AO 2016 - Day 12

First topic message reminder :

Order of Play - http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/schedule/schedule17.html

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

Day 12 Preview - http://www.ausopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2016-01-28/day_12_preview_a_clash_of_opposites.html

Mirza/Hingis in 2.

Murray in 5.

legendkillarV2 wrote:True!

...that Andy wins on Sunday?

Oh yes baby, he better

I think back to what the commentator said during the match today which was "Murray has to wait for the dip."

There in lay the problem.

1) Djokovic is better at the moment
2) He can even wait longer for lapses

Murray has to go for it. Can't hold back and expect dips.

Whatever Andy does its far better than the rest.. he will live up to his #2 .. oh what some would do for that at any rate

I guess after 2011 we were all saying "how can anyone stop Novak?" But in 2012 three players did at slams. Same at various times for Rafa and Roger, but eventually someone finds a way of playing or a spark of belief that shifts the momentum... Maybe Sunday will be that day?

Right, that's my optimism done for the weekend. Back to harsh realism from this point forward.

Yes, it's true that the momentum will shift at some point - as it inevitably does in all sport.  It might come from that spark of belief which Danny mentions ...... it might come from a sudden drop-off (a drop which could conceivably even continue for a sustained period of weeks/months) in Djokovic's remarkable ability to cope with whatever his opponents throw at him ; and it could of course very likely be a combination of the two.

When you're on top of the world, it must seem at times that almost everything conspires in your favour. Djokovic produced his one really sub-par performance of this AO against a guy who pushed him to five sets, but one who ultimately has never really possessed a killer punch.

Djokovic is quoted on the ATP site as saying that those first two sets v Federer were almost certainly the best sets he has ever played against Fed, at any time throughout his career. Don't think many of us would disagree with that assessment. And yet if Djokovic had somehow contrived to deliver his performance from the Simon match - including that incredible catalogue of 100 UE's,  remember  - but instead against Federer ...... well, it's safe to say that Murray's opponent for Sunday's Final would be different. Many ex-pros have commented that Federer deserves no little credit for his ability to both wrestle the third set, and then to also keep the fourth pretty competitive, all in the face of a near-surreal & confidence-draining level of play by Novak in the first hour of the match. Imagine what Fed could have done if offered all those UE's that Simon witnessed from the other side of the net.

In the same way that players themselves are sometimes drawn into over-hasty responses at the press conferences which cruelly follow so soon after a bruising loss, I initially made my own hasty judgement immediately after the semi-final. I found myself wondering  - in the light of of two successive Final, and one semi-final, Slam defeats by the same player - whether Federer's time in the elite tier had now passed. But soon, I was reminded that these losses had come at the hands of one of the game's most dominant World Number Ones, and I began asking myself a different question : why is it that Federer is still the guy making those business-end clashes rather than other, younger players ; players such as Dimitrov .... Goffin .......Berdych. And I then remembered that it's because they were all stopped firmly in their tracks by a 34 year old veteran, the oldest in the top 20.

Not that impressed by Murray I think if Milos doesn't hurt himself in the 4th set he maybe closes this thing out in 4 sets and takes the match. To me I don't see any progression with Murray since Lendl has left. Yes he is better than he was early last season when he was struggling coming back from injury but he was bound to get back to his normal level. But we have seen his normal level in 5 sets against Novak is usually not good enough. To me that is disappointing, you would think after a couple of months off there might be a new wrinkle or an improvement something to try to change the dynamic. Novak in 4 close sets but I think Novak is going to get at Murray's serve eventually and frustrate him like he usually does.

I was going to watch some of the match in the morning as I was getting ready to go to work, but I turned the TV on in the middle of Rao's MTO. Shame, as he was winning at that point and I would have preferred him in the final.

So Andy lucked out a bit, but now that he is in the final hopefully he will give it a good go. I will not be wakimg at 3:30am to watch but when I wake up around my isual 6am-ish time, I should still be able to catch the end of the match if it is close.

I do not have much preference between the two guys, hopefully they play a good match. Nole the big favorite but if Andy plays at his very best, I think he can give Novak a run for his money.

I would give Andy maybe 20-25% chance.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Work caused me to miss the conclusion

That is sad.

I would have thought it should have been the conclusion that would have caused you miss work.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Djokovic is on a level of his own right now above everyone else in the world including Federer.

LOL

Oh dear. Another Wee Keira/GOAT debate. Not sure I agree with all the points in the article but another interesting/boring* read.

* delete as necessary

http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/28/why-novak-djokovic-has-overtaken-roger-federer-as-the-greatest-tennis-player-of-all-time-5649557/?utm_content=bufferee91e&utm_medium=Social+-+Twitter&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=Twitter

PS. Sorry, doesn't look as if this link can be read. Briefly, it said Djoko should now be considered GOAT as many of Fed's Slams were against "inferior" opponents. Djoko's, on the other hand, were during a dominant era (no mention of one of the main opponents being 34, another having had back trouble and another seemingly on the wane!).

zzzzzzzzzz

Murray's 9th final moves him up to 15rh in the Open era.

