Federer-Murray - Cincinnati 2015 MS - SF

[Chanwan]

Federer just dropped 11 points on his serve in Wimbledon Final. One can blame this on unusually higher first serve % from Roger but in second set of Wimbledon he served close to his average 61% and yet Murray couldn't even produce a single BP. Federer won 100% first serve points in that set and remember Murray was supposed to be fresh in that match. Today Federer served 55% which is little below his average and yet Murray couldn't produce a BP again. Let's say, Murray was exhausted but what special he is doing when being fresh? Nothing.

He is struggling to win points on Federer's serve lately and as a viewer without looking at numbers, I feel his own failures to read serve contributing it rather than exhaustion or something. Just see the difference between his and returning of Novak's in Wimbledon. Djokovic seems to read his serve way better while Murray had no clue.

I agree overall. As for your last paragraph, yes Novak read it better, but Fed def. also served worse. Both percentage and precision wise.
Yesterday's failure on 2nd serve was more a matter of Murray failing to read it properly (hence the many unreturned 2nd's) than him being too flat to react to the comparatively slower 2nd serves. His win percentage vs. Fed's first serve was fairly standard for a fast surface.

 

[D.Nalby12]

I agree overall. As for your last paragraph, yes Novak read it better, but Fed def. also served worse. Both percentage and precision wise.
Yesterday's failure on 2nd serve was more a matter of Murray failing to read it properly (hence the many unreturned 2nd's) than him being too flat to react to the comparatively slower 2nd serves. His win percentage vs. Fed's first serve was fairly standard for a fast surface.

Did you receive an alert when I tagged you above? This function doesn't seem to work sometimes.

 

[Chanwan]

Did you receive an alert when I tagged you above? This function doesn't seem to work sometimes.

I did and I did again just now. @Mainad doesn't it appears

 

[Fedex]

Agreed. It was 2013, when Murray suffered severe and persistent back pain unlike most people seems to believe it was 2014. He skipped almost half of that season (Clay court and post USO part) and barely showed up for Masters. He peaked in GS tournaments precisely but still his play Wimbledon 2013 wasn't that much impressive compared to earlier one.

Pretty reasonable. I don't think Murray should be excused for every loss for year and half. He wasn't injured in 2014 but it took some time to reestablish previous fitness levels and straighten mental game. I also believe, he returned to his close previous best level (2012) from very first tournament of the season. You're honest enough to admit that but someone like Mainad who is genuinely interested in making excuses has extended excuse period till this Wimbledon, so as to cover embarrassing loss against Federer. This is nothing but blatant excuse making, I believe. Do you agree with me?

This season is basically very underrated since he hasn't bagged GS title yet but level wise 2012 and 2015 are his peak years IMO. 2013 is overrated season since he won Wimbledon that year but I can't see the reason current Murray not winning it, if you throw him 2013 draw and Zombievic in Final. He definitely would.

Regarding Mainad I'm not sure what's going on between him and yourself and other posters.
I don't have time to troll through and check all the posts but I know Mainad is passionate and honest and objective generally but the feeling I get is that he can get over defensive about Murray but I also feel he gets picked on and ganged up on which I don't like to see.
There needs to be more tolerance and reasonable discussion from both parties before people start jumping down each others throats, throwing insults and deliberately trying to antagonise and annoy one another, and then any chance of a reasonable debate is lost.

Regarding Murray's level, i don't think he is at his slam winning 2012 level yet. His technical and physical abilities are the same but he is not as clutch as I've mentioned in other posts. I'm sure of this because I follow his matches and can see the trends.

 

[Towser83]

Oh, come on! You're really revealing yourself in your true colours now. What a steaming great hypocrite you are and you've just had the barefaced cheek to accuse me of that! Federer on his deathbed in 2006? Over-dramatise much? If Federer was that bad, why didn't he pull out of the tournament citing exhaustion? He chose to play and he lost. End of. Murray chose to play today and he lost. End of. Doesn't in the least negate the legitimacy of either wins. But that doesn't stop us regretting that either of them weren't able to play at their best, only you want to bring out the violins for Fed while clearly not willing to do the same for Andy. What a typical Fedfan you're turning out to be!

