Match Commentary Thread

[Born Slippy]

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).

[HM Murdock]

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

This feels like a trick question but I'll go with Pat Rafter.

There have been a few 1 week reigns but I believe Rafter is the only player for whom that one week was his only spell at number 1.

[It Must Be Love]

Sound the alarm!

Ha !
You can point to any specific occurrences if you want, I won't as I've debated the that period too many times and I feel people won't change their mind; but my analysis was simply a rational extension of what legendkiller was saying.

[lags72]

Not a trick question HMM, but you got it

[sirfredperry]

Yeah, but any time a Pat Rafter story emerges he can, quite legitimately, be described as former world number one. I don't think Tommy Haas had a great deal of time at number two but that highest position is often used in stories about him.

[laverfan]

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

Is it Rios? I do not recall the length of time. The other could be Rafter.

[Guest]

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 ?

Let me address your point....

Seriously you have to be very lucky to win a Slam without facing a single Slam winner on route. The only ones that spring to mind was Federer Wimbledon 2003. Hewitt Wimbledon 2002. Becker Wimbledon 1985. Gomez French Open 1990. Agassi Australian Open 2003. They are rare. Clearly 2002/2003 gives you an indication that there was some form of transition.

The bit in bold. Could you point out at any event that might have happened? Apart from the first ever Wimbledon in 1877?

[dummy_half]

Going back a few posts to HMM's comments about #1:

Good point about players holding a plateau of form for about half a season - if you look at this year, Djoko was really the best player only for the spell between Indian Wells / Miami and Wimbledon (4 MS titles, 1 slam and one losing slam final) while Fed has been in the better form from Wimbledon onwards.

As for Nadal, one of the reasons he get to then falls away from #1 is the physical stress that his game puts on his body, meaning he is often carrying some niggly injury by the time he reaches the top of the rankings. His lack of points for the secand half of this year means that he has little chance of getting back to #1 until probably the USO, even if he comes back strongly.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the #1 ranking for the first half of next year - other than the AO, Djokovic looks to have quite a lot more to defend than Federer until the middle of summer, so it looks like the AO will be critical for Djokovic holding on to the top spot. If Fed gets to #1, he's a good chance to hold it for a few months.

[Johnyjeep]

Was it Gary Player who said:

it's very strange..it seems the more I practice, the luckier I get!

I can possibly see how, in a tight match, someone has an element of luck/good fortune on a point that might go a little way to putting them in a winning position. But no one wins a tennis match over the course of 90 mins through "luck". The scoring system doesn't allow it. That just cannot happen.  

You definitely cannot win a tournament through luck. Luck is something unexpected that you didn't plan for. A net cord. It coming off your frame and landing in court on the baseline. The draw is not lucky or unlucky. It is what it is. An arch rival being knocked out early isn't lucky. They just weren't good enough for what ever reason.

You can't say someone being in the draw or not being in the draw is lucky. Because you don't know what the result would have been had said person been in the draw. How they would have played, would they have played each other, would both have been playing well. To have "luck" you need an end result. And you don't have one by postulating what might have happened if another set of events had occurred.

So, for example (and I pick this as an example because he is currently injured), I would say Nadal is unlucky because of his appendicitis. Didn't plan for it..it has happened. But everyone who wins a tournament in his absence, has not won because they are lucky. For, what I hope are obvious reasons, in that we have no way of knowing who he would have played, how he would have played and how he was feeling. The draw would have changed completely as well. With completely different match-ups. We would, again, have to delve into our hypothetical world.

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!

I know what happens - I think everyone does. What happens is the best player over the course of 7 matches wins. That was usually good enough for everyone!

But now of course we have to grade and categorise each title according to subjective matters (that are often unknown and not quantifiable) that, funnily enough, suit another agenda.

[Guest]

You definitely cannot win a tournament through luck.

So Mauresmo winning the AO 2006 with Henin retiring through injury in the final is not luck?

[Johnyjeep]

Not unless she just appeared in the final without having played a single round before hand?

I'm sure there were another 126 ladies who would have liked to have been in her shoes that day. But they weren't good enough.

[Guest]

[lags72]

I think you might be doing Mauresmo something of an injustice there lk, because the implication of calling it 'luck' is that she would not have otherwise won. There is no reason to think that Mauresmo would not have beat a fully fit Henin anyway - as evidenced by the fact that Mauresmo did exactly that later the same year to take her second Slam at Wimbledon.

