2013 Wimbledon Final: Djokovic vs. Murray

[britbox]

Andy was on the cover of 1 or 2 papers today. I bought ALL of them.

Your paperboy is out for the remainder of the year with a back injury.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

what can i say? soooo glad. as i'd announced, i missed all of the final weekend, including the semis, because i was in germany with the in-laws. travel came in the way of the semis, and the trip to a concert collided with the big F - i know, it's ridiculously stupid for a tennis fan, but gf and family still come first.

anyway, it made for nice celebration right before the concert, a fellow fan was so nice as to check the scores for me. i even tried starting an german football fan-style "Andy Murray" chant and clap, didn't quite catch on. still - yay.

so happy for Iona, of course.

Congratulations, Andy Murray - first Brit to win Wimbledon since.... 1977, of course. and first male brit to do so in ages. wow.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

btw - i'm sure this has been pointed out before, but i just noticed - not one person had Andy in 3 in the poll. nice

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

To me that was a great match, so unsure of the result until the final ball.... pretty sure the match would've still been in the air if Novak won that break point. Very happy for Murray, but it really shows what a champion Djoker is. The guy is absolute steel under pressure, in comparison Murray is still a kid learning his way but he is getting better. Doesn't matter how good you are, a real champ must have the mind of one.

---

Are you telling me none of you guys picked Murray in 3?

Though I really don't like Murray one bit I am happy The Joke is stuck at 6.

I don't know, but you can't watch Djoker and not admire him. The guy is made of steel.

---

This was not a match from Djokovic that displayed any steel. That was the puzzling thing, he went quietly into the night. Not sure if it means anything in the future or it was just a bad day physically and mentally at the office.

---

i just can't vouch for the accuracy of your assessment, it's way off very often (usually about Federer). Djoker saved tons of break points, by hanging in there very tough. Look, Murray had more good luck today and the crowd was so against Djoker, and in that situation Djoker fought till the very end. Can you imagine what'd happen if Murray was in his shoe? Djoker played him tough, you gotta look at things without being biased.

---

This was not a match from Djokovic that displayed any steel. That was the puzzling thing, he went quietly into the night. Not sure if it means anything in the future or it was just a bad day physically and mentally at the office.

I was thinking the same thing. This was anything BUT clutch tennis. It's probably Djokovic's worst slam final performance. Maybe even one of his worst performances in a big match. To say that he displayed steel is laughable.

Every time he had a lead, he led it slip away. He made head scratching UFEs at the most inopportune moments, insane net rushes, lost his temper and composure, and almost never got a foothold in the match despite being ahead a few times (and even 4-1 in set 2). This was far away from the guy who saved Match points against Fed and beat Nadal in 3 slam Finals. Not the ruthless machine who became #1.

All credit to Murray though. Played a great match and held his nerve. Hopefully he can play more offensive tennis now that the monkey of his back. He's so much better when he hits through the ball and stands in.

Finally, one could NOW make a reasonable argument that Murray might be a better grasscourt player than Djokovic, which is what I said before the match. Except that I didn't know Djokovic would cave in so meekly.

To not being able to see how tough Djoker was and the fact that he still played well under the situation, is very silly. They both thought it was a high level match, and it couldn't be if one player didn't play well. And as well as Murray played, the fact that Djoker was able to still have a lead in 2nd and 3rd set showed how well he was playing himself. Djoker is always very honest about his performance, he has expressed countless times how he was disappointed with his level of play, but today he emphasized on 'high level' - definitely not trying to be diplomatic.

The only reason you would say these laughable things, is that you wanted Djoker to win and he didn't. This sort of reaction usually follows after your horse didn't finish first. It's easy to be biased, just sit back and look again you might find how wrong you are.

---

Very disappointed in Djokovic! This is the second slam in a row where he has given up leads in sets and lost. You have to hold serve that is the difference between Nole 2011 an this Nole. His serve was far superior and consistent in 2011

So he lost and it's always that he gave up and played poorly, natural reaction when you support a particular player. Djoker didn't 'give up' leads, Murray had to step up and took it from him. Also he didn't serve as badly as you claimed, he actually had higher 1st serve in % than Murray, not high % winning but you have to attribute that to his opponent for returning very well this match.