Fed on his deathbed is a huge exaggeration I have to say. He was just wiped (probably more mentally) and was due a loss having made the final of every event that year. Against a lesser player he still might have won, Murray even then had proved he could seriously trouble top players. I can't remember the match but Federer probably didn't play terrible tennis.

but it is funny to hear you say he couldn't have been that bad because he didn't pull out of the event when you were being over dramatic yourself saying it wouldn't surprise you at all if Murray withdrew from the match citing exhaustion like he was a physical wreck. You were over the top about that yourself because there was nothing to suggest he was going to pull out, I doubt he would unless injured. I mean why would he even enter seeing as he was tired in his first match?

 

[zagor]

Regarding Murray's level, i don't think he is at his slam winning 2012 level yet. His technical and physical abilities are the same but he is not as clutch as I've mentioned in other posts. I'm sure of this because I follow his matches and can see the trends.

Some of that is just mental wear and tear from being so long on the tour already (the guy's been in top 3 for 6-7 years now). I think there's sort of a trend for (relatively early blooming) top players at the age of 27-29 to start having trouble keeping up that mental intensity and concentration all the time and they become worse at closing out sets/matches and the chances of them dropping that one stinker service game out of nowhere increases.

 

[Mainad]

@fecaleagle
Thanks for that thorough match analysis on a game by game basis. It made me a lot more appreciative to Murray being fatigued to some extent. He did hit some regulation BH's into the net, but don't they happen in every match? If you look hard enough, you'll find something, but I can agree there probably was a bit of slow footwork and poor errors as well.
Anyhow 22/26 in W/UE ain't exactly a bad stat sheet vs. a fellow top player and specifically in the 2nd set, I thought the level was high (which is odd if fatigue was the factor).

@Gary Duane
You point to Murray not getting to BP with Fed serving at 55 % -> hence something must be wrong.
It's not always that simple. Fed served 59 % (vs. 55 % yesterday) in the 2012 Cinci final, yet Djoko - an extremely in form player that tournament and as good as Murray on ROS and better from the ground - never saw a BP.
Fed served a whole lot better vs. Murray at Wimbledon, but there Murray just got one BP in 3 sets - not much of a difference between 0 in 2 and 1 in 3 sets (but yes, Fed served a LOT better at Wimbledon). Was there something wrong there too? I believe Mainad had all kind of excuses iirc, but to my eye Murray played a damn fine Wimbledon-semi and a decent to good Cinci semi.

Also, statswise, the one thing that stands out is Murray's inability to handle the Fed 2nd serve yesterday. But why would that area be the most affected? Opposite the first serve, he doesn't need to be as explosive and 'unflat' for the 2nd serves. Yet he hit a fair amount of them out/in the net. So his 2nd serve return was somewhat off, yes, but why would that be the area that's, BY FAR, the most affected by fatigue? (and if you say it's rally related rather than directly ROS-related, then why would Murray win a pretty great percentage, 57 %, behind his own 2nd serve?)

@Mainad you can read this as well if you want. I still have hopes of you giving your own argument

I am not avoiding your question but I just want to watch the match again in detail before I point out where I think fatigue played a part. For starters, he missed many easy bread and butter returns which he made at their Wimbledon semi even though Federer was serving much better in that match and Murray had no fatigue problems then! For me, it was due to tiredness as he simply tapped a lot of them straight into the net. He was still moving okay, I grant you but sometimes you run on adrenalin and Murray said after the Gasquet match that he would try his hardest to up his level for the Federer match as he knew he needed to. Had he still been playing with Montreal levels of energy, he would have returned much better and at least have made the match a lot closer. That is my belief!

 

[Chanwan]

I am not avoiding your question but I just want to watch the match again in detail before I point out where I think fatigue played a part. For starters, he missed many easy bread and butter returns which he made at their Wimbledon semi even though Federer was serving much better in that match and Murray had no fatigue problems then! For me, it was due to tiredness as he simply tapped a lot of them straight into the net. He was still moving okay, I grant you but sometimes you run on adrenalin and Murray said after the Gasquet match that he would try his hardest to up his level for the Federer match as he knew he needed to. Had he still been playing with Montreal levels of energy, he would have returned much better and at least have made the match a lot closer. That is my belief!

Fair enough. However, it did indeed seem you were avoiding it since you kept answering with 'fatigue' without trying to justify it with the actual match instead of saying: 'I'll have to watch it again to be more specific'.

Anyhow, his 2nd serve return was off yesterday - for whatever reason, fatigue, mental wear and tear, Fed hitting it well, Murray not reading it well, Murray simply having a poor day returning etc. That was the main thing.

