Match Commentary Thread

by Born Slippy Sun 19 Oct 2014 - 13:08

First topic message reminder :

A thread to provide commentary on matches at tournaments which don't have their own threads (as I'm watching Ferrer v Murray).

by Jahu Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 19:26

Hands up who wants Djoko to lose tonight and go home to his baby Smile

Lets hope Monfils gives us a winning show Match Commentary Thread - Page 15 3933776953

Fed in 2, but this french kiddo will be great in a couple of years.

by Born Slippy Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 19:31

Don't see Tsonga as under-achieving. He just isn't as good as the big 4. His backhand particularly is a weakness. Given his injury problems early in his career, he wasn't really in a position to challenge at the top until c. 2008. Yes he could have had a bit of luck like Stan but ultimately if, at best, you are the 5th best player of your generation it is in other players' hands whether you win a slam.

by theslosty Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 19:32

Not convinced Tsonga really is that talented, formidable power but there are definite technical flaws in his game. There is a perception that streaky players like Tsonga are more talented their more consistent counterparts, but for me sound technique and core racquet skills should serve you well from game to game.

by Jahu Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 19:45

Fed breaks 4:3.

by banbrotam Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 19:48

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:again I think you should give Anderson a fair bit of credit there, on the BP he had one chance on a short ball on his FH, he mullered it to the corner and put away the smash, just seems to be less afraid on the big points than Stan (who by contrast broke on an Anderson FH error).

He has definitely improved in this set as his confidence has risen. He is hitting through the ball more and rattled Stan with it. Done well Anderson.

I'm actually beginning to like Anderson. He's introduced a bit more variety and recently gave Murray one of his tougher games

He seriously could do something at a slam, provide the stars are aligned for him, i.e. I think he's capable of beating one of the Fab 4

by banbrotam Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 19:53

[quote="lags72"]

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Great personality, one of the most likeable guys on the tour

"Likeable" and sporting success rarely go together. He's like Leconte, one of my all time faves, too busy entertaining and not focused enough on what he needs to do

by bogbrush Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 20:34

What a horrible court this must be to play on, like porridge. You must feel like you're punching a sandbag.

by Jahu Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 20:42

Fed wins, he looks tired and not settled on this court.

by lags72 Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 20:46

No. 176 plays No. 2 and takes eight games off him.

This young guy surely has a promising future - if he can put in the work and stay focused.

by biugo Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 20:52

Even more so: No.176 beats No.28 and No.16, then takes 8 games off No.2 (and defends 8 BP too - although Fed never had to face a BP)
At 20, promising future indeed (looking just at the stats, it seems he has a good 1st serve, but a below par 2nd - in this match at least)

by The Special Juan Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 20:52

Djokovic is either going to cream Monfils or get beaten. I don't think there's any middle ground with Gael but he's played very well here in the past...

by **laverfan** Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 20:53

It would be good for French Tennis to have Pouille in. Hopefully he is not another Gianni Mina.

by biugo Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 20:55

In the H2H, Djoko is 10-0 against Monfils, with last one in Toronto in 3 sets 6-2, 6-7, 7-6.
He should go through, but Monfils could always be a challenge...

by The Special Juan Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:02

Gael wins when he wants.

by lags72 Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:06

biugo wrote:In the H2H, Djoko is 10-0 against Monfils, with last one in Toronto in 3 sets 6-2, 6-7, 7-6.
He should go through, but Monfils could always be a challenge...

Their Bo3 matches have mostly been close. Of the six contested so far, all but one has gone the distance.

