The best game of tennis ever?

Andy Murray’s feel for the game and his variety is second only to Federer’s in my opinion.

Check out this amazing game from his match against Llodra from this Australian Open. I don’t think I’ve ever seen 4 points like this in a single game, that too to win a set.

As the video description says,

“In tennis you can go for games without seeing something truly outstanding. When Andy Murray took on Michael Llodra they produced four of the best points you'll ever see in the course of a single game. Enjoy!”

This kind of tennis is so tough to play nowadays and so rare.

Just contrast this with the final for example where there were endless baseline rallies with little variety.

Hats off to Murray and the very talented but underrated Llodra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyxhHkOel2I&feature=related

Yes both are very players to watch play. Doesn't make me think however that the AO final was somehow lacking, outside of people on this website I have yet to talk to a single person who didn't find the match highly entertaining.

Socal- surely the people on this website are more likely to be tennis connoisseurs than the people outside? And I've talked to plenty outside who felt it was dramatic but lacking in variety. Some even felt it was repetitive and boring.

Tennisanorak, it is a matter of taste certainly. And as I have said before if the fans start to reject the product don't you worry the tournaments will change up the conditions and rules to make a more marketable product. But if anything tennis is maintaining and growing in popularity globally not losing steam. Lets remember why exactly the courts and balls were slowed down. Tennis in the late 90s was losing fans, and the mens game was being criticized because of the overwhelming influence of the big serve on the game. I myself a lifelong tennis fan stopped watching tennis in the late 90s and early 2000s. Not completely, but i really toned down my support and interest. Nothing is as dull as watching an ace contest.


And with today's bigger, stronger, and taller athletes playing with Modern racquets and strings if we returned conditions to anything approaching the late 90s you would see and even more unwatchable style of play. Slower conditions maybe required to put a check on the ever increasing size and power of the modern athlete.

Socal- do you know what happened in swimming when the records started being broken every day? Tennis can say no to new technology too! What is to stop them from decreasing the size of the balls, or imposing restrictions on the kind of strings players can use in rackets. Why do you think that only extremes- i.e. ace fests or extreme baseline rallies are possible? Obviously, there's a mean path. The Paris Masters was fast till 2010. Was it unwatchable? It was amazing to see the S and V! Where were these ace fests you're worried about. Lastly, even with bigger and stronger players, the serve hasn't really improved from the 1990s when we had great servers like Sampras, Ivanisevis, Rusedski, Krajicek, Philipposis all playing at the same time. Nowadays, in the top, we only have Roddick. (Karlovic and Isner have very bad ground strokes and aren't a threat any way).

Like I said Tennisanorak. I would not support any drastic changes. Maybe they could try with a couple of events to use a slightly quicker ball. But I don't think it is broken, and if it isn't broke don't fix it is my motto. Roddick and Karlovic serve about 8-10 miles an hour on average faster than the guys you list afterwards.

A more radical approach could be speeding up the courts and using smaller, faster balls but eliminating the 1st/2nd serve.

You might argue that this would be even worse for serve-volley tennis, but the true S&V specialists of the 80s and 90s came to the net on their 2nd serve too.

See prostaff, I would oppose all of these changes, way too drastic. Again don't find that the game is broken. Maybe we experiment with some minor changes before we start talking about altering the rules of the game, radically changing the courts, banning techonology. I just don't like S and V that much that I would want to mess around with the game I love.

What happened to the other points?

Legendkillar- maybe they weren't as good as these, so they were excluded?

Well based on the clip you posted, you have to admit it is Llodra who tries to move Murray around and creates the opportinity first. All points see Murray rushing to the net after Llodra's drop shots. That's because Llodra has no choice but to shorten the rallies. Murray's is playing great shots too but thanks to a big pair of legs getting him on the ball with time to spare to play those good shot.

We saw that against Djoko, Murray was not going to mess around with drop and fancy shots cause he did not want to be the "llodra" of his semi final. So he ended up rallying at nausea with Djoko.

Look at Murray's FH in that second point after rushing to the net!!!!!

