2016 Wimbledon Championships
- Thread starter jsinger121
- Start date
What is amazing is that somehow Raonic still won this match with 40 unforced errors compared to 14 for Federer and also had 11 double faults compared to 5 for Roger. Though Roger had some doubles at the worst time possible.
No comments about Murray's straight-sets win over Berdych? As good as Raonic looks, Murray is absolutely in the height of his powers.
Let's remember that Murray has played 10 grand slam finals in his career - this will be his 11th. In those 10, 3 of them were against late-prime Federer, in which he took 1 set out of 10, most recently 2012 Wimbledon. The other 7 were all against Djokovic, in which he won an epic 5-set US Open in 2012, the Wimbledon 2013 in straight sets (still the best match of his life), and lost the other 5 by a combined 3 sets to 15. He's been absolutely snakebitten in his choice of opponents and timing.
Whatever you might say about Raonic's current form, he is not going to be dishing out bagels and breadsticks to Murray the way Nole did at the last two Aussie finals. I'd be betting on Andeh if anyone would give me somewhat-decent odds. Maybe I can find a sucker of a Canadian to wager straight-up with me...
Let's remember that Murray has played 10 grand slam finals in his career - this will be his 11th. In those 10, 3 of them were against late-prime Federer, in which he took 1 set out of 10, most recently 2012 Wimbledon. The other 7 were all against Djokovic, in which he won an epic 5-set US Open in 2012, the Wimbledon 2013 in straight sets (still the best match of his life), and lost the other 5 by a combined 3 sets to 15. He's been absolutely snakebitten in his choice of opponents and timing.
Whatever you might say about Raonic's current form, he is not going to be dishing out bagels and breadsticks to Murray the way Nole did at the last two Aussie finals. I'd be betting on Andeh if anyone would give me somewhat-decent odds. Maybe I can find a sucker of a Canadian to wager straight-up with me...
Also, tomorrow, after Serena is done with Kerber in the singles final (8am ET), there's an all-French men's doubles final, and then she's out there again with Venus against Babos-Shvedova in the ladies' doubles final. Venus beat Shvedova in singles in the QFs. Could end up having just as rough a day at the office as Elena Vesnina did wrt Serena.
If there is a returner in the game that can get to Milos big serve its Andy. He will need to take advantage of 2nd serve opportunities.
People Raonic has lost to in slams the last two years:
WM 2014: SFs to Federer, straight sets
USO 2014: R16 to Nishikori (eventual finalist) in 5 crazy sets
AO 2015: QFs to Djokovic, straight sets (the 1st in a TB)
WM 2015: 3R to Kyrgios, 4 sets
USO 2015: 3R to Feliciano Lopez, straight sets
AO 2016: SF to Murray in 5 sets; was up 2-1 but ran out of gas
RG 2016: R16 to Ramos-Viñolas, a Spanish clay specialist ranked #55
Of those, I'd only call Murray and Djokovic top returners. Nishikori is a speed merchant, Lopez a Sampras-style big-serve-and-volley type, Kyrgios a power baseliner with a plus serve. By % of return games won, you've got Djok (32%) and Andy (31%) in the top 10 on tour, followed by Nishikori (27%), Federer (27%) and then Ramos-Vinolas (23%). Kyrgios (17%) and Lopez (16%) aren't in the top 200 returners.
I don't think Andy needs to have the return game of his life. I think he just can't serve as crappily as Federer did today, and needs to not give Raonic good court position on forehands because he will line them up and belt them. He also needs to have his passing shots at the ready, and not start cursing like a sailor if he misses a few early on.