So .......if Gael can get off to a good start and Djoko is below par, it could be interesting ........

by The Special Juan Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:13

Obviously Gael doesn't want to win this one.

by Jahu Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:19

Come on Monfils, take a game!!

by The Special Juan Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:20

I think I'd struggle to find a court more suited to Djokovic on tour than this one. Hard, slow, low bounce...

by lags72 Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:27

Djoko well & truly back in his comfort zone once again. Progressing with minimal fuss, as in Beijing and then Shanghai (until he ran into Federer .....)

by The Special Juan Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:36

And just like that, Monfils pulls out a superb service game. It looks easy!

by **laverfan** Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:42

La Monf wants to win this by infinite slices. chin

by Guest Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:48

This court is like treacle.

by The Special Juan Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:50

This reminds me of Miami 2013. Murray should pull out.

by Guest Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:51

Another truly pathetic display from the brainless Monfils.

Djokovic not doing anything special but winning at a canter.

by Guest Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:53

Oh look Monfils has hurt himself after another brainless no hoping lunge.

by The Special Juan Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 21:57

Monfils doesn't get injured. Injuries get Monfils. He might be an utter waster but I'll take him any day over Gulbis, Fognini, Dimitrov etc.

by biugo Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 22:02

Good hold from Monfils after breaking back Djoko - stays in the game!

by The Special Juan Thu 30 Oct 2014 - 22:18

I bet Djokovic has never served worse.

by LuvSports! Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 0:47

Born Slippy wrote:Don't see Tsonga as under-achieving. He just isn't as good as the big 4. His backhand particularly is a weakness. Given his injury problems early in his career, he wasn't really in a position to challenge at the top until c. 2008. Yes he could have had a bit of luck like Stan but ultimately if, at best, you are the 5th best player of your generation it is in other players' hands whether you win a slam.

Please don't say Stan got lucky winning aus?!?

by **laverfan** Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 5:10

Born Slippy wrote:Yes he could have had a bit of luck like Stan but ultimately if, at best, you are the 5th best player of your generation it is in other players' hands whether you win a slam.

Can we say the same thing for Kuerten at #66 winning RG?

by Jahu Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 7:52

Come onnnn:

- Anderson
- Fed
- Murray
- Ninja

Hope they all win today.

by Born Slippy Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 8:04

laverfan wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:Yes he could have had a bit of luck like Stan but ultimately if, at best, you are the 5th best player of your generation it is in other players' hands whether you win a slam.

Can we say the same thing for Kuerten at #66 winning RG?

Kuerten was probably the best of his generation on clay as he went on to prove. A better example would be Johansson in 2002.

by Born Slippy Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 8:13

LuvSports! wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:Don't see Tsonga as under-achieving. He just isn't as good as the big 4. His backhand particularly is a weakness. Given his injury problems early in his career, he wasn't really in a position to challenge at the top until c. 2008. Yes he could have had a bit of luck like Stan but ultimately if, at best, you are the 5th best player of your generation it is in other players' hands whether you win a slam.

Please don't say Stan got lucky winning aus?!?

I would regard it as slightly fortunate to face an injured opponent in the final - especially when you have a 0-12 record against them. Stan played wonderfully well all tournament and there is a chance he would have won anyway but I don't think it can be denied there was an element of luck there. Had Djokovic been equally injured at Oz 08 then Jo would no doubt have won. He would have still played great during the tournament but would have also had a bit of luck.

by Born Slippy Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 8:17

Hard to see past wins for Fed, Novak and Tomas today. Ferrer v Kei is harder to call. Ferrer looks in very good form. However, given Kei has always been able to cause him problems I would give Nishikori the edge.

by sirfredperry Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 8:44

Interesting point made in the comment section at the foot of the ATPtour offical site. Guy writes about Djoko's form being a bit patchy at number one and the number two, in this case Federer, performing better.
This has often seemed the case when Rafa has been numero uno. His number two has usually been Djoko who has tended to shine more. This was particularly so in the early months of 2011 when Djkoko consistently beat Rafa, even on clay.
Earlier, of course, Rafa at two was often beating Rog at one. You sense Rafa, in particular, prefers to be the hunter rather than the hunted.

by HM Murdock Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 9:56

Sir Fred, it does seem that Djoko and Nadal perform better at #2. My feeling though, is that this is a statistical quirk rather than something psychological.