You cannot be in a position like that and end up losing the point!

Llodra is a huge talent....but again....who cares about talent nowadays! It makes you a pretty loser. That's teh sad thing about today's tennis.

socal1976 wrote:Like I said Tennisanorak. I would not support any drastic changes. Maybe they could try with a couple of events to use a slightly quicker ball. But I don't think it is broken, and if it isn't broke don't fix it is my motto. Roddick and Karlovic serve about 8-10 miles an hour on average faster than the guys you list afterwards.

Of course you don't; the last thing you'd want to see is Stepanek or Llodra putting Djokovic out of Slams in the first week.

No need to invoke Karlovic, all they need to do is control the strings and the game will come back to balanced play with variety.

You can see on this how the stings affect the volleyer by sending balls dipping in Llodra's feet 1m behind the net. That's impossible to put away.

Tenez wrote:Well based on the clip you posted, you have to admit it is Llodra who tries to move Murray around and creates the opportinity first. All points see Murray rushing to the net after Llodra's drop shots. That's because Llodra has no choice but to shorten the rallies. Murray's is playing great shots too but thanks to a big pair of legs getting him on the ball with time to spare to play those good shot.We saw that against Djoko, Murray was not going to mess around with drop and fancy shots cause he did not want to be the "llodra" of his semi final. So he ended up rallying at nausea with Djoko.

Was he just meant to stand there and applaud these drop shots ? Being able to get to shots like that was why he spent most of December training in Miami. I saw most of the Llodra game. It was very entertaining as the OP says nd Murray fully contributed to that.

Calder106 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Well based on the clip you posted, you have to admit it is Llodra who tries to move Murray around and creates the opportinity first. All points see Murray rushing to the net after Llodra's drop shots. That's because Llodra has no choice but to shorten the rallies. Murray's is playing great shots too but thanks to a big pair of legs getting him on the ball with time to spare to play those good shot.We saw that against Djoko, Murray was not going to mess around with drop and fancy shots cause he did not want to be the "llodra" of his semi final. So he ended up rallying at nausea with Djoko.

Was he just meant to stand there and applaud these drop shots ? Being able to get to shots like that was why he spent most of December training in Miami. I saw most of the Llodra game. It was very entertaining as the OP says nd Murray fully contributed to that.

Of course Murray will train so that he can get to drop shots. Quite rightly.
It comes back to the future of the game though (post-Murray, Djoko etc). Will all players be so fit that the drop shot will disappear from the game entirely, as all players will be able to get to them?

The original post was about how good that match was but as usual it was quickly turned into. He can only do that because he is fit and therefore can give himself time to play a winning shot.

Or Julius perhaps they could ban players from chasing down drop shots? The rule then will be - "Should a player play a drop shot which clears the net and successfullly hits inside of the court, a point must be awarded"

Sounds fair to me. They just need a clause for it.

Well, the only aim of this post was to applaud that game, really. But nowadays, many discussions on here ultimately segue into the fitness discussion!

Calder106 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Well based on the clip you posted, you have to admit it is Llodra who tries to move Murray around and creates the opportinity first. All points see Murray rushing to the net after Llodra's drop shots. That's because Llodra has no choice but to shorten the rallies. Murray's is playing great shots too but thanks to a big pair of legs getting him on the ball with time to spare to play those good shot.We saw that against Djoko, Murray was not going to mess around with drop and fancy shots cause he did not want to be the "llodra" of his semi final. So he ended up rallying at nausea with Djoko.

Was he just meant to stand there and applaud these drop shots ? Being able to get to shots like that was why he spent most of December training in Miami. I saw most of the Llodra game. It was very entertaining as the OP says nd Murray fully contributed to that.

I am just trying to open eyes. I don;t care about Murray and I don;t want to enter a debate on how great Murray is. I am analysing the points describes in the OP. Isn;t that the purpose. Unfortunately, it's teh typical Murray fan who take it like a personal attack.

