Andy Murray The Greatest and General Tennis Chat

[Skyline Drifter]

Aye, if Murray needs a sports psychologist I doubt he'll be giving you a ring. Jeesh. Talk about glass half empty

So Murray only humped Nadal because he was going through the motions? Crap. He hammered him. End of story. If you think Nadal goes through the motions against anybody it just shows an incredible ignorance of Nadal's mindset and a complete lack of respect to Murray.

Uh huh.

He hammered him (in three sets). As he has on occasion before. But not when it has mattered most. Nadal also contrived to lose to Florien Mayer last week, hardly indicative of a player at the top of his game is it? Get off your high horse, it was and is an honest assessment. Lack of respect! Behave. I'm not a sports pyschologist and it's not my job to be a cheerleader for Andy Murray. Nor am I required to exaggerate the importance of a few tail end of season tournament wins any more than I was required to do so when he made No 2 in the world briefly and came into the US Open last year off the back of a burst of great form in the North American Masters events.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Skyline Drifter

[RedWeb]

He hammered him (in three sets)

Pedant alert. Ok, he hammered him in sets two and three. Check that, he annihilated him in the third set. Murray has actually beaten Nadal twice in slams. Presumably he was injured and going through the motions on both occasions. Murray won Shanghai last year against Federer so it makes no difference who turns up at Masters 1000, Murray can still win comfortably. Yes, Nole and Fed remain an issue in slams but perhaps his more aggressive play will pay dividends next season.

[Skyline Drifter]

Pedant alert. Ok, he hammered him in sets two and three. Check that, he annihilated him in the third set. Murray has actually beaten Nadal twice in slams. Presumably he was injured and going through the motions on both occasions. Murray won Shanghai last year against Federer so it makes no difference who turns up at Masters 1000, Murray can still win comfortably. Yes, Nole and Fed remain an issue in slams but perhaps his more aggressive play will pay dividends next season.

Well he was certainly injured in one of them but that wasn't my point and I've no idea why you decided to make it so. Related to Andy Murray are you, because you are awfully damned sensitive over not a lot here?

Nadal has been beaten in Grand Slams twice but not to actually win one. I'm not saying he won't win a Grand Slam either. I've long thought (and posted here) he probably will eventually, though he's undeniably running out of time to do it. History is against him doing so now but there have been exceptions before and will be again.

I never said he couldn't win Masters 1000 events. He has loads of them under his belt when everybody was there so it would be a particularly stupid thing to say. On the contrary, what I said was that he has had great runs in such events before, even indeed not end of season when the others are out of form or not here, and still come up short and been unable to raise his game to their level when the Majors come along.

Little would give me more pleasure than for this run of form to continue through January and see him lift the Aussie Open. All I am saying is he's no more or less likely to do it because he happens to have won a few end of season best of three set events. Which incidentally is effectively what I think Stewarty was saying too.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Skyline Drifter

[RedWeb]

Well he was certainly injured in one of them

Nope. Only tweaked his knee at the end of the second set in Oz. Was already on his way to a humping and has admitted as much.

Other than that you seem to agree with me. Fairy snuff.

[Skyline Drifter]

Nope. Only tweaked his knee at the end of the second set in Oz. Was already on his way to a humping and has admitted as much.

Other than that you seem to agree with me. Fairy snuff.

Nadal was never properly fit in that Aussie Open and struggled through previous rounds too even if the injury that ended his match with Murray was a new one. Still irrelevant and not my point though.

[RedWeb]

Nadal was never properly fit in that Aussie Open and struggled through previous rounds too even if the injury that ended his match with Murray was a new one.

Umm, err, ah, ok.

[DomDom]

OH NOES!!! MURRAY SLAGGING!!! DEFEND!!! DEFEND!!!

There's a reason those above him have won grand slams and he hasn't. He's not good enough right now. Get over it.

