Stanislas Wawrinka, Nicolas Almagro and Fernando Verdasco have all knocked Andy Murray out of a Grand Slam. In the 2011 French Open, Viktor Troicki served to knock out Andy Murray before suffering an attack of the Hendersons and losing. The nationalities of these men? Swiss, Spanish and Serbian. The nationalities of the three men stopping Murray from winning every tournament going? Swiss, Spanish and Serbian. Number of victories these players have had against their own top 4 countrymen? Twice in 39 attempts.
Roger Federer v Stanislaw Wawrinka
Overall Head to Head: 10-1
I first noticed this odd set of events when these two faced each other a few times in Grand Slams recently. Before every match it was stated that Wawrinka was a dangerous player who would undoubtedly cause Federer problems. Then every match was a procession which would only have been less competitive if Wawrinka had just not bothered to get out of his chair at all after the changeovers. It was more than obvious that Wawrinka, in a display of loyalty to his fellow Swissman, was making life as easy as possible for Federer.
The three times they have met in a Grand Slam, Federer has won in straight sets. He has a 10-1 career record over him. How on its own this wouldn't be too bad. But what is also abundantly clear is Wawrinka then raises his own game to attempt to knock out Murray. Murrays career head to head with Wawrinka is only 6-4 in his favour and he was knocked out by him in the great US Open debacle of 2010. At Wimbledon in 2009 Murray was pushed all the way in a gruelling five sets that could have gone either way. Essentially Wawrinka is conspiring with Federer and the stats back it up.
Rafael Nadal v Fernando Verdasco
Head to Head: 12-0
Soon after I noticed the Wawrinka conspiracy a commentator remarked what an excellent record Nadal had over other Spanish players. What he did not mention was just how excellent it was. In the 12 times Nadal has played Verdasco, he was won all of them. One of these defeats was 6-0 6-1 in a Masters Series Final. Way to keep things competitive there Fernando.
Now this isn't quite as bad as Wawrinka, as Verdasco pushed Nadal all the way in the Australian Open in 2009 and indeed only lost 11-9 in a third set tie break to him last time they met. Nevertheless, there is a consistent pattern of straight sets victories outwith those two matches.
Again, Verdasco isn't quite as determined to screw over Murray as Wawrinka, but he has knocked him out of a Grand Slam and indirectly out of the World Tour Finals by winning a set.
Rafael Nadal v Nicolas Almagro
Head to Head 7-0
This is slightly unfair on Almagro as he is a player you would actually expect to never have beaten Nadal. Nevertheless, he is now a top 10 player somehow so he should be included. In November 2009, Almagro had 5 match points against Nadal and still lost. When they met in the French Open in 2008 he was beaten 6-1 6-1 6-1.
Again slightly unfair to suggest he actually tries against Murray as they have met only three times, but Almagro did dump him out of the French Open in 2008.
Novak Djokovic v Viktor Troicki
Head to Head 10-1
Does this also apply to Serbia? For what its worth, the 1 was the first match they played and the 10 represent every match played since then. Troicki, to be fair, did give Djokovic a huge scare in the US Open in 2010 but at this stage it isn't ridiculous to suggest that was for show (actually that is ridiculous, Djokovic just took advantage of his nervousness). However once again the stats show that this is a ridiculously one sided match up. Earlier this year, Djokovic won 6-0 6-1. Which is only one more game than I would win against Djokovic.
Troicki did his absolute best to then knock out Murray from the French Open this year. At any rate he stretched him to five sets on a bad ankle, a result we shall entirely blame for his subsequent Semi Final defeat.
Ah but these are top players, surely they beat everybody all the time?
Nadal 6-2 Tsonga
Nadal 7-3 Roddick
Nadal 6-2 Soderling
Nadal 10-3 Berdych
Nadal 6-3 Del Potro (dick)
Federer 6-3 Tsonga
Federer 21-2 Roddick (fair enough)
Federer 16-1 Soderling (fair enough)
Federer 10-4 Berdych
Federer 7-2 Del Potro
Djokovic 4-5 Tsonga
Djokovic 3-5 Roddick
Djokovic 6-1 Soderling
Djokovic 7-1 Berdych
Djokovic 4-1 Del Potro
Fair to say they are all a bit more competitive. I think the stats certainly show that when facing their own countrymen Nadal, Djokovic and Federer get a very easy time of it. What would Murray give for some "top 30 British cannon fodder" to ease his journey through a Grand Slam?
Finally, a word for David Ferrer
David Ferrer has beaten Nadal 4 times and has knocked him out of a Grand Slam on two occasions. Would it be so hard for Stan, Nicolas, Fernando and Viktor to occasionally try as well?
Now who expects Djokovic v Tipsarevic (H2H 3-0) to be worth watching tomorrow?
Thursday 24 November 2011
Sunday 6 November 2011
Nobody Cares
Earlier this week Novak Djokovic lost only his fourth match this season. Comprehensively. To a player ranked 31st in the world. Yet nobody thought anything of it. This is because we are in the bizarre stage of the season where there is very little left to place for. It is now nearly two months since Djokovic out battled Nadal to claim the final Grand Slam of the season and the intervening period has seen a number of tournaments played, including a Masters Event. However, it has mostly passed without anybody caring.
Imagine if In February the Champions League Final took place and the league winners declared. Then between February and May the teams played a number of glorified friendlies. That is (sort of) the problem the tennis season has now. The last tournament that anybody cares about takes place in September yet the season does not end until November.
What has happened this year
After a short break the tournament goes over to Asia for a couple of tournaments. I've already suggested in previous blogs that this particular scheduling is poor and once again a number of players didn't bother. Novak Djokovic played the "ow, my shoulder" card and skipped it while Federer just couldn't be arsed. Nadal played in Tokyo and Shanghai as he completely forgot to come up with an excuse in time but was kind enough to let Murray finally have some glory in the tournaments that didn't matter. Murray then showed everybody just what would happen if he wasn't stuck with 3 of the greatest players of all time by winning every tournament without breaking sweat.
The tour then moved to Europe and Murray decided to play the "ow, my bum" card and withdraw. Nadal made sure he didn't forget to withdraw by announcing he wasn't playing Paris Masters about four weeks in advance, insisting he would definitely be injured that week but would be absolutely fine for the World Tour Finals. The Paris Masters will be won by somebody who has done very little all year but who will now be expected to have a big 2012 (but won't).
World Tour Finals Qualification
There is some value to these tournaments as they allow players the chance to qualify to the World Tour Finals in London. This year the top 4 and Ferrer (what did Ferrer do this year that got him so far ahead of the rest of the tour?) qualified by about February 5th. Thomas Berdych (no), Jo-Wilfred Tsonga (yes), Mardy Fish (no), Nicolas Almagro (meh), Juan Martin Del Potro (dear god no), Janko Tipsarevic (no) and Giles Simon (ok then) have been scrapping in a manner akin to bald men fighting over a comb to secure their places. Not one of them seems to have made even the slightest impact since the US Open anyway though meaning the only real concern is that Del Potro still somehow finds a way to make it in. Which I have literally this second found cannot happen as he has withdrawn from the Paris Masters. Excellent.
Making a Breakthrough
The player of Autumn this year appears to be Kei Nishikori. A player that up until now I was mostly confused as to why he featured on a tennis game on Nintendo Wii ahead of about 60 better players has made a bit of an impact by reaching the Shanghai semis and the Basle final beating Djokovic along the way. There is no doubt some people now tipping Nishikori to have a big 2012 but he won't. He just won't. And this time next year it will still be Berdych, Del Potro and Tsonga fighting for London.
Previous years
Andy Murray has a bit of a monopoly on the Shanghai Masters recently, as the other 3 don't actually bother. It has only been played since 2009 so it is difficult to indicate how meaningless it is. However, lets look at the Paris Masters:
2003 - Henman
2004 - Safin
2005 - Berdych
2006 - Davydenko
2007 - Nalbandian
2008 - Tsonga
2009 - Djokovic
2010 - Soderling
Quite how France, which already has a Grand Slam and sort of another masters (Monte Carlo), gets another Masters Event I am unsure. However that roll call of winners shows it is far from a Masters Event in the eyes of the main players.
Paris was famous for being the only Masters Event Henman won, which seemed a great achievement at the time. On reflection it is actually quite shameful that a player like Henman, who was in the top 10 for nearly 10 years, only won one Masters Event in this career. The fact Murray has now won about 8 puts that into perspective too. The fact it was the Paris Masters means it essentially doesn't even count.
Paris is Soderlings, Tsongas and Berdychs only Masters Event titles. Only Djokovic of the Big 4 have won the event. Nobody cares.
World Tour Finals
It should also be pointed out that even the World Tour Finals isn't exactly taken seriously. In 2005 when Federer was in the middle of a 25,000 unbeaten run (approximately) Nalbandian took the title. In 2006 James Blake was a finalist. James Blake. I'll let you think over that fact for a minute.
The 2007 runner up was David Ferrer. In 2008 Djokvoic was the victor in an event that Nadal missed and Federer managed to lose to Simon in. In 2009 Davydenko won after a season that had been dominated by Federer and Juan Martin Del Potro. It was only in 2010, when the big 4 made the semis and the worlds top two played the final, that the tournament actually did have a real "Tour Finals" feel to it.
Conclusion
After the US Open is finished the top players simply don't care. The winners of events between September and November are not reflective of the rest of the season. Even the World Tour Finals rarely has a deserved winner. There isn't really much else to add beyond roll on the Australian Open.
Imagine if In February the Champions League Final took place and the league winners declared. Then between February and May the teams played a number of glorified friendlies. That is (sort of) the problem the tennis season has now. The last tournament that anybody cares about takes place in September yet the season does not end until November.
What has happened this year
After a short break the tournament goes over to Asia for a couple of tournaments. I've already suggested in previous blogs that this particular scheduling is poor and once again a number of players didn't bother. Novak Djokovic played the "ow, my shoulder" card and skipped it while Federer just couldn't be arsed. Nadal played in Tokyo and Shanghai as he completely forgot to come up with an excuse in time but was kind enough to let Murray finally have some glory in the tournaments that didn't matter. Murray then showed everybody just what would happen if he wasn't stuck with 3 of the greatest players of all time by winning every tournament without breaking sweat.
The tour then moved to Europe and Murray decided to play the "ow, my bum" card and withdraw. Nadal made sure he didn't forget to withdraw by announcing he wasn't playing Paris Masters about four weeks in advance, insisting he would definitely be injured that week but would be absolutely fine for the World Tour Finals. The Paris Masters will be won by somebody who has done very little all year but who will now be expected to have a big 2012 (but won't).
World Tour Finals Qualification
There is some value to these tournaments as they allow players the chance to qualify to the World Tour Finals in London. This year the top 4 and Ferrer (what did Ferrer do this year that got him so far ahead of the rest of the tour?) qualified by about February 5th. Thomas Berdych (no), Jo-Wilfred Tsonga (yes), Mardy Fish (no), Nicolas Almagro (meh), Juan Martin Del Potro (dear god no), Janko Tipsarevic (no) and Giles Simon (ok then) have been scrapping in a manner akin to bald men fighting over a comb to secure their places. Not one of them seems to have made even the slightest impact since the US Open anyway though meaning the only real concern is that Del Potro still somehow finds a way to make it in. Which I have literally this second found cannot happen as he has withdrawn from the Paris Masters. Excellent.
Making a Breakthrough
The player of Autumn this year appears to be Kei Nishikori. A player that up until now I was mostly confused as to why he featured on a tennis game on Nintendo Wii ahead of about 60 better players has made a bit of an impact by reaching the Shanghai semis and the Basle final beating Djokovic along the way. There is no doubt some people now tipping Nishikori to have a big 2012 but he won't. He just won't. And this time next year it will still be Berdych, Del Potro and Tsonga fighting for London.
Previous years
Andy Murray has a bit of a monopoly on the Shanghai Masters recently, as the other 3 don't actually bother. It has only been played since 2009 so it is difficult to indicate how meaningless it is. However, lets look at the Paris Masters:
2003 - Henman
2004 - Safin
2005 - Berdych
2006 - Davydenko
2007 - Nalbandian
2008 - Tsonga
2009 - Djokovic
2010 - Soderling
Quite how France, which already has a Grand Slam and sort of another masters (Monte Carlo), gets another Masters Event I am unsure. However that roll call of winners shows it is far from a Masters Event in the eyes of the main players.
