Olympic Tennis

juvenal

Federer and Nadal favourites in a field of 64.

Nadal just won his first round match against Potito Starace (world ranking #74) 6-4, 3-6, 6-2. He made hard work of it, and really struggled to get his first serve up to scratch. He's likely to face Lleyton Hewitt in the second round, Andy Murray is a probable quarter-final opponent and third seed Novak Djokovic a likely semi-final.

James Blake, Davydenko and Gonzalez are also through to round two.

Federer is on the other side of the draw, and is taking on Dmitry Tursunov later today.

Serena Williams is continuing her match now.

juvenal

Federer won in a canter, 6-4, 6-2. Served out with a nasty ace to win.

Serena Williams also won in two sets.

Anyone who wants to watch online with perfect quality, any live event, PM me. I've some tips

Sea Devils

Murray out.

He didn't look interested at all and when he did, he looked knackered.

Clearly not interested in the olympics and is looking to the US Open.

davyjose

Sea Devils wrote: »

Clearly not interested in the olympics and is looking to the US Open.

That's what makes him a loser.

anotherlostie

davyjose wrote: »

That's what makes him a loser.

You obviously know a lot about Olympics tennis. Because this is what happens to a lot of the top players; they are demotivated by the lack of earnings/ ATP points and don't give it their all - Nadal being a case in point. Did anyone have a punt on Nicholas Massu and Mardy Fish to win gold and silver in Sydney?

Judy Murray (his ma if you don't know), as much as said that anyone doing well in the Olympics would be fooked for the US Open. It will be interesting to see if he puts any more effort into the doubles (having come through the first round).

McGetty

I don't think Nadal's poor showing in the first round is down to lack of interest - I think he's just knackered after winning Toronto and getting to the semis in ridiculous heat in Cinicinnatti. He was playing well below his best against Djokovic.

I don't understand the lack of motivation amongst some players, though - doesn't this have the same points value as a Masters Series for the men and a Tier 1 for the women?

davyjose

anotherlostie wrote: »

You obviously know a lot about Olympics tennis. Because this is what happens to a lot of the top players; they are demotivated by the lack of earnings/ ATP points and don't give it their all - Nadal being a case in point. Did anyone have a punt on Nicholas Massu and Mardy Fish to win gold and silver in Sydney?

Judy Murray (his ma if you don't know), as much as said that anyone doing well in the Olympics would be fooked for the US Open. It will be interesting to see if he puts any more effort into the doubles (having come through the first round).

I know enough to know that the Olympics carries ranking points.

Nadal dropped a set; I wouldn't put this in the same league as lsing a first round match. I'll be surprised if we don't have Fed, Djoko and Nadal in the semi's. Reason - the guys are winners; winning everything matters to them, not just certain things (hence why Murray is a loser). And as for Judy Murray, we'll see how well her son does in the US open after her son's first round loss so, shall we?

juvenal

I think that some players on the tour place no value in the Olympics.

Credit to those players who are there and giving there all. I do think, and this is probably more relevant to those challenging for their first Grand Slam title or on the fringes of another (Roddick, Murray, Blake), that they see it as another tournament and their real focus in on Flushing Meadows. Granted, these three I've mentioned probably stand their best chance of a grand slam victory in either Melbourne or New York, so right now their focus is on the US. Roddick didn't even bother to travel to Beijing.

Federer and Nadal will give their all this year I feel, (a) because Federer needs the win more than ever in his career, and (b) because Nadal is on a roll and his competitive nature is like Tiger Woods, maybe not the most endearing, but certainly driven.

Someone on BBC said that if winning an Olympic Gold Medal is not the pinnacle of your sport, then you're playing a non-Olympic sport. I have to agree with this sentiment. We can all agree that to the players, an Olympic Gold is secondary to the Grand Slam events - which is a pity IMO.

Soccer, tennis, and possible boxing fall into this catergory.

juvenal

Nadal v Hewitt & Federer v Arevalo later on tonight (Beijing time) / early Tuesday morning (Irish time)

juvenal

Nadal beat Hewitt 6-1, 6-2 - plays Igor Andreev next

Federer beat Rafael Arevaleo 6-2, 6-4 - plays Tomas Berdych next

Other third round ties confirmed:

Djokovic v Youzhny
Nalbandian v Monfils
Kiefer v Mathieu

anotherlostie

I didn't realise that ATP points were awarded for Olympic competition. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I still hate people having a swipe at a sportsman* solely because he is British.