[Monster]

I don't understand people's attitude to Murray sometimes. He loses to Nadal in a Slam and it's 'oh yeah, he's not good enough'. He absolutely blitzes Nadal in an ATP 1000 tournament and it's 'oh Nadal was going through the motions'.

Murray is phenomenally unlucky in the sense that he has three players competing with him for every slam that will all go down in history as legends of the game. Had he been around twenty years ago Murray would have had three Slams minimum by the age of 24. Yet still he lives with those three on the court and in the rankings, indeed so much so tennis pundits call it 'the big four'.

I know in any sport you're judged by the Slams you win and I agree Murray won't be respected by non-tennis fans until he wins one (if he does), but he's respected by his peers and is genuinely miles ahead of anyone but Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. It would be easy for him to be demotivated by three Final losses, but he still wants a Slam and still believes he can win one.

[blue4578]

I have a massive amount of respect for Andy Murray's achievements and his ability as a tennis player, but the fact remains that Federer and Nadal in particular know exactly how to peak at the right time. Murray's best form tends to come in the hard court Masters 1000 events (eight wins from nine finals is fantastic). It's difficult to read too much into form at this time of year as certain players are not fully fit, like Federer and Djokovic, and other players lack motivation once the US Open has finished. Even so, winning any Masters 1000 event is a massive achievement for anyone but that doesn't mean much heading into the Australian Open in January.

We should just be pleased at how good Murray is and support him as he attempts to win a grand slam. My own personal opinion, which I have held for a few years, is that Murray is less than 50% likely to ever win one, but we shall see.

Yes, Nole and Fed remain an issue in slams but perhaps his more aggressive play will pay dividends next season.

Nadal beat Murray in the semi finals of the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open this year, with Murray coming nowhere remotely close to winning any of the three matches, winning only two sets. Indeed he has played Nadal in grand slams eight times (2-6), whereas he has only met Djokovic once and Federer twice. Murray didn't win a set in those meetings with Federer and Djokovic, but is that worse than losing to Nadal six times out of eight? Depends on your perspective.

[pantene proV]

The pleasing aspects are his concentration, 1st serve & forehand (especially) have been consistently good recently. I'll hold fire until I see him in the next slam beside the other 3 before I go overboard though. His 5 set record against them is awful!

There are encouraging signs this season at least; semi's at least in every major/a great winning streak/humping a fully fit Nadal/one of only 2 players to beat Nole/the consistent depth of the forehand this past month

Edited October 17, 2011 by pantene proV

[H_B]

I don't understand people's attitude to Murray sometimes. He loses to Nadal in a Slam and it's 'oh yeah, he's not good enough'. He absolutely blitzes Nadal in an ATP 1000 tournament and it's 'oh Nadal was going through the motions'.

Nadal's record post-US Open is absolutely woeful (comparatively speaking) every year.

As said above, he peaks at certain times of the year, which is why he has absolutely destroyed Andy Murray in 3 Grand Slams this year.

[Monster]

Nadal's record post-US Open is absolutely woeful (comparatively speaking) every year.

As said above, he peaks at certain times of the year, which is why he has absolutely destroyed Andy Murray in 3 Grand Slams this year.

Absolutely, there's no doubt there's a 5% gap between Murray and Nadal, particularly in a Slam. I think it's a mental issue with Murray in Slam finals - he's beaten Nadal at the U.S. Open in a semi-final. The Australian Final against Federer destroyed him mentally - if he'd won that he might have won more.

It's no coincidence that when Murray is in form like he is at the moment he's coming forward all the time and being aggressive on the court. That and 70% of first serves in and he's hard to beat. Drop the serve %age and the woeful second serve makes Murray far less daunting for Nadal/Djokovic/Federer.

