Wimbledon 2016 - Men's Final

First topic message reminder :

Much-improved, big-serving Canadian takes on home-advantage Briton playing some of his best tennis. Murray is, to me, slight favourite. But Raonic is very focused, very confident and hard to beat. You can make a good case out for either of them.
I don't go along with the notion that a Raonic win is "bad for tennis". There's so much more to his game than a big serve. His ground strokes and movement have improved radically in recent months. Will he win? His game is certainly at the point when it would not be a surprise if he won. I think Murray will triumph, though. But it won't be easy.

Well done to Andy. The scoreline is flattering Raonic. Andy outclassed him throughout the match. Andy played very well, Raonic not so much.

This was not a classic, but I suspect Andy's fans are fine with that.

emancipator wrote:Raonic has just proven how limited he is.

2 BPs against the Murray serve in three sets - woeful.

The sad thing is this guy is the leading light of the lost generation!

 

Thoroughly agree

Yeah Murray totally dominated this match - the scoreline doesn't reflect the play.

Congratulations Andy Murray - winning his second Wimbledon title and third slam.

He has been THE best player this fortnight and played a lot of fabulous stuff. His third slam title in his 11th final. Well done Andy.

Milos Raonic will be back of that I am sure. He is improving and has added much to his game - better all-round game and he showed in the semi he can live with the very best but Andy's returning of serve today was mind boggling.

Andy - three slams and counting.

Yeah agree.

Score line actually looks closer than the match was. Never really thought Raonic would get a set and he didn't deserve one. Murray was good on the return, but I don't think he played brilliantly. Raonic didn't really show up.

Well played Andy. Totally deserved. If he can keep the impetus, the year end number one spot is not out the question, but I'm sure Novak will have something to say about that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:He has been THE best player this fortnight

Indeed.

Welcome back CC!

emancipator wrote:2 BPs against the Murray serve in three sets - woeful.

Yeah, Raonic was putting absolutely no pressure on Andy's serve.

summerblues wrote:Well done to Andy.  The scoreline is flattering Raonic.  Andy outclassed him throughout the match.  Andy played very well, Raonic not so much.

This was not a classic, but I suspect Andy's fans are fine with that.

Yeah, not a classic, but that's not Andy's fault. He can only play what's in front of him and totally outclassed his opponent. Played the clutch points in the TB incredibly well.

David Cameron getting booed by the over 65's that dominate the crowd

Lol - Cameron getting booed

Murray was clinical.He negated the Raonic serve and that takes some doing as Roger found out on Friday. Lets remember that Milos has been the third best player in the world so far this year, beat Roger fair and square in the semi and has shown that his game is still developing. Mark my words he will win a slam one day.

The most complete performance by Andy Murray.

Huge congrats on his third Slam title

Raonic deserves credit for getting to a Wimbledon Final - an achievement which many, many others have attempted through the years, only to fail. In doing so, he took out the conqueror of the World's current best player, and also the King of Grass. No mean feat

As a Murray fan it's nice to enjoy a final that Andy was in full control of, could really just enjoy his performance. Amazing to think that all his other slam finals have been against all time greats!

I really get the impression he's going to build on this too. I don't feel this is his last, especially with Ivan on board.

Well done Andy. A British positive news story at last.

Embarrassingly poor final between two chokers.

Raonic has lost every big final he's reached, Murray's statistics indicate he's the worst multiple major winner since Lendl(3/11 is dreadful).

Murray was only every likely to steal another major if the big boys got taken care of, guess he got lucky after being the nearly man for most of his career.

Murray will be lucky to fluke anymore majors

lags72 wrote:The most complete performance by Andy Murray.

Huge congrats on his third Slam title  

Raonic deserves credit for getting to a Wimbledon Final - an achievement which many, many others have attempted through the years, only to fail. In doing so, he took out the conqueror of the World's current best player, and also the King of Grass. No mean feat

Spot on lags.

