US Open 2012: The Morning After...

....and the sun rose in the East... again!


No wind. Just pure blue sky and blazing sunshine. Gentle samba strumming from my CD player, lovely double espresso spreading its irresistible, seductive aroma and my Christmas present bottle of bubbly lingering, still unopened, in the cupboard....
It's meant to get better with age, isn't it?

Well! Who ever said you can have it ALL....

I'm not going to pretend I'm suddenly a convert to Murray's tennis because I'm not. At best, last night, it was high-class defensive counter-punching, like it used to be 3-4 years ago. And that is also beautiful to watch when in its pure form (like Simon plays it).

I won't even say that Murray deserved it, because you don't deserve a slam, you win it. He somehow did it and I am happy for him. Just a tiny bit.

I am also a tiny bit sad Nole lost the match. That he didn't wake up earlier. I am immensely proud of his comeback and the gigantic heart he showed again. After all, it's how you play that matters. And how you feel about it the day after..and the year after...and....

I would like to believe that this loss will revert Nole to his original game he played in the 3rd and 4th set.

Outnadaling era is finished. Time for outmurrying phase.

I look forward to the next chapter.

P.S.
If Banbotram somehow reads this, Banbro, your man has done it! I know how you're feeling and savour every moment of it. For you, the long-suffering, believing soul:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUoEB3DBSjo

I would like to believe that this loss will revert Nole to his original game he played in the 3rd and 4th set.

The wind prevents to play like that. There is no point going for thin margins when the ball cannot be controlled. It's only when the wind dropped that he was able to.

This is why Federer is very affected by the wind cause he goes for even much thiner margin than the other top 3.

His Wimby 2008 (before rain interruption) and WImby 2009 were both very windy too but not many noticed.

Tenez wrote:

I would like to believe that this loss will revert Nole to his original game he played in the 3rd and 4th set.

The wind prevents to play like that. There is no point going for thin margins when the ball cannot be controlled. It's only when the wind dropped that he was able to.

This is why Federer is very affected by the wind cause he goes for even much thiner margin than the other top 3.

His Wimby 2008 (before rain interruption) and WImby 2009 were both very windy too but not many noticed.

I know the wind stuffed it. That was the worst and ugliest passage of the match. But what can you do...Nole obviously thought he would weather the wind phase and played like he did. He did manage to come back when the wind subsided, but ran out of legs. The match he had to play against Ferrer two days and no rest took its toll. Shame, because I don't think Murray would've won it the other way round.

After a long time fans of all players get to be happy about some or the other thing.

Fed fans are happy :
* won record equalling 7th wimbledon
* Regained #1, not long back was thought impossible.
* Broke Pete 286 record.
* still #1 and closing on to 300 weeks.
* chance to finish Year-end at #1.

Nadal fans are happy:
* Beat Djo 3 times on clay.
* Record 7 RG.
* Record 8 consecutive MC
* King of clay.

Djokovic fans are happy:
* He won AO
* 1st RG final
* Still leading the 2012 points table and very good chance to get YE #1

Murray fans are of course happy:
* won 1st slam, US open
* Won wimledon gold
* monkey off his back.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:After a long time fans of all players get to be happy about some or the other thing.

Fed fans are happy :
* won record equalling 7th wimbledon
* Regained #1, not long back was thought impossible.
* Broke Pete 286 record.
* still #1 and closing on to 300 weeks.
* chance to finish Year-end at #1.

Nadal fans are happy:
* Beat Djo 3 times on clay.
* Record 7 RG.
* Record 8 consecutive MC
* King of clay.

Djokovic fans are happy:
* He won AO
* 1st RG final
* Still leading the 2012 points table and very good chance to get YE #1

Murray fans are of course happy:
* won 1st slam, US open
* Won wimledon gold
* monkey off his back.

That's a lovely way of looking at things rotla

If I may add, we, OFT-ers are happy & proud to have this sunny, cosy place to share our passion for tennis in

noleisthebest wrote:
I know the wind stuffed it.

This first set was so important...and frankly there was not much in it. It was Murray's destiny and that's it. Sometimes one wants something so much that one gets it.

Good on him.

I've only seen the gusty part of the match (until 3-0 in the second) and i agree Murray was -as expected- less affected by the wind because he can muscle his way through the wind. He can generate more ball speed without relying on the cleanness of the hit.

I like to point out again that Murray has about a clean sheet against Djoko on the faster courts of the tour, so that's why i'm not buying the better fitness part. It'll always be close between those two, with a slight advantage for Djoko the first part of the season and for Murray from Wimbledon and thereafter.

Key question: did Murray win his first slam because he improved his fitness this year?
I don't think so. To me he's less passive than he used to be.

I know.
That's why I'm not that upset.

Yes rotla....that's one way to look at it. The other is that none of us are happy cause we expect more from our champions.

I must say that I woudl have fancied Federer's chance yesterday if on form cause the level of tennis was far from brillant.

gallery play wrote:

I like to point out again that Murray has about a clean sheet against Djoko on the faster courts of the tour, so that's why i'm not buying the better fitness part. It'll always be close between those two, with a slight advantage for Djoko the first part of the season and for Murray from Wimbledon and thereafter.