[blue4578]

It was a very good win in Shanghai, but before we get too carried away, let's not forget that his draw was: Bye / Walkover / Wawrinka / Ebden / Nishikori / Ferrer. Tokyo was a stiffer test in terms of opponents: Baghdatis / Bogomolov / Nalbandian / Ferrer / Nadal, while in Bangkok it was Berrer / Dimitrov / Simon / Young. Ferrer in my opinion was awful in Shanghai and needed a miracle to survive against Ferrero. The courts and balls also do not suit Ferrer. Therefore the only win of any note was against Nadal in Tokyo. Simon may be ranked 12th, but his game is the perfect match for Murray to play against, which Murray has won their last eight matches.

We've had the debate many times before about Murray in grand slam finals, but it's not purely a mental issue, far from it. His first final, at the 2008 US Open against Federer, Murray was extremely confident of winning after winning the two previous matches against Federer. I thought he had a good shot at it as well as I remember betting on Murray to win at odds of 7/4. Then he got absolutely crushed, and realised that Federer in grand slams is 10% better than Federer in the smaller tournaments because he peaks for those events. The second final, against Federer at the Australian Open in 2010, Murray just didn't play at all well having played well in the tournament. The third set he missed two incredibly easy volleys to win it, so you could say that match got away from him due to lack of belief and / or being overcome by nerves. The third final against Djokovic, it didn't matter what Murray had done, nothing he could do was going to beat Djokovic that day. Most people didn't know it at the time, but it was clear that Djokovic had improved his level massively and was the best player.

[T_S_A_R]

Nadal's record post-US Open is absolutely woeful (comparatively speaking) every year.

As said above, he peaks at certain times of the year

and you find nothing suspicious about this?

[H_B]

and you find nothing suspicious about this?

Umm, no. Most professional athletes peak at certain times of the season.

Even golfers arrange their schedule to ensure they are tip top for the Masters.

[the jambo-rocker]

Umm, no. Most professional athletes peak at certain times of the season.

Even golfers arrange their schedule to ensure they are tip top for the Masters.

This. I recall that David Nalbandian would always be peaking at this time of the tennis year just in time for the top 8 finals a couple of years back and had even beaten guys like Federer in the process.

[H_B]

This. I recall that David Nalbandian would always be peaking at this time of the tennis year just in time for the top 8 finals a couple of years back and had even beaten guys like Federer in the process.

Federer I believe always had a mid-season training camp, which meant his form dropped off a little after that, then picked up again for the later majors.

I believe Barcelona have something similar, which is why their form usually dips (albeit slightly) at a particular point in the season.

TSAR has some bizarre drugs obsession. He has already accused Andy Murray, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic of being drugs cheats I'm not sure about Federer. No doubt he is suspect also.

[T_S_A_R]

Umm, no. Most professional athletes peak at certain times of the season.

Even golfers arrange their schedule to ensure they are tip top for the Masters.

there is a difference between timing peaks and the massive variances in form nadal has shown either side of the US open. to go from fairly abject performance in toronto and cinncinati to the form he is displayed in the later stages of the US open is mystifing to me. it can't be attributed to training camps as you would expect any serious training to be carried out in the gap between wimbledon and the US open series.

you don't find it strange that in 2010 he added 10 m.p.h onto his average serve at the US open attributing it to a grip change? that is barely credible and the fact that he hasn't been able to repeat this trick makes me believe there is more to it.

we now continually see matches in tennis that we would not have thought possible just ten years ago. 5 sets matches don't seem to have the same effects on players that they used to despite matches generally being longer and more physical. considering the up swing in performance combined with the extremely lax and easy to beat testing regime plus the ITF's record on PED cover ups i think a cynical view point is a natural one to take.

the first time we discussed this you bailed out the debate without answering this question. do you believe any of the following players used PEDs during their career: maruesmo, mary pierce, capriati, serena williams or sam stosur?

[RedWeb]

Mauresmo was a man.

[Broxi#1]

What date is the top 8 players in London and is the competition getting played on grass courts?

I agree with most posters that have said Murray didn't need to beat any top class players, eg Djokovic or Federer and although he beat Nadal, I still think it will be Djokovic and Nadal picking up the Slams next year. However, I agree next year is Murray's best chance to win a Slam.