London ATP Tour Finals

[MikeOne]

FYI, Roger vs. Novak on fast hards is only 50/50 now. If Roger were in his prime he’d have a significant edge.

it's not that simple. Murray used to kind of own Roger many years ago but lately, Roger had owned him. So using your logic, someone would think 'If Roger owns Murray now, he would have utterly owned him many years ago'. This, obviously, is not true. So this logic simply doesn't quite work.

Remember, even a pre-prime Nadal was beating Roger on hard courts back during 04-06 and even though it has always been a match-up issue, Rafa was not very good 0n hard courts pre 09, he got much better post 09.

Roger used to play a more defensive game back then, rallying more and making opponents miss more. Today, Roger is more offensive and has shortened points, he has changed his game a bit over the years. Roger beats Novak when he plays very offensive and even though he is more inconsistent, he has a better chance of beating Novak playing this style than the style he employed during 04-06. As i point above, Murray had more success against Roger many years ago, when Roger played more defensively and tried to rally more; today, Murray is dusted by Roger often, with his new more recent style. Murray has made Roger look better with age and whilst we know roger's prime is behind him, his game today matches up better against Andy and Novak, IMO.

 

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger with his 2006 forehand and movement has a lesser chance of beating Novak than he does now? Yeah OK buddy.

 

[DarthFed]

Broken_shoelace wrote:
FYI, Roger vs. Novak on fast hards is only 50/50 now. If Roger were in his prime he’d have a significant edge.

it’s not that simple. Murray used to kind of own Roger many years ago but lately, Roger had owned him. So using your logic, someone would think ‘If Roger owns Murray now, he would have utterly owned him many years ago’. This, obviously, is not true. So this logic simply doesn’t quite work. Remember, even a pre-prime Nadal was beating Roger on hard courts back during 04-06 and even though it has always been a match-up issue, Rafa was not very good 0n hard courts pre 09, he got much better post 09. Roger used to play a more defensive game back then, rallying more and making opponents miss more. Today, Roger is more offensive and has shortened points, he has changed his game a bit over the years. Roger beats Novak when he plays very offensive and even though he is more inconsistent, he has a better chance of beating Novak playing this style than the style he employed during 04-06. As i point above, Murray had more success against Roger many years ago, when Roger played more defensively and tried to rally more; today, Murray is dusted by Roger often, with his new more recent style. Murray has made Roger look better with age and whilst we know roger’s prime is behind him, his game today matches up better against Andy and Novak, IMO.

The early H2H between Murray and Federer was always kind of misleading.  Andy won a few best of 3 set matches but Roger wiped the floor with him in the majors.  The past few years we've seen Murray win a couple huge matches against Roger but overall Fed has won most of the smaller matches as well as the last two major matchups.  Your point is not without merit though.  What it comes down to is Murray just isn't aggressive enough vs. Roger.  Even now in longer rallies I don't think Roger feels like he has to press too much vs. Andy.  And I do think Roger serves better than he did in his prime and is playing more aggressive as you mentioned.  Basically Andy is struggling to expose Roger's loss of movement and consistency as compared to the other elite players and even lesser players

Novak is a far different story for Roger.  Federer has to avoid long rallies at all costs vs. Novak in large part because he doesn't move as well and he is far easier to push out of position than Nole is and he is also likely to be the first one to miss.  Roger's improved serve and more aggressive game do not make up the difference for what he's lost IMO.  Also a huge factor in that matchup is Roger usually struggles badly on the return.  That is the most overlooked aspect of Roger's decline, it is much easier to win free points off of him than it used to be.

 

[britbox]

Scoreline suggests it was a pretty convincing win for Nadal over Murray.

 

[MikeOne]

MikeOne wrote:
<blockquote>
Broken_shoelace wrote:
FYI, Roger vs. Novak on fast hards is only 50/50 now. If Roger were in his prime he’d have a significant edge.