---

---

---

Really, I call getting broken immediately after breaking a player pretty poor play. Serena did the same thing against Lisicki give up the break after breaking in the final set. Pretty poor play if you ask me. I can understand once, but consistently losing serve after breaking yeah I call that poor play period! I wasn't knocking Andy. I was knocking Djokovic big difference! I would also add like I said the second slam in a row where Djokovic squandered a lead in sets and lost.

 

[El Dude]

Ricardo really knows how to make friends. Anyhow, I'd consider myself pretty unbiased in that I like Andy and Novak about the same, and I think it obvious that Novak wasn't on his game on Sunday. In fact, it was the worst match I've seen him play in quite some time. This doesn't mean Andy didn't deserve it or didn't play well - he does and did - but that he won because he played well enough to beat Djokovic's "C game," not even his "B game."

---

Iona16, do you know Andy?

 

[isabelle]

Well deserved win, congrats Andy and Lendl
All England celebrated the "new" Fred Perry Nole didn't play well but Andy was unstoppable very happy for Andy

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Andy was on the cover of 1 or 2 papers today. I bought ALL of them.

Your paperboy is out for the remainder of the year with a back injury.

Playing the injury card again? Next thing you're gonna say he was injured during delivery to begin with

 

[Ricardo]

To me that was a great match, so unsure of the result until the final ball.... pretty sure the match would've still been in the air if Novak won that break point. Very happy for Murray, but it really shows what a champion Djoker is. The guy is absolute steel under pressure, in comparison Murray is still a kid learning his way but he is getting better. Doesn't matter how good you are, a real champ must have the mind of one.

---

Are you telling me none of you guys picked Murray in 3?

Though I really don't like Murray one bit I am happy The Joke is stuck at 6.

I don't know, but you can't watch Djoker and not admire him. The guy is made of steel.

---

This was not a match from Djokovic that displayed any steel. That was the puzzling thing, he went quietly into the night. Not sure if it means anything in the future or it was just a bad day physically and mentally at the office.

---

i just can't vouch for the accuracy of your assessment, it's way off very often (usually about Federer). Djoker saved tons of break points, by hanging in there very tough. Look, Murray had more good luck today and the crowd was so against Djoker, and in that situation Djoker fought till the very end. Can you imagine what'd happen if Murray was in his shoe? Djoker played him tough, you gotta look at things without being biased.

---

This was not a match from Djokovic that displayed any steel. That was the puzzling thing, he went quietly into the night. Not sure if it means anything in the future or it was just a bad day physically and mentally at the office.

I was thinking the same thing. This was anything BUT clutch tennis. It's probably Djokovic's worst slam final performance. Maybe even one of his worst performances in a big match. To say that he displayed steel is laughable.

Every time he had a lead, he led it slip away. He made head scratching UFEs at the most inopportune moments, insane net rushes, lost his temper and composure, and almost never got a foothold in the match despite being ahead a few times (and even 4-1 in set 2). This was far away from the guy who saved Match points against Fed and beat Nadal in 3 slam Finals. Not the ruthless machine who became #1.

All credit to Murray though. Played a great match and held his nerve. Hopefully he can play more offensive tennis now that the monkey of his back. He's so much better when he hits through the ball and stands in.

Finally, one could NOW make a reasonable argument that Murray might be a better grasscourt player than Djokovic, which is what I said before the match. Except that I didn't know Djokovic would cave in so meekly.

To not being able to see how tough Djoker was and the fact that he still played well under the situation, is very silly. They both thought it was a high level match, and it couldn't be if one player didn't play well. And as well as Murray played, the fact that Djoker was able to still have a lead in 2nd and 3rd set showed how well he was playing himself. Djoker is always very honest about his performance, he has expressed countless times how he was disappointed with his level of play, but today he emphasized on 'high level' - definitely not trying to be diplomatic.

The only reason you would say these laughable things, is that you wanted Djoker to win and he didn't. This sort of reaction usually follows after your horse didn't finish first. It's easy to be biased, just sit back and look again you might find how wrong you are.

