Andy Murray The Greatest and General Tennis Chat

[H_B]

but if the grass court field was as strong as the clay, federer wouldn't have been as nearly dominant on grass as he was.

Your evidence for this being? Given that Federer went years without losing on grass.

[dubs]

It was a tight match in the sense of the total points scored but the reason Rafa won was he won all the important points. At the end of the day you can win four service games to love, lose one to deuce and push the other player on his serve in every game without breaking and your stats at the end of the set will be awesome - it's just you'll be a set down. That isn't a case of being unlucky, the aim of the game is to break serve.

Edited August 17, 2010 by dubs

[McKee]

Nonsense. Murray was a bit unfortunate not to win Set Two arguably, but then he was furtunate to be 1-1 with Tsonga and not 2-0 down earlier in the tourney.

I never felt at any point that Nadal wasn't going to win that match. The fact he won 3-0, for the second time in 3 years, says it all.

The match swung on several key points. If Murray had won them, then he'd have had a good chance of winning in 3 sets. It was nowhere near the sort of beatdown he got in 2008, although like I said that match has no relevance anymore. Nadal played the big points better, and that's the only reason he won. Nadal was absolutely on fire that day, and Murray was able to match his level of ability for the large majority of the match, there was very little between them, in fact I think I am correct in saying Murray won more points overall. He played a great match, and would beat most players on tour if he played like that.

[H_B]

The match swung on several key points.

That's generally the case on grass, yes. Murray bottled the tie break. Nadal broke when he needed to.

If Murray had won them, then he'd have had a good chance of winning in 3 sets.

But he didn't, hence why it wasn't close. Nadal even let him go a break up in Set 3 and still cruised it in the end.

It was nowhere near the sort of beatdown he got in 2008,

Agreed. But that was a total cocking.

He played a great match, and would beat most players on tour if he played like that.

Erm, as one of the top 4 in the world, you would expect this.

Unfortunately playing the top 2 in the world in Slams, he is regularly brushed aside.

[McKee]

Your evidence for this being? Given that Federer went years without losing on grass.

Like I've already said, Federer has the second best clay court record of the last 10 years, second only to the best clay courter of all time. This is despite the abundance of several excellent clay courters and clay court speciallists I've already mentioned. On grass their was Roddick, Ancic and Hewitt.

[H_B]

Like I've already said, Federer has the second best clay court record of the last 10 years, second only to the best clay courter of all time. This is despite the abundance of several excellent clay courters and clay court speciallists I've already mentioned. On grass their was Roddick, Ancic and Hewitt.

Uh huh. So despite the fact he was virtually unbeatable on grass, and very beatable on clay, he was better on clay because had the rest on grass been any good they would have beaten him?

Quality logic.

[McKee]

That's generally the case on grass, yes. Murray bottled the tie break. Nadal broke when he needed to.

But he didn't, hence why it wasn't close. Nadal even let him go a break up in Set 3 and still cruised it in the end.

Agreed. But that was a total cocking.

Erm, as one of the top 4 in the world, you would expect this.

Unfortunately playing the top 2 in the world in Slams, he is regularly brushed aside.

A 3 set match with 2 solidified breaks of serve, and a points won difference of about 5 isn't close? Aye ok then.

[McKee]

Uh huh. So despite the fact he was virtually unbeatable on grass, and very beatable on clay, he was better on clay because had the rest on grass been any good they would have beaten him?

Quality logic.

The competiton on clay was far better than on grass. What is so difficult to understand about that?

[H_B]

A 3 set match with 2 solidified breaks of serve, and a points won difference of about 5 isn't close? Aye ok then.

Any match you lose 3-0 in isn't close, that is correct. It wasn't even three tie breaks. Nadal did what he needed to do, and no more than that.

If you knew anything about tennis, which looks doubtful, you would know that great players often cruise through to 3-3 or 4-4 in a set before upping it to break. Which is what Nadal did.

The exception was the second set which Murray was the better player in, until he bottled the tie break.

