2012 U. S. Open Championships...New York, New York

[tennis_chiro]

Bottle, how did you do that?

I’ve described before my meeting with Luke Jensen. We were on the opposite sides of a chain link fence in Michigan so we couldn’t shake hands but does that matter?

The 2012 U.S. Open had a spectacular ending, what with its high winds, its last instant choke by Victoria Azarenka, and its non-choke victory by a Brit for the first time since 1936 when Fred Perry won it.

The high winds of New York city meant that the men’s final was held on Monday, so that the usual broadcasting team of John and Patrick McEnroe was unable to come via television into the house where Hope and I live.

Instead, like thousands or millions, I sat at my computer and watched the Open website feed complete with high definition panoramas of the packed Arthur Ashe Stadium, the biggest tennis venue in the world.

Commentary was by Luke Jensen and Al Trautwig.

Here is a video of Trautwig’s coverage of Luke Jensen jumping into the Flushing fountain a few years before just so you can see what they look like in case you didn’t already know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDjcP_NNmMc

Jensen began by noting how many times Novak Djokovic was falling down. In fact Djokovic skinned both knees. Later, he changed his shoes which seemed to help. But in the first set Andy Murray went to 4-0 . Of Novak, Luke said, “He’s going for big shots too much, he doesn’t have a plan, he isn’t putting the ball in play, his second serve isn’t working.” Then, “Djokovic has to decide what he’s going to do with this effort...How much does this match truly mean to Djokovic?...He needs focus, toughness and mad dog meanness.”

Despite the truth of all this, Novak drew close. The scores for the first two unbelievably long sets were 7-6, 7-5 .

In the third and fourth sets, which Djokovic not only won but won easily, the scores were 6-2, 6-3 .

Tennis fans are aware of the 6-2 fifth set blowout, so my true goal is not to re-cap the match.

Rather, I wish to uphold my general philosophy of tennis, which is, that, once one has completed a bit of boot camp at the very beginning, tennis should always be personal.

And so, since I’ve met Luke Jensen but not John McEnroe, I have some degree more interest in what Jensen has to say—this just seems natural to me. Also, I think that Jensen, the Syracuse University women’s coach and regular World Team Tennis announcer, is the closest successor to Vic Braden in the lighthearted way he conducts clinics and relates to broad swatches of the tennis public everywhere.

This was another side of Luke Jensen though, as he tried to delve into the psyche of both players deeper than any sports announcer ever has. Just as he criticized Djokovic in the early sets, he now pointed to Murray’s easing up in the third and fourth. “Is this going to be like the women’s final yesterday? When Azarenka was ahead but didn’t have the nerve to get across the finish line?”

If I make it seem that Luke Jensen never had a positive thing to say about either player, I apologize, that simply isn’t true. Of a Djokovic shot Jensen said, “I’ve never seen the ball hit there.” And a lot else about both.

The trouble is that the positive comments that any announcers make about top players sound alike. Announcers might compare Federer’s movement separately to Nureyev, Baryshnikov, Astaire or Nijinsky but the basic idea would remain the same.

Being negative in a constructive way of course, the same announcer can become more individuated quickly if he is an effective coach to begin with.

“In the first two sets we had a sleepy Novak Djokovic. But Murray just doesn’t have it to maintain the doubt at the back of Djokovic’s head—because Murray’s nervous. But when you’re nervous you’ve got to hit out and not just for the added topspin that increases your margin of error. If you don’t do it, you put yourself into a bad emotional place.”

Trautwig: “But Djokovic is in a good emotional place.”

“Sure. He’s used to this. He’s capitalizing on the pressure.”

Al Trautwig: “Murray just can’t make it easy for himself. He almost has to have adversity.”

Not all the talk was tennis analysis though. The two discussed potholes in New York city. Trautwig described how a pothole between two Bureaus gave him a sudden flat tire and how, when he made it to the side of the street, he found seven other drivers who had just suffered a flat tire from the exact same hole.

