2015: Review

[Great Hands]

Facts are actually made of this kinda stuff: 4 slam finals in two years, winning half of them.

For example, you really go to some lengths to downplay his achievements, mentioning in a previous post how much greater than Murray Federer is - and he is, no doubt about it - but you don't subject Federer's achievements, or Nole's, to the same "context" you're putting on Murray, for those two seasons. Example:

"USO12 - Again, Murray got there without having to play Fedalovic."

"WD13 - Guess what? No Fedalovic till the final again."

Federer won a slew of slams without even having to face a great player at all.

You are misinterpreting me, my friend. This discussion is contextual. The context is the question 'was Murray better under Lendl?'
Your argument that Murray is not as good now is all based on his play against Novak and Fed. So the fact that Andy didn't have to play Novak or Fed to get to 3 of those 4 slam finals under Lendl is a relevant point, and that's why I made it. i.e. To get to those finals, he beat players that he beats routinely this year.

But if the context is Andy as a player and where he stands among the great players, then the fact that he didn't have to play Fedalovic to reach those slams is indeed, as you say, not relevant. For the record, my opnion on Murray is that he is a great player, who could have won more slams but for the fact that he has been playing in an era of three of the greatest players of all time.
[ I actually th The fact that he has won 2 slams already is a fantastic achievement, far exceeding any expectations I or anyone else had of him when he first came onto the senior tour, when most seem to think he had the potential to be a top 20 player. He's far exceeded that with hard work and dedicarion]

Or else you say something like, "AO13 - Murray got to the final, beating a Fed who was coming off a 5 set match." What? Are you using the tired excuse again? You realise that Federer hadn't dropped a single set before the quarters, and there he went to five sets and it left him too tired to compete?

I am saying, as I said in my original post, that these are 'exactly the conditions where I'd be much more hopeful of Andy beating Fed now.'

you really don't beleive inftigue, do you? these guys are not robots, not machines. they are human beings. again, as in my last opopst, my conaslucons are not odd, they were being made by millions. this forum, and teh commentaotrs, talked about how fed was gassed int eh fifth set. it's not just me saying this, buddy. and this is the only time murray has beaten fed at a slam. i'm just deawingf concusions from this: theo ne time andy beat fed at a slam, it was a slwoer court, and fed got gassed towards the end. i am thereforer not expecting andy to beat fed on fast surfaxces when federer is fresh. becaus ehe has never done so. uder lednl or under anyone else. i am just being realistic.

it's funny, because i mremebnr you saying in a post a while back that you hated teh fact that nadal went and won teh olymics 2008 because he tired himlsef out before teh uso...
buit i thouvght you didn't belive in tiredness? human beings, accoridng to youm do not suffer from fatigue.
rather hypocritcial then, don't you think?



Same as Novak in Wimbo 2013? Dropped two whole sets across 6 matches, and it knackered him out? These boys train for best of five at slams!

As i said, henman and becker both observed classic signs of fatifue in novak in that wd final. but i;m sure you know better than two professxional tennsi players about what top-flgiht tennis takes otu fo you. how many grand slams is it that you have won? you're so set in your argeumetn that you're going to disregard what the real pros think? not a good way to go, my friend.



Remember Andy's breakthrough slam, the 2012 US Open? Remarkably - and this will tickle you - he dropped a lung-busting three sets on the way to the final, and he wasn't a bit tired.

oh boy. you do realiase, don't you, that novak went into a frifth set with andy aftet playing 3 days in arow, when andy had ahd a day off.

nocak said when he had to play 3 days in arow at rg this year that he had less spring in his legs in the final. but again, you know better than a profssiosnal athelete. tiredness does not exist, accoridng to you. whaty a wweird point of view. .
[ what a strange world are you living in? do you sleep at all? or do you not need ot rest? well, the rest pf us human beings do.]

And then, having seen Novak come back from two sets down, he did something he never does now: he stuck around to the finish.

Murray played great in that fifth, but novk was cramping. i know, because i got annoyed about the fact that the commentaors and people on forums were saying it, because i felt it took away from andy's win, and one of my most excitn gnights watchign tennis ever. but when i watched the match back agaim amd again, i coudl see thaqt they wer right. and i realised that didn't take away form andy' win, becasue needing all0-tme greats ot be under par for you to win is no disgrzce, adny is a great plaer in an extraorifanlry togh era, and he deserbved his slams immensely. he is a much better player than many other 2 tiem lasm winners.