On today's matches, Hewitt's performance must have been hindered by his lengthy doubles tie.

* especially the one who won the most recent Masters series title.

davyjose

anotherlostie wrote: »

I still hate people having a swipe at a sportsman* solely because he is British.

So do I mate, and that is certainly not what I was doing. I do believe however that if Murray wants to flex his muscles with the big boys (and, yeah, being British puts him under a lot of media scrutiny in this part of the world), he has to do it on a regular basis. The fact that he threw the Olympics in order to give himself a chance at Flushing Meadows proves, to me, that he is not in the same class as Rafa, Fed and Djoko.

juvenal

I don't think davy was criticising Murray due to his nationality, rather his apparent attitude in the event.

I think Murray feels the pressure of a grand slam coming up moreso because he doesn't have one. Rafa & Fed have 17(?) between them, and Djokovic has another himself, so he's broken into the elite top tier. I think that Djokovic would still give his all even without his Aus Open title, as the Serbians are generally ultra patriotic, and competiting in the Olympics for your country, which didn't exist twenty years ago, is bound to be enough motivation to give 110%.

I didn't see Murray match at all, apart from some doubles highlights, but I would guess that while he was disappointed he wasn't as gutted if he gets k.o.'ed in the first round of the US.

Fairly controversial blog article on BBC - which then sparked off a massive row with over 300 comments on it.

Matt Slater bbc.com sport wrote:

Move over Murray, these Games ain't for you

There were perhaps 200 people watching the first-round match between Andy Murray and Lu Yen-Hsun of Chinese Taipei (that's "made in Taiwan" to you and me but not the IOC and certainly not our hosts) on Monday, and, to be honest, I have no idea why any of them were there. OK, I can guess why Judy Murray was there - she was probably killing time before her elder son Jamie had his big moment in the doubles tournament.

Lu seemed to be enjoying himself too but then he had only won seven of his 19 previous matches in 2008. But the rest of us? Murray the younger was clearly experiencing the same confusion. He turned up, fresh from a superb (British) win in the US, under the illusion he was a rising star, playing an unheralded also-ran for a place in the last 32 of the most important, most ancient, most magnificent event in the sporting calendar.

Sadly, it seemed to dawn on the (by now) Scot he was miserably out of sorts and probably wasting his time against a mediocre but far more up-for-it opponent, in an event he shouldn't be playing in anyway when the US Open is only a fortnight away.

"The US Open?!? Why didn't you tell me?" I imagined Murray to be muttering when the game against Lu started to go down the toilet.

"That's one of the four biggest events in my sport and if I win that I'm made for life. It will be a glorious new start for British (again) tennis and my name will be up there in lights with Roger's, Rafa's and Novak's. What on earth am I doing in Beijing?"

The list of names finding reasons not to be here was growing right up until the tournament started on Sunday. It seemed getting the sport's biggest stars to come to Beijing was no guarantee they'd actually take part in the tournament. Federer and Nadal (the two names are just said together now) played and won today, which frankly saves the tournament as a serious competition, and the Williams sisters appear to be up for it. But what about the others? Former world number one Andy Roddick made it clear his priority was the US Open, his national championship, and not the Games. Ana Ivanovic, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova and former champion Lindsay Davenport have all made their excuses, and defending champion Justine Henin-Hardenne would not have risked aggravating her asthma in Beijing even if she was still playing the game.

At least the women's event has a grand slam-calibre honours board - since its Olympic comeback in 1988, the female champions have been Steffi Graf, Jennifer Capriati, Davenport, Venus and Henin-Hardenne.

The current Olympic men's champion anybody?

It's Nicolas Massu, in case you'd forgotten: before him the winners include Marc Rosset and Miloslav Mecir. Massu had to be given a special invite to be able to defend his title, so bad has his form been since Athens. It was Mardy Fish he beat in the final in 2004, by the way, but he's stayed at home with Roddick.

