Australian Open - Djokovic: Pressure all on Murray

Novak Djokovic took a leaf out of Roger Federer's book by insisting the pressure was all on Andy Murray when the Serb faces the British Grand Slam hope in Sunday's Australian Open final.

The 2008 Melbourne champion paid tribute to Murray for coping with the huge expectations in his bid to become Britain's first men's singles Grand Slam champion in 75 years.

"It's been a tough situation for him to face this media pressure and being a British player," world number three Djokovic said.

Before beating Murray in last year's final, Fededer memorably teased the Scot by stating the "poor guy trying to win Britain's first major in 150,000 years."

Fifth seed Murray, also beaten by Federer in the 2008 US Open final, can become Britain's first male Grand Slam winner since Fred Perry in 1936 if he blocks out the hysteria and beats Djokovic on Sunday.

"You know everybody expects him to win Wimbledon and be the best player in the world because he comes from a country of tennis, you know, a great history," Djokovic added.

"Of course, Wimbledon, we all know it's the most prestigious tournament in our sport and he faced all of that (pressure) in his career.

"He managed to become one of the best players in the world. So you got to give him credit for that," added Djokovic, smile failing to mask the underlying psychological tactics.

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/29012011/58/ … urray.html


Djokovic powiela taktykę Fed sprzed roku, zobaczymy czy z podobnym skutkiem.

Ostatnio edytowany przez Robertinho (29-01-2011 15:42:33)

Murray nie zasługuje na tytuł, brzydki defensywny styl, człapie jakby lekceważył rywala, szczenę rozwiera jak jakiś zwierzak... Novacku, pyknij go 3:0, pls

Novaczek wygra, na lajcie.

Ghostbuster?



by Pete Bodo

It probably says something about the game of tennis today that the consensus "best man never to win a Grand Slam title"—that would be Andy Murray—has had the top two seeds removed from his path, but will still embark on his quest to nail down that elusive first major as an underdog.

Murray is seeded No. 5, while Novak Djokovic, his opponent early tomorrow morning in the Australian Open title match, is No. 3. As if that weren't challenging enough, Murray's chances are being shaped and conditioned by factors and forces of a kind that will have no bearing on the play of his opponent, but may influence Murray's performance.

Murray is hoping to become the first British man since Fred Perry in 1936 to win a major title. More than 270 Grand Slam events have come and gone since then, and some have been won by Italians, others by Brazilians, many by Swedes and a host by the Spanish. Even the French have won a couple during that interim, not to mention the powerhouse U.S. or Australian paragons. But no Brits. Of such statistics are legends born. They feed our fascination with the concept of the hex, or jinx.

Murray might have avoided this entire mess ("The curse of Perry!") had he won either of the two majors at which he previously made finals. You know, kill the idea before it becomes the narrative. That's precisely what Novak Djokovic did, winning the 13th major in which he played (the Australian Open of 2008). Oh, there was certainly less pressure on Djokovic. Nobody was asking, "How come the Serbs can't win major titles?" Serbia is an emerging tennis nation; Great Britian gave us the game before promptly forgetting how to play. Still, had Djokovic tarried as long as Murray, his life would have been complicated, particularly at home, with the refrain: "Will a Serb ever win a major?"

Djokovic won his major on the floor of Rod Laver Arena, besting Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who hadn't been to a major final before and hasn't been to one since. Is it a bad omen for Murray that when Djokovic won in 2008, he surprised Roger Federer in the semis, beating him in nearly identical, straight-sets fashion as he did the other day at the same juncture? If you're a Djokovic fan, you're entitled to sit back and smile, basking in a feeling of deja vu.

But let's be realistic. You can't put Murray's Grand Slam final failures down to nerves, or pressure, or a hex. He lost straight-up to Roger Federer in his two previous finals, the U.S. Open of 2008 and here in Melbourne last year. That he's returned to the final in Oz is in itself a terrific achievement. Tennis is a game of second and third and fifth chances, sure; there's always that next major, the new year. But Murray is returning to the scene of what by any reckoning was a huge, nearly crushing disappointment (some felt Murray never really recovered until late in the year). He's picking up where he left off, with a shot at redemption against a less accomplished opponent. For Djokovic is Murray's peer (they were born exactly a week apart, in May of 1987) while Federer has been both his role model and nemesis.