We disagree, buddy, that's cool, but just for the record, I was under the impression you're a Muzza fan. Obviously I got that wrong...

i thiknk i've adddressed this above. i think murray is a fastastic player. i am just a realist. he is also not at good as fed, novak or rafa. i am surpsrised that this is such a controversial propotison. i woudl ahve imagined that most sane tennis fans would agree with me.

 

[Great Hands]

Facts are actually made of this kinda stuff: 4 slam finals in two years, winning half of them.

For example, you really go to some lengths to downplay his achievements, mentioning in a previous post how much greater than Murray Federer is - and he is, no doubt about it - but you don't subject Federer's achievements, or Nole's, to the same "context" you're putting on Murray, for those two seasons. Example:

"USO12 - Again, Murray got there without having to play Fedalovic."

"WD13 - Guess what? No Fedalovic till the final again."

Federer won a slew of slams without even having to face a great player at all.

You are misinterpreting me, my friend. This discussion is contextual. The context is the question 'was Murray better under Lendl?'
Your argument that Murray is not as good now is all based on his play against Novak and Fed. So the fact that Andy didn't have to play Novak or Fed to get to 3 of those 4 slam finals under Lendl is a relevant point, and that's why I made it. i.e. To get to those finals, he beat players that he beats routinely this year.

But if the context is Andy as a player and where he stands among the great players, then the fact that he didn't have to play Fedalovic to reach those slams is indeed, as you say, not relevant. For the record, my opnion on Murray is that he is a great player, who could have won more slams but for the fact that he has been playing in an era of three of the greatest players of all time.
[ I actually th The fact that he has won 2 slams already is a fantastic achievement, far exceeding any expectations I or anyone else had of him when he first came onto the senior tour, when most seem to think he had the potential to be a top 20 player. He's far exceeded that with hard work and dedicarion]

Or else you say something like, "AO13 - Murray got to the final, beating a Fed who was coming off a 5 set match." What? Are you using the tired excuse again? You realise that Federer hadn't dropped a single set before the quarters, and there he went to five sets and it left him too tired to compete?

I am saying, as I said in my original post, that these are 'exactly the conditions where I'd be much more hopeful of Andy beating Fed now.'

you really don't beleive inftigue, do you? these guys are not robots, not machines. they are human beings. again, as in my last opopst, my conaslucons are not odd, they were being made by millions. this forum, and teh commentaotrs, talked about how fed was gassed int eh fifth set. it's not just me saying this, buddy. and this is the only time murray has beaten fed at a slam. i'm just deawingf concusions from this: theo ne time andy beat fed at a slam, it was a slwoer court, and fed got gassed towards the end. i am thereforer not expecting andy to beat fed on fast surfaxces when federer is fresh. becaus ehe has never done so. uder lednl or under anyone else. i am just being realistic.

it's funny, because i mremebnr you saying in a post a while back that you hated teh fact that nadal went and won teh olymics 2008 because he tired himlsef out before teh uso...
buit i thouvght you didn't belive in tiredness? human beings, accoridng to youm do not suffer from fatigue.
rather hypocritcial then, don't you think?



Same as Novak in Wimbo 2013? Dropped two whole sets across 6 matches, and it knackered him out? These boys train for best of five at slams!

As i said, henman and becker both observed classic signs of fatifue in novak in that wd final. but i;m sure you know better than two professxional tennsi players about what top-flgiht tennis takes otu fo you. how many grand slams is it that you have won? you're so set in your argeumetn that you're going to disregard what the real pros think? not a good way to go, my friend.



Remember Andy's breakthrough slam, the 2012 US Open? Remarkably - and this will tickle you - he dropped a lung-busting three sets on the way to the final, and he wasn't a bit tired.

oh boy. you do realiase, don't you, that novak went into a frifth set with andy aftet playing 3 days in arow, when andy had ahd a day off.

nocak said when he had to play 3 days in arow at rg this year that he had less spring in his legs in the final. but again, you know better than a profssiosnal athelete. tiredness does not exist, accoridng to you. whaty a wweird point of view. .
[ what a strange world are you living in? do you sleep at all? or do you not need ot rest? well, the rest pf us human beings do.]

And then, having seen Novak come back from two sets down, he did something he never does now: he stuck around to the finish.

