Australian Open 2013: Day 14 27-Jan-2013 - THE FINAL

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:Weird how Djoko looks more tired after longer rallies.....that's something I had not envisaged.

That's acting. It's djoko who wants to extend the rallies

You were right....he acts better than Murray.

did you get bagelled or stg today

Really impressive stuff from both players..really impressed with how much Murray has improved.Lenld's onto a winning formula,Murray really going for his shots rather then tactically waiting for an error.He still struggled with his mental demons as seen with the double faulting on the break point in the 4th set but theres already a phenomenal improvement from what he used to be like

Some of the shots coming off Djokovics rackets was just unreal!! Proving that he is a lot more then just the 1 dimensional defensive player some claim him to be,that title is now reserved for just 1 player
You cannot produce shots like that in such key moments unless youre a brilliant shot maker.If it werent for Federer,Djokovic would be about as close to as complete a current tennis player can be.He has everything you need with what it takes to win today
Theres no denying he is the best with the way the game is played today and conditions its played in
A really well deserved victory!

Veejay wrote:Really impressive stuff from both players..really impressed with how much Murray has improved.Lenld's onto a winning formula,Murray really going for his shots rather then tactically waiting for an error.He still struggled with his mental demons as seen with the double faulting on the break point in the 4th set but theres already a phenomenal improvement from what he used to be like

Some of the shots coming off Djokovics rackets was just unreal!! Proving that he is a lot more then just the 1 dimensional defensive player some claim him to be,that title is now reserved for just 1 player
You cannot produce shots like that in such key moments unless youre a brilliant shot maker.If it werent for Federer,Djokovic would be about as close to as complete a current tennis player can be.He has everything you need with what it takes to win today
Theres no denying he is the best with the way the game is played today and conditions its played in
A really well deserved victory!

Hi Vee, exactly. The tide has turned, these both are definitely here to fight for many upcoming GS. Fed´s chance is only Wimbledon, but he will have a lot to do with both.

paulcz wrote:

Veejay wrote:Really impressive stuff from both players..really impressed with how much Murray has improved.Lenld's onto a winning formula,Murray really going for his shots rather then tactically waiting for an error.He still struggled with his mental demons as seen with the double faulting on the break point in the 4th set but theres already a phenomenal improvement from what he used to be like

Some of the shots coming off Djokovics rackets was just unreal!! Proving that he is a lot more then just the 1 dimensional defensive player some claim him to be,that title is now reserved for just 1 player
You cannot produce shots like that in such key moments unless youre a brilliant shot maker.If it werent for Federer,Djokovic would be about as close to as complete a current tennis player can be.He has everything you need with what it takes to win today
Theres no denying he is the best with the way the game is played today and conditions its played in
A really well deserved victory!

Hi Vee, exactly. The tide has turned, these both are definitely here to fight for many upcoming GS. Fed´s chance is only Wimbledon, but he will have a lot to do with both.

Well...Djoko had not won a slam for a year and was 2 points away from losing in the 4th round to Stan...Murray only won one slam thanks to USO windy conditions and despite Fed having a bad back it too him 5 sets to put him away....so difficult to reallu predict the future....sure their lung and leg tennis got them there eventually but it;s going to be harder and harder for them from now on.

I am pretty sure the conds are only going to get quicker.

but how soon, btw thanks for commenting did ya like it?

paulcz wrote:

Veejay wrote:Really impressive stuff from both players..really impressed with how much Murray has improved.Lenld's onto a winning formula,Murray really going for his shots rather then tactically waiting for an error.He still struggled with his mental demons as seen with the double faulting on the break point in the 4th set but theres already a phenomenal improvement from what he used to be like

Some of the shots coming off Djokovics rackets was just unreal!! Proving that he is a lot more then just the 1 dimensional defensive player some claim him to be,that title is now reserved for just 1 player
You cannot produce shots like that in such key moments unless youre a brilliant shot maker.If it werent for Federer,Djokovic would be about as close to as complete a current tennis player can be.He has everything you need with what it takes to win today
Theres no denying he is the best with the way the game is played today and conditions its played in
A really well deserved victory!

