Who What Where When How?

On Friday Novak Djokovic played tennis for four hours and fifty minutes. This is only about 30 minutes short of the longest semi-final in tennis. Two days later he was on court for five hours and fifty three minutes, breaking the previous record for longest final by over an hour. He was on court for ten hours and 43 minutes in two matches alone. And while utterly irrelevant to the rest of the article, it should be noted that it was about as much time on court in two matches as the womens champion spent on court in the entire tournament. So much for "equal" prize money.

While it is far too early to have any sense of perspective to be able to properly define just how incredible an achievement this Slam victory was, there are certainly a few points that can be made.

• This was by no means the greatest match of all time quality-wise. While allowances probably should be made for the difference in surface, the 2008 Wimbledon final included 149 winners and 79 unforced errors. Today's match included 101 winners and 140 unforced errors, the most noticeable of which was Nadal missing with a simple backhand in the fifth set. But the match today was not about who played the best tennis, it was simply about who would be the last man standing. It was an endurance test like no other, while still playing tennis that would have beaten every other tennis player on the planet right now.

• The stats show how Nadal had switched his game plan in the last few months. Djokovic hit 57 winners, Nadal hit 44. In the US Open last year Djokovic hit 55 winners in 4 sets, Nadal 32. Nadal made 71 unforced errors compared to only 37 at the US Open final. Djokovic made only 57, compared to 55 in the US Open. Nadal was going for aggressive tennis but was making too many errors as a result. Djokovic was going for his shots less, and as a result was hitting less winners but also making less errors. Given how close Nadal was to winning it is an approach he should persist with. He turns only 10 of those unforced errors into winners and he is likely winning the match. In fact today, he only had to turn one unforced error into a winner and he would likely have won.

• Has anybody, in any other sport, ever done what Djokovic has done the last two days? For a start any footballer that complains about playing twice a week should consider this. While I am sure absolutely no stat exists for this, I am certain in both his semi final and final Djokovic was "in play" for near 90 minutes. In addition to the sheer endurance Djokovic has battled back from two sets to one down in the semi-final, while saving three break points at 5-5 in the fifth set, then came back from a break down in the fifth set in the final. He is the tennis Rasputin, incapable of being finished off no matter what the opposition throw at him.

• The top four appear to be pushing each other to ever higher levels. A year ago Murray was defeated in straight sets in quite frankly embarrassing circumstances. This year he was more or less a point away, or at the very least a competent start to the fourth set away, from defeating Djokovic. Nadal may have now lost the last seven finals to Djokovic but he was able to push him all the way this time. Ferrer might well be right when he noted that the gap cannot be closed.

• As for Murray's semi final, the stats again suggest a more aggressive approach to his game. Unfortunately the current approach seems to be leading to more unforced errors than before. At the US Open semi final Murray made 55 unforced errors while hitting 44 winners. Murray hit only 47 winners against Djokovic while making 89 unforced errors. Yet Djokovic made 69 unforced errors compared to Nadals 23 in the US Open. While the idea is that "unforced errors" are by their nature unforced, I would argue that the aggressive play Murray presented was indeed 'forcing' these unforced errors from Djokovic. You will either understand what I mean or think that is the stupidest suggestion ever made. 

• Regardless of the end result, Murrays performance has to be encouraging. He was far calmer throughout and the aggressive tennis was paying off. I was concerned that Djokovic would perhaps capitulate against Nadal, suggesting that he only ran Novak close because he was so far off form. Djokovics astonishing victory suggests to me there is now a legitimate big four when it comes to slams.

• Federer only won one of his 16 Grand Slams by beating Nadal/Djokovic/Murray in consecutive matches. Djokovic has won three. By the time he beat Ferrer in the quarters, Djokovic had already won the equivalent of a 'Federer Slam' in 2005 and 2006 or so. He then had to play a further 10 hours on court to beat Murray then Nadal. There is an argument that winning a Slam now is worth three times what it was in 2004, and any "Greatest of all Time" discussions would do well to keep that mind.

• The tennis was so good that Arsenal coming back from 2-0 down seemed positively boring in comparison. 

• Finally, the BBC showed two matches this tournament and cut away from the presentation to show bowls. They do not deserve this standard of sport at all. For shame BBC, for shame.

THE BIG FOUR DOMINATION: RUINING TENNIS?