The debate about what should and what shouldn't be an Olympic sport has been going on so long it's almost an Olympic sport itself, but it is actually quite simple. If winning an Olympic gold medal is not the highest accolade in your sport, you're playing a non-Olympic sport. Tennis fails this test by some margin - are the Games even the fifth biggest event on the sport's schedule?

Watching Murray throw away a winning position in the first set, sulk his way through a tie-break and then battle the voice in his head telling him to give up in the second set was actually quite depressing. Depressing because I didn't really blame him. If I were struggling with my game and not really feeling the Olympic buzz, I would have started thinking about Flushing Meadows too. It is about priorities. Of course, the equation is a little different for doubles specialist Jamie and there is a school of thought that says the pairs format should be spared from any Olympic chop, the rationale being doubles is a neglected event that needs the Games' exposure. It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure I buy it. Would that really raise doubles' profile (Massu and Fernando Gonzalez won the men's doubles in Athens, in case you were wondering)? Wouldn't we just be left with a tournament with even fewer top players? I think there is a chance that would widen the gap between the two formats, effectively creating two sports: a popular/professional one called singles, and an Olympic one called doubles. Players who chose the latter would probably need funding.

Hold on a minute, this sounds a bit like that other great Olympic anomaly, "amateur" boxing. Best not go there, we've got medal hopes. The really annoying thing about the inclusion of tennis (and basketball and football, to name two other star-studded but distracted "Olympic" sports) is that it queers the pitch for those sports that really do need and value the Games. It was interesting to see how the TV cameras kept picking out the tennis players, NBA superstars and top footballers during Friday's opening ceremony. Most Olympic athletes are totally foreign to us; the International Olympic Committee and the people that pay for this whole shebang know that. I would be surprised if the man on the Clapham omnibus could identify more than a dozen of Team GB here in Beijing (I think most sports journalists would struggle to get more than 50 of the 313). But that is precisely why these four-yearly gatherings are so precious for the archers, badminton players and canoeists - this is their life's ambition and shop window rolled into one. And I believe the viewing public gets that.

The IOC and ad-men need not fear our lack of familiarity with the back stories of the boys in the coxless four or girls in our 4x200m freestyle team. Which is why tonight I will be raising a glass to our real Olympic stars Nicole Cooke, Rebecca Adlington and Jo Jackson, and doing my best to forget Andy Murray's tennis campaign. He won't lose too much sleep over it. He's got his sport's fourth and final big event to look forward to in New York in a couple of weeks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/08/there_were_perhaps_200_people.html

juvenal

Federer defeats Berdych, who knocked him out in Athens, 6-3 7-6 (7-4), .

Nadal beats Andreev 6-4 6-2.

Murray brothers get knocked out in doubles.

Mens quarter-final line up:

Federer v Blake
Mathieu v Gonzalez
Djokovic v Nalbandian/Monfils
Nadal v Melzer

Quite a strong field left compared to previous years. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

The women's looks set up for another Williams final:

S Bammer v V Zvonareva
S Williams v E Dementieva
V Williams v Li Na
D Safina v J Jankovic

juvenal

Federer is down a set and a break against Blake.

Blake leads 6-4, 3-1.

Edit: Federer breaks back and holds and it's 3-3 in the second with Blake serving.

juvenal

Second set goes to tie-break and Blake gets an early break on Federer's serve.

juvenal

And Federer is out.

Blake wins 6-4, 7-6 (7-2).

Only saw the second set, but Blake was far more consistent, served out a couple of games to love and forced Federer to earn every service game. Federer has too many unforced errors and missed first serves. That's Blake's first victory in seven attempts against Federer.

Roger's season has totally fallen apart, he looks likes he's mentally struggling as well, and I can't see him putting a solid run in New York, possibly going out before the 1/4 finals.

Venus Williams uo next on Centre Court.

KnifeWRENCH

juvenal wrote: »

Roger's season has totally fallen apart, he looks likes he's mentally struggling as well, and I can't see him putting a solid run in New York, possibly going out before the 1/4 finals.

Oh I don't know about that. At a Grand-Slam event, I think his mental toughness will come back to him and he'll probably make the final at least.

davyjose

juvenal wrote: »

Roger's season has totally fallen apart, he looks likes he's mentally struggling as well, and I can't see him putting a solid run in New York, possibly going out before the 1/4 finals.

