COVID-19 has created massive problems throughout the world, including the cancellation of tennis through July 13th (currently). The Mutua Madrid Open decided that, instead of cancelling the tournament altogether, they would hold a virtual tournament instead of the regular in-person clay court event.
While not ideal by any means, with the surge in popularity of esports, this seemed like a good way for tennis to enter into the gaming sphere. The tournament decided that Tennis World Tour would be the video game of choice and playstation to be the game console used.
With 150,000 euros at stake (with at least some of that total expected to go to a donation) and 50,000 additional euros set aside exclusively for donations, the stakes were high for the 32 players participating.
The tournament was still gender-separated with 16 ATP players and 16 WTA players parsed into groups of 4 for dueling round robin tournaments. In the round robin stage, the players played to 3, with at tiebreak at 3-3. There was also a charity tournament occurring simultaneously.
For the main tournaments, after the round robin, there would be a traditional quarterfinal, knock out-style setup. In the knock out stages of the tournament, a full set of virtual tennis was played to determine a winner. Kiki Bertens and Andy Murray ended up winning the WTA and ATP virtual titles, respectively.
So, how successful was the tournament? Could we see a wave of similar tournaments, even when the regular tours return? Let's dive in.
Mutua Madrid Open Virtual Pro Review
The tournament started off on the wrong foot with the withdrawal of Gael Monfils (whose spot was taken by Benoit Paire) due to an issue with the rights to stream his virtual matches.
Tennis journalist Matthew Willis made the point that the virtual tournament was exclusive to Facebook and Monfils was affiliated with Twitch, another streaming platform. The streaming on Facebook part is weird to Willis, who has showcased how much more popular Twitch is for streaming.
There were more withdrawals during the tournament too. The game itself was a laggy disaster (more on that later), and during the round robin stage of the men's tournament, Dominic Thiem and Karen Khachanov withdrew because of technical issues, giving opponents 3-0 wins.
Even in the charity tournament taking place alongside the main tournament, technical issues for Rafael Nadal and Donna Vekic forced the cancellation of that match.
If Tennis World Tour is the best video game that tennis has, then the future of video game play in the sport is in huge trouble. Willis showcased the glitchy, terrible graphics that almost certainly turned viewers off from the game.
Then, in the men's semifinals, when Andy Murray took on Diego Schwartzman, it was as tennis journalist Stuart Fraser reported Murray saying, "...a disaster." Technical difficulties marred the match and the players ultimately decided that Murray should advance to the final.
It was almost comical how poorly the tournament was working out. In the semifinals of a virtual tournament, the players can barely even play due to technical issues. If I'm being frank, it was a total embarrassment for the tournament and reflected poorly on the sport's ability to put together a solid virtual tournament.
Personally, when I was watching the quarterfinal matchup between Bianca Andreescu and Sorana Cirstea, a match which Cirstea eventually won in a tiebreak, there was at least one occasion that I can remember where a player served a let, but was inexplicably given the point. With as seriously as the virtual tournament was taking itself, even such a seemingly minor problem during play de-legitimizes the competition.
That's not to say that the organizers weren't trying their hardest. It was clear that Madrid tournament director Feliciano Lopez and the rest of the team at Madrid were trying their best to put on the best event possible.
The problem for the Mutua Madrid Open Virtual Pro was that the the game itself felt deficient in someway. The graphics felt like they were from 10 or 15 years ago, as opposed to the modern day video games we are used to.
Tennis as sport might also just not be very well-suited to video games in general, at least serious video games trying to realistically replicate the action on the court. Watching the Virtual Pro, it felt like so much was missing. The cool angles and spins that players put on the ball, the trick shots, even the interaction between players and their boxes. All gone.
Instead, we got a glitchy, laggy, bland version of tennis that was a massive disappointment. The fun of NHL, FIFA, NBA2K, and Madden was replaced with this lame game.
A charity tournament featuring the Serena Williams Naomi Osaka, and Maria Sharapova (along with other tennis players and celebrities) is using Mario Tennis Aces as their game of choice. While that tournament, officially named the "Stay at Home Slam", is also using Facebook to stream, there is a key difference. The video game of choice is much better suited for a virtual tennis event meant to draw in fans.
Mario games are more about having fun than having serious, realistic competition. And perhaps that was the Virtual Pro's problem, they were so intent on having pros in the game itself that they forgot that a less serious video game like Mario Tennis Aces would actually be more fun to play and watch.
Let's be honest, no video game is going to realistically mimic the Nadal topspin forehand on clay.
However, a word of caution for the "Stay at Home Slam": the tournament is using John McEnroe along with Justine Ezarik for commentary. I believe that having official commentary was a very poor choice for the Virtual Pro. The commentary was unnecessary and took away from the players' own commentary. Yet another way the tournament was taking itself too seriously.
I don't mean for this to be a post where I just crap all over the virtual tournament. However, if we are to have video game tennis tournaments in the future, it's important to learn from past mistakes and try to provide the best viewer experience possible.
I appreciate the Mutua Madrid Open stepping up to the plate and essentially being the guinea pig for quarantine virtual content. Future tournaments can take what happened at the Virtual Pro and hopefully put together a better product.
Showing posts with label Andy Murray. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy Murray. Show all posts
Saturday, May 2, 2020
Friday, March 3, 2017
Should Maria Sharapova Receive Wildcards to Majors?
Maria Sharapova has been subject to a big debate in recent days. After receiving a wildcard to many clay court tournaments following the end of her ban on April 26th, which starts with her inclusion in the WTA tournament in Stuttgart, Germany, the question then becomes whether or not Sharapova should receive a wildcard into the remaining majors of this season, with the French Open and Wimbledon in the not-so-distant future.
The chief of the French tennis is showing reluctance to give her a wildcard due to the hypocrisy of giving Sharapova a wildcard. France has invested a ton of money into anti-doping campaign and is, thus, undecided about whether or not to give one to the two-time Roland Garros champion. In addition, Andy Murray doesn't think dopers should receive any wildcards at all, and thinks that Wimbledon will look at the situation very closely before deciding whether or not Sharapova will receive a wildcard. Needless to say, the debate on whether or not Maria deserves wildcards into majors, and really into any tournament, is very hot right now.