A drop shot can only be done when you have a ball you can easily control and/or you have great skills to control a difficult ball. I can see that it is Llodra taking the risk, first. I don;t think it is by choice. He cannot rally from the back of the court and plays with 100% natural strings. His game is amazing and should be part of the later stages of the tournament, but there is no room at the top for talented players, especially SVer.

As we can see on those exchanges, Murray (like Djoko and Nadal) can reach all corners of the courts whic means there is no choice but rallying and cut the risky and useless shots. That's why we keep having endless matches in the later stages of tournaments wirh fewer tennis fans having time to watch it all.

I think you'll find I praised Murray for getting to the drop shot and for being fit enough to do so. I want him to win slams. I want him to be world No 1. C'mon Andy!

Tennisanorak wrote:Well, the only aim of this post was to applaud that game, really. But nowadays, many discussions on here ultimately segue into the fitness discussion!

Is that a choice when you see who is playing the semis and finals?

Tennisanorak wrote:Well, the only aim of this post was to applaud that game, really. But nowadays, many discussions on here ultimately segue into the fitness discussion!

Exactly. That's what I thought it was about.

Most top players can produce great shots.
It's how their game and character match up against each other that creates that magic which again can be subject to personal taste.

Some players are watchable no matter who the play. For me it can be any all-court player.

The more you get into tennis, the more you learn to enjoy even carpenters like Karlovic.
Everyone has something to offer.

I wouldn't have gone as far as to call this the best game ever? Half the points were not depicted which is not a fair assessment of the game's overall quality. Yes they are good shots, that is about as far as I could carry praise for this particular game.

Murray was forced into making some cute shots yes...after Llodra took the initiative and got the ball rolling. It's silly to pretend that Murray was equally as entertaining as Llodra..he was merely a passenger in Llodra's art display!!

6-4, 6-2, 6-0. bet he would be hapy to be a passenger on that bus every match. No it wasn't the best tennis match ever but the players and crowd thoroughly enjoyed it. Murray said before the match he would have to play a different type of game to counter Llodra and that's what he did.

Calder106 wrote:6-4, 6-2, 6-0. bet he would be hapy to be a passenger on that bus every match. No it wasn't the best tennis match ever but the players and crowd thoroughly enjoyed it. Murray said before the match he would have to play a different type of game to counter Llodra and that's what he did.

Typical score once again of talent versus physique with talent tiring away and physique rolling over.

Sad for a tennis fan because with this kind of conditions, Edberg, Becker, Pete woudl have followed teh same fate...maybe worse. And those great names would be laughing matter like Llodra's is.

Tenez wrote:

Calder106 wrote:6-4, 6-2, 6-0. bet he would be hapy to be a passenger on that bus every match. No it wasn't the best tennis match ever but the players and crowd thoroughly enjoyed it. Murray said before the match he would have to play a different type of game to counter Llodra and that's what he did.

Typical score once again of talent versus physique with talent tiring away and physique rolling over.

Sad for a tennis fan because with this kind of conditions, Edberg, Becker, Pete woudl have followed teh same fate...maybe worse. And those great names would be laughing matter like Llodra's is.

In fairness Llodra's style was never going to win on the Australian courts in any era.

It is more a shame that he cannot achieve singles success at Grass events.

Sad how you couldn't enjoy a good enteraining match which actually only lasted about 1hour 48mins. Hardly a marathon where physique overpowers talent.

Same thing everywhere LK.

Calder - Yes I do enjoy seeing Llodra making a spectacle of a game which alternative is Murray v Djoko with the same rally repeated at nausea.

Just a shame that Llodra has to sacrifice his chance to make a spectacle. Would be better if conditions coudl givehis a bit more chance.

Likewise, I woudl not applaud Edberg, Becker and Pete being ridiuculed like they woudl be if they were playing today.

I know what it takes to play like Llodra and Edberg and to play like the top 3. We have to be careful to what we applaud.

Strange I thought it would have been the sort of game you would have enjoyed. Not many baseline rallies, lots of different skills displayed, and some reaaly innovative shots. We have to be careful that we don't watch matches with only one agenda in mind.

I was hoping you would see the point Calder but you seem too much of a Murray fan to actually discuss it objectively.