Murray played great in that fifth, but novk was cramping. i know, because i got annoyed about the fact that the commentaors and people on forums were saying it, because i felt it took away from andy's win, and one of my most excitn gnights watchign tennis ever. but when i watched the match back agaim amd again, i coudl see thaqt they wer right. and i realised that didn't take away form andy' win, becasue needing all0-tme greats ot be under par for you to win is no disgrzce, adny is a great plaer in an extraorifanlry togh era, and he deserbved his slams immensely. he is a much better player than many other 2 tiem lasm winners.

We disagree, buddy, that's cool, but just for the record, I was under the impression you're a Muzza fan. Obviously I got that wrong...

i thiknk i've adddressed this above. i think murray is a fastastic player. i am just a realist. he is also not at good as fed, novak or rafa. i am surpsrised that this is such a controversial propotison. i woudl ahve imagined that most sane tennis fans would agree with me.

in fact, here's fg frm a post above:
I think the final of the US Open 2012 is the only one which Novak "should" have won as in my opinion his level during that tournament was considerably higher and the combination of a lot of wind especially during the first two sets and having had to play three sets against Ferrer the day before was quite unfortunate for Novak.
it's not jsut me, buddy.

 

[Front242]

^^^ It's all about the match-ups I guess! Heaven knows Roger smoked Andy on grass; terribly embarrassing for him and his fans! It was so decisive; IN STRAIGHT SETS to the old man! :nono :cover

Roger served probably the best he ever has done in that match. Not sure anyone would've beaten that day so can't really call it embarrassing as Andy got to the tail end of each set and was just out served and outplayed.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Nah, the facts say it clearly: Andy is weaker and less successful now that he was under Lendl. An octogenarian is dispatching him as if he was a mere wisp. And Nole knows now that Andy isn't going to persevere when the going gets rough. Remember Andy's breakthrough slam, the 2012 US Open? Remarkably - and this will tickle you - he dropped a lung-busting three sets on the way to the final, and he wasn't a bit tired.

But playing a five hour semi final is a big difference to having three finally rather comfortable four set victories on the way to the final. After his five hour-wins against Andy at the Australian Open 2012 and against Wawrinka in Australia 2013 Novak also definitely wasn't at his best in the match after but playing at night at his favourite Slam and against opponents he was comfortable playing at that time, made it possible for him to win those.

In the Wimbledon final he had to play a tough match-up on his at that time definitely worst surface, without any crowd support on a very hot day. So that combined with fatigue probably made it quite difficult for Novak to get into the match. It's doubtful he would have won anyway as Andy won quite comfortably but Novak clearly played well below average and could have at least made the match a lot tougher.

 

[Kieran]

Nah, the facts say it clearly: Andy is weaker and less successful now that he was under Lendl. An octogenarian is dispatching him as if he was a mere wisp. And Nole knows now that Andy isn't going to persevere when the going gets rough. Remember Andy's breakthrough slam, the 2012 US Open? Remarkably - and this will tickle you - he dropped a lung-busting three sets on the way to the final, and he wasn't a bit tired.

But playing a five hour semi final is a big difference to having three finally rather comfortable four set victories on the way to the final. After his five hour-wins against Andy at the Australian Open 2012 and against Wawrinka in Australia 2013 Novak also definitely wasn't at his best in the match after but playing at night on his favourite surface and against opponents he was comfortable playing at that time, made it possible for him to win those.

But at the Wimbledon final he had to play a tough match-up on his at that time definitely worst surface, without any crowd support on a very hot day. So that combined with fatigue probably made it quite difficult for Novak to get into the match. It's doubtful he would have won anyway as Andy won that match quite comfortably but Novak clearly played well below average and could have at least made the match a lot tougher.

As my old buddy Front pointed out, Novak was up a break in each set in that Wimbledon final. But then he chickened out. Andy actually had to come back from 2 sets down in the quarters, then he went to four in the semis - and he faced a whole world of pressure in the final, trying to be the first Brit since Boadicea to win Wimbledon, and yet the match was decided by Novak's lack of conditioning?

It wasn't.

Andy was the better player on the day...

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Nah, the facts say it clearly: Andy is weaker and less successful now that he was under Lendl. An octogenarian is dispatching him as if he was a mere wisp. And Nole knows now that Andy isn't going to persevere when the going gets rough. Remember Andy's breakthrough slam, the 2012 US Open? Remarkably - and this will tickle you - he dropped a lung-busting three sets on the way to the final, and he wasn't a bit tired.

