ATP MASTERS 1000: CINCINNATI - THE FINAL

noleisthebest wrote:To me Raonic is beginning to appear as someone without a plan B.
Although he can play a bit of defense, his movement is just not smooth enough for transition into attacking, probably due to his weight.
He is not slow, but just lacks that gliding elegance Delpo and Cilic seem to have.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:To me Raonic is beginning to appear as someone without a plan B.
Although he can play a bit of defense, his movement is just not smooth enough for transition into attacking, probably due to his weight.
He is not slow, but just lacks that gliding elegance Delpo and Cilic seem to have.

Yes though some players don;t need a plan B. Nadal won 11 slams without a plan B.

Tenez wrote:But a good serve like Pete's allowed him to win 14GS. He had a great game too but that game was never good enough to win a slam on slower surface where his serve not as potent a weapon.

What some can do while scrapping, other will do with a huge weapon. Roddick got a slam just with a serve....and many did in the 90s.

noleisthebest wrote:And Chardy does it!
Downs Murray in straights.

noleisthebest wrote:I bet even Chardy is surprised....
Fed cleaning Tomic.

Is it just me or does Fed's service motion look a bit different: longer swing and harder hitting?
Looks like he is putting more physical effort into it, no wonder he has back problems with that motion.

noleisthebest wrote:And he cruises past Tomic in straights...

noleisthebest wrote:I bet even Chardy is surprised....
Fed cleaning Tomic.

Is it just me or does Fed's service motion look a bit different: longer swing and harder hitting?
Looks like he is putting more physical effort into it, no wonder he has back problems with that motion.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I bet even Chardy is surprised....
Fed cleaning Tomic.

Is it just me or does Fed's service motion look a bit different: longer swing and harder hitting?
Looks like he is putting more physical effort into it, no wonder he has back problems with that motion.

I did not see the match but you may be right. He may be compensating for a different serving motion or simply he tries to get more free points on his serve cause at Cincy a good serve is usually rewarding. What's his average pace? how does it compare to Wimby for instance?

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

3 things come to mind for the moment.

1. He is injured (?) and if he is then he is not going to keep 100% of his physical defensive tennis and is highly likely to lose in the semis against Djo.

2. Out of the top-4 he is the one most likely to go out before the semis. We have seen it through 4 years, haven't we.

3. A possibility could be ( though I don't believe it) that he withdraws due to his injury(?).

So under these circumstances, having Murray in his half of the draw is nothing much a problem, isn't it?

they are 3 BIG ifs.....Murray NEVER plays when he is injured. I still think Nole would much rather face Ferrer, just like Fed.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Murray lost in straight sets. I saw the match and how poor quality it was. 5 consecutive breaks of serves in the first 5 games of the second set . Chardy may be said on paper that he caused an upset beating the #3 seed, but it was not that way. Both were competing for how poor can one play and Murray won that contest .

Does anyone wants to talk about how improved or mentally strong he has become?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Told ya nitb. Having Murray in one's half is not bad. Ask Nadal.

Tenez wrote:
I did not see the match but don't you think he may have wanted to rest for the USO? Probably not as he had lots of points to defend but having to beat Delpo, Djoko and Federer may not have been worth the points just before the USO.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Murray lost in straight sets. I saw the match and how poor quality it was. 5 consecutive breaks of serves in the first 5 games of the second set . Chardy may be said on paper that he caused an upset beating the #3 seed, but it was not that way. Both were competing for how poor can one play and Murray won that contest .

Does anyone wants to talk about how improved or mentally strong he has become?

Tenez wrote: Yet, th eslam is what Murray really wants, don;t you think?

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Told ya nitb. Having Murray in one's half is not bad. Ask Nadal.

So true. That is why the AO, Wimby and USO made sure Rafa had him on his draw to max the Fedal finals chances.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Everyone wants to wins slams, badly.All players who haven't won a slam would happily trade off everything that they have won till now for a slam. Does this mean all players will very strictly prepare for slams and only slams? How many players can do that? I don't think so. All wants slams but it doesn't mean they all can risk or give up on every other tournament just in preparation to win that Grand slam. Its too much risk and not many will have the mindset for it.

Leave Murray, even 5 time slam winner Djokovic isn't there in the mind where he will prepare for slams mainly. Why else would you think he has chosen to play more than 3 consecutive weeks of tennis when US open starts in only 1 week's time. Does that look like he wants only slams?

