Dubai 2012 - Final : Federer v Murray

First topic message reminder :

Under Jahu's orders here is the thread.

Much to discuss still on the semis's other thread but when we are ready to move...It will happen here.

Federer might be tired from that semi but if he can play like today.....he has a good chance.

the old boy looks up for it!

Just too many uncharacteristic unforced errors from Andy especially on the backhand which has killed his chances. Andy has never really came with any sort of game plan and stuck to it. No complaints about his focus which was pretty good but too many elements of his game were not firing and so lost. Roger Federer played a solid game and came out the deserved winner. Not too deflated by the defeat considering how awful his post-Australian Open form was last season but would have felt better had Andy won a set. A match that had its moments and well done to Roger Federer.

Maybe this is what happens on the fast courts. Federer wins with not too much fuss.

A covering fire of clean FH that last game.

Yep Nore Staat.

I'd like more fast courts, and I'd like Roland Garros a bit slower. We need the challenge to win all four as it was in yesteryear.

can't believe I predicted a murray win, completely outclassed in the key points.

Murray playing agressive and at his best when nothing to lose.....but to no avail today.

So Fed was too relaxed and that made the second set closer than it shoudl have been.

If most courts were that fast Fed would be playing even better than what we saw this week and he coudl stay another 4 years at number one maybe.

Some have to admit that the quality of rallies, shots making, is way superior to what we have been seeing on slow courts recently.

Is that David Mercer doing the introduction to trophies?

72 titles and counting baby.

Tenez wrote:Murray playing agressive and at his best when nothing to lose.....but to no avail today.

So Fed was too relaxed and that made the second set than it shoudl have done.

If most courts were that fast Fed would be playing even better than what we saw this week and he coudl stay another 4 years at number one maybe.

Some have to admit that the quality of rallies, shots making, is way superior to what we have been seeing on slow courts recently.

You'll wait in vain for social to accept that. Endless break fests are his thing.

It would be easier to change the court speed of either USO or AO - they just need to relay the surfaces of the top courts. The court at Dubai was relaid about two weeks ago I believe.

Tenez wrote:Murray playing agressive and at his best when nothing to lose.....but to no avail today.

So Fed was too relaxed and that made the second set than it shoudl have done.

If most courts were that fast Fed would be playing even better than what we saw this week and he coudl stay another 4 years at number one maybe.

Some have to admit that the quality of rallies, shots making, is way superior to what we have been seeing on slow courts recently.

Sorry that is tosh if you think that was Murray at his best. I take it you are joking there. His first serve was below 50% and his usually rock solid backhand was absent, plus he hit a lot of uncharacteristic unforced errors so please less of the pretence. Roger deserved the win and was solid enough today and thrived so good luck to him but I am sure he'll realise the bigger challenges lie ahead and won't be getting too excited.

Nore Staat wrote:It would be easier to change the court speed of either USO or AO - they just need to relay the surfaces of the top courts. The court at Dubai was relaid about two weeks ago I believe.

We have the FO already. We do not need another slow court on the tour. We do not need 5 hours matches decided by the last one standing. That's what the FO is for....and I love it for that. But on the other 3 slams we should have proper, shot making tennis.

The man who served better won. Well done Fed, deserved it. Murray's first serve wasn't in often enough. I'm guessing around 50%? Also the aggression of yesterday seemed a little diluted today.

As for the court, it made a nice change to have faster conditions but I must confess I prefer the slightly slower courts. Yes it makes matches more physical but it also allows for greater variety and more dramatic points. Each to their own, but that's my preference.

That said, it would be nice if Wimbledon was speeded up a bit, and New York was back to the pace of old.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:Murray playing agressive and at his best when nothing to lose.....but to no avail today.

So Fed was too relaxed and that made the second set than it shoudl have done.

If most courts were that fast Fed would be playing even better than what we saw this week and he coudl stay another 4 years at number one maybe.

Some have to admit that the quality of rallies, shots making, is way superior to what we have been seeing on slow courts recently.

You'll wait in vain for social to accept that. Endless break fests are his thing.

Yep...and that's also it's appeal. But not on all finals and all surfaces like we had last year. On clay is enough.

They both served near 50% 1st serves, nothing in it. However fed won many more points off his first serve.

Tenez wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:It would be easier to change the court speed of either USO or AO - they just need to relay the surfaces of the top courts. The court at Dubai was relaid about two weeks ago I believe.