Luke is one of the very best out there. I had the CBS video feed, but was listening to the Jensen/Trautwig audio. He's also one of the nicest, most genuine people you will meet anywhere. He brings a sense of enthusiasm to his commentating that is sadly missing in many of the network color analysts. People know he was a player and a Grand Slam champion (French doubles with brother Murphy). He is better known for the entertainment the Jensen Brothers act brought to hundreds of exhibitions. But he was a much better player than he gets credit for. He served at a world class level with both hands. I think the story goes that he broke a hand in a qualifying match for a tour level event and finished the match with the other hand, losing in a tie-breaker. I could go on. Too bad he doesn't get more time on major broadcasts. It's great to listen to the insights he brings to the matches. Also on the USTA streamed broadcasts, Taylor Dent was also very good.

But what I want to know, is how did you record the computer streamed feed for replay. I'm assuming you recorded it so you could go back and get those quotes you put in your post. One of the really sad things about that USTA streamed broadcast was that they pulled the feed down as soon as the last match ended for the day. Seemed the height of stupidity to me. Even the ATP on TennisTV has figured out to leave their broadcasts available in what they call "Catch Up". So how did you record the broadcast from USTA.com? Or do you have total recall?

don

[bottle]

Thanks for this and for the good question. Stenography and reporting are not the same. No, who has time to record every word for five and one-half hours and then ferret out the most pertinent quotes? I know you don't what with all the coaching and tennis writing that you do. Harry Clew, who had been mayor before he was the Middletown, Connecticut reporter for the Hartford Courant used to sit next to me at school board meetings and take one note for my fifty as I prepared my next day front page coverage for The Middletown Press.

I'm not saying his or my stories came out better, but there was one similarity: The editing process begins and begins heavily with the taking of notes. So I didn't write down every Luke Jensen quote although I liked them all. I just wrote down the ones that really grabbed me even while Luke was still uttering them. It's a knacky thing but not as knacky as a good dropshot. With practice it gets easier, and I have a lifetime supply of very fast number 2 Chinese pencils with Halloween decorations on them right now that one of Hope's clients, a thirty-something Korean lady who wanted Hope to help organize her decided to throw out.

Another thing, though, is that Luke talks in short, well-crafted sentences
(like a lot of the best teaching pros?) and that helps. Can the player remember the tennis tip for the rest of his life? Then it probably was short enough to write down. But some people maybe will get it directly in their muscles and bones if they don't. For less quotable people, it's true, the reporter would need a tape recorder or a command of Speedwriting or Gregg or some other shorthand as the Wellington, New Zealand editor who didn't hire me demanded. Derry, my editor at The Press, hated small notebooks and advised long legal pads or the same big sheets we typed the copy onto ("takes," we would call them) and very fast ballpoint pens. The staff at that daily thought that was all one needed. Derry's idea was that you could spread out the takes maybe on the City Room floor if nobody was around and breathe all your notes in at a single glance as you wrote your story (and no, not in longhand-- there wasn't time).

All of us including John Pekkanen who subsequently won either one or two National Journalism awards went with that.

If you talked to Luke about this or actually did compare my post with an actual transcript, you'd probably see that word for word I wasn't always a hundred per cent but got the gist. Quoted people don't mind this when the quote is close to what they said and is nice for them. If it's an incriminating quote however they'll parse it for the world and hit you over the head and take you to court and burn down the house that holds your apartment.

"Bot, I'd get a good strong lock for the door of your apartment," Derry said.

"Why would I want to do that?" I said.

There was a movie called "Pretty Poison" based on true incident and starring Anthony Perkins and Tuesday Weld. A young man helped his girlfriend murder her mother. Before that he was an arsonist in Middletown although that may not have been in the film. There were at least thirty arsons for which he was never caught. One of them was in a wastebasket on the other side of the wall from my desk at The Middletown Press.

P.S. If you get the beginning and ending of the quote in your notes, it's easier to remember it and fill in the middle later.

