Tennis I

[DJDonegal]

This sport needs a dedicated thread!

So on the men's game - Murray is primely poised to take away the Number 3 ranking from Djokovic, especially because Murray does not have a lot of clay court points, so realistically he is going to keep adding to his total through the clay season, especially on the back of how he finished last year after Wimbledon leading right through to now. From Djokovic to Federer it's a relatively short jump - and in any case he's a lot closer to taking Number 2 than he is to falling to Number 5 behind *cough*matchfixer*cough* Davydenko.

If we look at the upcoming Masters tournaments - Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid - where we know the big seeds will be playing save for injury, then this is how it looks for the men's game:

Monte Carlo - Murray knocked out R3 by Djokovic, who went on to SF to be knocked out by Federer who was RU to Nadal.
Rome - Murray and Nadal knocked out in R2, Federer knocked out in QF, Djokovic wins
Madrid - Djokovic knocked out in R3, Federer and Nadal knocked out in SF, Murray wins

Nadal - W, R2, SF
Federer - RU, QF, SF
Djokovic - SF, W, R3
Murray - R3, R2, W

Someone had a website outlining all the ATP tournament points. If someone could get that up again that would be great? I anticipate that in the masters Federer is actually the one with the most points to lose while Murray is the one with the most to gain, so it's plausible that very shortly we could see the rankings shift to Nadal, Murray, Federer, Djokovic in that order.

Although it might not happen for a while (or at all), this is a good indication of the way things are going. After all, Federer is still a solid 3000 points ahead of Murray.

[polishgenius]

Federer's Slam record is still stellar by anyone's standards but his own (aiming for his 20th semi in a row), so while Murray will chip away at his points in the non-Slam tournaments he's got a way to go before he bests him on the biggest stage.

Especially since clay is Murray's weakest surface as well as Fed's.

[Sir Thursday]

[quote name='DJDonegal' post='1746436' date='Apr 6 2009, 07.55']Although it might not happen for a while (or at all), this is a good indication of the way things are going. After all, Federer is still a solid 3000 points ahead of Murray.[/quote]

It's down to 2200 points now...the numbers are as follows:

1 Rafael Nadal 14470
2 Roger Federer 11020
3 Novak Djokovic 9010
4 Andy Murray 8840

Murray is defending 300 points less then Djokovic at Monte Carlo, so if Murray reaches the same stage as Djokovic in that tournament then he overtakes him for the number 3 spot.


Sir Thursday

[DJDonegal]

[url="http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/systems.html"]This[/url] will do for what I was referring to (you have to scroll down to the bottom to get the 2009 point system) but it's not the one I remember seeing before.

As you can see the points have radically changed from last year to this. Grand Slam winners get double, as well as Masters winners, while the runners up don't quite get double, so it's been made more worth it to win the tournament than to finish runner up this year. If I go back to the original post:

Nadal - W, R2, SF - 2008 Points: 760
Federer - RU, QF, SF - 2008 Points: 700
Djokovic - SF, W, R3 - 2008 Points: 800
Murray - R3, R2, W - 2008 Points: 610

So Djokovic actually has the most points to lose, and with play going the way it is, Murray really should overtake him. Djokovic historically does poorly on the clay courts in the same way Federer and Murray do. Apparently of the 12 career titles Djokovic has, 9 have been Hard Courts, 3 Clay. But then Murray has 10 Hard, 1 Carpet... No Clay. Which is shocking as he constantly says Clay is his favourite court. Federer has won 57, only 7 of which were Clay. Apart from Nadal, it's anyone's chance to take up a shed of points out of these top 4. Clearly none of them are going to lose their place in the pantheon at the top, but they may not pick up many points from now until Wimbledon.

[Calibandar]

Regardless of ratings, which I'm not terribly interested in, I have been watching pretty much all the resultys sofar this year and to me one thing is glaringly obvious fater a couple of big tournaments.

1) Nadal and Murray are currently the two best players in the world.

2) These two are actually quite evenly matched and dominate the field

3) The Federer resurrection for 2009, after taking a long break and a new coach, has not happened, and now does not look likely to happen. This is not to say Federer will not win a big tournament again, but he is consistently beaten by both Murray and Nadal in every match that matters, and last week was forced to bow to Djokovic. Also, Any Roddick is now closer to Federer than he ever was.

