Sydney QF: Djokovic def. Ancic 6-3, 6-4 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Sydney QF: Djokovic def. Ancic 6-3, 6-4

Clydey
01-15-2009, 11:33 AM
Solid performance from Djokovic based on what I saw.

Dini
01-15-2009, 11:35 AM
Mario :sad:
When are those consistent results going to come?
Anyway, well done Djoker, back to your solid best I see.

Running:Free
01-15-2009, 11:37 AM
Nole :yeah: The backhand's clicking well.

Mario :hug:

Tomek.
01-15-2009, 11:39 AM
Nole :yeah:

he saved 14 of 15 BPs :rolls:

petar_pan
01-15-2009, 11:40 AM
Mario :sad:
When are those consistent results going to come?
Anyway, well done Djoker, back to your solid best I see.

no.unfortunately this is reality.he is not even good for beat djokovic.i mean he can beat him but djokovic will always bee ahead of him on ranking.

Labamba
01-15-2009, 11:41 AM
pathetic play from Mario on most of those bp's

Djoker one win away from #2 ranking

Voo de Mar
01-15-2009, 11:45 AM
Credit to D'Joke for showing how important is to save break points at 1:3 (it's also very important at 0:2 or 2:4) :yeah: It's a frequent situation when you saved BP's to avoid double break down, moment later you lead with one game advantage, it happens the most often from 2:4 to 5:4.

finishingmove
01-15-2009, 12:00 PM
the serbian slayer is back

Stensland
01-15-2009, 12:00 PM
what is wrong with the board today? it looks really fucked up, is unbelievably slow and hasn't worked properly in hours now. is that just me?

Caio_Brasil
01-15-2009, 12:02 PM
Mario :( very poor BP conversion.

Steelq
01-15-2009, 12:48 PM
the serbian slayer is back

Affirmative.

croat123
01-15-2009, 03:02 PM
mario was 1 for 15 on bps...enough said :fiery:
form looks ok going in to AO though, but he'll want to do better on bps

Davodus
01-15-2009, 03:33 PM
mario :mad:
he got so passive on the break points, and so aggressive when it was deuce
if he had taken just 1 or 2 more of his 15 chances to break he would have won!

valexie03
01-15-2009, 03:38 PM
Mario :sad:

JolánGagó
01-15-2009, 04:02 PM
Pathetic performance by Ancic, expected though :rolleyes:

ChinoRios4Ever
01-15-2009, 04:08 PM
Djoko will be #2? :eek:

Voo de Mar
01-15-2009, 04:10 PM
Ancic's tennis unfortunately is too heavy, he's solid and nothing more, he can't be a real threat for the best players. The whole match was in Djokovic's mind, when he was down, created angles which are beyond Ancic's mental geometry.

BaselineSmash
01-15-2009, 04:24 PM
Good result, but was Djokovic ever really struggling for form as much as people were making out? I'd put him as joint favourite for the AO with Fed; Murray close behind, and Nadal the least likely to take the trophy.

Forehander
01-15-2009, 04:33 PM
For you guys who think Ancic at peak can beat Djokovic. May I ask, what are you guys smoking? Something good I assume?

Clydey
01-15-2009, 04:44 PM
Good result, but was Djokovic ever really struggling for form as much as people were making out? I'd put him as joint favourite for the AO with Fed; Murray close behind, and Nadal the least likely to take the trophy.

Why Djokovic? He hasn't been on form at all. I actually like Djokovic, but I just can't see why he'd be joint favourite, let alone ahead of Murray and Nadal. He won the TMC, but to be fair he didn't really beat any of the top guys.

Clydey
01-15-2009, 04:45 PM
Djoko will be #2? :eek:

Yes, if he wins his next match he'll go to number 2. It probably won't last long, though, depending on his AO performance.

