Cincinnati Masters

by YvonneT Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:49 pm

First topic message reminder :

Full draw: http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2015/422/mds.pdf

by bogbrush Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:10 am

lags72 wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:Back home and the final is settled then.

Congrats Novak for completing a Masters Set.

I like to think you're normally a rational, balanced poster lk, so it's only fair to offer you the opportunity to explain this one from earlier in the day ....!!!

I'm sure you don't want to go down in 606 folklore in the same way as that guy (name escapes me ....many years back re a USO match...) who gained such notoriety for his premature speculation post ....

For the record, it was Dr_Sincere

by temporary21 Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:33 am

thats a good win, but Murray and Novaks exertions the last 2 weeks are worthy of a footnote.
It will be much harder to dislodge them in the big one.
Also please ignore the wums gents, If you talk to them, they come back, and we dont want them back.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:46 am

temporary21 wrote:thats a good win, but Murray and Novaks exertions the last 2 weeks are worthy of a footnote.

Do you mean like an asterisk?
Every match has a footnote of some sort - why try to devalue the winning achievement of any player?

by Jahu Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:47 am

WUM's are good if anti-DJoko Laugh

Village of Monte Carlo will have 3 days of mourning for their illegal Prince.

Fed to take USO and WTF!!

Well done to Djoko for not calling an MTO today, guess he knew that would not be a smart bait today.

by lags72 Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:49 am

Ah yes, of course our friend Dr_Sincere.

Credit to lk for coming back

...... although i must say I was rather surprised to see him posting just ahead of this Cincy Final as though Djoko was about to meet some 120th-ranked guy who had enjoyed a spectacular run of luck by somehow winning four rounds on the back of a wildcard - but who would now be dismantled with ease .....!!

Looking at the wider picture ......Djokovic has been having a superb season. Two Slams, along with four MS in a row, speaks for itself. But I wonder whether things might be catching up with him. Two big consecutive Finals now lost, and if he were to have a disappointing USO (I stress IF) then he would certainly begin to look vulnerable again rather than dominant.

But like I said ......it will be a fine season for him whatever happens from hereon in.

by lags72 Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:51 am

temporary21 wrote:thats a good win, but Murray and Novaks exertions the last 2 weeks are worthy of a footnote.
It will be much harder to dislodge them in the big one.
Also please ignore the wums gents, If you talk to them, they come back, and we dont want them back.

Make sure you don't give too much credit to the title winner, temp ......

by Jahu Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:55 am

Smart move by Fed to skip Toronto.

These 2 Masters will cost physically a lot at USO to both Andy and Djoko.

by Jahu Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:57 am

temp should be demoted 1 week for tainting Feds win tonight with footnotes and *. laughing

by LuvSports! Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:05 am

All in favour say: "NIIIIT!"

by summerblues Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:10 am

temporary21 wrote:thats a good win, but Murray and Novaks exertions the last 2 weeks are worthy of a footnote.

by Born Slippy Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:12 am

lags72 wrote:Ah yes, of course our friend Dr_Sincere.

Credit to lk for coming back ...... although i must say I was rather surprised to see him posting just ahead of this Cincy Final as though Djoko was about to meet some 120th-ranked guy who had enjoyed a spectacular run of luck by somehow winning four rounds on the back of a wildcard - but who would now be dismantled with ease .....!!

Looking at the wider picture ......Djokovic has been having a superb season. Two Slams, along with four MS in a row, speaks for itself. But I wonder whether things might be catching up with him. Two big consecutive Finals now lost, and if he were to have a disappointing USO (I stress IF) then he would certainly begin to look vulnerable again rather than dominant.

But like I said ......it will be a fine season for him whatever happens from hereon in.

LK is a big Federer fan isn't he? Pretty sure he was just jinxing.

Great win for Fed. Didn't see the final but very similar serving stats to the Murray match. Does emphasis the dominance of the top 3 that only Fed can beat Murray and Novak even after their exertions last week.

by Jahu Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:15 am

Where are Djoko fans to congratulate Fed fans the way they get congrats from Fed fans when Djoko wins?

Selfish.

(obviously i'm not talking about me here Laugh

)

by Jermaine2015 Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:21 am

lags72 wrote:
Jermaine2015 wrote:Always nice to see Djokovic getting humped. Mentally he's always likely to crumble[/quote]

Hmm....