it’s not that simple. Murray used to kind of own Roger many years ago but lately, Roger had owned him. So using your logic, someone would think ‘If Roger owns Murray now, he would have utterly owned him many years ago’. This, obviously, is not true. So this logic simply doesn’t quite work. Remember, even a pre-prime Nadal was beating Roger on hard courts back during 04-06 and even though it has always been a match-up issue, Rafa was not very good 0n hard courts pre 09, he got much better post 09. Roger used to play a more defensive game back then, rallying more and making opponents miss more. Today, Roger is more offensive and has shortened points, he has changed his game a bit over the years. Roger beats Novak when he plays very offensive and even though he is more inconsistent, he has a better chance of beating Novak playing this style than the style he employed during 04-06. As i point above, Murray had more success against Roger many years ago, when Roger played more defensively and tried to rally more; today, Murray is dusted by Roger often, with his new more recent style. Murray has made Roger look better with age and whilst we know roger’s prime is behind him, his game today matches up better against Andy and Novak, IMO.</blockquote>
The early H2H between Murray and Federer was always kind of misleading. Andy won a few best of 3 set matches but Roger wiped the floor with him in the majors. The past few years we’ve seen Murray win a couple huge matches against Roger but overall Fed has won most of the smaller matches as well as the last two major matchups. Your point is not without merit though. What it comes down to is Murray just isn’t aggressive enough vs. Roger. Even now in longer rallies I don’t think Roger feels like he has to press too much vs. Andy. And I do think Roger serves better than he did in his prime and is playing more aggressive as you mentioned. Basically Andy is struggling to expose Roger’s loss of movement and consistency as compared to the other elite players and even lesser players Novak is a far different story for Roger. Federer has to avoid long rallies at all costs vs. Novak in large part because he doesn’t move as well and he is far easier to push out of position than Nole is and he is also likely to be the first one to miss. Roger’s improved serve and more aggressive game do not make up the difference for what he’s lost IMO. Also a huge factor in that matchup is Roger usually struggles badly on the return. That is the most overlooked aspect of Roger’s decline, it is much easier to win free points off of him than it used to be.

good post, unlike broken who uses simpleton arguments.

I think Novak is a rhythm player who likes longer rallies where he can use his superb ball placement, depth and take time away from opponents by taking ball early. He is a bit like Agassi, with much greater defensive abilities. I think Roger today has a very different approach than the tactics he employed back during 04-06. Today he definitely tries to avoid long rallies, comes to net more and tried to serve bigger. This strategy is what i think troubles Djokovic as it disrupts his rhythm. Roger was a very capable offensive player during 04-06 but he had a very different mind set, he felt comfortable engaging opponents in longer rallies and winning by playing consistently and varying his shots, using angles. This strategy got him in trouble against Nadal cause Nadal was able to hang with him and eventual find his bh. Roger tried to counter this by attacking Rafa more but he usually ended up making many UFEs. Whilst Nadal was able to counter Roger's variety and tactics, most couldn't and often Roger beat opponents by just being consistent and using defense. How many times did we see Roger engage Hewitt, Blake, Roddick and others in very long rallies, making them drown in UFEs? He did this often and today i seldom see him doing this. When he was on he used a lot of offense too but he really did rely on his consistency and defense much more back then. I believe his 04-06 tactics wouldn't translate to him doing better against post 11 Djokovic, who knows. Today he is more inconsistent but when he's playing well, his tactics are more effective vs Djokovic. I don't think getting into longer rallies and trying to outsmart, outlast Novak would produce positive results more often than his current tactics produce. He really is a different player and although less consistent, more dangerous when he's on. Just look at his Cincinatti-US Open run this year, never during 04-06 did he have such a Cinci-USO run where he served so well, never. I'm not sure 04-06 Roger would've beaten Djokovic and Murray like he did during that run, that was high octane attacking, big serving tennis.

let's also analyze the H2H. Novak first beat Federer back in 07, i believe on indoors. This was baby Djokovic vs prime fed so can i say 'If baby Djokovic could beat prime roger, what would today's Djokovic do to 04-06 Federer'? Back then prime federer had a handful with baby Novak and we all know baby Novak destroyed Roger in 08 AO too. Point is, pre-prime Novak was giving prime roger fits.. I don't believe Roger was far from his prime in 07 or 08, that's BS.. He didn't suddenly become old 1 or 2 years after 06, his best year ever. So BABY novak was beginning to trouble prime fed and this was a Novak way before his prime. This is why these simpleton arguments of 'if roger is 50/50 against Nole now, imagine 04-06 Roger' really hold no water and can be easily flipped into an contrarian argument.

We can do the same with Andy. Baby Andy beat Roger back in 06 at Cincy if i recall. Using a simpleton argument, we would think today's Andy, almost 10 years later, would surely be annihilating Federer. Well, what has roger done to Murray at slams recently? annihilation.. (Wimby and USO) and he has destroyed him elsewhere as-well. 06 Roger just played a different game  of cat and mouse and whilst it was a more consistent game, it wasn't necessarily the best tactics against players like Murray and Djokovic.