[blue4578]

I think a lot of it came from the whining bitchery of the clay courters with their "grass is for cows" approach in the 80s and 90s. Several used to skip Wimbledon, until their sponsors told them to get over there, then they lost in Round One and went back across the channel grumbling.

I too think it was a mistake. It's completely removed serve volleying as an artform.

Absolutely, agree with all of that.

I think they should play at least one of the Masters 1000 events on grass also. It's a bit unfair playing 3 of them on clay, 6 on various types of hard court and none on grass. It wasn't that many years ago that the French Open was the only grand slam not played on grass.

Of course he would of been a massive favourite, Federer is a massive favourite against anyone on grass, other than Nadal. Murray's loss to Nadal at Wimbledon 2 years ago is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Murray wasn't the player he is now, and was still obviously gassed from his epic with Gasquet. This year, his match with Rafa was a very, very tight match, that could very easily have gone Murray's way.

If he would've been a massive favourite against Murray this year, then Murray can't be a slightly better grass court player as you claim then surely?

Murray lost in straight sets to Nadal at Wimbledon, hardly close was it? Murray had his chances certainly, but tennis at the highest level is about playing the big points well usually. Murray soiled himself (just like in Australia against Federer), Nadal (as usual) rose to occasion when it really mattered.

The second best clay-court record of the last 10 years. The facts don't lie. You can have whatever opinion you want, but if the grass court field was as strong as the clay, federer wouldn't have been as nearly dominant on grass as he was. Federer also has a better grass court record than he does on hardcourt, you're not going to try and tell me he is a better grass courter are you?

Federer's favourite/best surface is grass without question. He has been such an outstanding player since 2003, that he has won about 90% of his matches 2003-2010, regardless of the opponent or the surface. They could have been playing on an ice rink with a net and Federer would still have been the dominant player. He has won more events on clay and hard because there are a lot more events on those surfaces. Nadal, the only player to consistently get the better of Federer, has nearly always been worn out by the time the North American hard court swing starts because of the problems with his knees. Therefore using your ridiculous arguments, you could say that the hard court fields have been weakened because Nadal wasn't fully fit. Nadal's record post-Wimbledon has always been poor. He usually gets hammered at the end of year Masters Cup / ATP World Tour Finals because of the wear and tear on his knees.

You could take this further, let's pick one clay courter in particular, Gaston Gaudio. I believe (although I'm not going to check) that the year he won the French Open he won only one match all year on an outdoor hard court. In a 14 year career, he has won only 48 matches on hard (compared to 210 on clay). Many clay courters are rubbish on hard as well as grass. This makes sense since the surfaces are so similar these days. If Federer only dominated on grass because everyone else was rubbish on the surface, then you could equally say the same about hard courts (not that I am, but following the ridiculous arguments outlined by McKee). Federer won US Open finals against Roddick and Hewitt, so if they are mugs on grass (which of course they aren't) then they would be equally rubbish on hard courts because the US Open play even faster than grass.

Both of Federer's wins on clay against Nadal (not really relevant to this argument) came when Nadal was worn out, and on fast clay courts. This doesn't prove that Federer is better on clay than grass.

If Bjorn Borg had been 25 years younger, or Pete Sampras 10 years younger (Federer won their only meeting at Wimbledon anyway), then perhaps Federer may have less than 6 Wimbledons. The argument is pointless. If Borg had been 25 years younger, then Nadal almost certainly wouldn't have won 5 French Opens. You beat what is in front of you, and Wimbledon is regarded by most people as the tournament they'd most like to win. Sure, clay court specialists tend to struggle on grass, but at least during Federer's spell of dominance, all of the top 32 in the world were in the field, unlike in the 1990's.

[H_B]

What is so difficult to understand about that?

What's so difficult to understand is your leap of logic which has determined that this mythical "greater grass court talent" wouldn't also have been dominated by Federer, the greatest grass court player of all time.

What you have done is take a weaker clay court record, compare it to an unbelieveable grass court record, and dedide that it's actually better if you factor in a lot of grass court losses, which didn't happen, to players who don't exist.

How's that?

[McKee]

Any match you lose 3-0 in isn't close, that is correct. It wasn't even three tie breaks. Nadal did what he needed to do, and no more than that.