That the stakes seem that much higher for Murray than Djokovic can go either way. Let's be honest—for all but the most fiercely loyal Djokovic fans, the match is all about Murray, all about the ghost of Perry and the best player never to win a major, all about the hopes of a kingdom more or less united and aching for a Grand Slam champion to call its own. Just how the hype will affect Murray remains to be seen, but it might also influence Djokovic's attitude. People can get swept up in historic events in a variety of ways, not all of them good.

I have an idea.  Let's poke around the records to see what other No. 5 vs. No. 3 match-ups we might have had at the Australian Open in years gone by. We'll just go by the year-end rankings of the previous year to create our imaginary match-ups.

In 1975, the Murray role would have gone to Manolo Orantes, going up against Bjorn Borg. Ouch. In 1980, Murray would have been Guillermo Vilas matched against Jimmy Connors. Double ouch. In 1985, the No. 5 vs. No. 3 match-up would have been Stefan Edberg vs. Mats Wilander, while in 1990 Pete Sampras (No. 5) would have been in against Ivan Lendl. In 1995, it would have been Michael Chang vs. Tomas Muster, and in 2000 Yevgeny Kafelnikov would have met Pete Sampras. In 2005, the No. 5 player was Nikolay Davydenko, while Andy Roddick held the No. 3 spot. Note that in this entire comparison there's just one man who never won a major, and he's still in with a chance—Nikolay Davydenko. Take that to the bank, Murray fans, if things get rough tomorrow.

Maybe it's just me, but this match resists handicapping. Both men are playing very well, although you have to give Djokovic credit for slashing his way through a tougher draw. Djokovic took out Tomas Berdych and Federer in back-to-back matches starting in the quarters, while Murray's two victims at those stages were, respectively, unseeded quarterfinalist Alexandr Dolgopolov and No. 7 David Ferrer.



The similarities between the two players are striking. Both move beautifully and are dangerous serve returners. Murray has a better serve, and his backhand is more versatile if less forceful. Djokovic's forehand is massive, and he's great at changing the direction of successive shots. Murray can be unpredictable and has a better sneak attack, even if both players are excellent at making the transition from defense to offense.

Unless you believe uncategorically in the power of inspiration, you have to give Djokovic the nod when it comes to the intangibles. He's got his major already, and the way he's played here (and since the U.S. Open of 2010) suggests there are more to come. He's got to be stoked by that win over Federer. He's under no particular pressure to beat Murray, while getting a chance to win that first major without having to beat either Federer or Nadal kind of puts the ball in Murray's court. Even if Murray plays the best tennis of which he's capable, Djokovic might still win. And you can reverse those roles just as easily.

My only strong feeling is that the match will be won by the player who is more willing to take the initiative and press the attack, provided he executes at a reasonable level.

http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld/201 … try-3.html

Bryan brothers win fifth Aussie, 10th Slam title

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP)—American twins Bob and Mike Bryan won their fifth Australian Open doubles title and 10th Grand Slam championship, beating Indian legends Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi 6-3, 6-4 on Saturday.

The Bryans have held the No. 1 ranking in doubles for the past eight years. They have also won the U.S Open three times and the French Open and Wimbledon once each.

The Bryan brothers, who won the Australian title in 2006, ’07, ’09 and last year, and have also been runners-up twice, didn’t lose their serve and broke the Indian team twice. They celebrated the win with their familiar chest bump.

The twins already hold the record for the most tournament titles of any men’s pairing in the Open Era, which they stretched to 68, seven better than retired Australians Mark Woodforde and Todd Woodbridge.

They are also closing in on the “Woodies”’ collection of 11 Grand Slam trophies, and are within two of the Open Era record of 12 majors, held by another Australian pairing of John Newcombe and Tony Roche.

Bhupathi and Paes were a formidable combination, but their most recent previous Grand Slam tournament together was in 2002.

The Indian pair had been seeking a career Grand Slam, each having won the French Open, U.S. Open and Wimbledon either together, or with other partners.

“We have tons of respect for those guys, they are legends, they are marquee, they can only make our game better,” Bob Bryan said. “It was just great to have the ‘Indian Express’ back on the doubles court. It was an extra special feeling out there.”

Paes said the Bryans played “the perfect match.” Mike Bryan later agreed.

“If they had not served 83 percent first serves, but maybe 76 percent, it could have maybe been a different story,” Paes said. “Today we lost to the best team on the planet.”

Bhupathi and Paes have had their differences over the years, but are committed to playing together for a while.