Hi Vee, exactly. The tide has turned, these both are definitely here to fight for many upcoming GS. Fed´s chance is only Wimbledon, but he will have a lot to do with both.

I'd like to think he is in with a shot at conquering clay again,especially this year but otherwise Wimbledon is his only realistic shot at another major,especially if the weather is bad and the roof is used.The hard court slams are out of the question now,even if he has luck with the draw,the slow conditions dont favour him,especially looking at how Murray and Djokovic were virtually hitting 5-6 clear winners just to win one winner.He is also clearly a step slower as seen by how Murray destroyed him on the corners
I dont think we should be hard on Roger,another semi final is phenomenal..he is over achieving for his age
Most players from his era have already retired,they started losing in the first week of majors,even the first or second round,how many times has Roger lost before the semi final of a major in the last decade?
He was on the defence for about 80% of the match with Murray but yet still managed to push Murray to a 5th set,thats incredible taking into consideration that Murray was playing to the best of his ability or at least near that,while an attacking player was basically just defending,that proves theres still such a difference in class
I doubt tactical Murray could attack as well as Federer defended for that long
It was a performance of sheer will and heart

luvsports! wrote:but how soon, btw thanks for commenting did ya like it?

Yes...god article. I only fear that to sell articles, you need to sell players and the match....and I agree it's difficult to sell both Murray and Djoko as players and their matches.

Yes we have some who like them but I doubt that is a majority.

How soon? not soon enough obviously!

Murray was saying that he's hoping they'll keep it slow so he can keep on reaching late rounds in slams.

so difficult to reallu predict the future....sure their lung and leg tennis got them there eventually but it;s going to be harder and harder for them from now on.

The one thing we can predict and be certain of is that these slow conditions is a sure recipe for a short lived career. The more these players push their bodies beyond its limits to win marathon battles,the faster they will burn out
You gotta feel for the Dimitrovs and Tommic's,theres no chance any of them would have a career spanning as long as Federer's

cheers bud .
next few years? before rio?

btw when you can just see someone's grip etc is that just from teaching? playing lots? studying the game?
I am clueless on that, i'm not good on the technical stuff!

Veejay wrote:You gotta feel for the Dimitrovs and Tommic's,theres no chance any of them would have a career spanning as long as Federer's

Actually...Imagine if Federer had learnt to play the game 5 years later....he woudl have developped a more efficient game quicker (woudl have adopted luxilion and lighter racquets earlier) and since he is the most talented he woudl have dominated Murray, Djoko and Nadal H&S like he did of his generation.....now only him coudl have won without sweating while everybody else woudl have had to rally for ever....so he woudl have arrived in finals younger and fresher and woudl have been as unstoppable....until the new generation of Tomic, Rao and JJ were going to be able to blast their way past him but again the problem with big serve and volley is that Fed has the best eye/hand coordination...so it woudl have been difficult for those young guys to beat him....even if he had reached 31 in 5 years.

Federer was very unlucky to learn tennis with natural guts and a heavy stiff racket as clearly this is not the way to win on those slow courts. he had to change his game dramatically in 2007 by adding spin to his main weapon (his FH). Imagine if they had kept fast conds...he owul dhave been unstoppable. Neither Murray or Djoko play better than him....they are only outlasting him..but they could not have outlast him had he learnt to play with new technology. He would have been even more deadly.

Tenez wrote:so difficult to reallu predict the future....sure their lung and leg tennis got them there eventually but it;s going to be harder and harder for them from now on.

I am pretty sure the conds are only going to get quicker.

They are both at 25 and even if the conditions are going to change it, they will be at the top for a couple of years on hard courts and Nole also on clay. I do not see anybody who can stay at the top to compete with them. It does not mean that Tomic and Raonic can not on their day to win a GS, but I can not see them as the longterm players with great consistency at the top (top 6)

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:You gotta feel for the Dimitrovs and Tommic's,theres no chance any of them would have a career spanning as long as Federer's

Actually...Imagine if Federer had learnt to play the game 5 years later....he woudl have developped a more efficient game quicker (woudl have adopted luxilion and lighter racquets earlier) and since he is the most talented he woudl have dominated Murray, Djoko and Nadal H&S like he did of his generation.....now only him coudl have won without sweating while everybody else woudl have had to rally for ever....so he woudl have arrived in finals younger and fresher and woudl have been as unstoppable....until the new generation of Tomic, Rao and JJ were going to be able to blast their way past him but again the problem with big serve and volley is that Fed has the best eye/hand coordination...so it woudl have been difficult for those young guys to beat him....even if he had reached 31 in 5 years.