 

[ClayDeath]

Andy took a step back after the back surgery. it took him a while to find traction again.

that said, Andy did fail to develop a dominating serve to compensate him to some extent for his weaker wing.

you cant beat the very best on consistent basis without a dominating forehand in modern tennis.

 

[Moxie]

Scoreline suggests it was a pretty convincing win for Nadal over Murray.

Nadal was very good, after dropping serve, then breaking back and settling in, in the first set.  After early nerves, he was hitting shots much deeper, and has been steadily cleaning up the winners to UFEs from earlier in the season.  But I really think Andy checked out when he lost the first, with dreams of Belgium in his head, and no desire to get in a long fight with Rafa, when he still had another shot at the SFs.  So, while Rafa was also good in the 2nd, the 6-1 isn't exactly an indicator of an imposing level, imo.

BTW, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Rafa has taken to electing to serve when he wins the toss...for a couple of months now.  I think this is an attempt at putting himself in an aggressive mindset.  And even though he has often lost his serve in the first game, I don't mind it as a psychological trigger for himself to start out in an aggressive rather than passive mode.

 

[ClayDeath]

I am disappointed with Ferru. he should have been able to snatch that first set.

perhaps the landscape of that match would have changed in Ferru's favor.

at any rate I got this one wrong. Wawrinka found just enough form to derail Ferru.

Stan is exceptional at the net. that allows him to go forward with confidence.

congrats to Stan and his fans.

 

[DarthFed]

Twisted wrote:
<blockquote>
MikeOne wrote:
<blockquote>
Broken_shoelace wrote:
FYI, Roger vs. Novak on fast hards is only 50/50 now. If Roger were in his prime he’d have a significant edge.

it’s not that simple. Murray used to kind of own Roger many years ago but lately, Roger had owned him. So using your logic, someone would think ‘If Roger owns Murray now, he would have utterly owned him many years ago’. This, obviously, is not true. So this logic simply doesn’t quite work. Remember, even a pre-prime Nadal was beating Roger on hard courts back during 04-06 and even though it has always been a match-up issue, Rafa was not very good 0n hard courts pre 09, he got much better post 09. Roger used to play a more defensive game back then, rallying more and making opponents miss more. Today, Roger is more offensive and has shortened points, he has changed his game a bit over the years. Roger beats Novak when he plays very offensive and even though he is more inconsistent, he has a better chance of beating Novak playing this style than the style he employed during 04-06. As i point above, Murray had more success against Roger many years ago, when Roger played more defensively and tried to rally more; today, Murray is dusted by Roger often, with his new more recent style. Murray has made Roger look better with age and whilst we know roger’s prime is behind him, his game today matches up better against Andy and Novak, IMO.</blockquote>
The early H2H between Murray and Federer was always kind of misleading. Andy won a few best of 3 set matches but Roger wiped the floor with him in the majors. The past few years we’ve seen Murray win a couple huge matches against Roger but overall Fed has won most of the smaller matches as well as the last two major matchups. Your point is not without merit though. What it comes down to is Murray just isn’t aggressive enough vs. Roger. Even now in longer rallies I don’t think Roger feels like he has to press too much vs. Andy. And I do think Roger serves better than he did in his prime and is playing more aggressive as you mentioned. Basically Andy is struggling to expose Roger’s loss of movement and consistency as compared to the other elite players and even lesser players Novak is a far different story for Roger. Federer has to avoid long rallies at all costs vs. Novak in large part because he doesn’t move as well and he is far easier to push out of position than Nole is and he is also likely to be the first one to miss. Roger’s improved serve and more aggressive game do not make up the difference for what he’s lost IMO. Also a huge factor in that matchup is Roger usually struggles badly on the return. That is the most overlooked aspect of Roger’s decline, it is much easier to win free points off of him than it used to be.</blockquote>
good post, unlike broken who uses simpleton arguments. I think Novak is a rhythm player who likes longer rallies where he can use his superb ball placement, depth and take time away from opponents by taking ball early. He is a bit like Agassi, with much greater defensive abilities. I think Roger today has a very different approach than the tactics he employed back during 04-06. Today he definitely tries to avoid long rallies, comes to net more and tried to serve bigger. This strategy is what i think troubles Djokovic as it disrupts his rhythm. Roger was a very capable offensive player during 04-06 but he had a very different mind set, he felt comfortable engaging opponents in longer rallies and winning by playing consistently and varying his shots, using angles. This strategy got him in trouble against Nadal cause Nadal was able to hang with him and eventual find his bh. Roger tried to counter this by attacking Rafa more but he usually ended up making many UFEs. Whilst Nadal was able to counter Roger’s variety and tactics, most couldn’t and often Roger beat opponents by just being consistent and using defense. How many times did we see Roger engage Hewitt, Blake, Roddick and others in very long rallies, making them drown in UFEs? He did this often and today i seldom see him doing this. When he was on he used a lot of offense too but he really did rely on his consistency and defense much more back then. I believe his 04-06 tactics wouldn’t translate to him doing better against post 11 Djokovic, who knows. Today he is more inconsistent but when he’s playing well, his tactics are more effective vs Djokovic. I don’t think getting into longer rallies and trying to outsmart, outlast Novak would produce positive results more often than his current tactics produce. He really is a different player and although less consistent, more dangerous when he’s on. Just look at his Cincinatti-US Open run this year, never during 04-06 did he have such a Cinci-USO run where he served so well, never. I’m not sure 04-06 Roger would’ve beaten Djokovic and Murray like he did during that run, that was high octane attacking, big serving tennis. let’s also analyze the H2H. Novak first beat Federer back in 07, i believe on indoors. This was baby Djokovic vs prime fed so can i say ‘If baby Djokovic could beat prime roger, what would today’s Djokovic do to 04-06 Federer’? Back then prime federer had a handful with baby Novak and we all know baby Novak destroyed Roger in 08 AO too. Point is, pre-prime Novak was giving prime roger fits.. I don’t believe Roger was far from his prime in 07 or 08, that’s BS.. He didn’t suddenly become old 1 or 2 years after 06, his best year ever. So BABY novak was beginning to trouble prime fed and this was a Novak way before his prime. This is why these simpleton arguments of ‘if roger is 50/50 against Nole now, imagine 04-06 Roger’ really hold no water and can be easily flipped into an contrarian argument. We can do the same with Andy. Baby Andy beat Roger back in 06 at Cincy if i recall. Using a simpleton argument, we would think today’s Andy, almost 10 years later, would surely be annihilating Federer. Well, what has roger done to Murray at slams recently? annihilation.. (Wimby and USO) and he has destroyed him elsewhere as-well. 06 Roger just played a different game of cat and mouse and whilst it was a more consistent game, it wasn’t necessarily the best tactics against players like Murray and Djokovic.

