Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Pro Match Results and Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
-   -   And the winner of this year's AO -- the drawmakers! (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=452770)

kanamit 01-27-2013 11:31 AM

And the winner of this year's AO -- the drawmakers!
 
Ok, maybe a little bit of an overstatement. But ONLY a little bit of one. Does anybody think that Djokovic's victory in the final was not significantly facilitated by Murray having to play Fed in the semis. Or that Fed's 5-set loss to Murray was due in part to more wear and tear from a far tougher draw than Murray had (especially a 5-setter against Tsonga in the previous round)?

Right now these three are so evenly matched in terms of capabilities that something as random as road to the final can significantly affect the outcome of matches between them. My guess is that until Nadal returns, the winner of the tourneys will be whichever player draws Ferrer in his half.

veroniquem 01-27-2013 11:35 AM

Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

kanamit 01-27-2013 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7172290)
Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

The major hole in your argument is that Murray in 2011 is NOT the Murray of 2013. Just as the Federer and Nadal of 2007 and 2008 are not the Federer and Nadal of 2013. Just as the DJoko of today is not the Djoko of early 2011. Right now the top 3 are so evenly matched that factors like road to the final end up making a huge difference in terms of outcome. I suppose you can contest this by saying that Murray used to own Djokovic in junior tennis or something, but I doubt anybody is going to take your argument seriously. Nor should they.

In 2011, Djokovic was so dominant at the AO there are few who could have stopped him, last of all a headcase Murray in the final.

veroniquem 01-27-2013 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanamit (Post 7172306)
The major hole in your argument is that Murray in 2011 is NOT the Murray of 2013. Just as the Federer and Nadal of 2007 and 2008 are not the Federer and Nadal of 2013. Right now the top 3 are so evenly matched that factors like road to the final end up making a huge difference in terms of outcome. I suppose you can contest this by saying that Murray used to own Djokovic in junior tennis or something, but I doubt anybody is going to take your argument seriously. Nor should they.


Djoko is not the same either. He's had the entire 2011 feat behind him now and is #1 and is much more confident and his serve has improved immensely (it wasn't great in AO 2011). So they both improved, so what? Djoko still has the edge in their matchup. Djoko is still the better of the 2.

NadalAgassi 01-27-2013 11:46 AM

Djokovic would have beaten Federer in straight sets in the semis just as he did in 2008 and 2011, and would have been physically in fine shape for the final regardless. He may have been better sharpened up despite the straight sets win than his rout of Ferrer, started better, and won the final more easily. Djokovic is the Australian Open GOAT, was always going to be a big ask for Murray to beat him here, but he gave a good try.

kanamit 01-27-2013 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7172313)
Djoko is not the same either. He's had the entire 2011 feat behind him now and is #1 and is much more confident and his serve has improved immensely (it wasn't great in AO 2011). So they both improved, so what? Djoko still has the edge in their matchup. Djoko is still the better of the 2.

So now you're arguing that Djokovic of today is better than the Djokovic that went on a tear, not losing a match for half a season in 2011. It's just one breathtakingly bad argument after another. Of course Djokovic isn't the same player he was two years ago. He's not as consistent at reaching and maintaining his highest level. Again, at this moment, the top 3 are pretty evenly matched. Making references to 2 or 20 years ago is pointless.

veroniquem 01-27-2013 11:52 AM

Yes he is better, Certainly he is. At AO 2011, he had never been #1 yet and it was just the beginnning of his great stretch. He's played better this AO. Absolutely. (+ if you can't see he's serving better, then you're blind, no offense. Djoko would not have had a shot in hell at winning WTF in 2010. Why? His serve was still shaky among other things).

NadalAgassi 01-27-2013 11:53 AM

Djokovic ended 2012 as the clear #1, and how now beaten Murray 3 times in a row, clearly regaining the edge in the matchup. As for his level compared to 2011, it is probably a bit lower, but the other guys are also playing better than they were in 2011- Murray is better, Nadal before his injury was better last year, Federer is even playing better than his mostly dead 2011. The argument Murray should have beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open but for the draw, is as deluded as the argument of Murray haters that Murray only beat Djokovic at the U.S Open due to the wind. The nonsense never ends.

rambl 01-27-2013 11:57 AM

I don't think that Murray lost because of his draw. The match today was very similar to the US Open final -- except that Murray won the second set there, and couldn't manage it here.

I think this is just how it goes with Murray/Djokovic five setters. Murray can match or exceed Djokovic for two sets, but then he gets spent and Djokovic goes on a tear. It was like that at the AO semifinal last year, too, except that Murray's strong sets were 2 and 3.