Paris was famous for being the only Masters Event Henman won, which seemed a great achievement at the time. On reflection it is actually quite shameful that a player like Henman, who was in the top 10 for nearly 10 years, only won one Masters Event in this career. The fact Murray has now won about 8 puts that into perspective too. The fact it was the Paris Masters means it essentially doesn't even count.
Paris is Soderlings, Tsongas and Berdychs only Masters Event titles. Only Djokovic of the Big 4 have won the event. Nobody cares.
World Tour Finals
It should also be pointed out that even the World Tour Finals isn't exactly taken seriously. In 2005 when Federer was in the middle of a 25,000 unbeaten run (approximately) Nalbandian took the title. In 2006 James Blake was a finalist. James Blake. I'll let you think over that fact for a minute.
The 2007 runner up was David Ferrer. In 2008 Djokvoic was the victor in an event that Nadal missed and Federer managed to lose to Simon in. In 2009 Davydenko won after a season that had been dominated by Federer and Juan Martin Del Potro. It was only in 2010, when the big 4 made the semis and the worlds top two played the final, that the tournament actually did have a real "Tour Finals" feel to it.
Conclusion
After the US Open is finished the top players simply don't care. The winners of events between September and November are not reflective of the rest of the season. Even the World Tour Finals rarely has a deserved winner. There isn't really much else to add beyond roll on the Australian Open.
Tuesday 25 October 2011
Womens Tennis is a Joke
The WTA Championship is the female equivalent of the World Tour Finals.
There is no mens tennis to carry this event.
The most expensive ticket costs £7.
That is all.
There is no mens tennis to carry this event.
The most expensive ticket costs £7.
That is all.
Monday 10 October 2011
Dinara Safina - Bottler
The phrase bottler comes from old Cockney rhyming slang. Bottle and Glass meant arse, and to lose ones bottle meant to lose ones arse. Or shit themselves as it was. Today, we celebrate a particularly spectacular bottler, Dinara Safina.
A few years ago Dinara Safina, like Caroline Wozniacki now, was world number 1 in women's tennis. She managed that without winning a Grand Slam. Now for a number of reasons being the WTA number 1 isn't an indicator that you are actually the best player. It is still clear that the proper number 1 is "Serena Williams when she tries", closely followed by "Kim Clijsters when she isn't injured". These are rare events, so the likes of Ana Ivanovic (now ranked 20) and Jelana Jankovic (slamless, now ranked 13) have also graced the number 1 spot. Women's tennis is full of botters, to the extent most matches resolve around who will bottle the least. However Safina's bottling was more severe, and her decline more swift, that she deserves to be blogged about.
Bottling the French Open in 2008
Safina had been just out of the top 10 at the end of 2006 and 2007 but was more well known for being Marat Safins brother at this stage. Then, in May 2008, she went on an impressive run at a clay tournament in Berlin beating Henin (and prompting her to retire), Serena Williams and Elena Dementieva. At the French Open, she knocked out world number 1 Maria Sharapova in the 4th round, then beat Dementieva and Kuznetsova. She was to face Ana Ivanovic in the final.
Having reached the final, Safina promptly lost all of the bottle she had appeared to show in earlier rounds. She was broken immediately and was soon 4-1 down. A mini revival (i.e. Ivanovic lost her bottle) got the scores to 4-4 before she promptly folded like the folding device Sheldon invented in the Big Bang Theory and was broken again, losing the first set 6-4. The second set is a masterclass in double faults and unforced errors and she loses in straight sets. Still, plenty of people lose their first final and time was on her side...
Somebody lets Safina handle the boat for a second
Bottling the Olympics in 2008
Safina kicked on from the French open defeat, and had a solid rest of 2008. She lost in the semi-finals at the US Open to Serena Williams but picked up Tier 1 titles at Montreal and Tokyo. She finished the year ranked 3. At Beijing, she beat world number 1 Jelena Jankovic in the quarter finals and home favourite Li Na in the semis. In the final, she faced Elena Dementieva. She had already beaten her 3 times that year and was unbeaten in 15 matches.
In the final, Safina folded like a chair specifically designed to fold. She took the first set easily before frustration took over. She served 17 (SEVENTEEN) double faults, threw her rackets and hit balls into the stand. She was broken in the final game of the second set after a 'string of errors'. She then went a break down in the third set after serving three double faults in one game, before losing after a game which included two double faults and four unforced errors.
Safina is left with the simple task of parking the airship
Bottling the Australian Open 2009
2009 began with a final defeat in the Hopman Cup. She then lost in the final at Sydney the next week to Dementieva. At the Australian Open, Safina showed resolve to come back from two match points down in an early round, before breezing through to the final yet again.
The final followed a familiar pattern. A mere 22 minutes after starting, Safina was 6-0 down. At the start of the second set Safina breaks and there is hope for a match. It does not last as Serena Williams wins it 6-2 for a match that lasts less than an hour. As an aside, Nadal and Federer play for 4 hours and 23 minutes for five incredible sets in the mens final. Serena picked up the same amount of pay. An absolute disgrace.
Somebody lets Safina look after their house as they are away for the weekend
Bottling the French Open in 2009
Safina recovered from the embarrassment in Australia, and the embarrassment of picking up the same cheque as Federer for doing far less work at a far worse standard, to eventually make it to world number 1. She went to the French Open as number 1 seed and only lost five games en route to the quarter finals. Whether this was because womens tennis is horrifically lacking in depth, or because she was on top form, is up for debate. She duly reached the final and was once again facing a large and totally undeserved paycheque.
Safina faced Kuznetsova in the final. Serving at 4-5 (on serve) in the first set, she is promptly broken and that is that. For good measure, she even chucks in a double fault on match point. Kuznetsova duly wins her second grand slam, brining the total number of grand slams she has won that I only found out about while writing this blog to two.
Safina takes the wheel
Bottling Retirement
Safinas career went downhill very quickly. The rest of 2009 was solid enough, though she did not make any more Grand Slam finals. In the final tournament of the season she had a chance to finish year end number 1, but withdrew injured. She lost to a 40 year old at the French Open and by June 2010 she had lost 5 straight matches and was out of the top 20. She finished the year ranked 62. 2011 did not get any better. At the Australian Open, she lost 6-0 6-0 to Kim Clijsters. She was the first ever former number world number 1 to lose 6-0 6-0 at a Grand Slam Event. The match took 44 minutes. Safina still took home the same amount of money as Lleyton Hewitt, who lost 9-7 in the 5th set to Nalbandian in 4 hours and 48 minutes.
Towards the end of 2011 she announced her retirement. Or at least her brother did. It turned out her back injury had just caused her too many problems and she was going to call it quits. However she couldn't even retire without choking like George Bush on a pretzel. The very next day she declared she hadn't yet made her mind up and needed time to think. She declared she would let people know but doubts remain she is capable of that without bottling things further.
A few years ago Dinara Safina, like Caroline Wozniacki now, was world number 1 in women's tennis. She managed that without winning a Grand Slam. Now for a number of reasons being the WTA number 1 isn't an indicator that you are actually the best player. It is still clear that the proper number 1 is "Serena Williams when she tries", closely followed by "Kim Clijsters when she isn't injured". These are rare events, so the likes of Ana Ivanovic (now ranked 20) and Jelana Jankovic (slamless, now ranked 13) have also graced the number 1 spot. Women's tennis is full of botters, to the extent most matches resolve around who will bottle the least. However Safina's bottling was more severe, and her decline more swift, that she deserves to be blogged about.
Bottling the French Open in 2008
Safina had been just out of the top 10 at the end of 2006 and 2007 but was more well known for being Marat Safins brother at this stage. Then, in May 2008, she went on an impressive run at a clay tournament in Berlin beating Henin (and prompting her to retire), Serena Williams and Elena Dementieva. At the French Open, she knocked out world number 1 Maria Sharapova in the 4th round, then beat Dementieva and Kuznetsova. She was to face Ana Ivanovic in the final.
Having reached the final, Safina promptly lost all of the bottle she had appeared to show in earlier rounds. She was broken immediately and was soon 4-1 down. A mini revival (i.e. Ivanovic lost her bottle) got the scores to 4-4 before she promptly folded like the folding device Sheldon invented in the Big Bang Theory and was broken again, losing the first set 6-4. The second set is a masterclass in double faults and unforced errors and she loses in straight sets. Still, plenty of people lose their first final and time was on her side...
Bottling the Olympics in 2008
Safina kicked on from the French open defeat, and had a solid rest of 2008. She lost in the semi-finals at the US Open to Serena Williams but picked up Tier 1 titles at Montreal and Tokyo. She finished the year ranked 3. At Beijing, she beat world number 1 Jelena Jankovic in the quarter finals and home favourite Li Na in the semis. In the final, she faced Elena Dementieva. She had already beaten her 3 times that year and was unbeaten in 15 matches.
In the final, Safina folded like a chair specifically designed to fold. She took the first set easily before frustration took over. She served 17 (SEVENTEEN) double faults, threw her rackets and hit balls into the stand. She was broken in the final game of the second set after a 'string of errors'. She then went a break down in the third set after serving three double faults in one game, before losing after a game which included two double faults and four unforced errors.
Bottling the Australian Open 2009
2009 began with a final defeat in the Hopman Cup. She then lost in the final at Sydney the next week to Dementieva. At the Australian Open, Safina showed resolve to come back from two match points down in an early round, before breezing through to the final yet again.
The final followed a familiar pattern. A mere 22 minutes after starting, Safina was 6-0 down. At the start of the second set Safina breaks and there is hope for a match. It does not last as Serena Williams wins it 6-2 for a match that lasts less than an hour. As an aside, Nadal and Federer play for 4 hours and 23 minutes for five incredible sets in the mens final. Serena picked up the same amount of pay. An absolute disgrace.
Bottling the French Open in 2009
Safina recovered from the embarrassment in Australia, and the embarrassment of picking up the same cheque as Federer for doing far less work at a far worse standard, to eventually make it to world number 1. She went to the French Open as number 1 seed and only lost five games en route to the quarter finals. Whether this was because womens tennis is horrifically lacking in depth, or because she was on top form, is up for debate. She duly reached the final and was once again facing a large and totally undeserved paycheque.
Safina faced Kuznetsova in the final. Serving at 4-5 (on serve) in the first set, she is promptly broken and that is that. For good measure, she even chucks in a double fault on match point. Kuznetsova duly wins her second grand slam, brining the total number of grand slams she has won that I only found out about while writing this blog to two.
Bottling Retirement
Safinas career went downhill very quickly. The rest of 2009 was solid enough, though she did not make any more Grand Slam finals. In the final tournament of the season she had a chance to finish year end number 1, but withdrew injured. She lost to a 40 year old at the French Open and by June 2010 she had lost 5 straight matches and was out of the top 20. She finished the year ranked 62. 2011 did not get any better. At the Australian Open, she lost 6-0 6-0 to Kim Clijsters. She was the first ever former number world number 1 to lose 6-0 6-0 at a Grand Slam Event. The match took 44 minutes. Safina still took home the same amount of money as Lleyton Hewitt, who lost 9-7 in the 5th set to Nalbandian in 4 hours and 48 minutes.
Towards the end of 2011 she announced her retirement. Or at least her brother did. It turned out her back injury had just caused her too many problems and she was going to call it quits. However she couldn't even retire without choking like George Bush on a pretzel. The very next day she declared she hadn't yet made her mind up and needed time to think. She declared she would let people know but doubts remain she is capable of that without bottling things further.
Monday 26 September 2011
How to fix the tennis schedule
This week toys have been thrown everywhere by Andy Murray and the rest of the top three about the tennis schedule. Various oars have been stuck in by the likes of Michael Stich and Martina Navratilova either supporting or decrying their position. Murray has threatened to go on strike, which we can only assume is what happens every year at Miami and Indian Wells.
The starting point for this debate was the US Open making and complete and utter hash of existing. While having to deal with very unfortunate weather conditions, the US Open made as many mistakes as it was possible to make. For a start they didn't have a roof, though given the huge sums involved this isn't the worst thing. They also refused to use covers. This is just stupid. To top it off, they sent Murray and Nadal out in what was essentially a tropical thunderstorm.
