Murray vs Federer - A plea for sanity.

Ever since Murray won his maiden Slam last year there's been an eruption of speculation on what bearing this might have on his chances of success at this year's AO and, indeed, throughout the rest of 2013.

This isn't about the shrill, garden-variety hyperbole of the Brit press which might be expected to gather pace after a 76 year male Slam champion drought, nor that very committed periphery of fans that consider Fedal all too "mainstream" and seek to usher in the "edgier" age of 'Novandy' by any means necessary (it's of trifling significance, OF COURSE, that both Federer and Rafa were Slam winners in 2012 too).

But even beyond excesses like this (seriously, read it), our more acceptable appetite for "change" appears to have led many (I believe) to over-inflate their well-meaning prognosis of Murray's coming year.

Such an appetite is, of course, natural; change is exciting, inevitable and often challenges our most sacred tenets - witnessing it can be as hypnotic as it is traumatic.

But it should not be sought at any cost (I'd much rather see Vika/Masha step it up vs Serena the way, say, Stosur did in 2011 than see Serena hobble out of the event in the name of "change") and should always be grounded in reality.

Murray's success opposite Fed prior to Wimbledon last year was at the Masters (three set) level and born largely of frustrating Fed into errors. Yes, that's a gross oversimplification, but, as with all gross oversimplifications, has its basis in reality.

Yet anyone that's followed the evolution of his game - particularly (but not exclusively) after Lendl's involvement - will know that that somewhat threadbare characterisation is in need of revision.

He's still not, for my money, getting the free points he should with his 1st serve, but there can be no doubting his improved FH and more frequent attempts at shortening points.

The problem is many of those changes are optimisations rather than wholesale revision. Or to put it another way, adjustments bolted on to the edifice of his existing game, rather than some radical, fairy-tale attempt to rebuild his game from the ground up.

You could argue in similar terms of Wozniacki. While it's only right to exhort her to play with more aggression, it's rather silly to expect her to reemerge from a period of 'reorientation' as, say, Sabine Lisicki.

The facets of the game Murray grew up with, may continue to go through adjustments, but will remain, with very few exceptions, as organic to him as that glaring birthmark of his.

And therein lies the rub: for when the pressure is on, players will, almost without fail, default back to their old less-nuanced selves; stripped down of any and all intricacies they will, no doubt, have worked so hard to introduce.

It's just easier at that point in the game not to fight physics.



His previous Slam matches vs Federer have mostly seen the latter come out lightening fast smothering any rhythm Murray might have created right out of the blocks.

And TBH, a large part of Fed's focus will be on bringing exactly that about: to whip, carve and maybe even coax Murray into that pliable, more compliant version of opponent against which he's had so many wins at this level and can more comfortably close the remainder of the match out.

Of course the great expectation is that Murray's new 'enSlammed' status as well as his win at the OG will bolster him enough for him to see the occasion in an entirely new light: that such regression will either be minimal, or won't take place at all. His performance in the Wimbledon final does actually give us some confidence in that regard (though pretending Fed wasn't exhausted at the OG? Too far)

And it's certainly right to say he would/should now be disappointed at repeating the same mistakes against Fed (or anyone) at every Slam going forward (He can hardly be expected to be content with "just" another SF having already made a number of those playing pre-Lendl tennis)

But we need to stop pretending that he's turned into Optimus Prime - or even Ernests Gulbis.

Or that the nature of his matchup vs Fed has so radically changed as to render Murray the "overwhelming favourite".

He's not the overwhelming favourite. He may not even *be* the favourite.

It's still, at its core, the same battle of wills between Fed trying to impose himself on the one hand and Murray attempting to seize the initiative earlier on in the rallies - and not regressing into his comfort zone of passive, pre-Lendl tennis.

And if Fed's service at this event is anything to go by, that battle will be 50/50 at best.

If Murray wins, it'll be because he's successfully executed the gameplan that was custom built, and fine tuned to, both the strengths AND the limitations
of his, and only his game.

Not because he's turned into Robin Soderling.

Signed, a Murray fan.

(Image: Sky Sports)

Read More...

On Taste and Perception

Sorry, no. This isn't the first time we've seen a player overreact and I doubt it'll be the last.

Oh sure, it was OTT, unnecessary and, as Sloane would have it, "so disrespectful".

But quite a lot of the backlash seemed to be coming from fans rallying to Venus' defence. Which, however well-intentioned, seems, ultimately, to me to be ill-conceived.


Venus' own smirking eyes actually conveyed all necessary levels of disdain and derision in a far more economic yet powerful and exacting way. But not otherwise giving us any reason to think she felt especially slighted.

Why would she?

Thing is, it's Maria Sharapova - probably a mistake to expect her (or indeed most players) to abide by the specifics of the protocol you've set up to honour *your* fan hierarchy.

Some people even suggested the opposite: that it was an illustration of the esteem she holds Venus in. I'm not sure I go that far.