For the second consecutive Grand Slam and for the third time in four, the top 4 seeds are contesting the semi finals. Although this time the matches are different, because the Australian Open organisers blundered terribly and forgot to draw Nadal and Murray in the same half, once again the last men standing are Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray. Over the next few days we will be treated to two incredible games of tennis and a routine straight sets victory for Djokovic. It is only the third time it has happened in Australian Open history, yet it is becoming routine.

Obviously by this stage of the tournament the tennis will be anything but boring. No matter how many times they play each other you can never get enough of the top 4 battling it out in a Slam. The stories that can unfold will all be interesting. Will Murray finally break through? Is Federer back and just how ridiculous an article would Kevin Mitchell of the Guardian write if he did win? Does Nadal still have Federers number? However just how much of the tournament has actually been exciting. Increasingly the other 124 entrants have the feeling of the SPL also-rans, turning up without even the slightest hope or expectation of even reaching a final.

Even a couple of years back it was likely one of Murray and Djokovic would lose early on. Recently however, the current top 4 have taken consistency in Grand Slams to a level that has rarely been seen before. There is still the odd moment, such as Isner v Nadal at the French, or Haase v Murray at the US Open, where there are early worries, but increasingly the top 4 prevail. Any unseeded player is unlikely to progress far and there is no hope of a qualifier going on to reach a semi or a final.

STATS


Between the four of them in Australia, they have won 57 sets to 3. At no point have any of them faced any real trouble. Murray dropped the first set to Harrison in round 1 and hasn't been troubled since, Djokovic dropped one to Hewitt and Nadal lost a set to Berdych.

Such is their dominance that when the world number 5 Ferrer faced Djokovic this morning, Djokovics odds were 1.11 to win.

In 2011, 6 different players made it to a Grand Slam semi final. In 1995 there were 10 different Grand Slam semi-finalists. In 2000, there were 12. In 2005, there were 10. The last time one of the top 4 fell before the quarter finals was Andy Murray's horror show against Wawrinka in the 2010 US open. Yet in 1995 world number 1 Pete Sampras lost in the first round at Paris. In 2000 world number 1 Gustavo Kuerten lost in the first round at Australia and the US Open. In 2005 players like Mariano Puerta were making Slam finals.

Since 1970, 5 players have made all four grand slam finals in a year. Ivan Lendl, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Roger Federer.

Six players have made five consecutive grand slam semi finals: Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Roger Federer.

The last unseeded players to make a Slam semi final were Marat Safin and Rainer Schuttler at Wimbledon 2008. In 2005 alone there were five, including two qualifiers.

The last unseeded player to make a Slam final was Tsonga in 2008 Australian Open. There was 1 in 2006 (Baghdatis), 1 in 2005 (Puerta), 1 in 2004 (Gaudio), 2 in 2003 (Phillipoussis and Verkerk).

The last time one of the "big four" players lost in the first round of a slam was Andy Murray in Australia in 2008. The last time one of the top 4 seeds went out in the first round was Andy Roddick in the French Open in 2007. It happened four times in 1995.

IS THIS RUINING TENNIS?

Obviously it isn't. The mere fact there are four of them means that the big tournaments are always exciting. Any of the top three could win any Slam and they usually find the most exciting and dramatic of ways to do so. Nobody is desperate for the days of Federer beating some random guy from the crowd in straight sets in a Slam final. If anything it has driven the profile of tennis higher and in five years when things open up we will miss these times.

But increasingly there is some predictability creeping in. The form they show in Slams is translating into the regular tour as well. Federer is on a 24 match winning streak (ish, he did withdraw from a match but didn't lose), Murray has won 36 of his last 40 matches and Djokovic went 42 matches without defeat earlier on in 2011. The Asian swing was dominated by Murray without much in the way of epic matches. Federer then took control at the end of the season winning every event he entered. After his loss today, David Ferrer lamented that the gap between the top four and the rest could not be closed. Somebody switching on the Australian Open for the first time tomorrow will essentially have missed absolutely nothing of consequence. For all intents and purposes the tournament begins tomorrow.

As a final point to just how much further ahead than the rest they are, there was only one tournament in 2011 which featured one or more of Murray, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic which wasn't ultimately won by them...