What Murray and Nadal played in
This seemed to be the final straw, particularly for Nadal, who for once refused to tow the party line and launched an interesting attack on the ITF (who run Grand Slams). Essentially the position was they didn't care for the players and having both the ITF and the ATP run things was not too successful. How can they fix things?
Fix the Davis Cup
The Davis Cup is actually quite a good idea in theory. It is a bit different to the usual format, gives doubles an important role and gets some team spirit into a mostly individual sport. However, the current format is fairly absurd. Asking Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc to play two 5-set matches within a week of the US Open is not great and the schedule is spread out over a number of fairly inconvenient times in the schedule.
One possibility would be to make the Davis Cup a mandatory event, replacing a Masters Event, and give out ranking points. This would give players an extra free week and perhaps even increase the stature of the Davis Cup. On the down side, it isn't fair on players like Andy Murray and Giles Muller who are from countries where they are the only tennis players.
Another would be to change the format. Perhaps a World Group made up of only a top 8, and a significantly less long winded qualifying schedule. A drop from 5 sets to 3 sets could also be introduced. There is still a place for the Davis Cup, but it does need some sort of revamp.
No mandatory tournaments
The only real need for mandatory tournaments is because of the worry that if there wasn't, there would be no real motivation to play in some of the Masters such as Shanghai. However, in many ways players find a way to manipulate the schedule to their needs. Djokovic has picked up a timely injury and will miss the Asian swing. Federer has essentially played the 'can't be arsed' card to not attend Shanghai while Murray just loses in the first round every so often when he can't be bothered.
On the flipside, even without mandatory events I doubt there would be too much of a difference. Many would suggest smaller tournaments would sturggle, but I'm not so sure. Queens is only a 250 event yet as its the only grass court event before Wimbledon it usually attracts most of the top 10. I doubt people attend just as it is mandatory to play in a certain number of 250 events. Murray is on a mission to finish the year ranked 3rd and is playing in Bangkok, Beijing and Shanghai. Djokovic often plays his home event, and sponsors will always find a way to tempt a player to appear.
As for the Masters Events, I doubt many would suffer. Even the top 4 need ranking points and this is a good way of getting them. Shanghai, Paris and potentially one of Indian Wells/Miami might suffer, but not enough to ruin everything. And as detailed above, if a player doesn't want to play, then they won't.
Rearrange the entire schedule
The schedule doesn't really need too many changes but some of it doesn't make sense. The Australian Open is out of sync with the Asian swing, meaning players need to travel out to the far east twice. A swing of Beijing, Shanghai then Australian Open in January/February would make much more sense. Keep the players out in the far East for one time a year and lend more credence to the Shanghai Masters too. This could all be done by moving the Australian Open back a few weeks.
Tournaments such as Rotterdam and Marseille could then swap to now, and provide a lead in to the Paris Masters. The World Tour Finals could be moved forward a month and give the players all of November and December off. This seems a fairly simple solution that wouldn't involve altering much of the rest of the calender.
More competition for the top 4
It perhaps says it all that out of the 7 players to reach all four Grand Slam semi finals in a year, four of them are Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray. None of them did any worse than reaching the Quarter Finals. This was not the case in the past. For example in 1997, Pete Sampras won two Grand Slams, reached the third round and the fourth round in the others. In 1995 he lost in the 1st round at the French, and in 1996 in the 3rd round of the Australian.
Michael Stich, who stuck his oar in to the debate, had his best year in 1991. Yet he still only got to the third round of the Australian Open and the quarters at the US. Boris Becker reached the quarters or better in 3 events in 1990, yet lost in the 1st round in the French. In 1991, it was only the third round at the US Open. In 1987, Edberg reached one final, two semis, and lost in the 3rd at the French. This goes on and on.
Now part of this is the issue is that the surfaces are all very similar now, but whatever the reason the players are currently are putting in more effort in the Grand Slams than players in the past. In addition, the game is more physically demanding than back then. Something Michael Stich tends to ignore when he answered the question nobody had asked him.
Conclusion
There are solutions to the problem, but none of them will be used!
The starting point for this debate was the US Open making and complete and utter hash of existing. While having to deal with very unfortunate weather conditions, the US Open made as many mistakes as it was possible to make. For a start they didn't have a roof, though given the huge sums involved this isn't the worst thing. They also refused to use covers. This is just stupid. To top it off, they sent Murray and Nadal out in what was essentially a tropical thunderstorm.
This seemed to be the final straw, particularly for Nadal, who for once refused to tow the party line and launched an interesting attack on the ITF (who run Grand Slams). Essentially the position was they didn't care for the players and having both the ITF and the ATP run things was not too successful. How can they fix things?
Fix the Davis Cup
The Davis Cup is actually quite a good idea in theory. It is a bit different to the usual format, gives doubles an important role and gets some team spirit into a mostly individual sport. However, the current format is fairly absurd. Asking Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc to play two 5-set matches within a week of the US Open is not great and the schedule is spread out over a number of fairly inconvenient times in the schedule.
One possibility would be to make the Davis Cup a mandatory event, replacing a Masters Event, and give out ranking points. This would give players an extra free week and perhaps even increase the stature of the Davis Cup. On the down side, it isn't fair on players like Andy Murray and Giles Muller who are from countries where they are the only tennis players.
Another would be to change the format. Perhaps a World Group made up of only a top 8, and a significantly less long winded qualifying schedule. A drop from 5 sets to 3 sets could also be introduced. There is still a place for the Davis Cup, but it does need some sort of revamp.
No mandatory tournaments
The only real need for mandatory tournaments is because of the worry that if there wasn't, there would be no real motivation to play in some of the Masters such as Shanghai. However, in many ways players find a way to manipulate the schedule to their needs. Djokovic has picked up a timely injury and will miss the Asian swing. Federer has essentially played the 'can't be arsed' card to not attend Shanghai while Murray just loses in the first round every so often when he can't be bothered.
On the flipside, even without mandatory events I doubt there would be too much of a difference. Many would suggest smaller tournaments would sturggle, but I'm not so sure. Queens is only a 250 event yet as its the only grass court event before Wimbledon it usually attracts most of the top 10. I doubt people attend just as it is mandatory to play in a certain number of 250 events. Murray is on a mission to finish the year ranked 3rd and is playing in Bangkok, Beijing and Shanghai. Djokovic often plays his home event, and sponsors will always find a way to tempt a player to appear.
As for the Masters Events, I doubt many would suffer. Even the top 4 need ranking points and this is a good way of getting them. Shanghai, Paris and potentially one of Indian Wells/Miami might suffer, but not enough to ruin everything. And as detailed above, if a player doesn't want to play, then they won't.
Rearrange the entire schedule
The schedule doesn't really need too many changes but some of it doesn't make sense. The Australian Open is out of sync with the Asian swing, meaning players need to travel out to the far east twice. A swing of Beijing, Shanghai then Australian Open in January/February would make much more sense. Keep the players out in the far East for one time a year and lend more credence to the Shanghai Masters too. This could all be done by moving the Australian Open back a few weeks.
Tournaments such as Rotterdam and Marseille could then swap to now, and provide a lead in to the Paris Masters. The World Tour Finals could be moved forward a month and give the players all of November and December off. This seems a fairly simple solution that wouldn't involve altering much of the rest of the calender.
More competition for the top 4
It perhaps says it all that out of the 7 players to reach all four Grand Slam semi finals in a year, four of them are Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray. None of them did any worse than reaching the Quarter Finals. This was not the case in the past. For example in 1997, Pete Sampras won two Grand Slams, reached the third round and the fourth round in the others. In 1995 he lost in the 1st round at the French, and in 1996 in the 3rd round of the Australian.
Michael Stich, who stuck his oar in to the debate, had his best year in 1991. Yet he still only got to the third round of the Australian Open and the quarters at the US. Boris Becker reached the quarters or better in 3 events in 1990, yet lost in the 1st round in the French. In 1991, it was only the third round at the US Open. In 1987, Edberg reached one final, two semis, and lost in the 3rd at the French. This goes on and on.
Now part of this is the issue is that the surfaces are all very similar now, but whatever the reason the players are currently are putting in more effort in the Grand Slams than players in the past. In addition, the game is more physically demanding than back then. Something Michael Stich tends to ignore when he answered the question nobody had asked him.
Conclusion
There are solutions to the problem, but none of them will be used!
Tuesday 13 September 2011
Why Djokovic's domination doesn't feel quite right
Novak Djokovic has won three Grand Slams this year and so far only lost two matches. Yet in my opinion there is something not quite right about his domination. It doesn't feel as exciting or as incredible as when previous players have dominated. What exactly is it that doesn't feel right? I should start this off by saying I don't have a particular grudge against Djokovic. I am far happier he is winning things than Del Potro, Soderling or Berdych. The tennis he has played at times has been incredible. There is now no obvious weakness in his game. However in a way I can't help but feel that all he has really done is learn how to beat Nadal.
The Djokovic-Nadal "Rivalry"
So far this year the scores have been as follows (all finals):
Indian Wells: Djokovic wins 4-6 6-3 6-2
Miami: Djokovic wins 4-6 6-4 7-6
Madrid: Djokovic wins 7-5 6-4
Rome: Djokovic wins 6-4 6-4
Wimbledon: Djokovic wins 6-4 6-1 1-6 6-3
US Open: Djokovic wins
That isn't a rivalry by any stretch of the imagination. That is one player being comprehensively better than the other. A rivalry really requires somebody else to be winning. "Oh but Nadal always beat Federer" is probably the cry. Well he didn't for a start, Federer beat him at Wimbledon in 06 and 07 and in Masters Series Events. When Nadal did win, it was often by epic matches considered the best of all time. The excellent Miami final aside, none of these matches have matched the Federer - Nadal battles of old.
There is only so long this can go on before it gets a bit dull. Already the US Open just didn't quite seem as big a deal as it was so abundantly clear Djokovic would win. Whatever Djokovic has done, Nadal does not have an answer to it. Worryingly the matches are getting even more one sided than anything.
Murray and Federer can push Djokovic
Here are the results between Murray and Djokovic this year:
Australian Open Final: Djokovic wins 6-4 6-2 6-3 (though who doesn't against Murray in a Slam final)
Rome semi final: Djokovic wins 6-1, 3-6, 7-6 (Murray serves for match)
Cincinnati Final: Murray wins 6-4 3-0 RET
And the results between Djokovic and Federer
Australian Open Semi: Djokovic wins 7-6 7-5 6-4
Dubai Final: Djokovic wins 6-3 6-3
Indian Wells Semi: Djokovic wins 6-3 3-6 6-2
French Open Semi: Federer wins 7-6 6-3 3-6 7-6
US Open Semi: Djokovic wins 6-7 4-6 6-3 6-2 7-5 (Federer has two match points on serve)
Now it is clear that Djokovic has had the better of these players this year. However, it has not been such plain sailing. Murray was a service hold away from beating him in Rome, and Federer should really have beaten Djokovic twice in Slams this year. That Djokovic fought back is testament to the year he is having, but next year these results may (and will) go differently. While the result was ultimately the same, the match was far closer and much more exciting.
In addition, they have both beaten him this year. Djokovic can argue he had one arm in Cincinnati but the fact remains he has had more of an issue with Murray and Federer than Nadal.
Nadal doing the dirty work for Djokovic
Next, we look at the Nadal record v Federer and Murray.
v Murray
Monte Carlo semi: Nadal wins 6-4, 2-6, 6-1
French Open Semi: 6-4 7-5 6-4
Wimbledon Semi: 5-7 6-2 6-2 6-4
US Open Semi: 6-4 6-2 3-6 6-2
v Federer
Miami Semi: Nadal wins 6-3 6-2
Madrid Semi: Nadal wins 5-7 6-1 6-3
French Open Final: Nadal wins 7-5 7-6 5-7 6-1
Nadal is 7 for 7 against Murray and Federer this year. In particular, Nadal looks so comfortable against Murray these days. The only real worry was Wimbledon where Murray imploded after blowing the chance to lead by a set and a break. The US Open semi demonstrated that Nadal really is just consistently 1 or 2% better than Murray in the big matches. Its a similar situation against Federer, though this is more of a mental issue. Federer should certainly have taken the first set against Nadal in Paris, but lost 7 odd games in a row and couldn't get back into it.
