Boredom - A State of the Mind

There have been a number of people labelling yesterday's final as boring. What is boredom but a state of the mind.

Now for me as a Murray fan it held the interest as my favourite player was involved and likewise if you are a Djokovic fan you would have very much enjoyed it. I will admit that it failed to reach the levels of last year's semi or the US Open Final for excitement but you can't have a classic all the time.

For some they label it boring and for interest a lot of the time you need to have a player involved that you root for so perhaps that wasnt there for Federer or Nadal fans?

I will say boredom comes in other forms as well. I can recall being bored watching finals when Roger Federer has easily won slam finals (not the ones V Murray) as the outcome was never in doubt for me. Pete Sampras involved in serve fest finals were boring to me but Sampras fans would argue differently. Even Fedal finals had monotony as in the early meetings Federer was dominant and in later years that moved full circle. Sure there were classic matches between them but not all the time - as will be the case with Djokovic/Murray matches.

Just my thought on this.

This is true.

I'm trying to remember the time when Fed dominated finals with Nadal, but other than that I agree 100%.

Of ourse, even if we think something is boring doesn't or shouldn't mean "the players are cr@p". Part of the problem yesterday is that particular match up, it'll always be a tougher one to love. Unless you're eating your finger ends, of course!

Of course Craig, I like the murray v. Djoko matchup. How many ridiculously one sided victory parades did we watch in finals that featured federer playing a clearly overmatched opponent? Andy and Novak have had some great matches, Rome two years ago, the AO semi, the USO final. People don't like the modern game that is fine, but I find it a bit contralogical that they watch the matches, post religiously online and loathe the modern champions and the modern game. Most people like the modern game, most fans outside the strange bubble of online sites. The game is growing globally and strengthening, if that wasn't the case the prize money wouldn't be shooting up as fast as it is, way above the rate of inflation if the game wasn't making more money. Now we can talk about tinkering around the edges, speeding up play, bringing some incremental changes to balls or surfaces. But this idea that everyone not named federer or Nadal are just not entertaining is really silly.

Also if you look to what qualifies as exciting or classics they are always matches that go the distance. For example the Wawrinka v Djoko match is seen as a classic as it was rivetting right up to the end. That wasn't the case in the final. For me as a Murray fan I saw the writing on the wall at the end of the third set and the excitement waned a bit plus Andy just wasn't as aggressive as against Federer - hope Ivan drills that into him.

In truth Craig I could see he was wilting toward the end of the 2nd set. Lydian called it too, at the time.
Those short angled shots by Djokovic are designed to drain the legs.

Yes but me as a fan only saw it around time he was broken in the third set. The massive turning point - not breaking serve in the first game of the second set. One thing that is clear about Novak is that he pounces on weaknesses like that and he feeds off it and gets stronger within.

Good observation BB, I love that short angled forehand with heavy spin from Djoko cross court it pulls the opponent wide on his forehand side and if the other guy hits that ball up the line looking to win the point Novak on the stretch to his backhand catches it and redirects easily with his backhand for a winner, that combination has been lethal for him in recent years. Once Novak saw that Andy was struggling a bit physically he really made it a point to make Andy cover the entire court with angles, up the line shots, and drop shots designed to further test his movement.

Craig, I remember you calling it that whoever wins the second set will win the match, and at the time I thought you were being a bit negative on murray's chances but you ended up being quite prophetic.

Well socal the second set became massive. If Murray had won it I feel it would have been a killer blow but Djokovic winning it after avoiding being broken early in the set was a massive boost to him and he never looked back.

What worries me is that if Sunday's final had been played 3 or 4 years ago, it would have been deemed a high standard match. I think tennis fans have now become complacent of watching long baseline rallies, but we can't help it.

Personally I find the Novak-Murray match-up dull as their styles are very similar, whereas Federer-Nadal is popular for a reason, their styles completely contrast and they both play a very unique, unorthodox brand of tennis.

And you will find that Federer V Nadal matches are not all classics. But of course if you are a Federer or Nadal fan you won't find them boring as your favourite player is involved.

Well, it's all subjective but I find the Murray Djokovic match up fantastic. Sunday was far from their greatest admittedly, but most of their 2012 matches were great. AO, Olympics, USO, Shanghai... All brilliant matches for my taste.

Perhaps I just like the modern game more than most... But lucky me I guess, as I think there are many more epic matches to come between these two.

