MuRRAY YOURE SHIT

IdleRich

IdleRich
Ah ok. I know that they mooted changing the balls or the rackets or possibly making it so you couldn't jump when serving. Didn't know that they actually implemented any of those things. Definitely makes the game better.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
At Wimbledon, where the surface had accelerated play to the point where it became tedious, more and fuzzier felt was added to the balls, slowing them up a bit.
I think they may also have changed the grass seeds used. Not 100% on that bit.

The result?

15 years or so ago the average 'rally' was 2.1 shots long. Today is something like 5.

That's interesting, hadn't realised that. Helps explain the domination of Federer, I guess – certainly the most entertaining player I've seen since Mack the Mouth. Wonder how he'd have fared against Sampras.
 

hucks

Your Message Here
I think the answer is that Federer happened. He serves every bit as hard and fast as Lendl did but he's got all these extra angles to his game as well. Then others have to respond, grafting these new skills on top of the now taken for granted power game. David Foster Wallace's piece from 2006 is still excellent on this

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all

Edit: In answer to Crackerjack, Federer would've have destroyed Sampras.
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
Ah, but that's obviously not the full story cos Federer doesn't get as many aces as Sampras or whoever used to get.
 

Lichen

Well-known member
A combination of factors.

But we'd all agree that they've created enthralling sport. I just love Wimbledon these days.

I also like that it's quite buttoned up in many ways - predominately white clothes, be-blazered officials, a bit Joan Hunter Dunn - and then this raging warfare in the middle of it all.
 

benjybars

village elder.
to be fair tho he absolutely destroyed federer

although it was a bit pussy not to win the mixed doubles straight after..
 

Bangpuss

Well-known member
Only just noticed this thread.

The reason the game has changed, as someone mentioned before, is that Federer came along and made anyone who tried to serve-volley look like a fool. The defining moment, the changing of the guard, was when Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon.

If you know at some point that to win a tournament you have to beat Roger Federer, you change your game and stay at the baseline. Even big servers like Roddick now tend to stay back even after their first serve, because serve-volley is now redundant, other than as a variation tactic. The best players against Federer are the ones with immaculate defences, who just keep getting the ball back, no matter where he hits it. The players are now so fit and flexible that to hit a winner, you have to do something really special. Like, for example, that shot Murray hit against Tsonga (I think) when Tsonga had hit a smash and Murray returned it, leaping up in the very far corner of the court, got the ball back into play and won the point. For these reasons, tennis has become a war of attrition.

As for Murray being shit, I agree with Baboon. He's extremely unlucky to have come along now. But it's also true that he's only as good as he is because he's had to keep raising his game to keep up with Nadal then Djokovic. BUT I couldn't believe he let his head drop so quickly in the Wimbledon final. He'd resigned himself to defeat while it was still 1-1 with Federer only marginally ahead, which is ridiculous. He's as good a player as any of the top 3 in terms of shot-making, but it's his lack of fight that lets him down.
 

Bangpuss

Well-known member
Oh he can. And only Berdych and Djokovic? Please.

On his day, Berdych is deadly, as his slam victories over Federer show (Wimbledon and now US, both quarter-finals). Admittedly, Federer was below par in both those games. Also, Berdych is 4-2 up in head-to-heads with Murray.

Plus Djokovic, possibly in consecutive days, and you think Murray's tendency to wither at the end of major tournaments, physically and mentally (he threw his racket in the last round) will come into play. So I'd say he's got a LONG way to go yet.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Joke! I expect him to get to the final, given his performances in the last two rounds against two very good players, but there's no way I can see him beating Djokovic in the final of a major at the moment.

On another point, it seems that overall head-to-head records are often deceptive - on a reasonably large number of occasions within the top 20, the perceived 'worse' player is ahead (at one point Murray was beating Federer h2h by a margin, and it's still 9-8), but when you look at their matches in the majors, as you'd expect, the 'better' player is in the lead (Federer leads 3-0 in that example).

I don't know what anyone else thought, but it looked as though Federer was barely trying in the Olympic final. Obv his marathon semi final match does offers a decent explanation as to why he might not have won, but it was more than that - he didn't look overly bothered even when he was being thrashed.
 
Last edited:

Damien

Well-known member
yea the top players step up when it matters, I think not giving 100% to smaller events is key to staying at the top over a long period of time ie Serena
 

Bangpuss

Well-known member
After the Wimbledon final, when Murray started crying, I think Federer decided to let him win the Olympics.
 

muser

Well-known member
Don't particularity want to defend Murray but in all fairness London 2012 was Federer's last chance to realistically achieve a singles gold at an Olympic games. He definitely wanted it. I don't think he'd be where he is today if he was even capable of letting someone win in a final like that.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
the olympics just doesn't hold the same cachet for top players as the Grand Slams, looking at the lists of past tournaments. Fernando Gonzalez twice got medals (2004 and 2008), but only reached one quarter final in the Grand Slams in those years...suggests the others weren't trying as hard.
 
Last edited:
Top