If Murray had capitalized in the second set today, I really think he would have taken it in 5.

kanamit 01-27-2013 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7172330)
Yes he is better, Certainly he is. At AO 2011, he had never been #1 yet and it was just the beginnning of his great stretch. He's played better this AO. Absolutely. (+ if you can't see he's serving better, then you're blind, no offense. Djoko would not have had a shot in hell at winning WTF in 2010. Why? His serve was still shaky among other things).

By your criterion of improvement, Nadal is better now than he has ever been because he has had more weeks at #1. The reason Djokovic reached #1 in the summer of 2011 is that from midway through the AO onward, he played some of the most consistently high-level tennis in history. He is not at that level now. Mechanically he might have improved some aspects of his game, but he is not able to put it all together at a high level for as long of stretches as he was in that special 6-month period he had. Beginning with the AO, where he was clearly playing better than he was this year. I don't see how any honest person can try to argue that Djokovic was producing better tennis, or as good of tennis, at this year's AO as he was at the AO two years ago.

And your mentioning that Djokovic almost lost to Murray in the semi in 2011 is wrong. He straight-setted Federer in the semi, then straight-setted Murray in the final. This year, Djokovic almost lost to Wawrinka in the early rounds, though admittedly Wawrinka was playing good aggressive tennis.

kanamit 01-27-2013 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi (Post 7172336)
Djokovic ended 2012 as the clear #1, and how now beaten Murray 3 times in a row, clearly regaining the edge in the matchup. As for his level compared to 2011, it is probably a bit lower, but the other guys are also playing better than they were in 2011- Murray is better, Nadal before his injury was better last year, Federer is even playing better than his mostly dead 2011. The argument Murray should have beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open but for the draw, is as deluded as the argument of Murray haters that Murray only beat Djokovic at the U.S Open due to the wind. The nonsense never ends.

I don't know if Murray would have beaten Djokovic if his draw had been different. Your missing my point entirely, though, if you think my argument is that he would have. I am saying that the top 3 are pretty evenly matched, and for the outcome to be as one-sided as the AO final was this year is likely due to the way the draw panned out. Otherwise, the contest would have been much closer, and either play might have won in a contest that would surely have gone 5 sets.

I'm not a Murray fan at all. I'm just stating the obvious. The long 5-setter with Federer clearly affected Murray's performance in the final. And not for the better, either.

veroniquem 01-27-2013 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanamit (Post 7172346)
By your criterion of improvement, Nadal is better now than he has ever been because he has had more weeks at #1. The reason Djokovic reached #1 in the summer of 2011 is that from midway through the AO onward, he played some of the most consistently high-level tennis in history. He is not at that level now. Mechanically he might have improved some aspects of his game, but he is not able to put it all together at a high level for as long of stretches as he was in that special 6-month period he had. Beginning with the AO, where he was clearly playing better than he was this year. I don't see how any honest person can try to argue that Djokovic was producing better tennis, or as good of tennis, at this year's AO as he was at the AO two years ago.

And your mentioning that Djokovic almost lost to Murray in the semi in 2011 is wrong. He straight-setted Federer in the semi, then straight-setted Murray in the final. This year, Djokovic almost lost to Wawrinka in the early rounds, though admittedly Wawrinka was playing good aggressive tennis.


Yes, I edited my post because I realized I was talking about 2012. It changes absolutely nothing in the dynamic between Djoko and Murray. Djoko has been the better player of the 2 for the last 3 years and he still is. The draw makes 0 difference (as WTF showed well enough). Actually, the only time the draw made a difference is USO 2012 because Djoko had to play 3 days in a row, a tall order for a slam.

NadalAgassi 01-27-2013 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanamit (Post 7172358)
I don't know if Murray would have beaten Djokovic if his draw had been different. Your missing my point entirely, though, if you think my argument is that he would have. I am saying that the top 3 are pretty evenly matched, and for the outcome to be as one-sided as the AO final was this year is likely due to the way the draw panned out. Otherwise, the contest would have been much closer, and either play might have won in a contest that would surely have gone 5 sets.

I'm not a Murray fan at all. I'm just stating the obvious. The long 5-setter with Federer clearly affected Murray's performance in the final. And not for the better, either.

Fine, since you put it that way you might have a point. I guess we will get a better guage as the year goes on how often the winner comes out of the Ferrer half (as I dont expect Nadal back until clay court season begins atleast, maybe not even then). In the event the Miami and Indian Wells winners both come out of the Ferrer half, on the heels of Shanghai, WTF, and here, you could well have a point, as it would be 5 events in a row then. U.S Open didnt see Federer reach the semis so it was moot, although technically that was the loser coming out of the Ferrer half, and Paris was not about the big 3 or 4.