Raonic deserves much credit. Yes his serve is his big weapon but he showed at Queen's and V Roger in the semi he is so much more now than just serve. He, I am sure, will win a slam at some point in his career. He'll reach a final and meet a player who cannot handle his serve and find his all-round game good enough to take him to a slam. He is only 25 after all.

What previous multiple major winner has needed a notepad with gameplans noted down? Murray too thick to use his own brain?

Haha jermaine you mug, when you play any competitive sport you tend to zone out, sometimes you need some pointers, he will win at least another 2 slams i think

Really dull final and a dull Wimbledon. But then again serve dominated tennis is really dull.

Have to say that I am very happy as a neutral for Murray. The guy deserves a break in a slam final. Truly cemented his legacy as one of the all time greats in the history of the sport. The final was dominated by the serve and was boring.

It actually shows that it's not the serve, but the return that's the crucial difference between winning slams and not

I'm not convinced that Raonic will win a slam, when his return game is so poor

Let's be honest here, whilst Andy's serve has improved, if you're only scoring more than 30 once (or was it twice!!) you've got a problem

banbrotam wrote:It actually shows that it's not the serve, but the return that's the crucial difference between winning slams and not

I'm not convinced that Raonic will win a slam, when his return game is so poor

Let's be honest here, whilst Andy's serve has improved, if you're only scoring more than 30 once (or was it twice!!) you've got a problem

Yep, Andy was fabulous but Raonic put no pressure on him at all.

He was dumping routine balls into the net the entire match. Two BPs against Andy's serve is really poor. He can probably play better than that as it was only his first slam final.

banbrotam wrote:It actually shows that it's not the serve, but the return that's the crucial difference between winning slams and not

I'm not convinced that Raonic will win a slam, when his return game is so poor

Let's be honest here, whilst Andy's serve has improved, if you're only scoring more than 30 once (or was it twice!!) you've got a problem

I agree that return now is more important ban bro but my point is something different. Matches like this with a lot of routine holds dominated by the competitors serve is as a rule dull tennis. This is the dullest grand slam final I can remember in the golden era. Not Andy's fault he was brilliant and did what he could to entertain.

Brilliant result. So pleased for Murray after quite a few painful losses - onwards and upwards?!

What a day for the Brits- Andy, Gordon Reid, the lass in the wheelchair doubles. Be too good to be true if Watson and her partner can pull off mixed doubles as well!

socal1976 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:It actually shows that it's not the serve, but the return that's the crucial difference between winning slams and not

I'm not convinced that Raonic will win a slam, when his return game is so poor

Let's be honest here, whilst Andy's serve has improved, if you're only scoring more than 30 once (or was it twice!!) you've got a problem

I agree that return now is more important ban bro but my point is something different. Matches like this with a lot of routine holds dominated by the competitors serve is as a rule dull tennis. This is the dullest grand slam final I can remember in the golden era. Not Andy's fault he was brilliant and did what he could to entertain.

It's one of the dullest for neutrals, have to concede that. Can think of a few that compare... Rafa v Berdych at Wimb was awful. Rafa v Ferrer at RG stank. Cilic v Nish was dull too.

Raonic is a little one dimensional unfortunately. Don't think his game style will lend itself to great entertainment most of the time.

I did not find the match all that dull stylistically.  To me the main problem was that Raonic was not up to it.  But had he been playing the same style he was playing but with better execution I would have found the match quite entertaining.

Even as poor as Raonic was, I still found it more watchable than Nole vs Andy matches which bore me silly, and which are the only grand slam finals in recent past that I voluntarily skipped.

Well played Andy. Admit that I thought it would be much closer but Andy was in the zone today. Very few unforced errors, holding serve comfortably apart from one game, and giving Milos very few easy games on his own serve. Only one break in the 3 sets but Andy seemed in control most of the time and dominated the tie breaks. Think that Milos will win slams in the future as he seems to be prepared to go and try different things to improve.