It isn't entirely clear what Nadal does differently in these matches that he does against Djokovic. But from the look of results, it seems there is an odd situation where Djokovic dominates Nadal, Nadal dominates Murray and Federer, yet Murray and Federer trouble Djokovic.
The same draw in every Slam
In something like 17 out of the last 19 Slams, Murray and Nadal have been in the same half. It is a stat so astonishing that there is almost certainly some sort of conspiracy behind it. I'm sure some guy at the ITF is going to admit to being too lazy to actually do a new draw every year so just using the same template every tournament for the top 4. The Masters is less predictable, but as a quirk this year it has only been the finals where Nadal and Djokovic have met.
Anyway, as a result the slams have played out exactly the same all year (more or less). The Australian was slightly different as without Nadal in the semis, Murray was able to get through to a final which he lost in his traditional straight sets. Djokovic had a comfortable victory over Federer and thoroughly deserved his victory.
The hard court Masters were notable for Murray not bothering, and Federer being off the boil, so as 1 and 2 it was predictable they would keep meeting in finals. Djokovic won every time. Yet in the clay season, his toughest match was against Murray in the semi final in Rome.
In the French, a trend began. The big 4 made it to the semis, and Nadal dominated Murray. Federer gave Djokovic a tough match and ultimately triumphed.
In Wimbledon, the same draw. Nadal dominated Murray again. Federer switched off against Tsonga leaving Djokovic a clear path to the final. A final he won with a fair amount of ease.
In the US Open, the same draw. Nadal dominated Murray again. It was as expected. Federer made it through and gave Djokovic a very tough match. He was an incredible forehand return from defeat. He then once again faced Nadal in the final and won with ease.
Now as 1 and 2 in the world, it is likely the pair will end up meeting in the final. However, the lack of variety has spoiled it somewhat. By the time the US Open rolled around, it was a case of here we go again in terms of Murray v Nadal. Would it be too much to ask for a Nadal v Federer semi?
What all this combines to do
The combination of the above factors, I feel, take away from what Djokovic is doing. It is not his fault he is able to comprehensively dominate Nadal, or that the draws are predictable. However, it is spoiling tennis slightly.
Essentially, we are in a loop where there are no particularly close matches for much of the tournament. Nadal usually dispatches Murray or Federer with ease, then is defeated in the final. This leaves only Djokovic v Fed or Murray as the interesting match out of the final 3. In addition, the same draw every time means it is the same predictable results every time. It is difficult to get excited by Nadal v Murray and Nadal v Djokovic anymore. Tournaments are also deprived of a Nadal v Federer meeting, a matchup that can still get people going even if Nadal is usually victorious.
Conclusion
1. Djokovic has undoubtedly improved.
2. However Djokovic appears to have improved in the sense that he now beats Nadal with ease.
3. Djokovic still struggles more against Federer and Murray.
4. Murray toys with Federer and Murray.
5. The rankings and predictable draws mean it always ends up being Djokovic and Nadal.
6. This is all getting quite predictable and taking away from what Djokovic has done.
The Djokovic-Nadal "Rivalry"
So far this year the scores have been as follows (all finals):
Indian Wells: Djokovic wins 4-6 6-3 6-2
Miami: Djokovic wins 4-6 6-4 7-6
Madrid: Djokovic wins 7-5 6-4
Rome: Djokovic wins 6-4 6-4
Wimbledon: Djokovic wins 6-4 6-1 1-6 6-3
US Open: Djokovic wins
That isn't a rivalry by any stretch of the imagination. That is one player being comprehensively better than the other. A rivalry really requires somebody else to be winning. "Oh but Nadal always beat Federer" is probably the cry. Well he didn't for a start, Federer beat him at Wimbledon in 06 and 07 and in Masters Series Events. When Nadal did win, it was often by epic matches considered the best of all time. The excellent Miami final aside, none of these matches have matched the Federer - Nadal battles of old.
There is only so long this can go on before it gets a bit dull. Already the US Open just didn't quite seem as big a deal as it was so abundantly clear Djokovic would win. Whatever Djokovic has done, Nadal does not have an answer to it. Worryingly the matches are getting even more one sided than anything.
Murray and Federer can push Djokovic
Here are the results between Murray and Djokovic this year:
Australian Open Final: Djokovic wins 6-4 6-2 6-3 (though who doesn't against Murray in a Slam final)
Rome semi final: Djokovic wins 6-1, 3-6, 7-6 (Murray serves for match)
Cincinnati Final: Murray wins 6-4 3-0 RET
And the results between Djokovic and Federer
Australian Open Semi: Djokovic wins 7-6 7-5 6-4
Dubai Final: Djokovic wins 6-3 6-3
Indian Wells Semi: Djokovic wins 6-3 3-6 6-2
French Open Semi: Federer wins 7-6 6-3 3-6 7-6
US Open Semi: Djokovic wins 6-7 4-6 6-3 6-2 7-5 (Federer has two match points on serve)
Now it is clear that Djokovic has had the better of these players this year. However, it has not been such plain sailing. Murray was a service hold away from beating him in Rome, and Federer should really have beaten Djokovic twice in Slams this year. That Djokovic fought back is testament to the year he is having, but next year these results may (and will) go differently. While the result was ultimately the same, the match was far closer and much more exciting.
In addition, they have both beaten him this year. Djokovic can argue he had one arm in Cincinnati but the fact remains he has had more of an issue with Murray and Federer than Nadal.
Nadal doing the dirty work for Djokovic
Next, we look at the Nadal record v Federer and Murray.
v Murray
Monte Carlo semi: Nadal wins 6-4, 2-6, 6-1
French Open Semi: 6-4 7-5 6-4
Wimbledon Semi: 5-7 6-2 6-2 6-4
US Open Semi: 6-4 6-2 3-6 6-2
v Federer
Miami Semi: Nadal wins 6-3 6-2
Madrid Semi: Nadal wins 5-7 6-1 6-3
French Open Final: Nadal wins 7-5 7-6 5-7 6-1
Nadal is 7 for 7 against Murray and Federer this year. In particular, Nadal looks so comfortable against Murray these days. The only real worry was Wimbledon where Murray imploded after blowing the chance to lead by a set and a break. The US Open semi demonstrated that Nadal really is just consistently 1 or 2% better than Murray in the big matches. Its a similar situation against Federer, though this is more of a mental issue. Federer should certainly have taken the first set against Nadal in Paris, but lost 7 odd games in a row and couldn't get back into it.
It isn't entirely clear what Nadal does differently in these matches that he does against Djokovic. But from the look of results, it seems there is an odd situation where Djokovic dominates Nadal, Nadal dominates Murray and Federer, yet Murray and Federer trouble Djokovic.
The same draw in every Slam
In something like 17 out of the last 19 Slams, Murray and Nadal have been in the same half. It is a stat so astonishing that there is almost certainly some sort of conspiracy behind it. I'm sure some guy at the ITF is going to admit to being too lazy to actually do a new draw every year so just using the same template every tournament for the top 4. The Masters is less predictable, but as a quirk this year it has only been the finals where Nadal and Djokovic have met.
Anyway, as a result the slams have played out exactly the same all year (more or less). The Australian was slightly different as without Nadal in the semis, Murray was able to get through to a final which he lost in his traditional straight sets. Djokovic had a comfortable victory over Federer and thoroughly deserved his victory.
The hard court Masters were notable for Murray not bothering, and Federer being off the boil, so as 1 and 2 it was predictable they would keep meeting in finals. Djokovic won every time. Yet in the clay season, his toughest match was against Murray in the semi final in Rome.
In the French, a trend began. The big 4 made it to the semis, and Nadal dominated Murray. Federer gave Djokovic a tough match and ultimately triumphed.
In Wimbledon, the same draw. Nadal dominated Murray again. Federer switched off against Tsonga leaving Djokovic a clear path to the final. A final he won with a fair amount of ease.
In the US Open, the same draw. Nadal dominated Murray again. It was as expected. Federer made it through and gave Djokovic a very tough match. He was an incredible forehand return from defeat. He then once again faced Nadal in the final and won with ease.
Now as 1 and 2 in the world, it is likely the pair will end up meeting in the final. However, the lack of variety has spoiled it somewhat. By the time the US Open rolled around, it was a case of here we go again in terms of Murray v Nadal. Would it be too much to ask for a Nadal v Federer semi?
What all this combines to do
The combination of the above factors, I feel, take away from what Djokovic is doing. It is not his fault he is able to comprehensively dominate Nadal, or that the draws are predictable. However, it is spoiling tennis slightly.
Essentially, we are in a loop where there are no particularly close matches for much of the tournament. Nadal usually dispatches Murray or Federer with ease, then is defeated in the final. This leaves only Djokovic v Fed or Murray as the interesting match out of the final 3. In addition, the same draw every time means it is the same predictable results every time. It is difficult to get excited by Nadal v Murray and Nadal v Djokovic anymore. Tournaments are also deprived of a Nadal v Federer meeting, a matchup that can still get people going even if Nadal is usually victorious.
Conclusion
1. Djokovic has undoubtedly improved.
2. However Djokovic appears to have improved in the sense that he now beats Nadal with ease.
3. Djokovic still struggles more against Federer and Murray.
4. Murray toys with Federer and Murray.
5. The rankings and predictable draws mean it always ends up being Djokovic and Nadal.
6. This is all getting quite predictable and taking away from what Djokovic has done.
Tuesday 6 September 2011
US Open Week 1 (and a bit)
The final grand slam of the year is just over half way complete, although it has now been postponed indefinitely due to rain. Here are the first week thoughts.
The young guns are back to being hopeless
After Bernard Tomic made a stunning run to the Wimbledon quarter finals and gave Djokovic a scare there was real hope that some young blood would do well in the US Open. However it was not to be, and it is a player who dominated the juniors 4 years ago who has made the most impact.
Ryan Harrison went down in the first round to Marin Cilic in straight sets. In the process he managed to throw a substantial amount of toys from what must have been a very large pram. Rackets were thrown, balls were kicked and it was all very undignified. Such was the behaviour he managed to draw boos from the home crowd despite being American.
Bernard Tomic did little better, winning his first round before facing Cilic in the second. Hopes were high after they had an epic battle in the 2010 Australian Open, but Cilic breezed through 6-1 6-0 6-2. After his big break at Wimbledon Tomic will be disappointed with such a poor result. Hopefully Australia 2011 will see him back to doing well.
Milos Raonic can be spared as he is till recovering from injury. However it has been a disappointing second half of 2011 for Milos after such a great start. He is yet to recover from his injury picked up at Wimbledon and has missed the chance to make a bigger impact. Once again, it is the same faces heading into the last 8.
Donald Young makes his breakthrough
There was a time when it looked like Donald Young would be Federer and Nadals next big rival. Young dominated the juniors and aged 19 had made it to number 73 in the world. He reached the 3rd round in the US Open back in 2007. It then all went horribly wrong as Young descended into mediocrity. Earlier this year, he did beat Murrays identical twin who is sent to play in Miami and Indian Wells as Murray himself cries about the Australian Open in a dark room.
Young reached a career low when he decided that the USTA were unreasonable in not giving him a wild card to Roland Garros. His truly magnificent, grammatically upsetting and mildly threatening tweet read "F*** USTA! Their full of s***! They have screwed me for the last time". He then deleted his entire twitter and hopefully learned the difference between there, their and they're.
A few months later, grown up and hopefully slightly more educated, he has made quite an impact at the US Open. He beat a rather rotund looking Wawrinka and then followed it up by beating Chela. Andy Murray awaits, and I do not intend to pass comment on his chances lest it be a jinx.
Andy Murray has his contractual-obligation horror show
Every year at the US Open, Murray throws in an absolute shocker. In 2008, he was two points from defeat against Melzer in the third round before coming back. In 2009, he was absolutely smashed by Cilic and in 2010 he ruined the entire tournament by losing from a set and a break up to a less rotund looking Wawrinka.
He has mostly erased these performances in other slams recently, having a fairly smooth run through recent Wimbledons and Australian Opens. Even his rollercoaster against Troiki at the French Open could be put down to the fact he was playing on one ankle.
His match against Haase had all the hallmarks of a classic US Open nightmare. There was the odd imaginary injury, the general shouting, the inexplicable collapse from a lead and the shouting at the camp. After losing the second set 6-2 it all looked over. Murray then tried and at 4-0 in the fifth, spent the changeover making some changes to his fantasy football team or something. Distracted, it went back to 4-4 and to be honest Haase should not have lost from there. But he did.