Would that explain how he made it to World No.1 - AND has stayed there for so long ......?

Not exactly the hardest to figure this out. Federer is now an old man and can't play his best all year round. Nadal is a walking injury and Murray was also injured.

Djokovic is number 1 due to being the last man standing. No more than that.

by hawkeye Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:24 am

The commentators kept talking about how tired Djokovic and Murray were. Interesting...

Back in the day Masters finals were over 5 sets and there were no byes for top ranked players. So why so much talk of fatigue now? Are players not as fit? We are always told that Djokovic and Murray are amongst the fittest. So why are they so tired playing two sets of tennis?

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:35 am

It's the nature of modern tennis - at least the style that they play - it takes more out of you. But so what? They chose to play that schedule - and I'm sure they gave it careful consideration. Winning it not just about what happens on the court - it's about making the right decisions off the court as well.
Otherwise perhaps Djoko & Murray should be 'footnoted' last week - because Federer wasn't there to beat them.

by Jahu Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:45 am

JHM lend me some of your humor.

by lags72 Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:46 am

Well you will always tend to hear more talk of exertions and fatigue from armchair observers and pundits than the players themselves - least of all the very, very best players.

I had a wry smile in thinking back to Jimmy Connors, who stepped on the court with a determination to win every match he ever played, and simply couldn't abide the prospect of losing. The very notion of him saying "well ....the thing is ..... I was tired ...." when questioned about a defeat is laughable. The word would not only never touch his lips in public ; I very much doubt he ever allowed himself any such excuse or 'footnote' in his private moments either. Winning was all that mattered to Jimbo, it was part of his DNA.

by Guest Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:55 am

Born Slippy wrote:
lags72 wrote:Ah yes, of course our friend Dr_Sincere.

Credit to lk for coming back ...... although i must say I was rather surprised to see him posting just ahead of this Cincy Final as though Djoko was about to meet some 120th-ranked guy who had enjoyed a spectacular run of luck by somehow winning four rounds on the back of a wildcard - but who would now be dismantled with ease .....!!

Looking at the wider picture ......Djokovic has been having a superb season. Two Slams, along with four MS in a row, speaks for itself. But I wonder whether things might be catching up with him. Two big consecutive Finals now lost, and if he were to have a disappointing USO (I stress IF) then he would certainly begin to look vulnerable again rather than dominant.

But like I said ......it will be a fine season for him whatever happens from hereon in.

LK is a big Federer fan isn't he? Pretty sure he was just jinxing.

Great win for Fed. Didn't see the final but very similar serving stats to the Murray match. Does emphasis the dominance of the top 3 that only Fed can beat Murray and Novak even after their exertions last week.

A big Federer fan??

If only I could reach through and smite you for such blasphemy!

It's more a case with Federer that how many times has he set up a tournament win just to fall short.

I didn't want to get drawn in with the nostalgia of greatness gone by and I thought I'd pull the trigger early on this one. Wink

by Calder106 Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:01 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's the nature of modern tennis - at least the style that they play - it takes more out of you. But so what? They chose to play that schedule - and I'm sure they gave it careful consideration. Winning it not just about what happens on the court - it's about making the right decisions off the court as well.
Otherwise perhaps Djoko & Murray should be 'footnoted' last week - because Federer wasn't there to beat them.

Don't they have to play in the Masters 1000 tournaments unless they gain exemptions, which Federer has. So I don't think that is a valid point. They obviously still gave the tournament the respect it deserved by fighting back from losing positions in earlier rounds when it would have been easy just to let the match go. Djokovic had nothing,apart from the title, to gain as he was going to be number 1 anyway. Murray had to look to defend the number 2 slot so had a bit more to play for.

Well done to Federer. He deserved the win plus the fact I had a small wager on him to win after round 2.

by kingraf Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:09 am

Didn't watch, but Djokovic lost, which is enough for me.

by lags72 Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:48 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:

..........................................................

It's more a case with Federer that how many times has he set up a tournament win just to fall short.

I guess we all fall short in life to one extent or another.

You must be a hard man to please lk ! Shocked

Nobody can win 'em all.

But hey .... the 87 that he has managed isn't too shabby a number is it .....? !

by Born Slippy Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:03 am

hawkeye wrote:The commentators kept talking about how tired Djokovic and Murray were. Interesting...