“We are committed to play a few more tournaments,” he said. “The way we are feeling, the way we are playing, I think there is a good chance we will come back next year.”

http://www.tennis.com/articles/template … &zoneid=25

Murray v Djokovic: The new classic encounter


The classic Federer v Nadal final we all expected has been replaced by what might become one of the future classics of Grand Slam final tennis: Murray v Djokovic.

They're both 23 years old, they're both very ambitious, and they're both among the players who never got discouraged by the outstanding domination of Roger and Rafa.

Sure, sometimes it looked like it was getting to them. They've suffered and even got depressed about it, as Murray did this time last year when he lost a second Grand Slam final against Federer.

But they've been improving and improving again. They're still on the rise. They know they've been able to get this far despite the presence of the Swiss and the Spaniard.

But which of them will come out on top?

This final is very open. If Murray wins, it would finally give him his first major title. It's a victory that could set him free and help his career into a new dimension.

The Scotsman is a unique talent, but he's been hampered by playing in the shadow of the two giants, and the extra confidence that would come from winning a first Grand Slam would transform his career.

The Serbian, meanwhile, has already begun his journey to the very top. The second half of 2010 saw him reach the US Open final, beating Roger Federer along the way, and then following it up with a nice indoor season that was capped off by a Davis Cup triumph in which Nole was decisive.

It's incredible how much Djokovic and Murray have in common.

They're also friends, having knowing each other for many years and regularly training together. Being the same age, they regularly faced each other in the youth tournaments, like in the Petits As final in Tarbes. They know each others' games backwards - and have done for years.

There's more to it that that, though. They're both counter-punchers, really efficient on the longer points, but both able to bring a point to a head when an opportunity arises.

Both have great serves and are among the best in the world when it comes to returning. And both have built very high fitness levels and can defend their ground like no one else.

With so much common ground, let's take a look at the areas where one or other player should have the edge - then see the four things which will decide the match.

Advantage Djokovic

Djokovic has the edge over the Scotsman on several different levels.

Physically, I think he's even fitter because his body is perfectly suited for this sport. He's slender, explosive and very flexible.

If the match goes on and reaches five sets, I'll give an advantage to the Serbian. I think he'll be able to stay fresher if it happens. Andy, despite top-level training, is heavier and more muscular. We should get lots of long rallies in this match and physical abilities will be crucial.

On top of that, Nole is playing the best tennis of his career. He's fresh from that Davis Cup victory, which brought him an amazing confidence. He feels very strong, maybe stronger than ever.

And I've always been struck by his determination. He believes in his abilities, he's ready to fulfil his ambitions is convinced nothing can withstand him. I'm convinced that within a few years he will become the number one player in the world. It'll happen as soon as the two great champions in front of him slow down a bit and so leave him some space. His eagerness to bring that day forward as quickly as possible will give him an edge.

His experience will also give him an advantage over Murray. Andy has played two Grand Slams finals but has failed to convert them into victories, whereas Nole has a win under his belt and won't feel the same pressure.

Advantage Murray

Undoubtedly, in my opinion, the Scotsman has the edge when it comes to comparing the players' overall games.

Andy is amazingly gifted, able to pull off shots and movements that are unique in the game. He can play some magical tennis, and that will give him a huge advantage because he knows he has the ability to turn a match around. At any given moment he knows he is capable of transforming a match with four outstanding shots.

Furthermore, his game has more variety. He can hurt his opponent at any time with a single shot, and he can speed up the game like no one else - especially on his backhand.

Andy is also probably a better server than Novak - though the Scotsman struggles sometimes with his timing. If he starts tossing too far ahead he will see his first serve percentage falling, but if everything is working as it should he can fall back on his serve. It's a crushing shot, something that often gets him out of tough spots.

The four deciding factors

1. Aggressiveness will be crucial. As I mentioned earlier, both players are counter-punchers: they like to make the opponent expose himself before striking. But in this final, the player who dictates the points will have the advantage of being able to tire his opponent out.

Finals are usually won by the player who tried the hardest. You have to avoid rushing, but you must try to dominate: avoid shyness and embrace ambition. Both their natures often push them towards playing neutral tennis, but during this final it will be out of question.

2. First serve percentage will be critical. They're both great servers - but are both equally good at returning the ball. It won't be easy to hold serve in this match, and whichever of them can keep hammering the first serves in will have a chance to take a breather, and give them the luxury of taking risks on the opponent's service games. This is going to be one of the main things of this final.

3. Fitness could also be a turning point. In a Grand Slam, players always have to be ready to go to five sets, and given that we can expect a lot of long and intense rallies in this final it could make for an epic.