Deivid23
01-15-2009, 05:15 PM
Houdiniesque stuff from Nole

BaselineSmash
01-15-2009, 05:21 PM
Why Djokovic? He hasn't been on form at all. I actually like Djokovic, but I just can't see why he'd be joint favourite, let alone ahead of Murray and Nadal. He won the TMC, but to be fair he didn't really beat any of the top guys.


Nadal's defensive abilities have been completely inadequate in his last two AO defeats. Gonzalez and Tsonga hit winners against him for fun, and I expect yet another player to blast him off the court in 2009, though I'd happily be proven wrong. Murray is still fairly unproven when it comes to posting consistently good grand slam results. Yes, he's had the best win percentage of the top 4 since Wimbledon (88% match wins), but this is his first hot streak and I worry about his vulnerability to players like Melzer and Llodra in the early rounds. Djokovic was struggling for fitness in the North American hardcourt season and still reaped some great results; with his health back, the Serb-the most natural hardcourt player of his generation-is poised to repeat at the AO, despite his dodgy reputation for defending titles. Federer's record speaks for itself, and I'd be just as unsurprised were he to win at the AO as I was when he took the USO '08, where a lot of people had written off his chances.

xargon
01-15-2009, 05:44 PM
i mean he can beat him but djokovic will always bee ahead of him on ranking.

Well he is a lawyer now after all.

Clydey
01-15-2009, 05:47 PM
Nadal's defensive abilities have been completely inadequate in his last two AO defeats. Gonzalez and Tsonga hit winners against him for fun, and I expect yet another player to blast him off the court in 2009, though I'd happily be proven wrong. Murray is still fairly unproven when it comes to posting consistently good grand slam results. Yes, he's had the best win percentage of the top 4 since Wimbledon (88% match wins), but this is his first hot streak and I worry about his vulnerability to players like Melzer and Llodra in the early rounds. Djokovic was struggling for fitness in the North American hardcourt season and still reaped some great results; with his health back, the Serb-the most natural hardcourt player of his generation-is poised to repeat at the AO, despite his dodgy reputation for defending titles. Federer's record speaks for itself, and I'd be just as unsurprised were he to win at the AO as I was when he took the USO '08, where a lot of people had written off his chances.

Yes, Nadal can be hit off the court when playing on hard. However, I still think he has been in much better form than Djokovic in the last 6 months. It's pretty silly to put Djokovic as joint favourite, as he hasn't posted a win over any of the other top 4 (correct me if I'm wrong) since the semi-final of Cinci. He then went on to lose to Murray for the 2nd straight week. He then lost to Nadal at the Olympics and Federer at the US Open. I hope he gets his form back, as it's good for the men's game, but it just isn't there for whatever reason.

I don't get why you think Murray is any more vulnerable than the rest of the top 4. He beat Melzer in 5 sets and Llodra in 4. If you're basing it on that, then it's safe to assume that Federer is vulnerable because he got taken to 5 sets by Andreev, Nadal is vulnerable because he got taken to 4 sets by Querrey, and Djokovic is vulnerable because he got taken to 5 sets by Stepanek. Murray's results prior to Wimbledon last year are no longer relevant, as he is undoubtedly a far better player than he was this time last year.

And calling Djokovic the most natural hardcourt player of his generation is purely subjective. I wouldn't be comfortable making such an assertion about a 21-year-old. He may well turn out to be the best hard court player of his generation, but you're jumping the gun by crowning him at this stage.

BaselineSmash
01-15-2009, 06:18 PM
Yes, Nadal can be hit off the court when playing on hard. However, I still think he has been in much better form than Djokovic in the last 6 months. It's pretty silly to put Djokovic as joint favourite, as he hasn't posted a win over any of the other top 4 (correct me if I'm wrong) since the semi-final of Cinci. He then went on to lose to Murray for the 2nd straight week. He then lost to Nadal at the Olympics and Federer at the US Open. I hope he gets his form back, as it's good for the men's game, but it just isn't there for whatever reason.