I disagree. You place too much value on Murray's wins in Cincy. It's the last prep tournament before USO and players don't bust themselves to win it as they do slams. Even the one at the Olympics was very close and on the mudpit. That's how he managed to beat Fed so convincingly, as well.

Fast surfaces will always favour attackers, and I refuse to believe Murray is one.

He just got it really lucky this time, not having to play Nadal or Federer before Novak and having favourable scheduling and extra day of rest, or rather that Novak did not get to have it.

Tenez wrote:Yes rotla....that's one way to look at it. The other is that none of us are happy cause we expect more from our champions.

I must say that I woudl have fancied Federer's chance yesterday if on form cause the level of tennis was far from brillant.

Tennis quality wise, Women's final had more quality stuff. This match was just about how it was in the AO semis this year. UEs exceeding far too much compared to winners. 17 breaks of serve, both players struggling to hold serve almost throughout the match. Wind played its own part. But all in the making of a high drama 5 hour entertainment.

But this is how tennis is these days.

noleisthebest wrote:

Fast surfaces will always favour attackers, and I refuse to believe Murray is one.

Djoko was not able to defend his Dubai title on the fastest court we've seen in years. Murray beat him convincingly.
Of course Murray is not a old school attacker but his game is so much more similar to Djoko's than you like to believe.
Sure, from scratch Djoko is the more offensive player but in recent years the Djoko i used to know has been transformed to a fighting machine with an amazing defense. Murray this year has become slightly more initiative that's why their games are more similar now than ever.

noleisthebest wrote:

gallery play wrote:

I like to point out again that Murray has about a clean sheet against Djoko on the faster courts of the tour, so that's why i'm not buying the better fitness part. It'll always be close between those two, with a slight advantage for Djoko the first part of the season and for Murray from Wimbledon and thereafter.

I disagree. You place too much value on Murray's wins in Cincy. It's the last prep tournament before USO and players don't bust themselves to win it as they do slams. Even the one at the Olympics was very close and on the mudpit. That's how he managed to beat Fed so convincingly, as well.

Fast surfaces will always favour attackers, and I refuse to believe Murray is one.

He just got it really lucky this time, not having to play Nadal or Federer before Novak and having favourable scheduling and extra day of rest, or rather that Novak did not get to have it.

I think GP refers not only to Cincy but Dubai and other tournaments. The commentators were saying the same yesterday that as teh temps cooled down, the less bouncy, slower balls were suiting Djoko better.

I personally think that yesterday's conds were extremely slow anyway cause they were both pushing the ball. AN average of 9 shots per rally is absurdly high and extremely exhausting physically. WIth many rallies going over 20 and even 53!!!

The wind had way much more influence than the pace of the court and it was clear to see when the wind dropped. I agree with GP saying that Murray was able to control the ball better in windy conds thanks to his muscling the ball more.

I am very convinced that still conds would have seen Djoko play as well as v Ferrer the day before and that it woudl have been another 3 setter regardless of the pace. ...unless Murray would have produced his top tennis which certainly he did not yesterday.

gallery play wrote:Murray this year has become slightly more initiative that's why their games are more similar now than ever.

Except last night! It was terrifying defensive. With 2 sets in the bags it got even worse, Murray saying to Djoko it's up to you to take the risk now and set 3 and 4 were particularly gutless. The 5th was no different but Djoko's fatigue prevented him to hit a shot. He coudl not move (similar to Nadal cramping last year in teh 4th).

gallery play wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Fast surfaces will always favour attackers, and I refuse to believe Murray is one.

Djoko was not able to defend his Dubai title on the fastest court we've seen in years. Murray beat him convincingly.
Of course Murray is not a old school attacker but his game is so much more similar to Djoko's than you like to believe.
Sure, from scratch Djoko is the more offensive player but in recent years the Djoko i used to know has been transformed to a fighting machine with an amazing defense. Murray this year has become slightly more initiative that's why their games are more similar now than ever.

GP, Novak won Dubai THREE TIMES IN A ROW

Tenez wrote:

I think GP refers not only to Cincy but Dubai and other tournaments. The commentators were saying the same yesterday that as teh temps cooled down, the less bouncy, slower balls were suiting Djoko better.

I personally think that yesterday's conds were extremely slow anyway cause they were both pushing the ball. AN average of 9 shots per rally is absurdly high and extremely exhausting physically. WIth many rallies going over 20 and even 53!!!

The wind had way much more influence than the pace of the court and it was clear to see when the wind dropped. I agree with GP saying that Murray was able to control the ball better in windy conds thanks to his muscling the ball more.

I am very convinced that still conds would have seen Djoko play as well as v Ferrer the day before and that it woudl have been another 3 setter regardless of the pace. ...unless Murray would have produced his top tennis which certainly he did not yesterday.