If you knew anything about tennis, which looks doubtful, you would know that great players often cruise through to 3-3 or 4-4 in a set before upping it to break. Which is what Nadal did.

The exception was the second set which Murray was the better player in, until he bottled the tie break.

Bollocks. Nadal was on fire, no one was likely to beat him in that form. Murray did excellently just to keep up with him. At least he wasn't utterly demolished like Soderling was in the QF, despite Nadal being in clown mode for 2/4 sets.

[blue4578]

Nadal was absolutely on fire that day, and Murray was able to match his level of ability for the large majority of the match, there was very little between them, in fact I think I am correct in saying Murray won more points overall.

As usual, you're not correct. Total points were Nadal 98-91.

Tennis isn't basketball. The scoring system is different, it's not about total points won (even though Nadal won more anyway). If you have stacks of break points and miss them all, and your opponent is 3/3 on break points, then you lose. As I just said, at the highest level, tennis is about playing the big points well.

Just take the 2008 Federer-Nadal Wimbledon final as the perfect example. Total points were 209-204 Nadal, but Federere had loads of break points the first two sets and missed them all. He was 1/13 overall in the match, Nadal was 4/13. Federer had break point 4-3 up in the final set. If he took that, he almost certainly wins and everyone says how great he is. He didn't, but Nadal took his chance and won 9-7. On such fine margins are big matches decided.

The mental side of the game is crucual, and so far Murray has fallen short in the two grand slam finals and two Wimbledon semi finals he has played. He has frozen on the big points, which lost him any chance of winning.

[H_B]

Bollocks. Nadal was on fire, no one was likely to beat him in that form.

Uh huh. Again, being the best grass court player in the world at this time generally means that will be true.

The facts are that Nadal cruised through in straight sets. Nadal's best performance on grass was arguably the epic final against Federer, which, if you want to know what a close match on grass really looks like, you should go back and watch.

[blue4578]

Bollocks. Nadal was on fire, no one was likely to beat him in that form. Murray did excellently just to keep up with him. At least he wasn't utterly demolished like Soderling was in the QF, despite Nadal being in clown mode for 2/4 sets.

Soderling went 5-0 up in the first set, winning it 6-3. Ever thought Soderling might've played quite well and Nadal isn't unbeatable?

[blue4578]

The facts are that Nadal cruised through in straight sets. Nadal's best performance on grass was arguably the epic final against Federer, which, if you want to know what a close match on grass really looks like, you should go back and watch.

Something must be wrong today H_B, we're agreeing on virtually everything, which doesn't usually happen.

[H_B]

Something must be wrong today H_B, we're agreeing on virtually everything, which doesn't usually happen.

I know

[McKee]

Federer's favourite/best surface is grass without question. He has been such an outstanding player since 2003, that he has won about 90% of his matches 2003-2010, regardless of the opponent or the surface. They could have been playing on an ice rink with a net and Federer would still have been the dominant player. He has won more events on clay and hard because there are a lot more events on those surfaces. Nadal, the only player to consistently get the better of Federer, has nearly always been worn out by the time the North American hard court swing starts because of the problems with his knees. Therefore using your ridiculous arguments, you could say that the hard court fields have been weakened because Nadal wasn't fully fit. Nadal's record post-Wimbledon has always been poor. He usually gets hammered at the end of year Masters Cup / ATP World Tour Finals because of the wear and tear on his knees.

No, it's more to do with hardcourts stymieng Nadal's game.

You could take this further, let's pick one clay courter in particular, Gaston Gaudio. I believe (although I'm not going to check) that the year he won the French Open he won only one match all year on an outdoor hard court. In a 14 year career, he has won only 48 matches on hard (compared to 210 on clay). Many clay courters are rubbish on hard as well as grass. This makes sense since the surfaces are so similar these days. If Federer only dominated on grass because everyone else was rubbish on the surface, then you could equally say the same about hard courts (not that I am, but following the ridiculous arguments outlined by McKee). Federer won US Open finals against Roddick and Hewitt, so if they are mugs on grass (which of course they aren't) then they would be equally rubbish on hard courts because the US Open play even faster than grass.