Is it any less silly to put Murray so far ahead of Djokovic when he's-up to now-a far less accomplished player? Form isn't just based on wins, performances count for something too even if you lose. Djokovic has, for me, twice proven himself against Federer (still the man to beat in big hardcourt events) at the Grand Slam level. In 2007, when only inexperience prevented him from going the distance in the USO '07 final, and in the 2008 AO semi. His efforts at the USO '08 were decent as well considering his health issues. To repeat what I said before, he was playing well in the latter half of 2008 keeping in mind his physical issues at the time. He won a lot despite the hindrances, of body and mind, acting on him at the time. With a clean bill of health, provided he has it, he shoots back up the list of favourites. At that level, he can mix with the other three as before and normal service will be resumed. Murray hasn't proven anything against Djokovic or Federer at the biggest events yet, and he will have to this January if he wants to take the trophy.

I don't get why you think Murray is any more vulnerable than the rest of the top 4. He beat Melzer in 5 sets and Llodra in 4. If you're basing it on that, then it's safe to assume that Federer is vulnerable because he got taken to 5 sets by Andreev, Nadal is vulnerable because he got taken to 4 sets by Querrey, and Djokovic is vulnerable because he got taken to 5 sets by Stepanek. Murray's results prior to Wimbledon last year are no longer relevant, as he is undoubtedly a far better player than he was this time last year.

Well, I didn't make my point very well but the matches you mentioned do actually expose the players' respective weaknesses. The Querrey match showed how vulnerable Nadal remains to big hitters on hardcourts, and the American should have taken the match to five sets. This has been shown countless times, and will continue to be. Andreev proved that the old tactic of agressively, relentlessly pounding Federer's backhand with high-bouncing forehands can yield results; that match also reminded us of how fragile the Swiss now looks against players he would have beaten easily in the past. The Stepanek match in part showed Djokovic struggling under the pressure of expectation, and he dealt with that better in the subsequent AO, where he beat players more clinically. I hope the same proves true of Murray, but I mentioned the Melzer and Llodra matches because they were symptomatic of how he can still get embroiled in extended matches with flashy lower-ranked players -he thinks he can wait out their errors, and that tactic was almost fatal against Melzer. Yes, he's become more aggressive even in the months since, but I suspect he still underestimates lesser players and I won't be convinced otherwise until he starts taking them out more effectively. Drawn-out matches in the AO early rounds will not do hus chances any favours.

And calling Djokovic the most natural hardcourt player of his generation is purely subjective. I wouldn't be comfortable making such an assertion about a 21-year-old. He may well turn out to be the best hard court player of his generation, but you're jumping the gun by crowning him at this stage.

Yes, it's a subjective position, but it's not a prediction. If he doesn't win another slam that doesn't mean he can't be the most talented guy around on hardcourts of his age group. He just strikes me as the most able, effective player of the new generation.

Vida
01-15-2009, 07:46 PM
Nice one Nole, bit jumpy here and there but fine overall (well, 15 bps is a bit more than a bit jumpy). Nice to see FH clicking again. Murray should take notice (and Fed).

Sad about Mario, he got angry on himself. Pitta they weren't seeded to meet later.

lol at the crowd. They started booing/chanting loudly than noised down to occasional isolated quiet voice: Serbia/Croatia during service routines.

petar_pan
01-15-2009, 08:20 PM
Well he is a lawyer now after all.

like borad said:very funny hahahaha,very funny hahaha......NOT.

Clydey
01-15-2009, 10:15 PM
Is it any less silly to put Murray so far ahead of Djokovic when he's-up to now-a far less accomplished player? Form isn't just based on wins, performances count for something too even if you lose. Djokovic has, for me, twice proven himself against Federer (still the man to beat in big hardcourt events) at the Grand Slam level. In 2007, when only inexperience prevented him from going the distance in the USO '07 final, and in the 2008 AO semi. His efforts at the USO '08 were decent as well considering his health issues. To repeat what I said before, he was playing well in the latter half of 2008 keeping in mind his physical issues at the time. He won a lot despite the hindrances, of body and mind, acting on him at the time. With a clean bill of health, provided he has it, he shoots back up the list of favourites. At that level, he can mix with the other three as before and normal service will be resumed. Murray hasn't proven anything against Djokovic or Federer at the biggest events yet, and he will have to this January if he wants to take the trophy.