Federer was very unlucky to learn tennis with natural guts and a heavy stiff racket as clearly this is not the way to win on those slow courts. he had to change his game dramatically in 2007 by adding spin to his main weapon (his FH). Imagine if they had kept fast conds...he owul dhave been unstoppable. Neither Murray or Djoko play better than him....they are only outlasting him..but they could not have outlast him had he learnt to play with new technology. He would have been even more deadly.

I agree,thats always the case with talent,talent is talent
Roger isnt the most obvious athlete,just looking at him would never make you think-athlete
But he is a pure athlete,he is very fast,extremely strong naturally especially for a long lean build like him and he has a natural ability to endure long.He very rarely looks tired or worn out even after back to back 5 setters, he has gone a decade without any serious injury,always plays a full year and is never brunt out by the end of the season,has more tennis in his legs then any current player on tour and is still fitter then most in prime players.before Djokovic 2.0 arrived,he was the only one who actually keep up with Nadal,even with all his grace and artistry
He has been involved in many slug fests,they just werent as boring because of his variety and style,so all the potential to still be no1 had he been born the same time as Murray and Djokovic is still there,cause like Djokovic and Murray,he would be tweaking his game to excel at what it takes to win today
Djokovic proved that to me today,cause its took more then athleticism to win today,it was a combination of both,surivival for the fittest and the best shot maker wins it all.Djokovic out hit Murray,plain and simple
Further proof is last years IW when Federer beat Nadal on a slowish out door hard court in straight sets

Oh and most importantly..Federer has survived through it all..all the changes,racket technology,conditions,3 different eras and he is still the 2nd best players in the world

Yes but I am convinced that Federer with Stans racquet (yonex for instance or Baboat, Prince...), having learnt to play with luxilon earlier, woudl have a a much better BH than Stan. I have made the change from Wilson to Yonex and it's amazing the confort you get with those new racquets, the bigger sweet spot and pace and spin (without shanking) you can get. Problem with Fed is that he had to change his game and style right in the middle of his carreer and that was always going to be too risky for him to change racquet too.

But more importantly, imagine if he had learnt his tennis hitting v Rafa and Djoko...those guys woudl have no secret from him, very different from seeing those young guys coming with new "ridiculous" fitness, new technology while he is still playing with a 90inch piece of board.

I think he already has a better backhand then Stan
Theres just so much more variation,he can hit almost any shot off his backhand,but yeah your point is noted it would be more of a weapon then a liability
Do you think he should change to a Yonex? I dont know,Roger uses the oldest technology,he is pretty old school,seems like the kinda guy who prides himself in perfecting his ability rather then relying on what racket technology has to offer...maybe its a pride thing more then a risk thing cause changing a racket cant be that risky!!!...come on El Toro changed his grip several times and then changed his racket and added more weight to it!! ( while moaning like a bitch about it) If Nadal can do it in 3 weeks then anyone can


How many times has Roger actually had to change his game??...when he beat Sampras they were all still serve and volleying and then when he won Wimbledon a few years later he was hardly serve and volleying.He has once again gone back to the drawing board with Annacone to find ways of beating the big hitters who started really troubling him,so thats at least twice that I can think of changes,maybe the recent adjustments arent as much change as before?