The OP is asking whether this is the best game of tennis ever! Well maybe it is but it's not a final nor is it close. Absolutely no drama.

The drama is in the semi and final. We might not have the great tennis there but at least we are all wondering who will be the last man standing, literally. Well Nadal lost as he was the first to use the net as a chair.

Tennisanorak

You can praise Llodra all you want but he's well below the level of the top 5 five players.

I watched that match and it felt like an exhibition match, they both knew what the result was gonna be so lets have some fun and entertain the public.

e.g. After that last point, Did Murray have to stay on his back for so long, or was it to milk more applause from the crowd.

Tenez wrote:I was hoping you would see the point Calder but you seem too much of a Murray fan to actually discuss it objectively.

The OP is asking whether this is the best game of tennis ever! Well maybe it is but it's not a final nor is it close. Absolutely no drama.

The drama is in the semi and final. We might not have the great tennis there but at least we are all wondering who will be the last man standing, literally. Well Nadal lost as he was the first to use the net as a chair.

Tenez I think it's you who is missing the point. The OP actually said in his second post

'Well, the only aim of this post was to applaud that game, really. But nowadays, many discussions on here ultimately segue into the fitness discussion!'

But of course you chose to ignore that.

Yes I'm Murray fan and have said that although it was a very entertaining match in which both players displayed a range of talents it was not the best match ever. Please don't come up with your comments about not being able to discuss things objectively. I have posted nothing on this thread whichis not objective. You have one viewpoint on the match that we are discussing and I have another.

Well the OP is asking the question...so I am not missing the point but secondly the OP is also one of the main posters stressing the physicality of the sport today at the detriment of talent.

From the OP:

The difference, socal, is that in an earlier era, players needed a minimum level of fitness to compete, after which talent was the most significant factor. Nowadays, we are going towards a minimum level of talent required to compete, with fitness being the most significant factor after that.

Tenez wrote: ... Llodra ... tries to move Murray around and creates the opportinity first. All points see Murray rushing to the net after Llodra's drop shots. That's because Llodra has no choice but to shorten the rallies. Murray's is playing great shots too but thanks to a big pair of legs getting him on the ball with time to spare to play those good shot...

These points were characterised by Llodra's sliced returns and chip strokes / drop shots and Murray's anticipation and mobility. Great sequence of play from both players

Nore Staat wrote:

Tenez wrote: ... Llodra ... tries to move Murray around and creates the opportinity first. All points see Murray rushing to the net after Llodra's drop shots. That's because Llodra has no choice but to shorten the rallies. Murray's is playing great shots too but thanks to a big pair of legs getting him on the ball with time to spare to play those good shot...

These points were characterised by Llodra's sliced returns and chip strokes / drop shots and Murray's anticipation and mobility. Great sequence of play from both players

Yes but wouldn't it be much better if the outcome was not as dead certain? Like on faster conds....instead of being an Exho as eric describes.

Great game

Llodra-Djokovic 2010 on a Fast Paris court

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmkENuRmHNM

Llodra-Djokovic 2011 on W Grass...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-OLIFSk7k0

Tenez wrote:

Calder106 wrote:6-4, 6-2, 6-0. bet he would be hapy to be a passenger on that bus every match. No it wasn't the best tennis match ever but the players and crowd thoroughly enjoyed it. Murray said before the match he would have to play a different type of game to counter Llodra and that's what he did.

Typical score once again of talent versus physique with talent tiring away and physique rolling over.

Sad for a tennis fan because with this kind of conditions, Edberg, Becker, Pete woudl have followed teh same fate...maybe worse. And those great names would be laughing matter like Llodra's is.

Talent and physique are not mutually exclusive.

carrieg4 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Calder106 wrote:6-4, 6-2, 6-0. bet he would be hapy to be a passenger on that bus every match. No it wasn't the best tennis match ever but the players and crowd thoroughly enjoyed it. Murray said before the match he would have to play a different type of game to counter Llodra and that's what he did.

Typical score once again of talent versus physique with talent tiring away and physique rolling over.

