AO 2015 - Day 6

Order of Play - http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/schedule/schedule11.html

Live Scores - http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/index.html

Day 6 Preview - http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2016-01-22/day_6_preview_bighitters_set_to_collide.html

God I love this man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9NTdGsZNqE

LuvSports! wrote:God I love this man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9NTdGsZNqE

It is sad to see any player leave the tour.

What were they getting so excited about?

That's funny- especially as it's Dimitrov ex they are watching. Hard to believe Fed can get that excited with a ladies match (no offense to anyone) Shows his love of the game and also a sense of why he's so liked in the locker room and wins all the voted by players awards. They showed some of this on ESPN before the match last night.

Was that video for real? I can't imagine two players fraternising before a competitive, high stakes match with each other!

Yes, it's real. They showed it on ESPN during the sharapova match and fed was asked about it in his presser. According to his answer, it's not unusual for him to hang out with opponents he is friendly with Prematch.

Depends on the player. No reason not to and they are kind of stuck in a relatively confined space. Was that when Davis won the tiebreak - might explain Grigor's reaction ;-).

TRuffin wrote:Yes, it's real. They showed it on ESPN during the sharapova match and fed was asked about it in his presser.  According to his answer, it's not unusual for him to hang out with opponents he is friendly with Prematch.

I'd be amazed if it happened with Rafa, Novak or Andy before a slam match.

The psychology behind that video is fascinating.

Fed knows he's got the beating of Dimi. Dimi is glad of the chance to spend time with a legend.

He doesn't quite say it as Truffin describes. He says it's not unusual for players to be in the same space and that he didn't know Dimitrov would be there.

First question from his presser:

Q. Did you get any official statement from Australian Open why your message to Lleyton Hewitt has been cut last night? What's your comment?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: I have no comment. I don't know. I've done it, but it wasn't there. I don't know. I guess we have to ask them.

Fair to say this looks unlikely to be a classic day. Isner v Lopez and Raonic v Troicki possibly the best matches.

It would be great to see Lopez win his match.

Snore.

LuvSports! wrote:Snore.

...in front of the TV? Turn it off.

I am about to see a Murray match this year 

If Sela loses this, seems a real chance Rafa could end with the wooden spoon (lose R1 and then have your opponent lose R2, their conqueror lose R3 etc.)

Good win for Kuznetsov. May be tough for Gael, who has had a ridiculously easy draw.

Not watching but score suggests this a bit of a muggish display from Andy so far?

25% second serve points won so far.

Not impressive from Murray, this guy should be cannon fodder. Murray concedes initiative so easily.

Born Slippy wrote:If Sela loses this, seems a real chance Rafa could end with the wooden spoon (lose R1 and then have your opponent lose R2, their conqueror lose R3 etc.)

I was thinking that myself. According to the seeding;

Kuznetsov should lose to Monfils.
Monfils should lose to Stan
Stan should lose to Murray
Murray should lose to Djokovic

Leaving Rafa coming last.

Christ - that's successive matches where Ana has had someone collapse at her match - this time her coach. Incredible she can play on.

Hmm lets just remember Sousa may not be a world beater but he is no mug. He can and has taken sets off Murray and Federer (on grass) before in the past. Sure Murray has been patchy but lets not downplay Sousa's contribution.

Neither Wawrinka or Raonic should have too much trouble beating this Murray anyway. When Sousa has more FH winners than you...

Murray's serve not quite on the money today. When that first serve is banging, the rest of his game clicks. Certainly good to see him playing more shots with weight behind them.

Murray wins in four sets. A handy work out and much-needed test for him. He struggled for rhythm today but served very well but at times was too passive.

It will be interesting to see how off-court matters affect him though what with his father-in-law collapsing on Rod Laver Arena and if that will affect Kim as she is in late stages of pregnancy.

I caught up at 3-1 in the third set, from where Murray looked fine. Not great, but pretty decent. His BH looked like it was working well, and he's still moving very well. Serve not quite clicking, and neither was his return, but nonetheless looked in control.

Surprised he lost a set TBH, can only assume he played poorly in set 2.