Perhaps he also made just shy of a handful of UE than he wouldn't have made if fully fresh (but that's speculation of course and there are many factors going into that).

But he did compete very well despite all this imo, especially in the 2nd.

 

[Inanimate_object]

I am not avoiding your question but I just want to watch the match again in detail before I point out where I think fatigue played a part. For starters, he missed many easy bread and butter returns which he made at their Wimbledon semi even though Federer was serving much better in that match and Murray had no fatigue problems then! For me, it was due to tiredness as he simply tapped a lot of them straight into the net. He was still moving okay, I grant you but sometimes you run on adrenalin and Murray said after the Gasquet match that he would try his hardest to up his level for the Federer match as he knew he needed to. Had he still been playing with Montreal levels of energy, he would have returned much better and at least have made the match a lot closer. That is my belief!

This doesn't hold up at all, and you know it. You have already constructed an excuse before you ever watched the match. Of course, you will begin to see things that support the theory! You are using a premise to find evidence, not evidence to support conclusions. This is completely backwards. Murray could not even get into Fed's second serve. That is not fatigue, that is an off-day where Murray had trouble handling the kick or was failing to read Federer's serve (we do not here outrule the possibility that Federer was hitting his second-serve much better than he normally does). If you watched it without the subconscious desire to justify what you already believed to be true, you'd see that your "proof" is anything but, and this lengthy argument of trying to validate innumerable excuses is just pettiness and bitterness talking.

Frankly, this is all beneath you, in my mind. You usually seem to be pretty reasonable - I understand if the Djokovic-Nadal-Federer fans on this board have made you bitter. Murray played better yesterday than he did against Fish, Dimitrov or Gasquet. If your definition of fatigue is that one gets better, the more he physically exerts himself, you and I are not sharing the same dictionary.

 

[Mainad]

This doesn't hold up at all, and you know it. You have already constructed an excuse before you ever watched the match. Of course, you will begin to see things that support the theory! You are using a premise to find evidence, not evidence to support conclusions. This is completely backwards. Murray could not even get into Fed's second serve. That is not fatigue, that is an off-day where Murray had trouble handling the kick or was failing to read Federer's serve (we do not here outrule the possibility that Federer was hitting his second-serve much better than he normally does). If you watched it without the subconscious desire to justify what you already believed to be true, you'd see that your "proof" is anything but, and this lengthy argument of trying to validate innumerable excuses is just pettiness and bitterness talking.

Frankly, this is all beneath you, in my mind. You usually seem to be pretty reasonable - I understand if the Djokovic-Nadal-Federer fans on this board have made you bitter. Murray played better yesterday than he did against Fish, Dimitrov or Gasquet. If your definition of fatigue is that one gets better, the more he physically exerts himself, you and I are not sharing the same dictionary.

Well, you may choose to find it coincidental that Murray had an off-day in that match when he had off-days in his 3 previous matches too. But I don't. I happen to think they are linked and I find my take on this to be much more likely than your's. So I guess we'll have to leave it there.

 

[Steve0904]

It may not always be that obvious, Murray could have just been slightly slower in reaction times and movement for it to give the edge to Fed. I can't say I've noticed but I was more focused on how Fed was playing. Maybe he wasn't outright fatigued as in "can't run" fatigued, maybe he was just flat and lacked that extra something to play his best.

Regardless, I want to point out that a lot of Fed fans don't give credit to Murray for his win in Cincy in 2006 (which was under similar circumstances) so roasting Mainad over hot coals over it feels a bit unfair.

Look @zagor I like @Mainad, but in this instance and a fair few others involving Murray, he's just dead wrong. He gets way too defensive about Murray MOST of the time and he's the king of faux outrage and the sarcastic line of questioning. Sometimes he's in the right when people crap on Murray for basically no reason (and I know a lot of people do that here), but here he's so wrong it's not even funny anymore.

Tbh, he seems to be a little touchy that Federer has turned the H2H in his favour in his advanced age.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Pretty easy win for Federer regardless of the scoreline. Murray wasn't at his freshest and needed some time, especially at the beginning, to work his legs into the match.

Federer looks pretty good but I'm basically shot now when it comes to Fed-Djokovic matches so I'm hardly optimistic.