We have the FO already. We do not need another slow court on the tour. We do not need 5 hours matches decided by the last one standing. That's what the FO is for....and I love it for that. But on the other 3 slams we should have proper, shot making tennis.

I think he was calling for them to be made quicker.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:It would be easier to change the court speed of either USO or AO - they just need to relay the surfaces of the top courts. The court at Dubai was relaid about two weeks ago I believe.

We have the FO already. We do not need another slow court on the tour. We do not need 5 hours matches decided by the last one standing. That's what the FO is for....and I love it for that. But on the other 3 slams we should have proper, shot making tennis.

I think he was calling for them to be made quicker.

I know...but I was arguing on the USO or AO. I think they shoudl both be faster.

I think this was a typical Fed-Mur match. Unexpected errors but also plenty of brilliance from both sides. The difference with before is that Andy usually won in a non major-setting like this. Amazing really Murray basically didn't had much of a chance.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:Murray playing agressive and at his best when nothing to lose.....but to no avail today.

So Fed was too relaxed and that made the second set than it shoudl have done.

If most courts were that fast Fed would be playing even better than what we saw this week and he coudl stay another 4 years at number one maybe.

Some have to admit that the quality of rallies, shots making, is way superior to what we have been seeing on slow courts recently.

Sorry that is tosh if you think that was Murray at his best. I take it you are joking there. His first serve was below 50% and his usually rock solid backhand was absent, plus he hit a lot of uncharacteristic unforced errors so please less of the pretence. Roger deserved the win and was solid enough today and thrived so good luck to him but I am sure he'll realise the bigger challenges lie ahead and won't be getting too excited.

Perhaps he was forced to play his shots more rapidly?

droogle wrote:They both served near 50% 1st serves, nothing in it. However fed won many more points off his first serve.

Yes and key to Murray's win over Djokovic was a serve well over 70% so his first serve was not at his best, his backhand was very poor (far from his best) and hit far more unforced errors than we expect from him so that was poor as well. Yet Tenez feels it was him at his best.

Murray serving at 70% is once every lunar eclipse, so if that's what he needs to do to win against the top 3 then he's in trouble.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Sorry that is tosh if you think that was Murray at his best. I take it you are joking there. His first serve was below 50% and his usually rock solid backhand was absent, plus he hit a lot of uncharacteristic unforced errors so please less of the pretence. Roger deserved the win and was solid enough today and thrived so good luck to him but I am sure he'll realise the bigger challenges lie ahead and won't be getting too excited.

I said Murray was at his best when he found himself a break down in the 2nd set, not that he played his best the entire match.

But you are not really able to accept that Murray can simply be bullied by Federer so when the former is playing well, the match is simply not in Murray's racquet. In that respect we cannot see Murray at his best when federer is in agressive mode.

THat's elementary.

murray is back to being Scottish guys, Britain have moved on and won't be allowing him back.

CC, I don't think anyone said Murray was at his best, did they?

There were some quality rallies and great shot-making. Murray's backhand let him down - maybe that was not being used to the speed of the courts, or rather the speed of the ball coming back from Fed, but he also missed a few easy ones. Was it pressure from Fed, was it the courts, was it just a bad day at the office, was it because players rarely peak for an ATP 500 event - who knows?

For all his skills on the return of first serves, to get into rallies, I'd like to see Murray do more when facing second serves, to win the points. That's an area he can improve on.

What's elementary is that Murray's first serve was below par, backhand was pretty much off for the whole match and had too many unforced errors and he lost. Simples.

Roger Federer was solid enough and deserved the win.

This match was never about anyone being bullied but about which standard of game they brought to the match and Fed's was better than Murray's and lost in two tight set s so nothing much to get stressed about.

CaledonianCraig wrote:What's elementary is that Murray's first serve was below par, backhand was pretty much off for the whole match and had too many unforced errors and he lost. Simples.

Roger Federer was solid enough and deserved the win.

This match was never about anyone being bullied but about which standard of game they brought to the match and Fed's was better than Murray's and lost in two tight set s so nothing much to get stressed about.

No worries, Andys backhand will be back to best when theres ages to prepare it in Indan Wells.

The pace of the court had a lot to do in making Fed's second serve significantly better than on other surfaces...and comparitively to the other players.

For those who saw Fed v Delpo at Rotterdham, we coudl see Delpo whacking that 2nd serve at times but here in Dubai, Delpo did not take so much cut on Fed's second serve.