But playing a five hour semi final is a big difference to having three finally rather comfortable four set victories on the way to the final. After his five hour-wins against Andy at the Australian Open 2012 and against Wawrinka in Australia 2013 Novak also definitely wasn't at his best in the match after but playing at night on his favourite surface and against opponents he was comfortable playing at that time, made it possible for him to win those.

But at the Wimbledon final he had to play a tough match-up on his at that time definitely worst surface, without any crowd support on a very hot day. So that combined with fatigue probably made it quite difficult for Novak to get into the match. It's doubtful he would have won anyway as Andy won that match quite comfortably but Novak clearly played well below average and could have at least made the match a lot tougher.

As my old buddy Front pointed out, Novak was up a break in each set in that Wimbledon final. But then he chickened out. Andy actually had to come back from 2 sets down in the quarters, then he went to four in the semis - and he faced a whole world of pressure in the final, trying to be the first Brit since Boadicea to win Wimbledon, and yet the match was decided by Novak's lack of conditioning?

It wasn't.

Andy was the better player on the day...

I don't think Novak was up a break in the first set, but that's a minor issue. Also if I remember correctly he couldn't consolidate any break he had.

Andy definitely was the much better player on the day and might very well have won even if Novak would have closed out Del Potro in four sets in the semi final. But Novak was quite inconsistent, used questionable tactics and wasn't even able to force Andy to play extremely well or outside of his comfort zone to win by that scoreline and I think the nature of the semi final definitely played a part in that.

 

[Riotbeard]

I don't get how Novak's poor ability to handle the wind (in general) means that Andy benefited from Novak's poor level at the USO 12. It's an outdoor tournament. if you aren't as good at handling the elements, it doesn't necessarily mean your level was necessarily lower. It's means you aren't adjusting to the conditions as well as your opponent. Kudos to Andy.

 

[Great Hands]

Very interesting read GH. I see your points, and I like the way you laid them out. Thanks.

Thanks, nehmeth!

 

[Great Hands]

you really go to some lengths to downplay his achievements, mentioning in a previous post how much greater than Murray Federer is - and he is, no doubt about it - but you don't subject Federer's achievements, or Nole's, to the same "context" you're putting on Murray, for those two seasons. Example:

"USO12 - Again, Murray got there without having to play Fedalovic."

"WD13 - Guess what? No Fedalovic till the final again."

Federer won a slew of slams without even having to face a great player at all.

You are misinterpreting me, my friend. This discussion is contextual. The context is the question 'was Murray better under Lendl?'
Your argument that Murray is not as good now is all based on his play against Novak and Fed. So the fact that Andy didn't have to play Novak or Fed to get to 3 of those 4 slam finals under Lendl is a relevant point, and that's why I made it. i.e. To get to those finals, he beat players that he beats routinely this year.

But if the context is Andy as a player and where he stands among the great players, then the fact that he didn't have to play Fedalovic to reach those slam finals is indeed, as you say, not relevant. For the record, my opinion on Murray is that he is a great player, who could have won more slams but for the fact that he has been playing in an era of three of the greatest players of all time.

Or else you say something like, "AO13 - Murray got to the final, beating a Fed who was coming off a 5 set match." What? Are you using the tired excuse again? You realise that Federer hadn't dropped a single set before the quarters, and there he went to five sets and it left him too tired to compete?

I am saying, as I said in my original post, that these are 'exactly the conditions where I'd be much more hopeful of Andy beating Fed now.'

You really don't believe in fatigue, do you? These guys are not robots, not machines. They are human beings. Again, as in my last post, my conclusions are not odd, they were being made by millions. This forum, and the commentators, talked about how Fed was gassed in the fifth set. It's not just me saying this, buddy. And this is the only time Murray has beaten Fed at a slam. I'm just drawing conclusions from this: the one time Andy beat Fed at a slam, it was a slower court, and Fed got gassed towards the end. I am therefore not expecting Andy to beat Fed on fast surfaces when Federer is fresh. Because he has never done so. Under Lendl or under anyone else. I am just being logical and realistic.

It's funny, because I remember you saying in a post a while back that you hated the fact that Nadal went and won the Olympics 2008 because he tired himself out before the USO. And also that you got annoyed that he went and did exos at the end of the year when he should have been recharging. But I thought you didn't believe in tiredness? Human beings, according to you, do not suffer from fatigue.
Rather hypocritical then, don't you think?