---

Very disappointed in Djokovic! This is the second slam in a row where he has given up leads in sets and lost. You have to hold serve that is the difference between Nole 2011 an this Nole. His serve was far superior and consistent in 2011

So he lost and it's always that he gave up and played poorly, natural reaction when you support a particular player. Djoker didn't 'give up' leads, Murray had to step up and took it from him. Also he didn't serve as badly as you claimed, he actually had higher 1st serve in % than Murray, not high % winning but you have to attribute that to his opponent for returning very well this match.

---

---

---

Really, I call getting broken immediately after breaking a player pretty poor play. Serena did the same thing against Lisicki give up the break after breaking in the final set. Pretty poor play if you ask me. I can understand once, but consistently losing serve after breaking yeah I call that poor play period! I wasn't knocking Andy. I was knocking Djokovic big difference! I would also add like I said the second slam in a row where Djokovic squandered a lead in sets and lost.

---

---

---

at some point you'll need to admit that Murray upped his game to break back, you think some other average player could do that? the fact you ignored that shows you are knocking Andy. Murray can be better than Djoker when he is on game, even in 2011 he should've beaten Djoker who was on his best streak ever. Djoker is not a player who just gives up leads, Andy earned it.... stop being so blind.

---

To me that was a great match, so unsure of the result until the final ball.... pretty sure the match would've still been in the air if Novak won that break point. Very happy for Murray, but it really shows what a champion Djoker is. The guy is absolute steel under pressure, in comparison Murray is still a kid learning his way but he is getting better. Doesn't matter how good you are, a real champ must have the mind of one.

---

Are you telling me none of you guys picked Murray in 3?

Though I really don't like Murray one bit I am happy The Joke is stuck at 6.

I don't know, but you can't watch Djoker and not admire him. The guy is made of steel.

---

This was not a match from Djokovic that displayed any steel. That was the puzzling thing, he went quietly into the night. Not sure if it means anything in the future or it was just a bad day physically and mentally at the office.

---

i just can't vouch for the accuracy of your assessment, it's way off very often (usually about Federer). Djoker saved tons of break points, by hanging in there very tough. Look, Murray had more good luck today and the crowd was so against Djoker, and in that situation Djoker fought till the very end. Can you imagine what'd happen if Murray was in his shoe? Djoker played him tough, you gotta look at things without being biased.

---

This was not a match from Djokovic that displayed any steel. That was the puzzling thing, he went quietly into the night. Not sure if it means anything in the future or it was just a bad day physically and mentally at the office.

I was thinking the same thing. This was anything BUT clutch tennis. It's probably Djokovic's worst slam final performance. Maybe even one of his worst performances in a big match. To say that he displayed steel is laughable.

Every time he had a lead, he led it slip away. He made head scratching UFEs at the most inopportune moments, insane net rushes, lost his temper and composure, and almost never got a foothold in the match despite being ahead a few times (and even 4-1 in set 2). This was far away from the guy who saved Match points against Fed and beat Nadal in 3 slam Finals. Not the ruthless machine who became #1.

All credit to Murray though. Played a great match and held his nerve. Hopefully he can play more offensive tennis now that the monkey of his back. He's so much better when he hits through the ball and stands in.

Finally, one could NOW make a reasonable argument that Murray might be a better grasscourt player than Djokovic, which is what I said before the match. Except that I didn't know Djokovic would cave in so meekly.

To not being able to see how tough Djoker was and the fact that he still played well under the situation, is very silly. They both thought it was a high level match, and it couldn't be if one player didn't play well. And as well as Murray played, the fact that Djoker was able to still have a lead in 2nd and 3rd set showed how well he was playing himself. Djoker is always very honest about his performance, he has expressed countless times how he was disappointed with his level of play, but today he emphasized on 'high level' - definitely not trying to be diplomatic.

The only reason you would say these laughable things, is that you wanted Djoker to win and he didn't. This sort of reaction usually follows after your horse didn't finish first. It's easy to be biased, just sit back and look again you might find how wrong you are.