WM 2014: SFs to Federer, straight sets
USO 2014: R16 to Nishikori (eventual finalist) in 5 crazy sets
AO 2015: QFs to Djokovic, straight sets (the 1st in a TB)
WM 2015: 3R to Kyrgios, 4 sets
USO 2015: 3R to Feliciano Lopez, straight sets
AO 2016: SF to Murray in 5 sets; was up 2-1 but ran out of gas
RG 2016: R16 to Ramos-Viñolas, a Spanish clay specialist ranked #55
Of those, I'd only call Murray and Djokovic top returners. Nishikori is a speed merchant, Lopez a Sampras-style big-serve-and-volley type, Kyrgios a power baseliner with a plus serve. By % of return games won, you've got Djok (32%) and Andy (31%) in the top 10 on tour, followed by Nishikori (27%), Federer (27%) and then Ramos-Vinolas (23%). Kyrgios (17%) and Lopez (16%) aren't in the top 200 returners.
I don't think Andy needs to have the return game of his life. I think he just can't serve as crappily as Federer did today, and needs to not give Raonic good court position on forehands because he will line them up and belt them. He also needs to have his passing shots at the ready, and not start cursing like a sailor if he misses a few early on.
You also could have pointed out that in each of those 10 other finals, Murray's opponent (Federer or Djokovic) was the #1 seed and the top-ranked player in the world at the time. Which is pretty extraordinary - and those aren't run-of-the-mill #1s either, but rather a pair of names in the GOAT discussion while at the height of their powers. He's done well to win two slams; in some other eras, he could have played the same quality of matches and scored six or seven slams, easy.
I haven't been super-impressed by Murray's play this fortnight - in particular, his serve hasn't been much of a weapon, and he's been broken 8 times in total. But I think Raonic will be super-tense in his first slam final, and Murray will rise to the occasion and cruise to victory in three or four sets.
Kerber moving very well today on the baseline. She is really forcing some unforced errors on Serena. We are tied at 4 in the 1st set.
Serena breaks and wins the first set 7-5. I believe I heard on breakfast at Wimbledon show that Patrick McEnroe picked Serena 7-5, 6-2 so he is half right so far.
Yes, that was an awesome match. Both Serena and Kerber were in top form.
Venus/Serena win doubles. Pretty amazing how they can not play at all for a year, then pick it back up and win Wimbledon within a couple months. No problem.
Not possible. There's only 16 seeded doubles teams in a pool of 64, and seeds can't face each other in the first two rounds (which is most of the point). So in any initial group of 4 teams for the first 2 rounds, there's only 1 seed. Five's the max in a tournament.
Yeah, I wonder how the "doubles" regulars feel about that. I mean, they must practice regularly with each other and enter multiple tournaments, only to lose to these "doubles" dilettantes.
Fuckin hell I'm nervous about this one. Raonic had a great start in the final at Queens, up a set and 3-0 in the second set - Murray found an extra gear and won in three. But Raonic will have learned from that loss, and i think mentally he'll be stronger for it. If he serves as well as he can it could come down to tie breakers and how well Murray's serve holds up.
Some ex champs are saying Murray has an edge cos he's been here before...but I dunno if Raonic looks like the kind of player that gets phased by an occasion. And i reckon he'll win a few Wimbledons before his time on court is up.
It's not often a Scotsman goes into such a big sporting occasion as a favourite. Feels uncumfy.
Some ex champs are saying Murray has an edge cos he's been here before...but I dunno if Raonic looks like the kind of player that gets phased by an occasion. And i reckon he'll win a few Wimbledons before his time on court is up.
It's not often a Scotsman goes into such a big sporting occasion as a favourite. Feels uncumfy.
First set to Murray...if he cruises to win this in straight sets, as I think is very possible, I'll remember those two weak approach shots Raonic played down break point in the 7th game of the first set. It's like he didn't trust himself on a key point to work through a baseline rally - he wanted to put the onus on Murray, rather than take control himself.
Murray is playing out of his mind right now, especially with his backhand precision as McEnroe keeps reminding us. Raonic's level of play wouldn't beat anyone in the top 10. This is a less-competitive match than Kerber-Serena yesterday. Raonic is hitting a bunch of errors and his net approach footwork is helter-skelter. His serve's also been nearly neutralized and has, what, 3 aces? This is a massacre by Wimbledon Finals standards.
Yes, he's an excellent analyst however I'm surprised ESPN allowed him to work this match given that he isn't exactly impartial.