I can see clearly why Nole lost yesterday, just a bit annoyed as it didn't have to be like that. I don't mind when he loses by being beaten properly, but still, it's just a match and I don't think it's a tough loss or anything for him. He lost the match, Murray didn't win it.

noleisthebest wrote:
GP, Novak won Dubai THREE TIMES IN A ROW

Th Dubai surface this year was nothing like it was in the last few years.

noleisthebest wrote: He lost the match, Murray didn't win it.

Well, I don't see it that way nitb. This match Murray definitely won. He didn't play great spectacular tennis, but neither did Djokovic. He played solid and grabbed his chances. The fifth set was very important. Murray played with lot of courage and heart, he believed it was his now-or-never moment. He played better and hence WON the match. TB is the 1set set was a bit good fortune, but the same would have applied if Djo had won that set.


Djokovic fans have another reason to be happy. In 2 out of 4 slams, the draw has favoured him. In fact heavily in this US open. So no complains about he always getting a raw deal in draws.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
GP, Novak won Dubai THREE TIMES IN A ROW

Th Dubai surface this year was nothing like it was in the last few years.

how do you know that?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

I think GP refers not only to Cincy but Dubai and other tournaments. The commentators were saying the same yesterday that as teh temps cooled down, the less bouncy, slower balls were suiting Djoko better.

I personally think that yesterday's conds were extremely slow anyway cause they were both pushing the ball. AN average of 9 shots per rally is absurdly high and extremely exhausting physically. WIth many rallies going over 20 and even 53!!!

The wind had way much more influence than the pace of the court and it was clear to see when the wind dropped. I agree with GP saying that Murray was able to control the ball better in windy conds thanks to his muscling the ball more.

I am very convinced that still conds would have seen Djoko play as well as v Ferrer the day before and that it woudl have been another 3 setter regardless of the pace. ...unless Murray would have produced his top tennis which certainly he did not yesterday.

I can see clearly why Nole lost yesterday, just a bit annoyed as it didn't have to be like that. I don't mind when he loses by being beaten properly, but still, it's just a match and I don't think it's a tough loss or anything for him. He lost the match, Murray didn't win it.

Who needs hawkeye or woofie when we have nitb

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote:Murray this year has become slightly more initiative that's why their games are more similar now than ever.

Except last night! It was terrifying defensive. With 2 sets in the bags it got even worse, Murray saying to Djoko it's up to you to take the risk now and set 3 and 4 were particularly gutless. The 5th was no different but Djoko's fatigue prevented him to hit a shot. He coudl not move (similar to Nadal cramping last year in teh 4th).

So where did the djoko's guts go when he had the momentum going in the fifith set? And please stop your bs about djoker being tired as you delcared that in the third set itself. You never wanted Murray to win and it is hurting you.

And why Djoko was cpramping? has he started eating gluten or his egg chamber has run out of oygen? Djoko beat Nadull by playing the same game, why you are feeling so much for him?

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
GP, Novak won Dubai THREE TIMES IN A ROW

Th Dubai surface this year was nothing like it was in the last few years.

how do you know that?

The Dubai surface was about as big a trending topic as Madrid was.

Dubai is usually medium-slow, this year it was lightning fast

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
GP, Novak won Dubai THREE TIMES IN A ROW

Th Dubai surface this year was nothing like it was in the last few years.

how do you know that?

I watched Dubai tournament this year, and the last 4-5 years too. I didn't hear anything being talked about the fast pace of the court surfaces last year or the year before. But this year not only players but many commentators in a lot of matches were saying this. The change was good enough not to go unnoticed. Like the 2010 Berdy with the fast court, or the 2011 RG with the new balls. Thats how.

Its easy to find some pointers on it on the internet. Most reliable ones,being the player's words itself.

I didn't notice any change, to me that court always played the same, I'm glad if they sped it up a bit. Players will initially struggle, but the best ones will adjust with time.

I must admit, it feels strange with no matches today...Davis Cup will be interesting at the weekend.

I have started the day with samba and I will finish it, good night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBf6SduYQIU

Members of my tennis club were really happy for Murray. I tried to look happy too but frankly for me the tournament ended with Fed's loss....thereafter I had no strong preference.

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote:Murray this year has become slightly more initiative that's why their games are more similar now than ever.

Except last night! It was terrifying defensive. With 2 sets in the bags it got even worse, Murray saying to Djoko it's up to you to take the risk now and set 3 and 4 were particularly gutless. The 5th was no different but Djoko's fatigue prevented him to hit a shot. He coudl not move (similar to Nadal cramping last year in teh 4th).

Djokovic and physical fatigue, Tenez, what next. AO 2012 @5:53 and you are saying tiredness.

Federer at USO 2010 and 2011 was up 2-0 and 2-1 sets respectively. Federer did not take any less risk. Djokovic did.

sphairistike wrote:Berd was playing the best tennis at this USO and could have won it was it not for the crazy windy conditions...

Outdoor tennis is not new. If Berd (like Dememtieva) cannot shorten his wind-up and adjust his service motion because of the wind or his groundstrokes, perhaps outdoor tennis is not for the likes of him, Soderling, and many others who cannot adjust their game to conditions. I have mentioned this before, Federer-Agassi 2004, Nadal-Murray IW 2009, Federer-Nadal IW 2012 (I highly recommend watching these to see how the conditions are handled).

