad that he lost the set with Stan, which was expected.

Interisting debate about Murray. CC & AG, a lot of true has been said about him. I see one and most important aspect  in Murray's game, which he was deprived of after he broke up with Lendl. Since then he has not played with such a focus and concentration regardless his game level.
So, mental approach.His head is not so strong and his grinning and cursing just underline his poor concentration on the game recently.

One thing to remind here, he was so scared of Fed, that he chose to be on return instead serving at Wimbledon semi. He did not dare it under Lendl for sure.

As for his game, his game went up and there are couple of improvements after he joined to his new coach, but his  overal approach compared when coached by Lendl falls behind pretty much.

Nevertheless, as was pointed out, it has much to do with Novak playing really well. Tomorrow match is in Novak's hands, Murray can, but it depends on Novak.

Novak really is not playing nearly as well as he played in Asia but again he is in the finals. I mean he went 7-6 to Bellucci and 7-5 to Simon and really should have closed Stan in two. I think Stan was hurt by that very late finish last night and an emotional battle with Nadal. Its pretty amazing when like Novak this week you are playing about 70-80 percent of your best level of tennis and winning against a top ten player like Berdych and a top five guy and multislam champion like Wawrinka.

I think Novak's strategy was spot on, knowing Stan would be susceptible to running out of gas he used angles used width to pull Stan wide and force him to be continually on the move when he was hitting. If he let Stan stand in the V and blast then Novak would be in trouble. But Novak did the key thing to blunting Stan's power advantage by keeping him moving wide.

This match is a perfect example of why I would never take Stan's pretty one hander of Djokovic's two hander. Wawrinka basically chipped every single return with the exception of a few. Hi chip return is also a weaker one and continually Novak was moving into the court off his serve. Meanwhile Novak with two hands can come over virtually every return and maintain depth keeping his opponent off of him. Despite hitting more pretty winners with his backhand he just gives up so much on the return with it that a few more winners from the baseline don't even it out.

I think Novak wins the final and probably in two close sets. Murray is playing really well and has the ability to win that is for sure. But I just feel like Novak hasn't played his best yet in this tournament he started to against a tired Stan in the third set and if Novak does hit top gear I don't think Murray, even playing well can hang with him.

Andy has to have a huge serving day, if he exposes his second serve to Novak too often he will not have much of a chance.

socal1976 wrote:Novak really is not playing nearly as well as he played in Asia but again he is in the finals. I mean he went 7-6 to Bellucci and 7-5 to Simon and really should have closed Stan in two. I think Stan was hurt by that very late finish last night and an emotional battle with Nadal. Its pretty amazing when like Novak this week you are playing about 70-80 percent of your best level of tennis and winning against a top ten player like Berdych and a top five guy and multislam champion like Wawrinka.

I think Novak's strategy was spot on, knowing Stan would be susceptible to running out of gas he used angles used width to pull Stan wide and force him to be continually on the move when he was hitting. If he let Stan stand in the V and blast then Novak would be in trouble. But Novak did the key thing to blunting Stan's power advantage by keeping him moving wide.

This match is a perfect example of why I would never take Stan's pretty one hander of Djokovic's two hander. Wawrinka basically chipped every single return with the exception of a few. Hi chip return is also a weaker one and continually Novak was moving into the court off his serve. Meanwhile Novak with two hands can come over virtually every return and maintain depth keeping his opponent off of him. Despite hitting more pretty winners with his backhand he just gives up so much on the return with it that a few more winners from the baseline don't even it out.

Absolutely agree and saw it the same eyes, Socal. Just Novak's tension, which generated a couple FH mistakes in the second set, prolonged the match into the third set in which Stan was totally knackered.

socal1976 wrote:I think Novak wins the final and probably in two close sets. Murray is playing really well and has the ability to win that is for sure. But I just feel like Novak hasn't played his best yet in this tournament he started to against a tired Stan in the third set and if Novak does hit top gear I don't think Murray, even playing well can hang with him.

Andy has to have a huge serving day, if he exposes his second serve to Novak too often he will not have much of a chance.