The average ranking of his opponents in his finals has been 1.66. i doubt any other player in the top 15 would be lower than 5 and most way over 10.

sirfredperry wrote:Oh dear. Another Wee Keira/GOAT debate. Not sure I agree with all the points in the article but another interesting/boring* read.

* delete as necessary

http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/28/why-novak-djokovic-has-overtaken-roger-federer-as-the-greatest-tennis-player-of-all-time-5649557/?utm_content=bufferee91e&utm_medium=Social+-+Twitter&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=Twitter

PS. Sorry, doesn't look as if this link can be read. Briefly, it said Djoko should now be considered GOAT as many of Fed's Slams were against "inferior" opponents. Djoko's, on the other hand, were during a dominant era (no mention of one of the main opponents being 34, another having had back trouble and another seemingly on the wane!).

The things I state for years then somehow invariably the mainstream media start reporting years later. Was Federer 34 for all ten of Novak's slams, did Murray have a bad back in all the finals and semis he lost, and Nadal from 2010-2013 was hardly a stiff. I'll take Novak's competition of Murray, wawrinka, Nadal, and Federer over the combined prowess of fed's fast court opposition any day of the week and twice on Sunday. It is interesting how fed fans tried to deride weak era for years but overtime the sheer objective increase in talent post2008 proved what weak era proponents were saying for years. And now it is rightly pretty widely accepted that the mid 2000 guys were weaker than the players that came before and after them. I mean arguing that Djoko/Murray/Nadal/wawrinka>fat dave/safin/roddick/Hewitt<edberg/Sampras/Agassi/Becker/courier is basically self evident.  I mean much to the chagrin of the remaining few flat earthers remaining this equation's truth has gained traction and now even the clueless fed worshiping media is starting to get it.

Born Slippy wrote:Murray's 9th final moves him up to 15rh in the Open era.

The average ranking of his opponents in his finals has been 1.66. i doubt any other player in the top 15 would be lower than 5 and most way over 10.

Ridiculous level of competition if Murray peaked in most other periods of tennis he probably would be a 5-8 slam winner.

Yeah, he's been dealt a raw deal. My view is, with his talent, he should still have been able to do more with it but we are where we are and it's still a great career.

I also think massive credit needs to be given to Mauresmo, who has improved him immensely. Since the start of 2015, he's more or less unbeatable by anyone not called Novak Djokovic or God-Fed on the fastest courts on tour.

He looks quicker and stronger than last year and he is surely going to bring something different tomorrow. At worst, I'd expect him to play at the level of the first two sets last year or the Canada final. If he does that, Novak is still favourite but it's on a knife-edge.

No offence to Novak, who is my second favourite player (how anyone can support one of either Murray or Djokovic and not appreciate the other is beyond me) but tennis needs a Murray win tomorrow. He has the game to do it and, if he brings that and loses, so be it.

I have come around to Haddie's way of thinking in that full credit to Andy for even getting to the final despite carrying mental pressures. Yes we all know Roger and Novak have been through similar stuff without it affecting them but remember ask anyone here and they'd insist Roger and Novak are stronger mentally so Andy has shown great mental powers to fight through to the final especially considering he has had sticky spells V Ferrer and Raonic. Also it is not just his pregnant wife Kim weighing heavily on his mind but he has also had the unsettling experience of his father-in-law collapsing at the Australian Open which brought great concern (admittedly for a short time) but still not a pleasant experience to deal with.

Now for my positive take on tomorrow's final to try to counter-balance my negativity from earlier in the fortnight. On his day Andy has shown he can beat anyone on his day and that includes Novak and in slam finals as well. As he rightly says what has gone before in recent times is irrelevant as he accurately points out that Stan beat Rafa here at the Australian Open to win his first slam after having never having beaten Rafa in their many previous meetings prior to that. I think the situation suits Andy here. There is no pressure whatsoever on him tomorrow - no pressure to bag a slam (he's been there, done that), no expectancy whatsoever as Novak has already been handed this slam and Andy thrives when he's written off. I think he knows that whatever happens tomorrow a few days thereafter something even greater is going to happen - he is going to become a father so he can just go out there and enjoy the occasion and give it a go.

Enjoy the tennis folks whether you are rooting for Novak, Andy or are a neutral.

Born Slippy wrote:Yeah, he's been dealt a raw deal. My view is, with his talent, he should still have been able to do more with it but we are where we are and it's still a great career.

I also think massive credit needs to be given to Mauresmo, who has improved him immensely. Since the start of 2015, he's more or less unbeatable by anyone not called Novak Djokovic or God-Fed on the fastest courts on tour.

He looks quicker and stronger than last year and he is surely going to bring something different tomorrow. At worst, I'd expect him to play at the level of the first two sets last year or the Canada final. If he does that, Novak is still favourite but it's on a knife-edge.

No offence to Novak, who is my second favourite player (how anyone can support one of either Murray or Djokovic and not appreciate the other is beyond me) but tennis needs a Murray win tomorrow. He has the game to do it and, if he brings that and loses, so be it.