Danny_1982 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:It actually shows that it's not the serve, but the return that's the crucial difference between winning slams and not

I'm not convinced that Raonic will win a slam, when his return game is so poor

Let's be honest here, whilst Andy's serve has improved, if you're only scoring more than 30 once (or was it twice!!) you've got a problem

I agree that return now is more important ban bro but my point is something different. Matches like this with a lot of routine holds dominated by the competitors serve is as a rule dull tennis. This is the dullest grand slam final I can remember in the golden era. Not Andy's fault he was brilliant and did what he could to entertain.

It's one of the dullest for neutrals, have to concede that. Can think of a few that compare... Rafa v Berdych at Wimb was awful. Rafa v Ferrer at RG stank. Cilic v Nish was dull too.

Raonic is a little one dimensional unfortunately. Don't think his game style will lend itself to great entertainment most of the time.

I will say Milos was a bit gassed it seems and down mentally after two five setters and a four setter before this match. But it was horribly dull Danny. Makes a Novak and Andy final look as exciting as sex while skydiving.

My biggest satisfaction, is remembering how terrible he was two years ago, following the back surgery and us all then questioning whether he'd be the same

Even then he got a stuffing from Roger at the O2, it was fine - simply because at least he'd qualified

I also mentioned that I wasn't bothered by yet another slam defeat at the Aus 15' Open. Just getting there completed the most spectacular of comebacks

Glad he's got another one, his form of the last 15 months has thoroughly deserved it

Also the points gap between him and Roger is now almost a great as that between him and Novak.

Well done Murray. Makes a nice change to watch a slam final feeling quite relaxed, agree with those who say it felt more one-sided than the scoreline, at no point did I feel Murray was anything but in control of that one.

I don't think Raonic played that badly TBH, his return is a weakness and something he'll have to work on, and you wonder how his team failed to prepare him for Andy's favourite slice serve down the T on the ad side, but other than that I felt he did pretty well. Had a good game plan which he stuck to, moved forward whenever possible, and volleyed well. Just that Murray was a bit too solid in the end.

At least Raonic has worked hard on his weaker points, if you could ally his work ethic with the natural skills of Tomic, Dimitrov or Kyrgios you'd have a formidable player. Definitely wouldn't be surprised to see him win Wimbledon one day.

Oh and well done to Heather Watson too for her win in the mixed doubles, comfortably the best player on court in that final

Murray played the perfect match tailored to beating Raonic.  This may have bored some but Murray cannot be faulted.  He kept his own service game solid, he tended to take the pace off his first serve to ensure it went in, focusing on positioning and making it difficult to hit for big guy Raonic, then winning on his second or third shot of the service point "rally".

It was mentioned that Murray kept referring to his written "game plan" - well if it was a game plan written down then it worked.  But I guess what was written down was not the "game plan" but the usual stuff to control his mental state on court that he used previously - things like: each point at a time, move your legs, don't shout at Lendl, you're the best, put energy in your forehand, don't beat yourself up, you're cooler than Raonic etc.

Anyway many said Murray wouldn't win another slam - and he has just won another.   A few more and he will put himself on the list of significant multi-slammers.  He has had a pretty spectacular year so far: three grand slam finals and one win.

Having watched the highlights I note that Murray (& Raonic) kept their focus and energy levels going throughout the match - there was no dropping off of intensity. Raonic took a little while to get going with his serve. Murray played particularly aggressively in the tie-breakers.

It was a match of short power rallies with Murray generally coming out on top with cross court winners. And with both players taking their time between points. So the match had a stop start pacing.

Solid win from Murray. Probably the easiest match since the third round. He will probably be a bit disappointed with his play on Milos' second serve but, ultimately, the gulf in class meant that his failure to get more than one break wasn't crucial. Thoroughly deserved third slam.

The semi was much easier than that, Berdych was a stroll.