 

[Mainad]

Look @zagor I like @Mainad, but in this instance and a fair few others involving Murray, he's just dead wrong. He gets way too defensive about Murray MOST of the time and he's the king of faux outrage and the sarcastic line of questioning. Sometimes he's in the right when people crap on Murray for basically no reason (and I know a lot of people do that here), but here he's so wrong it's not even funny anymore.

Very disappointed to hear you say this, Steve. In what way am I 'dead wrong' and why are you so certain that you are right and I am not? Doesn't that bespeak a touch of arrogance and closed-mindedness on your part? And why do you feel the need to have a go at me when there are so many outrageous trolls on here spewing nonsense right, left and centre? If you have followed my posts and threads, you would know quite well that I am always trying to be fair and objective about everybody, including Murray. I may get a little emotional in his defence sometimes but I endeavour to be nothing less than fair on all occasions!

Tbh, he seems to be a little touchy that Federer has turned the H2H in his favour in his advanced age.

It's disappointing but am I not 'touchy' about it. I just wish Murray had met Federer last week in Montreal when he was playing better. Whether you choose to believe it or not...that really is all!

 

[Steve0904]

Very disappointed to hear you say this, Steve. In what way am I 'dead wrong' and why are you so certain that you are right and I am not? Doesn't that bespeak a touch of arrogance and closed-mindedness on your part? And why do you feel the need to have a go at me when there are so many outrageous trolls on here spewing nonsense right, left and centre? If you have followed my posts and threads, you would know quite well that I am always trying to be fair and objective about everybody, including Murray. I may get a little emotional in his defence sometimes but I endeavour to be nothing less than fair on all occasions!



It's disappointing but am I not 'touchy' about it. I just wish Murray had met Federer last week in Montreal when he was playing better. Whether you choose to believe it or not...that really is all!

Like I said, I like you as a poster most of the time, but in this case you are flat out wrong. You had your excuses in BEFORE the match started. THAT was disappointing. Then Murray proceeds to play a pretty damn fine match. The most competitive one he's had with Federer in a while on a court where Federer's won 6 times no less, but because you had already written Murray off you're going back to the excuses that you had established before the match started. Sometimes the right thing to do is to just say "Too good" because Federer was too good for Murray yesterday. No excuses.

Anyway, I really don't care that much. I'm a forgiving person and I don't want to keep this argument going. I probably shouldn't have said anything since like 3-4 other people already have.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Nole just hitting exclusively to Roger's BH. Smart move.

 

[Zetty]

4-1 down this is when you have to be wary of Djokovic

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Will you be around when Fed loses tomorrow?

I don't know, will I?

 

[Gary Duane]

I never said otherwise, the level of enjoyment of the match has absolutely NOTHING to do with how close the loser ultimately came to winning the match-and, in terms of SETS WON, which is the criteria for winning a tennis match, a guy who loses 7-6(10), 7-6(10), came no closer to winning then a guy who loses two golden sets. And, in terms of SETS WON a guy who loses 0-6, 6-4, 0-6, 0-6 was closer to winning the match than a guy who loses 7-6, 7-6, 7-6, even though the latter player clearly won far more games, could've won more points, and was far more interesting to watch.

But the guy competing who loses by a hair can tell himself that next time it could go the other way. Theoretically a 6/0 6/0 6/0 beat-down is possible at slams, and anything close to that kind of humiliating defeat is not very helpful in a rematch.

If the same two guys compete - when it is 2 sets all before the winner finally comes out in top at 7/6, it is not only that the enjoyment factor is much higher for the fans - it also gives the loser confidence in having a good chance to win the next time.

 

[Gary Duane]

@Gary Duane
You point to Murray not getting to BP with Fed serving at 55 % -> hence something must be wrong.
It's not always that simple. Fed served 59 % (vs. 55 % yesterday) in the 2012 Cinci final, yet Djoko - an extremely in form player that tournament and as good as Murray on ROS and better from the ground - never saw a BP.
Fed served a whole lot better vs. Murray at Wimbledon, but there Murray just got one BP in 3 sets - not much of a difference between 0 in 2 and 1 in 3 sets (but yes, Fed served a LOT better at Wimbledon). Was there something wrong there too? I believe Mainad had all kind of excuses iirc, but to my eye Murray played a damn fine Wimbledon-semi and a decent to good Cinci semi.