No argument here, it'd be an interesting match and perhaps it belongs more on the thread Peak Djokovic vs. Peak Federer.

Also, the first time Nole beat Roger was in 2007 at Toronto.  Interestingly enough that's probably the closest thing to an even surface for them, it's faster than HC's like Australia, IW and Miami but slower than Cincy, Dubai, USO, etc.

 

[Moxie]

I am disappointed with Ferru. he should have been able to snatch that first set. perhaps the landscape of that match would have changed in Ferru’s favor. at any rate I got this one wrong. Wawrinka found just enough form to derail Ferru. Stan is exceptional at the net. that allows him to go forward with confidence. congrats to Stan and his fans.

Ferrer demonstrates again and again why he can't hang with the big boys.  His getting tight when he had that first set in hand was unexpected, but he does stay back and allow the bigger weapons to invade his Castle, even when he's in a position of strength.  I was disappointed, too.  And I don't agree that Stan is exceptional at the net.  Ferrer just let him look so.  He's decent.  But he's aggressive, and very strong, and when it's all working for him, he's a tough out.  But he still has a weak head, and is surprisingly inconsistent.  I hate to say this, but the truth about Ferrer is that he's tougher than most below him, but has not got the game to beat those who are his betters in the weapons department.  That's where rubber-meets-the-road on just being mentally and physically tough, but either smaller or not as gifted.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

nadal played decent tennis..murray was awful though, moaning, whining, errors off routine shots. mentally he wasn't there.

 

 

 

[Moxie]

nadal played decent tennis..murray was awful though, moaning, whining, errors off routine shots. mentally he wasn’t there.

He wasn't at all awful, until the 2nd set.  And Nadal was better than "decent."  Andy committed to the first set. When he didn't win it, then he bailed.

 

[ClayDeath]

andy serve was horrible. I think he served around 35%-40% in the 2nd set.

not sure what is going on with andy. either he is thinking about davis cup next week on clay or he has not recovered from the demolition job at the hands of Djokovic in Bercy.

or both.

 

[Moxie]

andy serve was horrible. I think he served around 35%-40% in the 2nd set. not sure what is going on with andy. either he is thinking about davis cup next week on clay or he has not recovered from the demolition job at the hands of Djokovic in Bercy. or both.

