Support NeoGAF

[mclem]

I think Murray will be strong for another year, but wont always have the luxury of playing a tired error full djoker.

Fun fact: I looked up the 2010 Isner-Mahut marathon match earlier. Isner had 52 unforced errors; Mahut had 39.

In the final yesterday, Djokovic had 40. Djokovic had more unforced errors than the loser in a ten hour match. Murray didn't exactly shower himself in glory either, with 21.


Edit: As an aside, the reason I was looking up that match? A nagging feeling that I'd seen yesterday's umpire before. Yep, Mohamed Lahyani officiated both yesterday's Final and the ridiculous five-setter three years ago. There's gotta be a decent pub quiz question in there somewhere.

 

[tycoonheart]

At the end of the day what made Novak look so strong during the course of this tournament failed him. His serve wasn't good. And he had way too many unforced errors. Really, Murray I don't think played all that special. Yes he deserved to win because he was better than Novak, and that is all it takes. Novak's groundstrokes were just way too wild yesterday. Plus he stopped taking advantage of Murray's atrocious 2nd serves. He wasn't doing much with them at all, and this from the guy who is one of the best return of servers in the business right now. Bah.

 

[Stinkles]

Somebody on my Facebook feed said the following on Sunday, and I thought it was mildly epic.

So this is what Patriotism feels like? It's basically the opposite of crippling despair.

 

[mxgt]

I think Murray will be strong for another year, but wont always have the luxury of playing a tired error full djoker.

I mean he couldnt even ace ugh.

whats with the novak was tired excuses. why was he tired but murray wasn't?

 

[Bigfoot]

whats with the novak was tired excuses. why was he tired but murray wasn't?

Really? Novak's semi was way more grueling than Murray's semi. Same thing happened to Fed in the Olympics after he played Delpo. As a tennis player gets older, it takes them longer to recover after tough matches. Think of how you might feel after a weekend tournament in a sport you only play once night a week. I don't know about you, but I'm sore and tired for a week after doing something like that.

Even elite athletes like these guys will be sore and tired days after a tough match, and it gets worse as you get older, which is why it is unlikely Fed will win another slam. Fed needs an easy path to the final to have a chance at beating Murray or Djokovic there now. He just doesn't recover like he used to, and can't beat those guys back to back.

However, being tired isn't an excuse. It may have been bad luck that he got Delpo in the draw instead of Jerzy, but that is the way the tournaments work and Novak is partly to blame for letting the match go as long as it did.

 

[NetMapel]

Just wanted to express my happiness about Hsieh winning in the Ladies Double ! First ever Wimbledon grand slam title for a Taiwanese

 

[PS3GamerKyle]

Fun fact: I looked up the 2010 Isner-Mahut marathon match earlier. Isner had 52 unforced errors; Mahut had 39.

In the final yesterday, Djokovic had 40. Djokovic had more unforced errors than the loser in a ten hour match. Murray didn't exactly shower himself in glory either, with 21.


Edit: As an aside, the reason I was looking up that match? A nagging feeling that I'd seen yesterday's umpire before. Yep, Mohamed Lahyani officiated both yesterday's Final and the ridiculous five-setter three years ago. There's gotta be a decent pub quiz question in there somewhere.

Even better: That umpire also called the Sampras-Federer match in 2001.

Best umpire of the world confirmed

 

[digoutyoursoul]

Can't believe Cameron said he deserves a knighthood, ridiculous

 

[Saty]

szaromir, can you provide stats for the H2H record between all the big 4 in Gran Slams? i.e, Murray's record against Nadal in GS meeting; against Novak and so on and for each of the four players?

 

[D_prOdigy]

Even better: That umpire also called the Sampras-Federer match in 2001.

Best umpire of the world confirmed

He called out the order of the sets wrong at the end of the Isner-Mahut match though!

 

[EdibleExplosives]

This thread has been hilarious since Murray won.

 

[John Dunbar]

szaromir, can you provide stats for the H2H record between all the big 4 in Gran Slams? i.e, Murray's record against Nadal in GS meeting; against Novak and so on and for each of the four players?

wikipedia has all that info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)

screencap:

basically, nadal owns all of their souls.