Spookily on the money advice, from a person who's always been one of Andy's biggest fans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/11445421/Andy-Murray-would-benefit-from-having-children-insists-Andre-Agassi.html

I thought after Murray's triumph at Wimbledon in 2013 that he would win at SW19 at least once more. As has been said above, it was about time he had an "easy" GS final, in that all the other Big Four guys had won a final against a "lesser" player.
Raonic looked a big slow and leggy towards the end in a way he had not against Rog in the semi. Interestingly, Murray is, now, not that far behind Djoko in the year-so-far points table.
Another stat. The Big Four have continued their domination of Wimbledon. You have to go back to 2002 for the last non-Big Four winner (Hewitt, who has enlivened the BBC commentary team this year, IMHO).

I was catching up with this week on iplayer so only got to hear Hewitt yesterday on the live transmission, but agree sir fred - thought he was a great addition and hope he might be a permanent fixture.

Just watched the whole final, having seen only snippets yesterday. Raonic looked much better against Fed in the semi than in the title match. I think his movement and all-round play has improved, but he did look a bit cumbersome and made far too many UEs yesterday.
  Murray is a bad match up for Milos. The Briton gets back far too many balls and moves far too well for the Canadian's liking. I really thought that even if he lost, Raonic would at least make it hard for Murray. Praps the semi took it out of the Canadian, and this was, after all, his first GS final. Agree that the scoreline actually flattered Raonic.
  If Murray is this focused, then more Slams are possible, especially if Djoko drops off his best. Raonic will work his socks off to get better. But it remains to be seen whether he'll have the game to reach the very top.

Give this nonsense about 'Big 4' a rest. Murray isn't in the class of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. His pitiful H2H record in the majors against the Big 3 proves this.

1 win 5 defeats against Federer
2 wins 7 defeats against Nadal
2 wins 8 defeats against Djokovic

5/20 is downright pathetic.

J2015. Agree, the figures are against Andy in the match-ups with the Big 3. But he's now won more GS than anyone else outside the Big 4, and 11 GS finals is a fine achievement - win or lose.
Yes, of course, in terms of dominance and titles, Murray is well behind the other three. But he's also well ahead of the rest, although I understand some people being reluctant to talk of Andy in the same breath as Rog, Rafa and Nole.

The big 4 is History and is now dead!

For the present there is the big 1 Novak, followed by Andy then Rafa & The Rest.

As for Roger who hasn't won a Slam since 2012, he is now heading towards retirement!

sirfredperry wrote:J2015. Agree, the figures are against Andy in the match-ups with the Big 3. But he's now won more GS than anyone else outside the Big 4, and 11 GS finals is a fine achievement - win or lose.
  Yes, of course, in terms of dominance and titles, Murray is well behind the other three. But he's also well ahead of the rest, although I understand some people being reluctant to talk of Andy in the same breath as Rog, Rafa and Nole.    

There's no valid reason to object to the big 4 term. It's a pretty obvious statement to cover the fact those four guys have dominated the tour to an unprecedented level. They've won over 90% of all important trophies since 2008. Taking Murray out of that basically means you are saying the big 3 have dominated bar the 16 events won by that other guy. Murray, of course, isn't at the same level as the other three. They are all top 5 Open era. Murray is probably about 15th. However, no one else is anywhere near.

Since US 2008, Murray has won three slams, made 8 other finals and 9 other SF. He has also won 12 Masters and an Olympic gold.

In the same time frame, Fed has won five slams, made six other finals and ten other SF. He has won 10 Masters and two WTF.

Wawrinka has won two slams, made no other finals and four SF. He has won one Masters and no Olympics or WTF.

Well done to Murray, finally getting an opportunity to win a slam without having to play an all time great, and took advantage decisively. Easy semi and final yes but he won it in straight sets. He went up a level in those tiebreaks and dominated; against a player that has an amazing tiebreak record this year.

After a disappointing 2014, 2015 and 2016 have been full of highlights - Davis Cup, clay finals and titles, and now this. 2 Wimbledons is a good return for him. However only one hard court slam is not as good a return as he's capable of, so see if he can win one of the two coming up.

Actually thought it was an enjoyable match.

Also, Murray is now all but guaranteed to finish in the top two in the rankings at the year end.