Clearly BB or I didn't have our preferred players in the final but I think for both of us its the match-up and its greater lack of contrast that's the issue in terms of holding attention through a long match.

You could see by end of Set2 Murray was going to be spent thereafter. I think even had Murray won that 2nd, Djokovic would have won in 5. Djokovic is simply a better groundstroker than Murray, and can move him around in a way he cant replicate. The sooner Murray realises this, attacks earlier and moves into the forecourt more the better chances he'll have. He tries to out-Djokovic Djokovic and similarly Nadal but that muscle bound 6'3' frame takes a lot of fuel to feed it when its forced to run miles.

Lydian the difference was here Djokovic was more aggressive. Andy was too passive and lost. They have played four times in the last year in crunch matches and they tell you how closely matched they are. AO Semi 2012 (Djokovic won in 5 match seen as a classic), Olympic Semi-Final (Murray won in 3), US Open Final (Murray won in 5 match widely regarded asca classic) and 2013 AO Final (Djokovic won in 4).

Nadal-berdych was the most boring slam final of recent times. The result never seem in doubt, I wouldn't even say I was half watching it, I was sort of quarter watching it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Lydian the difference was here Djokovic was more aggressive. Andy was too passive and lost. They have played four times in the last year in crunch matches and they tell you how closely matched they are. AO Semi 2012 (Djokovic won in 5 match seen as a classic), Olympic Semi-Final (Murray won in 3), US Open Final (Murray won in 5 match widely regarded asca classic) and 2013 AO Final (Djokovic won in 4).

The Olympic match was in straight sets Craig (7/5, 7/5) but was incredibly close and both were really aggressive and both played great.

Craig, I notice the fact that Novak is way more aggressive than Andy in almost all their matchup, the only exception I can think of is Andy's semi loss to Djoko in 2011 where Andy hit more winners with his forehand and more errors. Last year in the USO final Novak had more net approaches, more winners, and more errors same for this final as well. After almost every forehand Novak would take a half step up in the court and then adjust back if he had to, where as I didn't see that kind of aggressive footwork and positioning from Andy for most of the match except his early service games.

As someone already pointed out "boring" doesn't necessarily mean the standard of tennis wasn't high. I certainly posted that it was boring for me and I meant by that was the very physical nature of the match contested by two players whose respective games unfortunately did little to excite me as an armchair observer.

I'm no Federer fanatic but the reality is (and yes I know he'd have lost to Murray just like in the semis and perhaps not even get a set against Djokovic) but it's the contrast in styles that would have made it more interesting to watch.

I can admire Djokovic for his awesome tennis more easily when he plays almost anyone one else other than Murray (and if that sounds disparaging to Andy well it isn't meant to be). Just like at the way he demolished Ferrer and the absolute never say die attitude against Wawrinka.

In turn Andy's match with Federer was fun to watch as are matches he has against Berdych and Tsonga (for example).

There is a feeling though that the Andy vs. Novak finals era is with us for the foreseeable future so it looks like I'm going to have to enjoy the earlier more and just endure the finals. After all in many ways that'll be what they are for all concerned both players and fans - an endurance test.

Newballs at times they do tend to be like mirror images of each other playing wise and we see a lot of long points. For my money I think Andy for some reason doesn't usually play Novak aggressive enough. Also in this particular matchup once Novak saw that Andy was struggling he did his best to extend the rallies and make Andy work. Additionally, in the first set when he was spraying forehands all over the court he just didn't have his big shot for most of the first half of the match. I think for 2 and a half sets it was pretty close and entertaining. Once Andy started to hit the wall the mystery and tension kind of left the matchup and both guys changed the way they were playing.

Depends how you view it CC. Some straight set finals have produced some ridiculous dominant tennis. Wimbledon 1999, US Open 2004, French Open 2008 to name a few which displayed the most ridiculous tennis imaginable.

Take Doha last year. Saw the best of Murray on the front foot. Taking the ball early and hitting clean winners. The first 2 sets were real risk adverse tennis. Djokovic would've wondered at the time how he lost the first given he looked the more threatening on the return and vice versa with Andy in the 2nd.