Back in the day Masters finals were over 5 sets and there were no byes for top ranked players. So why so much talk of fatigue now? Are players not as fit? We are always told that Djokovic and Murray are amongst the fittest. So why are they so tired playing two sets of tennis?

How far back are we talking? Canada hasn't been bo5 since the 70s and I suspect Cincy is similar. Isn't the issue that they played every day from wednesday to sunday, travelled to Cincy presumably on the Monday and then played each day for the rest of the week. That's a tough schedule and I'm sure they would both have preferred to skip this week.

by temporary21 Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:12 am

Its worthy of note from an analysis standpoint, before the usual suspects go crazy for not talking about just Roger...

by temporary21 Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:18 am

and No Julius... Its not an asterisk, hence why I didnt mention an asterisk...
An asterisk would imply it wasnt a deserved victory, which it was, I presume, since I missed the match by several hours.

In the wider context of the hc season though, the exertions of the other two the week before are something to consider for the USO, it was certainly given consideration to Federer in the Wimby final...

I havent seen the match so I can only give a customary well done, if you dont think im fawning enough over Rogers win... well you'll have to get over it, hes in good touch, should be good for the USO, but his 5 set stamina still really worries me.

by temporary21 Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:21 am

Next time you all dont like the idea of a "footnote", remember that when excuses are given for A Novak win, or a Federer loss or Nadal winning because his opponent played badly or whatever. This treading on eggshells has gone too far to be quite frank.

by TRuffin Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:34 am

summerblues wrote:
bogbrush wrote:I think he won Cincy a few years ago without dropping serve - not sure if anyone else has done this (guessing - anyone know?).
I do not know for sure but I seem to remember that when he did it last time they were saying it was the first time it was ever done (or, at least since they keep the records).

On a relative basis, this one must be more impressive as he is a few years older.

The Cincinnati won a few years ago where he beat djoko 6-0 in 1st set was the 1st time a player had ever won a masters 1000 without being broken at least once. He just matched that today.

With the other thread about why the fed/Murray h2h was/is what it was/is and talk of fed/djoko h2h- this match really should put into perspective how surface conditions are such a massive factor. Take a look at fed h2h against those two at Miami/Indian wells (as slow as hard can be) and then look at his h2h against them at Dubai/Cincinnati(quick and low bouncing). It's utterly remarkable (Cahill talked a lot about it today) how fed has adapted to the tour leaning towards conditions that he didn't grow up in and his style of play is not rewarded as much. Adding to this the changes he had added in recent years as he has aged are of the highest degree of difficulty. Even this new half volley 2nd serve wrinkle he unveiled requires an absurd level of talent and skill.

He's won so much but it really would be a shame if he doesn't add another major because what he has done to remain relevant and the fact that he can remain relevant is truly remarkable and only enhances his status. Unfortunately a major is what would drive that home to casual observers and anti Feds.

U.S. Open will be a complety different animal thoug. It must be aggravating as hell to him that they changed Ashe stadium from a mirror of cinci conditions to a much slower, grittier service. Cahill and federer at his ESPN counter interview after the final also talked about the balls being completely different as well. Both said the penn balls there were faster through the air and took slice better vs the Wilsons at the U.S. Open. Federer was pretty straight forward that the U.S. Open has become a more difficult surface for the style he likes to play. Still- a little draw luck and he is in with a chance.

Fantastic win for fed. I was actually surprised as his emotion winning it. Of all the tournaments I have seen him win, never has he climbed into the box and celebrated like that. Maybe it was beating Novak or the girls being there at this age, but he really seemed to be extra excited and emotional.

On to the open!

by summerblues Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:10 am

Yes, USO will be harder no doubt. Federer himself has been downplaying his chances this summer from what I had seen - he seems to be talking about reaching the final as his target (whereas for Wimbledon he was saying he was aiming for the title).

by lags72 Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:25 am

temporary21 wrote:

...........................................

I havent seen the match so I can only give a customary well done, if you dont think im fawning enough over Rogers win... well you'll have to get over it, hes in good touch, should be good for the USO, but his 5 set stamina still really worries me.

I wouldn't waste your time worrying about it too much, temporary. I doubt Federer himself worries that much about it ; and even if he does, it's unlikely to do you any good anyway.