Safin is also a far more accomplished player than Murray, but you have to take form into account. Murray is almost exactly where Djokovic was at the start of 2008. You can't underestimate the extent to which Murray's wrist injury held him back. They were fairly close at the time of the injury, separated by one Master Series title. Neither had been past the 4th round of a slam at that stage.

What hindrances of the body are you referring to? Djokovic only ever complained of minor niggles during matches. I don't recall him ever pulling out of tournaments. It seems like speculation to say that he was injured or that he had mental issues. Players often lose form. There needn't be mental or physical factors.


Well, I didn't make my point very well but the matches you mentioned do actually expose the players' respective weaknesses. The Querrey match showed how vulnerable Nadal remains to big hitters on hardcourts, and the American should have taken the match to five sets. This has been shown countless times, and will continue to be. Andreev proved that the old tactic of agressively, relentlessly pounding Federer's backhand with high-bouncing forehands can yield results; that match also reminded us of how fragile the Swiss now looks against players he would have beaten easily in the past. The Stepanek match in part showed Djokovic struggling under the pressure of expectation, and he dealt with that better in the subsequent AO, where he beat players more clinically. I hope the same proves true of Murray, but I mentioned the Melzer and Llodra matches because they were symptomatic of how he can still get embroiled in extended matches with flashy lower-ranked players -he thinks he can wait out their errors, and that tactic was almost fatal against Melzer. Yes, he's become more aggressive even in the months since, but I suspect he still underestimates lesser players and I won't be convinced otherwise until he starts taking them out more effectively. Drawn-out matches in the AO early rounds will not do hus chances any favours.

Like I said, you are basing all of this on one Grand Slam. You can't say Murray is any more vulnerable to low ranked players than the others, since all have been tested in earlier rounds by players they should have beaten. Need I remind you about Djokovic losing to Safin at Wimbledon? You can't expect the top players to post straight sets wins every time. What matters is that they come through in the end.


Yes, it's a subjective position, but it's not a prediction. If he doesn't win another slam that doesn't mean he can't be the most talented guy around on hardcourts of his age group. He just strikes me as the most able, effective player of the new generation.

And no matter what happens your mind won't be changed on that point?

Vida
01-15-2009, 10:42 PM
Sorry to say Clydey, don't get me wrong, but you seem to be wearing a typical bandwagon merchants suit with your posts. Murray - at the slams - is an unproven commodity. His ONLY notable result of that kind was at USO and we know how that ended. Read: trashed.

Fed, Nadal and Djokovic are proven. Their consistency at the Slams in particular is insane. Look at Djokovic at what he's been through since Wimby, and he still managed to go deep at USO (after all thats happened) and give Fed a run for his money (to an extent). As a general opinion, Fed and Rafa are still no-doubts.

As much as don't like the way Fed talks, he's usually on the point. He was at Dubai, and he is now. I would not like you to get overly disappointed that's all.

Clydey
01-15-2009, 11:02 PM
Sorry to say Clydey, don't get me wrong, but you seem to be wearing a typical bandwagon merchants suit with your posts. Murray - at the slams - is an unproven commodity. His ONLY notable result of that kind was at USO and we know how that ended. Read: trashed.

Fed, Nadal and Djokovic are proven. Their consistency at the Slams in particular is insane. Look at Djokovic at what he's been through since Wimby, and he still managed to go deep at USO (after all thats happened) and give Fed a run for his money (to an extent). As a general opinion, Fed and Rafa are still no-doubts.

As much as don't like the way Fed talks, he's usually on the point. He was at Dubai, and he is now. I would not like you to get overly disappointed that's all.