I dont think many of the current players could cope with a secret from Federer and definitely couldnt with hold one from him,he has one of the highest tennis iq's ever.he coached himself for several years and he was winning multiple majors a year,he is probably more experienced then any male player ever,he understands the game better then his tennis colleges as proven by his success,ability and variety
Like that final in Madrid last year,Berdych hit the ball into the ground first before it went over the net..Roger argued with the umpire about it because he knew for a fact that that would happen because of the spin,the only secret any player could keep from him is what their dr name is

Veejay wrote:I think he already has a better backhand then Stan
Theres just so much more variation,he can hit almost any shot off his backhand,but yeah your point is noted it would be more of a weapon then a liability

He has more variation but it doesn't hurt as much as Stan cause it riskier more him to hit really flat and therefore pacier. It's the pace that hurts...not so much the variation. And with a larger frame, he really could give it a swing like Stan, Almagro and even Gasquet.

Do you think he should change to a Yonex? I dont know,Roger uses the oldest technology,he is pretty old school,seems like the kinda guy who prides himself in perfecting his ability rather then relying on what racket technology has to offer...maybe its a pride thing more then a risk thing cause changing a racket cant be that risky!!!...come on El Toro changed his grip several times and then changed his racket and added more weight to it!! ( while moaning like a bitch about it) If Nadal can do it in 3 weeks then anyone can

Changing racquet can be very risky, especially if you have a sharp game like Federer. He is also probably glued to Wilson through contract so that Wilson may have to build a bigger frame and lighter frame and that process woudl be very risky...considering he was close to beat all those guys with his old racquet he felt there was no point changing it but I am sure it crossed his mind a few times.
Regarding Nadal he doesn't rely on the quality of his shots to win but in his spin and power so the more you can increase those the better for him.

How many times has Roger actually had to change his game??...when he beat Sampras they were all still serve and volleying and then when he won Wimbledon a few years later he was hardly serve and volleying.He has once again gone back to the drawing board with Annacone to find ways of beating the big hitters who started really troubling him,so thats at least twice that I can think of changes,maybe the recent adjustments arent as much change as before?

He did change it in 2007...remember? I thought then that he had lost a lot of pace in his FH, he was playing loopier (I blamed the racquet change then which I thought he did not feel comfortable with and therefore added topspin)....but now it is clear that it was adapt to the moderm game and slower surfaces and refuse to give too many easy points (UEs) to his physical opponents (essentially Nadal at the time).

....the only secret any player could keep from him is what their dr name is

Yes...and hopefully he woudl not be interested.

Could a Yenox turn a SHBH into a virtual BHBH? Im not that clued up about racket technology so I dont know the ins and outs but I think the weakness in Rogers backhand is more about the fact that it breaks down under attack,rather then not being able to do more damage as a shot.Could be wrong but thats my observation
Yeah I remember he simplified his game more,or at least that what I heard that he thought simplifying it would be what he needs to do do beat Nadal
Personally,I dont think so,I always sensed playing Nadal made him a little unsure of himself and would over analyse or complicate things,I dont think he needed to simplify his game,I believe he should have just had faith in his shot selection and played like he had nothing to lose

Having a bigger sweet spot and a more stable racquet woudl help him immensely in his BH. It simply could make it even more stable and/or more powerful.

People have always said that Federer was cracking mentally against Nadal....that is only true if you know your margins are thin...and simply put a Yonex simply allows for more margin than his wilson. Anyone who plays with 340g 90inch Wilson and then moves to a larger frame would notice the difference. Roger woudl lose a bit of precision....but frankly he woudl gain so much on through spin, security and pace. Just look at Wawrinka again...his BH was simply feared by Djoko Federer's BH i snot feared....they aim at it.

Tenez wrote:Having a bigger sweet spot and a more stable racquet woudl help him immensely in his BH. It simply could make it even more stable and/or more powerful.

People have always said that Federer was cracking mentally against Nadal....that is only true if you know your margins are thin...and simply put a Yonex simply allows for more margin than his wilson. Anyone who plays with 340g 90inch Wilson and then moves to a larger frame would notice the difference. Roger woudl lose a bit of precision....but frankly he woudl gain so much on through spin, security and pace. Just look at Wawrinka again...his BH was simply feared by Djoko Federer's BH i snot feared....they aim at it.