It's clearly about Davis Cup. That was a tank.  I'm not sure what you're confused about.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

jesuslookslikeborg wrote:
nadal played decent tennis..murray was awful though, moaning, whining, errors off routine shots. mentally he wasn’t there.

He wasn’t at all awful, until the 2nd set. And Nadal was better than “decent.” Andy committed to the first set. When he didn’t win it, then he bailed.

no way, murray was shite. and he was chuntering on like some sort of wierd budgerigar with its feathers full of pepper.

 

[MikeOne]

So Stan and Murray lost because they played like crap... hmm, kinda a coincidence that they lost to same guy?

Nadal is playing well guys, he is at his best, dare i say. Nadal is a pedestrian 13-11 at EOY masters, he has never felt comfortable here, even in his best years. The fact that he's 2-0 and destroyed two top 4 players, is quite a statement.

 

[Moxie]

So Stan and Murray lost because they played like crap… hmm, kinda a coincidence that they lost to same guy? Nadal is playing well guys, he is at his best, dare i say. Nadal is a pedestrian 13-11 at EOY masters, he has never felt comfortable here, even in his best years. The fact that he’s 2-0 and destroyed two top 4 players, is quite a statement.

Look, I'm as big a Rafa fan as they come, but yes, to some extent, Rafa won because there was a level of crap from the other side of the net.  As to Wawrinka, I give him no excuses for playing so poorly and losing the plot.  On Murray's side, I think I've given a reasonable explanation.  And he did play well for a set.  As for Rafa, as I have said, he IS playing much better of late, and beating Stan and Andy is not nothing.  I'm taking the good news where I can get it, and I think Nadal is taking confidence from wins, however they come.  It's all money in the (confidence) bank.  But a modicum of rationality and sang-froid has to be inserted.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
jesuslookslikeborg wrote:
nadal played decent tennis..murray was awful though, moaning, whining, errors off routine shots. mentally he wasn’t there.

He wasn’t at all awful, until the 2nd set. And Nadal was better than “decent.” Andy committed to the first set. When he didn’t win it, then he bailed.</blockquote>
no way, murray was shite. and he was chuntering on like some sort of wierd budgerigar with its feathers full of pepper.

If you choose to see it that way, mon cher hamster.  But I'm tempted to think you didn't watch the first set.  Or that you watched it through a tiny set of "anti-Nadal goggles."

 

[ClayDeath]

So Stan and Murray lost because they played like crap… hmm, kinda a coincidence that they lost to same guy? Nadal is playing well guys, he is at his best, dare i say. Nadal is a pedestrian 13-11 at EOY masters, he has never felt comfortable here, even in his best years. The fact that he’s 2-0 and destroyed two top 4 players, is quite a statement.

he took down stan 13 straight times on all surfaces without ever losing a single set before he started losing to him.

he owns 16-5 or 16-6 record against Andy. he has been healthy for well over a year now. he should not really have any issues with these two but they did make it easy for him.

stan threw away the ball no less than 35 times in that first match. that is over 17 errors a set.

clearly andy has something on his mind: either davis cup or that demolition in Bercy. my guess is both and it has to be.

he probably does not want to get killed by Djokovic again. so he will monitor the djokovic progress carefully.

andy is not out. all he has to do is beat stan and he is marches on.

Rafa is healthy and playing. and he is moving in the right direction. perhaps that relentless will and the fighting spirit will re-ignite from within again. there are some positive indicators but that is all we have. we need titles at masters events before anyone can conclude that he is back.

but under no circumstances can I say that he is back. that is going to take some time.

as I have suggested before, it has to happen for him on clay first before it can happen anywhere else.

he has to make something happen in monte carlo, Barcelona, and rome. he needs 2 of those 3 and a win over djokovic.

 

 

we just have to see more Mike. I thank the gods that he is healthy and out there competing. I know he has one more slam in him and it will be at RG.

I am just desperate beyond belief to see him do well in monte carlo, Barcelona, and rome. that will get him going again.

that is the road to paris. he has to take it.

 

[ClayDeath]

folks I took another look at the Federer vs Djokovic match.

I have to be believe what Federer said. what he said that he deserves some credit for taking that match.

Djokovic was a little off but I thought he moved well and returned fairly well. Djokovic is just a machine off both wings. it is very difficult to make an impression on his game.

Federer did make some added use of his topspin backhand as he should. he has to show him that he is not afraid to rally with him as he has often said before.

Federer also mixed it up nicely too. it all worked out. I did find Federer sharp and focused on winning. his body language was positive.