Sousa played better than I've seen him before to be fair, which is only right since he's pretty much at a career high ranking. He's added some weight to the FH certainly, hits it with much more purpose, and his first serves has improved too. Funny how that's the third time he's played Murray in Aus, and had played him a bit elsewhere too, you get these match-ups which recur quite often (Berdych vs Anderson used to happen every other week).

I thought his serve functioned pretty well to be honest. Sousa never really got a look in for the last couple of sets and won a high percentage of points on second serve. It was the unforced errors and losing longer rallies you'd often expect him to win that was disappointing and the dip in the second set.

Suspect the lacklustre performance was due to being a little over-confident against Sousa and the slight change from day to night conditions. Job done anyway and suspect he will be more intense against Tomic.

The first serve was very effective when it went in but still down below 60% which was why he was under pressure at times on serve.

Shame for Ana. Got to 4-2 up in the 2nd and 3-0 in the 3rd after the delay but lost both.

Born Slippy wrote:Shame for Ana. Got to 4-2 up in the 2nd and 3-0 in the 3rd after the delay but lost both.

Yes that must have been hugely unsettling. Would it have been more prudent continuing the match tomorrow? It must have shaken her up badly.

Does Tomic have one of the worst forehands in mens tennis? He just pats it back. Time after time. I can't think of anything offensive about his game. Apart from his ego of course.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Shame for Ana. Got to 4-2 up in the 2nd and 3-0 in the 3rd after the delay but lost both.

Yes that must have been hugely unsettling. Wouldvit have been more prudent contijuing the match tomorrow? It must have shaken her up badly.

Why? It's got nothing to do with the match.

LOL

Federer about Tomic in Brisbane:

Many seasons now in a row we have seen or heard that top 10 is the goal, and he's missed out on it by a long shot.

Tomic about Federer today:

Yeah, well, he has his predictions. I think he's also far away from Djokovic as well if he wants to say that.  If he believes I'm very far away from the top 10, I also believe my prediction that he's nowhere near Novak's tennis right now

http://www.sportinglife.com/tennis/news/article/553/10140990/australian-open-bernard-tomic-aims-jibe-at-roger-federer

13 out of top 16 seeds made their seeding. That is too many. I think I looked at it sometime last year, and the numbers showed that we have fewer upsets than in the past, but cannot find my old post now.

Even though top half looks stronger than the bottom one, I still think the draw is relatively well balanced.

Djokovic I think has the hardest draw, with Nishikori likely the worst QF opponent (and Tsonga also potentially dangerous).

Fed's I think is a little bit easier - Goffin roughly comparable to Simon, but Berdych maybe a little easier than Nishi.

Andy is third.  I think Tomic at his best may be more dangerous than Goffin or Simon, but he is not often at his best.  Ferrer or Isner are easier than Nishi/Tsonga or Berdych.

Stan the big winner.  Raonic may be the hardest Rd4 opponent, but Monfils in the QF has to be the easiest QF by a distance.

Five players are yet to drop a set.  Here they are - with the number of games they have dropped so far:

Monfils - 26
Ferrer - 29
Wawrinka - 29 (but played only 8 sets as Tursunov retired in Rd1)
Djokovic - 30
Raonic - 35

So Murray's dropped least games despite today's hilarious second set (23 I think)?

summerblues wrote:13 out of top 16 seeds made their seeding.  That is too many.  I think I looked at it sometime last year, and the numbers showed that we have fewer upsets than in the past, but cannot find my old post now.

I think it's about right. I wouldn't really want less than 12. As it is, we have a bunch of classics to look forward to. Otherwise, it would either be two nobodies playing or someone likely to get buried at this level.

Born Slippy wrote:So Murray's dropped least games despite today's hilarious second set (23 I think)?

Hah, I did not think about that.

Born Slippy wrote:

summerblues wrote:13 out of top 16 seeds made their seeding.  That is too many.  I think I looked at it sometime last year, and the numbers showed that we have fewer upsets than in the past, but cannot find my old post now.

I think it's about right. I wouldn't really want less than 12. As it is, we have a bunch of classics to look forward to. Otherwise, it would either be two nobodies playing or someone likely to get buried at this level.

To me 13/16 is too many.  I would like maybe 10/16.  I would also like "nobodies" to have a better chance to upset "somebodies", so that they might not get buried.