Sad for a tennis fan because with this kind of conditions, Edberg, Becker, Pete woudl have followed teh same fate...maybe worse. And those great names would be laughing matter like Llodra's is.

Talent and physique are not mutually exclusive.

Actually they tend to exclude each other. The more talented you are the less you are likely to use your physique, and the more you use your physique, the less talent can express itself.

legendkillar wrote:In fairness Llodra's style was never going to win on the Australian courts in any era.

Before 1988, Llodra would have had a small chance on grass.

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Calder106 wrote:6-4, 6-2, 6-0. bet he would be hapy to be a passenger on that bus every match. No it wasn't the best tennis match ever but the players and crowd thoroughly enjoyed it. Murray said before the match he would have to play a different type of game to counter Llodra and that's what he did.

Typical score once again of talent versus physique with talent tiring away and physique rolling over.

Sad for a tennis fan because with this kind of conditions, Edberg, Becker, Pete woudl have followed teh same fate...maybe worse. And those great names would be laughing matter like Llodra's is.

Talent and physique are not mutually exclusive.

Actually they tend to exclude each other. The more talented you are the less you are likely to use your physique, and the more you use your physique, the less talent can express itself.

They can rule each other out but there are many players who have both in abudance and use them.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Calder106 wrote:6-4, 6-2, 6-0. bet he would be hapy to be a passenger on that bus every match. No it wasn't the best tennis match ever but the players and crowd thoroughly enjoyed it. Murray said before the match he would have to play a different type of game to counter Llodra and that's what he did.

Typical score once again of talent versus physique with talent tiring away and physique rolling over.

Sad for a tennis fan because with this kind of conditions, Edberg, Becker, Pete woudl have followed teh same fate...maybe worse. And those great names would be laughing matter like Llodra's is.

In fairness Llodra's style was never going to win on the Australian courts in any era.

It is more a shame that he cannot achieve singles success at Grass events.

He would surely have made the semi finals a few times over with his brilliant skills.

At the end of his match with Murray, the fans would have came away talking about how amazing this French guy plays, than how fantastic Murray's retrievals were.

[quote="carrieg4"]

Tenez wrote:They can rule each other out but there are many players who have both in abudance and use them.

Even if they had talent in abundance, what kind of talented shot can they produce after a 5 hour marathon?

[quote="Tenez"]

carrieg4 wrote:

Tenez wrote:They can rule each other out but there are many players who have both in abudance and use them.

Even if they had talent in abundance, what kind of talented shot can they produce after a 5 hour marathon?

That's a different debate. How does a potential reduction in the ability to utilise talent after a prolonged match in any way lessen the talent that was there in the first place?

carrieg4 wrote:That's a different debate. How does a potential reduction in the ability to utilise talent after a prolonged match in any way lessen the talent that was there in the first place?

It's not a different debate. Again, it shows it's the last man standing who wins...not necessarily the more talented.

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:That's a different debate. How does a potential reduction in the ability to utilise talent after a prolonged match in any way lessen the talent that was there in the first place?

It's not a different debate. Again, it shows it's the last man standing who wins...not necessarily the more talented.

OH Tenez ....I actually thought of you when Federer failed to consolidate that break at the beginning of the SECOND set .
I was upset with him and thought with your head down that line, you cannot be tired already! Mind you, i was folowing the match via live scores on the train, so haven't seen the actual play.

I don't know why he caves in to Nadal, I really don't.

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:That's a different debate. How does a potential reduction in the ability to utilise talent after a prolonged match in any way lessen the talent that was there in the first place?

It's not a different debate. Again, it shows it's the last man standing who wins...not necessarily the more talented.

What if both players are talented and one is fitter than the other? That is the case in many matches and it is the player that has put the work in to utilise their talent best that wins. There is a strong argument for saying that some players should get their butts out on the track or down the gym a bit more often then maybe they will be better able to demonstrate their talent consistently not sporadically. Talent without application is a waste of talent. Like I said talent and physique are not mutually exclusive and there are some players who make the most of both.