Both players will have many chances to take the advantage, or get back into things, and staying fresh enough to remain lucid and choose the right shots on key points will be hugely important. If the match goes to five sets - a distinct possibility - the ability to deal with that unique pressure could be decisive.

4. Finally, there's the mental game. A final is often won in the head, with the space between the ears determining the quality of performance. Mental strength will also help them through the inevitable periods of suffering players face in a Grand Slam final. And both will have to believe utterly in their ability to beat the other.

What we will see

Andy will be very focused on his serve. He knows he has to put a lot of first serves in. Both players will try to turn around their backhand after their first serve in order to win the point in two shots.

We should get a great backhands battle, this shot being a favourite for both. But Novak shouldn't get into these exchanges too often, because I think it's an area where Andy is better than him.

The Serbian will have to open up the game with his forehand, which he can use to speed things up and end the points quicker.

Andy will have to be wary, because when Nole opens up the game the Scotsman will have just one chance to strike. Djokovic will go for the Scotsman's forehand, because Andy is sometimes not that comfortable on that side.

Meanwhile, Murray will try to keep Novak pinned down on his backhand in order to make the most of his famous backhand down the line.

If both players can hold their own serves, they'll go on the offensive with each other's second serves, and use every chance they can get to put the pressure on.

Guys - best of luck to both of you!

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/pa … icle/1161/

AUSTRALIAN OPEN
DOWN UNDER DIARY, DAY 13
Melbourne, Australia


Murray Mania is gathering pace in Great Britain.

ATPWorldTour.com takes a look at the news and talking points at the Australian Open on the final Saturday.

Murray Mania Building In Britain
For once, football has been pushed aside in the Saturday sports pages in Great Britain, with the principle column inches instead dedicated to Murray and the prospect of the Scot becoming the first British male in 75 years to win a Grand Slam title. Even the small talk in the hairdressing salons of south-west London is centring on Murray.
Prime Minister David Cameron has been in touch with the 23 year old to wish him luck, as relayed by Judy Murray (@judmoo) on Twitter: “The PM sent Andy a good luck message + says he hopes the volley drills they did in the no10 dining room will come in useful. Haha unlikely:)”
Even Murray’s border terrier, Maggie May, whom he shares with girlfriend, Kim Sears, has hit the spotlight. A picture of the dog watching Murray in action on the television occupies Page 3 of The Times on Saturday.
Speaking of Maggie May, the talented pooch, who has her own Twitter page (@maggiemay_hem) has shown off her penguin impression, following the video we showed you yesterday of Team Murray’s efforts. “Credit to @alejamurray (wife of Jamie Murray) for the camera work, to myself for the raw talent and enthusiasm,” she Tweeted, along with this priceless video.
In Contrast.... There are just a couple of Serbian journalists on the ground at Melbourne Park, with Djokovic joking that he has been answering more questions in English than Serbian over the past fortnight. “It's hard for me to answer in Serbian sometimes the questions!”

Becker: 2010 Defeat Shaped Murray
Two-time Australian Open champion Boris Becker believes Andy Murray’s crushing defeat to Roger Federer in the 2010 Melbourne final was pivotal in the Scot’s development. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, the German said:
“Andy Murray’s defeat to Roger Federer in the final of the Australian Open last year was a real body blow. He broke down on court immediately after losing in Melbourne and then went on the worst stretch of his career. But while the past 12 months might not have always been enjoyable, they have certainly been formative.
“You learn the most about yourself in a slump – Nadal had his knee problems in 2009, and the following year won three grand slams. In order to succeed, to be tougher when it matters, you need to taste the sour moments. Disappointment makes you work harder. Although last year was at times dreadful in pure tennis terms, it was actually crucial in Murray’s development as a man.
“Tennis is about more than just hitting forehands and backhands, and since that day in Melbourne Murray has matured. He has always been a great tennis player, but he seems to understand much more clearly now what it takes to win, and what it takes to sustain success. It has a lot to do with becoming a man, something sportsmen have to do more quickly than normal because their career is so much shorter than average.
“This final against Djokovic is also huge for his development. A whole new career could open up if he wins. Suddenly all this will become less of a big deal. Federer attempted to console Murray 12 months ago. ‘You’re too good a player not to win a grand slam, so don’t worry about it,’ he said. You would not want to disagree with Federer on tennis. He knows best, and he is right. Murray is too good not to win.”