But what's far more telling is the inability of most outlets to frame the affair outside of the context of Masha's relationship with the Williamses. - some even going as far as to suggest "Sharapova reacted as if in order to slay Serena, she first had to get Venus".

If you say so.

She may simply have been overjoyed at playing her best spell of tennis in ages (more than one commentator has alluded to the parallels with her win here in 2008). And at not serving 20+ DFs per match. Or 70+ UFEs. Just a thought.

Perhaps I'd be more convinced if I saw similar levels of outrage at Rafa, Serena, Novak, Ana and countless other players doing much the same - and more. But you don't.

As for Novak's shirt ripping after his (actually) epic win over Stan today, well, you either like that sort of thing or you don't. Or, you're largely indifferent to it, but indulge him a little for playing a 5 hour 5 setter. Either way, it comes down to that slippery thing known as taste.

I'm not especially fond of it, but again, there's no shortage of counter examples of similarly extravagant exhibitions from others, or, indeed, commendable behaviour from Novak.

I guess what i'm saying is, I don't much care; tastes, values and perceptions differ, and jousting about the pseudo-ethics of it all doesn't always feel relevant, helpful or necessary.

Read More...

Sometimes "stuff" just happens.

I don't think you can deny that there's something up with Novak. He's not been himself since the start of the clay court season.




What began as a "one off" in MC (put down rightly to the passing of a beloved grandfather) continued largely unquestioned into Madrid (where he was at war with the surface) before morphing into something altogether more gruesome in the final of Rome (where one of his smashes was so poor it almost landed on his foot) - what I think of as his single worst performance this year.

And to be honest, he's been off ever since.

Nothing so obviously hellish as Rome - more a certain listlessness and inability to summon his best during moments of crisis, all of which stands in stark contrast to his stretch of 'form' (not even sure that's the right word for it any more) last year.

If we are to believe the words of his former coach Jelena Gencic, "personal problems" lie at the root of it.

That may well be. But as Novak indicated, "everyone" battles with those from time to time. And I will never not flinch and cringe (fringe?) at the instinctual drive of some to explain away a spell of poor play or even a single upset whenever a top player is involved. Upsets happen, "stuff" happens, giving birth to aliens happens - even to the best of the best - can we not let that just be?

It's entirely reasonable and healthy to want to put forward reasons of course. Provided we accept that what we're proposing as a root cause is an approximation of an approximation based on little or no knowledge of something that may not even be slightly true - wholesale conjecture in other words.

I'm a big fan of conjecture - until, that is, we dress it up and start pretending it's something more than that.

This isn't Novak's doing (although you could argue his former coach has invited much of the speculation). And whilst his fans obviously contribute to it, it's bigger and very different in nature to fandom - in fact, no single party is to blame.


It's a conglomerate comprised of media, fans, bloggers, the bloke at the bus stand, and other talking heads - and its relentless drive to rationalise and categorise everything from the sublime to the trivial into neatly labelled unthreatening manilla folders is almost pathological (I know this, because I'm part of it too).

I think the idea of stuff "just happening" unfettered, uncontrolled and untamed by narrative (or even basic laws of cause+effect) simply terrifies them.

But that's exactly the reason why most of us (including myself) love sport.

Sport knows nothing of fandom or ideology. It simply plays out on a level playing field unencumbered by agenda. Sometimes it's even chaotic. And therein lies its power to enthrall. Imposing a narrative on that actually feels like an insult. Sport's simply too big for that, and Novak's too good for it.

I daresay something personal *is* troubling him. I've got no reason to doubt it - Gencic isn't his mouthpiece but does seem
to know the family well enough (and Novak certainly hasn't denied it).

But it could equally be the natural decompression that follows 18 months of near-perpetual ecstasy (and an acute awareness of just how difficult that might be to replicate).

Or even a combination of both - they're not mutually exclusive you know.

I could, of course, be completely wrong. But, as of now, we simply don't know. And unless Novak himself says any different, I prefer to leave it that way.

Isn't that, after all, why they call such things "personal"?

(Photos: Getty)



Read More...

GOLD MEDAL THAT IS GOLDEN AND MADE OF GOLD THAT IS NOT SILVER

ECSTATIC.

But I still think there's an entirely healthy middle ground between (1) the idea that Murray's Olympic win means he's now certain to beat Fedalovic in a 5 set Slam final, and (2) that it has no bearing on anything at all because it's "not the same thing" (equally childish).

Too early to be thinking that way, right? I should still be partaying in the Stella-McCartnicated afterglow of the biggest win of his career, I know.

Fine. But if he goes down in a tight (or not so tight) 5 set final (or even semi final) to, say, Rafael Nadal at the USO, the same tabloid contingent retweeting pictures of his head on a stamp now, will begin (again) to raise the most horrible doubts about his ability to bring his best against the best.

It wouldn't be the first time.