So, what are my thoughts regarding this issue? Let me start off by saying that it is ultimately the tournament's decision whether or not a player will receive a wildcard into a tournament or not. People like Murray (and myself) can give their opinions, but ultimately tournament directors get to make that call. Sharapova is certainly a big name in women's tennis, and to have her in tournaments like the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix certainly will help sell tickets and draw attention to the tournaments that she plays in, especially if she goes up against another "big name" in the sport. The WTA is ultimately a business, and revenue is a huge concern. So, of course, from a business perspective, having Maria Sharapova in tournaments is a good idea. Sharapova is a tennis player that even non-tennis fans will know.
However, from a moralistic standpoint, I am not sure how tournament directors can justify giving Sharapova wildcard. Ultimately, whether you think meldonium should be banned or not, it is a banned substance. And by taking that substance after it had been banned, Sharapova cheated. Maria Sharapova created an unbalanced playing field when she took meldonium, no matter the circumstances surrounding her meldonium use, which I find to be very suspicious anyways.
Murray has a great point when he talks about the importance of players who have cheated needing to work their ways back up the rankings as opposed to be gifted with wildcards to huge tournaments, which also include the opportunity to receive big prize money and ranking points. Perhaps it would be humbling for Sharapova, and lessen the chances that she doped again, if she had to play in tiny ITF tournaments against other players with similar rankings. That would provide Sharapova with an opportunity for reflection and the realization that her actions do have stiff consequences, even upon the conclusion of her ban.
But, by giving her countless wildcards, does Sharapova even learn her lesson? If the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open all decide to give wildcards to Sharapova (if she needs the wildcards for the latter two majors), then this would exasperate the issues discussed above. Majors have so much media attention, so much prize money, so many ranking points, that Sharapova would be missing a crucial consequence of her ban if she was gifted a place into these tournaments.
I'm not saying that Sharapova will spend the rest of her career playing tiny tournaments. I'm sure she would win many of the ITF tournaments she would enter and quickly would progress back to the main WTA Tour. However, in a situation such as this, the ban is only the first part of Sharapova's punishment. The second part is having to work her way back up to the level she was once at, and by giving Sharapova countless wildcards, and especially wildcards to majors, this part of her punishment is lost.
Therefore, I do not think Maria Sharapova should wildcards to majors. Honestly, I don't think Sharapova should receive any wildcards at all.
The chief of the French tennis is showing reluctance to give her a wildcard due to the hypocrisy of giving Sharapova a wildcard. France has invested a ton of money into anti-doping campaign and is, thus, undecided about whether or not to give one to the two-time Roland Garros champion. In addition, Andy Murray doesn't think dopers should receive any wildcards at all, and thinks that Wimbledon will look at the situation very closely before deciding whether or not Sharapova will receive a wildcard. Needless to say, the debate on whether or not Maria deserves wildcards into majors, and really into any tournament, is very hot right now.
So, what are my thoughts regarding this issue? Let me start off by saying that it is ultimately the tournament's decision whether or not a player will receive a wildcard into a tournament or not. People like Murray (and myself) can give their opinions, but ultimately tournament directors get to make that call. Sharapova is certainly a big name in women's tennis, and to have her in tournaments like the Porsche Tennis Grand Prix certainly will help sell tickets and draw attention to the tournaments that she plays in, especially if she goes up against another "big name" in the sport. The WTA is ultimately a business, and revenue is a huge concern. So, of course, from a business perspective, having Maria Sharapova in tournaments is a good idea. Sharapova is a tennis player that even non-tennis fans will know.
However, from a moralistic standpoint, I am not sure how tournament directors can justify giving Sharapova wildcard. Ultimately, whether you think meldonium should be banned or not, it is a banned substance. And by taking that substance after it had been banned, Sharapova cheated. Maria Sharapova created an unbalanced playing field when she took meldonium, no matter the circumstances surrounding her meldonium use, which I find to be very suspicious anyways.
Murray has a great point when he talks about the importance of players who have cheated needing to work their ways back up the rankings as opposed to be gifted with wildcards to huge tournaments, which also include the opportunity to receive big prize money and ranking points. Perhaps it would be humbling for Sharapova, and lessen the chances that she doped again, if she had to play in tiny ITF tournaments against other players with similar rankings. That would provide Sharapova with an opportunity for reflection and the realization that her actions do have stiff consequences, even upon the conclusion of her ban.
But, by giving her countless wildcards, does Sharapova even learn her lesson? If the French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open all decide to give wildcards to Sharapova (if she needs the wildcards for the latter two majors), then this would exasperate the issues discussed above. Majors have so much media attention, so much prize money, so many ranking points, that Sharapova would be missing a crucial consequence of her ban if she was gifted a place into these tournaments.
I'm not saying that Sharapova will spend the rest of her career playing tiny tournaments. I'm sure she would win many of the ITF tournaments she would enter and quickly would progress back to the main WTA Tour. However, in a situation such as this, the ban is only the first part of Sharapova's punishment. The second part is having to work her way back up to the level she was once at, and by giving Sharapova countless wildcards, and especially wildcards to majors, this part of her punishment is lost.
Therefore, I do not think Maria Sharapova should wildcards to majors. Honestly, I don't think Sharapova should receive any wildcards at all.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
The Current, and Future, State of the WTA: Parity or Lack of Star Power?
Does a seed even mean anything anymore? That's the question that many tennis fans must surely be asking themselves over much of 2016, but especially the past two weeks in Madrid, and now Rome. And it's becoming reality that top seeds will fall in what seems like huge upsets weekly and pandemonium quickly spreading throughout the draw. So, what should we make of the current state of the WTA?
Before answering that question, it's important note that a huge reason for why it feels like there has been more crazy draw sheets this year, as opposed to years past, is because Serena Williams has been out for much of the year and thus, while in years past there might have been a lot of drama with seeds, it was shielded by a constant presence on top of the women's game. One always knew that Serena would be there at the end of the tournament and that, through all of the noise, consistency would reign at the top of the game.
And, ultimately, I think that the dominant presence of Serena was good for the game, as tennis fans knew that Serena would play well and exemplify the quality of tennis to be expected from the top of the women's game. This year, Serena's age (24 years old) looks to be effecting her play and injury/illness concerns have also hampered her game, so the flaws in other WTA top players are more visible. But, with Serena's retirement not too far in the future, it's important to look at how the tour will be without her.
To help look at this issue further, let's look at examples of what I have been discussing, first showing how the seeds did in Madrid, and are currently performing in Rome. In Madrid, at the end of the First Round, five seeds were out, but these included both the number one and two seeds, Agnieska Radwanska and Angelique Kerber, respectively. But, the seeds continued to fall in the Second Round, as six more seeds were sent packing (or in Safarova's case, withdrew) including the three seed, Garbine Muguruza. It got to the point where by the Quarterfinals, the only seed remaining was sixth-seeded Simona Halep.