But if Federer's stamina really does worry you, then there's gonna be a lot more worrying for you to do further down the line as regards the 5 set stamina of other players as they eventually approach their mid-thirties. Not least, the stamina of those players who you believe are already reeling from the exertions of 3 set matches.

I think it would be better to leave any worrying to the people who you enigmatically describe as "the usual suspects" - whoever they may be ..... chin

by summerblues Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:40 pm

Djokovic and Andy are 28, Federer 34, and yet nobody has been able to beat any of them at either Wimbledon, or Montreal or Cincy. And if Rafa ever gets his act together, the four of them will presumably continue to pick up all the semifinal spots everywhere.

Forever.

by Belovedluckyboy Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:56 pm

I predicted a straight sets win for Fed and Fed did just that! On this court, when Fed plays so well not even a Rafa at his best can beat him. However the USO is on a slower surface now and BO5 so the chances of beating Fed is higher.

Fed couldnt win at Wimbledon his fav surface, I really doubt he can win at NY unless he has a favorable draw and need not beat Murray and Novak in a row.

by Guest Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:56 pm

lags72 wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:

..........................................................

It's more a case with Federer that how many times has he set up a tournament win just to fall short.

I guess we all fall short in life to one extent or another.

You must be a hard man to please lk !

Nobody can win 'em all.

But hey .... the 87 that he has managed isn't too shabby a number is it .....? !

It's not a complaint on my behalf lags Smile

no-one can win them all.

I think from a standpoint when IMO the player who plays the best tennis during a tournament as a whole and doesn't come through certainly makes me feel it can be a mockery, but that's life I suppose. I know with Federer I have felt that a lot.

by bogbrush Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:31 pm

It riles me that the USO has been so neutered. I mean, couldn't they leave just one Slam for the fast playing guys? Wimbledon has gone down the high bounce, big balls route; Australia went to that high bouncing stuff a few years ago (I think 2008). Just one would be nice, but no.

He has to hope for a lucky draw and some nice shocks.

by hawkeye Mon Aug 24, 2015 6:06 pm

lags72 wrote:

I had a wry smile in thinking back to Jimmy Connors, who stepped on the court with a determination to win every match he ever played, and simply couldn't abide the prospect of losing. The very notion of him saying "well ....the thing is ..... I was tired ...." when questioned about a defeat is laughable. The word would not only never touch his lips in public ; I very much doubt he ever allowed himself any such excuse or 'footnote' in his private moments either. Winning was all that mattered to Jimbo, it was part of his DNA.

With this in mind. This is a letter that has recently been issued to all players from the ATP regarding code of conduct - best efforts. Not sure how to show it here? If anyone can help? But here is a link.

http://postimg.org/image/ckosd3j43/

Not suggesting anyone was tanking here because I think both Djokovic and Murray would have been desperate to beat Federer. But the "I'm tired" or "This tournament isn't important" excuse is hardly an endorsement for the sport as a whole. Players are paid a fortune to fight for a win in every match they play. If they are all playing to their own particular want list as far as matches go then it makes it ambiguous what we are watching. If the commentators are suggesting that one player is playing to win whilst the other whilst wanting a win isn't going to put it all out there or is in some way saving themselves for something they consider more important... then it is problematic for the integrity of the sport.

There is a lot of talk about younger players not being "hungry" enough. But with all these aging pro players who have millions in the bank perhaps there is a problem that they are not hungry enough. Traveling with a team to look after their every need. Tailor made fitness and diet schedules. Off season training camps. Nothing to do but focus on tennis. If they feel a little weary after two quick sets of tennis perhaps they should keep it to themselves and commentators shouldn't use it as an excuse if a player looks fed up because they have lost a point. As a spectator it may be more fun watching two amateurs bash it out and put it all on the line for nothing more than prestige.

by Guest Mon Aug 24, 2015 6:30 pm

bogbrush wrote:It riles me that the USO has been so neutered. I mean, couldn't they leave just one Slam for the fast playing guys? Wimbledon has gone down the high bounce, big balls route; Australia went to that high bouncing stuff a few years ago (I think 2008). Just one would be nice, but no.

He has to hope for a lucky draw and some nice shocks.

You, me and a few others.

Be nice for a Slam to offer some purchase to the shot makers.

by HM Murdock Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:00 pm

Brilliant performance from Federer. To win a Masters without losing serve is superb. To do so going through Murray and Djokovic is quite remarkable.