Funny, my friend and I have been talking all week about how awful he has become as an analyst. I haven't seen anything yet today, but all tournament he has been phoning it in even more than before, doing fewer matches and adding almost nothing to the ones he does (again, I haven't seen any of today yet).
Also the ESPN producer said coming into this that McEnroe is in the booth today not to be neutral (that is Patrick M's job) but as Raonic's coach.
Edit: Crosspost with hittery, but yeah, just embarrassing. The worst part is that there is an insanely good ex-player analyst around, Martina Navratilova, who brings the same constant focus and insight that she did when she was playing, but somehow she is stuck in the Tennis Channel ghetto.
Also the ESPN producer said coming into this that McEnroe is in the booth today not to be neutral (that is Patrick M's job) but as Raonic's coach.
Edit: Crosspost with hittery, but yeah, just embarrassing. The worst part is that there is an insanely good ex-player analyst around, Martina Navratilova, who brings the same constant focus and insight that she did when she was playing, but somehow she is stuck in the Tennis Channel ghetto.
I think at Wimbledon he splits time between ESPN and the BBC which why it seems like he's doing fewer matches.
He does fewer matches because he also works for the BBC during Wimbledon, so that's not a fair criticism. I think the issue here is that his main message to Raonic has been about emotion, how to carry himself, the mental side, etc, and he's not seeing that in this final. It's probably frustrating for him but he's been harping on it a lot.
The ones that he does do he seems thoroughly unprepared for, as if he'd just wandered into the booth by accident. He's always taken the approach of entirely identifying with the favored player in any given match and acting like winning is entirely in their control, right up to near the end of a match in the case of an upset. This was actually kind of cool when he started (I loved him as a player) but has grown really old over the years especially as he seems to prepare less and less for most matches.
Today is different though, as again he's not in the booth today to be neutral and it'd be pretty sad if he had nothing to add when he has been coaching one of the players.
Today is different though, as again he's not in the booth today to be neutral and it'd be pretty sad if he had nothing to add when he has been coaching one of the players.
Well, can't say Murray didn't deserve it. Nice crack towards David Cameron at the end of the interview too. Hopefully the people asking why he's considered a part of the "Big 4" will quiet down a bit now.
I think you were a bit harsh to call that match a "massacre". Murray won by playing really, really well - he was particularly faultless in the two tiebreakers - but there was only one break of serve in the whole match, and Raonic seemed actually to be growing into the match in the third set, winning games more and more comfortably on serve toward the end.
Sue Barker is the worst, though - she signed off her post-match interview with Raonic saying "We look forward to seeing you in many more Wimbledon finals to come." Reminds me of when Jim Lampley predicted during the 1993 Ryder Cup that Peter Baker would win the Masters multiple times.
Sue Barker is the worst, though - she signed off her post-match interview with Raonic saying "We look forward to seeing you in many more Wimbledon finals to come." Reminds me of when Jim Lampley predicted during the 1993 Ryder Cup that Peter Baker would win the Masters multiple times.
You know, the scoreline doesn't suggest a massacre, and I was on the verge of accepting your criticism, but on reflection, I actually think it was, if not fully apt, at least close to it. It was a massacre everywhere but the scoreline.
Raonic held serve his final 13 service games, often by the skin of his teeth. Meanwhile, Murray was rolling, and I think faced one break point all match. Murray had 39 winners to 12 unforced errors, an absolutely insane ratio; Raonic had an ordinarily-excellent 39 to 29 but got rolled. Murray had like 13 backhand winners, Raonic 2. Raonic had 8 aces, his specialty, well below his usual rates; Murray, known for a good but not great serve, had 7. They ended up with a difference of 13 points won, which for a 3-set match, you'd expect closer to a 6-4, 6-2, 6-3 scoreline. Murray won 87% of his first-serve points. He held advantages of 6-1 in both tiebreaks. I could go on. It would not be correct to say Raonic played badly, but Murray played such a tactically brilliant match, with such flawless execution, that it might have been the best match he's ever played.