It is a case of pick your poison. For me the final was bogged down with too many BH to BH rallies on the baseline in the middle of the court with deuce court length. They both really stiffled each other into trying to create the angles for a winner which prolonged the rallies. With Federer and Nadal they can create angles from the middle of the court. One with just pure talent and other with copious amount of topspin. As Murray and Djokovic are not leaders in those fields, means it takes longer for them to open up the court.

Bad matches happen to everyone and just restricted to these 2 in particular. The AO wasn't the best match they have had. I don't think the criticism is that harsh. Bear in mind these 2 will lock horns soon enough and the AO will be forgotten

this is very true, I am a big Federer fan but also a fan of Murray and to be honest I don't always enjoy their matches because I'm so stressed out. My favourite matches have been Nadal vs Djokovic, because I don't really have a preference, probably Djokovic just because Im always wary of Nadal catching Federer in slams!

But for the most part, I just sit back and enjoy the show and watch two gladiators go to war stress free. Only thing is, you don't get the same buzz on break points and set points you do when your player is in involved

But at the end of the match I am very flat, with Federer and Murray wins I'm still thinking about it even days later, how much I enjoyed it IF they won, or days later I'm still gutted they lost and re-run keys points in my head!

Yes that was the point I was making. One sub-classic/boring match between them doesn't make the match-up boring unless you are not a fan of either player. Last year's AO semi was regarded widely as a classic by the experts as was the US Open Final but people are choosing to try to tarnish the match-up on the back of one match out of four.

Aye tis correct. However, every Roger defeat brings a obituary it seems.

When Djokovic and Murray play a BO3 there won't be anything in the number of punishing rallies that you would expect in a BO5 format. Yes some may go further by proclaiming all matches between these 2 are duffers and not entertaining. This isn't the case. The match in the final was really an iron man contest. You could argue that Djokovic was smart by wearing Andy down like Andy did with him in New York under more intense conditions. I don't think many of their BO3 encounters will be decided by such a big factor.

The match was a damp squib and rightfully people criticised it. Not the end of the world as more positive views can surface from this. Certainly the claim both could play better serves as a positive view.

Henman Bill wrote:Nadal-berdych was the most boring slam final of recent times. The result never seem in doubt, I wouldn't even say I was half watching it, I was sort of quarter watching it.

You have nothing to complain about, I was actually there! Terrible luck with my final timing.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Lydian the difference was here Djokovic was more aggressive. Andy was too passive and lost. They have played four times in the last year in crunch matches and they tell you how closely matched they are. AO Semi 2012 (Djokovic won in 5 match seen as a classic), Olympic Semi-Final (Murray won in 3), US Open Final (Murray won in 5 match widely regarded asca classic) and 2013 AO Final (Djokovic won in 4).

Wasn't the Olympics is 2 sets?

To be honest I think lydian is right and Andy has a problem with relative stamina. The wind at the US stopped Djokovic playing to the lines and so Murray didn't flag (close though!). The Olympics was a short course match.

To beat Djokovic at Slams he's going to have to hit him off, relatively speaking, rather than runnning him down.

Definitely the key is aggression with Andy. In the past big question marks sat over his serve but that has improved. Now he needs to play aggressive tennis all of the time. He played it against Federer and was rewarded and when less aggressive against Djokovic he was punished.

does anyone remember the first point of the match? Andy was incredible, I thought he has finally cracked it, he destroyed the ball. But it didn't last long

Perhaps it is just me but this match followed a pattern to Fed at Wimbledon in the Final and a couple of years ago in Wimbledon semi V Nadal. He won the first set in all of those matches playing great aggressive stuff then when he missed a golden chance playing the same way he retreated into his shell, went passive and lost. Anyone else feel this is the case?

Perhaps so. I also think that against Federer what went really wrong was that he became weary during the third set.

I'm really not saying he needs to become fitter (!), more than all that chasing takes its toll, and he has become a very big guy.

I think Murray needs to remember what makes him so special is his incredible feel, he has jumped on the fitness bandwagon, of course its become hugely important but what separates him from Novak is he is slightly more skilful and I don't see him use that enough against him

That half volley backhand winner at the net he hit in the final was Federer-esc, and something you just wouldn't see Djokovic or Nadal do. He is a talent and needs to show it more!

CAS wrote:I think Murray needs to remember what makes him so special is his incredible feel, he has jumped on the fitness bandwagon, of course its become hugely important but what separates him from Novak is he is slightly more skilful and I don't see him use that enough against him

Agreed. I think when he first started concentrating on fitness, his game went down a level for a while. He seems to be getting it back to where it needs to be, but not as consistently as required. It was almost as if for a while he could use either brain or brawn, but not both.