Murray is only around 800 points behind Djoko in the year-so-far points table. The Serb has been so far ahead for so long in the rankings that the question of number one has hardly ever been raised.
Andy would probably have to win the USO to have any chance of catching Nole, or have Djoko suffer an early exit. Andy could at least gain some points by doing well at the O2 year-end championship during which last year he had one eye on the DC final.

Born Slippy wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:J2015. Agree, the figures are against Andy in the match-ups with the Big 3. But he's now won more GS than anyone else outside the Big 4, and 11 GS finals is a fine achievement - win or lose.
  Yes, of course, in terms of dominance and titles, Murray is well behind the other three. But he's also well ahead of the rest, although I understand some people being reluctant to talk of Andy in the same breath as Rog, Rafa and Nole.    

There's no valid reason to object to the big 4 term. It's a pretty obvious statement to cover the fact those four guys have dominated the tour to an unprecedented level. They've won over 90% of all important trophies since 2008. Taking Murray out of that basically means you are saying the big 3 have dominated bar the 16 events won by that other guy. Murray, of course, isn't at the same level as the other three. They are all top 5 Open era. Murray is probably about 15th. However, no one else is anywhere near.

Since US 2008, Murray has won three slams, made 8 other finals and 9 other SF. He has also won 12 Masters and an Olympic gold.

In the same time frame, Fed has won five slams, made six other finals and ten other SF. He has won 10 Masters and two WTF.

Wawrinka has won two slams, made no other finals and four SF. He has won one Masters and no Olympics or WTF.

There's plenty of reason to dispel Murray from the presence of the Big 3.

Reaching countless major finals and getting destroyed doesn't mean you're elite. It means you're making the same mistakes over and over again.

As for winning 12 masters, players are remembered for winning majors. IIRC Agassi has more masters than Sampras, but doesn't anyone ever care about that? No everyone remembers Sampras' 14 majors.

If Wawrinka wins a third major, he jumps ahead of Murray as his record in major finals is better. 100% conversion is better than a paltry 27%

Its a big 4, Jermaine is doing a good job of running a master class of illogic in his desire to run down contemporary greats. So Murray has like 10 more masters than Stan and 8 more finals but if Stan wins one more slam he will surpass Murray because he has a better slam conversion rate. Now you heard it here first, Murray's 8 finals appearance in slams is actually a negative for him because it brings down his conversion rate. Hilarious stuff really.

Murray is an alltime great, in fact as I said it shows how tough the competition is that a player with his number of finals and slams only has 3 wins. I guess its tougher player Roger and Novak in finals than Phillipoussis and Baggy, who figured?

I swear some of you make it so easy, so Stan not winning 6 slam matches in a row to reach 8 finals at slams is actually a positive for him in comparison to Murray. I mean if Murray like Stan managed to get knocked out in consistently in the 3rd and 4th round at slams and didn't reach those finals genius analyst Jermaine would raise him up in the rankings because of his IMPROVED CONVERSION RATE. Who knew that getting knocked out early at slams was better than getting to the final.

Jermaine2015 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:J2015. Agree, the figures are against Andy in the match-ups with the Big 3. But he's now won more GS than anyone else outside the Big 4, and 11 GS finals is a fine achievement - win or lose.
  Yes, of course, in terms of dominance and titles, Murray is well behind the other three. But he's also well ahead of the rest, although I understand some people being reluctant to talk of Andy in the same breath as Rog, Rafa and Nole.    

There's no valid reason to object to the big 4 term. It's a pretty obvious statement to cover the fact those four guys have dominated the tour to an unprecedented level. They've won over 90% of all important trophies since 2008. Taking Murray out of that basically means you are saying the big 3 have dominated bar the 16 events won by that other guy. Murray, of course, isn't at the same level as the other three. They are all top 5 Open era. Murray is probably about 15th. However, no one else is anywhere near.

Since US 2008, Murray has won three slams, made 8 other finals and 9 other SF. He has also won 12 Masters and an Olympic gold.

