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!

Some great stats by SB on weeks at no 1 and no of slams won which do make it look like a big three.

I'd say big four though, just about.

The number of masters series is an illuminating fact:

Nadal 27
Djokovic 26
Federer 24
Murray 11
Tsonga 2
Ferrer 1
Berdych 1
Wawrinka 1

Murray has half the masters series of Federer, but 5 times his nearest challenger from outside the big 4. He has been picking up masters series for fun since he was about 20, while the likes of Tsonga, Ferrer relied on winning Paris when it was just before the world tour finals and top players were not taking it seriously.

Henman Bill wrote:Some great stats by SB on weeks at no 1 and  no of slams won which do make it look like a big three.

I'd say big four though, just about.

The number of masters series is an illuminating fact:

Nadal 27
Djokovic 26
Federer 24
Murray 11
Tsonga 2
Ferrer 1
Berdych 1
Wawrinka 1

Murray has half the masters series of Federer, but 5 times his nearest challenger from outside the big 4. He has been picking up masters series for fun since he was about 20, while the likes of Tsonga, Ferrer relied on winning Paris when it was just before the world tour finals and top players were not taking it seriously.

It really is crazy how off the charts the top guys of this period have been in consistently monopolizing masters. I mean we have never seen the Masters/1000 level tournaments be so closely held in a group of four players. I mean in other eras we have seen a group of 3-5 guys monopolize all the slams but we have never seen that kind of dominance transfer so thoroughly to the next level 1000 events. Djokovic in particular is threatening to take his Masters haul into the stratospheric range, certainly that is one record that you can book for him.


Another interesting statistic Djokovic now has 21 wins or more against Federer, Nadal, and Murray. Nearly one in ten of Djokovic's career wins are against another Big 4 member. All these big rivalry matches coming in quick succession shows how consistent the top guys are always showing up for the big events.

You are saying it is a certainty Djokovic will have the most masters, when the three of them retire...if so, that's overstating it a bit. He clearly looks favourite but it isn't over yet.

Born Slippy wrote:

summerblues wrote:As part of this conversation, I decided to have a closer look at Andy's slam record against the Big 3 - and I only now realized how poor it really has been.  I knew that his record was not great, but I was tacitly assuming it would be better than for just about anyone else.  To my surprise, it is not so:

vs Big 3, in slams:

Andy: 5-18 (22% win ratio)
Stan: 4-12 (25%)
Berd: 4-10 (29%)
Tsonga: 4-10 (29%)

Astonishing stats. Doesn't this support precisely what Murray fans have always said though? Unfortunately, he has a history of becoming nervous and failing to produce in GS SF/F. It is that, rather than a lack of inate talent, which has substantially held him back from his slam achievements matching his true status in the game. Outside of slams, the comparative stats are:

Andy - 21-32 (40%)
Stan - 6-38 (14%)
Berd - 8-43 (16%)
JWT - 11-23 (32%)

Effectively, Andy is beating the top 3 half as much in slams. That can only really be explained by nerves/fitness. If he was reaching 40% in slams, then my calculations are that he would be somewhere around the 5-6 slam mark - in line with the rest of his achievements.

I posted those stats because I also found them surprising and thus interesting, not necessarily because I thought they supported my position.  That said, I do not agree that it can "only be explained by nerves/fitness".  One can easily see other possible explanations - for example he may be putting an extra effort in smaller tournies to prove to himself that he can compete against the Big 3, but they may not be putting that same effort there themselves.

In any event, even though in these Murray-centric discussions I have been mostly focusing on his shortcomings, I actually also think he has somewhat underperformed in his career.  Years ago, before they started collecting slams, I thought that Novak was maybe a "5-6 slammer", and Andy maybe a "3-4 slammer".  I always thought that Novak was better, though not by as much as their current accomplishments indicate.  But I am happy to admit that I underestimated Novak - he has been better than I expected.  However, I am not going to raise my assessment of Andy's talent with every slam that Novak wins - I am happy to admit that I incorrectly judged them relative to each other.

Andy still strikes me as a 3-4 slammer.  If he stays at two, I will also see him as having underperformed somewhat - but not by all that much.

I certainly do not make Andy an "11-slam talent" on the back of Novak's 10 slam titles

Henman Bill wrote:You are saying it is a certainty Djokovic will have the most masters, when the three of them retire...if so, that's overstating it a bit. He clearly looks favourite but it isn't over yet.

I mean there are no guarantees in life. But in terms of forecasting and predicting this one seems like a pretty safe forecast. I mean Fed is old and doesn't perform particularly well in recent years at the clay masters, Rafa has never performed well at the indoor masters and is struggling to just get back to the point where he can win one or two of these events while Novak just broke his own record by winning 6 masters this year so that record is looking pretty good. As I said forecasting in sports is tough but as far as this one goes it looks to be one of the safer forecasts out there and I pretty much stick by it. Really his only competition is Nadal especially if Nadal is able to regain Mojo on the clay. But I honestly think he should be able to match or surpass Nadal considering how he performs well on all the surfaces.

Interesting discussion. (SB, Born Slippy)

Could physical fitness of Murray be another factor.

Also, if you take out the stats from early years (around 07-10?) it may be different. He used to play flat out in any tournament to beat say Federer when he was young while Federer was just warming up for the next slam. And suffered losses to peak Federer and maybe Nadal in slams. At the time he was a bit rabbit in the headlights against Federer at least in the first slam final.

Looking at recent years (around 11/12+) he probably has a better record.

Another minor factor could be that the others (Berdych, Stan, JWT) had some quarter final wins against a top player. I think the deeper you get into a slam the more the pressure and physical fitness starts to come into play and it becomes a slightly bigger feat to take out one of the top three players.

I do think Murray's physical fitness is very high but the other three are a notch better and also a bit more A grade at managing emotions, mental strength, organizing your time, and so on right to the business end of the big tournament.

Murray is still probably better at all that than 90% of players.

Just read Sam Burgess' article in the Daily Mail - the following is relevant for the present discussion:

Sam Burgess wrote:In rugby league, I used to get to certain times in the game when I was completely, physically gone. You feel like you are out on your feet, with the ball being in play for so long and my point of difference at times in league was being able to beat that, mentally, and help a few of the other boys get through it as well.

That’s what I enjoyed in rugby league; getting to that tough period as a player and getting through it.

This is what Lendl got Murray to do when he was his coach.  Murray no longer does this.  

I have experienced that feeling of overcoming physical exhaustion (endorphins kick in) but you have to be fit enough that you don't get physically injured.  

Murray tends to get frustrated and consequently distracted.  He also has a habit of giving up (sometimes).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3311129/SAM-BURGESS-couldn-t-right-fighting-losing-battle-playing-rugby-union-England-heart-just-isn-t-it.html