[bottle]

Twinnikin Deception

Don, when Luke Jensen was in Grosse Pointe, he said that his brother Murph was the more ambidextrous of the two. But I wouldn't believe any twin in any subject on the other. After Llodra and Clement upset the Bryan brothers in Winston-Salem Davis Cup, I said (and wrote here, I think) that the Bryan brothers ought to trade positions more often to confuse their opposition about their (the Bryan brothers') weaknesses and strengths.

[bottle]

The Magnificent Murray

Back to Murray though. As Luke Jensen announced near the beginning of the fifth set, "Murray is still alive!" The number of Murray aces in his next to last service game was stupendous. Any human being is capable of anything.

[stotty]

Back to the magnificent Murray though. As Luke Jensen announced near the beginning of the fifth set, "Murray is still alive!" The number of Murray aces in his next to last service game was stupendous. Any human being is capable of anything.

The highlight of the match for me was the end of the first set and the first four games of the second. Murray's ball striking was immaculate. He hits the cleanest ball on the tour...no one middles it better. Djokovic didn't know what to do or how to cope and even exhibited signs of panic. When Murray plays as freely and as loose as that he has no equal. It's all mental with Murray. He just has to get into the right state.

Djokovic has become nervy in the bigger matches. He is playing too cautiously until it's almost time to give up, and then he goes for broke. He's dangerous when he's down, but he's going have to finish big matches too.

[tennis_chiro]

Not quite ready to give Murray that accolade

The highlight of the match for me was the end of the first set and the first four games of the second. Murray's ball striking was immaculate. He hits the cleanest ball on the tour...no one middles it better. Djokovic didn't know what to do or how to cope and even exhibited signs of panic. When Murray plays as freely and as loose as that he has no equal. It's all mental with Murray. He just has to get into the right state.

Djokovic has become nervy in the bigger matches. He is playing too cautiously until it's almost time to give up, and then he goes for broke. He's dangerous when he's down, but he's going have to finish big matches too.

You have to give Murray credit for playing and finishing a great match and tournament. But I'm not sure he is a cleaner striker of the ball than Djokovic. I think he won the match when he dealt with the severe winds in the first and second sets a lot better than Djokovic did. Normally, Djokovic is so well set and stable when he hits his groundstrokes. Accordingly, he is able to be almost surgical with his accuracy and change of direction on his shots. When he plays well, Murray has a little more serve (maybe even a lot if he uses it), a better comfort level at the net and a better volley. Andy and Novak both have the ability to neutralize Nadal's high topspin forehand to their backhands and turn it into an opportunity to attack down the line. I think Djokovic is more consistent and accurate there, but both are exceptional. And I think Novak's forehand is a little stronger. And Novak's return may be slightly more consistent. Edge with the slice backhand goes to Murray. Overall, when they are both playing their best, I give the edge to Murray who can play the ball early and mix it up a little better than Djokovic, but I am not yet convinced that Murray can call upon that level of play for an extended period of time as well as Djokovic. They both certainly have greater shot tolerance than Federer. Federer can only deal with them when he can put the premium on speed and overtake their inherent consistency with versatility, creativity, a greater willingness to go offensive and a great day serving. But that means Fed has to play near his very best to handle either of them, and he has certainly done it on more than one occasion, especially indoors which is where they will play a lot of important matches the next 3 months. But, especially as Father Time makes his influence more obvious, it is becoming more and more difficult for Fed to pull all of that together and I have to give the edge (maybe 3 matches out of 5, even 7 out of 10) to Andy and Novak. We'll have to see what version of Nadal will resurface after this session of rehab, but I think he will have a hard time establishing any advantage over Andy or Novak; I'd go so far as to say he will only be even money against them on red clay. Rafa's body is refusing to absorb the beating it has to take to enable him to produce the style of play that powers his dominance on the dirt. And they both have solved the puzzle of dealing with the high bouncing Rafa forehand to their backhands.