Same as Novak in Wimbo 2013? Dropped two whole sets across 6 matches, and it knackered him out? These boys train for best of five at slams!

As I said, Henman and Becker both observed classic signs of fatigue in Novak in that WD final. But I'm sure you know better than two professional tennis players about what top-flight tennis takes out of you. How many grand slams is it that you have won? You're so set in your argument that you're going to disregard what the real pros think? Not a good way to go, my friend.

Remember Andy's breakthrough slam, the 2012 US Open? Remarkably - and this will tickle you - he dropped a lung-busting three sets on the way to the final, and he wasn't a bit tired.

It's not so much about counting up how many sets they played in the tourney, but about how much tennis the 2 players have played in the days just before the match in question. Novak went into a fifth set with Andy after playing 3 days in a row, when Andy had had a day off.

Novak said when he had to play three days in a row at RG this year that he had less spring in his legs in the final. But again, you know better than a professional athlete. Tiredness does not exist, according to you. What a weird point of view...

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Andy didn't deserve his slams. On the contrary, in other eras, he may have won considerably more already. Players benefit from other players' poor play, and from other players' fatigue, mental and/or physical, all the time. The windy conditions are also not excusing Novak. Murray played better in the wind, which is a great skill. And I will say again, Murray played great. My point is not to diminish Murray's achievements, which are considerable, but to specifically counter your view that Andy is not as good now as he was then.

And then, having seen Novak come back from two sets down, he did something he never does now: he stuck around to the finish.

Murray played great in that fifth, but Novak was cramping. I know, because I got annoyed about the fact that the commentators and people on forums were saying it, because I felt it took away from Andy's win, and one of my most exciting nights watching tennis ever. But when I watched the match back again and again, I could see that they were right. And I realised that didn't take away from Andy's win, because needing all-time greats to be under par for you to win is no disgrace. Andy is a great player in an extraordinarily tough era, and he deserved his slams immensely. He is a much better player than many other 2 time slam winners.

We disagree, buddy, that's cool, but just for the record, I was under the impression you're a Muzza fan. Obviously I got that wrong...

I think I've adddressed this above. I think Murray is a fantastic player. I find his game fascinating and wonderful.
I am just a realist. He is not at good as Fed, Novak or Rafa. I am surprised that this is such a controversial proposition. I would have imagined that most sane tennis fans would agree with me.

 

[Great Hands]

When looking closer at the H2H between Murray and Djokovic it's interesting, that Andy leads 7:1 in the part of the season from Wimbledon to the US Open (the loss is from the US Open 2014) but is 2:20 everywhere else (the wins are Dubai, which is also a rather fast court, in 2011 and Miami in 2009).

So it obviously seems like the match-up favours him on faster courts like Grass and the Hard Courts of the North American summer tournaments.

Their meetings in 2014 and 2015 have mostly been on the slower courts, where Novak always had a big edge if you look at these numbers. 2014 they often met comparatively early because of Andy being seeded between No. 5 and 8 most of the time, but in 2015 he massively improved his consistency on the slower courts to routinely reach at least the semi finals, but especially on the higher bouncing ones their match-up is very favourable for Novak as his forehand is much more effective on those surfaces and it's very hard for Andy to get a ball past Novak without taking considerable risks. So Andy needs a great day on serve and with the cross court backhand or execute a game plan that's much more aggressive than he is comfortable with on a very high level to beat a decently playing Novak on such courts. And that rarely seemed to happen regardless of the coach.

So in a way I would say, that Andy's improvement on the slower surfaces that allows him to reach the final stages there regularly is an important factor for his record against Novak being as bad as it is this year.

Exactly FG, brilliant points. I've mentioned this before, all of Murray's matches against Novak this year have been on slower surfaces, since that's what most of the tour is made up of, particularly medium-slow hards, which is Novak's ideal. Murray never beat Djokovic on these surfaces under Lendl either, a point Kieran refuses to notice, for some reason. (For the record, Novak would still be the favourite on faster hards too, IMO, because he's just the overall better player - he's consistently been ranked above Murray for the vast majority of their careers, has more Slams, more Masters, more overall titles etc etc - but Andy has a much better chance on the faster courts than the slower ones.)

Yes, I think Novak's game in general works best on slow to medium paced hard courts with a low or medium bounce. But in the match-up against Andy slow with a high bounce (like Indian Wells and Paris Bercy this year) plays most into his hands as the ability to play with controled aggression from the forehand, which together with the second serve is his biggest technical advantage over Andy in my opinion, is very important on those surfaces. Big hitters like Wawrinka, Berdych or Del Potro in contrast seem to be harder to handle for Novak on higher bouncing courts.