I have to say after watching the final today that Fed has absolutely been on fire, and he did the same thing against Novak today, not facing a single BP with an outrageous 2nd serve winning percentage. It could have been far worse today, with Fed only converting 1/8 BPS. That kind of play two days in a row has to speak for itself, I think.

I love attacking tennis, so I was very pleased with what I saw. Anyone who has read my posts over the last year knows that if anything I am prejudiced TOWARDS the kind of game Fed has. That said, I also think Murray and Novak were both very vulnerable because of fatigue, especially Murray.

Fed had fire in his eyes all week. He seemed restless and "out for bear".

 

[Chanwan]

I have to say after watching the final today that Fed has absolutely been on fire, and he did the same thing against Novak today, not facing a single BP with an outrageous 2nd serve winning percentage. It could have been far worse today, with Fed only converting 1/8 BPS. That kind of play two days in a row has to speak for itself, I think.

I love attacking tennis, so I was very pleased with what I saw. Anyone who has read my posts over the last year knows that if anything I am prejudiced TOWARDS the kind of game Fed has. That said, I also think Murray and Novak were both very vulnerable because of fatigue, especially Murray.

Fed had fire in his eyes all week. He seemed restless and "out for bear".

I think Fed played much better today than yesterday. Yesterday was good in some parts, but so and so in others. Today, everything but the BP conversion was clicking.
A joy to watch.

 

[Down_the_line]

What britam25 can't seem to wrap around his head is that if someone loses a Bo5 match 7-6(5) 7-6(7) 7-6(6), you can technically say that they were 6 points away from winning the match. That is to say, had the loser won the tiebreaks 7-5, 9-7 and 8-6 instead of losing 5, 7 and 6 he would have won the entire match. That's what you call CLOSE.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think Fed played much better today than yesterday. Yesterday was good in some parts, but so and so in others. Today, everything but the BP conversion was clicking.
A joy to watch.

I honestly felt yesterday that Fed was already planning for today, taking the Murray match as a potential warm-up. Because he knows right now that the only person in the world who is always a favorite over him, in slams, is Novak.

By the way, kudos to Novak for his sense of humor, saying he will have to wait until Fed retires to win Cincy. I keep saying that Novak is essentially a good man. Also credit him for staying with it after the TB and the awful triple DF game. With everything that went wrong he still was broken only once.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Fatigue?? Its a damn 3 set match and CLOWNray is 6 years younger.. Why should "fatigue" play an issue exactly? Especially for someone 6 years younger? Sounds like a bunch of EXCUSES to me

If anything the 34 year old should be fatigued not a damn 28 year old

He was obviously tired. He was slow getting to balls, he had THREE double faults on one freakin service game. He has played a packed schedule this year and has a lot of miles on him this year especially with all these deep runs.

Its no wonder hes tired.

Exposed.
Lol, you're such a hater.

Where was Pete at 34?

 

[Chanwan]

I honestly felt yesterday that Fed was already planning for today, taking the Murray match as a potential warm-up. Because he knows right now that the only person in the world who is always a favorite over him, in slams, is Novak.

By the way, kudos to Novak for his sense of humor, saying he will have to wait until Fed retires to win Cincy. I keep saying that Novak is essentially a good man. Also credit him for staying with it after the TB and the awful triple DF game. With everything that went wrong he still was broken only once.

Djokovic is almost always gracious in defeat, very great champion in that regard. And I think he played a pretty good match, triple DF aside (at least one could be down to Fed's aggressive 2nd serve return and him having a letdown caused by the loss of the 1st set though). Was that the game, where Fed also played a beauty of a dropper after pulling Novak left and right?

 

[britam25]

But the guy competing who loses by a hair can tell himself that next time it could go the other way. Theoretically a 6/0 6/0 6/0 beat-down is possible at slams, and anything close to that kind of humiliating defeat is not very helpful in a rematch.

If the same two guys compete - when it is 2 sets all before the winner finally comes out in top at 7/6, it is not only that the enjoyment factor is much higher for the fans - it also gives the loser confidence in having a good chance to win the next time.

All of that may be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with who, in terms of sets won, was closer to winning. A straight set loss is a straight set loss, tennis isn't horseshoes or throwing hand grenades.

 

[Gary Duane]

All of that may be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with who, in terms of sets won, was closer to winning. A straight set loss is a straight set loss, tennis isn't horseshoes or throwing hand grenades.

If we started a poll I'm pretty sure very few people would agree with your idea of "close to winning". I'll leave it at that.