But back to the US Open final for a moment. I felt Andy wore Novak down in that first set and a half. He could very easily have lost the first set and I believe he was actually down the mini-break in the tie-breaker. Andy's strategy of just being stubborn in that first set worked really well. The wind wiped out Novak's superiority in pinpoint accuracy with his down the line changes of direction. Both of them were hitting 2 to 4 feet further from the sidelines and even the baseline than they would have in pristine or even reasonable wind conditions. Accordingly, Djokovic couldn't establish any edge in the long rallies and the ball went back and forth with rallies of as many as 50 strokes. There were many rallies of upwards of 20 strokes. Andy broke Novak with his stubborness in that first set and a half. Conditions improved, Murray struggled a little with finishing off his first major final and Djokovic recovered to take something like 17 of 25 games from being down in the second set 4-0 to the beginning of the fifth set. But that early frustration and battle in the wind had done some serious damage and Djokovic really looked tired at the end of the fifth set. Murray got that early break and he looked far the fresher of the two as the match concluded, especially with the big serves he hit to close it out.

You can't say that you know the outcome would have been different if they had had the pristine calm that allowed Djokovic to routine the same Ferrer he couldn't deal with less than a day before. But I am convinced you would have seen a different kind of rally with the balls a lot closer to the lines and a different strategy required to obtain the victory. Stotty makes a great point about Djokovic being more conservative in his play in big moments now. It doesn't matter that the consensus opinion no longer sees Novak as an underdog, but rather as a favorite. What matters is how he sees himself; and how he feels himself. He is no longer the free swinging usurper with nothing to lose and everything to gain; now he has something to protect.

Baring some injury, Djokovic almost certainly will retake the number one ranking from Federer. By simply winning one match at Shanghai, Federer will guarantee he will hold the top spot until the points from Basel come off. Federer's 0-pointer for Tokyo will be replaced by a 90 from Doha. Another 90 from Shanghai will mean Novak can make up only 1320 points by winning Beijing and Shanghai (of course, Murray will have something to say about that, among others). Djokovic already leads the "Race to London" by 1005 points (that's the effective year-to-date ranking). However, in the current 52 week rankings, Nole trails Roger by 1335 points. If Roger can hold off Djokovic through and including the Shanghai results, he will achieve a remarkable milestone: his 300th week at number one. After that, Roger is going to have a hard time defending his undefeated streak from last October and November at Basel, Paris and London.

Still, that mark will last at least 10 years as Andy and Nole trade off the number one ranking through 2013, 2014 and, in my view, at least 2015. I don't see anyone on the horizon who can challenge them. Maybe Del Potro can make a run, but he seems to be unable to hold it together physically well enough to make the necessary improvements. If Cilic could hit first serves that were a little more what you would expect in light of his height, ... but I don't see that happening. I don't think Raonic will threaten Andy or Nole. The next number one challenger is going to probably be someone we are not even aware of yet. The challengers in the current top 20 are all on the wrong side of 25. I don't see Nishikori or Dolgopolov getting into the top 3.

An interesting contest would be to name the players in the top 10 in 2 years. You'd get 10 points for naming the number one, 9 points for number two, etc. And you'd lose a point for every ranking spot above or below your prediction they ended up, as long as they were at least in the top 10; but you would get a minimum of one point if they were at least in the top 10. Most people would get a base of about 24 points for naming Nole, Andy and Del Potro as 1,2 and 3 in some order. Anyone up for making that list and putting it up here? We can go back and look after the ATP World Finals in 2014 and see if we were even close. We might have to increase the base scores to 100, 90, 80, etc and make the points above or below your predictions count to break ties. Could be an interesting fantasy contest.

Anyway, I really marvel at the way Murray and Djokovic are able to set up and hit balls that go by everyone else. I don't think there have ever been two big men so mobile and consistent while also able to serve with the offense inherent in 130+ mph serves. Perhaps that's what set Gonzales apart in the 50's. Hopefully, we will see them play dozens of matches the next couple of years.

don

[stotty]

The forecourt...