In the same time frame, Fed has won five slams, made six other finals and ten other SF. He has won 10 Masters and two WTF.

Wawrinka has won two slams, made no other finals and four SF. He has won one Masters and no Olympics or WTF.

There's plenty of reason to dispel Murray from the presence of the Big 3.

Reaching countless major finals and getting destroyed doesn't mean you're elite. It means you're making the same mistakes over and over again.

As for winning 12 masters, players are remembered for winning majors. IIRC Agassi has more masters than Sampras, but doesn't anyone ever care about that? No everyone remembers Sampras' 14 majors.

If Wawrinka wins a third major, he jumps ahead of Murray as his record in major finals is better. 100% conversion is better than a paltry 27%

An an Olympic Gold

Someone really must hate it when Murray wins

Riskysports wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:J2015. Agree, the figures are against Andy in the match-ups with the Big 3. But he's now won more GS than anyone else outside the Big 4, and 11 GS finals is a fine achievement - win or lose.
  Yes, of course, in terms of dominance and titles, Murray is well behind the other three. But he's also well ahead of the rest, although I understand some people being reluctant to talk of Andy in the same breath as Rog, Rafa and Nole.    

There's no valid reason to object to the big 4 term. It's a pretty obvious statement to cover the fact those four guys have dominated the tour to an unprecedented level. They've won over 90% of all important trophies since 2008. Taking Murray out of that basically means you are saying the big 3 have dominated bar the 16 events won by that other guy. Murray, of course, isn't at the same level as the other three. They are all top 5 Open era. Murray is probably about 15th. However, no one else is anywhere near.

Since US 2008, Murray has won three slams, made 8 other finals and 9 other SF. He has also won 12 Masters and an Olympic gold.

In the same time frame, Fed has won five slams, made six other finals and ten other SF. He has won 10 Masters and two WTF.

Wawrinka has won two slams, made no other finals and four SF. He has won one Masters and no Olympics or WTF.

There's plenty of reason to dispel Murray from the presence of the Big 3.

Reaching countless major finals and getting destroyed doesn't mean you're elite. It means you're making the same mistakes over and over again.

As for winning 12 masters, players are remembered for winning majors. IIRC Agassi has more masters than Sampras, but doesn't anyone ever care about that? No everyone remembers Sampras' 14 majors.

If Wawrinka wins a third major, he jumps ahead of Murray as his record in major finals is better. 100% conversion is better than a paltry 27%

An an Olympic Gold

Someone really must hate it when Murray wins

Stan won his Olympic gold back in 2008...

But feel free to go on...

Yeah, Olympic gold medal (in doubles lol!) doesn't outweigh 8 more slam finals and 10 masters, and about a decade longer in the top 5. Like I said anybody who claims losing consistently in the early rounds of slams is better than getting to the final really is not going to get listened to, more like laughed at. Good job though your CONVERSION RATE POST was the funniest thing I have heard since Trump's last speech.

socal1976 wrote:Yeah, Olympic gold medal (in doubles lol!) doesn't outweigh 8 more slam finals and 10 masters, and about a decade longer in the top 5. Like I said anybody who claims losing consistently in the early rounds of slams is better than getting to the final really is not going to get listened to, more like laughed at. Good job though your CONVERSION RATE POST was the funniest thing I have heard since Trump's last speech.

Remind me how many Olympic gold medals Djokovic has?

Jermaine2015 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yeah, Olympic gold medal (in doubles lol!) doesn't outweigh 8 more slam finals and 10 masters, and about a decade longer in the top 5. Like I said anybody who claims losing consistently in the early rounds of slams is better than getting to the final really is not going to get listened to, more like laughed at. Good job though your CONVERSION RATE POST was the funniest thing I have heard since Trump's last speech.

Remind me how many Olympic gold medals Djokovic has?

You do realize that when it comes to rating singles players no one cares about an Olympic gold in DOUBLES? I have met some dim bulbs in my time, but you really are bad at this.