In my opinion, Murray like everyone else wants a slam, definitely. But he is not going to risk all he has [ his current rankings, his wins in other tournaments etc.] in preparation for the slam. He hasn't reached there as yet. It takes a totally different mindset to have which among the current players only Nadal and Fed has. Thats why I don't think he could have tanked yesterday, trying out different things in preparation for the coming Us open. He lost because he played worse than Chardy. You said you didn't see the match, if you had you would have known what I mean.

noleisthebest wrote:

It IS bad when you don't have Nadal in the draw (during this injury period). Very bad.
If it wasn't bad, Nike would stick him in Fed's draw, and "burden" Nole with Ferrer.

noleisthebest wrote:Fed did the best thing by overtaking Nadal at number two spot and getting out of that awful position where he had to go through Nadal (almost rhetorical) or Djokovic in the slam semis.

noleisthebest wrote:That's why he never won anything while that scenario lasted.

noleisthebest wrote:Of all these ranking reshuffling, Federer benefited the most.

noleisthebest wrote: To Nole, the fact that he was number one, it didn't bring ANY relief through draws, he ended up with Federer almost all the time (while Fed was number 3)

Nowever, now that Federer is number one, he gets ALL the benefits, and immediately gets easiest possible draw of the top 4.
If Nole had been number one I can guarantee you that Murray would STILL be in his half of the draw.

And yes, rotla, I repeat, Murray is a lot more difficult to get past than Ferrer at the semis stage. Unlike Ferrer, he usually reaches those stages.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

It IS bad when you don't have Nadal in the draw (during this injury period). Very bad.
If it wasn't bad, Nike would stick him in Fed's draw, and "burden" Nole with Ferrer.

Both Murray and Ferrer are out before facing Djo or Fed.

noleisthebest wrote:Fed did the best thing by overtaking Nadal at number two spot and getting out of that awful position where he had to go through Nadal (almost rhetorical) or Djokovic in the slam semis.

A minor correction : Fed didn't overtake Nadal to #2 spot, he over took Djo for #1 spot. You are trying call both side of the coin. Why do you think its awful? Isn't it because the top-3 are much better than #4 and whoever among the top-3 who will get this #4 (most likely of the top-4 to lose and even before semis to face the top-3) will have an easier route to finals. The other 2 guys will have it tough. So in this case having #4 doesn't have any significant result for top-3 if they face him. With this case, it should not matter where this #4 player falls.

noleisthebest wrote:That's why he never won anything while that scenario lasted.

How long did this scenario even lasted, not even a year IIRC. Fed had Nadal in his group at WTF which he won. He had to beat Nadal in semis to for his IW win which he won. I won't say he never won anything. Didn't Djo got Murray to beat in the AO this year?

noleisthebest wrote:Of all these ranking reshuffling, Federer benefited the most.

Well its not a win by lucky draw that this reshuffling occurred. Federer had to win it.

noleisthebest wrote: To Nole, the fact that he was number one, it didn't bring ANY relief through draws, he ended up with Federer almost all the time (while Fed was number 3)

Nowever, now that Federer is number one, he gets ALL the benefits, and immediately gets easiest possible draw of the top 4.
If Nole had been number one I can guarantee you that Murray would STILL be in his half of the draw.

And yes, rotla, I repeat, Murray is a lot more difficult to get past than Ferrer at the semis stage. Unlike Ferrer, he usually reaches those stages.

I don't dispute the possibility of the rigged draws, its looks it could be. But i haven't given much thought to the subject, that why I try not to post much on this topic.

You are looking too much in this draw thing. I think I've told this before as well, initial draw doesn't matter. Its how it turns out to be. Did you see how the path to Toronto win turned out to be for Djo. What did the initial draw mattered. In Olympics Fed faced a far tough challenge from Delpo than Djo or Murray faced playing each other. If Djo plays poor and loses, its doesn't mean suddenly Murray was a tougher opponent than Delpo was because Delpo lost and Murray won.

• Yes they are both out, but that's nothing to do with the original intention of the draw. Keep your eye on it come USO.
  
• The scenario lasted long enough for Fed not to win a slam (except the asterisked FO) for a long time BECAUSE of the fact he couldn't beat Nadal in slams. I really don't count masters series OR WTF that much when it comes to H2H.
  
• I never said Federer was lucky, just that he benefited most from it. Unlike Djokovic who so ZERO benefits. To him, ranking never mattered much draw wise, he always had it the hard way whether he was 3rd, 2nd or number one.
  