 

[PedroPanache]

wikipedia has all that info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)

screencap:

basically, nadal owns all of their souls.

I do think Federer is the GOAT regardless, but it's an interesting aside that his greatest rival during his pomp won 80% of their 10 slam matches. It might be kind of silly to say, but if Nadal had never come along, Federer would have probably won something ridiculous like 12 slams in a row. It's almost as if his sheer magnificence demanded the ascension of a new challenger with a game designed around every single weakness Federer had.

It'll be a sad, sad day when Federer retires, but I hope he does it whilst his magnificence still burns bright. I remember once, during one Wimbledon tournament, towards the end of Lendl's career, I'd always had a soft spot for him, and had a thing for cool, icy competitors such as himself, but, anyway, it was a match during the 90s, possibly against David Wheaton, and Lendl was being beaten. The commentator lamented that this guy wasn't fit to lace Lendl's boots in his prime; Lendl lost the match and was out in the first week. It was sad, and for some reason that comment from the match commentator, whomever he was, really stuck with me.

 

[mclem]

Four out of every five? That's insane.

Mentioned on the BBC - 90% share in Scotland. Of those who were watching TV at the time, nine out of ten were watching Murray.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

I think Murray will be strong for another year, but wont always have the luxury of playing a tired error full djoker.

I mean he couldnt even ace ugh.

Because Murray hadn't played the exact number of games and wasn't tired at all

 

[AdventureRacing]

I think it's great to see Murray win wimbledon, it's great for the game imo. I also don't get the complaints about the big 4, personally i love it when there are great players at the top competing with each other. They have set a new bar for tennis and that isn't a bad thing. It will be interesting to see where the next big challenger will come from.

wikipedia has all that info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)

screencap:

basically, nadal owns all of their souls.

This is a little bit misleading. Nadal has a tendency to just bomb out of tournaments early on when he isn't in form. When Nadal loses early in a major or pulls out all together even if Federer wins that major it means nothing in terms of their head to head. Whereas with Federer he basically always gets to the semis or finals so if he loses it is going to be against Nadal/djoker/murray (until more recently anyway).

 

[Saty]

Yeah, it would be better if we can get a breakdown at which rounds were the matches and how far each of them reached in that GS.

 

[Ravensmash]

Yeah, it would be better if we can get a breakdown at which rounds were the matches and how far each of them reached in that GS.

Well in terms of overall form at recent GS, Murray and Djokovic are currently destroying the other two.

Murray has been a finalist or winner in the last four tournaments he's played, so I don't get why some people underestimate his ability.

It's far more likely that he'll win more slams as opposed to not I reckon.

 

[keit4]

This is a little bit misleading. Nadal has a tendency to just bomb out of tournaments early on when he isn't in form. When Nadal loses early in a major or pulls out all together even if Federer wins that major it means nothing in terms of their head to head. Whereas with Federer he basically always gets to the semis or finals so if he loses it is going to be against Nadal/djoker/murray (until more recently anyway).

This makes no sense. Nadal only lost two times in the early rounds of a GS in the last four years (against Rosol and Darcis).

 

[AdventureRacing]

This makes no sense. Nadal only lost two times in the early rounds of a GS in the last four years (against Rosol and Darcis).

This response makes no sense. I was talking about the comparison of the players career head to heads and one of the many flaws of using such a metric, so why would you limit it to the last 4 years? Also which 4 years are you counting? There is also his loss to Soderling in 2009 at the french. Which is kinda what i was getting at, Federer won that grand slam which Nadal was competing in but because Nadal bowed out early it means nothing in terms of head to head.

I think you and i were thinking differently in terms of early rounds. I don't mean an early exit like round 1 or 2, i just mean getting knocked out before facing one of the top 4 essentially (which has happened more times than you list there).

That's what i was getting at. If Nadal gets knocked out before meeting Federer (or any other other big name player) or misses out due to injury that means nothing in terms of their head to head.

This doesn't just apply to Federer either.

Probably worth noting that four of Nadal's FO wins were against Federer in the final.

I don't see how that counters my point or is even really relevant to it.