Djokovic knew what the conditions would be like. He had the experience from the Ferrer match.

From Djokovic's post-match interview.


Q. I wasn't here for the first question. When you played in Australia the long, long match, and this one, can you compare them? Was this more difficult because of the wind? Also, you were more tired then or today?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, you know, conditions are there, and you have to adjust as a player. Both of the Grand Slams are played on hard court but obviously a different setting, a different conditions that you're playing.

Q. The rhythm? Everything?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, yeah. I mean, as I said, it was obvious. We had to make a lot of improvization with the shots. We had to try to stay in there and stay focused and be in a good balance. You know, the wind was doing everything to keep us out from balance.
So it was tough to play in.

Q. That match in Australia he only had obviously started working with Ivan Lendl. Now they have been working together for eight months. What are the main differences that you see? Is it mainly mental or is there a change in his game?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: I think it's mental in the end mostly. He has maybe couple of adjustments in his game. Maybe he goes for forehand more than he used to. But, you know, he was he was always out there one of the best players to play in the men's game last couple of years. It was always a challenge to any of us on any surface. I think it was mental for him in the end to really, you know, make a breakthrough.

Q. What's the key for you to get over this?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Have days without tennis.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=82991 (from the vast and unreliable Internet)

One noticeable difference is the power that Murray is using in his flattened BH DTL and BH CC. The topspin versions are fairly defensive to push the opponent as far back as possible on the baseline. The BH CC reminds me of Nadal's BH CC, very similar. Djokovic also uses the BH CC to change direction and hit with power.

noleisthebest wrote:how do you know that

DecoTurf announced it is the official surface of the Dubai Duty Free Championship. The tournament, held at the Dubai Tennis Stadium through March 3rd, is part of the ATP World Tour 500 and WTA.

Defending champion Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark advanced to the semifinals on Thursday, defeating Ana Ivanovic of Serbia 6-3, 7-5. Her strategy was to use the speed of the DecoTurf II courts to her advantage.

“Here it’s a bit faster and the balls go through the air faster and well. In Doha it was a little bit heavy for some reason and the court was a bit slower.”
...
The Bourbon Beans Dome DecoTurf surface was installed by Sports Surface Company LTD of Toyko, a full-service tennis court construction firm that builds and services courts throughout Japan.


http://www.decoturf.com/2012/02/wozniacki-uses-decoturf%E2%80%99s-precise-speed-to-reach-semifinal-at-dubai-duty-free-championship/

Tenez wrote:Members of my tennis club were really happy for Murray. I tried to look happy too but frankly for me the tournament ended with Fed's loss....thereafter I had no strong preference.

that's so funny. In my club nobody likes him much, so much so that the main coach tried to talk him up on Monday, telling how he is a "really decent, nice guy" and how after he won a match in USO he went and saw some junior and encouraged him and didn't just walk of when the boy came to him...and that he's a good tennis player, he's not meant to be a character...and all that with ultimate understatement all the time.So you can imagine what he really thought.
In fact, I am yet to meet anybody who likes him. the two girls I know (one of them kayaked for team GB at the olympics) likes Djokovic, the rest all love Federer. Even at the Olympics final, the guy who sat next to me wanted Fed to win.

An old lady from my church dislikes Murray because "in England men don't cry" (referring to his post Wimbledon final emotional meltdown).

I'm sure he'll inspire some young children to start playing tennis, and that's great.

LF - You are comparing the incomparable as usual to deny the obvious.

At the AO Djoko had an extra day of rest (if not 2) and he is most likely to force the running on Nadal than running himself. Plus there was a 30mn interruption in the middle of the match with roof closing.

And last but not least players are not of the same form all year round. The AO was after a month rest, The USO is after 2 TMS on the trott.

He was clearly tired from the 3rd set and it's only by being more aggressive, with much shorter rallies, thanks to the win dropping, that he managed to last another 2 sets.

laverfan wrote:

Outdoor tennis is not new. If Berd (like Dememtieva) cannot shorten his wind-up and adjust his service motion because of the wind or his groundstrokes, perhaps outdoor tennis is not for the likes of him, Soderling, and many others who cannot adjust their game to conditions. I have mentioned this before, Federer-Agassi 2004, Nadal-Murray IW 2009, Federer-Nadal IW 2012 (I highly recommend watching these to see how the conditions are handled).

Djokovic knew what the conditions would be like. He had the experience from the Ferrer match.

Outdoor tennis will be outdoor tennis I understand. Adjusting to the conditions is well and good and a part of the game. Agreed. But at times the conditions are just not good for playing at all and those times asking the players to adjust won't be right at all. F1 race isn't stopped when it rains, but when it starts to pour very heavy it has to be stopped. If they continue there surely will be a winner who and whose team will be seen up as the best in adjusting and adapting to the conditions. My point is beyond a certain limit it doesn't remain a F1 race any more.