And while you can make the argument that much of this "craziness" was negated by Halep being the eventual winner of the tournament, I just find it impossible to get past that out of the 16 players seeded in this tournament on the women's side, only one could manage to win three matches in a row. And while some of the losses are understandable, Cibulkova has given Aga problems ever since she double-bageled Dominka in Australia in Sydney in 2013, other losses, such as Muguruza flaming out to Irina-Camelia Begu were unacceptable for a player of her ability.
And so far, for the WTA in Rome this week, the same general pattern has continued, besides Serena finally bringing a level of calmness to the top of the draw. While in the First Round of Rome there weren't many upsets, with only three seeded players falling, it is important to note that this could be due to the fact that the top eight seeds had byes into the Second Round. So, when put into that light, 3/8 seeded players who actually played in the First Round losing actually is worse than it initially seems. However, in the Second Round, eight more seeds were lost, meaning that 12/16 seeds were gone before the Round of 16, and of the 12 seeds in the Second Round, 2/3 were dismissed. And these seeds included the number two seed, Angie Kerber, the four seed, Victoria Azarenka, fifth seed Petra Kvitova, and Madrid champion (and sixth seed) Simona Halep. It's safe to say that today was disastrous for seeded players in Rome. This means that the Round of 16 will feature only one matchup of seeded players on the WTA side, with Suarez Navarro and Bacsinszky playing each other tomorrow.
There are two different main arguments that can be debated regarding the wild results from this season, and specifically in Madrid/Rome. The first possibility that could possibly be deliberated is that the results are a direct consequence of the parity of the of WTA. By parity, I mean that because the level of a top player (with, personally, the exception of Azarenka on hard courts and Serena on any surface) and lower ranked players are not that huge, so that when a player lower in the rankings upsets a seeded player, it really isn't very surprising at all. Pundits making this argument would say that, for instance, Eugenie Bouchard is only slightly worse than Angelique Kerber, despite the 44 places separating them in the live rankings. Therefore, it would be completely understandable to these people that Bouchard dispatched Kerber today. However, doesn't this "parity argument" merely seem like an excuse for players who lose early, as opposed to a legitimate reason for the results? Because, in reality, the players at the top are there for a reason: they earned the most points. So, if we throw aside the possibilities of players being ranked low due to injury and that a player might obtain more points from playing more tournaments, the players with more points should be better than those below them.
The opposite side of the coin here would be that the wave of upsets that has hit the WTA Tour this year is due to a lack of star power, where a group of players can just take over the tour and will constantly be battling in the later stages of tournaments, week after week. On the men's side, this would be the equivalent of the Big Four (Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Roger Federer, and RafaelNadal). Obviously, there are some flaws with this line of thinking. First off, Serena and Venus Williams are still on tour, so despite Maria Sharapova being out on suspension, these are two big names who have won many, many majors between them. The counter to this opposing viewpoint would be that Venus is obviously finished as top tennis player (due to her age and Sjogren's Syndrome) and so while she might have a big name, it is unrelated to the argument at hand. And with Serena's issues this season, as previously mentioned, this fails to address what will happen when she retires, along with the results when she was gone this season. And, one could say that Victoria Azarenka has dominated the spring hard court season this year, winning Indian Wells and Miami. However, as Madrid showed us, who wins the tournament is less related to this topic as opposed to how seeds on the whole are doing.
However, if we are to take this argument at face value, we would be led to believe that because there is not a group of "commanding players" on tour (besides Serena), it is no surprise that upsets are so frequent nowadays on the WTA. Because there is this "feeling" that the playing field is equal, whether one is ranked number two or number 46 psychologically doesn't matter because players like Radwanska and Kerber do not have the mindset of typical top players. And perhaps this is a direct result of Serena winning so many majors over the past few years, that she hinders other players from reaching stardom, and the mindset that comes with it. I mean, if anything, Kerber winning a major has worsened her results, and while this may be because she is struggling with media attention that a major winner attracts, it is certainly not something that would be expected of the number two player in the world.
So, ultimately, is there a clear-cut answer to whether parity or a lack of star power is producing the current results on the WTA Tour? I don't think so. Throwing aside the obvious possibility of confounding factors not considered in this article, I think that it's probably a combination of the two sides that lead to the present state of the WTA. Despite my earlier, big spiel on ranking points, perhaps women's tennis, with, for the most part, a lack of big weapons, lends itself to closer matches and more parity. However, at the same time, it's very valid to say that because there hasn't been consistent winners on the WTA Tour recently, especially in majors, this definitely diminishes the star power of everyone but Serena, so when Serena is not playing well or is off the tour for some reason, it almost feels as if the WTA is an uninteresting free-for-all. And, from a financial perspective, this is definitely not a good thing. Because, a lack of stars means a lack of attendance at WTA matches (and non-joint events, in general).
However, I don't want to say that the future of tennis is bleak. It's also important to remember that when Serena leaves the tour, all players, but especially the top ones, will have a much better shot at winning majors, and eventually more WTA players will win three, four, five, etc. majors and find consistency in their games. And, inevitably this will lead to stardom, and the WTA will be perfectly fine. However, currently, with Serena not being as dominant as she once was (at least currently) and many other players high in the ranking unable to fulfill the void this has left, the current and immediate future of the WTA is not a pretty sight. However, I urge tennis fans and members of the tennis media not to panic, and to see the big picture on this issue. Everything will be fine.
And, anyways, if Serena wins the French Open, all of these problems will disappear from sight, put on the backburner for another time.
Before answering that question, it's important note that a huge reason for why it feels like there has been more crazy draw sheets this year, as opposed to years past, is because Serena Williams has been out for much of the year and thus, while in years past there might have been a lot of drama with seeds, it was shielded by a constant presence on top of the women's game. One always knew that Serena would be there at the end of the tournament and that, through all of the noise, consistency would reign at the top of the game.
And, ultimately, I think that the dominant presence of Serena was good for the game, as tennis fans knew that Serena would play well and exemplify the quality of tennis to be expected from the top of the women's game. This year, Serena's age (24 years old) looks to be effecting her play and injury/illness concerns have also hampered her game, so the flaws in other WTA top players are more visible. But, with Serena's retirement not too far in the future, it's important to look at how the tour will be without her.