Completely agree, he put the Olympics big-time on his to-do list this season and this will be a disaster for him. He'll need to go back to the drawing boards in December and clear his head - can't see him winning in New York now myself.

Blisterman

Nadal, is, as of next monday, the new world number one.

While I could see Federer taking it back at the US open, as far as I'm concerned, the torch has been passed.

juvenal

Blisterman wrote: »

Nadal, is, as of next monday, the new world number one.

While I could see Federer taking it back at the US open, as far as I'm concerned, the torch has been passed.

I agree the torch has been passed, but I think it's far too early to say that Roger Federer is finished as a world #1. This season has been notable for two things - Federer's decline in form and Nadal's improvement of his all-round game. I'm a Fed man, but Nadal is streets ahead of him at the moment on form and also with the aura of invincibility that great players have.

For several seasons before 2008 most players were already beaten before the took the court with Federer. He had this aura about him that was worth a set before a ball was struck. Now every player believes that they can beat him, and the more results that go against him the more this will grow. Nadal is not at the level that Federer has been at over the past 4/5 years, but he's certainly approaching there.

I think Federer has the ability to regain the #1 ranking, break Sampras' record and get back to the position of dominance that he enjoyed over the past few years, but it's up to him to see if he has the desire and the mental drive to do it. I think a coach would give him some analysis that he doesn't have at the moment, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wins in Paris and consolidates himself as the greatest of all time before his career ends.

This season Federer reached the semis in Australia and the final in both RG and Wimbledon. To any other player apart except possibly Nadal, this would be a damn good year, but we expect him to win these titles, not lose in the finals. When Federer said that he had created a monster with all the titles and dominance over the past few years he was absolutely right. He's making a huge number of unforced errors at the moment, and a coach could change something small that will give him the x-factor again. I read a recent article that was very interesting regarding his racquet size, which apparently one of the smallest on the tour, and it could be something like this which is the change he needs. He has to sit back and see where it's going to go from here if he is to get back to where he has been, as the game is constantly evolving but it feels like he's just stood still this year and watched others pass him by.

Remember, this is looking like the first year since 2002 that Federer will not win a grand slam event, and the first since 2003 that he won't hold multiple grand slam titles, which is a staggering record. Yet even if he wins in Flushing it will still feel like a very disappointing season - that's the monster. :eek:

It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

Xavi6

Delighted to see both Williams brothers going out

elmolesto

I can see Federer doing well in Flushing Meadow. His year wasn't that bad, he just didn't win any major tournament.

If he recaptures his game and I think he will shortly, he will reconquer his status as world number one.

I think he needs a good coach to help going through this "losing streak".

cfitz

I think if Federer was to win the US Open by beating Nadal in the final (especially if he did it without having to win any tie-breakers in the final), it would be such a turn around in form that the poor results this season wouldn't matter too much. He would be revitalised and ready for a big 2009.

However, if he performs badly at the US Open which is starting to look likely, he has a bit of a mountain to climb in 2009.

juvenal

Gonzalez knocked Blake out this morning in a marathon 4-6, 7-5, 11-9.

Gonzalez has a singles bronze and a doubles gold from Athens, and is now guaranteed at least a silver and will face either Nadal or Djokovic who are in action in the other semi-final at the moment.

juvenal

Nadal beat Djokovic 6-4, 1-6, 6-4, breaking Djokovic at 5-4 for the win.

Djokovic missed a sitter of a smash at Nadal's second match point to hand him the win. Lost it really on his serve.

elmolesto

Good match from Nadal.

juvenal

It's Nadal's to lose now, I'll be surprised if Gonzalez topples him, despite his Olympic pedigree.

What a seaon so far.

juvenal

Mens Final:

Gonzalez v Nadal

Womens semi-finals:

Zvonareva v Dementieva
Li v Safina

Mens doubles final

Federer will get his chance to win a first Olympic medal tomorrow when he partners Stanislas Wawrinka in the mens doubles final. The Swiss pair shocked USA's #1 seeded Bryan brothers 7-6, 6-4 in the semi-final.