Cincinnati is a hard court where I think Andy would be a slight favourite if they play each other. In Canada and at the US Open it's pretty close. Of the five matches Novak lost to Andy at those venues I think the final of the US Open 2012 is the only one which Novak "should" have won as in my opinion his level during that tournament was considerably higher and the combination of a lot of wind especially during the first two sets and having had to play three sets against Ferrer the day before was quite unfortunate for Novak.

A meeting on grass would also be very interesting as since 2013 Novak improved his serve, slice and approaches as well as his movement and I think his understanding of how to play on grass, so their match-up on the surface would probably not be as favourable anymore for Andy as it was then.

Again, I agree with everthing you say, FG. Excellent analysis.

Another point to make is that Novak is also more aggressive on hard courts now as well, than he was a few years ago. Better serve, approaching the net more and more intelligently etc - makes him a more difficult opponent for Andy now on hards too. Both Novak and Roger play more aggressively than they did in 2012-13, making it harder for Murray. Both are now taking more advantage of the fact that they have the more naturally offensive games than Andy (particularly because of their better FHs) and thus they're beating him more comfortably currently than in the past. Andy always won some points against them with his big first serve, some big, aggressive FHs and BHs, but he also won a bunch of long rallies against them with his amazing defense, ralllies that were often pitoval in his wins. Novak and Roger play less of those long rallies against him now, so it's harder for Andy.

Take the RG SF this year. When Novak started to play more tentatively in sets 3 and 4, suddenly Andy got back into the match. He did it with amazing defense. If you look at the stats, he was succeeding by winning the long rallies. Novak was still dominating the short points. (The same was true in the Paris final recently.) The problem with this for Andy is that the match is thus on Novak's racket. If Novak can play his precision offense, go for his shots and they go in, like they did in the fifth set, Andy has no answer. Novak has a better FH technically, can go for more without making so many errors, can spread the play better because he's better at changing direction on the FH side, and can play offensive shots on the BH side even from defensive positions, when in an open stance.

 

[Great Hands]

Nah, the facts say it clearly: Andy is weaker and less successful now that he was under Lendl. An octogenarian is dispatching him as if he was a mere wisp. And Nole knows now that Andy isn't going to persevere when the going gets rough. Remember Andy's breakthrough slam, the 2012 US Open? Remarkably - and this will tickle you - he dropped a lung-busting three sets on the way to the final, and he wasn't a bit tired.

But playing a five hour semi final is a big difference to having three finally rather comfortable four set victories on the way to the final. After his five hour-wins against Andy at the Australian Open 2012 and against Wawrinka in Australia 2013 Novak also definitely wasn't at his best in the match after but playing at night on his favourite surface and against opponents he was comfortable playing at that time, made it possible for him to win those.

But at the Wimbledon final he had to play a tough match-up on his at that time definitely worst surface, without any crowd support on a very hot day. So that combined with fatigue probably made it quite difficult for Novak to get into the match. It's doubtful he would have won anyway as Andy won that match quite comfortably but Novak clearly played well below average and could have at least made the match a lot tougher.

As my old buddy Front pointed out, Novak was up a break in each set in that Wimbledon final. But then he chickened out. Andy actually had to come back from 2 sets down in the quarters, then he went to four in the semis - and he faced a whole world of pressure in the final, trying to be the first Brit since Boadicea to win Wimbledon, and yet the match was decided by Novak's lack of conditioning?

It wasn't.

Andy was the better player on the day...

Andy was indeed the better player on the day. He played great.

But why does it have to be one or the other?

Maybe Andy was the better player, and Novak was tired. Maybe those two things, and a whole bunch of other factors, played into the result. The whole thing is more complex than you are making it out to be. No one is saying that the 'match was decided by Novak's lack of conditioning', we are saying it was one relevant factor among many.

 

[Great Hands]

I don't get how Novak's poor ability to handle the wind (in general) means that Andy benefited from Novak's poor level at the USO 12. It's an outdoor tournament. if you aren't as good at handling the elements, it doesn't necessarily mean your level was necessarily lower. It's means you aren't adjusting to the conditions as well as your opponent. Kudos to Andy.

I completely agree with this. Kudos to Andy.