To help look at this issue further, let's look at examples of what I have been discussing, first showing how the seeds did in Madrid, and are currently performing in Rome. In Madrid, at the end of the First Round, five seeds were out, but these included both the number one and two seeds, Agnieska Radwanska and Angelique Kerber, respectively. But, the seeds continued to fall in the Second Round, as six more seeds were sent packing (or in Safarova's case, withdrew) including the three seed, Garbine Muguruza. It got to the point where by the Quarterfinals, the only seed remaining was sixth-seeded Simona Halep.
And while you can make the argument that much of this "craziness" was negated by Halep being the eventual winner of the tournament, I just find it impossible to get past that out of the 16 players seeded in this tournament on the women's side, only one could manage to win three matches in a row. And while some of the losses are understandable, Cibulkova has given Aga problems ever since she double-bageled Dominka in Australia in Sydney in 2013, other losses, such as Muguruza flaming out to Irina-Camelia Begu were unacceptable for a player of her ability.
And so far, for the WTA in Rome this week, the same general pattern has continued, besides Serena finally bringing a level of calmness to the top of the draw. While in the First Round of Rome there weren't many upsets, with only three seeded players falling, it is important to note that this could be due to the fact that the top eight seeds had byes into the Second Round. So, when put into that light, 3/8 seeded players who actually played in the First Round losing actually is worse than it initially seems. However, in the Second Round, eight more seeds were lost, meaning that 12/16 seeds were gone before the Round of 16, and of the 12 seeds in the Second Round, 2/3 were dismissed. And these seeds included the number two seed, Angie Kerber, the four seed, Victoria Azarenka, fifth seed Petra Kvitova, and Madrid champion (and sixth seed) Simona Halep. It's safe to say that today was disastrous for seeded players in Rome. This means that the Round of 16 will feature only one matchup of seeded players on the WTA side, with Suarez Navarro and Bacsinszky playing each other tomorrow.
There are two different main arguments that can be debated regarding the wild results from this season, and specifically in Madrid/Rome. The first possibility that could possibly be deliberated is that the results are a direct consequence of the parity of the of WTA. By parity, I mean that because the level of a top player (with, personally, the exception of Azarenka on hard courts and Serena on any surface) and lower ranked players are not that huge, so that when a player lower in the rankings upsets a seeded player, it really isn't very surprising at all. Pundits making this argument would say that, for instance, Eugenie Bouchard is only slightly worse than Angelique Kerber, despite the 44 places separating them in the live rankings. Therefore, it would be completely understandable to these people that Bouchard dispatched Kerber today. However, doesn't this "parity argument" merely seem like an excuse for players who lose early, as opposed to a legitimate reason for the results? Because, in reality, the players at the top are there for a reason: they earned the most points. So, if we throw aside the possibilities of players being ranked low due to injury and that a player might obtain more points from playing more tournaments, the players with more points should be better than those below them.
The opposite side of the coin here would be that the wave of upsets that has hit the WTA Tour this year is due to a lack of star power, where a group of players can just take over the tour and will constantly be battling in the later stages of tournaments, week after week. On the men's side, this would be the equivalent of the Big Four (Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Roger Federer, and RafaelNadal). Obviously, there are some flaws with this line of thinking. First off, Serena and Venus Williams are still on tour, so despite Maria Sharapova being out on suspension, these are two big names who have won many, many majors between them. The counter to this opposing viewpoint would be that Venus is obviously finished as top tennis player (due to her age and Sjogren's Syndrome) and so while she might have a big name, it is unrelated to the argument at hand. And with Serena's issues this season, as previously mentioned, this fails to address what will happen when she retires, along with the results when she was gone this season. And, one could say that Victoria Azarenka has dominated the spring hard court season this year, winning Indian Wells and Miami. However, as Madrid showed us, who wins the tournament is less related to this topic as opposed to how seeds on the whole are doing.
However, if we are to take this argument at face value, we would be led to believe that because there is not a group of "commanding players" on tour (besides Serena), it is no surprise that upsets are so frequent nowadays on the WTA. Because there is this "feeling" that the playing field is equal, whether one is ranked number two or number 46 psychologically doesn't matter because players like Radwanska and Kerber do not have the mindset of typical top players. And perhaps this is a direct result of Serena winning so many majors over the past few years, that she hinders other players from reaching stardom, and the mindset that comes with it. I mean, if anything, Kerber winning a major has worsened her results, and while this may be because she is struggling with media attention that a major winner attracts, it is certainly not something that would be expected of the number two player in the world.
So, ultimately, is there a clear-cut answer to whether parity or a lack of star power is producing the current results on the WTA Tour? I don't think so. Throwing aside the obvious possibility of confounding factors not considered in this article, I think that it's probably a combination of the two sides that lead to the present state of the WTA. Despite my earlier, big spiel on ranking points, perhaps women's tennis, with, for the most part, a lack of big weapons, lends itself to closer matches and more parity. However, at the same time, it's very valid to say that because there hasn't been consistent winners on the WTA Tour recently, especially in majors, this definitely diminishes the star power of everyone but Serena, so when Serena is not playing well or is off the tour for some reason, it almost feels as if the WTA is an uninteresting free-for-all. And, from a financial perspective, this is definitely not a good thing. Because, a lack of stars means a lack of attendance at WTA matches (and non-joint events, in general).
However, I don't want to say that the future of tennis is bleak. It's also important to remember that when Serena leaves the tour, all players, but especially the top ones, will have a much better shot at winning majors, and eventually more WTA players will win three, four, five, etc. majors and find consistency in their games. And, inevitably this will lead to stardom, and the WTA will be perfectly fine. However, currently, with Serena not being as dominant as she once was (at least currently) and many other players high in the ranking unable to fulfill the void this has left, the current and immediate future of the WTA is not a pretty sight. However, I urge tennis fans and members of the tennis media not to panic, and to see the big picture on this issue. Everything will be fine.
And, anyways, if Serena wins the French Open, all of these problems will disappear from sight, put on the backburner for another time.
Monday, May 18, 2015
So, Who is the Favorite at the French Open for the Men?
So, a major debate going on in the tennis world right now is: Who is the real men's favorite to win Roland Garros this season? Let's dig in.
Possible Favorites:
-Andy Murray: You might be thinking to yourself, "Huh? Not possible." But, I'm being dead serious when I include Murray in this section. Andy has been spectacular this clay season. After entering the clay court swing with no titles on the surface, he exits with two trophies and zero losses. He first won the title at the BMW Open in Munich, Germany. On the way he beat some pretty good clay court (and overall) players in Goffin, Bautista Agut, and Kohlscreiber (in a Monday Final!). Then Murray quickly went to Spain and played some of the best tennis, in my opinion, that he's ever played on any surface. He dismissed the new generation in Raonic and Nisikori, both in straight sets, and then rocked Rafael Nadal, only giving up five games in the process. Andy Murray has earned his place on my unimportant blog!