Legends Leaning Towards Djokovic Win
A host of tennis legends have given their predictions on Sunday’s Australian Open final to the Guardian, and most are leaning towards a Djokovic win, albeit in four or five sets.
John Newcombe: “Djokovic is coming out of winning the Davis Cup so he's really coming into this event as the fittest player, mentally and physically, and he's playing at his absolute peak. I would say straight sets to Djokovic. If Murray brings his A game it will probably be Djokovic in four sets.”
Ken Rosewall: “I'd probably be leaning towards Djokovic. He's had some experience playing in Grand Slam finals and though Andy has as well, he hasn't been as successful as yet. I think it could be a pretty tight match.”
Henri Leconte: “Djokovic. He is playing so well, he defends so well and he has all the shots. On the other hand, I hope Andy forgets about last year. It's Djokovic not Federer, but I would say it's 60-40 for Djokovic. Andy has the skill, he has the game, but he has to come more to the net. He has to take risks, he has to go for it. If he stays back, it will be difficult. If it's too hot, that's a problem for Djokovic and better for Murray. I think Djokovic in four sets.”
Rod Laver: “Djokovic has an edge because he has won it before but Murray might just get him. Murray has enough experience to handle the nerves but it will be very close. If it gets into a hitting match, Djokovic will win but if Murray can mix it up often he has the ability to pull it off. Djokovic is tenacious and he doesn't give up. He has a good serve, and his groundstrokes are probably better than Murray's. But Murray is more versatile. If he keeps Djokovic guessing he can win."

Gilbert Gives Murray The Edge
Murray’s former coach Brad Gilbert has predicted the Scot to win his first major title in five tight sets against Djokovic in the Australian Open final.
Writing for the Daily Mail, ESPN pundit Gilbert said, “For me the winner is likely to be whoever wins more points on their second serve. Both are brilliant returners, so it's who does the best job of attacking their opponent's second delivery - and defending their own. Andy could gain an advantage by coming into the net when the chance presents itself because he is a fine volleyer.
“Last season Novak served more double faults than aces but he has gone back to his old motion and it is firing beautifully again. You cannot say he has a weakness any more. If the weather is as hot as is being predicted that could work in Andy's favour. Novak reacts unpredictably to high temperatures so make him do a lot of running. I think Andy has the edge when it comes to stamina. It's a desperately tight call but I'm picking Andy to win in five tight sets.”

Bhupathi-Paes To Stick Together
Despite failing in their quest to complete the career Grand Slam with victory at the Australian Open, “The Indian Express” of Mahesh Bhupathi and Leander Paes will not be going their separate ways once more just yet. The duo, who reunited at the beginning of the season, confirmed after the final that it is a possibility they will return to Melbourne together in 2012.
“We’ve committed to play a few more tournaments,” said Bhupathi. “I think the way we're feeling and the way we're playing, there's a good chance we will [be back]."
Added Paes, “Really right now we're looking at one tournament at a time, one week at a time.  It will be awesome if you tell us we're going to get a shot in the finals next year as a team.  We'd love to be back.
“We're No. 2 in the world right now. Great start to the year. In two tournaments we've won one and made the final of a Grand Slam. Down the track, take it a step at a time. We just have fun with what we do. As long as we keep each other happy, then we keep playing together.”

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis … Diary.aspx

W Australii dochodzi godzina 17, a mamy 37*C z częściowym zachmurzeniem, finał miksta grany pod zasuniętym dachem.

Edit: Godzina 18:00 - 38 stopni!

Ostatnio edytowany przez Michal2 (30-01-2011 08:10:01)

"Klątwa czwartku" da Wyspiarzom pierwszy tytuł od 1936 roku?

Przez ostatnie trzy lata zawodnik, który w pierwszej kolejności awansował do finału Australian Open, kończył jako przegrany. Po kolei Andy Murray, Roger Federer i Jo-Wilfried Tsonga padali ofiarami "czwartkowej klątwy". Czy podobnie będzie niedzielnym w meczu Murraya z Novakiem Djokoviciem?

Serb, który właśnie w czwartek w półfinale pokonał Federera, nie robi sobie wiele z tej "klątwy". - To, co działo się w przeszłości wcale nie oznacza, że gracz wchodzący do finału jako drugi musi zwyciężyć również w tym roku - przekonuje Djokovic.

eurosport.pl

Jest jeszcze szansa 

Więcej przebijaj Andy, więcej.

E: Jakoś wyciągnął Murray.

Djoko sobie upodobał długie drugie gemy 1 seta.

Ależ panowie dzisiaj smeczują