Lets remember that outwith al this criticism he came pretty close to creating history of being first player in the Open Era to win his first two slams back-to-back and got a lot closer to that feat than Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. He is definitely heading in the right direction and just needs to bring the aggression into play more often in key matches.

Indeed. I think when he plays Novak and Rafa he plays their game too much mainly because he is such a good player he can do it but over 5 sets more often than not they are going to come out on top.

I think he has had success against Federer because Federer lets you play your game, its just most of the time his game is just better. Murray is able to express himself against the Swiss and of course his retrieving frustrates him.

But need I remind you that Andy's game is not all retrieval. If we look at the semi stats Andy hit almost 20 more winners than Federer who is seen as super-attacking.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But need I remind you that Andy's game is not all retrieval. If we look at the semi stats Andy hit almost 20 more winners than Federer who is seen as super-attacking.

No of course not but its no doubt a big part of his game, and that was the first time I have ever seen Murray hit more winners than Federer. I'm not sure if they include Aces in the winners section but 21-5, so excluding aces thats 41-38, I have never seen Federer hit so few aces in a slam, he struggled in that department against Tsonga as well, and when his serve is off his game usually is a touch off, a lot of his winners come from a short reply to a big serve, and if he was struggling with aces he probably was struggling with getting short balls as well from the first serve. I am just speculating of course.

Murray at the core is not an aggressive player, but when he unleashes he can be deadly. The Aus open 07 against Nadal was one of my all time favourite matches

Also when I say he retrieves I don't mean that disrespectfully, he defends more with his 'feel' much like Federer than with his legs or speed, with his slice, his spins etc. Novak and Rafa are beasts at collecting shots and using their athleticism, Novak on the backhand side on the run is just something else

It really holds the key for Andy - aggression. Not sure if it is my imagination but it seems when Andy's serve is working it frees him up to be more aggressive. His serve percentages against Federer were close around the 70% mark for first serve and he was aggressive but in the final they dipped to 60% and he was less aggressive. Make of that what you will.

And let's not forget the impressive 21 aces he hit within those winners, and a fair number of them at crucial moments - shutting out Federer just when he was "having a sniff" .....

edit : written just before CAS post!

There are some parallels between Nadal-Soderling @RG 2009 and Djokovic-Murray @AO 2013 for me.

As LK has pointed out, Murray was punished, for being too short. The BH-to-BH slug-fest wanted me to slap Murray upside his head to step aside and play the open court FH and go to the net, but Murray was too afraid (IMVHO) about being passed DTL to step up the pressure.

Djokovic took advantage and made Murray run even more, and ground Murray (the fittest of the Top 4 now). Murray was spent in the fourth set, while Djokovic could have played a follow-up match with Federer and beaten him (in 5) as well.

To beat Djokovic either requires Nadal's murderous topspin or Federer's FH (when on song) or a Janko on the other side of the net. Del Potro can make a dent, if he plays really well (aka Olympics).

I don't know Laverfan I think Andy is very close. But I do find it a bit weird how rarely he ventures inside the court despite having the hands that he does and the slice backhand he does. Even by modern standards his net approaches against Djokovic are a bit abysmal. Certainly, Novak's ability on the pass is as good as anyone, and on the return but to have Djoko go to net 3 times as much as you do is a big question mark in strategic sense. I feel that on average Novak stands closer and hits more balls inside the court so he tends to pin murray back and murray is hesistant to move in with novak's speed and passing ability.

As for Del Po I don't know about that I think Novak is like 8-2 against him. For Del Po to beat Novak he needs Novak to be off color a bit.

I think Murray is the most likely right now to beat Novak. The way he played against Novak on Sunday is not how he's approached the matches against him over the last 6 or 7 months, which is a shame in terms of the spectacle and Murray's chances of winning.

Why did he take that approach on Sunday? God knows to be honest. Especially if he had less in the tank than Novak after their respective semis.

When he's struggling physically Murray can get passive, which he can get away with against most players but it was never going to work with Novak. Once he'd lost the second set and (surely) knew that Novak was in the ascendancy physically and mentally, I would have thought aggression and more net approaches was the way to go.