-Novak Djokovic: This guy is just incredible. After having won the Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Miami on hard courts, Novak continued his success on the clay. He then went on to Win Monte Carlo (also destroying Nadal, only losing six games to him) and then went on to win Madrid, beating clay courters like Almagro and Ferrer and also beating all-court players like Federer and Nishikori to complete a perfect clay court season (him and Murray either played different events or Murray withdrew). Djokovic also has the claim that he made the Final of the French Open in two of the past three seasons, with seemingly only Rafa being able to stop him.
-Rafael Nadal: I don't even think I have to say a word here. Seriously. This guy has won nine of the past ten French Opens (2005-2014 sans 2009) and has utterly dominated other clay tournaments in past years with zero mercy. Rafa is a clay legend. But, while he did pick up a clay 250 in Buenos Aires, Rafa has not done as well this clay court season. He made the Round of 16 in Barcelona, quarters in Rome, semis in Rio and Monte Carlo, and the Final in Madrid. For a lot of people, that is a great clay season, but not for Rafa. It also was the way he meekly went out in a lot of those matches (such as Murray in Madrid and Wawrinka in Rome) that has a lot of tennis fans worried.
So, who do I think the favorite is? Let me first rule out Andy. Although he has played really well this season, I can't get over how he had zero clay titles before 2015. While Andy has GREATLY improved on the surface, it's too big of a stretch to say that he goes from not having even won a 250 on clay to the favorite for the French Open. He might make a run, but until Novak and Rafa are out, he won't be the favorite. That leads us Djokovic and Nadal. A lot of tennis "pundits" think that Novak is the favorite, and while I can't fault them for their choice (he has played AMAZING this season), I'm sticking with Rafa.
First off, I can't get over how Rafa is a nine-time champion at a MAJOR and has won 90% of the major champions in Paris over the last ten years! Just think about that. 90%! So, that brings with it a lot of psychological advantages, which I think the media is too quick to say is escaping from Nadal. On top of that, Djokovic has won 0 majors on the surface, which says a lot about how he performs in Paris, NOT how performs on clay. In addition, Nadal is 6-0 against Djokovic in best-of-five on clay (Davis Cup and FO, excluding a Djoker retirement). The main court at Roland Garros, Philippe Chatrier, also suits Nadal perfectly, giving him A LOT of room to move around, which is super important for Rafa's game. Rafa also has the uncanny ability to grind an opponent down in best-of-five which one cannot see in a best-of-three clay court event. Finally, when I was looking at Djokovic's past results at RG, I noticed that every one of his losing matches from 2010-2014 were in four or five sets. What does that tell me? It shows me that Djokovic can play extremely well on the surface, but despite having extraordinary conditioning, on clay he just wears down. It's not that he's being outclassed, he's just wearing down. And that is a disturbing trend.
So, there you have it! Let me know in the comments if you agree or disagree with what I've had to say!
Possible Favorites:
-Andy Murray: You might be thinking to yourself, "Huh? Not possible." But, I'm being dead serious when I include Murray in this section. Andy has been spectacular this clay season. After entering the clay court swing with no titles on the surface, he exits with two trophies and zero losses. He first won the title at the BMW Open in Munich, Germany. On the way he beat some pretty good clay court (and overall) players in Goffin, Bautista Agut, and Kohlscreiber (in a Monday Final!). Then Murray quickly went to Spain and played some of the best tennis, in my opinion, that he's ever played on any surface. He dismissed the new generation in Raonic and Nisikori, both in straight sets, and then rocked Rafael Nadal, only giving up five games in the process. Andy Murray has earned his place on my unimportant blog!
-Novak Djokovic: This guy is just incredible. After having won the Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Miami on hard courts, Novak continued his success on the clay. He then went on to Win Monte Carlo (also destroying Nadal, only losing six games to him) and then went on to win Madrid, beating clay courters like Almagro and Ferrer and also beating all-court players like Federer and Nishikori to complete a perfect clay court season (him and Murray either played different events or Murray withdrew). Djokovic also has the claim that he made the Final of the French Open in two of the past three seasons, with seemingly only Rafa being able to stop him.
-Rafael Nadal: I don't even think I have to say a word here. Seriously. This guy has won nine of the past ten French Opens (2005-2014 sans 2009) and has utterly dominated other clay tournaments in past years with zero mercy. Rafa is a clay legend. But, while he did pick up a clay 250 in Buenos Aires, Rafa has not done as well this clay court season. He made the Round of 16 in Barcelona, quarters in Rome, semis in Rio and Monte Carlo, and the Final in Madrid. For a lot of people, that is a great clay season, but not for Rafa. It also was the way he meekly went out in a lot of those matches (such as Murray in Madrid and Wawrinka in Rome) that has a lot of tennis fans worried.
So, who do I think the favorite is? Let me first rule out Andy. Although he has played really well this season, I can't get over how he had zero clay titles before 2015. While Andy has GREATLY improved on the surface, it's too big of a stretch to say that he goes from not having even won a 250 on clay to the favorite for the French Open. He might make a run, but until Novak and Rafa are out, he won't be the favorite. That leads us Djokovic and Nadal. A lot of tennis "pundits" think that Novak is the favorite, and while I can't fault them for their choice (he has played AMAZING this season), I'm sticking with Rafa.
First off, I can't get over how Rafa is a nine-time champion at a MAJOR and has won 90% of the major champions in Paris over the last ten years! Just think about that. 90%! So, that brings with it a lot of psychological advantages, which I think the media is too quick to say is escaping from Nadal. On top of that, Djokovic has won 0 majors on the surface, which says a lot about how he performs in Paris, NOT how performs on clay. In addition, Nadal is 6-0 against Djokovic in best-of-five on clay (Davis Cup and FO, excluding a Djoker retirement). The main court at Roland Garros, Philippe Chatrier, also suits Nadal perfectly, giving him A LOT of room to move around, which is super important for Rafa's game. Rafa also has the uncanny ability to grind an opponent down in best-of-five which one cannot see in a best-of-three clay court event. Finally, when I was looking at Djokovic's past results at RG, I noticed that every one of his losing matches from 2010-2014 were in four or five sets. What does that tell me? It shows me that Djokovic can play extremely well on the surface, but despite having extraordinary conditioning, on clay he just wears down. It's not that he's being outclassed, he's just wearing down. And that is a disturbing trend.
