theentomologist Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 the. end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue4578 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Your so right, with your superb in depth tennis following knowledge, rallying him is working so well. regardless of whether anyone has seen him in the past few months. he's clearly, statistically better at the slams than Murray. Tell me that's wrong. 2-0 see. Federer has a far superior record at grand slams than Djokovic, does this mean that Federer is certainly going to win? Nadal also has a much better record than Djokovic, would Nadal inevitably beat Djokovic too? Rallying is working fine here for Murray. Going for ridiculous winners too early in the point would be stupid. Murray has said himself that the key thing about his improvement on clay this year is that he is prepared to be patient and only take the ball on at the right time. Doing this, he absolutely thrashed Nadal in the second set of the match they played in Monte Carlo. Murray also very nearly beat Djokovic in Rome play this way. The key point is, you can look at results from 2005-2010 and think you know it all but that's nonsense. Murray's level on clay right now is as good as it has ever been. Nadal's level is lower than it has been for the past five or six years. Therefore Murray had more chance coming into this match than he would've done at any time previously. I also did not say that Murray was going to win, all I was saying is that he had some sort of chance when lots of people here seems to be completely writing him off. This is the French Open we are talking about. I assume you're aware of Nadal's record there? The greatest in tennis history? That's not something which is significantly affected by his recent form IMO. The great players deliver at the top level. Your "he just needs to play the big points better (3/12 on break points as opposed to 4/8 for Nadal)" illustrates the difference. It's not a big one looking at the cold numbers, but it's a world of difference when it comes to determining who wins and who loses. Bjorn Borg has won more titles here, sorry. Federer has won more grand slams than anyone else ever, does that me he is unbeatable right now? There's no reason why Murray couldn't play the big points better, but the key reason why Murray doesn't win these sort of matches is the mental issues he has. He folds under pressure in the big matches and fails when it really matters. Nadal is the opposite, which is obviously a big thing in Nadal's favour. Right now, Murray's level of tennis can compete with Nadal's on this service. To say Murray had no chance was simply wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKee Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Your so right, with your superb in depth tennis following knowledge, rallying him is working so well. Far more knowledgable than you, and anyone else on this thread, thats for sure. This happens evey time we have an occasion like this, the 4 times a year mob givin it large. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue4578 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Against Soderling the usual Nadal was more or less back. Soderling was blown away. I can't comment on that as I haven't seen his last two matches; I'll probably watch them on Eurosport Player before the final. Usually I would be betting on this match but not really able to today having been away most of the week. Nadal today hasn't been particularly good though. If he was playing Djokovic, he would be losing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I can't comment on that as I haven't seen his last two matches; I'll probably watch them on Eurosport Player before the final. Usually I would be betting on this match but not really able to today having been away most of the week. Nadal today hasn't been particularly good though. If he was playing Djokovic, he would be losing. I agree, too many unforced errors and poor shot selections from Murray. Djokovic has a handle on Nadal's serve and topspin forehands, Murray still seems tentative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theentomologist Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Federer has a far superior record at grand slams than Djokovic, does this mean that Federer is certainly going to win? Nadal also has a much better record than Djokovic, would Nadal inevitably beat Djokovic too? Rallying is working fine here for Murray. Going for ridiculous winners too early in the point would be stupid. Murray has said himself that the key thing about his improvement on clay this year is that he is prepared to be patient and only take the ball on at the right time. Doing this, he absolutely thrashed Nadal in the second set of the match they played in Monte Carlo. Murray also very nearly beat Djokovic in Rome play this way. The key point is, you can look at results from 2005-2010 and think you know it all but that's nonsense. Murray's level on clay right now is as good as it has ever been. Nadal's level is lower than it has been for the past five or six years. Therefore Murray had more chance coming into this match than he would've done at any time previously. I also did not say that Murray was going to win, all I was saying is that he had some sort of chance when lots of people here seems to be completely writing him off. Bjorn Borg has won more titles here, sorry. Federer has won more grand slams than anyone else ever, does that me he is unbeatable right now? There's no reason why Murray couldn't play the big points better, but the key reason why Murray doesn't win these sort of matches is the mental issues he has. He folds under pressure in the big matches and fails when it really matters. Nadal is the opposite, which is obviously a big thing in Nadal's favour. Right now, Murray's level of tennis can compete with Nadal's on this service. To say Murray had no chance was simply wrong. well we can agree on that. he has some sort of chance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theentomologist Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Far