Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open (men's)

RJA · Hall of fame

RE: Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open (men's)

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

I could only watch the first two sets and glimpses of the third. That blister looked ghastly, and did somebody mention a hamstring injury too? I have the rest of the match recorded but I'm not sure I have the heart to watch it - maybe in a few months' time!

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

I tend to agree with RJA's assessment. A disappointing performance from Andy.

-- Edited by kundalini on Monday 28th of January 2013 12:39:33 AM

johnnylad · Tennis legend

I think unforced errors stats are a joke. The very idea that an error made returning a Murray or Djokovic ground stroke of any kind, not least after a 12 shot rally for example, is unforced I find laughable. Some snotty work experience kid hitting a button every time a shot goes out does not make an unforced error in my view. I think virtually all of these are forced errors to some degree or another.
High quality first two sets. It did turn to an extent on the feather incident which led to the double fault but Murray must learn not to allow momentum to shift in things like that. The spell at the end of the first set/beginning of the second where Andy won 17 out of 20 points or so was key as has been said.

philwrig · Hall of fame

Madeline wrote:
I could only watch the first two sets and glimpses of the third. That blister looked ghastly, and did somebody mention a hamstring injury too? I have the rest of the match recorded but I'm not sure I have the heart to watch it - maybe in a few months' time!

Yes he seemed to be clutching the back of his left leg quite alot of the time during the third set and at the start of the fourth, but then seemed to be OK by the end of the match.

philwrig · Hall of fame

johnnylad wrote:
I think unforced errors stats are a joke. The very idea that an error made returning a Murray or Djokovic ground stroke of any kind, not least after a 12 shot rally for example, is unforced I find laughable. Some snotty work experience kid hitting a button every time a shot goes out does not make an unforced error in my view. I think virtually all of these are forced errors to some degree or another.
High quality first two sets. It did turn to an extent on the feather incident which led to the double fault but Murray must learn not to allow momentum to shift in things like that. The spell at the end of the first set/beginning of the second where Andy won 17 out of 20 points or so was key as has been said.

For some reason even if a rally lasts more than say 20 shots they tend to still call an error unforced, but surely by then it is caused by fatigue and shouldn't categorised in that way.

indiana · Tennis legend

I do certainly agree with these who suggest that UE counts in many ways give an unfair impression in matches between such as Murray and Djokovic, given the number that occur at the end of brutal points with much movement and shot variation.

Combine that with both their acknowledged positioning and defensive abilties then to me it is far too simplistic to apply some general "rule of thumb" and conclude that such a match has been "poor" if there are more UEs than winners.

I prefer to judge such a match on what I have seen with my own eyes.

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

I thought the standard of tennis in the first two sets was quite good without either player being at their brilliant best. There was a bit of a lull at the start of the third and then when Novak upped his game Andy wasn't able to respond. I think that was where the difficulty of playing Federer and Djokovic back to back started to show and as Andy always has such physical matches with Novak the length of semi final matches and amout of rest will always be significant (and to be fair it was in his favour at the US Open).

I agree that Winners/Unforced Errors do not really tell the story of the quality of a match, especially as two players with great defence tends to make it very hard for either player to score a clean winner.

Still a really positive tournament overall and it was noticable how much more accepting Andy was of this defeat than previous slam finals he has lost which bodes well for the next few months.

steven · Tennis legend

Ratty wrote:
Dare I say that I thought the match was a bit, er, how shall I put this ...... dull.
There were an awful lot of long rallies which followed much the same pattern of "probing" from the baseline. And the sheer length of these matches is becoming a problem for the viewer. I think 3 hours is just about manageable, but 4-5 hours is now commonplace at the business end of the Slams, and there's very few people who are prepared to watch the TV for that long.
I think the problem is that the very best players are just getting too good at defence. This means that all-out blazing aggression is now a losing strategy, and the inevitable result is long cat-&-mouse rallies.

I agree that matches are becoming too long for the reasons you mention, exacerbated too by some players taking ages between points, though that in turn is probably a side-effect of how physically demanding these wars of attrition are.

It's not that long ago that an average set used to take 30 minutes, a long one 40-45 minutes and a long 5-setter took about 3 hours (on surfaces other than clay, where matches tended to be about 1/3rd longer ... which was one reason why I could never get as excited about Roland Garros!)... and I much preferred it that way.

Nowadays, I tend to watch the start of a match to get a feel for how the players are playing then just follow it on the radio while doing something a bit more productive until about 4-4 in each set, then watch the whole of the 5th set if it goes to a 5th. If I as a committed tennis fan (admittedly, one who's usually trying to do half a dozen things at once!) now react by doing that, I can't imagine these interminable matches are filling more casual tennis fans with enthusiasm.

A match lasting 5+ hours makes a good story afterwards and 5th sets in those circumstances tend to be very exciting, but 2-3 hours would be a lot more fun ... and I'd much rather they got there by re-introducing faster surfaces and clamping down on time-wasting between points than by cutting men's matches in slams from 5 sets to 3, which is another suggestion I have seen being put forward.

Edit: I started writing this post over an hour ago then had to go off to a meeting, so finished and posted it when I got back. Quite funny to see a couple of the phrases I used were used by others too in the meantime. I also listened to the latest tennis podcast on the way to the meeting and on the way back and John Inverdale was saying much the same things too.

-- Edited by steven on Monday 28th of January 2013 02:32:41 PM

Ratty · County player

Dare I say that I thought the match was a bit, er, how shall I put this ...... dull.

There were an awful lot of long rallies which followed much the same pattern of "probing" from the baseline. And the sheer length of these matches is becoming a problem for the viewer. I think 3 hours is just about manageable, but 4-5 hours is now commonplace at the business end of the Slams, and there's very few people who are prepared to watch the TV for that long.

I think the problem is that the very best players are just getting too good at defence. This means that all-out blazing aggression is now a losing strategy, and the inevitable result is long cat-&-mouse rallies.

korriban · Challenger level

Some of the defence from Djokovic almost defied what is humanly possible. I really am staggered that, despite his super-human speed and flexibility, Novak doesn't do himself a serious injury by sliding on hyper-extended ankles on a hard court. Surely there must be a huge risk.

I thought Andy played reasonably well for 2 sets, with a decent amount of aggression mixed up with his usual patience, although I still felt Novak was the slightly better player, and very unlucky in set 1. I think credit must go to Djokovic for stepping up with higher risk tennis from set 3, and going forward to the net much more often as the match progressed......he changed something, and it worked. Novak also made the point that he could see Andy was a step slower than usual by set 3. The better player won, I'm sure we all agree, but Andy is definitely the best of the rest.

Was it boring? In a way, I'd agree witn Ratty. I certainly admired it more than enjoyed it, and these super long matches are often wars of attrition rather than hours of "end to end" tennis.

Still hoping for a Wimbledon win, and I think he knows he can win now

RJA · Hall of fame

Ratty wrote:
Dare I say that I thought the match was a bit, er, how shall I put this ...... dull.
There were an awful lot of long rallies which followed much the same pattern of "probing" from the baseline. And the sheer length of these matches is becoming a problem for the viewer. I think 3 hours is just about manageable, but 4-5 hours is now commonplace at the business end of the Slams, and there's very few people who are prepared to watch the TV for that long.
I think the problem is that the very best players are just getting too good at defence. This means that all-out blazing aggression is now a losing strategy, and the inevitable result is long cat-&-mouse rallies.

I agree. If you look at it from the perspective of a neutral tennis fan the thought of multiple finals between Murray and Djokovic is not an appealling one. Part of the problem is of course the slowing down of most hard courts.