So, there you have it! Let me know in the comments if you agree or disagree with what I've had to say!
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Does Andy Murray Deserve To Be Australian Open Favorite?
Andy Murray had a great 2012. He made the finals of Wimbledon before finally having a breakthrough with a gold medal at the Olympics and a US Open victory. The momentum is definitely on Murray's side. But, does momentum turn into being the favorite at the next major championship?
Should we be so quick to say that he is the clear favorite to win his second major in a row? Should we be so quick to erase the earlier portion of his career due to a great second half in one half of a year?
The answer is no. Andy Murray has been on the tour for too long without sufficient results for the public to assume because he has finally won a major, he can do it again. And we cannot forget two other big pieces in regards to this question: Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer.
Novak Djokovic is the guy who won three straight majors and four of five. Now, that is an impressive feat. He deserves to be getting this "superstar" treatment. Djokovic has five majors total. Murray, with a lone major in his pocket, not so much.
Roger Federer's resume is even more impressive. Federer has won 17 majors total, 16 more than Murray. At on point, Federer had won 8 out of 10 majors. He had won three straight majors multiple times. Not to mention that he has the career grand slam. When, Murray does that, then we can talk.
With that said, does Murray really deserve to be favored or Djokovic or Federer? To me, the mere thought of this is an insult to all of the good these other men have done. And we haven't mentioned that Juan Martin Del Potro, who has the same number of majors has Murray, but much less attention, is in the field.
Andy Murray does not deserve to be the favorite at the 2013 Australian Open. If he wins a couple more majors, then we can talk.
Should we be so quick to say that he is the clear favorite to win his second major in a row? Should we be so quick to erase the earlier portion of his career due to a great second half in one half of a year?
The answer is no. Andy Murray has been on the tour for too long without sufficient results for the public to assume because he has finally won a major, he can do it again. And we cannot forget two other big pieces in regards to this question: Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer.
Novak Djokovic is the guy who won three straight majors and four of five. Now, that is an impressive feat. He deserves to be getting this "superstar" treatment. Djokovic has five majors total. Murray, with a lone major in his pocket, not so much.
Roger Federer's resume is even more impressive. Federer has won 17 majors total, 16 more than Murray. At on point, Federer had won 8 out of 10 majors. He had won three straight majors multiple times. Not to mention that he has the career grand slam. When, Murray does that, then we can talk.
With that said, does Murray really deserve to be favored or Djokovic or Federer? To me, the mere thought of this is an insult to all of the good these other men have done. And we haven't mentioned that Juan Martin Del Potro, who has the same number of majors has Murray, but much less attention, is in the field.
Andy Murray does not deserve to be the favorite at the 2013 Australian Open. If he wins a couple more majors, then we can talk.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Wrapping up the Men's Tennis Season
After an exciting year of extraordinary tennis, the tennis year is finally coming to a close. Yes, there is a little Davis Cup left to be played, and some minor tournament are on the horizon, but the vast majority of the tennis season is over. Let's take a look back at some of the highlight's of this year.
First off for congratulations is Novak Djokovic. At the 2012 Australian Open, he continued to stay hot from the past season and won the major championship over Rafael Nadal in the final match. He then proceeded to make at least the Finals of two other majors, and the semifinals of a third. In those two final matches, the French Open and US Open, it was not as if Djokovic did not put up a fight, as he won at least one set in both matches. Even though his year was not as spectacular as 2011, this was still a great year for Novak and a signal for more things to come.
Rafael Nadal played well this year. Even though he was out for much of the second half of the season, he did not play at the Olympics or the US Open, when he did play, he succeeded. He made it all the way to the Australian Open final before bowing out to Novak Djokovic in five sets, and then proceeded to get revenge on Djokovic when he beat him in four sets at the French Open. It seems like Nadal's winning streak at the French Open is endless. Although he did not do much for the rest of the years, Lukas Rosol and injuries the culprit, his start of the season is good enough to land him in this post.
Roger Federer played some amazing tennis too. After his loss to Novak Djokovic in the French Open Semifinals there seemed to be a general consensus in the tennis community that Federer might never win another major. Well, boy did he prove the doubters wrong. At Wimbledon, he battled through a back injury and several close matches to make the final against hometown favorite Andy Murray. He got down a set early, but then seemed to look 10 years younger as he battled back in the second set before taking the third and fourth sets to win yet another major. Couple that with a silver medal at the Olympics and the fact that his Quarterfinals streak is still alive, and I would say Federer had a great year.
Andy Murray really had a wonderful year himself. After really challenging Roger Federer at Wimbledon, he won a gold medal over that same Roger Federer in the Olympic gold for Great Britain at the All England Club. It was not just the fact that he won, but how he won. Murray had total control of the match as Federer was left helpless. The big win, though, came at Flushing Meadows in the US Open. After a few easy matches, and a couple tough ones, he found himself in the Finals against Novak Djokovic. Murray took the first two sets before Djokovic stormed back to take the next two. This could have been the end of yet another promising major for Murray, but he would not let this one slip away. He won the fifth set and won his first major championship. This was the best year of Murray's career.
Lastly, we cannot forget about Lukas Rosol. This was the man who beat Rafael Nadal in the Second Round of Wimbledon. I distinctively remember that fifth set as if it was yesterday. That was the most dominate on a serve I have ever seen a player. Nadal could barely get a racket on the powerful shot. I remember the look on the two players faces as I watched the last game with Rosol serving at 5-4. The focus of Rosol's and the disbelief on Nadal's. Rosol won that set 6-4 to take the match in five sets. Thank you, Lukas, for showing that the top four players are not unbeatable.
This has been an unbelievable year in men's tennis. Could next year be any better? We will have to see.
First off for congratulations is Novak Djokovic. At the 2012 Australian Open, he continued to stay hot from the past season and won the major championship over Rafael Nadal in the final match. He then proceeded to make at least the Finals of two other majors, and the semifinals of a third. In those two final matches, the French Open and US Open, it was not as if Djokovic did not put up a fight, as he won at least one set in both matches. Even though his year was not as spectacular as 2011, this was still a great year for Novak and a signal for more things to come.
Rafael Nadal played well this year. Even though he was out for much of the second half of the season, he did not play at the Olympics or the US Open, when he did play, he succeeded. He made it all the way to the Australian Open final before bowing out to Novak Djokovic in five sets, and then proceeded to get revenge on Djokovic when he beat him in four sets at the French Open. It seems like Nadal's winning streak at the French Open is endless. Although he did not do much for the rest of the years, Lukas Rosol and injuries the culprit, his start of the season is good enough to land him in this post.