 

[Gary Duane]

Djokovic is almost always gracious in defeat, very great champion in that regard. And I think he played a pretty good match, triple DF aside (at least one could be down to Fed's aggressive 2nd serve return and him having a letdown caused by the loss of the 1st set though). Was that the game, where Fed also played a beauty of a dropper after pulling Novak left and right?

I agree. Fed was zoned today, and Novak wasn't.

But that's not an excuse. That's just the way things go. The H2H between the two suggest that any match can be close. It's not like the old Nadal/Fed thing, where Nadal was definitely a nightmare for Fed to play. If anything Fed is still somewhat of a nightmare for Novak.

To me it seemed that Fed was in Novak's face the entire match. If anything, his failure to convert 7/8 BPs suggests that it could have been much worse for Novak today, and I felt all week that Novak was off. It could be physical, it could be mental.

I still feel that if both players are at the top of their game the edge has to go to Novak because of the age factor. But the edge may go somewhat to Fed in Bo3 because of his aggressive playing style, especially on a fast surface.

I'll never be a fan of the Novak game - it's too much grinding for me. But I still think overall he is clearly #1, and until something slows him down (age, injuries) he still has a chance to get even better in terms of strategy. His loss today is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of, and each time he shows himself to be such a good loser, he is going to earn more fans on his side.

 

[Chanwan]

I agree. Fed was zoned today, and Novak wasn't.

But that's not an excuse. That's just the way things go. The H2H between the two suggest that any match can be close. It's not like the old Nadal/Fed thing, where Nadal was definitely a nightmare for Fed to play. If anything Fed is still somewhat of a nightmare for Novak.

To me it seemed that Fed was in Novak's face the entire match. If anything, his failure to convert 7/8 BPs suggests that it could have been much worse for Novak today, and I felt all week that Novak was off. It could be physical, it could be mental.

I still feel that if both players are at the top of their game the edge has to go to Novak because of the age factor. But the edge may go somewhat to Fed in Bo3 because of his aggressive playing style, especially on a fast surface.

I'll never be a fan of the Novak game - it's too much grinding for me. But I still think overall he is clearly #1, and until something slows him down (age, injuries) he still has a chance to get even better in terms of strategy. His loss today is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of, and each time he shows himself to be such a good loser, he is going to earn more fans on his side.

It does. Except on fast courts in bo3. There, Fed's best still beats Novak's best (but not by a margin) imo.
No one else but a Karlovic on fire would have gotten to the first set TB imo, Novak played great just to stay with Fed in that set.

 

[britam25]

If we started a poll I'm pretty sure very few people would agree with your idea of "close to winning". I'll leave it at that.

I couldn't care less what most people think on this particular issue. Look up the definition of the word "close" in the dictionary, then say, with a straight face, that it's possible to be close to winning a tennis match if you win zero sets.

 

[Gary Duane]

I couldn't care less what most people think on this particular issue. Look up the definition of the word "close" in the dictionary, then say, with a straight face, that it's possible to be close to winning a tennis match if you win zero sets.

If you don't care what other people think then why post?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

If we started a poll I'm pretty sure very few people would agree with your idea of "close to winning". I'll leave it at that.

Argumentum ad populum.

 

[britam25]

If you don't care what other people think then why post?

To enlighten some, the same way your're trying to do with me. Are you saying you're so shallow that you want to be on the side of the majority all the time(see the post that immediately preceded this one)?

 

[Fedex]

Britam can you tell me what this is all about? I've not been following this closely, just glancing, but the feeling I get is that you are trying to say that there is no such thing as being close to winning a match? Or you are no closer to winning a match whether you get humped or lose it in three close sets.
Or have I picked this up wrong?

 

[britam25]

Britam can you tell me what this is all about? I've not been following this closely, just glancing, but the feeling I get is that you are trying to say that there is no such thing as being close to winning a match? Or you are no closer to winning a match whether you get humped or lose it in three close sets.
Or have I picked this up wrong?

You answered your own question, you weren't following it closely. If you lose a match in straight sets(or win only 1 set in a best of five), the match itself was not close, no matter how close the individual sets themselves were. You are "close" to winning a match when you are a few points away from winning it, or, at worst, a game away.