If Novak keeps his focus, then even Murray's best serving does not help. Novak's game is a level above him.
But a health trouble, some mental dips can be a hitch, so nothing is sure.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Playing better is a very loose term. If playing better is more pleasing on the eye that by no means equates to being successful. This year in big matches he has lost heavily in matches (in the past) he made a real fight out of so it may be pleasing to the eye but it is not as effective/successful as form displayed in 2012/2013. That is my opinion anyway.

I'm bothered that Andy continues to win Masters and Slams, but I'm just as bothered that he plays his lovely varied game rather than looking like 90% of his rivals who are just forehand bore-bashers

His Masters wins against Nadal and Novak, were up there with his best looking performances of his career

Aestherically, he's more pleasing to the eye than before

And I don't accept this "lost heavily". It was a miracle he got to the Aus final. He played his best ever at RG and took Novak to five - so I'd love to know who this is losing heavily . Fed would have beaten Novak in those hot / fast Friday Wimby conditions. Only the US defeat grates, simply because it was obvious as he's admitted he made wrong schedule choices

If he loses tomorrow by playing rubbish, then I'll be first to criticise - but I think an awful lot of people seem to now conveniently forget that his March to June form, was his best ever in all aspects

His last four meetings V Federer he has lost in straight sets and V Djokovic he has won one of his last ten matches V Novak. Those stats are disappointing - no way can it be viewed as anything else.

paulcz wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Novak really is not playing nearly as well as he played in Asia but again he is in the finals. I mean he went 7-6 to Bellucci and 7-5 to Simon and really should have closed Stan in two. I think Stan was hurt by that very late finish last night and an emotional battle with Nadal. Its pretty amazing when like Novak this week you are playing about 70-80 percent of your best level of tennis and winning against a top ten player like Berdych and a top five guy and multislam champion like Wawrinka.

I think Novak's strategy was spot on, knowing Stan would be susceptible to running out of gas he used angles used width to pull Stan wide and force him to be continually on the move when he was hitting. If he let Stan stand in the V and blast then Novak would be in trouble. But Novak did the key thing to blunting Stan's power advantage by keeping him moving wide.

This match is a perfect example of why I would never take Stan's pretty one hander of Djokovic's two hander. Wawrinka basically chipped every single return with the exception of a few. Hi chip return is also a weaker one and continually Novak was moving into the court off his serve. Meanwhile Novak with two hands can come over virtually every return and maintain depth keeping his opponent off of him. Despite hitting more pretty winners with his backhand he just gives up so much on the return with it that a few more winners from the baseline don't even it out.

Absolutely agree and saw it the same eyes, Socal.  Just Novak's tension, which generated a couple FH mistakes in the second set, prolonged the match into the third set in which Stan was totally knackered.

Very clinical and precise by Novak. When he started just hitting rally balls into the middle of the court then Stan was able to go on the attack. But for most of the match he did a great job of hitting his spots safely to wide areas constantly making Stan scramble and therefore not able to set his legs on his shots.

I think Murray must serve well to have a chance. Yes even if he does serve well and Novak plays great Novak probably wins. But he has to serve well if he does the way Novak is playing right now Murray could very well win. Because I haven't seen Novak hit the high notes so far in this tournament. He took some time off before Paris and has yet to hit his top gear this tournament. So if that continues and Murray has a big serving day then I think Andy takes it. But I have feeling Novak will up his level for a top four match and the chance of breaking his own record and winning 6 masters in a season.

As you know banbrotam nothing gives me more pleasure than watching Andy and winning titles. The thing is of late when he goes into these matches against Federer or Djokovic I have no expectations of him winning. That never used to be the case in these match-ups. To me he has fallen further behind the likes of Federer and Djokovic. Now this has nothing to do with how we perceive how more pleasing his play is on the eye as that becomes immaterial if it is detrimental to his results against his chief rivals.

socal1976 wrote:

paulcz wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Novak really is not playing nearly as well as he played in Asia but again he is in the finals. I mean he went 7-6 to Bellucci and 7-5 to Simon and really should have closed Stan in two. I think Stan was hurt by that very late finish last night and an emotional battle with Nadal. Its pretty amazing when like Novak this week you are playing about 70-80 percent of your best level of tennis and winning against a top ten player like Berdych and a top five guy and multislam champion like Wawrinka.