more knowledgable than you, and anyone else on this thread, thats for sure. This happens evey time we have an occasion like this, the 4 times a year mob givin it large. in broad terms? probably. however it is 0-2 (1-2) with 3 being the winning line, if he wins this its the result/performance of his life, so I don't think I said anything ridiculous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue4578 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I have watched pretty much every match Nadal has played at Roland Garros (including a handful of them while sitting court side) so I'm well aware of his record here. I'm also the first to say when I think Murray is going to lose, even bizarrely being accused of having an agenda against him. I often stake £20,000+ on Nadal winning matches on clay and also had well over £9,000 on Murray losing to Djokovic in the Australian Open Final. However, I always remain open minded and say things how I see them. You can't have prejudiced views on what is going to happen without considering all the factors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tintax Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Murray will never win a grand slam unless he sorts out his attitude and hires a proper coach, fact -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Bjorn Borg has won more titles here, sorry. I'll give you that, but how do you think that will look when Nadal's career is finished? Federer has won more grand slams than anyone else ever, does that me he is unbeatable right now? No, but it's not really relevant. There's no reason why Murray couldn't play the big points better, Yes there is. You explain it well as follows: but the key reason why Murray doesn't win these sort of matches is the mental issues he has. He folds under pressure in the big matches and fails when it really matters. Nadal is the opposite, which is obviously a big thing in Nadal's favour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue4578 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Murray will never win a grand slam unless he sorts out his attitude and hires a proper coach, fact Quite possibly true. I also think he has a problem with a lack of belief in the big matches against the best player. I think that the two finals Murray played against Federer, both times he was absolutely convinced beforehand that he was going to win. Both times he failed to win a set, which is my view has seriously damaged his belief when it really matters. If he'd won one of those finals, he may well have won two or three grand slams by now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theentomologist Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I have watched pretty much every match Nadal has played at Roland Garros (including a handful of them while sitting court side) so I'm well aware of his record here. I'm also the first to say when I think Murray is going to lose, even bizarrely being accused of having an agenda against him. I often stake £20,000+ on Nadal winning matches on clay and also had well over £9,000 on Murray losing to Djokovic in the Australian Open Final. However, I always remain open minded and say things how I see them. You can't have prejudiced views on what is going to happen without considering all the factors. that's just weird. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue4578 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I'll give you that, but how do you think that will look when Nadal's career is finished? I think that Djokovic will win this year, and beyond this year there is no certainty that Nadal's fitness and motivation will hold up enough for him to overtake Borg. No, but it's not really relevant. Why? You said Nadal's recent form was irrelevant because he has won so much in the past. Why does the same not apply to Federer? People are getting their knickers in a twist for no reason here. People said Murray had absolutely no chance and was inevitably going to lose. I disagreed for the reasons outlined above. At no point did I say that Murray was going to win (he still might) or that he was favourite to do so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue4578 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Murray has had chances galore here, 3/16 on break points now with this next one to come. He has won 41% of the points on Nadal's serve. If he does lose, it will be a case of what might have been. Credit Nadal for playing the big points so well as he usually tends to do, but not been anywhere near his usual level. At the 2008 French Open for example, I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a better tournament. 3/17 now, time quickly running out. If he could get back on serve this set, then you just never know what might happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoapMactavish Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Andy Murray is shit. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 It was always predictable that Nadal would win. I'm sure we all know his record at the French Open. Less predictably, Federer is winning the other semi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David W Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Tense as anything. Going to be a few raging Froggys if this goes to a fifth set and doesn't end up finished tonight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David W Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Spellbinding. Federer still astounds me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I often stake £20,000+ on Nadal winning matches on clay Surely if you have a spare £20,000 that you can afford to bet with, it's somewhat pointless to actually bet? Unless of course you're one greedy fucker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Ponce Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Surely if you have a spare £20,000 that you can afford to bet with, it's somewhat pointless to actually bet? Unless of course you're one greedy fucker. I think it is his job, so to speak. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.