That said, the AO 2006 was very unusual in that Kim Klijsters had also retired v Mauresmo in a previous round. But for me it's the case of the exception proving the rule. And in fairness Mauresmo had started strongly in both matches to take the lead at the point of retirement.

Personally I don't believe any Slam wins are ever 'lucky' - but that's not to say for some Slam titles, players may find themselves having to dig deeper than for others.

[sirfredperry]

I think luck probably plays a smaller part in tennis than in some other sports. In soccer, you can be all over another side, hitting posts, bar, having shots brilliantly saved, and then the other lot sneak away and score with their only shot of the match. Believe me, I've seen games like that.
 Take cricket. Last summer England captain Alastair Cook was having a terrible time of it. At Southampton with England already one down in the series against India he's dropped on 15, ends up making 95 and getting 70 not out in the second innings, England win and then take the next two Tests as well and all is hunky dory.
  In snooker, you can make a fabulous pot only to watch as the cue ball goes in off.
     OK, there are some net cords in tennis but it's probably less chancy than some sports.

[sirfredperry]

Berdych might have to sweat it out a bit longer. He's just dropped the first set on a tiebreak to Anderson.

[Jahu]

Come on Kevin, keep it up.

[Guest]

I

think you might be doing Mauresmo something of an injustice there lk, because the implication of calling it 'luck' is that she would not have otherwise won. There is no reason to think that Mauresmo would not have beat a fully fit Henin anyway - as evidenced by the fact that Mauresmo did exactly that later the same year to take her second Slam at Wimbledon.

That said, the AO 2006 was very unusual in that Kim Klijsters had also retired v Mauresmo in a previous round. But for me it's the case of the exception proving the rule. And in fairness Mauresmo had started strongly in both matches to take the lead at the point of retirement.

Personally I don't believe any Slam wins are ever 'lucky' - but that's not to say for some Slam titles, players may find themselves having to dig deeper than for others.

Sorry lags.

Winning a match due to your opponent getting injured is luck. An event out of your control and the outcome of that is to your benefit is luck.

No 2 ways about it.

[DirectView2]

I really wish Murray could stop the Djoker today.

[Johnyjeep]

I

think you might be doing Mauresmo something of an injustice there lk, because the implication of calling it 'luck' is that she would not have otherwise won. There is no reason to think that Mauresmo would not have beat a fully fit Henin anyway - as evidenced by the fact that Mauresmo did exactly that later the same year to take her second Slam at Wimbledon.

That said, the AO 2006 was very unusual in that Kim Klijsters had also retired v Mauresmo in a previous round. But for me it's the case of the exception proving the rule. And in fairness Mauresmo had started strongly in both matches to take the lead at the point of retirement.

Personally I don't believe any Slam wins are ever 'lucky' - but that's not to say for some Slam titles, players may find themselves having to dig deeper than for others.

Sorry lags.

Winning a match due to your opponent getting injured is luck. An event out of your control and the outcome of that is to your benefit is luck.

No 2 ways about it.

Except there is. Because she may have won. Because you simply do not know what the outcome would have been.

And she did not just 'appear' in that match. She earned the right to be there. Without any luck. Was it luck she was one of the two best players there?

I count myself very unlucky each week I don't win the lottery tbh. Don't buy a ticket mind. But hey, I'm still unlucky.

[lags72]

Directview : That's a big ask, and I just feel his recent exertions might take their toll today.

Andy has done fantastically well to secure his London spot. A few weeks back it was looking no more than a 50/50 chance, but he has stepped up to the plate and done it the hard way. All credit for that, but Djokovic this afternoon might just be a bridge too far......

[DirectView2]

Personally I don't believe any Slam wins are ever 'lucky' - but that's not to say for some Slam titles, players may find themselves having to dig deeper than for others.

To be very honest every slam winner has rode his luck to the title, how many times Rafa has survived from 2 sets down on the brink of elimination early and a point here and there helps him save a break point and end up winning the match and the tournament?

When Rafa does it, we either say the opponent choked it or we say Rafa is mentally strong, however once could see the case, I would say Rafa had is luck to get a situation on his favor, I would say in that case Rafa the most luckiest of all multi-slam winners to notch these many slams and could have easily lost 80% of his slams had he been a bit unlucky. I can start from FO '06 , Wim '08 , FO '11 , FO '12 , FO ' 13 etc,.. outside that other FO's and Wimbledons where he had slice of luck in the earlier rounds as well.