So is the case with football. Normally matches aren't stopped by rain, but they are when its just too heavy to play. I've seen cricket matches being abandoned in the mid of the match not by rain or storm, just because the pitch just wasn't good enough with steep-uneven and unpredictable bounce.

Agrees tennis is much safer considering player's safety and health and windy conditions aren't dangerous in a tennis match but beyond a point it just doesn't remain a tennis match. The windy conditions under which Berdych-Murray were playing was too bad even to be considered for a tennis match. Winds like in a whirlpool motion, 20+mph, gushing at any moment . And tennis played under those conditions? Ridiculous. US open organizers still continued because of their stupid scheduling leaves them no choice. And of course SUPER Saturday.

Thanks rotla I am glad you understand the differences.

LF, I do not know what your problem is and why you are so condescending that you think you know what outdoor tennis is and we don't but there are limits to how bad the weather is and there will always be players who handle the worse weather more easily not because of their skills (Fed does it thanks to his skills) but because of their ultra safe margins (players like Nadal, Murray). So I really think that you should change your tone a bit if you don't want other posters to start being aggressive or take you for someone much less intelligent than what you might be. I used to like your posts and insight a lot on the old 606 but at some point in 606v2 I noticed a lot of insulting - due to their condescending tone - posts and furthermore posts that have no logical standpoint whatsoever. I am a mathematician and even though stats is not my main specialty, probabilities is though, and some of your posts were plain wrong from probabilities point of view but as most were on 606v2 and I am not on that forum I never bothered explaining what was wrong. Also a lot of them were plainly wrong from a pure math logical point of view. But I am not on a tennis forum to talk math and I am not paid to teach you so I won't bother. I'm here to talk tennis with people in a respectful way and sometimes I feel you are not. Anyways, enough with the rant, I won't hold it against you but I won't be respecting your points of view when they are written in a way that I judge insulting. A word to the wise is enough...

sphairistike wrote:Thanks rotla I am glad you understand the differences.

LF, I do not know what your problem is and why you are so condescending that you think you know what outdoor tennis is and we don't but there are limits to how bad the weather is and there will always be players who handle the worse weather more easily not because of their skills (Fed does it thanks to his skills) but because of their ultra safe margins (players like Nadal, Murray).

There are many ways of handling a specific situation, whether it be skills or less risk. Each player knows what is best for them. Do i notice a classification of what is a fan's viewpoint about what is considered is superior or not, somehow.

sphairistike wrote:So I really think that you should change your tone a bit if you don't want other posters to start being aggressive or take you for someone much less intelligent than what you might be. I used to like your posts and insight a lot on the old 606 but at some point in 606v2 I noticed a lot of insulting - due to their condescending tone - posts and furthermore posts that have no logical standpoint whatsoever.

I am nor being condescending, but purely stating facts. I find a lot of condescension on OTF towards Nadal and Murray with the incessant 'physicality' and 'legs-and-lungs' argument and the 'doping' innuendo. The 'wind' being a factor in a specific player's loss is also very strange. If a player has been on the pro-circuit for 10+ years, and has yet to make adjustments, which are the key difference between losing a match and winning a match, what to make of it?

sphairistike wrote:I am a mathematician and even though stats is not my main specialty, probabilities is though, and some of your posts were plain wrong from probabilities point of view but as most were on 606v2 and I am not on that forum I never bothered explaining what was wrong. Also a lot of them were plainly wrong from a pure math logical point of view. But I am not on a tennis forum to talk math and I am not paid to teach you so I won't bother. I'm here to talk tennis with people in a respectful way and sometimes I feel you are not. Anyways, enough with the rant, I won't hold it against you but I won't be respecting your points of view when they are written in a way that I judge insulting. A word to the wise is enough...

Is this not a bit out of context? You should state your objections and we can discuss. I am not questioning your ability or your skill set. There has been enough discussion elsewhere and is not beneficial to this thread, but perhaps a new one on this subject is worth exploring. You are more than welcome to comment on 606v2 or elsewhere. It is your choice. SB, Tom___ and many others have been involved in the discussion that you reference. Many differing views have been expressed, you can add yours to it.

Statistics, in general, is a matter of interpretation. What are your independent and dependent variables in a correlation model determine such an interpretation. Do you think it is worthwhile to have a new discussion on OTF?

Apologies, if my posts feel antagonistic. Taken under advisement for future.

PS: Did you read Djokovic's post-match interview transcript?

laverfan wrote:

There are many ways of handling a specific situation, whether it be skills or less risk. Each player knows what is best for them. Do i notice a classification of what is a fan's viewpoint about what is considered is superior or not, somehow.

This is a vague assumption which doesn;t mean much. The reality is tennis is about skills to control a tennis ball. However the wind can sometimes be so strong that it actually controls the ball more than the players and then the skills required to control that ball become negligeable. Fitness then plays a greater role and this one reason why defending players tend to do better than attacking players under such conds.

laverfan wrote:I am nor being condescending, but purely stating facts. I find a lot of condescension on OTF towards Nadal and Murray with the incessant 'physicality' and 'legs-and-lungs' argument and the 'doping' innuendo.

