2015 ATP WTF RR: Murray (2) vs. Ferrer (7)

[Krish872007]

He also beat Tsonga in the QF.

And the SF vs Nadal was one of the best matches that i've seen in my entire life.

15.000 people saw what I believe it was the best match in AO history.

Yes, one of the best for sure - the final was also amazing that year (a painful loss, but still amazing)

 

[Mainad]

2009 was a nice season for him indeed, but in the slams he was bad. Specially because of the 4R in AO and USO loss..

What a match that was vs the very best of Verdasco in Australia, 5 amazing sets. What I don't remember, was Murray 2 sets up??

It was a strange, see-saw match. Murray took the first set quite comfortably 6-2 and seemed to be cruising, then Verdasco stormed back to take the 2nd, 6-1. Murray then took the 3rd set by the same margin, 6-1 and everyone assumed he had experienced his little blip and was now firmly back in control. But in the last 2 sets he gradually faded away, losing 3-6 and 4-6. He did say afterwards that he had been struggling with a virus since he arrived in Australia which might account for how up and down he was but Verdasco played some of his best ever tennis against him that day and it galvanised him to play even better in his next few matches culminating in that epic semi-final with Nadal.

That 4th round encounter with Murray at 2009 AO is the only time Verdasco beat Murray in 12 meetings. His next best performance against him came in the quarter-finals of 2013 Wimbledon when he took the first 2 sets and seemed poised to cause a major upset for the big home hope but Murray dug in and managed to win the next 3 sets determined to avoid a repeat of 2009 and the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[President]

Very predictable scoreline, unfortunately. Ferrer was in the match but Murray wins the key points at the right moments.

 

[RS92]

Yes, one of the best for sure - the final was also amazing that year (a painful loss, but still amazing)

I'm the only one on earth that thinks that the AO 2009 final was better than the Wimbledon 2008 final

BTW: If Nadal wins today, would you allow me to make the thread of the Murray Nadal match? I made the thread the last time they played and it was quite a good day for Murray fans

 

[Krish872007]

I'm the only one on earth that thinks that the AO 2009 final was better than the Wimbledon 2008 final

BTW: If Nadal wins today, would you allow me to make the thread of the Murray Nadal match? I made the thread the last time they played and it was quite a good day for Murray fans

Ok sure, my domination of the WTF threads will become boring otherwise

 

[helterskelter]

Yes, one of the best for sure - the final was also amazing that year (a painful loss, but still amazing)

Nadal v Verdasco was in my opinion a much better match than Nadal v Federer.

 

[helterskelter]

I'm the only one on earth that thinks that the AO 2009 final was better than the Wimbledon 2008 final

BTW: If Nadal wins today, would you allow me to make the thread of the Murray Nadal match? I made the thread the last time they played and it was quite a good day for Murray fans

I think the 2009 Australian Open final was a relatively low-quality match by comparison to the 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals and, for that match, the 2009 Australian Open semi-final between Nadal and Verdasco.

 

[President]

I'm the only one on earth that thinks that the AO 2009 final was better than the Wimbledon 2008 final

For drama, it was clearly inferior because the 5th set at Wimbledon 2008 was epic in length, score, and tension, while the 5th set in AO 2009 was basically a capitulation from Federer. The quality of tennis was much better at AO 2009 though, for sure. Part of that is the surface, you generally just have better quality tennis on hardcourt than on grass IMO, where it can be scratchy.

 

[RS92]

I think the 2009 Australian Open final was a relatively low-quality match by comparison to the 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals and, for that match, the 2009 Australian Open semi-final between Nadal and Verdasco.

Naaah, I don't know why, but that I enjoyed a lot the AO 2009 final (and I wanted Federer to win) . It had less dram if we compare to the Wimbledon 2008 final with Federer saving those championship points in the tie break of the fourth set, that's for sure, but the level of the match was unbelievable.. So many good rallies

 

[RS92]

For drama, it was clearly inferior because the 5th set at Wimbledon 2008 was epic in length, score, and tension, while the 5th set in AO 2009 was basically a capitulation from Federer. The quality of tennis was much better at AO 2009 though, for sure. Part of that is the surface, you generally just have better quality tennis on hardcourt than on grass IMO, where it can be scratchy.

That's exactly my point. If we are talking about drama, Wimbledon was way more better than the AO final. Like you said, the fifth set of the AO was a bad set of tennis, meanwhile the fifth set of Wimbledon was a remarkable one. But if we are talking about the level of tennis, I just believe the AO final was superior.

And yeah, I think that because of the surface the quality was better too.

 

[President]

I think the 2009 Australian Open final was a relatively low-quality match by comparison to the 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals and, for that match, the 2009 Australian Open semi-final between Nadal and Verdasco.

2009 AO semifinal is better than all 3 of those matches, but 2009 AO>2008 W in terms of pure tennis IMO.

 

[helterskelter]

For drama, it was clearly inferior because the 5th set at Wimbledon 2008 was epic in length, score, and tension, while the 5th set in AO 2009 was basically a capitulation from Federer. The quality of tennis was much better at AO 2009 though, for sure. Part of that is the surface, you generally just have better quality tennis on hardcourt than on grass IMO, where it can be scratchy.