On the other hand was a bit unlucky on AO '12.

Same thing can be said of Fed being lucky in USO ' 07, Wim '07 , Wim ' 12 and some more, but I would say he was equally unlucky on AO'05 , FO '06 , USO '09 , Wim ' 08, Wim '14 and some WTF's .

The list in a similar way can be extended for Djoko, Murray, Sampras etc,..

The fact is every champ needs a bit of luck, but nobody can win a slam just coz of luck, Stan had his share of luck on AO '14 but he was certainly the man of that tournament and deserved to win it and rightfully won it, noways Rafa deserved AO '14 and hence he didn't get it.

On Rafa's injury and nonsense, every player gets injured, with respect to Rafa his attrition game means he should have retired a long time back but lucky enough due to medical advancements still a part of ATP tour at the highest levels.

I would rather say Rafa is more lucky to win 14 slams than Stan winning that 1 elusive slam.

[DirectView2]

Directview : That's a big ask, and I just feel his recent exertions might take their toll today.

Andy has done fantastically well to secure his London spot. A few weeks back it was looking no more than a 50/50 chance, but he has stepped up to the plate and done it the hard way. All credit for that, but Djokovic this afternoon might just be a bridge too far......

But lets put this luck factor has been with Djoko all this year I certainly see that change, and Andy who had a rough year at the start in terms of luck might finally get some and out last and out class Nole is my prediction.

[Guest]

I

think you might be doing Mauresmo something of an injustice there lk, because the implication of calling it 'luck' is that she would not have otherwise won. There is no reason to think that Mauresmo would not have beat a fully fit Henin anyway - as evidenced by the fact that Mauresmo did exactly that later the same year to take her second Slam at Wimbledon.

That said, the AO 2006 was very unusual in that Kim Klijsters had also retired v Mauresmo in a previous round. But for me it's the case of the exception proving the rule. And in fairness Mauresmo had started strongly in both matches to take the lead at the point of retirement.

Personally I don't believe any Slam wins are ever 'lucky' - but that's not to say for some Slam titles, players may find themselves having to dig deeper than for others.

Sorry lags.

Winning a match due to your opponent getting injured is luck. An event out of your control and the outcome of that is to your benefit is luck.

No 2 ways about it.

Except there is. Because she may have won. Because you simply do not know what the outcome would have been.

And she did not just 'appear' in that match. She earned the right to be there. Without any luck. Was it luck she was one of the two best players there?

I count myself very unlucky each week I don't win the lottery tbh. Don't buy a ticket mind. But hey, I'm still unlucky.    

You are talking probabilities.

Henin didn't finish the match due to injury. Wasn't given the chance. It would be harsh to say she was not unlucky.

Mauresmo didn't win in 2 sets. Simples. The health of her opponent is not in her control

[lags72]

Make sure you've got your tin hat ready DirectView2. (12.41am post)

A plethora of large missiles coming your way methinks from IMBL

[HM Murdock]

But lets put this luck factor has been with Djoko all this year  

Luck? I've been watching Novak for while now and I can't remember such a sequence of tough draws as I've seen this year.

[Johnyjeep]

I

think you might be doing Mauresmo something of an injustice there lk, because the implication of calling it 'luck' is that she would not have otherwise won. There is no reason to think that Mauresmo would not have beat a fully fit Henin anyway - as evidenced by the fact that Mauresmo did exactly that later the same year to take her second Slam at Wimbledon.

That said, the AO 2006 was very unusual in that Kim Klijsters had also retired v Mauresmo in a previous round. But for me it's the case of the exception proving the rule. And in fairness Mauresmo had started strongly in both matches to take the lead at the point of retirement.

Personally I don't believe any Slam wins are ever 'lucky' - but that's not to say for some Slam titles, players may find themselves having to dig deeper than for others.

Sorry lags.

Winning a match due to your opponent getting injured is luck. An event out of your control and the outcome of that is to your benefit is luck.

No 2 ways about it.

Except there is. Because she may have won. Because you simply do not know what the outcome would have been.

And she did not just 'appear' in that match. She earned the right to be there. Without any luck. Was it luck she was one of the two best players there?

I count myself very unlucky each week I don't win the lottery tbh. Don't buy a ticket mind. But hey, I'm still unlucky.    

You are talking probabilities.

Henin didn't finish the match due to injury. Wasn't given the chance. It would be harsh to say she was not unlucky.