What bandwagon hat? I don't think Murray is the favourite. I think Federer is. My point is that there's no basis for putting Djokovic as joint favourite. How can I be on a bandwagon when I'm one of the few who doesn't think that Murray is the favourite?

Vida
01-15-2009, 11:08 PM
What bandwagon hat? I don't think Murray is the favourite. I think Federer is. My point is that there's no basis for putting Djokovic as joint favourite. How can I be on a bandwagon when I'm one of the few who doesn't think that Murray is the favourite?

so if fed meets murray in the finals, and presumably none goes through grueling 5-setters, who would you give edge to?

Clydey
01-15-2009, 11:20 PM
so if fed meets murray in the finals, and presumably none goes through grueling 5-setters, who would you give edge to?

Federer. Whether or not that's my pessimistic nature coming out, I don't know. I'll believe that Andy Murray can win a GS when he does it. I'm a pessimist when it comes to these things.

Radalek
01-15-2009, 11:28 PM
They were fairly close at the time of the injury, separated by one Master Series title. Neither had been past the 4th round of a slam at that stage.



I think that Djokovic already had RG semi final at that time.

Clydey
01-16-2009, 12:29 AM
I think that Djokovic already had RG semi final at that time.

We're both wrong. Djokovic got to the quarters in 2006. That was his best result until the 2007 French.

BaselineSmash
01-16-2009, 01:46 AM
Safin is also a far more accomplished player than Murray, but you have to take form into account. Murray is almost exactly where Djokovic was at the start of 2008. You can't underestimate the extent to which Murray's wrist injury held him back. They were fairly close at the time of the injury, separated by one Master Series title. Neither had been past the 4th round of a slam at that stage.

Murray's present trajectory is very close to Djokovic's in 2008, yes, but he still hasn't impressed me to the extent that the Serb has on the biggest occassions. Again, the USO '07 final showed that Djokovic can go toe-to-toe with the Swiss when it really matters, and he soon capitalised on that promise. Murray, notwithstanding the fact that he got fucked with the Super Saturday scheduling and rain delays, turned in a performance that in no way proved that he's good enough to match Federer in grand slams. Do we have to bring Safin into this? Djokovic's form on hardcourts in 2007-2008 was exceptional, and I'm not disagreeing that form is relevant or that Djokovic didn't suffer a dip, but I do believe that the issues he was contending with are lesser now and put him in a better position to play well as of 2009.

What hindrances of the body are you referring to? Djokovic only ever complained of minor niggles during matches. I don't recall him ever pulling out of tournaments. It seems like speculation to say that he was injured or that he had mental issues. Players often lose form. There needn't be mental or physical factors.

No, there needn't be mental or physical factors, but do you mean to tell me that in Cincy '08 or the USO '08 Djokovic was the very figure of fun he had been around his golden period of August '07 to May '08? The mental demons were clear to see in his tortured body language on court as the '08 summer progressed, and whereas he could get down on himself during matches in the past it didn't affect him, but latterly in '08 his negativity seemed to really affect his results. He looked a dispirited figure in the Cincy final, spraying forehands he hadn't been missing in recent events, and his NYC breakdown in front of the crowd encapsulated how badly he was beginning to deal with the mental pressures acting on him. Off-the-record reports circulated in the USO grounds in '08 that he hadn't maintained his tennis training as he should have, and that he'd admitted to struggling for fitness as a result. His heat endurance was a case in point, as seen in the tortuous five-set match with Robredo, where he was strecthing out his chest after every rally in order to to breathe more freely. I'm no fan of his antics when it comes to wearing his physical problems on his sleeve when he plays (the Monte Carlo semi with Fed was a disgrace), but you'd have to be Roddick to believe there was nothing wrong with him.