This is why Fed held his serve much better in Dubai.

Federer didn't play particularly well by his standards. He served at 44% in the second set and only 50% for the whole match.

Tenez wrote:... I know...but I was arguing on the USO or AO. I think they shoudl both be faster.

The thing is it seems likely that neither will be made faster.

I don't know how they would be able to speed up Wimbledon - that would require resoiling and regrassing. The issue previously was that the grass was worn away leaving a "mixed" surface, grass and bald patches. The grass still wears away though.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:What's elementary is that Murray's first serve was below par, backhand was pretty much off for the whole match and had too many unforced errors and he lost. Simples.

Roger Federer was solid enough and deserved the win.

This match was never about anyone being bullied but about which standard of game they brought to the match and Fed's was better than Murray's and lost in two tight set s so nothing much to get stressed about.

No worries, Andys backhand will be back to best when theres ages to prepare it in Indan Wells.

Odd thing to say really. If you feel Andy's errors were because he couldn't cope with the pace then surely Federer would and should have won more comfortably ie 6-2 6-3 as he has done in the past on slower courts so don't feel pace/court speed was an issue as in any case Andy is one of the quickest players around the court which gives him time to set himself for his shots.

I thought the same thing about Murray as always, bar the AO vs Djokovic, he's just not comfortable in the public eye and he's not able to fully enter into the match because of it. There's a tightness about everything he does, he looks plain pained.

standard of game they brought to the match and Fed's was better than Murray's and lost in two tight set s so nothing much to get stressed about.

well federer was in 2nd gear and Murray could not win a set, that would probably force me into a pub if I was a Murray fan.

If Federer was in second gear then Andy was in third and lost in two narrow sets when so off the boil. Nope not a lot to stress about considering he became the first person this year to beat the 'man of the moment' Novak Djokovic yesterday after almost a month out of action. I would have agreed fully if I felt Andy played anywhere near his best but he didn't.

even Nishikori won a match off Djokovic at the basel event just after USO, not a big deal to novak losing in this level tournaments.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:even Nishikori won a match off Djokovic at the basel event just after USO, not a big deal to novak losing in this level tournaments.

Oh yes this level tournament he has won the last three years and the Basel Event was Novak who was a spent force whereas here he came to the tournament fresh after a few weeks off. Big difference.

I suppose one must take positives where one can.

I'm not convinced either of these two are going to win a slam this year.

Danny_1982 wrote:The man who served better won. Well done Fed, deserved it. Murray's first serve wasn't in often enough. I'm guessing around 50%? Also the aggression of yesterday seemed a little diluted today.

As for the court, it made a nice change to have faster conditions but I must confess I prefer the slightly slower courts. Yes it makes matches more physical but it also allows for greater variety and more dramatic points. Each to their own, but that's my preference.

That said, it would be nice if Wimbledon was speeded up a bit, and New York was back to the pace of old.

Laverfan posted a nice article that states emphatically that the New york courts have been the same speed since 2003, and that they were slowed down in 2002. Your first line tells us everything we need to know about Fast court tennis, "the man who served better won" which is what happens about 80 percent of the times on fast courts. A very good post and I concur.

hawkeye wrote:Federer didn't play particularly well by his standards. He served at 44% in the second set and only 50% for the whole match.

Is it over yet? Thank god. Tennis according to some is watching service games with an ace a couple of unreturnable serves and a couple of meatball forehands hit off the court in the first 2 shots. That about sums up this dubai tournament. The signature moment of this tournament is Roger serving and his opponent netting his return, that accounts for about half of the points he won on serve this tournament, or at least it seemed that way. Talk about sheer excitement!

Yes it makes matches more physical but it also allows for greater variety and more dramatic points. Each to their own, but that's my preference.

slow courts should be restricted to clay, leave the hardcourts alone and make them the quick speed they were developed to be.

THAT IS ALL.

CaledonianCraig wrote:What's elementary is that Murray's first serve was below par, backhand was pretty much off for the whole match and had too many unforced errors and he lost. Simples.

Can you CC, the biggest Murray fan, actually call a proper UE?

This is Dubai, it;s really fast and if anything i have been very impressed by the way Murray handled the pace. I fear you cannot even appreciate that and only see UEs when it was actually forced errors. This was not slow AO.

Talk about sheer excitement!

better than snoozing through 6 hours of side to side running/ballslapping/uncreativity.

