ATP 1000 Miami 2012 Final: Djokovic - Murray

First topic message reminder :

Let the show commence and The Best win !

And that should be that...

Ace Djokivic 5-2

Well done Djokovic, deserved...

Djokovic wins - well done Djokovic. Must do better Murray.

Congratulations to Nole
Another deserved win

Congratulations to Novak Djokovic on a big win. Not a lot us Murray fans can take out of that accept to say he played so poorly but still made a fight of that second set. Still some handy ranking points in the bag for Andy and Novak consolidates and strengthens his No.1 slot.

NOLEEEEEEE

Very interesting. In the second set Murray regained the forehand he had against Djoko in the AO and it was as though he had to adjust himself to having that weapon, initially his timing thrown on his other shots. Then his game came together but it was a bit late in the day which meant there was added pressure on him in the tie break.

A glass of lovely Californian red to a lovely Nole win and a valiant Murray, a match played in great spirit

No complaints - Novak deserved that. Murray was disappointing no two ways about that but like I said just a bad day at the office I reckon but needed to be more aggressive today. Something tells me when he feels good about his first serve is when he becomes more aggressive but when it is off he gets inhibited and goes into his shell. Not a bad final but I've seen much better matches between this pair.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No complaints - Novak deserved that. Murray was disappointing no two ways about that but like I said just a bad day at the office I reckon but needed to be more aggressive today. Something tells me when he feels good about his first serve is when he becomes more aggressive but when it is off he gets inhibited and goes into his shell. Not a bad final but I've seen much better matches between this pair.

I expected a tougher fight from Murray, conditions were horrendous, I reckon they had a big part.

Today may be exceptional circumstances in terms of Murray not having played for 4 days, but Murray has a problem that he needs to address in that he nearly always starts big matches slowly.

He played himself into it in the second set by playing a little better (though way below his best) but it was too little too late.

Novak is a great world number 1, and is so confident in his own game that he can come out firing on all cylinders which he did again today. Murray needs to develop that ability, if at all possible.

His FH improved in the second set but it is still poor.

Frankly, any improvement (by Lendl) was not obvious tonight.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No complaints - Novak deserved that. Murray was disappointing no two ways about that but like I said just a bad day at the office I reckon but needed to be more aggressive today. Something tells me when he feels good about his first serve is when he becomes more aggressive but when it is off he gets inhibited and goes into his shell. Not a bad final but I've seen much better matches between this pair.

Murray wins = Good day at the office.
Murray loses = bad day at the office.

What about Djoko? didn't he play a role in it? Maybe he forced the bad day in the office? What about Murray's FH, is it only good when he wins and poor when he loses?

Well what can one say. Andy had chances in the first few games of the first set and after that it was barrage after barrage from Novak. His returning is what killed Andy. Once Novak found his range, only one winner. All in all Novak has been the best player of the week. Well played that man

Andy well it will be back to the training courts with Lendl and maybe look at ways of improving the consistency on his BH.

Rafa's retirement may not be so bad for him afterall. He could have been the one with yet another loss to Nole saddling him with further doubt entering the clay season. Well played, Nole.

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No complaints - Novak deserved that. Murray was disappointing no two ways about that but like I said just a bad day at the office I reckon but needed to be more aggressive today. Something tells me when he feels good about his first serve is when he becomes more aggressive but when it is off he gets inhibited and goes into his shell. Not a bad final but I've seen much better matches between this pair.

Murray wins = Good day at the office.
Murray loses = bad day at the office.

What about Djoko? didn't he play a role in it? Maybe he forced the bad day in the office? What about Murray's FH, is it only good when he wins and poor when he loses?

And why not Tenez? After all we all know Andy can win these Masters events and if you think Murray played anything like he can then perhaps you should change your username to Ray Charles. As for Djokovic it wasn't him at his best either but his serving was superior to Andy's throughout and brought him through in straight sets and fully deserved it was too. His forehand since you ask, wasn't his problem today it was his serve which was poor and as has been said pre-match that if his serve was off he'd lose and it happened. No mystery. Still a beaten finalist is better than an early round exit.

When you're in essence defending like Murray and yet totally relying on the first serve, there's something not right. Most of Murrays UE's came from his "safety" shots...

kept hearing how this being an MS final rather than a slam would be in Murray's favour, cause his record is 8-1 in finals or something. Lets see if those frivolous comments will be retracted.