Novak kept the scoreboard close but Fed was comfortably the better man on the day.

7 Wimbledon, 8 Halle, 7 Cincy, 7 Dubai. That's a player who likes faster surfaces!

As for Novak, he can take a positive from the fact that he reached the final in both Canada and Cincy without ever playing his best.

There are causes for concern about Novak's level though. His serve has been in very poor shape. 7 DFs against Goffin, 6 DFs against Dolgo and although it was 'only' 4 DFs against Federer, the Swiss was all over both serves.

The practice court beckons!

As things stand, I'd make Murray the favourite for the USO, with Federer and Djokovic about equal second favourites (Federer in the better form but the surface and format suiting Djoko better).

by Guest Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:06 pm

Don't know I would even make Murray favourite HM. The issue is that his dips tend not be recoverable, unless playing Dimitrov or someone with mental frailties.

I think Cinncy has demonstrated how I feel about the Djokovic dominance. It isn't so much the brand of tennis. Not sure of his fans thoughts, but to win matches like he has without being in A game mode frightens me. It highlights really how poor the rest of the field is. You do have Federer or Murray that can beat him, but then you get a Dolgo or Anderson that cannot see it through against him. That is what is disheartening. I don't squarely blame Djokovic, we all know he can play much better, it's just the rest of the field I find so underwhelming. It says more of their standards than it does Djokovic's.

by HM Murdock Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:36 pm

^Strangely enough, LK, I felt the same frustration this week.

I really enjoy watching Novak's best tennis. I love the geometry and controlled agression of it.

His play in for most of the last fortnight has not been enjoyable to watch though. The matches have had a certain excitement in the way he has fought back from the brink but the play itself has been incredibly dull.

The natural order would be that form of that kind gets punished and the player is eliminated. But Novak keeps dodging the bullet.

While I admire his battling qualities and resilience, my word it makes for a boring tournament!

And you're right, it's sad indictment on the rest of the tour that he can do this.

by Johnyjeep Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:37 pm

temporary21 wrote: This treading on eggshells has gone too far to be quite frank.

I hope you heed you own advice in future.

Can we add a footnote to a footnote? That Djokovic was no where near his best and his exertions wouldn't have been anywhere near as strenuous if he'd played better? Or that if he can't dispatch the likes of Dolgo and Goffin in straight sets then perhaps he deserves to be tired? We could go on forever with footnotes. Age. Surface. Weather blah blah. I don't think anyone is pretending this win changes anything for the US Open.

Agree with the sentiment that for the US Open (or any slam) he has no longer got the legs to get through both Djokovic and Murray. But the US Open has been the most 'Open' of the slams lately I think. I think there will be surprise results again. End of the season. Lot of miles in a lot of legs. Neutral surface.

by Calder106 Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:27 pm

hawkeye wrote:
lags72 wrote:

I had a wry smile in thinking back to Jimmy Connors, who stepped on the court with a determination to win every match he ever played, and simply couldn't abide the prospect of losing. The very notion of him saying "well ....the thing is ..... I was tired ...." when questioned about a defeat is laughable. The word would not only never touch his lips in public ; I very much doubt he ever allowed himself any such excuse or 'footnote' in his private moments either. Winning was all that mattered to Jimbo, it was part of his DNA.

With this in mind. This is a letter that has recently been issued to all players from the ATP regarding code of conduct - best efforts. Not sure how to show it here? If anyone can help? But here is a link.

http://postimg.org/image/ckosd3j43/

Not suggesting anyone was tanking here because I think both Djokovic and Murray would have been desperate to beat Federer. But the "I'm tired" or "This tournament isn't important" excuse is hardly an endorsement for the sport as a whole. Players are paid a fortune to fight for a win in every match they play. If they are all playing to their own particular want list as far as matches go then it makes it ambiguous what we are watching. If the commentators are suggesting that one player is playing to win whilst the other whilst wanting a win isn't going to put it all out there or is in some way saving themselves for something they consider more important... then it is problematic for the integrity of the sport.

There is a lot of talk about younger players not being "hungry" enough. But with all these aging pro players who have millions in the bank perhaps there is a problem that they are not hungry enough. Traveling with a team to look after their every need. Tailor made fitness and diet schedules. Off season training camps. Nothing to do but focus on tennis. If they feel a little weary after two quick sets of tennis perhaps they should keep it to themselves and commentators shouldn't use it as an excuse if a player looks fed up because they have lost a point. As a spectator it may be more fun watching two amateurs bash it out and put it all on the line for nothing more than prestige.