The difference in ability between Nadal and Djokovic is minimal. The player who reaches number 1 is the player who plays at his very best for longest.

Top form does not tend to last for years at a time though. I think therefore what we see with Djokovic and Nadal are runs of 6-9 months of very good form. The rankings tend to catch up toward the end of this period, and they reach number 1 just as that top form is starting subside.

So I don't see it as being uncomfortable at number 1, it's more that they can't sustain top form long enough to get to number 1 and stay there.

This is quite normal. If you look at the list of number 1 players, the overwhelming majority of "reigns" last less than a year. Federer, Connors, Lendl and Sampras very unusual in this regard.

by HM Murdock Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 10:10

I haven't been able to watch much tennis recently, so I'm only just catching up on Paris now.

I see that Djokovic again has ended up in the same quarter as Murray. This seems to have happened a lot in recent months, which is pretty tough on both players!

by Jahu Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 10:55

Agree, especially on Djoko, doing his first steps on nappy change and dosing gripe water Laugh

by sirfredperry Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 10:59

HMM. Re the length of the number one reigns. We could, just, see a very short at-the-top reign if Fed wins Paris and Djoko fails to make the final.
This would be the first time for ages that we've not had a "decent" spell at the top of at least 40 or 50 weeks (or in one of Fed's cases, about four years). Contrast this with the constant changes in some of the earlier years.

by HM Murdock Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 11:24

sirfredperry wrote:HMM. Re the length of the number one reigns. We could, just, see a very short at-the-top reign if Fed wins Paris and Djoko fails to make the final.
This would be the first time for ages that we've not had a "decent" spell at the top of at least 40 or 50 weeks (or in one of Fed's cases, about four years). Contrast this with the constant changes in some of the earlier years.

Yes, Fed and Djoko could be switching the top spot quite frequently over the coming months. Both have quite a lot of points to defend but both also have an event or two where there is scope to gain a lot more points.

by LuvSports! Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 11:29

Born Slippy wrote:
LuvSports! wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:Don't see Tsonga as under-achieving. He just isn't as good as the big 4. His backhand particularly is a weakness. Given his injury problems early in his career, he wasn't really in a position to challenge at the top until c. 2008. Yes he could have had a bit of luck like Stan but ultimately if, at best, you are the 5th best player of your generation it is in other players' hands whether you win a slam.

Please don't say Stan got lucky winning aus?!?

I would regard it as slightly fortunate to face an injured opponent in the final - especially when you have a 0-12 record against them. Stan played wonderfully well all tournament and there is a chance he would have won anyway but I don't think it can be denied there was an element of luck there. Had Djokovic been equally injured at Oz 08 then Jo would no doubt have won. He would have still played great during the tournament but would have also had a bit of luck.

SO before Nadal pulled up when it looked like there was no sign of injury (a set and a break) he was lucky?
Stan outplayed him and fully deserved the win.

by **laverfan** Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 11:34

Jahu wrote:Agree, especially on Djoko, doing his first steps on nappy change and dosing gripe water

He should apply for a job at the Federer household and will get double the practice with Leo and Lenny (or Lanny?).

by sirfredperry Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 11:37

[quote="HM Murdoch"]

sirfredperry wrote:HMM. Re the length of the number one reigns. We could, just, see a very short at-the-top reign if Fed wins Paris and Djoko fails to make the final.
This would be the first time for ages that we've not had a "decent" spell at the top of at least 40 or 50 weeks (or in one of Fed's cases, about four years). Contrast this with the constant changes in some of the earlier years.