Have you watched the AO, FO and USO final this year? 2 of them broke the tournaments' record for longest match with both going over 5 hours!!! Physicality and Legs and lungs is what it's all about nowadays and we hilight it here cause we understand what it takes to win a slam nowadays.

sphairistike wrote:I am a mathematician and even though stats is not my main specialty, probabilities is though, and some of your posts were plain wrong from probabilities point of view but as most were on 606v2 and I am not on that forum I never bothered explaining what was wrong....

Glad to read you were on the "right" side again!

laverfan wrote:Statistics, in general, is a matter of interpretation. What are your independent and dependent variables in a correlation model determine such an interpretation. Do you think it is worthwhile to have a new discussion on OTF?

Yes it's a matter of interpretation and frankly you are not very good at it.

LF, stating fact and being condescending are not mutually exclusive, are they? Also, there is a difference between condescension towards Nadal and Murray who are most likely not reading OTF or are not addressed to and condescension from posters towards other posters. The latter is disrespectful to your fellow posters. The relevance of the whole stat stuff etc. had to do with an example I wanted to add on what I felt about the quality of some of your posts...

Coming back to the weather thing etc. nobody disagrees with the fact players have to adapt etc. but again, your allusion to Djokovic's interview is either lacking logic or just due to your misunderstanding on what I was talking about. It was the weather on Saturday in the match between Berdych and Murray. I saw live on Arthur Ashe Berdych beat Federer and even though I was disappointed with Fed's level of play, I saw Berd play excellently and decided, as I am not a sore loser, to root for him as he beat Fed fair and square and showed great tennis. Plus his positive H2H vs. Murray (especially on medium to slow courts) made me think he could beat Murray and even win his maiden slam. And yes, I believed Berdych played the best tennis at this USO and yes it is my personal point of view. Unfortunately for him the weather on his SF day was so bad that the match should have stopped and I pretty much recall Berdych felt the same. So again, you are using banalities such that players should adapt to the weather but you are not discerning the degrees of bad weather that can be involved. When is rain too much rain (on hard, a little could be too much, on clay you could handle much more rain, etc.)? Similarly, when is wind too much wind? IW 2012 SF was still bearable, USO 2012 F also, USO 2012 SF, it was definitely too much. The USO tournament director didn't feel so, so be it. It doesn't mean he's right, does it? Maybe you should read Berdych's post-match interview as it is related to the subject I was discussing, contrary to the Djokovic's post-match interview as you are suggesting.

Tenez wrote: Yes it's a matter of interpretation and frankly you are not very good at it.

Spot on!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Outdoor tennis will be outdoor tennis I understand. Adjusting to the conditions is well and good and a part of the game. Agreed. But at times the conditions are just not good for playing at all and those times asking the players to adjust won't be right at all.

Is this not something the Umpires and Referees on the ground make a decision for. Do you think a televised picture is a better source for making such a decision, from a fan's point of view?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Agrees tennis is much safer considering player's safety and health and windy conditions aren't dangerous in a tennis match but beyond a point it just doesn't remain a tennis match. The windy conditions under which Berdych-Murray were playing was too bad even to be considered for a tennis match. Winds like in a whirlpool motion, 20+mph, gushing at any moment . And tennis played under those conditions? Ridiculous. US open organizers still continued because of their stupid scheduling leaves them no choice. And of course SUPER Saturday.

Yet, the conditions were handled by Murray and Ferrer, who are also in the same court, correct? I have also quoted Djokovic's post-match interview.

I also remember the Madrid blue clay issue. Federer and many others handled and adjusted, while Nadal and Djokovic, perhaps after adjustments, still vented their displeasure.

sphairistike wrote:

LF, I used to like your posts and insight a lot on the old 606 but at some point in 606v2 I noticed a lot of insulting - due to their condescending tone - posts and furthermore posts that have no logical standpoint whatsoever....LF, stating fact and being condescending are not mutually exclusive, are they? Also, there is a difference between condescension towards Nadal and Murray who are most likely not reading OTF or are not addressed to and condescension from posters towards other posters. The latter is disrespectful to your fellow posters.

Yes, Laverfan is always the poster who is aggressive, and has a superiority complex.
Shame that isn't it. Perhaps she can learn from others how to post without being so disrespectful to posters/

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:There are many ways of handling a specific situation, whether it be skills or less risk. Each player knows what is best for them. Do i notice a classification of what is a fan's viewpoint about what is considered is superior or not, somehow.

This is a vague assumption which doesn;t mean much. The reality is tennis is about skills to control a tennis ball. However the wind can sometimes be so strong that it actually controls the ball more than the players and then the skills required to control that ball become negligeable. Fitness then plays a greater role and this one reason why defending players tend to do better than attacking players under such conds.

I consider a player who can deal with 40+ mph, subjectively better than some one who cannot handle 13-20+ mph winds.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:I am nor being condescending, but purely stating facts. I find a lot of condescension on OTF towards Nadal and Murray with the incessant 'physicality' and 'legs-and-lungs' argument and the 'doping' innuendo.