Interesting note. Not quite sure why you felt it necessary to mention Djokovic and Murray by name (and no one else) even though you are 'not suggesting anyone was tanking'. Maybe you could explian

by Belovedluckyboy Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:41 pm

I think Novak not playing his best tennis,struggling even and yet still was able to reach the finals of Masters really reflected badly on the rest of the field. Gulbis, Goffin and Dolgo, they all had the upperhand in their respective matches vs Novak but just couldnt finish the job, thats disappointing to say the least, when Novak was there for the taking.

I remember somebody mentioned a while back, that Novak when playing poorly still was able to reach the business end of things, even at the slams; whilst Fedal rarely played badly esp at the slams to reach the finals and sometimes won them.

While Fedal still had to go five sets at the slams sometimes, its due more to their opponents' good play than Fedal playing badly.

by HM Murdock Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:51 pm

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I remember somebody mentioned a while back, that Novak when playing poorly still was able to reach the business end of things, even at the slams; whilst Fedal rarely played badly esp at the slams to reach the finals and sometimes won them.

There's some truth in this.

I can't decide if Djokovic is a player of about Murray's level with big dose of resilience or a player of Nadal's level with a big dose of flakiness.

I can't think of another player who has achieved so much while appearing constantly on the verge of blowing it. Lendl perhaps.

by bogbrush Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:02 pm

If it's one of those two it's the latter. His game has no conspicuous weaknesses yet he's blown some Slams in the most extraordinary manner (by hitting nets, overhead nightmares, that sort of thing).

by lags72 Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:33 pm

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I think Novak not playing his best tennis,struggling even and yet still was able to reach the finals of Masters really reflected badly on the rest of the field. Gulbis, Goffin and Dolgo, they all had the upperhand in their respective matches vs Novak but just couldnt finish the job, thats disappointing to say the least, when Novak was there for the taking.

.........................................

There can be no doubt that that the three guys you mention were all seriously disappointing in their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But in truth, they - and indeed this Cincy tourney just finished - are symptomatic of what has been going on for what seems an eternity. There is a bigger picture here.

In many ways, last week's results were effectively a microcosm of the Tour as a whole for close to a decade. If we assume that Djoko, Fed and Murray all manage to retain their ranking positions within the top three into 2016 (I guess the jury is still out as to if/how soon Rafa can regain his membership of the 'big four' .....the USO should offer some indication ....??) then it will be the NINTH consecutive year in which they have been in residence at the very top of the tree. A whole series of 'promising' new youngsters have come and given a little shake of the branches over many seasons ; yet none have been able to shake hard or long enough to topple them.

Surely this pattern of same old same old must be unprecedented in the modern history of the game ....?

by barrystar Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:39 pm

bogbrush wrote:If it's one of those two it's the latter. His game has no conspicuous weaknesses yet he's blown some Slams in the most extraordinary manner (by hitting nets, overhead nightmares, that sort of thing).

I agree - and if this is the right analysis it may be a product of the fact that the basis of Djoko's game is one of no conspicuous weakness rather than a couple of huge weapons on top of an excellent all-round game. If things are not going so well perhaps he does not have the same mental support as Fedal (and Nadal in particular) who have more 'go-to' parts of their game that they can nearly always rely upon in extremis and which will frequently get them out of trouble?

by Belovedluckyboy Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:49 pm

He's in between Murray and Nadal. He's obviously above Murray but has resilience like the Nadal of old. I don't think he's a Nadal but with flakiness. He's certainly not flaky vs low ranked opponents, he simply couldn't bring his best all the time even in slams, unlike Fedal.

by Guest Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:54 pm

HM Murdock wrote:^Strangely enough, LK, I felt the same frustration this week.

I really enjoy watching Novak's best tennis. I love the geometry and controlled agression of it.

His play in for most of the last fortnight has not been enjoyable to watch though. The matches have had a certain excitement in the way he has fought back from the brink but the play itself has been incredibly dull.

The natural order would be that form of that kind gets punished and the player is eliminated. But Novak keeps dodging the bullet.

While I admire his battling qualities and resilience, my word it makes for a boring tournament!