Horror show over with Murray looked back to his best against Lopez and should fancy his chances against Young, if it ever takes place.
Incredible amount of withdrawals
There were something like 18 withdrawals from the tournament which some, like Andy Murray, put down to the strenuous tennis season. Though this doesn't tell the whole story. It was clear that Conor Niland and Louk Sorensen were clearly both incredibly hungover after celebrating qualifying too hard. Niland in particular had all the hallmarks of a massive hangover as he threw up, walked around lethargically for a while then decided to just go back home and curl up for a while.
Robin Soderling clearly just couldn't be bothered to play, pulling out mere minutes before Louk Sorensen but with enough time that somebody else could take advantage of the Irishmans hangover. Tomas Berdych just dived and fooled the umpire into thinking he was injured. Venus Williams made up a new illness altogether that wasn't challenged while Karol Beck appears to have retired for "reason unknown".
Womens tennis continues to embarrass itself
Serena Williams will win. It is now barely a sport.
The young guns are back to being hopeless
After Bernard Tomic made a stunning run to the Wimbledon quarter finals and gave Djokovic a scare there was real hope that some young blood would do well in the US Open. However it was not to be, and it is a player who dominated the juniors 4 years ago who has made the most impact.
Ryan Harrison went down in the first round to Marin Cilic in straight sets. In the process he managed to throw a substantial amount of toys from what must have been a very large pram. Rackets were thrown, balls were kicked and it was all very undignified. Such was the behaviour he managed to draw boos from the home crowd despite being American.
Bernard Tomic did little better, winning his first round before facing Cilic in the second. Hopes were high after they had an epic battle in the 2010 Australian Open, but Cilic breezed through 6-1 6-0 6-2. After his big break at Wimbledon Tomic will be disappointed with such a poor result. Hopefully Australia 2011 will see him back to doing well.
Milos Raonic can be spared as he is till recovering from injury. However it has been a disappointing second half of 2011 for Milos after such a great start. He is yet to recover from his injury picked up at Wimbledon and has missed the chance to make a bigger impact. Once again, it is the same faces heading into the last 8.
Donald Young makes his breakthrough
There was a time when it looked like Donald Young would be Federer and Nadals next big rival. Young dominated the juniors and aged 19 had made it to number 73 in the world. He reached the 3rd round in the US Open back in 2007. It then all went horribly wrong as Young descended into mediocrity. Earlier this year, he did beat Murrays identical twin who is sent to play in Miami and Indian Wells as Murray himself cries about the Australian Open in a dark room.
Young reached a career low when he decided that the USTA were unreasonable in not giving him a wild card to Roland Garros. His truly magnificent, grammatically upsetting and mildly threatening tweet read "F*** USTA! Their full of s***! They have screwed me for the last time". He then deleted his entire twitter and hopefully learned the difference between there, their and they're.
A few months later, grown up and hopefully slightly more educated, he has made quite an impact at the US Open. He beat a rather rotund looking Wawrinka and then followed it up by beating Chela. Andy Murray awaits, and I do not intend to pass comment on his chances lest it be a jinx.
Andy Murray has his contractual-obligation horror show
Every year at the US Open, Murray throws in an absolute shocker. In 2008, he was two points from defeat against Melzer in the third round before coming back. In 2009, he was absolutely smashed by Cilic and in 2010 he ruined the entire tournament by losing from a set and a break up to a less rotund looking Wawrinka.
He has mostly erased these performances in other slams recently, having a fairly smooth run through recent Wimbledons and Australian Opens. Even his rollercoaster against Troiki at the French Open could be put down to the fact he was playing on one ankle.
His match against Haase had all the hallmarks of a classic US Open nightmare. There was the odd imaginary injury, the general shouting, the inexplicable collapse from a lead and the shouting at the camp. After losing the second set 6-2 it all looked over. Murray then tried and at 4-0 in the fifth, spent the changeover making some changes to his fantasy football team or something. Distracted, it went back to 4-4 and to be honest Haase should not have lost from there. But he did.
Horror show over with Murray looked back to his best against Lopez and should fancy his chances against Young, if it ever takes place.
Incredible amount of withdrawals
There were something like 18 withdrawals from the tournament which some, like Andy Murray, put down to the strenuous tennis season. Though this doesn't tell the whole story. It was clear that Conor Niland and Louk Sorensen were clearly both incredibly hungover after celebrating qualifying too hard. Niland in particular had all the hallmarks of a massive hangover as he threw up, walked around lethargically for a while then decided to just go back home and curl up for a while.
Robin Soderling clearly just couldn't be bothered to play, pulling out mere minutes before Louk Sorensen but with enough time that somebody else could take advantage of the Irishmans hangover. Tomas Berdych just dived and fooled the umpire into thinking he was injured. Venus Williams made up a new illness altogether that wasn't challenged while Karol Beck appears to have retired for "reason unknown".
Womens tennis continues to embarrass itself
Serena Williams will win. It is now barely a sport.
Wednesday 24 August 2011
Andy Murray and the First Round Match
In every tournament this year, bar one, Andy Murray has either reached the first round or reached the semi finals or better. This suggests that slams aside, he bases his entire interest in a tournament in whether he makes it past round 1. As soon as a first round match goes against him he struggles. Often he looks flat and disinterested before improving as the tournament progresses. In a way, who can blame him? With no challenge to his 4 ranking and millions in the bank, his mind probably wanders to a week of call of duty as soon as the first set is lost. But is there anything to this or just a statistical anomaly.
The defeats
Rotterdam
Bagdhatis d Murray 6-4 6-1
In his first match since the Australian Open final defeat, Murray faced a tough test against Marcos Bagdhatis as he attempted to avoid a repeat of his 2010 slump. Things went well to start with as Murray broke twice to lead 3-0. Slump? What slump? Things quickly went wrong as bagdhatis won 12 of the next 14 games to cruise through. Prior to entering this tournament
Murray had planned a lengthy break after his Melbourne disappointment. It seems clear the moment that Bagdhatis broke back that his mind wandered to a week spent indoors on the ps3 rather than winning a meaningless tennis tournament.
Indian Wells Masters
Young d Murray 7-6 6-3
Murray had one of the easier draws in this tournament as he faced 143 ranked Donald Young. Once again, Murray took an early break before losing interest after a tight first set. An immediate break at the start of the second set was the shape of things to come and an hour and a half after going on court, Murray was done. He was free to go to Vegas and gamble, or sit at home in the dark playing cod.
Miami Masters
Bogomolov d Murray 6-1 7-5
In the closest thing to a home tournament outside of Wimbledon, Murray would be hoping for good things. However, with his ps3 located so nearby in the city he trains in over winter, it was likely thoughts would wonder to cod at the first sign of adversity. After losing the first set 6-1, Murray had already made his mind up despite Bogomolovs best efforts to throw it away, and went through 7-5. He was rewarded with another tennis match, something Murray did not have to worry about.
Montreal Masters
Anderson d Murray 6-3 6-1
Not even being twice Champion and having to defend 1000 ranking points was enough to motivate Murray to recover from being broken in his first service game of the set. After losing that set 6-3, the second set was barely a contest as Murray contemplated a week of Pro Ev Soccer. He quickly persuaded Nadal that this would be more fun, the Spaniard losing in a similarly shocking upset to Dodig.
The victories
This column needs to be split into two. One to show the Grand Slam matches, where it is clear he is willing to dig deep to win, and one for the other events.
Grand Slams
Australian Open
Murray d Beck 6-3 6-1 4-2
A simple victory, with Murray rarely troubled. Had this been a Masters Event he would probably have still progressed such was the lack of opposition. Beck retired late on with a shoulder injury, raising questions of why after 2.5 sets, he couldn't just play the last two games.
French Open
Murray d Prodon 6-4 6-1 6-3
Despite facing an unheralded qualifer, Murray did struggle in the first set. Serving for the set at 5-4, he was broken back and in lesser tournaments may well have slumped to defeat. However he battled back and broke immediately to take it 6-4. After a simple second set, Prodon led 3-1 in the third. Murray reeled off 5 straight matches to demonstrate he did actually care about this tournament.
Wimbledon
Murray d Gimeno-Traver 4-6 6-3 6-0 6-0
You may notice something with this match, as it is the first time in this list Murray has lost the first set and recovered. Played under the roof at Wimbledon, a condition unique in its ability to make Murray turn routine victories into stressful epics, G-T snuck the first set 6-4. Had this not been a Grand Slam, Murray would have been straight onto his phone arranging an online came of cod within the next hour and tanked the second set. However, he got his act together and actually won 15 games in a row to finish with.
Other Events
Monte Carlo Masters
Murray d Stepanek 6-1 6-4
Murray had not won a match since January and was on his least favourite surface against a tricky opponent. However having broken early in the first set Murray held serve and won the first set. He led 4-1 in the second before the Stepanek fightback began. Had this occurred a set earlier, Murray would have likely given up, but winning the match from 6-1 4-4 required less effort and he held on. Murray went on to take the tournament seriously and was unlucky to lose to Nadal in the semi final with a mysterious elbow injury that appeared in a timely manner to act as an excuse for the defeat.
Rome Masters
Murray d Malisse 6-2 2-6 6-3
This match looked fairly straightforward as Murray raced into a 6-2 first set lead. However he lost concentration and lost the second set to a similar margin. There must have been some dilemma at the changeover before the third set as Murray decided whether he wanted another week on the ps3, or if he had been on court long enough that he may as well get a win and take the tournament seriously. He recovered to sneak the third set and went on to choke horribly against Djokovic in the semi final. Horrible. Serving for the match then choking horribly. It was really awful choking.
Queens Club
Murray d Malisse 6-3 5-7 6-3
The second Murray v Malisse first round match up in a month helped hammer out the theory. Clearly, the question of whether or not Murray will try in a tournament is dependent totally on the first set. Again Murray had to wrestle with the decision of whether or not to try and win the third set or drive home for cod. Despite his house being so nearby, and the ps3 presumably set up in some sort of heroic home cinema effort, Murray took the third set and then decided to actually win a title.
Cincinnati
Murray d Nalbandian 6-4 6-1
The most recent event showed once again that once Murray has won the first set of a tournament, he is good to go. A comfortable victory over Nalbandian paving the way for a solid week of tennis which culminated in a good victory over a one armed Djokovic. Djokovic felt sorry for Murray after his last attempt at closing out a match against him and just retired. Murray won a very ugly trophy, and the first round theory held up.
Conclusion
So there we have it. If Andy Murray wins the first set of the first round, then he will take the tournament seriously. If he loses it, he tanks and goes home to play call of duty, or if he can persuade Nadal to throw a match, Pro Ev.
The defeats
Rotterdam
Bagdhatis d Murray 6-4 6-1
In his first match since the Australian Open final defeat, Murray faced a tough test against Marcos Bagdhatis as he attempted to avoid a repeat of his 2010 slump. Things went well to start with as Murray broke twice to lead 3-0. Slump? What slump? Things quickly went wrong as bagdhatis won 12 of the next 14 games to cruise through. Prior to entering this tournament
Murray had planned a lengthy break after his Melbourne disappointment. It seems clear the moment that Bagdhatis broke back that his mind wandered to a week spent indoors on the ps3 rather than winning a meaningless tennis tournament.
Indian Wells Masters
Young d Murray 7-6 6-3
Murray had one of the easier draws in this tournament as he faced 143 ranked Donald Young. Once again, Murray took an early break before losing interest after a tight first set. An immediate break at the start of the second set was the shape of things to come and an hour and a half after going on court, Murray was done. He was free to go to Vegas and gamble, or sit at home in the dark playing cod.
Miami Masters
Bogomolov d Murray 6-1 7-5
In the closest thing to a home tournament outside of Wimbledon, Murray would be hoping for good things. However, with his ps3 located so nearby in the city he trains in over winter, it was likely thoughts would wonder to cod at the first sign of adversity. After losing the first set 6-1, Murray had already made his mind up despite Bogomolovs best efforts to throw it away, and went through 7-5. He was rewarded with another tennis match, something Murray did not have to worry about.