Have you watched the AO, FO and USO final this year? 2 of them broke the tournaments' record for longest match with both going over 5 hours!!! Physicality and Legs and lungs is what it's all about nowadays and we hilight it here cause we understand what it takes to win a slam nowadays.

Rome 2006, 5 hours 5 minutes.

Tenez wrote:

sphairistike wrote:I am a mathematician and even though stats is not my main specialty, probabilities is though, and some of your posts were plain wrong from probabilities point of view but as most were on 606v2 and I am not on that forum I never bothered explaining what was wrong....

Glad to read you were on the "right" side again!

laverfan wrote:Statistics, in general, is a matter of interpretation. What are your independent and dependent variables in a correlation model determine such an interpretation. Do you think it is worthwhile to have a new discussion on OTF?

Yes it's a matter of interpretation and frankly you are not very good at it.

Yes, so I need to rely on a lawyer for cherry picking specific slams to prove draw rigging. Correct? Or some one to correlate events and artbitrarily state 1/4096 as some number. Is it all right to continue this off-topic in this thread?

Yes, so I need to rely on a lawyer for cherry picking specific slams to prove draw rigging. Correct? Or some one to correlate events and artbitrarily state 1/4096 as some number. Is it all right to continue this off-topic in this thread?

You see your lack of logic again. You don't have to "rely" on a Lawyer to prove draw rigging. The Lawyer points to some data which in turn can be interpreted one way or another. But you seem hell bent on showing that there is no reason to raise an eyebrow on such data despite their very weird patterm.

I don't think there is a need to dwell into that here as we from both sides are unlikely to change views.

sphairistike wrote:LF, stating fact and being condescending are not mutually exclusive, are they? Also, there is a difference between condescension towards Nadal and Murray who are most likely not reading OTF or are not addressed to and condescension from posters towards other posters. The latter is disrespectful to your fellow posters. The relevance of the whole stat stuff etc. had to do with an example I wanted to add on what I felt about the quality of some of your posts...

Stating facts which are against someone's world-view is being misinterpreted as condescension.

sphairistike wrote:Coming back to the weather thing etc. nobody disagrees with the fact players have to adapt etc. but again, your allusion to Djokovic's interview is either lacking logic or just due to your misunderstanding on what I was talking about. It was the weather on Saturday in the match between Berdych and Murray. I saw live on Arthur Ashe Berdych beat Federer and even though I was disappointed with Fed's level of play, I saw Berd play excellently and decided, as I am not a sore loser, to root for him as he beat Fed fair and square and showed great tennis. Plus his positive H2H vs. Murray (especially on medium to slow courts) made me think he could beat Murray and even win his maiden slam. And yes, I believed Berdych played the best tennis at this USO and yes it is my personal point of view. Unfortunately for him the weather on his SF day was so bad that the match should have stopped and I pretty much recall Berdych felt the same. So again, you are using banalities such that players should adapt to the weather but you are not discerning the degrees of bad weather that can be involved. When is rain too much rain (on hard, a little could be too much, on clay you could handle much more rain, etc.)? Similarly, when is wind too much wind? IW 2012 SF was still bearable, USO 2012 F also, USO 2012 SF, it was definitely too much. The USO tournament director didn't feel so, so be it. It doesn't mean he's right, does it? Maybe you should read Berdych's post-match interview as it is related to the subject I was discussing, contrary to the Djokovic's post-match interview as you are suggesting.

Berdych, specifically, is a very inconsistent player. He has lost in R1's of a couple of slams. If he played the best Tennis at USO, it is your right to have such an opinion. I can have a different one. There is a 40+ mph example from USO 2004 on the same stadium, that you seem to ignore, despite my repetition. I have clearly stated, to ROTLA and you, let the umpires be the judge, not some fans in front of a TV set. If you were at the stadium, at least you had first-hand knowledge, which you should help you discern the degrees of bad weather that can be involved. Do you think it was bad enough to stop play. For example, the organisers stopped play on Saturday at 5-2 Ferrer-Djokovic, when in their judgement further play would jeopardise the safety of players and spectators, alike.

Why do you think Murray won and Berdych lost in the same court under the same weather conditions? Why do you think Djokovic lost but Murray won under the same conditions on the same court?

What if I say, Rosol should have won the Wimbledon, but he could not get past Kohlschreiber? Same thing applies to Berdych. He played the best tennis, in your opinion and deserved USO, but could not get past Murray, in a given set of conditions.

Tenez wrote:

Yes, so I need to rely on a lawyer for cherry picking specific slams to prove draw rigging. Correct? Or some one to correlate events and artbitrarily state 1/4096 as some number. Is it all right to continue this off-topic in this thread?

You see your lack of logic again. You don't have to "rely" on a Lawyer to prove draw rigging. The Lawyer points to some [arbitrary - my addition] data which in turn can be interpreted one way or another. But you seem hell bent on showing that there is no reason to raise an eyebrow on such data despite their very weird patterm.

I don't think there is a need to dwell into that here as we from both sides are unlikely to change views.

Yet, there is a reference to it.