Mauresmo didn't win in 2 sets. Simples. The health of her opponent is not in her control

LKv2 - I agree with you on Henin. But one player being unlucky doesn't mean the other player was lucky. We know Henin was unlucky because this actually happened. We cannot say Mauresmo was lucky because we don't know she wouldn't have won anyway. We are assuming a change of result (she won when she would have lost) based on something that has not happened (a finished match).

You could argue that Mauresmo was unlucky because now people are saying she was lucky to win, when she would have won in the first place!  That too involves speculating on the outcome of events that did not happen.

I do take the points you and  DV are making and they are interesting. I just think that to be lucky implies an element of undeserving. Which I don't think any winners are. Because you still have to take advantage of any opponents lapses when they arrive. Those lapses maybe weaknesses linked to talent, physicality or mental aberrations. Either way, the player who wins, is always deserved.

[Guest]

I

think you might be doing Mauresmo something of an injustice there lk, because the implication of calling it 'luck' is that she would not have otherwise won. There is no reason to think that Mauresmo would not have beat a fully fit Henin anyway - as evidenced by the fact that Mauresmo did exactly that later the same year to take her second Slam at Wimbledon.

That said, the AO 2006 was very unusual in that Kim Klijsters had also retired v Mauresmo in a previous round. But for me it's the case of the exception proving the rule. And in fairness Mauresmo had started strongly in both matches to take the lead at the point of retirement.

Personally I don't believe any Slam wins are ever 'lucky' - but that's not to say for some Slam titles, players may find themselves having to dig deeper than for others.

Sorry lags.

Winning a match due to your opponent getting injured is luck. An event out of your control and the outcome of that is to your benefit is luck.

No 2 ways about it.

Except there is. Because she may have won. Because you simply do not know what the outcome would have been.

And she did not just 'appear' in that match. She earned the right to be there. Without any luck. Was it luck she was one of the two best players there?

I count myself very unlucky each week I don't win the lottery tbh. Don't buy a ticket mind. But hey, I'm still unlucky.    

You are talking probabilities.

Henin didn't finish the match due to injury. Wasn't given the chance. It would be harsh to say she was not unlucky.

Mauresmo didn't win in 2 sets. Simples. The health of her opponent is not in her control

LKv2 - I agree with you on Henin. But one player being unlucky doesn't mean the other player was lucky. We know Henin was unlucky because this actually happened. We cannot say Mauresmo was lucky because we don't know she wouldn't have won anyway. We are assuming a change of result (she won when she would have lost) based on something that has not happened (a finished match).

You could argue that Mauresmo was unlucky because now people are saying she was lucky to win, when she would have won in the first place!  That too involves speculating on the outcome of events that did not happen.

I do take the points you and  DV are making and they are interesting. I just think that to be lucky implies an element of undeserving. Which I don't think any winners are. Because you still have to take advantage of any opponents lapses when they arrive. Those lapses maybe weaknesses linked to talent, physicality or mental aberrations. Either way, the player who wins, is always deserved.

It is still luck JJ. Henin due to injury could not play. Injury is unlucky, so a player that benefits from that is lucky. There is no other term I would use that suggests otherwise. Yes Mauresmo could've won even if Henin was fit, but that is probability. Not luck. Draws to me are luck because the players are picked at random to face each other. Not pre-ordained (though some cynics might argue otherwise )

Like I stated in an earlier post, luck to me doesn't lessen the gloss on any player success. It has how you use that luck and make the best of the situation. Nothing undeserving about it.

[HM Murdock]

I just think that to be lucky implies an element of undeserving.

It's always presented as such, but I don't believe it is.

Let's say a player gets a netcord. Or shanks a shot off the frame that drops in perfectly. Most people would be happy to say that they got a bit of luck there because something outside of the players control has worked in their favour.

Those instances are a fleeting moment that affect a single point.

Yet when an opponent goes lame, which affects dozens of points, it's somehow seen as bad form to say this a player getting some luck. Why? It's the same thing: something outside of their control has swung the match in a player's favour.

I largely agree with the point raised by IMBL on another thread. If a player or an observer mentions an injury affecting the course of a match, there are a lot of people who get annoyed because this is interpreted as meaning the player only won because their opponent was injured.

It doesn't mean that.

And while I'm not generally keen to get bogged down in semantics, this response has rendered it impossible to objectively discuss the course of a match and how the result was reached.