WHY PEOPLE CLING TO 'VINTAGE FEDERER'

A couple of months ago Roger Federer won the World Tour Finals. This end of season event, which features the top 8 players in the world, is supposed to be second only to Grand Slams in prestige and with this victory many were quick to proclaim Federer as back to his best. Yet it was surely obvious to many that this was not vintage Federer in any sense. The 2012 incarnation of Federer is not as good as 2005 Federer, for many reasons. While Federer is doing well to maintain a good level against much tougher opposition in his earlier days he cannot be considered anywhere near his best. So why does every good result by Federer bring out an outpouring of emotion about how he is back to his best?

THE DEBATE

Recently, this blog appeared on the BBC website. The usually excellent Jonathan Overend decided he couldn't be bothered doing a proper blog and decided to lazily blog about whether Federer was now playing better than ever. He cites various reasons including that the standard has improved all round, players now believe he can be beaten and some sort of ridiculous argument (peddled by many Fed fans) that because he was so close to beating Djokovic at the US Open then that counts as a win...

Now a quick look at the stats show that in 2005 , Federer lost four matches. He lost to Safin, Gasquet, Nadal and Nalbandian. In 2006, he lost only to Nadal and Murray. In 2011, Federer lost 12 matches (11 if you decide he did beat Djokovic in the US Open. Note to Federer fans, he didn't). These were defeats to Davydenko, Djokovic (four times ), Nadal (twice), Melzer, Gasquet, Tsonga (twice) and Berdych. In 2010, he lost thirteen times, including defeats to Gulbis, Hewitt and Montanes. Even taking into account the strength of the game now, there is no disputing that Federer is losing more matches. It was 2007 the last time Federer lost less than 10 matches in a season.

Even allowing for the increase in quality in the game there is no disputing that Federer is not as good as he was. Had Murray and Djokovic not broken through Federer would still have won less tournaments and less matches. He would still have lost in the Quarter Finals at Wimbledon in both 2010 and 2011, an unheard of result back in 05/06. He lost to somebody who wasn't Nadal at the French Open for the first time in 4 years in 2010. He was very close to a first round exit at Wimbledon in 2010. He hasn't won Indian Wells, Miami or the Rogers Cup since 2005.

2011 had been another disappointing season prior to the World Tour Finals. He had slipped further back from Nadal and Djokovic and blown the French Open final. He came into the World Tour Finals ranked 4th in the world. It was soon abundantly clear that Djokovic, Nadal and Murray were struggling with fitness and all of them crashed out early. Federer struggled past Ferrer and Tsonga to clinch the title. It was hardly vintage and indeed showed Federers frailty as he let match points go before losing the second set to Tsonga. The tennis world then went insane:

"Federer has realistic ambitions of being number one again"
Federer shows little sign of decline
Federer proves he is back to his brilliant best

amongst other absurd statements. A mere month earlier, Murray had beaten a similar field to win the Shanghai Masters. Nobody cared and Federer himself said "I'm not taking anything away from what he did but was Asia the strongest this year? I'm not sure, I wasn't there and (in Shanghai) Rafa lost early." Yet Federer wins a similarly poor tournament and the tennis world goes mad. Why is that?

THE STORY


There is a type of tennis fan I would like to punch repeatedly in the face. This is the fan who only knows of Wimbledon, who criticises Murray for both "hating the English" and "having no sense of humour" without a sense of irony, and who love Roger Federer. They have been consistently bleating that Federer is back to his best every time he wins any match against anybody. But after the World Tour Finals this love of Federer  (who is arrogant, classless, carefully tailors himself to appeal to those who only have a passing interest in tennis and has an horrificly ugly wife) and the desire to have him back at the top of the tennis world seemed to appear everywhere.

The simple fact is that Federer is now declining. The 2008 Wimbledon final will never be repeated. While Federer v Nadal matches are still exciting, they do not hold the same aura as they once did. Yet the almost the entire tennis world is clinging on to the notion that there will be a repeat of the 2008 Wimbledon final, but this time it will be better. The media and all those involved want to be there for the next great story of tennis, and Federer being number one is integral to this story.

For years they have been used to Federer producing moments of magic and ridiculous results, dare I say it making the stories speak for themselves. Then Nadal came along and the supposed 'greatest of all time' had a rival. At Wimbledon 2008, the story was complete and Nadal beat Federer where he was most at home, Wimbledon itself. Part-time tennis fans everywhere wept and cursed Murrays anti-Englishenss. Since then, there hasn't been the same narrative. Federer has faded, briefly come back when Nadal is injured, and is now comfortably the third best player in the world. Djokovics dominance is impressive but doesn't hold the same lustre as it did when Federer was doing it.