---

Very disappointed in Djokovic! This is the second slam in a row where he has given up leads in sets and lost. You have to hold serve that is the difference between Nole 2011 an this Nole. His serve was far superior and consistent in 2011

So he lost and it's always that he gave up and played poorly, natural reaction when you support a particular player. Djoker didn't 'give up' leads, Murray had to step up and took it from him. Also he didn't serve as badly as you claimed, he actually had higher 1st serve in % than Murray, not high % winning but you have to attribute that to his opponent for returning very well this match.

---

---

---

Ricky accusing others of being biased when he has made a living on these boards berating posters, especially those who support Djokovic. Saying someone who loses 8 out of 9 games after taking a 4-1 lead in the 2nd and then loses the last 4 games after a 4-2 lead in the 3rd is someone who displayed incredible steel is one of the most laughable things I've seen on this board. I mean just read that last sentence...8 out of 9 games on grass after a commanding lead, and then the last 4 games after going up 4-2 in a set he needed to prolong the match. I'm guessing your "accurate" assessment is based on Djokovic saving 3 match points in the final game. :nono I guess we can ignore the above and focus on 5 points of the match where Djokovic didn't disappear...

---

---

---

sigh... reading the above shows i don't need to waste time on you. Put simply, they thought they played a high level match, think about what it means.

 

[Moxie]

^ Ricardo, I agree that it was a high-level match, for a 3-setter, but I'd be surprised if any Djokovic supporters would tell you he was his usual, steely self. Letting the 2nd set slip away was surprising. If he'd won that set, then I would agree the game where Murray was fending off championship points, which would then only have been BPs, might have been pivotal. As it was, it seemed only the possibility of putting off the inevitable. Djokovic seemed to bear the weight of the mental effort that it took him to beat Del Potro, and maybe the effects of RG, too. He wasn't completely sharp, mentally, in that final. I don't know if it has been mentioned, but it seems to have been a good choice from the Murray team to skip RG, rehab the back, and protect his Wimbledon. There is a reason that the Channel Slam is considered so difficult. For Djokovic, it was just one match too far.

 

[Mog]

^ Ricardo, I agree that it was a high-level match, for a 3-setter, but I'd be surprised if any Djokovic supporters would tell you he was his usual, steely self. Letting the 2nd set slip away was surprising. If he'd won that set, then I would agree the game where Murray was fending off championship points, which would then only have been BPs, might have been pivotal. As it was, it seemed only the possibility of putting off the inevitable. Djokovic seemed to bear the weight of the mental effort that it took him to beat Del Potro, and maybe the effects of RG, too. He wasn't completely sharp, mentally, in that final. I don't know if it has been mentioned, but it seems to have been a good choice from the Murray team to skip RG, rehab the back, and protect his Wimbledon. There is a reason that the Channel Slam is considered so difficult. For Djokovic, it was just one match too far.

Good post.
Yes it was very tense and highly contested match. As you said if 2nd set went other way it could have gone to perhaps 4/5 sets. In such matches there is always a difference of few pivotal points.
Djokovic had a long fought semi against Delpo but these are grand slams and there are always situations like that.
No champion always plays his best or at 100% but manages to win.
Djokovic tried very well to be in the match but it was not his day.
Now we may see them many finals switching roles.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I would be very interested to see how Murray does against Rafa at non clay final. That being said, its now very urgent for Rafa to perform better at the other slams so this type of final can have an opportunity to materialize.

 

[Ricardo]

^ Ricardo, I agree that it was a high-level match, for a 3-setter, but I'd be surprised if any Djokovic supporters would tell you he was his usual, steely self. Letting the 2nd set slip away was surprising. If he'd won that set, then I would agree the game where Murray was fending off championship points, which would then only have been BPs, might have been pivotal. As it was, it seemed only the possibility of putting off the inevitable. Djokovic seemed to bear the weight of the mental effort that it took him to beat Del Potro, and maybe the effects of RG, too. He wasn't completely sharp, mentally, in that final. I don't know if it has been mentioned, but it seems to have been a good choice from the Murray team to skip RG, rehab the back, and protect his Wimbledon. There is a reason that the Channel Slam is considered so difficult. For Djokovic, it was just one match too far.

not often i find something to agree with you, good sign the way these nay-sayers claim, sounds like Djoker was giving it up and Murray simply ran him off the court in straight.... it must have been one of the most intensely contested straight setter i've seen, certainly the most intense one at this Wimbledon. I think the mistake a lot of them make, is they read the score and draw a conclusion on that which doesn't reflect the dynamics of the match at all. They say Djoker served badly, but never consider the fact that his % was good and maybe Murray is just a great return who get more of them back than other players, no? he was mentally weak for dropping some important service games, surely Murray had a lot to do with it.... i just don't see Djoker with his aura and confidence would just capitulate.