Roger Federer played some amazing tennis too. After his loss to Novak Djokovic in the French Open Semifinals there seemed to be a general consensus in the tennis community that Federer might never win another major. Well, boy did he prove the doubters wrong. At Wimbledon, he battled through a back injury and several close matches to make the final against hometown favorite Andy Murray. He got down a set early, but then seemed to look 10 years younger as he battled back in the second set before taking the third and fourth sets to win yet another major. Couple that with a silver medal at the Olympics and the fact that his Quarterfinals streak is still alive, and I would say Federer had a great year.
Andy Murray really had a wonderful year himself. After really challenging Roger Federer at Wimbledon, he won a gold medal over that same Roger Federer in the Olympic gold for Great Britain at the All England Club. It was not just the fact that he won, but how he won. Murray had total control of the match as Federer was left helpless. The big win, though, came at Flushing Meadows in the US Open. After a few easy matches, and a couple tough ones, he found himself in the Finals against Novak Djokovic. Murray took the first two sets before Djokovic stormed back to take the next two. This could have been the end of yet another promising major for Murray, but he would not let this one slip away. He won the fifth set and won his first major championship. This was the best year of Murray's career.
Lastly, we cannot forget about Lukas Rosol. This was the man who beat Rafael Nadal in the Second Round of Wimbledon. I distinctively remember that fifth set as if it was yesterday. That was the most dominate on a serve I have ever seen a player. Nadal could barely get a racket on the powerful shot. I remember the look on the two players faces as I watched the last game with Rosol serving at 5-4. The focus of Rosol's and the disbelief on Nadal's. Rosol won that set 6-4 to take the match in five sets. Thank you, Lukas, for showing that the top four players are not unbeatable.
This has been an unbelievable year in men's tennis. Could next year be any better? We will have to see.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Is this the Defining Moment of Andy Murray's Career?
The term "defining moment" is one of the most difficult to define. What is that moment where "good" gets turned into "great". Where does someone turn from a good player who just has not made it to the top into a star. Well, I offer some insight into what I think Andy Murray's defining moment is, in light of his new major championship.
Was his defining moment the singles Olympic gold? The Olympics this year were played at the All England Club. This was the chance for Murray to eradicate many demons and win in his home country. And boy did he do that. Andy Murray never dropped a set as he went on to win the Olympic gold. Along the way he beat the 2011 breakout star Novak Djokovic, before whipping Roger Federer at the same place Federer had beat him the previous month at Wimbledon. One could see the relief and joy on his face when he put away Federer. The crowd delirious. This could have easily been the defining moment in Andy Murray's career. However, because he did not have that major championship, the Olympic gold in singles was not enough to be the defining moment of his career.
Was it the US Open championship? This was Andy Murray's first major, and although not in England, still was an impressive feat. I was someone who thought Murray would never breakthrough. Would never win that elusive major. Andy Murray would have none of that. He overcame the rising star Milos Raonic, took down the pesky Tomas Berdych, before beating Novak Djokovic in an epic final. Murray took the first two sets 7-6 (10), 7-5, before losing the next two sets in decisive fashion. Murray could have folded here, but did not. He fought back, only giving up two games, to win the match in five. This seems to have been the defining moment in Murray's career. That time where he went from a good second tier player, to one of the best in the game today.
We must also consider that this defining moment might be in the future. The moment could be at the All England Club next year, this time for Wimbledon. If Andy Murray were to win at Wimbledon next year, a major championship this time aroumd, then I would say that the major was easily a better defining moment than the one just occured. We must also take into account the possibility that Murray might never win a major again. Andy Murray could get lazy, bathing in his major spotlight, and have Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic overtake him once again. That "defining moment", would then be seen as an abberation. However unlikely as it may be, it is certainly a possibility.
Andy Murray finally won a major championship. Was this the "defining moment" of his career?
Was his defining moment the singles Olympic gold? The Olympics this year were played at the All England Club. This was the chance for Murray to eradicate many demons and win in his home country. And boy did he do that. Andy Murray never dropped a set as he went on to win the Olympic gold. Along the way he beat the 2011 breakout star Novak Djokovic, before whipping Roger Federer at the same place Federer had beat him the previous month at Wimbledon. One could see the relief and joy on his face when he put away Federer. The crowd delirious. This could have easily been the defining moment in Andy Murray's career. However, because he did not have that major championship, the Olympic gold in singles was not enough to be the defining moment of his career.
Was it the US Open championship? This was Andy Murray's first major, and although not in England, still was an impressive feat. I was someone who thought Murray would never breakthrough. Would never win that elusive major. Andy Murray would have none of that. He overcame the rising star Milos Raonic, took down the pesky Tomas Berdych, before beating Novak Djokovic in an epic final. Murray took the first two sets 7-6 (10), 7-5, before losing the next two sets in decisive fashion. Murray could have folded here, but did not. He fought back, only giving up two games, to win the match in five. This seems to have been the defining moment in Murray's career. That time where he went from a good second tier player, to one of the best in the game today.
We must also consider that this defining moment might be in the future. The moment could be at the All England Club next year, this time for Wimbledon. If Andy Murray were to win at Wimbledon next year, a major championship this time aroumd, then I would say that the major was easily a better defining moment than the one just occured. We must also take into account the possibility that Murray might never win a major again. Andy Murray could get lazy, bathing in his major spotlight, and have Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic overtake him once again. That "defining moment", would then be seen as an abberation. However unlikely as it may be, it is certainly a possibility.
Andy Murray finally won a major championship. Was this the "defining moment" of his career?
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Andy Murray: a Grand Slam Champion at Last
Ah, Andy it's been a long time coming. From the time you entered the tennis world we all knew you had the potential to be a Grand Slam champion. It seemed as if the only thing stopping Murray from finally breaking through against the vaunted big three: Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic was himself. Those oncourt tantrums were a major reason why Murray could not break through. Let's look at the major moments leading up to this momentous occasion.
The first one was when Murray lost in the Wimbledon Finals to Roger Federer. We knew then that Murray had what it takes to be a major champion. He did not back away from the great, or the aura associated with him. He even was up one set to love against Federer. But his spectacular defense could only get him so far against Federer's persistent pressure, and eventually Murray wilted on Centre Court, losing in four sets. Murray, undoubtedly, was devasted by the loss, but his gracious comments after the match made us learn that he was very close to a major title. Well, we were right.