Montreal Masters
Anderson d Murray 6-3 6-1
Not even being twice Champion and having to defend 1000 ranking points was enough to motivate Murray to recover from being broken in his first service game of the set. After losing that set 6-3, the second set was barely a contest as Murray contemplated a week of Pro Ev Soccer. He quickly persuaded Nadal that this would be more fun, the Spaniard losing in a similarly shocking upset to Dodig.
The victories
This column needs to be split into two. One to show the Grand Slam matches, where it is clear he is willing to dig deep to win, and one for the other events.
Grand Slams
Australian Open
Murray d Beck 6-3 6-1 4-2
A simple victory, with Murray rarely troubled. Had this been a Masters Event he would probably have still progressed such was the lack of opposition. Beck retired late on with a shoulder injury, raising questions of why after 2.5 sets, he couldn't just play the last two games.
French Open
Murray d Prodon 6-4 6-1 6-3
Despite facing an unheralded qualifer, Murray did struggle in the first set. Serving for the set at 5-4, he was broken back and in lesser tournaments may well have slumped to defeat. However he battled back and broke immediately to take it 6-4. After a simple second set, Prodon led 3-1 in the third. Murray reeled off 5 straight matches to demonstrate he did actually care about this tournament.
Wimbledon
Murray d Gimeno-Traver 4-6 6-3 6-0 6-0
You may notice something with this match, as it is the first time in this list Murray has lost the first set and recovered. Played under the roof at Wimbledon, a condition unique in its ability to make Murray turn routine victories into stressful epics, G-T snuck the first set 6-4. Had this not been a Grand Slam, Murray would have been straight onto his phone arranging an online came of cod within the next hour and tanked the second set. However, he got his act together and actually won 15 games in a row to finish with.
Other Events
Monte Carlo Masters
Murray d Stepanek 6-1 6-4
Murray had not won a match since January and was on his least favourite surface against a tricky opponent. However having broken early in the first set Murray held serve and won the first set. He led 4-1 in the second before the Stepanek fightback began. Had this occurred a set earlier, Murray would have likely given up, but winning the match from 6-1 4-4 required less effort and he held on. Murray went on to take the tournament seriously and was unlucky to lose to Nadal in the semi final with a mysterious elbow injury that appeared in a timely manner to act as an excuse for the defeat.
Rome Masters
Murray d Malisse 6-2 2-6 6-3
This match looked fairly straightforward as Murray raced into a 6-2 first set lead. However he lost concentration and lost the second set to a similar margin. There must have been some dilemma at the changeover before the third set as Murray decided whether he wanted another week on the ps3, or if he had been on court long enough that he may as well get a win and take the tournament seriously. He recovered to sneak the third set and went on to choke horribly against Djokovic in the semi final. Horrible. Serving for the match then choking horribly. It was really awful choking.
Queens Club
Murray d Malisse 6-3 5-7 6-3
The second Murray v Malisse first round match up in a month helped hammer out the theory. Clearly, the question of whether or not Murray will try in a tournament is dependent totally on the first set. Again Murray had to wrestle with the decision of whether or not to try and win the third set or drive home for cod. Despite his house being so nearby, and the ps3 presumably set up in some sort of heroic home cinema effort, Murray took the third set and then decided to actually win a title.
Cincinnati
Murray d Nalbandian 6-4 6-1
The most recent event showed once again that once Murray has won the first set of a tournament, he is good to go. A comfortable victory over Nalbandian paving the way for a solid week of tennis which culminated in a good victory over a one armed Djokovic. Djokovic felt sorry for Murray after his last attempt at closing out a match against him and just retired. Murray won a very ugly trophy, and the first round theory held up.
Conclusion
So there we have it. If Andy Murray wins the first set of the first round, then he will take the tournament seriously. If he loses it, he tanks and goes home to play call of duty, or if he can persuade Nadal to throw a match, Pro Ev.
Tuesday 26 July 2011
Recent Tennis Round Up
The period of the time where the entire population are tennis fans is now over and attention has turned to golf and then cricket as people fill the void created by there being no football on. Even for actual tennis fans, there doesn't seem to have been much going on. The US Open series is slowly getting underway, but the top 4 aren't likely to be in action until Andy Murray inevitably wins in Montreal to get our hopes up for a good US Open run before crashing out to a mediocre player in a particularly frustrating manner. However, that doesn't mean there hasn't been plenty of action.
Mardy Fish might win the US Open Series
The US Open series does not entirely make sense. Most years it is won by Federer or Murray but the 2009 winner was Sam Querrey. He did this by virtue of winning one tournament, Los Angeles, and doing very little else. This years series began in Atlanta, which had a very retro line up of Xavier Mallise, Tommy Haas and Lleyton Hewitt. Mardy Fish and John Isner had a fairly epic battle in the final with Isner having two MPs before Fish triumphed in three. Winning a tournament by beating Mahut, Deverrman, Harrison and Isner gets almost as much points as Murray will get for winning Montreal. Fish is lining up in Los Angeles this week, and although JMDP is probably favourite for the title, a good run by Fish could see him secure the US Open Series before Murray et al even go on court in Montreal.
James Ward does something again
After his epic run at Queens, James Ward reverted to type and stopped winning any matches for a while. He was comprehensively dismantled by Gilles Muller in the Davis Cup too. However, at the Lexington Challenger last week Ward had an impressive run to the final and approached a new career high. He was seeded 1, and lost in the final when he finally faced a player I had heard of, but it is a step in the right direction. Jamie Baker also reached the quarters in an impressive week for the Brits.
We have an answer to the question of whether a random club player would win points off Andy Murray
The answer is no, after ex-pro Laurent Bram could only win 15 points in a 6-0 6-0 6-0 victory in the Davis Cup. Dunblane went on to win the tie 3-0 and now face Hungary, while England could only draw 1-1 and face a tough replay in Luxembourg City. Rumours that Brams performance was still impressive enough for the LTA to offer him funding were denied.
Finally, the new youngsters are making a move
Ryan Harrison made it into the top 100 with his performance in Atlanta. He has had a fairly impressive year after breaking through in last years US Open. Tomic, Raonic, Dimitrov and Harrison are all now in the top 100 and there may finally be some new players challenging at the top in the next year. Tomic could have beaten eventual champion Djokovic at Wimbledon had he not lost concentration for a set, while Dimitrov also made headlines for a gallant effort against Tsonga. At least one of these four will make a big impact at the US Open.
There still isn't all that much happening
Roll on Montreal in a few weeks and the start of some tennis on Sky Sports. Otherwise we will be stuck reading about a rueing outbreak in the SPL.
Mardy Fish might win the US Open Series
The US Open series does not entirely make sense. Most years it is won by Federer or Murray but the 2009 winner was Sam Querrey. He did this by virtue of winning one tournament, Los Angeles, and doing very little else. This years series began in Atlanta, which had a very retro line up of Xavier Mallise, Tommy Haas and Lleyton Hewitt. Mardy Fish and John Isner had a fairly epic battle in the final with Isner having two MPs before Fish triumphed in three. Winning a tournament by beating Mahut, Deverrman, Harrison and Isner gets almost as much points as Murray will get for winning Montreal. Fish is lining up in Los Angeles this week, and although JMDP is probably favourite for the title, a good run by Fish could see him secure the US Open Series before Murray et al even go on court in Montreal.
James Ward does something again
After his epic run at Queens, James Ward reverted to type and stopped winning any matches for a while. He was comprehensively dismantled by Gilles Muller in the Davis Cup too. However, at the Lexington Challenger last week Ward had an impressive run to the final and approached a new career high. He was seeded 1, and lost in the final when he finally faced a player I had heard of, but it is a step in the right direction. Jamie Baker also reached the quarters in an impressive week for the Brits.
We have an answer to the question of whether a random club player would win points off Andy Murray
The answer is no, after ex-pro Laurent Bram could only win 15 points in a 6-0 6-0 6-0 victory in the Davis Cup. Dunblane went on to win the tie 3-0 and now face Hungary, while England could only draw 1-1 and face a tough replay in Luxembourg City. Rumours that Brams performance was still impressive enough for the LTA to offer him funding were denied.
Finally, the new youngsters are making a move
Ryan Harrison made it into the top 100 with his performance in Atlanta. He has had a fairly impressive year after breaking through in last years US Open. Tomic, Raonic, Dimitrov and Harrison are all now in the top 100 and there may finally be some new players challenging at the top in the next year. Tomic could have beaten eventual champion Djokovic at Wimbledon had he not lost concentration for a set, while Dimitrov also made headlines for a gallant effort against Tsonga. At least one of these four will make a big impact at the US Open.
There still isn't all that much happening
Roll on Montreal in a few weeks and the start of some tennis on Sky Sports. Otherwise we will be stuck reading about a rueing outbreak in the SPL.
Sunday 17 July 2011
Golfers get it easy
Luke Donald, the worlds number 1 golfer, missed the cut at the British Open. This is the main golf event that an English golfer should want to win. The Wimbledon of golf, as you may. Yet according to the rankings, there is not a better golfer on earth than Luke Donald. Not one player in the field is deemed a better player. Has there been any outrage or criticism? There has not.
Lee Westwood is the world number 2 golfer. He also missed the cut. He has been number 1 for a number of weeks over the last year or so. Yet he, like Donald, has never won a Major. Has there been any outrage or criticism? There has not.
Andy Murray is the worlds 4th best tennis player. In the last three grand slams, he has been knocked out by a higher ranked player. He has been labelled at various times a bottler and faced lots of criticism for the way he has played when it matters.
Major Record
It is harder to win a Major in golf than a Grand Slam in tennis. However, this is compensated by the length of the career. The top Major winner in golf has 18, second 14. The top Grand Slam winner in tennis has 16, the second 14. At 33, Luke Donald would be past it at tennis but is instead entering his prime. Westwood is 38 and still there isn't too much talk of time running out.
Lee Westwood
2nd Place: 2
3rd Place: 4
4th Place: 1
5th -8th: 3
Luke Donald
3rd Place: 2
4th Place: 1
5th-8th: 1
Andy Murray
2nd Place: 3
3/4th (semi final defeat): 4
5-8th (quarter final defeat) 2
Westwood and Murray have similar records. Luke Donald lags behind but has 5 years less than Lee Westwood. None of them have won a Major. All of them have been close and continue to challenge. Now lets look at the google results for:
Andy Murray not good enough
One of the first links is a former World number 1 writing off Andy Murray as not good enough. Another is an opinion in The Guardian stating he isn't good enough. Many of the others are comments after articles. A general theme is that Murray is just not good enough, and his many near misses are evidence of this.
Luke Donald not good enough
The very first link is a declaration that Luke Donald is good enough to be world number 1. There are no newspaper opinion pieces stating that he is not good enough to win a major. The link is not full of people weighing in with opinions that he just simply isn't good enough to win a major. Yet as we have just seen, he has a similar record to Andy Murray in tournaments when it matters.
Lee Westwood not good enough
This is slightly more mixed. However we quickly get a player stating that Lee Westwood is definitely good enough to win a Major by a former player. There is not a complete write off as Westwood as not good enough to win a Major. Yet as we have just seen, he has a similar record to Andy Murray in tournaments when it matters.
Other Events
In World Golf Championsip events, Lee Westwood has never won. He does, however, have three runners up. Luke Donald has won one WGC event. To be fair to Donald, he has won a number of events this year. Yet isn't an ability to do it in smaller events exactly what Andy Murray is hammered for? Luke Donald tore up a links course a week before the Open when he won the Scottish Open. He should have been adequately prepared for tough conditions and links golf, yet was very poor. Since rankings began, there have been 14 players at world number 1 in golf. Twelve of them have won at least one major. The only two not to are Luke Donald and Lee Westwood.
Possible Reasons
1. Unlike tennis, it is very easy for a top golfer to have a bad round or tournament. As you are playing the entire field, and the course, a bad run can ruin an entire tournament. There is no golf equivalent of hauling back a two set deficit to win. Top golfers regularly do miss the cut in big events. However, this should not be seen as a reason to escape criticism altogether. Luke Donald has not even come close in the two majors he has played since becoming world number 1. Having won the Scottish Open, on a links course, he had the best possible preparation. To then miss the cut entirely should really be put down to just not being able to do it when it matters.
