Dubai - Risky Aggression

Fast conds. What do they tell us? Well S and V wasn't the order of the day. For me it is further evident that you don't need to serve well to win. Roger serving at 50% the entire match and won in 2. His volleying wasn't that great today. Simply put a second quicker to make that all important decision on shot selection makes for greater risky shot making. Murray for me looked comfortable with having to play that type of match. Federer looked even more at home. What critics of the physical game cannot deny was that Federer not only was able to remain in long rallies, but still hit his groundstrokes with great precision and immaculate length. Murray today found himself in a position of having to play right to Roger's baseline. Roger ate up anything in deuce court and punished Murray relentlessly. Today's match was an exhibition of attacking tennis. Murray when big points came went defensive and will no doubt look at that and be frustrated that he didn't attack despite the importance of the point. Murray proved this week he can play in fast conds. He attacked the Federer FH and that has to be praised. He didn't just attack the BH, but went after the FH like he did against Djokovic. Thats what I like. I take more from this defeat than do in Australia. Purely because Andy has made positive changes. More umph on the 2nd serve, willing to flatten the ball out earlier, coming to the net. It was all good to see and pleasing to watch. The harder work will commence when he takes this level of play to America and try to maintain it. Kudos to both players. Roger this week looked majestic in the earlier rounds. He is far from over.

legendkillar wrote:... Roger this week looked majestic in the earlier rounds. He is far from over.

We keep saying and seeing that but when it comes to slow physical slams we know who is going to win them.

Tenez

You would be a lot happier if you could acknowledge that when Federer is beaten in a particular slow slam it has taken the majestic play of another great player to do it...

hawkeye wrote:Tenez

You would be a lot happier if you could acknowledge that when Federer is beaten in a particular slow slam it has taken the majestic play of another great player to do it...

I would be very happy indeed to see Federer being beaten by a more talented player. However, like almost all his losses in slams, they come after him displaying a superb tennis and the opposition to wait for that level to drop after a few long rallies ....on those very slow courts.

How long did nadal have to wait in FO 2008...

Seriously I think federers a great player, but your continuous excuses are just bitter. Just give nadal some credit ffs

Or maybe it is just an individual opinion - not one you share, but one Tenez is entitled to hold.

Federer was not at his best this week but still played at least his average level. When was his last loss at a non slam event? Quite a while! I'd have to guess Cincinatti or Canada but will have to look it up as I can't even remember.....Goes to ATP site..Oh right, Isner in the Davis Cup.

Before that. Berdych. Cincinatti.

Tenez

Were you satisfied with the week Roger had though? Fast conditions and he still produced the shots of the week. Albeit it wasn't the performance most Federer fans would've settled for in a final, but Peter Fleming made a superb point in the match when he said that he felt Roger was not putting as much into the swing of his BH stating that on slower courts he has to put more power into his swing.

Would explain why he looked fresh as a daisy.

legendkillar wrote:................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................

Would explain why he looked fresh as a daisy.

Not sure Federer has ever sweated on court - to any significant degree, that is

Gently perspire maybe .... ? (a la Chris Evert ! )

legendkillar wrote:Tenez

Were you satisfied with the week Roger had though? Fast conditions and he still produced the shots of the week. Albeit it wasn't the performance most Federer fans would've settled for in a final, but Peter Fleming made a superb point in the match when he said that he felt Roger was not putting as much into the swing of his BH stating that on slower courts he has to put more power into his swing.

Would explain why he looked fresh as a daisy.

Yes good point from Flemming. Its clear that on those fast courts his FH and more so his BH become proper weapons. He can slice it but the BH DTL can also keep the opponent on his toes.

Just to have to hit the ball right instead of hard is just a nice change, and so much better to the eye of the spectator.

What balls did they play with? I always feel the balls are more important than the surface - not saying the surface is irrelevant, just that the speed through the air is more of a factor than the bounce and I'd be interested to see whether that holds up.

You are right. Unless they play on wooden floor, the ball is more important.

Not sure what they use. I know Heads and Babolats are pretty fast.