Just as another example take this year for the Nadal vs Djoko head to head. At the Australia open Nadal pulled out with injury (even though on current form he has no chance of beating Djoko off clay) so even though he went on to win the slam it means nothing in their head to heads.

Then at the french where Nadal has the big upper had they actually do face which does count towards their head to head record. Then at wimbledon where Nadal again has little chance of beating Djoker he gets knocked out right at the start.

So this year in GS head to heads Nadal is up on Djoker. Yet their record for the year is Nadal,1 grand slam win, 1 1st round exit. Djoker has had 1 grand slam win and 2 grand slam finals. Which one has been the better player this year?

Woops forgot Djoker got knocked out early LOL. So that one counts the other way.

 

[mclem]

This makes no sense. Nadal only lost two times in the early rounds of a GS in the last four years (against Rosol and Darcis).

Probably worth noting that four of Nadal's FO wins were against Federer in the final. Federer also has no Slam absences, that'd play a role. Their overall win/loss ratios are about the same as one another, but Nadal has played a hundred fewer matches.

 

[Ravensmash]

Is there no official tennis thread?

I can't say that I'm a die hard fan but over the past few months I've got more and more interested, and seems to be quite a few followers on here.

 

[qindarka]

Is there no official tennis thread?

I can't say that I'm a die hard fan but over the past few months I've got more and more interested, and seems to be quite a few followers on here.

There is in OT Community.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=15885177

 

[mclem]

I don't see how that counters my point or is even really relevant to it.

I was actually agreeing with you, not countering! The point - loosely - was that Nadal is hugely dominant in the FO. He simply encounters other members of the Four more frequently in the FO than the other GSes - and because he's dominant in that particular tournament, that'd slightly weight the numbers towards him. He's less likely to meet up with other Big Four members in the other tournaments.

I should stress this is based on estimation; I only looked up Fed/Nadal FO finals. It'd be interesting to know the breakdown of *where* the encounters were that made up each head-to-head analysis.

 

[AdventureRacing]

I was actually agreeing with you, not countering! The point - loosely - was that Nadal is hugely dominant in the FO. He simply encounters other members of the Four more frequently in the FO than the other GSes - and because he's dominant in that particular tournament, that'd slightly weight the numbers towards him.

Well yeah that's kinda what i was getting at. Simply looking at head to head records without all the little details tells you nothing.

 

[Kiraly]

This makes no sense. Nadal only lost two times in the early rounds of a GS in the last four years (against Rosol and Darcis).

That Roland Garros streak from Nadal is just batshit insane.

He only lost one match in the whole tournament since 2005, and he even won it the first time he entered.

 

[Diprosalic]

wikipedia has all that info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)

screencap:

basically, nadal owns all of their souls.

keep in mind that federer is 5 years older than those guys and while in his prime he rarely played nadal on HC.

 

[IISANDERII]

keep in mind that federer is 5 years older than those guys and while in his prime he rarely played nadal on HC.

And when he did, he still got beat more often, unless it was indoor.

 

[zero_suit]

This makes no sense. Nadal only lost two times in the early rounds of a GS in the last four years (against Rosol and Darcis).

French Open: 98 win percentage...my god

 

[Bigfoot]

And when he did, he still got beat more often, unless it was indoor.

Indoor is still HC. Nadal basically wins on slow high bouncing hard court that occurs before the clay season. Fed wins on fast low bouncing hard court which occurs after Wimbledon. The h2h is skewed because Nadal was never good enough to meet Fed in the late part of the season, where as Fed met Nadal (the clay GOAT) all too often on clay, and occasionally on early season HC. Nadal also didn't meet Fed often on HC until post 2008 where Fed began to decline and Nadal hit his peak. The only time Nadal couldn't avoid Fed on fast HC was the WTF and that h2h is pretty embarrassing for Nadal.

Basically Fed-Nadal h2h is so much a match-up issue based on court type than a way to show that Nadal is better than Fed. It is like Fed is being punished for being the second best clay court player for so long. Federer is still Top 10 on clay all time even if he doesn't have the wins to show it.

 

[krYlon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2013/jul/10/brick-by-brick-andy-murray-wins-at-wimbledon