 

[Fedex]

You answered your own question, you weren't following it closely. If you lose a match in straight sets(or win only 1 set in a best of five), the match itself was not close, no matter how close the individual sets themselves were. You are "close" to winning a match when you are a few points away from winning it, or, at worst, a game away.

Not close to winning meaning far away from winning.
So if for example:
Player A was one game away from winning the match he was close.
How far away from winning (how less close) would you rank the following?
Player B lost in 5 non tie break sets and lost the fifth set 6-4.
Player C lost the match in 3 close tie break sets 7-6, 7-6, 7-6.
Player D lost the match in 3 straight standard sets.

 

[britam25]

Not close to winning meaning far away from winning.
So if for example:
Player A was one game away from winning the match he was close. <<Yes>>
How far away from winning (how less close) would you rank the following?
Player B lost in 5 non tie break sets and lost the fifth set 6-4. <<Fairly close, but I'm assuming he didn't lose 4th set after having a match point at 5-4 in the 3rd or 4th set, if so, then, HE was close to winning, too(to paraphrase that Jets NFL coach, you play...to win...the game, and it's very clear cut when you're close to doing so). On the flip side, a player who loses 6-2 in the 5th(and was never ahead in the match) wasn't close to winning in my mind, either, though I concede that's more debatable than when you can't even win a friggin' SET.>>
Player C lost the match in 3 close tie break sets 7-6, 7-6, 7-6. <<NOT CLOSE AT ALL. Not sure why people focus so much on the score of an individual set, like I said in a similar example above, to REALLY drive home the point, Player C could easily have won fewer points, and, if he won 0-6, 7-6,7-6,7-6, he even won fewer games, but, who gives a ****? How can the loser in either scenario say with a straight face that he was close to winning, especially the straight set one? Somebody said in the "C" version, that, "all" you had to do is switch 6 tiebreak points, and C would've lost. That is so stupid as to be laughable, IMO.>>

Player D lost the match in 3 straight standard sets.

<<I think you know the answer to this, again, a 15 year old would lose 6-0 in all 3 sets, and probably 72 straight points, but, in terms of sets-which, again, is ultimately how we measure winners in tennis-he did no worse than C or D. You can't say you were close to winning if you lose in straight set, period.>>

 

[BeatlesFan]

I keep saying that Novak is essentially a good man.

I will agree. The Nole of today is vastly improved over his younger, parent-dominated personality.

 

[Fedex]

<<I think you know the answer to this, again, a 15 year old would lose 6-0 in all 3 sets, and probably 72 straight points, but, in terms of sets-which, again, is ultimately how we measure winners in tennis-he did no worse than C or D. You can't say you were close to winning if you lose in straight set, period.>>

I'm not sure if I do know the answer and I have to disagree with you here. And I hope you can understand this is not as straighforward as you make out.
Last Saturday Manchester United drew 0-0 with Newcastle United in the English Football Premier league.
Man Utd had a massive 70% possesion with 20 shots on goal and 8 on target compared to Newcastle's 7 shots on goal and zero on target.
This was a completely one sided match yet the result was a draw and the teams shared the points.
The Man Utd manager was, however, happy with the manner in which his team had performed because they were very, very dominant and were very close to winning but Newcastle, on the other hand, were very far away or not close at all.
Now I believe the manner in which a team or a player in sport does not win is important and they and their coaches will always assess a defeat in the way they performed in defeat and how close or far they were from winning.
A player losing 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 is much further away from winning than a player who loses 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 and the later player will have far more hope going into future matches against the same opponent.
Yes you could say they were both straight set matches but you have to watch the whole match and look in greater depth than that.
I follow Andy Murray and remember his Wimbledon 2013 final win against Djokovic.
Sadly I have heard many posters mocking Djokovic saying he received a straight sets beat down and has never won a single set off Murray in all their grass court matches but I watched all those matches and every set was damned close and stressful and there is certainly no guarantee that if they were to meet again that Murray would win again in straight sets. Or even win at all.
Djokovic is much closer than other players to beating Murray on grass than most other players.
Does this make sense to you or are you trying to say something else?