Was Djoker at his best? firstly he lost the match, clearly he wasn't. But the point is, if he was just little better in some of the crucial moment, it may well have been a different outcome..... it was that CLOSE.

---

^ Ricardo, I agree that it was a high-level match, for a 3-setter, but I'd be surprised if any Djokovic supporters would tell you he was his usual, steely self. Letting the 2nd set slip away was surprising. If he'd won that set, then I would agree the game where Murray was fending off championship points, which would then only have been BPs, might have been pivotal. As it was, it seemed only the possibility of putting off the inevitable. Djokovic seemed to bear the weight of the mental effort that it took him to beat Del Potro, and maybe the effects of RG, too. He wasn't completely sharp, mentally, in that final. I don't know if it has been mentioned, but it seems to have been a good choice from the Murray team to skip RG, rehab the back, and protect his Wimbledon. There is a reason that the Channel Slam is considered so difficult. For Djokovic, it was just one match too far.

BTW i am never surprised when Djoker supporters say those things, they never admit other guy's good play and stop at that. Djoker must have played like a crap to lose, he simply cannot lose when playing well..... it's simply delusional fandom talk. i can easily see Fed, Murray and Tsonga all capable of playing higher level than him on grass, when all playing well.

 

[Iona16]

It's quite weird to read this thread back and see just what some posters had to say before the match. To be honest some of it bewilders me. I hate to break it to some people but Andy is no.2 in the world for a reason and he is no slouch on grass. He has 3 Queen's titles. He won an Olympic gold by beating both Djokovic and Federer in straight sets. He also won silver in the mixed doubles. Wimbledon has always been Andy's most consistent slam. Of the big 4 he is the player that has the best grass court record these past few years.

I don't think it would hurt to give Andy the credit he deserves. He was under enormous pressure in the final and he handled it. He wasn't going to be denied the Wimbledon title.

 

[fedfan]

It's quite weird to read this thread back and see just what some posters had to say before the match. To be honest some of it bewilders me. I hate to break it to some people but Andy is no.2 in the world for a reason and he is no slouch on grass. He has 3 Queen's titles. He won an Olympic gold by beating both Djokovic and Federer in straight sets. He also won silver in the mixed doubles. Wimbledon has always been Andy's most consistent slam. Of the big 4 he is the player that has the best grass court record these past few years.

I don't think it would hurt to give Andy the credit he deserves. He was under enormous pressure in the final and he handled it. He wasn't going to be denied the Wimbledon title.

:clap

Well said. The man was on a mission and was not going to be denied. I thought the Brothers Mac said it well in that Andy probably hoped to win it last year against Fed, but expected to this time and it showed.

 

[tented]

It's quite weird to read this thread back and see just what some posters had to say before the match. To be honest some of it bewilders me. I hate to break it to some people but Andy is no.2 in the world for a reason and he is no slouch on grass. He has 3 Queen's titles. He won an Olympic gold by beating both Djokovic and Federer in straight sets. He also won silver in the mixed doubles. Wimbledon has always been Andy's most consistent slam. Of the big 4 he is the player that has the best grass court record these past few years.

I don't think it would hurt to give Andy the credit he deserves. He was under enormous pressure in the final and he handled it. He wasn't going to be denied the Wimbledon title.

All true, and well worth pointing out.

This made me curious to look up Andy's record on grass:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=mr

He has an 84% winning percentage on it, which is better than any other surface, including hards. Clearly, the guy can play on grass, and play exceptionally well.