In the other semi-final, Sweden's Simon Aspelin and Thomas Johansson beat Arnaud Clement and Michael Llodra of France in the longest three-set men's match in Olympic history.

The eventual scoreline of 7-6 (8/6), 4-6, 19-17, played over four hours and 46 minutes, added up to 59 games plus a tie-break.:eek:

Womens doubles final

Alona Bondarenko & Kateryna Bondarenko (UKR) v Venus & Serena Williams (USA)

davyjose

juvenal wrote: »

Mens Final:

Gonzalez v Nadal

Womens semi-finals:

Zvonareva v Dementieva
Li v Safina

Mens doubles final

Federer will get his chance to win a first Olympic medal tomorrow when he partners Stanislas Wawrinka in the mens doubles final. The Swiss pair shocked USA's #1 seeded Bryan brothers 7-6, 6-4 in the semi-final.

In the other semi-final, Sweden's Simon Aspelin and Thomas Johansson beat Arnaud Clement and Michael Llodra of France in the longest three-set men's match in Olympic history.

The eventual scoreline of 7-6 (8/6), 4-6, 19-17, played over four hours and 46 minutes, added up to 59 games plus a tie-break.:eek:

Womens doubles final

Alona Bondarenko & Kateryna Bondarenko (UKR) v Venus & Serena Williams (USA)

I'd like to see Fed get the medal - albeit doubles. He deserves at least that. I can't see Nadal being beaten now, Olympic gold before the US open and his world #1 ranking - let's hope he didn't hear what Judy Murray said :pac:

juvenal

davyjose wrote: »

I'd like to see Fed get the medal - albeit doubles. He deserves at least that. I can't see Nadal being beaten now, Olympic gold before the US open and his world #1 ranking - let's hope he didn't hear what Judy Murray said :pac:

Re Olympic run would affect US Open chances?

I agree that it would be good to see Fed get a gold. While I would question including tennis in the Olympics, especially looking at the gold medallists over the years, I think the way the top players have embraced it this year has enhanced it's reputation somewhat.

Running Bing

When is the final?



Tennis coverage has been very bad....have RTE showed any of it yet? surprising given the people who compete in it.

juvenal

Djokovic deafeated Blake 6-3 7-6 (7-4) in the Bronze medal match.

The mens double final started a few mins ago and is going to serve.

Singles final is tomorrow

juvenal

So far so good, Swiss due Federer & Wawrinka lead the Swedish pair 6-3, 6-4, in a best of five-set match.

davyjose

juvenal wrote: »

Re Olympic run would affect US Open chances?

Yup. In fact I would say it enhances his chances somewhat - a win against Djoko on the Serbs favourite surface (same as US Open surface) will only do him good. A week off for Nadal, plus the psychological gains from winning the Gold* is ample preparation for him.

* Taking liberties here, but I really can't see him lose it.

Xavi6

Gold for Fed in the doubles anyway.

juvenal

Great stuff for Fed and Wawrinka. Obviously the singles was the target, but the doubles gold is an Olympic Gold medal - top shelf.

I expect Nadal to win easily tomorrow.

MisterAnarchy

juvenal wrote: »

Great stuff for Fed and Wawrinka. Obviously the singles was the target, but the doubles gold is an Olympic Gold medal - top shelf.

Well deserved.
That Wawrinka is a fine player ,he has a sweet backhand.

juvenal

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Well deserved.
That Wawrinka is a fine player ,he has a sweet backhand.

Yeah, he had some great winners that you'd expect from Federer and you could see Roger laughing when he did.

I think the doubles in the Olympics is great as it's not just a professional partnership but also a national team. The Swiss should be well chuffed, as it was far from a walk-over, and they beat the Bryan brothers en route who've been #1 in the world since Spet 2003 and five times Grand Slam winners.

elmolesto

I'm delighted for Federer. Hope this medal will put him back on track.

davyjose

Nadal wins. What a season for the guy. Incredible.

Fast_Mover

Yeah, amazing year that Nadal's having indeed!
Glad to see Federer getting a gold medal..albeit in mens doubles.

See that the Willams sisters won 6-2, 6-0 for gold in the womens double.

elmolesto

Fair play to Nadal, he is producing some of the best tennis I have ever seen.

I think, he stands great chances to take down the US Open this year.