I think Novak's strategy was spot on, knowing Stan would be susceptible to running out of gas he used angles used width to pull Stan wide and force him to be continually on the move when he was hitting. If he let Stan stand in the V and blast then Novak would be in trouble. But Novak did the key thing to blunting Stan's power advantage by keeping him moving wide.

This match is a perfect example of why I would never take Stan's pretty one hander of Djokovic's two hander. Wawrinka basically chipped every single return with the exception of a few. Hi chip return is also a weaker one and continually Novak was moving into the court off his serve. Meanwhile Novak with two hands can come over virtually every return and maintain depth keeping his opponent off of him. Despite hitting more pretty winners with his backhand he just gives up so much on the return with it that a few more winners from the baseline don't even it out.

Absolutely agree and saw it the same eyes, Socal.  Just Novak's tension, which generated a couple FH mistakes in the second set, prolonged the match into the third set in which Stan was totally knackered.

Very clinical and precise by Novak. When he started just hitting rally balls into the middle of the court then Stan was able to go on the attack. But for most of the match he did a great job of hitting his spots safely to wide areas constantly making Stan scramble and therefore not able to set his legs on his shots.

I think Murray must serve well to have a chance. Yes even if he does serve well and Novak plays great Novak probably wins. But he has to serve well if he does the way Novak is playing right now Murray could very well win. Because I haven't seen Novak hit the high notes so far in this tournament. He took some time off before Paris and has yet to hit his top gear this tournament. So if that continues and Murray has a big serving day then I think Andy takes it. But I have feeling Novak will up his level for a top four match and the chance of breaking his own record and winning 6 masters in a season.

Please do not mention a record even here    that is only hitch I can see that could prevent Novak from the win.

Novak had a good and logical strategy to Stan, just make him run and make him stay on legs as long as possible and from time to time to go for winners. Sometimes he really played high balls into his BH and just tried what Stan can withstand on his legs. Only some attempts for speeding up the game were less succesful in the second set, but overal approach and focus from Nole was there. He needs to play freely and focused tomorrow and no need to think about Murray.He knows his game well.

Novak's in a different league and I agree about the expectation. I honestly think the matches with Fed are very court and fitness sensitive all of which have favoured Roger recently

For instance, I think Andy would have beaten Roger here

banbrotam wrote:Novak's in a different league and I agree about the expectation. I honestly think the matches with Fed are very court and fitness sensitive all of which have favoured Roger recently

For instance, I think Andy would have beaten Roger here

Fed has played amazing stuff this year and it challenged Novak to be even better. Fed must keep it as short as possible, so his chances are on the fastest courts, but Novak has also improved his serve, so their matches on the fastest surfs have been pretty competitive.

Not easy to estimate the match between Fed and Murray in Paris. If Fed played in his Basel form, then I would bet on him. I saw his match with Isner and he even with health troubles lost only in TBs.

Apparently in reaching the semis in Paris, Andy Murray joins Nadal, Federer and Djokovic as the only players to reach the semis of all nine Masters tournaments. Another nice little achievement for him.

Very interesting.

Just needs to add more titles to his name

As well as Andy is playing, can't see him getting past Novak tomorrow. Novak is unbeaten indoors for 3 years and has only dropped 1 set of the last 30 he's played. I think it's safe to say he is not bad in these conditions.

As for Andy being at his very best or not, I agree with Craig. In July 2013 he was the holder of 2 slams, a few masters, an Olympic Games and went into a match with anyone on an even footing. Today he holds no slams, has lost 5 of 6 to Novak, 10 sets in a row to Federer and lost in the 4th round of the last slam.

Don't get me wrong, he's had a very good season and it could still get better. But this is not the very best of Andy.

Why does Roger have health troubles? Dont remember seeing that

Interesting to note Novak has set a new record of 26 top 10 wins in a season (previous record was 24). He should get to 30 by the end of the season.

CaledonianCraig wrote:His last four meetings V Federer he has lost in straight sets and V Djokovic he has won one of his last ten matches V Novak. Those stats are disappointing - no way can it be viewed as anything else.