Stan, for example, got a HUGE dose of luck in that Australian final. Does that mean he is an undeserving winner? No. Does that mean that he would not have won if Rafa were fully fit? No.

I don't like the kind of thought crime creeping in where it is impossible to talk about injury.

(I'm not suggesting you are imposing that, JJ, it's just an observation on discussion in general)

[Johnyjeep]

I guess we just see it differently LK2!! No harm no foul!

[Johnyjeep]

No problems HMM,

I have no problems with people using the phrase lucky to explain away certain brief moments of the match as you say. And if people used the term only in that way, then fine.

But I guess it just comes from personal experience from playing lots of sports and hearing the comment at the end of the game - oh you/they were lucky (not always directed at me!!) It is always meant in a derogatory manner.

For example, I've played in cricket games before where our last man has been dropped on the last ball of the innings and the other team will come off saying we were lucky. Erm, your bloke dropped the catch mate. Not my fault he wasn't good enough. Just pipe down.

And I guess, so is the case in tennis. If you've lost, take your medicine and move on. Don't refer to moments of luck your opponent may or may not have had. Because I've no doubt they don't see it like that. You use the Nadal Stan AO Final match as an example. Stan was winning hands down until Nadal injury became visibly noticeable to the rest of us. I'd say Stan was also unlucky as now fans will say he had a huge slice of luck in that match. And to take it to the extreme, people will say it affected the outcome in his favour. Which I think is unfair and undeserved to him.

[HM Murdock]

Stan was winning hands down until Nadal injury became visibly noticeable to the rest of us. I'd say Stan was also unlucky as now fans will say he had a huge slice of luck in that match.  

Yes, I agree totally on this. Prior to Rafa's injury, Stan was all over him. It's not as if Rafa's injury changed the momentum of the match. All it did was eliminate any chance of him staging a comeback. Now Stan has a caveat added to his greatest achievement in the eyes of many.

And you're also right, "luck" is a freqent cop out excuse. I think football is particularly bad for this.

The thing that has irritated me recently in tennis is the way that players are visibly reluctant to discuss how injury may have affected a match. They know that if they even hint that they were impaired, then there will headlines saying how they are making exuses or saying the opponent was unworthy. Personally, I'd like to hear how a player felt during a match.

[Johnyjeep]

This discussion puts me in mind of the opening scenes from Pulp Fiction and the discussion around foot massages!

When we justify something by thinking/saying something else. On the face of it, foot massage means nowt. But in reality - we know what they mean.

On the face of it just saying someone is lucky at certain points doesn't mean they are undeserved but we're managing to get across (or sow the seeds of doubt) that you were stuffy.

[lags72]

On matters more current ..... can't believe Raonic is about to be involved in a tie-break. I mean .....it's just so unusual. Almost unheard of in fact.

More seriously ...... Federer really needs this first set, because with (at least) one more TB very likely, the match can so easily turn into something of a lottery.

[Johnyjeep]

Stan was winning hands down until Nadal injury became visibly noticeable to the rest of us. I'd say Stan was also unlucky as now fans will say he had a huge slice of luck in that match.  

Yes, I agree totally on this. Prior to Rafa's injury, Stan was all over him. It's not as if Rafa's injury changed the momentum of the match. All it did was eliminate any chance of him staging a comeback. Now Stan has a caveat added to his greatest achievement in the eyes of many.

And you're also right, "luck" is a freqent cop out excuse. I think football is particularly bad for this.

The thing that has irritated me recently in tennis is the way that players are visibly reluctant to discuss how injury may have affected a match. They know that if they even hint that they were impaired, then there will headlines saying how they are making exuses or saying the opponent was unworthy. Personally, I'd like to hear how a player felt during a match.

Couldn't agree more with all of this tbh. I do understand that players are put under almost unbearable pressure to discuss any ailments (or anything for that matter) after they've lost.

This season at cricket, I was bowled for the last wicket needing only 6 runs to win. We should have won hands down. Never the less, it was crystal clear that was no one was to approach me upon fear of being impaled by my cricket bat. This was at a level that is only one step up from beach cricket quite frankly. The point being, I couldn't imagine having to try and speak to the media after losing a major international sporting event and being grilled about my performance.

[lags72]

Big trouble at mill for Fed. First defeat by Raonic very much on the cards !