Nole.

Murray only mustered up one break point in 9 returning games. His returning game is badly overrated by his fanclub, not just based off this match but in general against the top 3 players he can't have any effect with returns.

mthierry wrote:Rafa's retirement may not be so bad for him afterall. He could have been the one with yet another loss to Nole saddling him with further doubt entering the clay season. Well played, Nole.

Now I understand what are the Nadull´s fans like. That is unbelievable. To say that "his retirements is not bad for him afterall", that is a strong coffee for me.

Another glass of a good wine for Nole´s win

Djokovic certainly deserved that win. 7-6 doesn't tell the story of that 2nd set, Djokovic looked the more likely throughout it.

A case of sheer consistency and not making errors for Djoko.

After Federer took Rotterdam, Dubai and Indian Wells to challenge Djokovic as the player of the season so far, Djokovic is now without doubt the hard court king, with the last 2 Miamis and the last 3 hard court slams.

gallery play wrote: Most of Murrays UE's came from his "safety" shots...

What do yo mean?

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote: Most of Murrays UE's came from his "safety" shots...

What do yo mean?

What i meant is: He missed many shots which supposed to extend the rally. His aggressive shots seemed a safer choice.

paulcz wrote:

mthierry wrote:Rafa's retirement may not be so bad for him afterall. He could have been the one with yet another loss to Nole saddling him with further doubt entering the clay season. Well played, Nole.

Now I understand what are the Nadull´s fans like. That is unbelievable. To say that "his retirements is not bad for him afterall", that is a strong coffee for me.

Another glass of a good wine for Nole´s win

Seems like you need your meds. Would it have been better I said "if only Nadal hadn't retired, he would have won the tournament". So crediting Nole is "unbelievable" from a "Nadull" fan. This forum keeps deteriorating everytime I visit.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray only mustered up one break point in 9 returning games. His returning game is badly overrated by his fanclub, not just based off this match but in general against the top 3 players he can't have any effect with returns.

I don't believe it's overrated. Murray is the second best returner on tour but was a little off today. And his record against the top 3 isn't that bad.

Yes Nadal would have likely lost but he would kept it close for atleast the first 6 games of the opening set. Something Murray isn't able to do when his forehands isn't perfect.

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote: Most of Murrays UE's came from his "safety" shots...

What do yo mean?

What i meant is: He missed many shots which supposed to extend the rally. His aggressive shots seemed a safer choice.

To me he hasn't got a good feel of the ball. Not only today but in general. Sure he can play a few drop shots but he reminds me Roddick too much. Muscling the ball too much. Djoko is so much better at getting a good length, and going for more angle. Djoko's game is looser.

I do think Murray's talent is way overrated. He is however extremely fit.

I don't believe it's overrated. Murray is the second best returner on tour but was a little off today.

His return of serve stats are probably down to the server getting tired in the 2nd or 3rd sets. Nalbandian is a much better returner than Murray is (when he isn't tanking matches to get to his buffet).

mthierry wrote:

paulcz wrote:

mthierry wrote:Rafa's retirement may not be so bad for him afterall. He could have been the one with yet another loss to Nole saddling him with further doubt entering the clay season. Well played, Nole.

Now I understand what are the Nadull´s fans like. That is unbelievable. To say that "his retirements is not bad for him afterall", that is a strong coffee for me.

Another glass of a good wine for Nole´s win

Seems like you need your meds. Would it have been better I said "if only Nadal hadn't retired, he would have won the tournament". So crediting Nole is "unbelievable" from a "Nadull" fan. This forum keeps deteriorating everytime I visit.

The only unbelievable thing is here that Nadull and his fans as well only find excuses and say would&could and what if and lose his nerves. This deteriorates this forum. That is why I name him/them Nadull.

Disappointed in Andy. This was the one he should have had a chance in and he never looked like he would win.

There is only one tournament that matters to Novak between now and mid-June and I am sure he was not willing to kill himself to win Miami. But if he can get it without trying his hardest, why not?

summerblues wrote:Disappointed in Andy. This was the one he should have had a chance in and he never looked like he would win.