It is funny that some were crowing about Ferrer finally after 6 whole months of inactivity going past Nadal in the rankings, and many are now lamenting Nadal is out since Ferrer is so much less of a factor in draws and at the top. Sometimes it is best to be careful what you wish for. Even Nadal haters now must admit that the top echelon of the game is better off for his presence, and loses something significant without him.

kanamit 01-27-2013 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7172363)
Yes, I edited my post because I realized I was talking about 2012. It changes absolutely nothing in the dynamic between Djoko and Murray. Djoko has been the better player of the 2 for the last 3 years and he still is. The draw makes 0 difference (as WTF showed well enough). Actually, the only time the draw made a difference is USO 2012 because Djoko had to play 3 days in a row, a tall order for a slam.

The two are very evenly matched. Murray won the last slam final in 5 sets, and in Shanghai (I think it was) Djokovic won a match that was 3 close sets. Your argument about Djokovic's ranking is silly and misses the reality that official rankings lag behind results. Federer was still #1 for weeks after losing to Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008, but it was obvious to everybody that he was not the best player in the world. Djokovic was not #1 in the 2011 AO, but he was playing tennis that far surpassed what any other player had to offer. The later rise in the rankings reflected that.

veroniquem 01-27-2013 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanamit (Post 7172358)
I don't know if Murray would have beaten Djokovic if his draw had been different. .


Of course you have a right to delude yourself. Given that Murray has never beaten Djoko at AO, you do not have a point to convince anyone else though, sorry. Murray had a cakewalk draw until Fed and even Fed didn't play that well. Murray had a day off between each match. He had incredibly weak opposition, didn't even have to play Delpo in the quarters. If Murray cannot handle a draw like the one he had then it's really bad news for him, because he's most likely to never get much better. If you want to play that game, I'd go so far as to claim that if Murray had had Djoko's draw instead, he wouldn't even have made the final because he would have lost to Wawrinka playing the match of his life (exactly like it happened at USO before). Djoko is better than Murray, especially at AO. No excuse needed.

kanamit 01-27-2013 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi (Post 7172375)
Fine, since you put it that way you might have a point. I guess we will get a better guage as the year goes on how often the winner comes out of the Ferrer half (as I dont expect Nadal back until clay court season begins atleast, maybe not even then). In the event Miami and Indian Wells winner both come out of the Ferrer half, on the heels of Shanghai, WTF, and here, you could well have a point, as it would be 5 events in a row then. U.S Open didnt see Federer reach the semis so it was moot, and Paris was not about the big 3 or 4.

I think Miami will be different, as I doubt Nadal or Federer will be playing that tournament (Federer has decided to skip it this year). Murray and Djoko will likely be on opposite sides of the draw.

kanamit 01-27-2013 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7172379)
Of course you have a right to delude yourself. Given that Murray has never beaten Djoko at AO, you do not have a point to convince anyone else though, sorry. Murray had a cakewalk draw until Fed and even Fed didn't play that well. Murray had a day off between each match. He had incredibly weak opposition, didn't even have to play Delpo in the quarters. If Murray cannot handle a draw like the one he had then it's really bad news for him, because he's most likely to never get much better. If you want to play that game, I'd go so far as to claim that if Murray had had Djoko's draw instead, he wouldn't even have made the final because he would have lost to Wawrinka playing the match of his life (exactly like it happened at USO before). Djoko is better than Murray, especially at AO. No excuse needed.

Good job not actually addressing my argument. The only deluded people on this forum are those who think that Djokovic's level at this year's AO is comparable to his level in 2011.

NadalAgassi 01-27-2013 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanamit (Post 7172389)
I think Miami will be different, as I doubt Nadal or Federer will be playing that tournament (Federer has decided to skip it this year). Murray and Djoko will likely be on opposite sides of the draw.

OK. Well even if the winner comes out of the Ferrer half at Indian Wells, presuming the big 3 all make the semis, that would be 4 significant events in a row. Clay I am not sure if it matters even if Nadal is not back, since Murray isnt even better than Ferrer on clay, unless he improves on it.

dysonlu 01-27-2013 12:23 PM

Fed, having a brutal draw himself, softened Murray like chocolate mousse for Nole.

stringertom 01-27-2013 10:25 PM

Every year the losers are the AO organizers...eliminate the uneven gap between the SFs and the finals! The USO has finally wised up and offered the proper FO/Wimby one-day of rest for both winners. It's time for the AO to ditch the staggered SF schedule.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse