Australian Open 2013

walshb

My bold prediction that Murray wins 3 slams this year is still on!

Stheno

walshb wrote: »

My bold prediction that Murray wins 3 slams this year is still on!

Gone to a tiebreak!

afatbollix

Murrays 2nd serve has gone to pot. Most now under 80mph.

thomond2006

Roger back in the zone!

softy2012

How it's 2-2 is amazing, Murray will finish this out ...


Be tough for Djokovic to beat him on Sunday..

mike65

Well done Murray! Britains Andy Murray

softy2012

mike65 wrote: »

Well done Murray! Britains Andy Murray

Scottish!!!!!

mike65

I'm waiting for the link to some one horse village here to appear!

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

My bold prediction that Murray wins 3 slams this year is still on!

Bold indeed, although he's actually the form player in slams, lost final of Wimbledon won Olympics, won us open and now in the final again. If he wins tomorrow it's on, think djokovic will win in four though.

Stheno

Am I right in thinking that even if Murray won there would be no change in the rankings as he would go up to 10,000 and Fed still has 10,265?

Floppybits

Stheno wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that even if Murray won there would be no change in the rankings as he would go up to 10,000 and Fed still has 10,265?

You are correct. There will be no change to the seedings of the top 3. I think Ferrer is moving to 4 now and Nadal I think is either 5 or 6.

Steven81

Imagine if Rafa is seeded outside top 4 in french open, some quarter final for someone.

RosyLily

Steven81 wrote: »

Imagine if Rafa is seeded outside top 4 in french open, some quarter final for someone.

Could be possible! No.5 Ferrer is only 95 points behind Nadal in the rankings. If he picks up some extra wins, David could become No.4. I'm interested to see what condition Rafa will be in when he returns.

walshb

I have a feeling that the final will be an absolute master class from both. Whether it's 3/4/5 set match I think it's going to be ever so tight and competitive. It's almost a toss up. I would lean with Novak slightly. Seems to be really be on fire. Fast and very heavy handed.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

_Bella_ wrote: »

Thanks might actually get to watch this. I find the times of the Australian Open really frustrating and have only got to see Djokovic Berdych so far.

manafana wrote: »

well their is nothing to be done about it their 10 hours ahead. im sure aussies finding following wimbledon the same.

The time difference is pretty awful but I have to tip my hat to the Aus Open organisers for their online content during the fortnight. They seem very aware that the majority of people watching are in far far away time zones. They seem to have someone manning their twitter account 24/7. They do a pile of giveaways, they put up the transcripts of the pressers straight away, there's a load of video highlights online, not to mention their archive of previous years.

Not surprising they win the fan award for it every year.

Anyway, I'm not really bothered about who wins either final. I guess I'd like Li Na to win, but I'd just like some high quality tennis in both, unlike last year.

Halloween Jack

RosyLily wrote: »

Could be possible! No.5 Ferrer is only 95 points behind Nadal in the rankings. If he picks up some extra wins, David could become No.4. I'm interested to see what condition Rafa will be in when he returns.

See that's why seeding should be distinct from rankings. Assuming nadal is still nadal on his return, he should be seeded 1 or two regardless of his ranking imo.

I remember a time, not that long ago, when a grass court actually played like a different surface and people were seeded appropriately, never mind their overall ranking.

John.Icy

A masterclass? Yeah of fitness, not much else.

Disappointed with Fed today, was non existent for too much of today, surprised he got a set let alone two of them.

Probably not going to tune into the final for the entire duration. Just not my cup of tea, two fellas who put fitness/strength way over tennis itself. I'm sure it'll be great for some, long rallies with shot after shot after the exact same shot.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

I have a feeling that the final will be an absolute master class from both. Whether it's 3/4/5 set match I think it's going to be ever so tight and competitive. It's almost a toss up. I would lean with Novak slightly. Seems to be really be on fire. Fast and very heavy handed.

As with most matches involving murray, the key lies in his serve. If he's getting lots of first serves in, he'll take some beating. If he has to dish up the 71 mph filth he was serving earlier he'll be in big trouble.

I remember the us open final, there were a lot of long rallies, djokovic will won a large percentage of these, so murray needs to go for the lines early.

Halloween Jack

John.Icy wrote: »

A masterclass? Yeah of fitness, not much else.

Disappointed with Fed today, was non existent for too much of today, surprised he got a set let alone two of them.

Probably not going to tune into the final for the entire duration. Just not my cup of tea, two fellas who put fitness/strength way over tennis itself. I'm sure it'll be great for some, long rallies with shot after shot after the exact same shot.

Not sure i agree. While both players are amazing defenders, they both have amazing shot-making abilities, they excel at putting an opponent under pressure, while under pressure themselves - see djokovic's winner vs wawrinka.

They are both incredibly fit and it is a huge part of their games, how they achieve that fitness and how credible their powers of recovery are, are another matter entirely.

Da Shins Kelly

I reckon Murray will win the final. Can't say I'm a huge fan of either player though and probably won't bother watching.

As for Murray winning four slams, I don't see him winning Wimbledon. For some reason, I think Federer will win again.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Halloween Jack wrote: »

See that's why seeding should be distinct from rankings. Assuming nadal is still nadal on his return, he should be seeded 1 or two regardless of his ranking imo.

I remember a time, not that long ago, when a grass court actually played like a different surface and people were seeded appropriately, never mind their overall ranking.

Wimbledon is the only Slam which seeds by committee rather than just by rankings. 99 times out of 100 it's the same thing but I remember in 2011 (i think) Serena was still climbing back up the rankings after her long lay off and they seeded her way higher than her rankings, rightfully so.

I'm not sure why Nadal isn't using a protected ranking given he hasn't played since Wimbledon? Must look into that.

Edit: He does technically have a protected ranking, but it only comes into effect if he falls out of the top 50, which isn't going to happen.

walshb

John.Icy wrote: »

A masterclass? Yeah of fitness, not much else.
.

Strongly disagree. Yes, fit as fiddles, but both have been playing very brilliant tennis as well.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

walshb wrote: »

Strongly disagree. Yes, fit as fiddles, but both have been playing very brilliant tennis as well.

Usually all 4 of the top men only play as well as they need to to beat their opponent. Meaning I find it very boring to watch any of them before the SF of a slam. If they both come out firing in the final they're both playing some great tennis and it could be a really fantastic 5 setter, like Djokovic/Wawrinka. It's just as possible though that they won't and we'll end up with something like last years final where the quality is pretty low, the momentum shifts between sets and in the end it's just a case of who will fall over first. I'm hoping it's the first option.

_Bella_

manafana wrote: »

well their is nothing to be done about it their 10 hours ahead. im sure aussies finding following wimbledon the same.

I'm not saying they should be playing at 3 in the morning, I'm just speaking from my perspective that it's the hardest Grand Slam to get into, obviously nothing can be done about that.

I can't see past an Azaerenka win tomorrow, Li Na's tennis is just not where it was when she won the French Open and Azaerenka has been getting better and better. Interestingly though this is probably the first Grand Slam final where she is starting out as the favourite so it remains to be seen if that will affect her.

Mens is too difficult to call. As a Djokovic fan I obviously want him to win and he did play excellently against Ferrer but I wonder if losing the US Open to Murray will have any affect on him. I expect it to be similar enough to that match, probably a 5 setter and slugfest.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

_Bella_ wrote: »

I can't see past an Azaerenka win tomorrow, Li Na's tennis is just not where it was when she won the French Open and Azaerenka has been getting better and better. Interestingly though this is probably the first Grand Slam final where she is starting out as the favourite so it remains to be seen if that will affect her.

Li Na has come on so much since starting to work with Rodriguez. She hasn't dropped a set all tournament and is so much more together mentally. Vika has shown a lot of her old self this past two weeks. That is moaning on court, mental lapses, not playing 100% for the whole match. It could be a very interesting match.
You'd have to give Vika the egde given it's her 3rd final in a year and she knows how it feels to win one and to lose one, I'm guessing she likes the first feeling better. Will also be interesting to see how the crowd reacts to her. Them being hostile to her would only help her though.

MisterAnarchy

John.Icy wrote: »

A masterclass? Yeah of fitness, not much else.

Probably not going to tune into the final for the entire duration. Just not my cup of tea, two fellas who put fitness/strength way over tennis itself. I'm sure it'll be great for some, long rallies with shot after shot after the exact same shot.

I kind of agree with you ,I think I'll skip the final ,it will be a slugfest .

The organisers need to cop themselves on and speed the courts up a bit ,they are too bloody slow,its become a joke at this stage.
Its the same guys getting to the final rounds each grand Slam after another,the days of the surprise big server or surface specialist causing a shock are gone.
Players today - basically only have 3 surfaces (possibly 4 if you think of indoor hard as being different than outdoor hard). And these surfaces have become more homogenized ie the speed variance between the surfaces has become less over the last decade.

Because of this the art of the volley is dying, with the art of the approach shot. The lob is increasingly rare, as is the passing shot.

The ironic thing is that the new rackets with the larger head sizes and special strings actually helps the returner, so faster surfaces are more viable but instead the courts are getting slower and slower.
One of the great things about tennis is that it can be played in a variety of styles but that is not as true now as it was a few years ago.

Rob2D

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I kind of agree with you ,I think I'll skip the final ,it will be a slugfest .

The organisers need to cop themselves on and speed the courts up a bit ,they are too bloody slow,its become a joke at this stage.
Its the same guys getting to the final rounds each grand Slam after another,the days of the surprise big server or surface specialist causing a shock are gone.
Players today - basically only have 3 surfaces (possibly 4 if you think of indoor hard as being different than outdoor hard). And these surfaces have become more homogenized ie the speed variance between the surfaces has become less over the last decade.

Because of this the art of the volley is dying, with the art of the approach shot. The lob is increasingly rare, as is the passing shot.

The ironic thing is that the new rackets with the larger head sizes and special strings actually helps the returner, so faster surfaces are more viable but instead the courts are getting slower and slower.
One of the great things about tennis is that it can be played in a variety of styles but that is not as true now as it was a few years ago.

You're dead right, its just getting annoying at this stage.

I could care less about the final now that Federer is out. There'd be more imagination in a 5hr game of pong than Sunday's final I'd say.

I can understand why they won't speed the courts up again; there's such a demand for it.

Think I'll head down to the courts on Sunday altogether and just check who won when I get home. Much better way to spend a Sunday I think!:pac:

I reckon Djokovic will do it though.

Rjd2

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Because Azarenka makes no noise at all. :rolleyes:

So... that second women's SF was uneventful during, but quite a shnit storm brewing after it. The journalists on site though are animals. I don't know why Vika took an MTO when she did, or what was actually wrong with her, but due to her sort of skipping over a question she was asked in the on court interview they all decided she was a lying, cheating, son of a mother and carried this into her presser where they were just downright unprofessional with her. Some of the things I saw on my twitter TL for an hour or two after it were unbelievable. I don't like Vika, I know here past behaviour does her no favours but I would have thought that the journalists would have some sort of sense and wait until they had actual facts before taking to twitter to spread a made up story. Idiots.

Also, what a let down that men's SF was. Equal prize money my back side.

I have a blind spot for Aza, I admit she can be annoying but still I can't help but warm to her, she is a player I do win money betting wise quite a bit out of as well which helps.:o

John.Icy

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Not sure i agree. While both players are amazing defenders, they both have amazing shot-making abilities, they excel at putting an opponent under pressure, while under pressure themselves - see djokovic's winner vs wawrinka.

They are both incredibly fit and it is a huge part of their games, how they achieve that fitness and how credible their powers of recovery are, are another matter entirely.

Yeah, vs. Wawrinka, a player who isn't always in the category of physical beast. Both Djokovic and Murray play great stuff against the likes of Federer, skillful creative players.

Put two physical players together who have based their game on defending all day, it can be utterly awful. Look at what Novak said after his match against Stan, he said he just stood there all day and kept hitting it back and hoping for the best. Only when people properly rise up to Murray and Novak, that arnt anywhere close to their fitness, is when either of them are watchable for me. Would you honestly go back and watch one of Murray's matches from this tourny other than today?? Surely not, they've been so boring. Put Murray against Federer today, we see a more skillful Murray, as Fed isn't going to bend over and take the defensive nonsense, Murray was made to create shots. Novak was made to create against Stan. Other than when these physical beasts are given a huge challenge by highly creative skillful player, they don't need to create, they get by knowing that "hey, I'm fitter than you, so you run along, throw the kitchen sink at me and I'll keep running till you have nothing left.

That's not tennis for me, I don't enjoy it, but others might, nothing wrong with it. It's great sometimes, but 20 shot rallies are meant to be epic, a wow moment, but when nearly every rally is like it, it wares off. Monfils vs. Simon prove this point

There's a big chance Novak and Murray could sit behind the baseline all day and just wait and wait till someone hits the net or hits it wide on the 50th shot. That may be spectacular for some, but I really really hope this won't be as much of a slugfest as last year, which was quite a woeful final between two physical freaks.