Federer still beats other players with great ease. But he can no longer hide his........ deterioration ( a nasty word) when playing against the big guns. It's almost embarrassing how thios formerly unbeatable superstar giant and gentleman of a player is routinely tossed out the window by both Nadal and Murray.

4) Djokovic, along with Tsonga, looks more likely to be someone working for a no. 3 or 4 spot, then someone who will move up even higher. Over the course of 1.5 years now, it's clear that he is not quite good enough for the top spot.

If you want to talk ratings, I have no doubt that Murray will surpass Federer, who is struggling. I'm surprised his fall from grace is happening this fast. It's just that a couple of great players have come up and he himself no longer has his prime form. Djokovic will probably be the no. 4, I expect Tsonga to go to no. 5. Federer for no. 3 and Murray will challenge Nadal for the no. 1 spot.

Should be a great Wimbledon this year, I'm already looking forward to it.

[Sir Thursday]

I agree with your analysis of the state of things, Calibandar, though I am not ready to dismiss the possibility of Federer winning one more Grand Slam event at some point. If it is going to be anywhere, I think it will be the US Open - the way he played there last year could provide him with the confidence to do it again. Less likely at Wimbledon, where his dominance is at an end.

I think the drop in Federer's play stems from the fact that he no longer has that aura of invincibility that he had before, that confidence that he is the best player in the world and that he will be able to pull it out in the end. We saw this against Djokovic last week and against Murray three weeks ago - he comes out firing, but when things start to go wrong, he doesn't have the belief that he should win to steady him anymore, or to let him bring his best when things are on the line. I also think his serve doesn't quite seem as potent as before, which allows opponents to get into his service games more than they used to.

As far as Murray goes, I think he may have some problems in the clay court season. On the hard courts, his advantage is his ability to get to every ball and keep the points going until his opponent is forced into an error. But on clay, that advantage is diminished because there will be others with that ability doing the rounds thanks to the slower surface. Come Wimbledon though, his game should put him in great shape.


Sir Thursday

[DJDonegal]

Federer isn't just losing it physically - he's losing it mentally as well. Did anybody see the racquet smash against Djokovic? He's letting his emotions get in the way of his game, and this is usually something that is only apparent against Nadal who has a HUGE mental edge over Federer.

Murray's best Grand Slam hope is on one of the hard courts. I think having the Clay season lead into Wimbledon will mean he's unlikely to ever win there - he's not a great Clay player, and he won't be getting a lot of games under his belt for the two or three months between the end of the Hard season and the very small Grass season, which might throw his rhythm out. Of course, it could leave him fresher because he's not playing as much, so there's an argument for both sides of the coin.

[Calibandar]

[quote]I agree with your analysis of the state of things, Calibandar, though I am not ready to dismiss the possibility of Federer winning one more Grand Slam event at some point[/quote]

I'm not saying he won't win another one. I think the chances are getting ever slimmer, but I'm sure everyone agrees with that. I could see him win Wimbledon again, or maybe the Aussie Open or the US open. But it requires better play than what he is currently showing.

[quote]I also think his serve doesn't quite seem as potent as before, which allows opponents to get into his service games more than they used to[/quote]

Well the serve as well, but I think his whole game has lost potency. He's capable of these incredible shots and he just does so little of it in the last season or two. He has grand moments during matches where you think he is on the return but for instance the match he lost against Djokokovic, so many unforced errors, 57 I believe, over 3 sets. That is the thing that strikes me most, he isn't steady and consistent anymore. Part of that is that he gets less free points than he used to because it lacks the sheer dynamic power.

I think Federer is really strugling with what to do as well. At the end of season 2008 he took a break and came back guns blazing at the Aussie Open, where he generally played well. But he was defeated here by Nadal, who to be fair, also had a phenomenal form this tournament ( as did Murray, but Verdasco upset him, and then nearly beat Nadal in the semi's). Afterwards Federer's been out for a couple of weeks again, contracted a new trainer, and as one can see, in the last few months he has lost quite a bit of weight, which he has admitted to because he feels that will make him fitter. Thing is, it hasn't helped. So now where do you go? I did not see the racket smash against Djokovic btw, but I heard of it.