Nore Staat wrote:

Tenez wrote:... I know...but I was arguing on the USO or AO. I think they shoudl both be faster.

The thing is it seems likely that neither will be made faster.

I don't know how they would be able to speed up Wimbledon - that would require resoiling and regrassing. The issue previously was that the grass was worn away leaving a "mixed" surface, grass and bald patches. The grass still wears away though.

Very easy! Faster balls. Either slightly smaller or harder and heavier.

Very fast? small, heavier and hard!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Talk about sheer excitement!

better than snoozing through 6 hours of side to side running/ballslapping/uncreativity.

A defensive lob to the back of the court and the rally starts again, for the sixth time.

Tenez wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Tenez wrote:... I know...but I was arguing on the USO or AO. I think they shoudl both be faster.

The thing is it seems likely that neither will be made faster.

I don't know how they would be able to speed up Wimbledon - that would require resoiling and regrassing. The issue previously was that the grass was worn away leaving a "mixed" surface, grass and bald patches. The grass still wears away though.

Very easy! Faster balls. Either slightly smaller or harder and heavier.

Very fast? small, heavier and hard!

Is there really sufficient tolerance within the prescribed size, weight, deformation and bounce of the balls to make much of a difference?

Socal there is some tennis playing in Mexico as well. They too have an ATP500 on CLAY, final in real slow and humid conditions with 2 players of the Spanish armada playing in. I hope you can enjoy the final.


" more dramatic points." Danny's this quote says everything we need to know about slow courts. Slow dead courts tennis "more dramatic points." is what happens about 80 percent of the times on slow courts. A very good post and I too concur.

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:What's elementary is that Murray's first serve was below par, backhand was pretty much off for the whole match and had too many unforced errors and he lost. Simples.

Can you CC, the biggest Murray fan, actually call a proper UE?

This is Dubai, it;s really fast and if anything i have been very impressed by the way Murray handled the pace. I fear you cannot even appreciate that and only see UEs when it was actually forced errors. This was not slow AO.

Why is this the same Tenez who bemoans how all the points in the modern game due to slow conditions end in errors. So Tenez let me get what you are saying straight. Unforced errors are good and forced errors are not good? I too appreciate the difference between the two. But the matches this week for the benefit of fast conditions where very error filled. Which is it Tenez are errors a good thing in tennis, are they bad, or are only errors on slower courts something you have problem with?

The fed extremists after Murray-Djoko and Nadal Djoko could not stop screeching in horror at how these two matches produced so many errors, and how many more errors were hit than winners. Although the players I listed about had a reason, they played on the slowest hardcourt on tour and played against a top 3 guy in terms of retrieval skills. Throughout this tournament we did not see come to pass another big selling point of the fast court heaven crowd; that faster conditions would automatically increase the number of points ended on winners vis a vis errors.

Nore Staat wrote:Is there really sufficient tolerance within the prescribed size, weight, deformation and bounce of the balls to make much of a difference?

Oh yes. Any slight change of size had dramatic effect.

For instance all slams pride themselves in using type 2 balls. But type 2 means a range of size and weight. Wimbledon's are exactly at the largest limit of type 2. If fact as soon as they get a few hit, they fluff and become type 3 balls (recommended for playing on grass and altitude to slow them down).

If they use the smallest type 2 size, you coudl have Karlovic winning Wimbledon.

It's not as simple as that. Look at the Babolat balls used at the FO. They were built to have the same size and same weight than the dunlops used the previous years and during the 2011 TMS season. Yet becuae the rubber used by Babolat was slightly harder than the one used by Dunlop (apparently not voluntary) the balls were much faster.

Well done TMF and hard luck AM

I thoroughly enjoyed the match - felt Andy didn't bring his absolute best with his backhand - his second serve often is something that needs tightening, but his 'gets' were quite brilliant - the pace on some of those balls was very, very fast indeed.

Fed in defence was magnificent, and his offence was better than Andy's today - but there was some lovely ball striking from both and really deep aggressive play.

socal1976 wrote:
Tennis according to some is watching service games with an ace a couple of unreturnable serves and a couple of meatball forehands hit off the court in the first 2 shots. That about sums up this dubai tournament. The signature moment of this tournament is Roger serving and his opponent netting his return, that accounts for about half of the points he won on serve this tournament, or at least it seemed that way. Talk about sheer excitement!

I couldn't have put it better