Well, that might be true with the new grass, where the bounce is high enough that coming in often is too risky, but unreliable enough that there are frequent mishits. But it was certainly possible to have very high-quality matches on fast courts. Whether they were entertaining or not is another matter. Not quite on grass, but the 1996 Sampras/Becker final of the year-ending championships was one of the most high-quality matches on any surface.

 

[helterskelter]

That's exactly my point. If we are talking about drama, Wimbledon was way more better than the AO final. Like you said, the fifth set of the AO was a bad set of tennis, meanwhile the fifth set of Wimbledon was a remarkable one. But if we are talking about the level of tennis, I just believe the AO final was superior.

And yeah, I think that because of the surface the quality was better too.

2009 AO semifinal is better than all 3 of those matches, but 2009 AO>2008 W in terms of pure tennis IMO.

Perhaps I'll revisit it, as it's been almost seven years since I watched it (I rarely watch tapes of past matches for more than a few points). But I remember at the time thinking that the quality was low throughout. That's part because of the comparison to the semi-final. But it's also because I thought Federer was so terribly infected with nerves. He was the better player for all of the first four sets, but couldn't get it done when it mattered, and then played a very poor fifth set.

 

[gn]

Djokovic vs Murray matches = Everyone says its boring
Djokovic vs Ferrer matches = Everyone says its boring and one sided
Murray vs Ferrer matches = Entertaining and not one sided.

What can we learn from this?

Djokovic = boring

 

[President]

Well, that might be true with the new grass, where the bounce is high enough that coming in often is too risky, but unreliable enough that there are frequent mishits. But it was certainly possible to have very high-quality matches on fast courts. Whether they were entertaining or not is another matter. Not quite on grass, but the 1996 Sampras/Becker final of the year-ending championships was one of the most high-quality matches on any surface.

There were definitely some high quality matches on the old fast courts, I just find that very fast speed when combined with a low and slick bounce leads to scratchy tennis a lot (not all) of the time. I think the new grass has actually been an improvement in terms of consistent quality of play. Too often on the old grass I think we saw unreturned serves (that a lot of the time would have been returned on a hard or clay court), mishit or popped up groundstrokes, and generally no rhythm to too many matches.

 

[helterskelter]

There were definitely some high quality matches on the old fast courts, I just find that very fast speed when combined with a low and slick bounce leads to scratchy tennis a lot (not all) of the time. I think the new grass has actually been an improvement in terms of consistent quality of play. Too often on the old grass I think we saw unreturned serves (that a lot of the time would have been returned on a hard or clay court), mishit or popped up groundstrokes, and generally no rhythm to too many matches.

Unreturned serves may be a mark of tennis that isn't entertaining, but I don't see why they are a hallmark of low-quality tennis. They are the one shot that the server can control. If he hits it well, the opponent shouldn't get it back. So, a high number of unreturned serves probably suggests a high-quality (if dull) match. Same with rhythm: I'm not sure it correlates positively with high-quality play.

 

[President]

Unreturned serves may be a mark of tennis that isn't entertaining, but I don't see why they are a hallmark of low-quality tennis. They are the one shot that the server can control. If he hits it well, the opponent shouldn't get it back. So, a high number of unreturned serves probably suggests a high-quality (if dull) match. Same with rhythm: I'm not sure it correlates positively with high-quality play.

Yeah, I guess my personal definition of high quality is something that I want to watch and am entertained by. I just don't like seeing 120 mph serves consistently being returned out/into the net. 140, I can understand, but the old grass court surface gave a bit too much help to even relatively average-paced serves and made big ones extremely difficult to get back. The matches just had no rhythm basically, so both players made some sloppy mistakes, which is why I kind of associate that type of tennis with a lower quality.

 

[Zodd]

The 2009 AO SF was an epic match. Rewatched most of it just a few days ago. In that match Tabasco matched Nadal in absolutely everything except extreme defensive shots and the mental edge on a few key points. Harder serves, harder groundstrokes, came forward when given the chance and imo moved just as well. Who could have guessed the way his career would go after this. In some ways he's Spain's equivalent of Safin, sans the two GS titles.

 

[helterskelter]

Yeah, I guess my personal definition of high quality is something that I want to watch and am entertained by. I just don't like seeing 120 mph serves consistently being returned out/into the net. 140, I can understand, but the old grass court surface gave a bit too much help to even relatively average-paced serves and made big ones extremely difficult to get back. The matches just had no rhythm basically, so both players made some sloppy mistakes, which is why I kind of associate that type of tennis with a lower quality.

Yes, I think the issue is basically unresolvable because there's no incontestable account of what a high quality match is. I would tend to think that a match with a higher proportion of winners is more high quality. That means that faster courts tend to feature higher quality. But of course the surface is helping make it easier to hit a winner.