Therefore, the tennis world is pining for another final Federer moment. The need for one more story so they can say "I was there when Federer did it, and it was incredible". This could still happen. It isn't impossible to envisage a 35 year old Federer making one final dint at the Wimbledon title before retiring. But right now there is not a story. Federer is not going to return to number 1. He may not win a Slam this year. The response to the World Tour Finals was simply seeing something that wasn't there in the hope he could go back to dominating.

NOSTALGIA


There is a second string to this theory. Nostalgia being what it is, everything in the past seemed better. Plenty will be watching tennis thinking it was better a few years ago when Federer was winning all the time. The days were longer, the summer was warmer, there were less kids on the street and the economy wasn't ruined. Therefore it would be great if Federer was winning everything again. Many fans are simply pining for the time when Federer was dominating the sport as to them, it was better then. As a result, every good result he gets is examined for signs of him being back to his best in the hope he will go on to dominate everything again.

OTHER SPORTS

This sort of feeling is prevalent in other sports. I imagine many a casual observer was bemused as the Zidane at the 2006 World Cup show unfolded. Zidane was to lead France to the World Cup title in his final act as a player was the story. For two games Zidane huffed and puffed as France struggled and was suspended for the final group game. Then France beat Spain 3-1 in the Quarters, with Zidane himself scoring the third in injury time. The Guardian noted that this was "one of his best displays". In the next round, he was again lauded as 'magnificent' as France went on to beat Brazil. No matter what he did, it had been decided Zidane was back to his best and that was the story. Ultimately France went on to lose the final, but not after Zidane had given everybody an entirely different story.

Continuing the theme in football was the return of Thierry Henry to Arsenal. Chucked on as a substitute against Championship Leeds, Henry scored the winning goal. Rather than merely accepting "ageing star still too good for Championship", the world went a bit Henry crazy. "Look, here is Henry, who we thought we'd never see again, playing and he is just as good as before. He still has it." There was a wave of nostalgia, not half because when Henry had played Arsenal were successful. Many were clinging on to the idea of Henry scoring somehow bringing the glory days back. In his next match he gave away the winning goal and fell out with a fan, then got injured, but it didn't matter by then.

There is a similar story in golf right now. Tiger Woods dominated the sports for well over a decade while also shagging everything that moved. Once the world found out about the latter, his game collapsed and he went two years without winning anything. Where he once looked certain to beat Jack Nicklaus record of 18 Majors, it now looked almost impossible. He slipped outside the world top 50. Then, towards the end of 2011, Woods took part in a small fielded invitational event (like the World Tour Finals, anybody good was either injured or elsewhere). He won and people were quick to declare that "Tiger was back". People were desperate for Tiger to create another story to match his "Tiger slam", while also nostalgic for the days when Woods swept everybody aside with some majestic golf.

CONCLUSION


Next time somebody tells you Federer could go back to the number one spot, ask them to name a tournament other than Wimbledon. If they can't, punch them repeatedly in the face while shouting "ANYONE BUT ENGLAND" at them. If they can, then maybe let them off. They are just desperate to be involved in another great tennis story.

Federer and his ridiculous Grand Slam victories

Roger Federer has won 16 Grand Slams. Given the opportunity he would no doubt love to tell you he was the greatest of all time. Earlier today, he all but won the Australian Open with a routine straight sets victory over Tomic. It should also be noted that Federer has strong feelings over tournaments where the competition isn't strong. When Murray won 3 tournaments in a row to overtake him at World Number 3, Federer threw his many toys out of a rather larger pram. However, lets have a look at the competition Federer had when he won most of his Grand Slams.

Wimbledon 2003


2003 was a bad year for tennis. A 33 year old Andre Agassi was world number 1 for a while and at the French Open Martin Vererk managed to reach the final. That is the equivalent of Santiago Giraldo reaching a Grand Slam final today. At Wimbledon, Roger Federer was number 4 seed behind Juan Carlos Ferrero, Lleyton Hewitt and Andre Agassi. Such was the weakness in the game at that stage defending champion Hewitt lost to a qualifier in the first round. This is the route Federer had to victory:

Round 1 d H-T Lee 6-3 6-3 7-6
Round 2 d Koubek 7-5 6-1 6-1
Round 3 d Fish 6-3 6-1 4-6 6-1
Round 4 d Lopez 7-6 6-4 6-4
Quarters d Schalken 6-3 6-4 6-4
Semi d Roddick 7-6 6-3 6-3
Final d Philippoussis 7-6 6-2 7-6.