2. In tennis, once Andy Murray is out, there is no British interest. In golf, there is still McIlroy, McDowell, Clarke, Casey, Poulter, Fisher etc. It is easy for Westwood and Donald to have a terrible tournament "under the radar" so to speak, as the focus will then move directly to somebody else. Certainly, had Westwood been the only British contender, then there would have been more criticism.
3. It is a far less painful exit. The nature of golf, especially in the first two days, means there is not focus on one particular player or pairing. Nobody "beat" Westwood and Donald as such (rather people bettered their scores). This is far easier to take than watching somebody win the first set, get into a strong position, then completely collapse in tennis. An early exit in tennis means losing to a player that you should be beating, in a match that people actively sit down and pay attention to. In golf, as soon as Westwood and Donald slip out of contention, attention moves to others further up. They don't need to play every shot under the glare of an expectant public.
Conclusion
These factors mean that a British golfer has it quite a bit easier than a British tennis player at the moment. Most of this has to be down to the sheer strength of depth in golf right now. Why criticise Donald and Westwood when we've had a Brit win the very last Major? Why criticise them when another 5 players might challenge for the title? It doesn't change my view that Westwood and Donald are simply not good enough, but it seems they are able to get on with not being good enough out of the entire glare of the media.
Lee Westwood is the world number 2 golfer. He also missed the cut. He has been number 1 for a number of weeks over the last year or so. Yet he, like Donald, has never won a Major. Has there been any outrage or criticism? There has not.
Andy Murray is the worlds 4th best tennis player. In the last three grand slams, he has been knocked out by a higher ranked player. He has been labelled at various times a bottler and faced lots of criticism for the way he has played when it matters.
Major Record
It is harder to win a Major in golf than a Grand Slam in tennis. However, this is compensated by the length of the career. The top Major winner in golf has 18, second 14. The top Grand Slam winner in tennis has 16, the second 14. At 33, Luke Donald would be past it at tennis but is instead entering his prime. Westwood is 38 and still there isn't too much talk of time running out.
Lee Westwood
2nd Place: 2
3rd Place: 4
4th Place: 1
5th -8th: 3
Luke Donald
3rd Place: 2
4th Place: 1
5th-8th: 1
Andy Murray
2nd Place: 3
3/4th (semi final defeat): 4
5-8th (quarter final defeat) 2
Westwood and Murray have similar records. Luke Donald lags behind but has 5 years less than Lee Westwood. None of them have won a Major. All of them have been close and continue to challenge. Now lets look at the google results for:
Andy Murray not good enough
One of the first links is a former World number 1 writing off Andy Murray as not good enough. Another is an opinion in The Guardian stating he isn't good enough. Many of the others are comments after articles. A general theme is that Murray is just not good enough, and his many near misses are evidence of this.
Luke Donald not good enough
The very first link is a declaration that Luke Donald is good enough to be world number 1. There are no newspaper opinion pieces stating that he is not good enough to win a major. The link is not full of people weighing in with opinions that he just simply isn't good enough to win a major. Yet as we have just seen, he has a similar record to Andy Murray in tournaments when it matters.
Lee Westwood not good enough
This is slightly more mixed. However we quickly get a player stating that Lee Westwood is definitely good enough to win a Major by a former player. There is not a complete write off as Westwood as not good enough to win a Major. Yet as we have just seen, he has a similar record to Andy Murray in tournaments when it matters.
Other Events
In World Golf Championsip events, Lee Westwood has never won. He does, however, have three runners up. Luke Donald has won one WGC event. To be fair to Donald, he has won a number of events this year. Yet isn't an ability to do it in smaller events exactly what Andy Murray is hammered for? Luke Donald tore up a links course a week before the Open when he won the Scottish Open. He should have been adequately prepared for tough conditions and links golf, yet was very poor. Since rankings began, there have been 14 players at world number 1 in golf. Twelve of them have won at least one major. The only two not to are Luke Donald and Lee Westwood.
Possible Reasons
1. Unlike tennis, it is very easy for a top golfer to have a bad round or tournament. As you are playing the entire field, and the course, a bad run can ruin an entire tournament. There is no golf equivalent of hauling back a two set deficit to win. Top golfers regularly do miss the cut in big events. However, this should not be seen as a reason to escape criticism altogether. Luke Donald has not even come close in the two majors he has played since becoming world number 1. Having won the Scottish Open, on a links course, he had the best possible preparation. To then miss the cut entirely should really be put down to just not being able to do it when it matters.
2. In tennis, once Andy Murray is out, there is no British interest. In golf, there is still McIlroy, McDowell, Clarke, Casey, Poulter, Fisher etc. It is easy for Westwood and Donald to have a terrible tournament "under the radar" so to speak, as the focus will then move directly to somebody else. Certainly, had Westwood been the only British contender, then there would have been more criticism.
3. It is a far less painful exit. The nature of golf, especially in the first two days, means there is not focus on one particular player or pairing. Nobody "beat" Westwood and Donald as such (rather people bettered their scores). This is far easier to take than watching somebody win the first set, get into a strong position, then completely collapse in tennis. An early exit in tennis means losing to a player that you should be beating, in a match that people actively sit down and pay attention to. In golf, as soon as Westwood and Donald slip out of contention, attention moves to others further up. They don't need to play every shot under the glare of an expectant public.
Conclusion
These factors mean that a British golfer has it quite a bit easier than a British tennis player at the moment. Most of this has to be down to the sheer strength of depth in golf right now. Why criticise Donald and Westwood when we've had a Brit win the very last Major? Why criticise them when another 5 players might challenge for the title? It doesn't change my view that Westwood and Donald are simply not good enough, but it seems they are able to get on with not being good enough out of the entire glare of the media.
Monday 11 July 2011
Ten years of Rankings
World Rankings 16 July 2001
Notable Points:
Gustavo Kuerten was in the middle of 43 weeks at World Number 1. He won 3 Grand Slams, 6 Masters Events and the 2000 end of year Championships. Yet at least one person who I know who is a massive tennis fan had never heard of him. Perhaps the most underrated player of the last 15 years?
Safin, Hewitt and Ferrero were working their way up the rankings, and all would eventually make their way to number 1.
World Rankings 7 July 2002
Notable Points:
Former World Number 1 Kuerten had fallen out of the top 10 altogether.
Hewitt and Safin were now ranked 1 and 2. Hewitt had just won Wimbledon and was expected to dominate tennis for the next few years. He would never again win a Slam again.
Haas at 3 and Henman at 4 really make the top 10 look quite weak. The presence of Costa and Johansson does little to suggest this was a strong era of tennis.
World Rankings 12 July 2003
Notable Points:
8 years on, Federer would still be at world number 3. However, in between times...
Andre Agassi was world number 1 despite being aged 33. He had won the Australian Open and the Miami Masters. Whether this suggests this was a particularly weak era, or an incredibly impressive effort by Agassi is up for debate. Possibly a bit of both.
Jiri Novak is an incredibly unmemorable player, his career highlight being a semi final in the 2002 Australian Open.
Tim Henman was down at 37 in the world and his career thought to be on the way down. The next year would arguably be the best of his career.
12 July 2004
Notable Points:
Another large fall from Number 1 over a year. Its odd in these days of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic dominance to think of somebody falling from number 1 to 10 over 12 months.
Guilermo Coria was the 'King of Clay' and only an epic choke in the French Open Final prevented him winning that. It was all downhill from here.
Tim Henman should have won the French Open this year. In fact it was the only time he lost a Grand Slam semi final to the eventual runner up. It was also, in my opinion, his only choke.
Agassi was a top 10 player at 34. An impressive feat.
12 July 2005
Notable Points:
Federer and Nadal would not be outside the top 4 for the next 6 years (and counting). Roddick would also be in the top 10 6 years on. Only 1 player (Agassi) featured in both 2005 and 1999.
Andre Agassi was in the top at aged 35! He would go on to reach the final of the US Open. What chances Federer having similar longevity?
Thomas Johansson was back in the top 10 for the first time since he won the Australian Open in 2002. He is comfortably the least impressive slam winner of the 2000s and a perfect lesson in being born at the correct time to maximise a career.
Andy Murray was at 205 (two places behind fellow Brit Mark Hilton). Novak Djokovic was at 96.
10 July 2006
| 1 | Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) | 4,075 | 0 | 21 |
| 2 | Safin, Marat (RUS) | 3,805 | 0 | 26 |
| 3 | Agassi, Andre (USA) | 3,795 | 0 | 19 |
| 4 | Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) | 2,960 | 0 | 23 |
| 5 | Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) | 2,905 | 0 | 24 |
| 6 | Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) | 2,645 | 0 | 31 |
| 7 | Grosjean, Sebastien (FRA) | 2,350 | 0 | 25 |
| 8 | Henman, Tim (GBR) | 2,295 | 0 | 25 |
| 9 | Corretja, Alex (ESP) | 2,275 | 0 | 26 |
| 10 | Rafter, Patrick (AUS) | 2,120 | 0 | 21 |
Notable Points:
Gustavo Kuerten was in the middle of 43 weeks at World Number 1. He won 3 Grand Slams, 6 Masters Events and the 2000 end of year Championships. Yet at least one person who I know who is a massive tennis fan had never heard of him. Perhaps the most underrated player of the last 15 years?
Safin, Hewitt and Ferrero were working their way up the rankings, and all would eventually make their way to number 1.
World Rankings 7 July 2002
| 1 | Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) | 5,110 | 0 | 20 |
| 2 | Safin, Marat (RUS) | 3,095 | 0 | 24 |
| 3 | Haas, Tommy (GER) | 2,990 | 0 | 24 |
| 4 | Henman, Tim (GBR) | 2,605 | 0 | 20 |
| 5 | Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) | 2,575 | 0 | 28 |
| 6 | Agassi, Andre (USA) | 2,310 | 0 | 20 |
| 7 | Costa, Albert (ESP) | 2,290 | 0 | 23 |
| 8 | Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) | 2,165 | 0 | 25 |
| 9 | Johansson, Thomas (SWE) | 1,960 | 0 | 24 |
| 10 | Grosjean, Sebastien (FRA) | 1,945 | 0 | 24 |
Notable Points:
Former World Number 1 Kuerten had fallen out of the top 10 altogether.
Hewitt and Safin were now ranked 1 and 2. Hewitt had just won Wimbledon and was expected to dominate tennis for the next few years. He would never again win a Slam again.
Haas at 3 and Henman at 4 really make the top 10 look quite weak. The presence of Costa and Johansson does little to suggest this was a strong era of tennis.
World Rankings 12 July 2003
| 1 | Agassi, Andre (USA) | 4,090 | 0 | 20 |
| 2 | Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) | 3,875 | 0 | 23 |
| 3 | Federer, Roger (SUI) | 3,575 | 0 | 26 |
| 4 | Moya, Carlos (ESP) | 3,095 | 0 | 24 |
| 5 | Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) | 2,945 | 0 | 19 |
| 6 | Roddick, Andy (USA) | 2,765 | 0 | 22 |
| 7 | Coria, Guillermo (ARG) | 2,250 | 0 | 23 |
| 8 | Schuettler, Rainer (GER) | 2,000 | 0 | 30 |
| 9 | Novak, Jiri (CZE) | 1,980 | 1 | 27 |
| 10 | Grosjean, Sebastien (FRA) | 1,950 | -1 | 21 |
Notable Points:
8 years on, Federer would still be at world number 3. However, in between times...
Andre Agassi was world number 1 despite being aged 33. He had won the Australian Open and the Miami Masters. Whether this suggests this was a particularly weak era, or an incredibly impressive effort by Agassi is up for debate. Possibly a bit of both.
Jiri Novak is an incredibly unmemorable player, his career highlight being a semi final in the 2002 Australian Open.
Tim Henman was down at 37 in the world and his career thought to be on the way down. The next year would arguably be the best of his career.
12 July 2004
| 1 | Federer, Roger (SUI) | 5,665 | 0 | 20 |
| 2 | Roddick, Andy (USA) | 4,945 | 0 | 23 |
| 3 | Coria, Guillermo (ARG) | 3,770 | 0 | 24 |
| 4 | Moya, Carlos (ESP) | 2,610 | 0 | 25 |
| 5 | Henman, Tim (GBR) | 2,505 | 0 | 20 |
| 6 | Nalbandian, David (ARG) | 2,475 | 0 | 18 |
| 7 | Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) | 2,435 | 0 | 21 |
| 8 | Schuettler, Rainer (GER) | 2,190 | 0 | 29 |
| 9 | Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) | 1,990 | 0 | 17 |
| 10 | Agassi, Andre (USA) | 1,905 | 0 | 18 |
Notable Points:
Another large fall from Number 1 over a year. Its odd in these days of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic dominance to think of somebody falling from number 1 to 10 over 12 months.