Andy is better in the wind, and therefore the fact that it was windy was an advantage for Andy. And deservedly so. Playing well in the wind is a great skill. It doesn't lessen his achievement in any way, it's just a fact.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

I don't get how Novak's poor ability to handle the wind (in general) means that Andy benefited from Novak's poor level at the USO 12. It's an outdoor tournament. if you aren't as good at handling the elements, it doesn't necessarily mean your level was necessarily lower. It's means you aren't adjusting to the conditions as well as your opponent. Kudos to Andy.

I don't even think Novak is bad at handling wind in general. My impression is he is quite good at handling a consistent wind that requires adjusting to playing with the wind on one side and against it on the other. But swirling unpredictable winds mess up his timing and hinder him from hitting the precise but safe shots his game is based on with the quality and consistency he's used to.

In general I like about tennis, that the winner basically always deserved to win, as the conditions are the same for both players. But based on technique and playing style certain players have an easier time adjusting to certain conditions than others. I think especially if conditions are very specific it's understandable that fans of the losing player, think about what could have happened in more "normal" conditions. And in case of the US Open final 2012 set 3 and 4 indicate that Novak really suffered from the unusually strong wind in the first two sets and it actually made a difference in the result.

Again I definitely don't want to say that Andy's win was undeserved because of it, but it also means both players playing at the same level as in that match can lead to a totally different result in standard conditions, so it's hard to draw reasonable conclusions about the level of play when comparing that match with any other or for predicting future matches.

 

[Great Hands]

I don't get how Novak's poor ability to handle the wind (in general) means that Andy benefited from Novak's poor level at the USO 12. It's an outdoor tournament. if you aren't as good at handling the elements, it doesn't necessarily mean your level was necessarily lower. It's means you aren't adjusting to the conditions as well as your opponent. Kudos to Andy.

I don't even think Novak is bad at handling wind in general. My impression is he is quite good at handling a consistent wind that requires adjusting to playing with the wind on one side and against it on the other. But swirling unpredictable winds mess up his timing and hinder him from hitting the precise but safe shots his game is based on with the quality and consistency he's used to.

More great analysis from you, FG. Spot on.

In general I like about tennis, that the winner basically always deserved to win, as the conditions are the same for both players. But based on technique and playing style certain players have an easier time adjusting to certain conditions than others. I think especially if conditions are very specific it's understandable that fans of the losing player, think about what could have happened in more "normal" conditions. And in case of the US Open final 2012 set 3 and 4 indicate that Novak really suffered from the unusually strong wind in the first two sets and it actually made a difference in the result.

Again I definitely don't want to say that Andy's win was undeserved because of it, but it also means both players playing at the same level as in that match can lead to a totally different result in standard conditions, so it's hard to draw reasonable conclusions about the level of play when comparing that match with any other or for predicting future matches.

Yes, exactly. It's not that the fact that it was windy makes Andy's win any less valid, but that the fact that Andy won in windy conditions is an important point to consider when attempting to draw conclusions from the result in order to predict the outcome of future matches between the two.

 

[Great Hands]

I would argue though that those specific windy conditions, that require more 'feel' and more micro-adjustments in positioning and stroke to play well in, are specific conditions that are as valid as any other, rather than considering non-windy conditions as "normal". Those conditions helped Andy in the same way that, for example, slower hards help Novak, or clay helps Rafa, because in all cases they suit that players' particular playing style and skills. But people don't say 'but Rafa only won because it was on clay...'
Oh wait, they do...
They shouldn't, though.

 

[isabelle]

^^^ It's all about the match-ups I guess! Heaven knows Roger smoked Andy on grass; terribly embarrassing for him and his fans! It was so decisive; IN STRAIGHT SETS to the old man! :nono :cover

Andy missed his match he wasn't in a good day, it can happen even the fact it was at home was certainly more embarrassing than last sunday in Paris but it was the same type of bad day. Andy can play poorly from time to time, it's disappointing but all players have to face it (Nole vs Dr Ivo in Doha, Mr Vavrinec vs Seppi in AO, Murray vs Mr Vavrinec in Wimbly etc..)

 

[Great Hands]

^^^ It's all about the match-ups I guess! Heaven knows Roger smoked Andy on grass; terribly embarrassing for him and his fans! It was so decisive; IN STRAIGHT SETS to the old man! :nono :cover

Not just any 'old man' - a GOAT-contender, on his favoured surface, playing outstandingly well.