Can you or anyone explain, why FO was not used in such analysis? And we have a statistician to help in sphairistike being available.

Why pick only slams? Because it fits a specific hypothesis.

laverfan wrote:
Is this not something the Umpires and Referees on the ground make a decision for.

And they always make the right decisions.

laverfan wrote: Do you think a televised picture is a better source for making such a decision, from a fan's point of view?

At least my decision can't be influenced by any TDs or anyone sitting in a board room. So indeed yes on that front.

laverfan wrote: Yet, the conditions were handled by Murray and Ferrer, who are also in the same court, correct? I have also quoted Djokovic's post-match interview.

Ahh.. Did I not already said that under any condition, someone will definitely handle it better? Even if its pouring as hell, and the players are forced to play, someone will definitely win. Yes he had the same conditions as the opponent and won by adapting and handling it better. But did it remain a tennis match? NO.

Now next time umpires should hand guns to both players if it goes to a tie-breaker, and then see who adapts better under the conditions.

Great Idea LF, isn't it?

laverfan wrote:I also remember the Madrid blue clay issue. Federer and many others handled and adjusted, while Nadal and Djokovic, perhaps after adjustments, still vented their displeasure.

Did I not say there is a limit to things and sensible judgement have to be taken. Play can continue in difficult playing conditions, but it should not go over the limit. Blue clay was slippery as some said, yes it was difficult. But it was not ice. Next time unless a tornado hit the AA, the play must continue and winner will be who managed to stay alive. Perfect.

Condescending: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescending
Other synonyms can be 'superiority complex' or 'patronising.'

I have quoted a few comments on this thread, (and some others on OTF) which are condescending or disrespectful (the criticisms that have been labelled towards Laverfan).

Posts I feel that had a condescending tone:

sphairistike wrote:I am a mathematician and even though stats is not my main specialty, probabilities is though, and some of your posts were plain wrong from probabilities point of view but as most were on 606v2 and I am not on that forum I never bothered explaining what was wrong.

sphairistike wrote:Also a lot of them were plainly wrong from a pure math logical point of view.

sphairistike wrote:
But I am not on a tennis forum to talk math and I am not paid to teach you so I won't bother.

sphairistike wrote:
Let's rephrase that one LF: fans of Nadal should be allowed to finally see the truth and stop being a fan of his as no-one who likes tennis should be a fan of his, simples.

Posts that I thought were either disrespectful or insulting (what LF was also accused of):

Tenez wrote: Yes it's a matter of interpretation and frankly you are not very good at it.

sphairistike wrote:
Spot on!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
You (SR) need to get command of the language English

noleisthebest wrote:
Summerblues, you are being pathetic

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Great Idea LF, isn't it?

Unbelievable, that after all of this, Sphair just picks on Laverfan, who is possibly the most friendly person on forums, and accuses her of being 'insulting' and 'condescending.' To make it even more shocking Sphair is the person who is continuously posting with a superiority complex.

Unbelievable double standards

If one wants to suggest draws can be rigged, you have to look at the purpose of those keen to rig the draws. You cannot try to show draw rigging if you, I or the organisers have no motive to do so. So what are the motives of the organisers?

The first question to ask yourself is why woudl they want to rig draw?

There are many reasons which can be considered. However 'ts clear that trying to have Nadal and Federer in finals seem the most obvious. Looking at those 2 players FB accounts confirms this simple fact. You may find other oddities like the nimber of times Stepanek has played Kholscheiber but frankly the chance to wanting to rig a draw for that are slim and are not worth considering. This is teh main mistake you make by trying to compare other data with the one involving Nadal and Federer.

Now suggesting they want a Fedal final in all slams, it;s clear that the FO is one not to consider cause they have had their share of Fedal matches and finals in 2005 2006 2007 and 2008. So clearly no need to rig draws there from 2009. If anything, tehy woudl do anything but to have another FO08 which upseted half if not more of the crowd. We don;t mind a WIMBY 08 cause there is drama and that is exactly what organisers want....but not a one sided final like it was on clay.

Again try to put yourself in the shoes of those who woudl want to rig draws. That's the best way to consider those data with an open eye.

Amri we don't need you to come here and pour oil on the fire. Keep to tennis and its related subjects.

Tenez, see my arguement against LF here:
http://www.606v2.com/t33610-names-numbers-and-nole

I am not sure whether the draws are rigged or not, but me and SB showed, in my opinion, why LF's 'seed balance' argument is simply not sufficient.

Tenez wrote:Amri we don't need you to come here and pour oil on the fire. Keep to tennis and its related subjects.

I am defending Laverfan.

I feel he was totally unfairly attacked by Sphair.
Why did you not tell Sphair that his posts were 'off topic'?

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:Amri we don't need you to come here and pour oil on the fire. Keep to tennis and its related subjects.

I am defending Laverfan.

I feel he was totally unfairly attacked by Sphair.
Why did you not tell Sphair that his posts were 'off topic'?

Cause LF and Sphair are discussing tennis...even if it's sacastic tone, they stick to tennis. You come and bring nothing about tennis. Can you see teh difference?