And you're right, it's sad indictment on the rest of the tour that he can do this.

The depressing thing is that Novak has been on the ropes, similar with Murray where they have been outplayed comfortably. Goffin/Dolgo/Dimitrov. It was the fact in those matches I didn't see Novak or Andy show any great urgency to stem the tide and that Goffin/Dolgo/Dimitrov managed to lose those matches in quite spectacular fashion. I don't know what more Novak or Andy could've done to hand those matches on a plate for them. Going back to Wimbledon when Djokovic lost that 2nd set and then out of that created an aggressive urgency and went for Federer. It was brilliant viewing. He didn't have that yesterday.

I know people of harped on how boring it is they hang about in matches not doing a great deal offensively. It's not that element that bores or frustrates me, it's the fact that their opponents can create a match winning situation and even have 2 breaks of serve in a final set and still blow it! It's a disgrace!

What makes me smile, is Federer. One guy who showed the whole field that if you get Murray or Djokovic on a bad day how to win a match and control the match at 34 years young. The simplicity is astounding. Now if Goffin, Dimitrov and Dolgo can't see out matches like that, when are they when it matters?

by bogbrush Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:18 pm

I sort of agree, but the challenge that Murray & especially Djokovic present is that to get that last point you will have to win it; they can go into an "I give you nothing" mode. At that point it's not sufficient to have been good enough to get to the great position, you actually have to win those last games.

Federer can do it because on a rewarding court he has got the offensive game to take the points; two of the others might do it but their offensive level carries huge risk (that word again!). As we established the other day, Federer can be offensive and low-risk. None of the others can do it, hence once Novak decides he's not moving they either get run to death or they roll the dice and fail.

Note: You could see that from about 4-1 2nd set Djokovic decided to go deep into the trenches again; he was intent on making the rallies go as long as he could to see if he could panic Federer into over-reaching.

by HM Murdock Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:24 pm

barrystar wrote:I agree - and if this is the right analysis it may be a product of the fact that the basis of Djoko's game is one of no conspicuous weakness rather than a couple of huge weapons on top of an excellent all-round game. If things are not going so well perhaps he does not have the same mental support as Fedal (and Nadal in particular) who have more 'go-to' parts of their game that they can nearly always rely upon in extremis and which will frequently get them out of trouble?

I think this is about right. The difference between Fedal and Djoko is ultimately the forehand.

Both Fed and Nadal have all time great forehands. Novak's is very good and very reliable but a clear level behind the other two. He doesn't have the same ability to end a point with it.

A lot of it is probably down to that western grip he has.

by Guest Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:31 pm

To a point yes, but given in those matches Djokovic and Murray weren't pressing as much as they do off the mark. Dolgo and Goffin have shots that could easily get purchase off the surface.

What Federer does so well is establish a dominant position in matches and doesn't force himself to every extent. The issue I take with Goffin and Dimitrov is not sticking with their gameplan and mindset. I was just dumbfounded. I am not saying it's easy, god I know I couldn't do it, but to lose a match with 2 breaks of serve in the bank? How are they ever going to break the glass ceiling if they can't win a match in that position?

It's a great aura to have if your Murray or Djokovic, but these guys are beatable.

by TheMessi Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:34 pm

HM Murdock wrote:
barrystar wrote:I agree - and if this is the right analysis it may be a product of the fact that the basis of Djoko's game is one of no conspicuous weakness rather than a couple of huge weapons on top of an excellent all-round game. If things are not going so well perhaps he does not have the same mental support as Fedal (and Nadal in particular) who have more 'go-to' parts of their game that they can nearly always rely upon in extremis and which will frequently get them out of trouble?
I think this is about right. The difference between Fedal and Djoko is ultimately the forehand.

Both Fed and Nadal have all time great forehands. Novak's is very good and very reliable but a clear level behind the other two. He doesn't have the same ability to end a point with it.

A lot of it is probably down to that western grip he has.

Nadal has 2 different FHs. The one when really fit on slow courts (FO and AO) and the one where not that fit or on low/fast bounce. I'd say Djoko has the better one on fasterish conds while Nadal clearly on slower ones.....especially v Federer.

On this topic, I think Djoko Nadal record woudl have been very different had Djoko been one year older than Nadal and not the other way around as is.

by Sponsored content

Who will make it out of the fourth quarter?