Few players ever in their prime would have stood a chance against Murray the way he played today. If he had been opposed by an in-form Djokovic or in-his-prime Fedrerer, it might have rivalled the 2008 final. So, by those lofty standards only, I'd say "massacre" is only a slight exaggeration. Raonic played well and left with dignity, but that's the best you can say for him about the end result.
Raonic held serve his final 13 service games, often by the skin of his teeth. Meanwhile, Murray was rolling, and I think faced one break point all match. Murray had 39 winners to 12 unforced errors, an absolutely insane ratio; Raonic had an ordinarily-excellent 39 to 29 but got rolled. Murray had like 13 backhand winners, Raonic 2. Raonic had 8 aces, his specialty, well below his usual rates; Murray, known for a good but not great serve, had 7. They ended up with a difference of 13 points won, which for a 3-set match, you'd expect closer to a 6-4, 6-2, 6-3 scoreline. Murray won 87% of his first-serve points. He held advantages of 6-1 in both tiebreaks. I could go on. It would not be correct to say Raonic played badly, but Murray played such a tactically brilliant match, with such flawless execution, that it might have been the best match he's ever played.
Few players ever in their prime would have stood a chance against Murray the way he played today. If he had been opposed by an in-form Djokovic or in-his-prime Fedrerer, it might have rivalled the 2008 final. So, by those lofty standards only, I'd say "massacre" is only a slight exaggeration. Raonic played well and left with dignity, but that's the best you can say for him about the end result.
I thought Raonic played quite well. But i was a nervous wreck for the whole match so my eyes were tainted. Murray dumped a few balls into the net he could have got back, particularly on some second serves. But, what i appreciated this time more than most slam finals I've watched, is the the pressure these guys are under. Pressure of the match they are playing and the occasion. You saw it on Raonic's face a few times, grimmaces...Murray always has these explosions of anger...and you think, calm down mate...but then I have no idea what they are going through, and it has to be hard to just move on to the next point.
Murray's return game was great, and i think i take it for granted, but to return a 147mph serve and win the point on your second shot of the rally, can't be easy. But then these tennis players are super human these days and they bar is so high.
Murray's return game was great, and i think i take it for granted, but to return a 147mph serve and win the point on your second shot of the rally, can't be easy. But then these tennis players are super human these days and they bar is so high.
Other than the consistency of "not fucking up his shots", Murray's superpower yesterday was aggressively and consistently returning the serves of someone you could argue is the best server on tour after Karlovic and Isner. Couldn't agree more, it's easy to take it for granted, the best way to illustrate it is in the statistics of "Returns in play". They did a pop-up of that stat a few times during the broadcast, I'm having trouble located it online right now but Murray was off-the-charts in the fraction of the time that he got a first-serve back in play. And once he did, he was winning over half of his return points, which is insane when you realize that most returns of serve are usually weak balls right into the middle of the court, usually getting you into a defensive position in the rally immediately. Raonic's real problem seemed to be that he couldn't put away weak returns immediately, and the longer a rally went on the more Murray would outplay him.
Obviously if you return a 147 for a strong return you absolutely guessed right.
It is hard for normal people to imagine just what that is like.
I was a pretty good player in college, nowhere close to a pro player as I had a poor serve and had maybe one shot I could hit a winner with (2 handed backhand crosscourt), but I could keep a rally going against good players. I had a buddy who when we left college was ranked about 50 in the world, and one of the biggest servers in the game at the time, 132-136 range. One time when he was around I ran into him as he was starting a workout, so I stood across the net as he hit about a hundred serves. First one I took on the forehand side took the racquet out of my hand. On the forehand side against the wide serve I maybe put 2 or 3 of 30 into play. First one to the body left a welt on my upper thigh, but I didn't know he was switching the pattern. . I did a bit better with my 2 hand backhand, maybe I hit one that would have been a winner type. But this was me knowing exactly where the serve was going.
I just can't even imagine what these guys do. Obviously a big part of it is they are playing percentages and guessing on where the serve will go