Schalken! Philippoussis! It is a line up these days that would win you a 500 event, not even a Masters Event. This was an event where Alex Popp made the quarter finals. As far as people to play in a Grand Slam final go, you can not really say fairer than Mark Philippoussis. Not exactly a run of Tsonga, Djokovic then Nadal that Murray could face in Melbourne.

2004 US Open

A year later and Federer had added the Australian Open and a second Wimbledon to his grand slam haul. Neither were particularly impressive victories but he did at least have to battle against some of the better players at the time. In particular he did well to beat Ferrero then Safin in Australia in 2004. However the US Open 2004 was back to being a particular stroll.

Round 1 d Costa 7-5 6-2 6-4
Round 2 d Baghdatis 6-2 6-7 6-3 6-1
Round 3 d Santoro 6-0 6-4 7-6
Round 4 d Pavel w/o
Quarters d Agassi 6-3 2-6 7-5 3-6 6-3
Semi d Henman 6-3 6-4 6-4
Final d Hewitt 6-0 7-6 6-0

A 34 year old Agassi, a 30 year old Henman on hard court, and Hewitt. Those were the three players Federer had to beat to secure his first US open. While Hewitt was still a decent player it should be noted he beat Joachim Johansson in the semi finals. This sort of period could see all sorts of weird and wonderful players getting deep into Slams. Tim Henman managed to reach the semi finals at the French and the US Open and Gaston Gaudio won a slam. Among the top seeds at this event were Carlos Moya, Rainer Schuttler and Nicolas Massu.

2006 Australian Open


By 2006 Nadal had emerged and won a slam, but was missing with a foot injury. Defending champion Safin was also injured. Murray and Djokovic were on tour but neither got past the first round. Guilermo Coria and Gaston Gaudio were still top 10 in the world. Essentially nobody good was at this event. Federer had a stroll through a weakened field.

Round 1 d Istomin 6-2 6-3 6-2
Round 2 d Mayer 6-1 6-0 6-4
Round 3 d Mirnyi 6-3 6-4 6-3
Round 4 d Haas 6-4 6-0 3-6 4-6 6-2
Quarters d Davydenko 6-4 4-6 7-6 7-6
Semis d Kiefer 6-5 5-7 6-0 6-2
Final d Baghdatis 5-7 7-5 6-0 6-2

Once again Federer had an astonishingly easy route through to victory. The days of winning a Slam by beating Kiefer then Baghdatis are long gone.  Federer defeated the 21st seed in the semi finals and the world number 54 in the Final. Or the equivalent of beating Wawrinka then Oliver Rochus in the 2012 Australian Open semi and final. It isn't ridiculous to suggest all of the top 8 today would  have won the 2006 Australian Open.

2006 Wimbledon


Federer was now under threat from the first good player in a number of years to emerge, Rafael Nadal. Nadal seemed to have his number on clay, but Federer was the king on grass. Tennis in 2006, outside the top two, was still weak. Ivan Ljubicic, James Blake and Mario Ancic were in the top 8 seeds. While Federer did eventually beat Nadal in the final, lets have a quick look at his route there.

Round 1 d Gasquet 6-3 6-2 6-2
Round 2 d Henman 6-4 6-0 6-2
Round 3 d Mahut 6-3 7-6 6-4
Round 4 d Berdych 6-3 6-3 6-4
Quarters d Ancic 6-4 6-4 6-4
Semis d Bjorkman 6-2 6-0 6-2
Final d Nadal 6-0 7-6 6-7 6-3.

Not much more needs to be said beyond pointing out Bjorkman was in the semis. While he did at least have to beat Nadal to win the event, this was hardly peak Nadal. Compare that to 2011, when Murray faced peak Nadal three times in the semi finals, and had he won would have had to beat Djokovic in the final. How he would love a stroll past an unseeded 30-something doubles specialist every so often.

2009 Wimbledon


A more recent tournament here, notable because Nadal was out injured. This was perhaps an example of a draw opening up nicely rather than everybody being shit, but it still merits a mention. Especially as Federer was dismissive of Murrays victories on the basis "Rafa lost early" so definitely can't count this one.