Guilermo Coria was the 'King of Clay' and only an epic choke in the French Open Final prevented him winning that. It was all downhill from here.
Tim Henman should have won the French Open this year. In fact it was the only time he lost a Grand Slam semi final to the eventual runner up. It was also, in my opinion, his only choke.
Agassi was a top 10 player at 34. An impressive feat.
12 July 2005
| 1 | Federer, Roger (SUI) | 6,980 | 0 | 20 |
| 2 | Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) | 3,840 | 0 | 20 |
| 3 | Nadal, Rafael (ESP) | 3,750 | 0 | 26 |
| 4 | Roddick, Andy (USA) | 3,590 | 0 | 21 |
| 5 | Safin, Marat (RUS) | 3,265 | 0 | 23 |
| 6 | Agassi, Andre (USA) | 2,275 | 0 | 19 |
| 7 | Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) | 2,115 | 0 | 31 |
| 8 | Canas, Guillermo (ARG) | 2,070 | 0 | 20 |
| 9 | Johansson, Thomas (SWE) | 1,688 | 0 | 26 |
| 10 | Nalbandian, David (ARG) | 1,635 | 0 | 21 |
Notable Points:
Federer and Nadal would not be outside the top 4 for the next 6 years (and counting). Roddick would also be in the top 10 6 years on. Only 1 player (Agassi) featured in both 2005 and 1999.
Andre Agassi was in the top at aged 35! He would go on to reach the final of the US Open. What chances Federer having similar longevity?
Thomas Johansson was back in the top 10 for the first time since he won the Australian Open in 2002. He is comfortably the least impressive slam winner of the 2000s and a perfect lesson in being born at the correct time to maximise a career.
Andy Murray was at 205 (two places behind fellow Brit Mark Hilton). Novak Djokovic was at 96.
10 July 2006
| 1 | Federer, Roger (SUI) | 7,260 | 0 | 18 |
| 2 | Nadal, Rafael (ESP) | 5,125 | 0 | 19 |
| 3 | Nalbandian, David (ARG) | 3,185 | 0 | 18 |
| 4 | Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) | 3,125 | 0 | 21 |
| 5 | Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) | 2,165 | 0 | 31 |
| 6 | Blake, James (USA) | 2,155 | 0 | 24 |
| 7 | Ancic, Mario (CRO) | 1,985 | 0 | 24 |
| 8 | Stepanek, Radek (CZE) | 1,925 | 0 | 25 |
| 9 | Robredo, Tommy (ESP) | 1,915 | 0 | 26 |
| 10 | Baghdatis, Marcos (CYP) | 1,857 | 0 | 24 |
Notable Points
Easily the weakest top 10 of the decade. Only two players here won Slams, only 4 reached finals. Robredo, Blake and Stepanek never even made the semi finals of a slam.
Federer and Nadal won all the Slams this year, and 6 of the 9 Masters Events.
This was a rare occasion where Andy Roddick was out of the top 10. A particularly poor Wimbledon, where he lost early to Andy Murray, was the cause. However, between October 2002 and August 2010, this was one of only 4 weeks where he was not in the top 10.
Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray were at 35 and 36 respectively.
9 July 2007
Djokovic was established as the third best player in the world. Andy Murray had broken into the top 10 in May, but a wrist injury caused him to miss the French Open and Wimbledon.
21 year old Richard Gasquet and 22 year old Thomas Berdych might have been expected to push on a bit further from this stage, but neither is ranked all that much higher four years on. Gasquet in particular was very highly rated and had just come off a Wimbledon semi final. A two set collapse to Murray a year later, and an odd cocaine incident saw his career derailed slightly.
Federer was still fairly comfortable at number 1, having defeated Nadal at Wimbledon. He would go on to beat Djokovic at the US Open.
14 July 2008
Federer was still number 1, but defeat at Wimbledon and a hammering at the French Open meant Nadal was the top player in all but ranking. A month later he would become the first player since February 2004 to dethrone Federer.
Andy Murray wasn't really giving any indication he was about to win two of the next three Masters Events and get to the US Open final, reaching 4 in the world and remaining there or thereabouts forever more.
James Blake was top 10 for the third consecutive year. Probably not expected as he never seemed to do all that much.
Juan Martin Del Potro was only 44 in the world but about to make a major impact with four consecutive tennis wins.
13 July 2009
Andy Murray was two games away from being World Number 1 at Wimbledon. He would soon make 2 but never get so close again.
Roger Federer is back at number 1, but only as a result of Nadals knee injury that caused him to miss Wimbledon.
The big 4 are firmly established, with Del Potro posed to stun Federer at the US Open and make it a big 5 for a short while.
Tsonga, Simon and Verdasco are all well placed to push on to an extra level but never quite managed it.
12 July 2010
Compared to 2009, where there was almost nothing between the top 3, Nadal has established a comfortable lead over the rest. He would go on to win the US Open to hold three of the four slams.
Robin Soderling lurks dangerously close to reaching number 4, which he will eventually do temporarily for a few weeks. Few actually felt he was properly part of the top 4, however.
Juan Martin Del Potro is 7th despite not playing for 6 months.
Novak Djokovic has finally pushed Federer as far down as third, and will go on to beat him at the US Open to cement that.
11 July 2011
Novak Djokovic has finally reached the world number 1 ranking his performances all year have deserved.
A two month slump means Murray is well off the pace in 4th, but the top 4 as a whole have dominated proceedings this year.
The rest of the top 10 looks quite weak again. Mardy Fish and Gael Monfils are not the sort of players to really challenge the top 4.
Andy Roddick is possibly in the top 10 for the last time.
Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray were at 35 and 36 respectively.
9 July 2007
| 1 | Federer, Roger (SUI) | 7,290 | 0 | 17 |
| 2 | Nadal, Rafael (ESP) | 5,225 | 0 | 19 |
| 3 | Djokovic, Novak (SRB) | 3,310 | 0 | 22 |
| 4 | Roddick, Andy (USA) | 3,230 | 0 | 21 |
| 5 | Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) | 3,185 | 0 | 28 |
| 6 | Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) | 2,780 | 0 | 19 |
| 7 | Gasquet, Richard (FRA) | 2,220 | 0 | 23 |
| 8 | Robredo, Tommy (ESP) | 2,200 | 0 | 25 |
| 9 | Blake, James (USA) | 2,075 | 0 | 25 |
| 10 | Berdych, Tomas (CZE) | 2,045 | 0 | 21 |
Djokovic was established as the third best player in the world. Andy Murray had broken into the top 10 in May, but a wrist injury caused him to miss the French Open and Wimbledon.
21 year old Richard Gasquet and 22 year old Thomas Berdych might have been expected to push on a bit further from this stage, but neither is ranked all that much higher four years on. Gasquet in particular was very highly rated and had just come off a Wimbledon semi final. A two set collapse to Murray a year later, and an odd cocaine incident saw his career derailed slightly.
Federer was still fairly comfortable at number 1, having defeated Nadal at Wimbledon. He would go on to beat Djokovic at the US Open.
14 July 2008
| 1 | Federer, Roger (SUI) | 6,600 | 0 | 18 |
| 2 | Nadal, Rafael (ESP) | 6,055 | 0 | 20 |
| 3 | Djokovic, Novak (SRB) | 4,945 | 0 | 19 |
| 4 | Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) | 2,970 | 1 | 27 |
| 5 | Ferrer, David (ESP) | 2,945 | -1 | 26 |
| 6 | Roddick, Andy (USA) | 2,065 | 0 | 21 |
| 7 | Nalbandian, David (ARG) | 2,030 | 0 | 20 |
| 8 | Blake, James (USA) | 1,975 | 0 | 24 |
| 9 | Murray, Andy (GBR) | 1,805 | 0 | 22 |
| 10 | Wawrinka, Stanislas (SUI) | 1,785 | 0 | 25 |
Federer was still number 1, but defeat at Wimbledon and a hammering at the French Open meant Nadal was the top player in all but ranking. A month later he would become the first player since February 2004 to dethrone Federer.
Andy Murray wasn't really giving any indication he was about to win two of the next three Masters Events and get to the US Open final, reaching 4 in the world and remaining there or thereabouts forever more.
James Blake was top 10 for the third consecutive year. Probably not expected as he never seemed to do all that much.
Juan Martin Del Potro was only 44 in the world but about to make a major impact with four consecutive tennis wins.
13 July 2009
| 1 | Federer, Roger (SUI) | 11,220 | 0 | 17 |
| 2 | Nadal, Rafael (ESP) | 10,735 | 0 | 18 |
| 3 | Murray, Andy (GBR) | 9,450 | 0 | 21 |
| 4 | Djokovic, Novak (SRB) | 8,150 | 0 | 23 |
| 5 | Roddick, Andy (USA) | 5,440 | 1 | 23 |
| 6 | Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG) | 5,425 | -1 | 23 |
| 7 | Simon, Gilles (FRA) | 4,000 | 0 | 28 |
| 8 | Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) | 3,600 | 0 | 24 |
| 9 | Verdasco, Fernando (ESP) | 3,500 | 0 | 24 |
| 10 | Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) | 3,185 | 0 | 18 |
Andy Murray was two games away from being World Number 1 at Wimbledon. He would soon make 2 but never get so close again.
Roger Federer is back at number 1, but only as a result of Nadals knee injury that caused him to miss Wimbledon.
The big 4 are firmly established, with Del Potro posed to stun Federer at the US Open and make it a big 5 for a short while.
Tsonga, Simon and Verdasco are all well placed to push on to an extra level but never quite managed it.
12 July 2010
| 1 | Nadal, Rafael (ESP) | 10,745 | 0 | 18 |
| 2 | Djokovic, Novak (SRB) | 6,905 | 0 | 21 |
| 3 | Federer, Roger (SUI) | 6,885 | 0 | 20 |
| 4 | Murray, Andy (GBR) | 5,155 | 0 | 17 |
| 5 | Soderling, Robin (SWE) | 4,935 | 0 | 25 |
| 6 | Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) | 4,740 | 0 | 26 |
| 7 | Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG) | 4,270 | 0 | 16 |
| 8 | Berdych, Tomas (CZE) | 3,780 | 0 | 25 |
| 9 | Roddick, Andy (USA) | 3,490 | 0 | 20 |
| 10 | Verdasco, Fernando (ESP) | 3,475 | 0 | 25 |
Compared to 2009, where there was almost nothing between the top 3, Nadal has established a comfortable lead over the rest. He would go on to win the US Open to hold three of the four slams.
Robin Soderling lurks dangerously close to reaching number 4, which he will eventually do temporarily for a few weeks. Few actually felt he was properly part of the top 4, however.
Juan Martin Del Potro is 7th despite not playing for 6 months.
Novak Djokovic has finally pushed Federer as far down as third, and will go on to beat him at the US Open to cement that.
11 July 2011
| 1 | Djokovic, Novak (SRB) | 13,155 | 0 | 18 |
| 2 | Nadal, Rafael (ESP) | 11,270 | 0 | 22 |
| 3 | Federer, Roger (SUI) | 9,230 | 0 | 21 |
| 4 | Murray, Andy (GBR) | 6,855 | 0 | 20 |
| 5 | Soderling, Robin (SWE) | 4,325 | 0 | 25 |
| 6 | Ferrer, David (ESP) | 4,150 | 0 | 24 |
| 7 | Monfils, Gael (FRA) | 2,755 | 0 | 21 |
| 8 | Berdych, Tomas (CZE) | 2,470 | 1 | 26 |
| 9 | Fish, Mardy (USA) | 2,435 | -1 | 20 |
| 10 | Roddick, Andy (USA) | 2,110 | 0 | 21 |
Novak Djokovic has finally reached the world number 1 ranking his performances all year have deserved.
A two month slump means Murray is well off the pace in 4th, but the top 4 as a whole have dominated proceedings this year.
The rest of the top 10 looks quite weak again. Mardy Fish and Gael Monfils are not the sort of players to really challenge the top 4.
Andy Roddick is possibly in the top 10 for the last time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)