What this "means" (a LOT - some would say its uniqueness precludes it from even Slam comparisons) should not be confused with the *expectation* it sets - they're two entirely different (albeit hopelessly tangled) issues.

(Photo: AP)

Read More...

Aga Saga.

Alas, Aga. So close.



It may surprise you to know that I was initially with her on this.

Much as I like Vika, and much as I do believe she was injured, perhaps she did carry on a little too much in between points in a way which a no-nonsense nature like Aga's just can't tolerate.

As we've seen with Nole, if a player is grimacing/writhing around in agony, but making athletic winners of the highest order only moments later, people (and it seems players) will talk – silly to expect otherwise. And Aga seemed to me to be well within her rights to convey her distaste, which she did eminently well with that hydrochloric handshake –  designed as it was for maximal-effect.

That ought to have been the end of the matter.

Putting out your (unsolicited) personal opinion re your (former) bestie and new tennis Queen Bee a whole week after the incident suggests to me that something else is at work and that perhaps that "something" has been brewing for some time.

Jealousy? Nah. There's a healthy rivalry there but nothing so malicious.

My own view (for what it's worth) is that this is simply new territory for Aga. Her recent success and career-high #6 ranking seem to have galvanised her into feeling she now has a certain licence to shoot off in this way.

Nothing especially wrong with that but it doesn't mean she'll always best know how (or when) to shoot nor, indeed (as in this case), when she's overshot.

Besides, as many have already noted, you have only yourself to blame if you were unable to put away an "injured" opponent (though one wonders what exactly they expect 'weaponless' Aga to put anyone away with).

Vika's cryptic (or not so cryptic) reaction:

just laughing out loud….thats it what i can say….its getting more and more funny…have a good week and enjoy girls

— victoria azarenka (@vika7) February 23, 2012

Read More...

Not to rain on anyone’s parade but….

Much as I like her, and much as I’ve waited for this moment, Vika is not “this years Nole”, nor is it very meaningful to make pronouncements on how well she’s coping with being top dog until she repeats the show she put on in Doha at a venue like  IW or Miami – or better still, RG.

Not that I think she’s not capable of doing precisely that, nor has this week been anything other than majorly convincing.

It’s just that the more she’s bigged up now, the greater she’ll be made to pay for it when she next takes a fall – often exclusively by the people responsible for the bigging up. It would please me greatly if that didn’t happen at a high-visibility venue like Miami, which is why I’d be happy for her to have taken a fall either here or at Dubai next week.

We might also remember that Halep/Aga/Sam ≠ Serena/Petra

 

Sam? I dunno what to say to you.

(pic: getty)

Read More...

Oz: ‘I’d be Lying’

 
Djokovic d. Nadal 57 64 62 67 75

I want to say that this was the best match ever. But I’d be lying.

I want to say duration always maps to quality. But I’d be lying.

I want to say Rafa didn't have his chances and that Nole was simply too good. But I'd be lying.

I want to say that Nole is Rafa’s “kryptonite” against which Rafa supposedly has "no weapons". But I’d be lying.



I want to say Rafa played this with the same brand of daring intensity that he exhibited against Federer. But I'd be lying.

I want to say that Federer won't be smarting over this, and that he shouldn't feel short changed at not getting a crack at Nole. But I'd be lying.

I want to say that I'm completely convinced it wouldn’t have been any different had it been Federer, and not Rafa, at the other end. But I'd be lying.

I want to say that Rafa's soul won't be crushed by the worst loss of his career and that he'll snap out of it in little over a week. But I'd be lying.




That said...

I could say that the longest match in GS history was purely about the inability/unwillingness to finish off a point. And nothing to do with guts, endurance or heroism. But, here too,  I would be lying.

I could say that Nole doesn't deserve credit for taking his chances the way Rafa seemed unable/unwilling to under that kind of relentless and unforgiving pressure. But I would be lying (it's why he, and not Rafa, is world #1).

I could say that Nole doesn't deserve all manner of accolades for learning how to manage and regulate his energy levels to see this thing through. But I would  be lying.

I could say that I don't want to tar and feather those tacky enough to be talking of "faking" at a time like this. But I would be lying. You clearly don't understand sport; and sport wants nothing whatsoever to do with you.




I could say that the heroic battle of will that ensued in the  final set didn't transcend any pedantic concerns I might have had about “quality” and letting things get this far. But I would be lying.

I could say that Murray hasn't come a long way and that it's a crying shame that Lendl hasn't managed to do more with him in just one week. But I would  be lying.

I could say that Nole only has the most fleeting of chances at completing the Calendar Grand Slam by beating Rafa at RG. But I would be lying.

I could say that this wasn't #goodfortennis, that a marathon like this didn't hold appeal for both fans and non-tennisheads; that tennis, ultimately, didn't win today.

But, there too, I would be lying.

(Pics: Getty)

Read More...