Round 1 d Y-H Lu 6-5 6-3 6-2
Round 2 d Garcia Lopez 6-2 6-2 6-4
Round 3 d Kohlschreiber 6-3 6-2 6-7 6-1
Round 4 d Soderling 6-4 7-6 7-6
Quarters d Karlovic 6-3 7-5 7-6
Semi d Haas 7-6 7-5 6-3
Final d Roddick 5-7 7-6 7-6 3-6 16-14

This is not the easiest run by any means but it is still a great example of not facing another top 4 player all tournament. Admittedly Murray should have reached the final and Roddick was on form, but how nicer would  it be if Murray faced Nishikori in the semi final and Tsonga in the final, which is the Australian Open 2012 equivalent.

BBC abandon tennis...and other news

A quick round up of tennis at the start of 2012.

BBC ruin everything for everyone, ever


Something the BBC attempted to keep very quiet (and haven't actually announced, merely listed what they will be showing), is that they have for intents and purposes abandoned the Australian Open. This year they are showing one semi final, and the final. They will be showing nothing else. This is the same Australian Open that is equally as important as Wimbledon and which a British player has reached the final of the last two years. I imagine they also found room in the budget to show the Queens 250 event. Meanwhile they will continue to pay £500k a year for Alan Shearer to 'say what he can see' on MOTD and suggest that people 'will be disappointed' with missing an open goal in the last minute which could have seen their team win the title.

In addition if Murray was to make the final, then Sue Barker will no doubt be dragged from the Question of Sport studio and Tim Henman from the golf course, to offer opinions on a tournament the vast majority of people will now have been unable to see. Here is an idea BBC. Why not cut down on the amount of ridiculous pundits in all sports and concentrate on actually showing sport?

England has a man at a Grand Slam


In one of the all time great sport stories, England, a tiny country of only 50 million and with only £55m a year to spend on tennis, has had a man qualify for a Grand Slam of his own accord for the first time in four years. James Ward has had an excellent run through qualifying and has been rewarded with a fairly winnable first round match too. He faces Blaz Kavcic, WR 106, and could go on to have his winners challenged far, far, far, far, far, far too late by Juan Martin Del Potro in round 2. I did not think we would ever be hearing from Ward again after his Queens run but fair play to the guy. His aim is to reach the top 100 and if he continues his early form then he might just make it.

Australian Open Predictions


There has been some mixed form from the top 4 so far this season as we enter the first Slam.

Novak Djokovic won the rather grandly titled 'World Tennis Championship' in Abu Dhabi, but you never know what to take from exhibition events. He has to start the season as favourite but his form will be almost impossible to repeat this year. He has been drawn in Murrays half and a semi final showdown could be on the cards and you would have to fancy Djokovic in that match up. You would have to fancy him against Nadal in the final, but he has had close matches with Federer recently and would be less confident facing him in the final.

Roger Federer began the season as he finished last season, by demonstrating he is quite happy to do something he has previously heavily criticised Andy Murray for. Having essentially stated that he has never been injured and to pull out of an event is the worst thing since Hitler, he then pulled out of an event, injured. Dick.

Rafael Nadal, who has already planned to take February off, lost to Monfils in his first event and has been struggling to shake off concerns about his fitness. He has also failed to be given his traditional semi final bye against Murray and will actually have to work hard for two matches in a row at the end of the tournament. Given his recent struggles in Australia there have to be doubts over whether he can go all the way.

Andy Murray started the season on form, winning his 22nd career tournament. Though Federer probably doesn't count it as it didn't involve beating anybody good. He now has a new coach and has had two fantastic tournaments here recently. His first round match is quite tough, as he faces youngster Ryan Harrison, but he then has a simple run to the Quarters. However as he is likely to face Tsonga, Djokovic then Federer in a row, he will once again fall short. There is also the fear that he hasn't thrown in an horrific early defeat in a Slam for a while (despite his best efforts against Haase) and that one is due.


Amongst the rest, there is talk that Tsonga could go all the way and there is that fear that this is the tournament where Del Potro will return to his unbeatable US Open 09 form. However those two aside, there isn't really any depth and it is almost a certainty the winner will be one of the top 3.

The Wawrinka Conspiracy

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?

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.