Stevecw

Li Na to win this womens final please. Always hated Vika, and after her antics in semi even more so now. Have a bad feeling she will defend her title in 2 sets. Hope i am 100% wrong.

manafana

Halloween Jack wrote: »

See that's why seeding should be distinct from rankings. Assuming nadal is still nadal on his return, he should be seeded 1 or two regardless of his ranking imo.

I remember a time, not that long ago, when a grass court actually played like a different surface and people were seeded appropriately, never mind their overall ranking.

great point, adjusted seedings are acceptable in my view and should come back in

MisterAnarchy

John.Icy wrote: »

Put Murray against Federer today, we see a more skillful Murray, as Fed isn't going to bend over and take the defensive nonsense, Murray was made to create shots.

Thats all fine and good if the courts were fast but they are slow and that suits a defensive player.
An aggressive player like Federer has to be almost overly aggressive to win these matches.
It means going for the big shots ,going close to the line and sometimes winning points 3 or 4 times over .Its very hard to keep that up for 2 hours not to mind 3 or 4 hours .

That's not tennis for me, I don't enjoy it, but others might, nothing wrong with it. It's great sometimes, but 20 shot rallies are meant to be epic, a wow moment, but when nearly every rally is like it, it wares off.

Very true.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The funny/sad thing is that you see a couple of the younger players coming through who do play a decent mix of tennis but it's almost beaten out of them. The likes of Goffin and even Tomic when he's playing well. You see it after a year or so on the main tour they change how they play because it's the only way to compete. Everybody talks about fitness now, Ryan Harrison said one of his main off season goals was to get to a level of fitness where he could be on the court actually competing for 5 hours, not just be on the court for 5 hours. The young guys are all trying to get to that ridiculous level of fitness that Nadal and Djokovic have, even Murray has gotten there now too. It's a shame, I don't think it's good for the game.

yerwanthere123

I'm not really sure who I want to win the women's final. Overall Li has played better throughout the tournament, having not dropped a set. Also Vika hasn't looked great at times, particularly against Sloane and Hampton. Vika will surely bring her A game to the final, however if Li plays the way she did against Sharapova then I think she'll do it. I don't know which way it's going!

_Bella_

They should change the surfaces but I'm guessing that organisers will be reluctant to do anything which may affect this "golden generation of mens tennis".

Really hope this ankle twist doesn't ruin the final.

nocoverart

Talking about swings and roundabouts in this set. Come on LI!

yerwanthere123

Be hilarious to see how the American media react to this

_Bella_

I read an article that said Murray and Federer has a spat, but didn't outline what happened? Anyone care to fill in the blanks?

RosyLily

_Bella_ wrote: »

I read an article that said Murray and Federer has a spat, but didn't outline what happened? Anyone care to fill in the blanks?

I was looking at the match. From my POV, Federer yelled something after a rally. The players eyeballed each other and turned away. Some reports saying Fed swore, others saying it was just a yelp. I couldn't hear a swear myself; it was kind of a garbled sound.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

_Bella_ wrote: »

I read an article that said Murray and Federer has a spat, but didn't outline what happened? Anyone care to fill in the blanks?

Federer shouted "You f*$king stopped!!" at Murray because a few shots before in the point he obviously thought Murray had stopped and was then caught out by the shot. Murray eyed him up and made that ugly face at him.

After in press Murray was asked what Roger had said to him, he said it didn't matter, it was just heat of the moment stuff and wasn't a big deal.

Once again it's journos grasping at straws looking for a bit of scandal to report.

That Women's final was mental. It had everything. Li Na is a hero for carrying on after ankle injury and then blacking out after banging her head. I have so much respect for Vika too. Very hard few days for her with the press being so harsh on her. All the crowd was against her, and then all the stopping and starting during the match. Her muted celebration at the end was probably for the best but a real shame she couldn't just celebrate. Her tears as well were more than just for winning. I still won't root for her in the future but she gained a lot of respect from me this week.

RosyLily

It really annoys me when journalists try to make these issues bigger than they are. The players made up and are good now so let it go! Same with Vika.

I enjoyed the women's final today. Miles more entertaining than last year's! Felt sorry for Li Na. She had chances but just couldn't convert; those two falls she had definitely didn't help matters. Quite similar to the Aussie final she had with Kim Clijsters. I'm interested to see how she'll get on at the French Open with Carlos Rodriguez on her side. She might even win it!