Great post, tennis_chiro.

But....

I think Murray is far better in the forecourt than Djokovic. Djokovic is very insecure in the volley department. Anything remotely intricate becomes a liability. His overhead is less then world-class too. He missed some crucial overheads in the US Open final and in his Wimbledon semi with Federer.

Murray, by contrast, volleys very well; he seriously under utilises this part of his game. He has no problem in the overhead department either (most Brits volley and smash well because of the strong emphasis given to doubles here in the UK).

I agree about the wind factor...Djokovic hates wind...something I've stated in other posts. The wind played a huge part in the final...most significantly it screwed up Djokovic's down-the-line backhand.

I was amazed to see Murray's shot tolerance go above that of Djokovic; I though Djokovic was unsurpassable after watching him play Nadal in 2011.

Djokovic is an amazing mover, isn't he? He makes a tennis court seem tiny at times. He's the best mover I've ever seen...with Murray and Nadal a close second.

Going forward is going to be interesting. I wouldn't count Nadal out of contention. On clay over five sets he is a tour de force, and he's no pushover on any surface. He'll have been working on things in his time off, certainly his serve...and he will have been watching and weighing things up. His long sabbatical has probably been as much about a planned rest to regroup as convalescence.

And Federer will always make the semi's ...waiting for someone to slip up.

It's impossible to bet on the future heirs to the throne of the top four; there aren't any in sight...or at least none that can rightfully usurp. Someone will pop up I guess but I haven't seen him yet.

[jbill]

Under utilizes net game

A great post tennis_chiro. I always enjoy reading your analyses.

I very much agree with licensedcoach with respect to Murray's forecort game which he totally under utilizes. He is excellent at the net. He really needs to work on his transition game getting to net. He often misses opportunities in which he could get to net if he were looking for it. Interestingly, Djockovic's transition game is better as is evidenced by the final match statistics. Murray won 16 of 24 net points (67%) compared to Djockovic who won 39 of 56 points (70%).

In my opinion, if Murray were able to develop his transition game to a higher level, he could be a truly great player and would beat Djockovic, Federer and Nadal more often and more easily. It's the missing link in his game.

[tennis_chiro]

It's just a mindset

A great post tennis_chiro. I always enjoy reading your analyses.

I very much agree with licensedcoach with respect to Murray's forecort game which he totally under utilizes. He is excellent at the net. He really needs to work on his transition game getting to net. He often misses opportunities in which he could get to net if he were looking for it. Interestingly, Djockovic's transition game is better as is evidenced by the final match statistics. Murray won 16 of 24 net points (67%) compared to Djockovic who won 39 of 56 points (70%).

In my opinion, if Murray were able to develop his transition game to a higher level, he could be a truly great player and would beat Djockovic, Federer and Nadal more often and more easily. It's the missing link in his game.

Thanks for the kind words, JBill.

I don't think it is a question of developing something he doesn't already have. Certainly, he could improve it, but the biggest thing would be to come to the mindset where he takes advantage of his opportunities to use his transition game when they present themselves. They can all hit midcourt forehands and Murray is actually a little ahead of the pack with respect to his slice. I think Lendl helped him adopt a more aggressive style and that has made a big difference. Remember Lendl had Roche trying to get Ivan to play the front court better, primarily for the sake of Wimbledon. In his case, it may have been a mistake, even with that grass, and he may have been better going with what he was best at. But you are correct, Murray has more ability at the net. To move ahead of the other members of the big 4, he needs to further develop and then really take advantage of the edge he has in the forecourt (although it is of course arguable whether he has any edge there over Federer; and it's only arguable because Fed doesn't volley as well as he did 8 or 9 years ago when he went forward a lot more).

It will be interesting to see how the next couple of months play out: Shanghai, Paris, London with Murray having increased confidence on the big stage. I'm hoping Fed proves me wrong and runs out another phenomenal string on the indoor courts, but I don't think it will happen.

don