Both of Federer's wins on clay against Nadal (not really relevant to this argument) came when Nadal was worn out, and on fast clay courts. This doesn't prove that Federer is better on clay than grass.

If Bjorn Borg had been 25 years younger, or Pete Sampras 10 years younger (Federer won their only meeting at Wimbledon anyway), then perhaps Federer may have less than 6 Wimbledons. The argument is pointless. If Borg had been 25 years younger, then Nadal almost certainly wouldn't have won 5 French Opens. You beat what is in front of you, and Wimbledon is regarded by most people as the tournament they'd most like to win. Sure, clay court specialists tend to struggle on grass, but at least during Federer's spell of dominance, all of the top 32 in the world were in the field, unlike in the 1990's.

I'm quite aware that Federer will say his favourite surface is grass. There's not a lot between all of the surfaces, but his best is hardcourt, again due to a deeper field. This is a hardcourt era, the majority of platers on tour play their best tennis on hardcourts. There are very few proficient grass courter even on the current slow grass, but there a huge number of great hardcourters. So it's not really suprising he has lost abput 3 matches on grass in 8 years and cant equal that on hard courts, it doesnt mean he is any less great on hard courts. Federer's domination of hardcourt is more impressive than his domination of grass. Federer will always be remembered as the greatest hardcoourter of all time, but not the greatest grass courter.

[McKee]

Soderling went 5-0 up in the first set, winning it 6-3. Ever thought Soderling might've played quite well and Nadal isn't unbeatable?

Nadal was on a walkbout for 2 of the sets, yet still destroyed Soderling, that was the point. No one was going to beat Nadal at Wimbledon

[blue4578]

No, it's more to do with hardcourts stymieng Nadal's game.

Federer and Nadal have played six times on hard, winning three times each. Clearly Nadal is most comfortable on clay, but there isn't much difference between grass and hard. He has five Masters 1000 hard court titles (plus 4 runners up) and an Australian Open.

However, if you break it down into pre and post Wimbledon meetings, Federer has won both meetings post-Wimbledon, while Nadal has won three out of four pre-Wimbledon (losing the other one from two sets up when he was 18 in Miami).

I'm quite aware that Federer will say his favourite surface is grass. There's not a lot between all of the surfaces, but his best is hardcourt, again due to a deeper field. This is a hardcourt era, the majority of platers on tour play their best tennis on hardcourts. There are very few proficient grass courter even on the current slow grass, but there a huge number of great hardcourters. So it's not really suprising he has lost abput 3 matches on grass in 8 years and cant equal that on hard courts, it doesnt mean he is any less great on hard courts. Federer's domination of hardcourt is more impressive than his domination of grass. Federer will always be remembered as the greatest hardcoourter of all time, but not the greatest grass courter.

Nonsense.

Federer has played 110 grass court matches and 508 hard court matches, so obviously he is going to have more hard court losses (92 compared to 14 on grass).

As for not being the greatest grass court player ever, there is only Borg realistically in that argument, but the majority of people would say Federer as he has been playing in a more competitive era and has already won more Wimbledons.

Nadal was on a walkbout for 2 of the sets, yet still destroyed Soderling, that was the point. No one was going to beat Nadal at Wimbledon

Nonsense again.

At 5-0 up in the first set, Soderling was a 1.3 favourite to win the match. Nadal then needed a tie break to win the third set. No one in unbeatable (I should know given Soderling v Nadal at the 2009 French Open ), and if you thought that was the case you could've really cashed in as plenty of people wanted to back Soderling at short odds. Nadal was 2-1 down in sets against both Haase and Petzschner at Wimbledon too, going odds against to win against Petzschner at one point. We've heard since that Nadal was struggling physically in the early rounds (and the later rounds too by some accounts). A better opponent in rounds two or three and he may have lost.

Nadal's starting price against Soderling and Murray was about 1.73 on both occasions, far from a certainty in the eyes of many people. It's very easy to be wise after the event.