Can this really all just be speculation? The guy looked fit to be taken off on a stretcher in Cincy and some USO '08 matches, and whilst his powers of exaggeration could get him an Oscar were Ledger not already a dead cert, I have no doubt that at the root there lay some genuine problems. Even if they were just "niggles", it only takes a small dip in physical well-being for some players to really suffer in their game.

Like I said, you are basing all of this on one Grand Slam. You can't say Murray is any more vulnerable to low ranked players than the others, since all have been tested in earlier rounds by players they should have beaten. Need I remind you about Djokovic losing to Safin at Wimbledon? You can't expect the top players to post straight sets wins every time. What matters is that they come through in the end.

Well, I was quite specific for your benefit when I said that Murray gets entangled in certain matches against certain types of players. I didn't generalise when pointing out the passive tactics that the Scot employs against guys like Melzer and Llodra, and which get him into trouble. All the other players are vulnerable to certain scnearios in other rounds also, but for different reasons, which I touched on previously. If you want to talk about other slams, what about Wimbledon '08 wherein Murray pulled off the comeback of the year against Gasquet. He softballed his way through two-and-a-half sets there before pulling off a great Houdini effort. The fact that he won shouldn't obscure how ineffective his counterpunching was that day, nor the fact that Gasquet's game nosedived in sets four and five. I saw much of the same rubbish in AO '07 when Murray played Verdasco (straight sets, but completely dependent on the Spaniard's errors), and the AO match against Tsonga showed that he can get the balance of defence and attack right against the big hitters -too bad it took him three sets to show it.

And no matter what happens your mind won't be changed on that point?

It's not really a point that can be argued, but in my opinion Djokovic is the cleanest, most effective ball-striker on hard out there of the young twentysomethings. That's not to say that he's the best, but that he's the most natural exponent of the baseline game. Murray's finesse in the forecourt and back court are better, but his rallying is not as commanding -his stroke production is a lot more workmanlike and can involve lots of scrambling, which is true in different ways of Nadal. Out of the other candidates of similar age like Baghdatis, Tsonga, Berdych, Gasquet (one of the most natural grasscourt players), Del Potro and Monfils, I don't see anyone else who comes close to Djoko in terms of fluent, aggressive, deadly accurate baseline play on hard. But that remains merely my opinion, and isn't based on results so much as it is on observations of technique.

Clydey
01-16-2009, 02:08 AM
Murray's present trajectory is very close to Djokovic's in 2008, yes, but he still hasn't impressed me to the extent that the Serb has on the biggest occassions. Again, the USO '07 final showed that Djokovic can go toe-to-toe with the Swiss when it really matters, and he soon capitalised on that promise. Murray, notwithstanding the fact that he got fucked with the Super Saturday scheduling and rain delays, turned in a performance that in no way proved that he's good enough to match Federer in grand slams. Do we have to bring Safin into this? Djokovic's form on hardcourts in 2007-2008 was exceptional, and I'm not disagreeing that form is relevant or that Djokovic didn't suffer a dip, but I do believe that the issues he was contending with are lesser now and put him in a better position to play well as of 2009.

I don't buy this nonsense about Murray not being able to hang with Federer in Grand Slams. This is all based on one match. People talk as though Federer goes through the motions unless it's a Grand Slam. It's not like Murray faded against him in a tough 5-setter. Therefore, the fact that it was a Grand Slam really isn't that big a deal. Murray put in a pretty shocking performance on that day and came up against the best Federer I've seen since the start of 2007. It was one match and Federer was exceptional. I doubt Andy would have won even if he had played his best. :shrug:

I don't put much stock in whether a win comes at a Grand Slam. In case people haven't realised, Master's Series events and The Master's Cup have a huge impact on the rankings, so I don't believe for a second that Federer is any less of a player in those events. You could even tell in Doha that Federer wanted to win badly. He was pissed off for a reason.


