next »

[janetx]

To be fair, it was Nole who had 5 break points in set one and he didn't convert, whereas the reverse was true in the second set. It's almost like the each of them won the set they shouldn't have! Nole should've won set one and Andy should've won set two. In the first set Andy's serving was not great, but by the second he'd risen his first serve percentage back up to around 60s% and Nole's had dropped so they were about level.

As for Nole "playing possum" or using "tactics" - could it not be just that Nole was uncomfortable on the court at first, or maybe nervous? He was slipping all over at first, much like during his match against Stan, and one could tell he was frustrated because he couldn't use his chances, just as Andy was frustrated later. It makes sense that when Nole won the second and levelled the match, and saw that Andy was hurting, that he might've felt a surge of adrenalin telling him to strike now. It doesn't mean he was pretending earlier does it? Don't players going through emotional and physical dips and rises in 5 setters especially? I tend to notice that anyhow?   

I totally agree totally about tactics. I can't understand why Muzza doesn't come to net more often; he's got such beautiful hands, and volleying seems to comes much more naturally to him than to Nole. And yet it was Nole coming in trying to shortening points when he could. Tactically, esp with the sore toes, Andy would've done well to move forward from the baseline and shrink the court instead of running behind the baseline. Maybe it's easier said than done?

[Katie]

Yes I also agree about Andy's playing style yesterday. I was surprised at how passive Andy was in the first set - as you say janetx, Nole had many chances to break but couldn't take them. Andy showed flashes of being more aggressive but couldn't maintain that style. It's a shame as it's what got him so close in last year's Aussie Open match.

I remember when Nole hardly ever came to the net in his matches and when he did invariably lost the point. That's really changed now - I was impressed by how successful he was yesterday. I've noticed that several of the top guys are coming to the net more and more now - hope Andy can learn to use it more in matches as he has a wonderful volley and is losing points by staying back all the time.

But beating Fed was a major milestone and definitely worth it. Novak's not always going to be waiting for him in the final - in Wimbledon arguably it's more likely to be Fed or Rafa - so it's important for Andy to know he can beat them in a slam.

[The Gnome]

devastated today....was hoping these final heartbreaks were behind us...it should be murrays time

It still is

[Elena]

I reckon they need to look at the whole staggering the semis idea. In five out of the last six years, the guy playing the first semi, with a 24-hour recovery advantage, has won the final.

Presumably the other time was last year when Djoko's 5 hour SF with Andy was played 2nd, and Nadal with a shorter SF and an extra 24hrs still couldn't beat him in the final.

I think Andy would probably have benefited from the unfair advantage of the earlier SF this year, but don't think it would have made any difference to the match if they'd both had just the 2 days. Djoko was perhaps lucky to play Ferrer and then Andy who had both just had 5 set matches, but earlier in the tournament he himself bounced back and beat Berdych after the marathon against Stan which was virtually a 6 set match.

I agree with those that think beating Fed in a GS was a very big deal, and maybe Andy wasn't quite ready emotionally or physically for the final. Don't think I was!

Thanks for the report Boogers.

[OldScotSupport]

Here's a murderous stat: Murray has played the world number one in all six of his slam finals.

Is that why Andy wants to be number one, so that he can play himself in the finals?

[FCR]

Had it been a really close match, the feather would have made a great motif for a news report - 'the difference between the two men came down to the weight of a single feather falling from the Melbourne sky...'

But it wasn't close.

A difference of just 13 more points won by Novak equates to "close"  in my book and so the scoreboard can be deceptive at first glance.

[Tasmanian Devil]

If as people are suggesting, and the evidence would seem to support that,  it is going to be the Murray/Djokovic era, then Murray is going to win some and lose some. He might well lose more than he wins. We all need to get used to that.

Indeed.  Rafa is unlikely to match Fed in slams now, but that won't stop everyone looking back on that Fedal era.  In any era, one player will usually come out with more titles than the other.  Although I was gutted last night, today I'm thinking a Murray era is something to really look forward to.

[flowerpower]

Totally agree with you. I think beating Fed in a slam, took more out of him mentally, as well as physically, than perhaps we all realised.
Such a milestone after Wimbledon final.

Agree with both of you!