Murray then went on to the Olympic Finals, on Centre Court Wimbledon, with a gold medal on the line. He was playing that pesky Federer guy. Well, this time, Murray crushed Federer, seemingly always up a break, and put away a meek Federer in three decisive sets. This was a great victory for Murray, as spectators all around the All-England Club jumped with glee. It felt like Murray had won a major. Soon enough.
Finally, it was time for the US Open. After being challenged consistently during the second week, Murray ultimately reached the Finals. Andy Murray would play Novak Djokovic with a major championship on the line. He went up two sets, and a major championship was all but a certainty. But, Djokovic would have none of that. Murray won a total of five games over the next two sets, and Djokovic would take the next two sets to even the match at two-sets all. This was the point in time where Murray could have went away. Could have realized that it was just not to be. Could have went away into the sunset as Djokovic went away with another US Open championship. Murray would not be denied. He not only beat Djokovic in the final set, but he crushed him winning 6-2 in the final, decisive set. As Djokovic limped around the court defeated, Murray paraded around with a seemingly endless supply of energy. Murray had won.
The US Open, it was Andy Murray's time. After all of those years of disappointment, he had finished the job. We could tell it was going to happen after the Wimbledon final. After the Olympic gold. Well, our suspicions were confirmed after the US Open. Andy Murray was a grand slam champion at last.
The first one was when Murray lost in the Wimbledon Finals to Roger Federer. We knew then that Murray had what it takes to be a major champion. He did not back away from the great, or the aura associated with him. He even was up one set to love against Federer. But his spectacular defense could only get him so far against Federer's persistent pressure, and eventually Murray wilted on Centre Court, losing in four sets. Murray, undoubtedly, was devasted by the loss, but his gracious comments after the match made us learn that he was very close to a major title. Well, we were right.
Murray then went on to the Olympic Finals, on Centre Court Wimbledon, with a gold medal on the line. He was playing that pesky Federer guy. Well, this time, Murray crushed Federer, seemingly always up a break, and put away a meek Federer in three decisive sets. This was a great victory for Murray, as spectators all around the All-England Club jumped with glee. It felt like Murray had won a major. Soon enough.
Finally, it was time for the US Open. After being challenged consistently during the second week, Murray ultimately reached the Finals. Andy Murray would play Novak Djokovic with a major championship on the line. He went up two sets, and a major championship was all but a certainty. But, Djokovic would have none of that. Murray won a total of five games over the next two sets, and Djokovic would take the next two sets to even the match at two-sets all. This was the point in time where Murray could have went away. Could have realized that it was just not to be. Could have went away into the sunset as Djokovic went away with another US Open championship. Murray would not be denied. He not only beat Djokovic in the final set, but he crushed him winning 6-2 in the final, decisive set. As Djokovic limped around the court defeated, Murray paraded around with a seemingly endless supply of energy. Murray had won.
The US Open, it was Andy Murray's time. After all of those years of disappointment, he had finished the job. We could tell it was going to happen after the Wimbledon final. After the Olympic gold. Well, our suspicions were confirmed after the US Open. Andy Murray was a grand slam champion at last.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
How Andy Murray Has Changed
A year or two ago, Andy Murray was playing well beyond the baseline, always on the run, and a poor sport. After his gold at the Olympics, it seems as if this is all changing.
When Murray lost in the finals of the 2008 US Open, all of the excuses in the world were available to him, whether it being his first major final, or the awe of Roger Federer, there was no pressure on him. By the time he lost in straight sets to Novak Djokovic at the finals of the 2011 Australian Open, questions were arising about whether or not Andy would ever win a major final. Then, in 2012, his game changed.
Starting in 2012, there was a total change in Andy Murray's tennis. For instance, watch in much of this video the difference of how Andy Murray used to play. Now watch video of his match with Federer in the Wimbledon Finals this year. Even when he is losing points, you can see the difference in his game, which would eventually lead him to the Olympic gold.
In the first video, we see Murray just settling for weak baseline shots, while Djokovic completely controlled the tempo and flow of the match. While in the second video, Murray moves much better and even when he is losing the points, his movement and ball striking are a lot better. That could be the match, even with the loss, that turns Murray's career around.
Now, let's look at how Murray's attitude has changed. This from the 2010 Australian Open. Watch how Murray losses his cool over a challenge. Then, look right here, which is Murray after Wimbledon 2012.
See the difference? In the first video, instead of just continuing on with the match, Murray gets bogged down because Rafael Nadal took an extra second or two to call for a challenge (which was about a millimeter away from being correct). The second video shows that Andy Murray has finally matured. He was gracious to Federer while really showing a side of him that was negated by his constant outbursts.
After struggling for years, it seems as if Andy Murray has found himself and is finally righting the ship. The world saw his resurgence after 2012 Wimbledon, and we saw arguably the best match of his life in the gold medal match of the 2012 Olympics. Andy Murray has changed, and because of this, it seems as if a major championship is right around the corner.
When Murray lost in the finals of the 2008 US Open, all of the excuses in the world were available to him, whether it being his first major final, or the awe of Roger Federer, there was no pressure on him. By the time he lost in straight sets to Novak Djokovic at the finals of the 2011 Australian Open, questions were arising about whether or not Andy would ever win a major final. Then, in 2012, his game changed.
Starting in 2012, there was a total change in Andy Murray's tennis. For instance, watch in much of this video the difference of how Andy Murray used to play. Now watch video of his match with Federer in the Wimbledon Finals this year. Even when he is losing points, you can see the difference in his game, which would eventually lead him to the Olympic gold.
In the first video, we see Murray just settling for weak baseline shots, while Djokovic completely controlled the tempo and flow of the match. While in the second video, Murray moves much better and even when he is losing the points, his movement and ball striking are a lot better. That could be the match, even with the loss, that turns Murray's career around.
Now, let's look at how Murray's attitude has changed. This from the 2010 Australian Open. Watch how Murray losses his cool over a challenge. Then, look right here, which is Murray after Wimbledon 2012.
See the difference? In the first video, instead of just continuing on with the match, Murray gets bogged down because Rafael Nadal took an extra second or two to call for a challenge (which was about a millimeter away from being correct). The second video shows that Andy Murray has finally matured. He was gracious to Federer while really showing a side of him that was negated by his constant outbursts.
After struggling for years, it seems as if Andy Murray has found himself and is finally righting the ship. The world saw his resurgence after 2012 Wimbledon, and we saw arguably the best match of his life in the gold medal match of the 2012 Olympics. Andy Murray has changed, and because of this, it seems as if a major championship is right around the corner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)