Not really excited for the final as in other years. Can't say I'm a fan of the battle of the fittest matches. IMO, Roger Federer is the last of a dying breed.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

RosyLily wrote: »

I enjoyed the women's final today. Miles more entertaining than last year's! Felt sorry for Li Na. She had chances but just couldn't convert; those two falls she had definitely didn't help matters. Quite similar to the Aussie final she had with Kim Clijsters. I'm interested to see how she'll get on at the French Open with Carlos Rodriguez on her side. She might even win it!

Last 2 years runner up at Aus Open won RG, and in 2008 as well. The odds are in her favour.

Da Shins Kelly

Ah, man. I feel sorry for Li Na. I think she would have won it if not for those injuries. Shame. Hopefully she'll keep up the good form for Roland Garros.

With regards to the men's, gotta agree with how boring the battle of fitness has become. The fact remains that if they were all on the same level, neither Djokovic nor Murray would be good enough to beat Federer. I think he has changed the standard of the game, but not necessarily for the better. Players have had to figure out new ways to beat him and because none of them are actually talented or skillful enough, they have to rely on strength and fitness and literally just hammer the wins out. It's bad for the game.

My brother is convinced Murray's on steroids! Can't accept his new level of form! :pac:

walshb

Federer is every bit as fit as the other two. This is not solely about fitness. It's not like comparing the men today from the men in the 70s and 80s. Shot selection and speed around the court are to me much more applicable when assessing Novak and Roger and Andy and Rafael and several others.

I'd like anyone to point me out instances where Roger was dead on his feet? If anything his fitness control and used of his movement is a perfect counter balance against cardio stamina. It's Andy's explosive speed over short distances that can win him more points as opposed to his cardio stamina. And of course his shot selection and power. Cardio stamina is NOT what is giving the edge to Novak and Andy over Federer.

Roger glides around the court effortlessly. Many others use raw speed and explosion.

RosyLily

I agree! Players just don't have the similar game or style of Federer. Since he's getting older and the stamina drops, guys like Djokovic and Murray are basically outlasting him and keeping him on the run. I hope this new way of playing doesn't stay around for years. It was fun at the beginning but now.....not so much! But I can't see it dying off if the new players are copying Djokovic & Murray instead of Federer, or even Ferrero!

jamescd

Put 50 quid on Murray to win just for the craic. I think Djokovic will come out on top though :pac:

Da Shins Kelly

RosyLily wrote: »

I agree! Players just don't have the similar game or style of Federer. Since he's getting older and the stamina drops, guys like Djokovic and Murray are basically outlasting him and keeping him on the run. I hope this new way of playing doesn't stay around for years. It was fun at the beginning but now.....not so much! But I can't see it dying off if the new players are copying Djokovic & Murray instead of Federer, or even Ferrero!

I think young players are more likely to copy Djokovic and Murray because it's easier to achieve that level of fitness and strength (albeit with very hard work) than it is to achieve Federer's level of skill. A lot of what Federer has is just pure talent, a level of which other players simply don't have and there's nothing they can really do about that except maximize their other resources, i.e power, stamina, etc. They're making up for the fact that they can't match him skill-wise by muscling up. Roger Federer is one of a kind, and the fact is that he cannot be matched in terms of skill or aesthetics or vision (and I think most other players know this) means everyone else has to think of other ways that they can out-do him. Roger's not getting any younger, so it would seem natural that the likes of Murray are going to have more stamina on their side anyway.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ I don't agree completely with that. Sure a lot of Federer's ability is purely natural and can't be taught. However, serve and volley can be taught, one handed backhands can be taught, movement can be worked on and improved. If you get a kid when they're 6 or 7 and don't let them do any of these things they're not going to be able to do them when they're 18 or 19 and trying to break into the main tour. Obviously you can't teach someone to be Roger Federer but I do get the impression that most coaches/academies now aren't even trying to teach anything other than strength and fitness.

As I pointed out earlier though even the kids that are getting taught all these skills when they're young have it beaten out of them pretty swiftly once they start playing on the main tour.

davyjose

Murray and Djoko both had a huge amount of talaent, and can play all the shots. Djokovic was, in the past, quite flaky fitness-wise. Two years ago he really put the effort in and it's taken him to the top. Murray seemed to follow suit a year later and look at the year he had.
This is the final as it should be -- all due respect to Fed, but these two are essentially the best in the world right now.

walshb

Really, can anyone actually claim with evidence that Roger is NOT as fit as Novak and Murray? It's not something that you can really demonstrate regarding the three of them. Saying one "outlasts" the other doesn't at all explain it. Someone has to lose. And, is anyone saying that Roger cannot or will not beat either man again in a best of 5 sets?