No, there needn't be mental or physical factors, but do you mean to tell me that in Cincy '08 or the USO '08 Djokovic was the very figure of fun he had been around his golden period of August '07 to May '08? The mental demons were clear to see in his tortured body language on court as the '08 summer progressed, and whereas he could get down on himself during matches in the past it didn't affect him, but latterly in '08 his negativity seemed to really affect his results. He looked a dispirited figure in the Cincy final, spraying forehands he hadn't been missing in recent events, and his NYC breakdown in front of the crowd encapsulated how badly he was beginning to deal with the mental pressures acting on him. Off-the-record reports circulated in the USO grounds in '08 that he hadn't maintained his tennis training as he should have, and that he'd admitted to struggling for fitness as a result. His heat endurance was a case in point, as seen in the tortuous five-set match with Robredo, where he was strecthing out his chest after every rally in order to to breathe more freely. I'm no fan of his antics when it comes to wearing his physical problems on his sleeve when he plays (the Monte Carlo semi with Fed was a disgrace), but you'd have to be Roddick to believe there was nothing wrong with him.

Can this really all just be speculation? The guy looked fit to be taken off on a stretcher in Cincy and some USO '08 matches, and whilst his powers of exaggeration could get him an Oscar were Ledger not already a dead cert, I have no doubt that at the root there lay some genuine problems. Even if they were just "niggles", it only takes a small dip in physical well-being for some players to really suffer in their game.

You're talking about the Cinci final as though Djokovic came in on the back of poor form. He had just hammered Nadal in the semis. Djokovic has always had breathing problems. It wasn't a new problem last year. He played well in the US Open, against Roddick and even against Federer.


Well, I was quite specific for your benefit when I said that Murray gets entangled in certain matches against certain types of players. I didn't generalise when pointing out the passive tactics that the Scot employs against guys like Melzer and Llodra, and which get him into trouble. All the other players are vulnerable to certain scnearios in other rounds also, but for different reasons, which I touched on previously. If you want to talk about other slams, what about Wimbledon '08 wherein Murray pulled off the comeback of the year against Gasquet. He softballed his way through two-and-a-half sets there before pulling off a great Houdini effort. The fact that he won shouldn't obscure how ineffective his counterpunching was that day, nor the fact that Gasquet's game nosedived in sets four and five. I saw much of the same rubbish in AO '07 when Murray played Verdasco (straight sets, but completely dependent on the Spaniard's errors), and the AO match against Tsonga showed that he can get the balance of defence and attack right against the big hitters -too bad it took him three sets to show it.

He softballed his way through the Gasquet match? He hit more total winners in that match than Gasquet off the backhand. I can't recall the stats on the forehand. Murray is always passive against Verdasco, since he has a tendency to beat himself. Watch his match with Nadal later in the same event to see a contrast between how he plays against error prone big hitters and someone like Nadal.

BaselineSmash
01-16-2009, 02:44 AM
I don't buy this nonsense about Murray not being able to hang with Federer in Grand Slams. This is all based on one match. People talk as though Federer goes through the motions unless it's a Grand Slam. It's not like Murray faded against him in a tough 5-setter. Therefore, the fact that it was a Grand Slam really isn't that big a deal. Murray put in a pretty shocking performance on that day and came up against the best Federer I've seen since the start of 2007. It was one match and Federer was exceptional. I doubt Andy would have won even if he had played his best.

I don't put much stock in whether a win comes at a Grand Slam. In case people haven't realised, Master's Series events and The Master's Cup have a huge impact on the rankings, so I don't believe for a second that Federer is any less of a player in those events. You could even tell in Doha that Federer wanted to win badly. He was pissed off for a reason.

Yes, the significance of Murray's matches against Federer have been underplayed by some and they count for a whole lot across a season, but the Swiss has increasingly been bottling his best stuff for the grand slams. I'm not suggesting that he doesn't care in lesser matches, but the undeniable trend across 2008 was one of inconsistent TMS form (no shields, and one final) and marked peaks at the grand slams. Even he doesn't seem to have the answers as to how to produce his best in certain contests (he seemed to be going all out in Madrid and Shanghai but still foundered), but the fact remains that his best play is coming at the slams and I don't see his USO '08 final performance as some kind of freak result -he's handed out his share of absolute demolitions to players over the years at slam level, such as that 6-4 6-0 6-2 win over Roddick and likewise Henman in 2007. There are many instances of him showing such form, and one should always be wary of reading too much into his matches at the lower tiers of the game.