[quote]As far as Murray goes, I think he may have some problems in the clay court season[/quote]

Agreed, and this is certainly going to be a hurdle in becoming no. 1 if you consider Nadal's all-roundedness. I expect little from the other big guns on Roland Garros this year. But then Wimbledon starts again and I think Murray's chances there will be very good and he and Nadal and Federer will be the 3 top contenders with perhaps equal chances.

[DJDonegal]

Well Federer just got married... Maybe that'll help with his on court temperament? :)

[Zoë Sumra]

Murray is defending 300 points less then Djokovic at Monte Carlo, so if Murray reaches the same stage as Djokovic in that tournament then he overtakes him for the number 3 spot.

In the event, this hasn't happened; Djokovic is through to the final, whereas Murray went out in the semis to Nadal.

The Guardian is going on about how the match showed Murray's game on clay is improving. The British press goes so gaga over British players that I'm not so sure I trust the analysis. :P

[ljkeane]

Murray actually played quite well for a period in the process of losing to Nadal, having said that Djokovic actually played better than Murray in the process of losing to Nadal.

[DJDonegal]

Eloisa, I'm sure I don't need to tell you to NOT trust the British press! They heralded Henman as the second coming of Fred Perry for many years. Hell, they named a whole hill after him. For a while.

Yes, Djokovic did play Nadal a lot better than Murray did, but as the evidence shows, Djokovic appears to be a better clay player than Murray is - but Murray has improved by coming from R3 Monte Carlo last year to SF this year, while Djokovic went from SF to RU, not the largest jump.

The big difference is in Rome. But Nadal is still the undisputed King of Clay.

[Calibandar]

Well, what the clay season is showing sofar is that Djokovic has surpassed Federer on this surface, he defeated him twice in a row. Looks like Novak is most likely to lose the final against Nadal, who looks out of this world.

Murray, probably not going to do great things on this surface, I can't blame him. I expect a lot from him at Wimbledon. Saw Federer yesterday against Soderling, have to say physically he looks very strong, he just isn't winning tournaments anymore. I hope his candle will stop fluttering and he will recuperate fully on grass.

[DJDonegal]

So Nadal's latest clay winning streak comes to an end at the hands of Federer, 4 and 4. I'm just wondering how much emphasis do we place on the impact from Nadal's semi-final against Djokovic which lasted a long, long time, and Nadal had to save 3 match points before winning 11-9 in a final set tie breaker. Nadal is obviously super fit - the way he bounced from his five set epic against Verdasco in the Aussie Open to beat Federer in another five set classic shows that. I think the fact that Nadal has shown before that he can manage these marathon matches, along with the fact this was on his favoured clay, means we should give Federer a decent amount of credit for his win.

[Sir Thursday]

You've got to take into account that clay is a much more physically demanding surface than the hard courts to play on. The slipping and sliding really takes it out of you, plus longer rallies etc. IIRC the 5 setters at the Australian were night games too, so the conditions were slightly more pleasant to play in than under the Madrid sun...

But still, the fact that Federer could beat Nadal, tired or no, shows that he's at least getting some of his form of old back.

Sir Thursday

[Calibandar]

Obviously playing for 4 hours in a very tight match against Djokovic comes into this in a big way. Plus the fact that Nadal has played a lot lately, and won everything, which means every tournament you play more games than the others.

At the same time, clearly Federer's form on clay is improving, he had a couple of convincing wins, particularly the semi final against Del Potro and the final against Nadal. Well done. Though he did struggle, surprisingly, against Andy Roddick in the quarter final.

[Ken Stone]

So what color are tennis balls? I always thought there were green but lately people have been telling me they are yellow. Am I crazy?

[DJDonegal]

A valid question. I'd go yellow.

[Sir Thursday]

So what color are tennis balls? I always thought there were green but lately people have been telling me they are yellow. Am I crazy?

I'd say green myself, although I think it depends a bit on the type of ball.

Sir Thursday

[DJDonegal]

Silence, heathen, for Wikipedia has spoken:

A tennis ball is a ball designed for the sport of tennis, approximately 6.7 cm (2.7 in.) in diameter and is yellow in color.

Yellow and white are the only colors approved by the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and ITF, and most balls produced are fluorescent yellow (known as "optic yellow") the color first being introduced in 1972 following research demonstrating they were more visible on television.