There is only one tournament that matters to Novak between now and mid-June and I am sure he was not willing to kill himself to win Miami. But if he can get it without trying his hardest, why not?

the sweet kind of getting things...because it takes soooo much work to get to that stage, and by the time you do, you almost don't care

On a separate note, must say that for me this is perhaps the least exciting match-up between any of the top 4. 2 hours and 20 minutes for this? With Nadal at least I always care about the result, which brings some excitement to it, but here I like both of the guys about the same so unless tennis itself is exciting, I find the spectacle a bit dull.

summerblues I believe Murray beating Novak in Dubai made the guy more motivated for this win and not making IW final meant he was going on the attack today. Andy does not beat Novak if Novak is not fatigued.

With Nadal at least I always care about the result, which brings some excitement to it, but here I like both of the guys about the same so unless tennis itself is exciting, I find the spectacle a bit dull.

Nadal v Murray is by MILES the least exciting match up they play the exact same boring tactics its like they are twins or something.

noleisthebest wrote:...because it takes soooo much work to get to that stage, and by the time you do, you almost don't care

Oh that sounds sad, but why? Look at Roger, he has won it all, is getting older, has a family, and still seems to be excited about tennis like a little kid.

Your man also seems to have a pretty good attitude about the game and his place in it. It must be mentally hard trying to follow up on a year like he had last year but he seems to be going about it just about the right way - enjoying the wins as they come while not expecting to repeat or best what he did in 2011.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:...because it takes soooo much work to get to that stage, and by the time you do, you almost don't care

Oh that sounds sad, but why? Look at Roger, he has won it all, is getting older, has a family, and still seems to be excited about tennis like a little kid.

Your man also seems to have a pretty good attitude about the game and his place in it. It must be mentally hard trying to follow up on a year like he had last year but he seems to be going about it just about the right way - enjoying the wins as they come while not expecting to repeat or best what he did in 2011.

I know how it feels, that's why I'm sad. When you have to come from soooo much behind in life, it takes a long time to get things out of your system, hopefully Nole will join Fed in his "kid" mode one day.
Actually, who am I kiddin' Nole is a completely different kind...he's got a different mission in life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-v-oOeEhqA

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nadal v Murray is by MILES the least exciting match up they play the exact same boring tactics its like they are twins or something.

Was thinking between this one and the one I picked. I think for me Nadal-Murray is a bit more exciting for two reasons:

First, I am clearly rooting for one player in the Nadal-Murray match up, so I can get into following the match even if tennis itself is dull.

Second, I still have in my memory Andy's old US Open win over Nadal. In that match, he did NOT play dull, and somehow I am always hoping he will come to his Nadal matches with similar tactics. For some reason, he no longer does.

Second, I still have in my memory Andy's old US Open win over Nadal. In that match, he did NOT play dull, and somehow I am always hoping he will come to his Nadal matches with similar tactics. For some reason, he no longer does.

The forehand of his is not as powerful now as it was back then, he lacked the stamina that others had at the time and knew he had to strike hard on his forehand, now he has the stamina but not the powerful forehand.

Well congrats to the man of the hour Novak. As was predicted the player who got the highest percentage of of first serves in (Novak) was at a distinct advantage. Novak plays behind his second serve much better than Andy and I believe that he has one of the best second serves in the game which rarely gets talked about. I agree with CC that Andy didn't lose the match with his forehand he lost it because he was under pressure in virtually every service game. But again that is to be expected playing the best returner in the world. Those that say Murray's returning is overrated really are wrong and should look at the fact that Murray has been in the top 3-5 in return stats for the last few years. Novak hit 70 plus percent first serves. He is going to be unbeatable against anyone he plays at that rate.

This wasn't a convincing performance for Murray,in fact it was probably a dull performance overall, where he didn't quite follow up to the mild improvements in his game seen in the AO and Dubai. Much better than IW anyway

I saw something that Andy NEVER did before. I'm not sure how many of you did. He was taking real long time between points. By the end of 7 games in the 2nd set at Djokovic* 3-4 Murray, the average time taken between point for both players were shown.

Djokovic : 29 seconds
Murray : 32 seconds


Is this intentional? Is it been worked out by Murray and Lendl? Is it the Nadal effect? There was heat yesterday afternoon but I've seen Andy play in much more heat and windy conditions and still within time rules. There was no injury or any sign of it. Occasional disturbances from the crowd but that wouldn't have great effect in a 2+ hour match.