Hang on. Those stats include 2014, when Andy struggled to beat any top 10 player, let alone Novak or Roger, so I don't think they're hugely relevant in assessing current form, which is clearly at a different level. Perhaps he still needs to regain some belief in his match-up with Novak, but looking purely at current year performances, I'm not convinced the Lendl era Murray would have fared any better. Take Novak out of the equation and Murray has been incredibly effective against the rest.

paulcz wrote:
Interisting debate about Murray. CC & AG, a lot of true has been said about him. I see one and most important aspect  in Murray's game, which he was deprived of after he broke up with Lendl. Since then he has not played with such a focus and concentration regardless his game level.
So, mental approach.His head is not so strong and his grinning and cursing just underline his poor concentration on the game recently.

Maybe there's some truth in that, although the stat that Murray hasn't lost a single match this year after winning the first set doesn't particularly suggest a lack of focus. I do agree that, post-injury, Murray has lost some psychological ground on Novak (and I'm sure the beatdowns he suffered in 2014 didn't help), but, ultimately, I think that boils down more to Novak elevating his own game than anything else. He has become an ATG after all and Murray is just not in the same bracket, as I know you agree.

LuvSports! wrote:I don;t see Andy as more expansive at all.

Really? I know you're not a great fan of Andy's playing style, which is fair enough, but I think you've got your head in the sand if you can't recognise that he has developed a more attacking style over the years. Ultimately, his tennis DNA will always be that of a counter-puncher and I don't think he'll ever get rid of his tendency to go into a defensive shell when having an off day. However, on the whole, I think he is more willing to take risks than ever before. He's definitely coming forward more now. I used to tear my hair out at his unwillingness to close out points at the net, particularly given he's got great touch there, but he's been ghosting in all the time lately.

For what it's worth, Andy's post match comments today seem to back me up, but maybe we're both deluded. If you can be bothered, here's the link to the Beeb article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/34755909

Of course, maybe we just have a different definition of what constitutes expansive tennis. Feel free to enlighten me!

Having said all that, Andy's probably going to have a mare tomorrow and leave me with egg all over my face.....

Murray's managed to sneak up to no 2 really, without making any of the last three slam finals. Seems odd that Federer made the last 2 slams finals, in a way he feels like the no 2 at the moment. But I looked at the actual slam points and they both have virtually bang on identical haul, Murray having reached 3 semis (or better) vs only two for Fed.

And then 2 masters wins to Murray for one for Fed is what puts Murray ahead in the rankings. Murray also has 6 semi or better on his record (vs 3 for Fed). Yes, the masters are where Murray has got ahead of Fed.

Federer has more tournaments win points at 500 and 250, which almost pulls him level, but not quite enough.

Fed could get back to top 2 though, Murray has 1200 to defend at AO vs 90 for Fed.

Murray has got to defend in the IW-Miami-clay masters part a SF, F and a W, 1960. Fed only has 2 finals at 1200. So Fed probably just has to match Murray (or even slightly below) on performance between now and the French Open in order to be seeded 2 at the French Open and Wimbledon.

Despite wanting Murray to do well vs. Djokovic, I expect a straight sets white wash of Murray. He played lame tennis vs Ferrer.

Wawrinka was probably tougher for Djokovic than Murray is, in the current form.

laverfan wrote:Despite wanting Murray to do well vs. Djokovic, I expect a straight sets white wash of Murray. He played lame tennis vs Ferrer.

Wawrinka was probably tougher for Djokovic than Murray is, in the current form.

While I don't think anyone doubts that Murray will have to play a lot better to have a sniff against Novak, branding his performance today as lame seems a bit OTT to me. If you reckon that was lame, I fear you have some seriously unrealistic expectations of what Andy is capable of as his standard level of play.

laverfan wrote:Despite wanting Murray to do well vs. Djokovic, I expect a straight sets white wash of Murray. He played lame tennis vs Ferrer.

Wawrinka was probably tougher for Djokovic than Murray is, in the current form.

This is just total nonsense. He wasn't at his best against Ferrer but was aggressive, dictated the entire match and came forward regularly. He hit 26 clean winners past one of the best defenders on tour on a court most people seem to be saying is extremely slow and is definitely no more than medium. It was an impressive display.

I don't expect him to beat Novak today - his serve isn't functioning well enough this week to give him a shot (I think there is a bit of back stiffness). However, I am hoping he does at least maintain the positive outlook and goes down swinging.