You're talking about the Cinci final as though Djokovic came in on the back of poor form. He had just hammered Nadal in the semis. Djokovic has always had breathing problems. It wasn't a new problem last year. He played well in the US Open, against Roddick and even against Federer.

His breathing problems are well-documented, but they were worse in the 2008 summer than earlier in the season, and I repeat that his mental fortitude in Cincy/USO wasn't what it had been. Do you mean to say he really was playing freely in the USO, and that you didn't perceive any pronounced physical difficulties? He was fine in the night session against Roddick, but he was a beaten man in that SF with Federer. If you have a chance, check out some highlights of the third and fourth sets -Djokovic's expression said it all: he didn't have enough in the tank to beat Roger on that day, and he knew it. Contrast that with his previous two slam encounters with Federer and you'll see a world of difference in regards to body language.


He softballed his way through the Gasquet match? He hit more total winners in that match than Gasquet off the backhand. I can't recall the stats on the forehand. Murray is always passive against Verdasco, since he has a tendency to beat himself. Watch his match with Nadal later in the same event to see a contrast between how he plays against error prone big hitters and someone like Nadal.

I take your point about Verdasco, but I hope such tactics don't blow up in Murray's face at the AO if they meet in the fourth round. As for Gasquet match, if you read what I said you'll see that I claimed Murray was softballing for "two-and-a-half sets". His more aggressive play in the third's latter stages saved him, but the subsequent winner fest, while entertaining, was in great part due to the fact that the wind had gone out of the Frenchman's sails. Gasquet wasn't taking the ball as early, he was making more errors, and coupled with Murray's resurgence in form it spelt the end for Richard as he let backhand winners fly by him time and again, especially in that fourth set.

Rafa = Fed Killa
01-16-2009, 02:52 AM
Return of the Legend

Nole :worship:

oranges
01-16-2009, 04:43 AM
:lol: You know that when Clydey starts or even posts in a thread it will end up with discussions involving Murray no matter what.
Mario, you're not a baseliner :o Good luck at AO

Clydey
01-16-2009, 05:57 AM
Yes, the significance of Murray's matches against Federer have been underplayed by some and they count for a whole lot across a season, but the Swiss has increasingly been bottling his best stuff for the grand slams. I'm not suggesting that he doesn't care in lesser matches, but the undeniable trend across 2008 was one of inconsistent TMS form (no shields, and one final) and marked peaks at the grand slams. Even he doesn't seem to have the answers as to how to produce his best in certain contests (he seemed to be going all out in Madrid and Shanghai but still foundered), but the fact remains that his best play is coming at the slams and I don't see his USO '08 final performance as some kind of freak result -he's handed out his share of absolute demolitions to players over the years at slam level, such as that 6-4 6-0 6-2 win over Roddick and likewise Henman in 2007. There are many instances of him showing such form, and one should always be wary of reading too much into his matches at the lower tiers of the game.



As if to prove my point, Djokovic just lost to Niemenen in. I'm actually beginning to wonder whether Djokovic has peaked already. No idea what has happened to this guy's form.

BaselineSmash
01-16-2009, 01:51 PM
As if to prove my point, Djokovic just lost to Niemenen in. I'm actually beginning to wonder whether Djokovic has peaked already. No idea what has happened to this guy's form.

I dare say he wasn't trying his hardest. We'll soon find out what he's really bringing to the table.

Clydey
01-16-2009, 02:39 PM
I dare say he wasn't trying his hardest. We'll soon find out what he's really bringing to the table.

He was obviously trying his hardest. Had he won that match he would have went up to world number 2.