I have the opposite opinion I haven't seen Murray really improve under Amelie. Part of that is that it took him a long time get over the back issues. For a brief spell culminating in Canada he started putting a charge in the CC BH. But we haven't seen that since. He isn't getting the free points on serve and I don't see any advance in the FH from lendl's time either. He also seems more hesitant to move in to volley. I just haven't seen any sustained progression under Amelie and coming out of the off season I expected some new feature or new tactic or improvement. If anything his on court behavior has also become more petulant. 


I like Andy, think he certainly has a chance to win but I struggle to see how he is any better and probably he is worse than he was two or three years ago. That doesn't mean he can't win or there isn't a lot right with his game he is world #2. He certainly will be a tough challenge in this match and throughout the season but I just don't think he is progressing noticeably the way he did when Ivan came on board.

I don;t think these days Murray does have the game to beat Novak.
4 sets at best.

Well in defence I think stats clearly show he is winning more points on his second serve and is taking more risks with that second serve - heck I have even seen a few second serve aces from him in Melbourne.

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Yeah, he's been dealt a raw deal. My view is, with his talent, he should still have been able to do more with it but we are where we are and it's still a great career.

I also think massive credit needs to be given to Mauresmo, who has improved him immensely. Since the start of 2015, he's more or less unbeatable by anyone not called Novak Djokovic or God-Fed on the fastest courts on tour.

He looks quicker and stronger than last year and he is surely going to bring something different tomorrow. At worst, I'd expect him to play at the level of the first two sets last year or the Canada final. If he does that, Novak is still favourite but it's on a knife-edge.

No offence to Novak, who is my second favourite player (how anyone can support one of either Murray or Djokovic and not appreciate the other is beyond me) but tennis needs a Murray win tomorrow. He has the game to do it and, if he brings that and loses, so be it.

I have the opposite opinion I haven't seen Murray really improve under Amelie. Part of that is that it took him a long time get over the back issues. For a brief spell culminating in Canada he started putting a charge in the CC BH. But we haven't seen that since. He isn't getting the free points on serve and I don't see any advance in the FH from lendl's time either. He also seems more hesitant to move in to volley. I just haven't seen any sustained progression under Amelie and coming out of the off season I expected some new feature or new tactic or improvement. If anything his on court behavior has also become more petulant. 


I like Andy, think he certainly has a chance to win but I struggle to see how he is any better and probably he is worse than he was two or three years ago. That doesn't mean he can't win or there isn't a lot right with his game he is world #2. He certainly will be a tough challenge in this match and throughout the season but I just don't think he is progressing noticeably the way he did when Ivan came on board.

Don't agree with this I'm afraid. The backhand and first serve are both creating loads of free points at the moment. He's going to the net more (albeit still not as much as he should be) - which was non-existent under Lendl. He's also clearly substantially improved the second serve over the Winter. I think he still needs even more to beat Novak but he's moved forwards substantially.

Stan beating Rafa here seems a fairly odd example as inspiration. I doubt Andy will be fortunate enough for Novak's back to go tomorrow!

Murray's failing in recent times in these big matches is not winning enough of the key points in matches. Key to tomorrow if he is to stand a chance is his first serve must fire, he must convert the break point chances he gets more often than he usually does and he has to win the first set.

Born Slippy wrote:Stan beating Rafa here seems a fairly odd example as inspiration. I doubt Andy will be fortunate enough for Novak's back to go tomorrow!

Regardless of circumstance it is proof that anything can happen in tennis and nothing is set in stone.

I'd also question whether his game improved at all under Lendl. Watch the performance against Rafa at the end of 2011, when he took him apart. His game went backwards under Lendl, though I'm not sure how much of that was due to back issues significantly damaging his backhand which became very error-prone.

What Lendl seemed to give him was greater belief in the big matches. I don't think he'd played above a 3 out of 10 in any slam final before then.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Murray's failing in recent times in these big matches is not winning enough of the key points in matches. Key to tomorrow if he is to stand a chance is his first serve must fire, he must convert the break point chances he gets more often than he usually does and he has to win the first set.

Agree with this. Not mugging around after a feather lands on court or having a melt-down if Novak gets a second-wind would help as well!

Oh, he could also do with winning any tiebreaks that come up. For a player who I think is all-time top 10 in tiebreak won % he seems to lose a lot of crucial ones!

Well the poor chap cant be right for being wrong.. God forbid that Novak was injured (I do not wish that on any player) but if it happened it would then be said he won because of injury to both Raonic and Novak..
Good Luck Andy  

Born Slippy wrote:I'd also question whether his game improved at all under Lendl. Watch the performance against Rafa at the end of 2011, when he took him apart. His game went backwards under Lendl, though I'm not sure how much of that was due to back issues significantly damaging his backhand which became very error-prone.

What Lendl seemed to give him was greater belief in the big matches. I don't think he'd played above a 3 out of 10 in any slam final before then.

No I disagree. Murray's forehand did improve under Lendl and yes his belief was more steadfast. I think that he has probably picked up something he has used to his advantage from each of his coaches (some things smaller and less evident than others).

Born Slippy wrote:how anyone can support one of either Murray or Djokovic and not appreciate the other is beyond me

No kidding!