I have heard quite a few people say the same thing,especially the part about a larger frame,why do you think he hasnt changed rackets
Would a larger frame really be that much riskier?
It certainly shouldnt be about weight as Gilbert once said players often change the weight on their frames by a few grams during a season

I don't think it's the change of weight cause I think Stan's yonex is roughly as heavy as Fed's Wilson...it's essentially the risk to lose that "feel and touch" so important in Federer's game....and also because he was so close to beat them with his racquet that he may not have found the potential risk of losing precision on his FH and serve were worth the risk.

We will never find out...but I would not be surprised if he changed soon. Look at the way the Dunlop max200G completely changed McEnroe's game in 83 and how it became invincible in 84.

I'm pretty sure he will have tried different racquets.
Wilson have a great range of lighter racquets with bigger head, so it's not like he has to switch the company.

I agree he could do with a bit of pace on his BH, if the new racquet could bring back the weight o shots he used to have in his early career, it would definitely be worth it.

Somehow, I don't think we're going to see any change there.

I believe he won't end his career with this racket.

He has always said he does not have the time to change. I guess he's speaking in terms of a few months. Now did he ever had to make a drastic change? Until 2008 obviously not, early 2009 he seemed to have a big slump but he bounced back with 2 slams. In 2010 he had a good start and a good finish. In 2011 he probably played his best RG and ended the year spectacular. In 2012 he played great for 8 months...
So yes, he didn't have the time to change rackets because he kept on being succesfull. But this aging body could use some external power. Look at his servespeed: he averaged at AO around 184-186 (which is almost Ferreresque), 6 years ago it was around 192-194. Under these conditions he can't hit the ball past guys like Murray and Djoko. I expect him to try a more powerful racket before he starts to fade away.

gallery play wrote:I believe he won't end his career with this racket.

He has always said he does not have the time to change. I guess he's speaking in terms of a few months. Now did he ever had to make a drastic change? Until 2008 obviously not, early 2009 he seemed to have a big slump but he bounced back with 2 slams. In 2010 he had a good start and a good finish. In 2011 he probably played his best RG and ended the year spectacular. In 2012 he played great for 8 months...
So yes, he didn't have the time to change rackets because he kept on being succesfull. But this aging body could use some external power. Look at his servespeed: he averaged at AO around 184-186 (which is almost Ferreresque), 6 years ago it was around 192-194. Under these conditions he can't hit the ball past guys like Murray and Djoko. I expect him to try a more powerful racket before he starts to fade away.

It would certainly makes sense.

He changed his FH in 2007....don't you think?

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote:I believe he won't end his career with this racket.

He has always said he does not have the time to change. I guess he's speaking in terms of a few months. Now did he ever had to make a drastic change? Until 2008 obviously not, early 2009 he seemed to have a big slump but he bounced back with 2 slams. In 2010 he had a good start and a good finish. In 2011 he probably played his best RG and ended the year spectacular. In 2012 he played great for 8 months...
So yes, he didn't have the time to change rackets because he kept on being succesfull. But this aging body could use some external power. Look at his servespeed: he averaged at AO around 184-186 (which is almost Ferreresque), 6 years ago it was around 192-194. Under these conditions he can't hit the ball past guys like Murray and Djoko. I expect him to try a more powerful racket before he starts to fade away.

It would certainly makes sense.

He changed his FH in 2007....don't you think?

Definitly, there was a lot of talk about it at CC. After the wimbledon final many said: the FH is finally back, but that was his good old grass FH.
The "bicep-next-to-ear" follow through came even later on. He developed that the last 2 years. I think the real switch to heavy topspin came during the anacone years, which might sounds paradoxical because at the same time he switched to a ultra aggressive game.
Bottom line is: he always found ways to win so he didn't needed a new racket. But for how much longer? Technically there's not left to gain i guess..

What was striking in 2007 is that his FH was loopier and less penetrating. It explained a few losses to Canas, Volandri, then Gonzalez, and this is when he decided to part from Roche.....That to me was when his FH became safer and not as good. And if I remember correctly you were saying the same back then but at that time we did not know it was a voluntary move from fed and thought it was down to slower mouvement (yes some were noticing already ) , lack of confidence and or change of racquet (which we know now was only a paint job).

Sure i remember. You scared the sh!t out of me with horror stories about the racket change of Courier (it was Courier, was it?)

yes...good memory!