Why a player who is normally known to play fast, suddenly taking too long between points?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I saw something that Andy NEVER did before. I'm not sure how many of you did. He was taking real long time between points. By the end of 7 games in the 2nd set at Djokovic* 3-4 Murray, the average time taken between point for both players were shown.

Djokovic : 29 seconds
Murray : 32 seconds


Is this intentional? Is it been worked out by Murray and Lendl? Is it the Nadal effect? There was heat yesterday afternoon but I've seen Andy play in much more heat and windy conditions and still within time rules. There was no injury or any sign of it. Occasional disturbances from the crowd but that would have great effect in a 2+ hour match.

Why a player who is normally known to play fast, suddenly taking too long between points?

raiders you may have opened a can of worms! Where is Tenez? But I have a feeling that Djokovic and Murray seconds don't really count because...? Tenez. Why don't Djokovic and Murray seconds count?

hawkeye wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I saw something that Andy NEVER did before. I'm not sure how many of you did. He was taking real long time between points. By the end of 7 games in the 2nd set at Djokovic* 3-4 Murray, the average time taken between point for both players were shown.

Djokovic : 29 seconds
Murray : 32 seconds


Is this intentional? Is it been worked out by Murray and Lendl? Is it the Nadal effect? There was heat yesterday afternoon but I've seen Andy play in much more heat and windy conditions and still within time rules. There was no injury or any sign of it. Occasional disturbances from the crowd but that would have great effect in a 2+ hour match.

Why a player who is normally known to play fast, suddenly taking too long between points?

raiders you may have opened a can of worms! Where is Tenez? But I have a feeling that Djokovic and Murray seconds don't really count because...? Tenez. Why don't Djokovic and Murray seconds count?

Are we to base the on court creditibility of these 2 players by 7 games?

Essentially Nadal has flouted the rule between points consistently for years. I feel further research into these players matches would need to be carried out to ascertain whether they are persistent offenders.

I mean geez what would happen if Federer eclipsed the 20 second margin.

legendkillarV2 wrote: Are we to base the on court creditibility of these 2 players by 7 games?

Essentially Nadal has flouted the rule between points consistently for years. I feel further research into these players matches would need to be carried out to ascertain whether they are persistent offenders.

I mean geez what would happen if Federer eclipsed the 20 second margin.

LK,hawkeye,

This stat is not based on only 7 games, it was the average time taken between point till that point in the overall match. So its 1 set and 7 games.

My intent is not to bring out that there are more players to break time rule. Nor do I intend to show that its not only Nadal but others too and this rules is pointless. Nothing like that.

My intent to bring this out is why a player who throughout all his playing career has been playing very quick and well within time-rules and has been know to be one of the quickest, suddenly starts to play very slow. So slow as to be well over the allowed time limit, even beating an another slower player. And even the playing conditions though tough but not extreme. Is this something to do with what Murray said about having a physical match with Nadal? Does he too now believe that its better to break this rule as other are breaking it and taking advantage of this longer recovery time. Is he doing what nadal has been doing for years? Is this a tactical move by Murray and Lendl?

I say wait until the Clay season to see if it is a trend in the Murray game ROTLA.

For me it is strange given he spent less time on court than Djokovic

Murray should fix the alarm clock cause he played first set like he just woke up.

Both players having DOUBLE the UE's than winners is a terrible achievement.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Both players having DOUBLE the UE's than winners is a terrible achievement.

Each to their own. Socal calls it a great match...better than a fast paced match with brilliant shot making.

Tenez wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Both players having DOUBLE the UE's than winners is a terrible achievement.

Each to their own. Socal calls it a great match...better than a fast paced match with brilliant shot making.

If you choose to reference my comments I would graciously ask that you accurately portray them. i didn't say it was a great match, in fact I said it wasn't a great match. I found it to be a good match and entertaining. For someone who prides themselves on tennis acumen you must know that gauging a match quality at simply looking at the UE to winners without looking at the style of opposition or the conditions is not particularly indicative of quality. I have seen a lot of high winners matches that have been dull, and have seen matches with high error counts that have been great.

socal1976 wrote:... I have seen .....matches with high error counts that have been great.

I can understand great matches having a high UE count on fast surfaces but high UE count on a slow surface? can't think of one. With lots of drama maybe but quality tennis? Nope.