One way or another, my main point is that  - irrespective of whether we find it preferable or not - 13/16 is maybe fairly common nowadays, but that it used to be less in the past.  I think I posted something about it maybe last year; but cannot find it now; will try to dig it up.

EuroSport running for last 3 weeks a massive Andy campaign "Can he do it!" for AO.

Guess it's time he does it finally, a good gift for becoming a daddy soon.


(LF, thanks for correcting my dictionary last night, don't give up on me )

summerblues wrote:One way or another, my main point is that  - irrespective of whether we find it preferable or not - 13/16 is maybe fairly common nowadays, but that it used to be less in the past.  I think I posted something about it maybe last year; but cannot find it now; will try to dig it up.

Wow, time flies.  I managed to dig up the post - it was all the way back from 2013:

https://www.606v2.com/t43994-federer-calls-modern-game-more-one-dimensional

The quote goes:

summerblues wrote:

kingraf wrote:While what Roger saying is true, its a bit of a glass half-full/empty scenario. Other than the big four, are other players constantly making their seedings in tournaments? I would think that would be the case if its all the same.

But I think there is some evidence that other players have also become more consistent.  At this year's AO, I have noticed that 13 out of top 16 made the round of 16.  I felt it was more than I used to see, so I checked all AO draws since 1990.  And the pattern is quite clear - top 16 seeds are more consistent than they used to be.  In the 17 year period from 1990-2006, there was not a single year when more than 10 out of top 16 seeds would reach the round of 16.  In the seven years after 2006, it happened five times.  That is a huge difference.

This was in 2013; but the pattern very much continues.  Here are the numbers of top 16 seeds who made it into the round of 16 at the AO from 1990 onward, in chronological order:

1990-99: 9, 6, 6, 9, 10, 9, 7, 10, 4, 5 - average: 7.5
2000-09: 7, 10, 6, 7, 10, 9, 9, 14, 9, 12 - average: 9.3
2010-16: 11, 12, 9, 13, 10, 11, 13 - average: 11.3

The pattern is clear.  From 1990-99, there was not a single year where the number was above 10.  From 2010-16, in contrast, there has only been one year where the number was below 10.

This inflation of success for the seeded players is most pronounced at the AO, but it is also visible at other slams.

To you, 13 sounds about right (wow!), but it is only the third time out of the last 27 AOs that 13 or more top 16 seeds made it to the round of 16.

To me this is boring, I want to see different faces.  But I think your post alluded to why tennis authorities may like it that way - most people want to see superstars, so upsets are not too good for the ratings.

That is why I also suspect this pattern of improved consistency of the seeds is at least to some extent by design.  Tennis authorities may - in a way - prefer uniform conditions requiring less variety because that way they are more likely to get the same match-ups again and again.

I also suspect that this is one of the reasons why Novak/Rafa/Roger have been able to amass as many slams as they have.  I suspect their numbers may be a bit inflated relative to the old time greats, as today's game is geared towards reducing the number of surprises - it is set up so that the better player has a higher chance of winning, whereas in the old days an upset was more likely.

Not to mention the homogeneity of the game. Once upon a time the King of one event would be humbled by the specialists of another.

bogbrush wrote:Not to mention the homogeneity of the game. Once upon a time the King of one event would be humbled by the specialists of another.

Exactly. I think that is very much part of it.

I guess it depends what you mean by different faces. I'm guessing Berdych v RBA (as you have stated) and Monfils v Kuznetsov are going to be low down most people's lists of R16 to watch. If it was Monfils v Nadal then we'd all be interested. I doubt any of us got up to watch Kuz v Sela in R3!

My memory of the Oz Op from the 90s was of it being a bit dull. The top players either didn't go at all or often weren't that fussed. Its now one of the best slams.

I guess in an ideal world I'd like to see around 12 out of 16 seeds in the 2 hard court slams with that dropping to 8 or 10 for the two more specialist slams. However, what we really all want is for those extra spaces to be taken by emerging players who may challenge. As it is, they tend to go to lesser players who we know will be cannon fodder against a top player in good enough form to have made round 4.

I am not sure what difference more unseeded players make to a slam in the later stages? After all summertime blues would you say last year's Australian Open was an eye opener for having fewer seeds at the 4th Round stage (11). At the end of the day it is all about the match-ups that the draw throws up rather than the seeding of those player or non-seeding as the case may be.