• It's that same Murray who scarped past Novak in the Olympics that actually trounced Federer in straights in the Olympic final. Novak did not play poor at all against Murray.
  

noleisthebest wrote:

• Yes they are both out, but that's nothing to do with the original intention of the draw. Keep your eye on it come USO.

noleisthebest wrote:

The scenario lasted long enough for Fed not to win a slam (except the asterisked FO) for a long time BECAUSE of the fact he couldn't beat Nadal in slams. I really don't count masters series OR WTF that much when it comes to H2H.

noleisthebest wrote:

I never said Federer was lucky, just that he benefited most from it. Unlike Djokovic who so ZERO benefits. To him, ranking never mattered much draw wise, he always had it the hard way whether he was 3rd, 2nd or number one.

noleisthebest wrote:

It's that same Murray who scarped past Novak in the Olympics that actually trounced Federer in straights in the Olympic final. Novak did not play poor at all against Murray.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

• Yes they are both out, but that's nothing to do with the original intention of the draw. Keep your eye on it come USO.

Like I said, the initial draw doesn't matter to me. Its how does it turn out to be. I don't deny the possibility of Djo and Murray being on the same side of the draw. I've accepted such a possibility already.

noleisthebest wrote:

The scenario lasted long enough for Fed not to win a slam (except the asterisked FO) for a long time BECAUSE of the fact he couldn't beat Nadal in slams. I really don't count masters series OR WTF that much when it comes to H2H.

Kindly elaborate this point. I didn't get what you are trying to say here.

noleisthebest wrote:

I never said Federer was lucky, just that he benefited most from it. Unlike Djokovic who so ZERO benefits. To him, ranking never mattered much draw wise, he always had it the hard way whether he was 3rd, 2nd or number one.

Djo has stayed at #1 for too short a period where you can say he got ZERO benefits. As a matter of fact, he did as I already told you. Did you see all the draws the Fed as #1 player got? Kindly see them. Or even Nadal as #1 player got? If you talk about getting draw benefits even at ranks #2 and #3 then shouldn't Fed or Nadal when Ranked ranked #2 or #3 get those benefits. So everyone should get draw benefits which I don't think is practically possible.

noleisthebest wrote:

It's that same Murray who scarped past Novak in the Olympics that actually trounced Federer in straights in the Olympic final. Novak did not play poor at all against Murray.

You can say Djo didn't play poor at all against Murray in olympics. Fine. I too saw the match and I saw he played poor to lose it. Murray didn't do anything spectacular.Djo couldn't create a single BP and couldn't hold serve both occasions when he was serving to stay in the set.

Yes Murray trounced Fed in the finals, if you only like to look at the score board. The Fed he was facing was too shaky and moved like a rock. Do you want to say Fed played his top form but Murray produced a spectacle so brilliant it just blew off Fed? Not hardly. I told this before too, I have seen Murray play far better than he did in the Olympics finals and it certainly wasn't in the Olympics semis. Look at Murray now, back to where he always was; a vulnarable top-4 who could be losing early in tournaments to a LL. Is it any different from what the case has been for the last 4 years? Not as I see it. That's why I said having him in the draw isn't much a problem.

• on your second point(kindly elaborate one), just that I don't count H2H wins in masters series and anything but slams that much. So Fed's wins over Nadal in WTF don't have the same weight as slam wins over Nadal. That was to do with your point in the previous post where you were mentioning Fed's win over Nadal at the WTF.
  
• Yes, Nole didn't play his best tennis against Murray in the OG, but he was far from poor.
  
• Why was Fed shaky? I agree he looked weird in that match (I don't know who looked weirder him or Murray in fact) but Murray cleaned him off that court. Fed looked as if he wasn't interested to me, really, plus the court was a real mess.
  
• finally re:draws, I've followed them for a long time from Nole's perspective, you said you didn't look into that topic much, tbh I wish I didn't either, but it was so obvious over the years I could not ignore it.
  
• The person who benefited from draw rigging was not Federer but Nadal. However, I will say that from memory Fed always seemed to have great scheduling . Now that Nadal is out of picture, Nike has to push someone...I have often wondered what those draws would have looked like if Nole wore Nike. But I'm proud he didn't and hope he never does. Out of sheer principle.
  

Tenez wrote:
Yes but you cannot deny that for Murray, not having a slam is more of a monkey on his shoulder than for most of the rest of the players on the tour (bar Nalby maybe). Murray is one of those players who have won enough TMS and has enough ranking points not to compromise his Slam chance for another TMS. He is no Troiky or Chardy. He has had 4 shots at slams already....unlike everybody else on the tour!

Tenez wrote: Yes but Djoko is also after number 1...an extremely important spot everybody desperately wants, even Federer despite holding all the records wants to keep that spot as long as possible. That's where the money actually is. That's the panacee, the sacred Graal where all problems get solved.

Tenez wrote:Lendl even skipped the FO to prepare better for Wimbledon! It would not surprise me at all if Murray wanted to have a real rest before his last chance to win a slam this season.

Tenez wrote:How many times have we seen that with Rafa (losing in those TMS yet always in the final of slams)?