 

[rafanoy1992]

It's quite weird to read this thread back and see just what some posters had to say before the match. To be honest some of it bewilders me. I hate to break it to some people but Andy is no.2 in the world for a reason and he is no slouch on grass. He has 3 Queen's titles. He won an Olympic gold by beating both Djokovic and Federer in straight sets. He also won silver in the mixed doubles. Wimbledon has always been Andy's most consistent slam. Of the big 4 he is the player that has the best grass court record these past few years.

I don't think it would hurt to give Andy the credit he deserves. He was under enormous pressure in the final and he handled it. He wasn't going to be denied the Wimbledon title.

I agree with you Iona. By the way, I picked Murray to win the tournament before it started so I'm very happy for Andy and for myself

I think why posters pick Djokovic over Murray is because some fans and posters still don't think Murray deserves to be in the Big Four. They also believe that he still not as mentally as tough as the other members of the Big Four. That's why I am really glad he won Wimbledon so he can show the world he truly belongs in the Big Four. This match also showed he is up there when it comes to mental toughness (although he was already mentally tough in my book).

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

It's quite weird to read this thread back and see just what some posters had to say before the match. To be honest some of it bewilders me. I hate to break it to some people but Andy is no.2 in the world for a reason and he is no slouch on grass. He has 3 Queen's titles. He won an Olympic gold by beating both Djokovic and Federer in straight sets. He also won silver in the mixed doubles. Wimbledon has always been Andy's most consistent slam. Of the big 4 he is the player that has the best grass court record these past few years.

I don't think it would hurt to give Andy the credit he deserves. He was under enormous pressure in the final and he handled it. He wasn't going to be denied the Wimbledon title.

All true, and well worth pointing out.

This made me curious to look up Andy's record on grass:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=mr

He has an 84% winning percentage on it, which is better than any other surface, including hards. Clearly, the guy can play on grass, and play exceptionally well.

well, i hate to... no wait, i LOVE to say i told you so... i don't want to dig up the post, but it was exactly this, his wonderful grass record, that made me insist in the first place that the bookies' rates were not representative of the actual chances of them winning when comparing Novak and Murray for the whole tournament. always said that the smart money was on Andy.

it'll be interesting how this will reflect on the odds at the USO, with Andy going in #2, but defending champ. of course, we still have two Masters ahead that will definitely influence the situation.

 

[the AntiPusher]

It's quite weird to read this thread back and see just what some posters had to say before the match. To be honest some of it bewilders me. I hate to break it to some people but Andy is no.2 in the world for a reason and he is no slouch on grass. He has 3 Queen's titles. He won an Olympic gold by beating both Djokovic and Federer in straight sets. He also won silver in the mixed doubles. Wimbledon has always been Andy's most consistent slam. Of the big 4 he is the player that has the best grass court record these past few years.

I don't think it would hurt to give Andy the credit he deserves. He was under enormous pressure in the final and he handled it. He wasn't going to be denied the Wimbledon title.

All true, and well worth pointing out.

This made me curious to look up Andy's record on grass:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=mr

He has an 84% winning percentage on it, which is better than any other surface, including hards. Clearly, the guy can play on grass, and play exceptionally well.

well, i hate to... no wait, i LOVE to say i told you so... i don't want to dig up the post, but it was exactly this, his wonderful grass record, that made me insist in the first place that the bookies' rates were not representative of the actual chances of them winning when comparing Novak and Murray for the whole tournament. always said that the smart money was on Andy.

it'll be interesting how this will reflect on the odds at the USO, with Andy going in #2, but defending champ. of course, we still have two Masters ahead that will definitely influence the situation.

If you look at Murray H2H record versus the other big 3, its very impressive. I always felt that recently Murray has benefited from Rafa's inconsistent play in the GSs the past 2 years. I think the US Open biggest questions are Rafa and Fed. I am quite certain Rafa results will be very similar to IW. Fed will be back and fierce as ever. Djoker will regroup. For now, Andy is the man.

 

[Ricardo]

It is official, Andy will be introduced in match opening as the defending USO champion and Wimbledon champion..... who'd have thought that a year ago?

 

[Moxie]

It is official, Andy will be introduced in match opening as the defending USO champion and Wimbledon champion..... who'd have thought that a year ago?

Iona! :clap