[Mad for Chelsea]

hello! Raonic has nicked the first set against Federer (rather predictably on a TB). Usual impeccable behaviour from the Paris crowd, cheering when Raonic misses a first serve

[Jahu]

Can Raonic still go to London?

If yes, I dont mind him winning...

[kingraf]

Has there ever been a rivalry more one sided between players who really shouldn't be meeting this often than Anderson-Berdych?

[laverfan]

Can Raonic still go to London?

If yes, I dont mind him winning...

Yes, if he wins Paris, and Nishikori will be out then.

PS: Ferrer can also qualify, as can Nishikori, due to Nadal's withdrawal.

[dummy_half]

Can Raonic still go to London?

If yes, I dont mind him winning...

I think he just needs to go a round further than Ferrer to qualify (thers's something like 25 points difference between them in the race) - probably a few other permutations which could potentially see him qualify at the expense of Nishi or Berd-brain, but these are less likely as they progress through the tournament. The more convoluted situations discussed earlier in the week were the scenarios where Murray would have failed to make it, so needed Raonic to win and others to also pick up big points.

[Mad for Chelsea]

re London. Berdych's win earlier guarantees his place. Raonic goes if he wins at least one match more than Ferrer.

[temporary21]

You definitely cannot win a tournament through luck.

So Mauresmo winning the AO 2006 with Henin retiring through injury in the final is not luck?

She had reached the final, and was already a set up in the final. Henin was thoroughly derided for taking away from Amelies victory for that if I recall

[LuvSports!]

Raonic caused Feds a fair amount of trouble in their meetings back in '12 at IW, Madrid and Halle all going to 3 sets.

[temporary21]

Couple of things.
Statistially, the larger a sample size of results, the less luck will come into play with it. People dont, for example luckily in 14 slams, or 17 slams etc. Someone may have some fortune in winning one slam with a draw or a match, but youre still talking about winning 7 matches.

Rafas injury was unfortunate, it happened at a critical juncture, middle of the second set, and he was down. The injury essentially ensured that Stans well deserved initial momentum was enough. More than that, in the Quarters, he beat the 4 times champ 9-7 in the fifth. I think he was a deserved champ in the end.

[lags72]

18 aces & counting for Raonic. Not exactly gripping stuff.

59 points v 60 thus far ....but with one set already in the bag, the odds are now firmly in his favour. Just needs to nick a mini break in the next TB, and he takes the match.

[temporary21]

Its gonna be weird in the DC final, with the French not on Feds side for once.

[It Must Be Love]

LKv2 - I agree with you on Henin. But one player being unlucky doesn't mean the other player was lucky. We know Henin was unlucky because this actually happened. We cannot say Mauresmo was lucky because we don't know she wouldn't have won anyway. We are assuming a change of result (she won when she would have lost) based on something that has not happened (a finished match).

This strikes me as pretty illogical.
Firstly if we have two players up against each other, and one player has an element of good fortune (i.e. gets a lucky netchord, opponent trips over a banana skin and happens to break his ankle); then that will almost certainly mean the opponent has had some bad luck. There are a few exceptions (i.e. if one player self inflicts on himself)..but this is quite rare

Also you say 'we cannot say Mauresmo was lucky because we don't know she wouldn't have won anyway'.
This doesn't make any sense at all if you think about. It's very possible Mauresmo had good fortune and was lucky, AND may have won the match regardless. She also may have lost the match if Henin wasn't injured.

[Mad for Chelsea]

hello hello! Raonic breaks from nowhere! Federer with a couple of loose errors, Raonic finds a great return, and when Roger's into the net Raonic produces a lovely CC BH pass, he'll serve for the match next, having staved off BP in the previous game.

If there's one area of Federer's game which has been poor this year, it's BP conversion...

[lags72]

Fed about to exit Paris stage left .......

[Jahu]

Holy swiss chocolate, Raonic serving for the match.

[It Must Be Love]

Rafas injury was unfortunate, it happened at a critical juncture, middle of the second set, and he was down.

He actually said his back strained during the warm-up, and it got gradually worse; before becoming suddenly a lot worse in the second set.
I could tell during the first set he was not moving like he was against Federer in the semi, and then midway through the second set it started to dramatically deteriorate and his average serve was well below 100mph for the rest of the match, and he was really struggling.
Wawrinka deserved the win though no doubt, he was the better player on the day clearly; and all in all I see it as a pretty impressive Grand Slam victory considering he had to face an All Time Great in Djokovic in the quarter finals.

[Sponsored content]