 

[Chanwan]

OT,
For those of you interested, post match interviews:
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=112378 (Fed)
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=112377 (Djoko)

 

[britam25]

I'm not sure if I do know the answer and I have to disagree with you here. And I hope you can understand this is not as straighforward as you make out.
Last Saturday Manchester United drew 0-0 with Newcastle United in the English Football Premier league.
Man Utd had a massive 70% possesion with 20 shots on goal and 8 on target compared to Newcastle's 7 shots on goal and zero on target.
This was a completely one sided match yet the result was a draw and the teams shared the points.
The Man Utd manager was, however, happy with the manner in which his team had performed because they were very, very dominant and were very close to winning but Newcastle, on the other hand, were very far away or not close at all.
Now I believe the manner in which a team or a player in sport does not win is important and they and their coaches will always assess a defeat in the way they performed in defeat and how close or far they were from winning.
A player losing 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 is much further away from winning than a player who loses 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 and the later player will have far more hope going into future matches against the same opponent.
Yes you could say they were both straight set matches but you have to watch the whole match and look in greater depth than that.
I follow Andy Murray and remember his Wimbledon 2013 final win against Djokovic.
Sadly I have heard many posters mocking Djokovic saying he received a straight sets beat down and has never won a single set off Murray in all their grass court matches but I watched all those matches and every set was damned close and stressful and there is certainly no guarantee that if they were to meet again that Murray would win again in straight sets. Or even win at all.
Djokovic is much closer than other players to beating Murray on grass than most other players.
Does this make sense to you or are you trying to say something else?

You are looking at all of the nuances of what happened within in the match, and that's fine. But I don't care about how much hope the loser has for future matches and, once again, within the scope of the most important stat there is-who won the match, whoever won more sets tells you 100% of the time who did that-unlike who who won more points, more games, or how long those games were. That is, of course, simplistic, but that's the way it is. The straight set loser was "closer" to winning than the triple bagel player in one sense, because he "almost" won all 3 sets. Unfortunately, you don't get a cookie in tennis for almost winning a game, or a set, so, in the most important stat-did you win the set-he was a complete and absolute failure-and, most important to this particular discussion, is that he was never, ever, ever close to winning the match-you simply cannot be described that way if you have to win 3 sets and won zero.

 

[Fedex]

You are looking at all of the nuances of what happened within in the match, and that's fine. But I don't care about how much hope the loser has for future matches and, once again, within the scope of the most important stat there is-who won the match, whoever won more sets tells you 100% of the time who did that-unlike who who won more points, more games, or how long those games were. That is, of course, simplistic, but that's the way it is. The straight set loser was "closer" to winning than the triple bagel player in one sense, because he "almost" won all 3 sets. Unfortunately, you don't get a cookie in tennis for almost winning a game, or a set, so, in the most important stat-did you win the set-he was a complete and absolute failure-and, most important to this particular discussion, is that he was never, ever, ever close to winning the match-you simply cannot be described that way if you have to win 3 sets and won zero.

Yes from a purely achievement point of view you are correct but life is just not that simple and I believe things should be looked at in more depth especially if you are the coach and player concerned.
However, I remember an attitude on this forum years ago which kind of validates your argument when Andy Murray had been in various slam finals with Federer and never taken a set from him and all people could talk about was how he could never take a set off Federer in a slam final no matter how close those sets were, and then one day at the Wimbledon 2012 final, another which he lost but this time he took his first set, and that was seen as progress. And then a few months later he won his first slam at the USO which was highly significant progress so in those major terms of progress your point is validated.
I feel, though, that looking at progress simply in terms of sets and matches can be over simplistic.
There are many signs and factors leading up to these major steps. Matches, form, experience, conditioning, confidence, improvement and strengthening in technique of certain shots eg serve, groundstrokes, volleying, improvement in mentality, all of which you can see develop in a player over many years. Or diminish.
I would say Djokovic's recent defeat to Federer in Cincy was more comprehensive and worrying than Murray's defeat to Federer.
Both players had very similar matches leading up to the Cincy semi and final but you can clearly see that Murray is making positive progress but Djokovic seems to be regressing.
In the Cincy semi final, Federer mishit a shot but won the point at 6-6 in the 2nd set tie break which, if gone the other way, could easily have been the set for Murray and then who knows what would have happened in the third.
In the final between Djokovic and Federer in which I was rooting for Djokovic, I felt there was less hope for Djokovic.
Murray was closer under very similar conditions so between that and other factors you can conclude he is in better shape leading up to the USO so there is value in looking at the shades of grey and subtleties and turning points in matches.
It just depends on how you look at things and if people can be bothered which most of the time I can't to be honest but I am more tuned in to Murray and Djokovic because I take more interest in them and watch more of their matches by default.