Yes, Fed and Djoko could be switching the top spot quite frequently over the coming months. Both have quite a lot of points to defend but both also have an event or two where there is scope to gain a lot more points.[/quote

Strange that with three such top players that the number one lead has not changed around more often. You could make a case, given the current points distribution, for Murray to have a good crack at numero uno in 2015. Personally, I'd be happy just to see him back in the top four.

by Jahu Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 11:39

Hahahah, too much pride to be under a swiss roof, but I'm sure Djoko will be good at it, as he is a cute and caring guy.

by **laverfan** Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 11:40

Born Slippy wrote:I would regard it as slightly fortunate to face an injured opponent in the final - especially when you have a 0-12 record against them. Stan played wonderfully well all tournament and there is a chance he would have won anyway but I don't think it can be denied there was an element of luck there. Had Djokovic been equally injured at Oz 08 then Jo would no doubt have won. He would have still played great during the tournament but would have also had a bit of luck.

There is always an element of luck, even a Draw is a matter of luck. Noah, Edmondson, Korda all had element of luck. Federer v Wawrinka H2H, Federer v Ferrer, Federer v Cilic. H2Hs are past performances, are just an indicator of probability.

by It Must Be Love Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 11:50

luvsports! wrote:Stan outplayed him and fully deserved the win.

https://www.606v2.com/t55560-politically-correct-nonsense-while-talking-about-injuries

by Guest Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 11:54

laverfan wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:I would regard it as slightly fortunate to face an injured opponent in the final - especially when you have a 0-12 record against them. Stan played wonderfully well all tournament and there is a chance he would have won anyway but I don't think it can be denied there was an element of luck there. Had Djokovic been equally injured at Oz 08 then Jo would no doubt have won. He would have still played great during the tournament but would have also had a bit of luck.

There is always an element of luck, even a Draw is a matter of luck. Noah, Edmondson, Korda all had element of luck. Federer v Wawrinka H2H, Federer v Ferrer, Federer v Cilic. H2Hs are past performances, are just an indicator of probability.

I would say to an extent.

There are some players who literally were 'The Man' in every aspect, so for every Slam victory that Federer, Sampras, Borg, Graf, Williams, Navratilova and even players before that time on their best day had the beating of the rest of the field.

However, there are times when players have that window of opportunity. When draws pave way or even form elludes the best of the field. It happens. I would put that down to luck. Doesn't mean they haven't earned it, just that they have capitalised on that fortune.

With the very best the sport has seen, I think luck has played a smaller part in their succes IMO.

by It Must Be Love Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 12:07

legendkiller wrote:However, there are times when players have that window of opportunity. When draws pave way or even form elludes the best of the field. It happens. I would put that down to luck.

Now whether you put this down to 'luck' or not is another debate; but I think the broader implications of what you're saying are very interesting.

So you say it's easier for a player who's not a superstar but knocking on the door (someone like Tsonga, Berdych etc. I presume) to win a slam if either a) draws pave way or b) form eludes the best of the field.
Now let's say this does happen, and often the two points you raised are likely to happen simultaneously; and a player wins a slam. Now there's no doubt this player is the best player for the two weeks, do he 'deservedly' won the slam. But you're right in pointing out that the fact the All-Time-Greats were not on top form may have made it easier for them.
What happens if you don't even need the draw to pave way to ensure that you don't have to face any greats ? That you don't need any Greats to be on terrible form, because there aren't any in the draw in the first place ?

by lags72 Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 12:10

sirfredperry wrote:HMM. Re the length of the number one reigns. We could, just, see a very short at-the-top reign if Fed wins Paris and Djoko fails to make the final.
This would be the first time for ages that we've not had a "decent" spell at the top of at least 40 or 50 weeks (or in one of Fed's cases, about four years). Contrast this with the constant changes in some of the earlier years.

I chanced upon a little trivia snippet just recently but will be very impressed if anyone can crack this WITHOUT looking it up (be honest now .....) -

Which (male) player "enjoyed" the shortest reign as World Number One and exactly how long was it

by HM Murdock Fri 31 Oct 2014 - 12:10

It Must Be Love wrote:What happens if you don't even need the draw to pave way to ensure that you don't have to face any greats ? That you don't need any Greats to be on terrible form, because there aren't any in the draw in the first place ?

My "weak era" senses are tingling...

Sound the alarm!

by Sponsored content