davied85 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Considering where Murray was a few months ago was a great tournament from him had chances to take first couple sets and it would have been a different game. What happened to al the complaints about djockovic blisters when he was winning seemed to be every time Murray went in front they mentioned it but when djockovic was winning nothing was said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue4578 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The fact is the reason he's going to lose is because Djokovic is the better player. Murray is a great player, but Djokovic is greater. He's far stronger mentally and it's no surprise this will be his 8th grand slam. Andy's been unfortunate in the sense that his career has coincided with 3 of the all time greats. I've always said on here that Djokovic's best level is better than Murray's. Prior to the 2011 Australian Open final (click) a lot of people were unsure of this, and then Djokovic went on to dominate that year. Well you look at the Henman era, cloggers like Pat Rafter, Leyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick were regularly winning majors. If Andy was 10 years older he'd have got into double figures in slams easily IMO. Andy's just never consistently reached the level of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal, and he never will and there's no shame in that. I think there's a decent argument to say those are the 3 greatest players of all time. He's done well to have won his two slams and his gold medal under the circumstances. Totally disagree with the first part of your statement. In my opinion, Andre Agassi was a superior player to Murray and "only" won eight grand slams despite having a supposedly lower standard of opposition. If Murray had been born in 1977, his early 20's would have coincided with Pete Sampras (another superior player) dominating Wimbledon and he would have been only four years older than Roger Federer. His mid 20's to early 30's would have seen him facing Federer at his peak, and he would have lost every grand slam match on every surface against Federer in that situation in my opinion. Perhaps the short period between the Sampras and Federer eras at Wimbledon could have seen Murray challenge when Ivanišević and Hewitt won, but people forget how good Hewitt was for two years playing a not too dissimilar style of tennis to Murray. Murray's early 20's saw him lose to better clay court players at the French Open (Almagro, Fernando González, Ferrer and even Berdych). By the time he had improved slightly on clay, Nadal's era of dominance would have started when Murray had just turned 28 in your alternative universe. Andy Murray born in 1977 might have won three or four grand slams, but he would have got nowhere near ten. Not that we will ever know of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acannidaeit captain Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 How can he be 2-0 up in the third set and then lose 12 of the next 13 games, though? That's a sickening stat. Exactly my feelings, gutted he lost but come on to go out like a light was shite, still hope he's over his injury problems, get back in Top 3, a do find watching Murray hard work though, up down, down up !! Go through every emotion with him ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted February 1, 2015 Author Share Posted February 1, 2015 Exactly my feelings, gutted he lost but come on to go out like a light was shite, still hope he's over his injury problems, get back in Top 3, a do find watching Murray hard work though, up down, down up !! Go through every emotion with him ! Back up to number 4 after this week I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 A horrible volley at the end of the first set really cost him, instead of having a set point he handed the set to Novak. He did well to take the second set. Then at the start of the third he looked extremely likely to take the third set going a break up early on. The missed break point at 3-3 in the third seemed to spur Novak on, and he just upped his level and Murray couldn't cope. He never got a first serve in in the next game and Novak was able to capitalise. The better player won on the day, but he's only a few % away from being able to beat Novak again. Looking forward to seeing him in Rotterdam and Dubai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 It must be an absolute sickener for Murray to have to stand in front of that microphone for a fourth time in Australia as the runner-up, and repeat the same shit about the other player deserving it. I'm absolute desperate for him to win that slam. I would rather he won Australia than won Wimbledon again. Are we getting to the stage where we start talking about Djokovic and Austraila in the same way we do with Nadal and Roland Garros? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 A horrible volley at the end of the first set really cost him, instead of having a set point he handed the set to Novak. He did well to take the second set. Then at the start of the third he looked extremely likely to take the third set going a break up early on. The missed break point at 3-3 in the third seemed to spur Novak on, and he just upped his level and Murray couldn't cope. He never got a first serve in in the next game and Novak was able to capitalise. The better player won on the day, but he's only a few % away from being able to beat Novak again. Looking forward to seeing him in Rotterdam and Dubai. Yep, definitely a point here or there in the first set that could have saw him take the first set and the initiative. Compared to where he was just a few months ago though it is like night and day. He has obviously had a good winter training block in Miami and it was really the first time since Mauresmo got involved that they were able to concentrate purely on training without having tournaments to worry about. He looked sharp throughout and although the last hour today will be a huge let down, there were loads of positives to take from the tourney. He was very close to where he was in 2012/13 and seemed to be really enjoying his tennis again. Bodes very well for the rest of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 It used to get me down when murray lost a slam final.. frustrated today, but since he won his slams its not too bad I think murray will win wimbledon. He will finish his career on 4 slams imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHorse Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I know it's been largely derided but I don't like this talk of Murray being a bottle merchant. Watching him win Wimbledon 77 years after the last Brit done it really says it all. Andy Murray has never been the best player in the world; he's consistently been in the top 5 for years but in my opinion he has never been the best in the world. Then he finally gets to the final of Wimbledon, knowing full well all the pressure that got to Tim Henman would be on him and then some... so what does he do? He goes two sets up against the best player in the world. Then he gets to a stage in the match where he's 40 - 0 and has three championship points. This best player in the world then brings it back and gets two break points of his own. Murray then wins the match on that very service game and the penultimate point he won was some of the best tennis he's ever played. I know he has issues with his head which are evident but he is certainly no bottle merchant - especially considering the amount of pressure he's had in his career. *EDIT* I should add - this was all after losing in the final of WImbledon the year before to Federer. People should be lauding Murray's strength of character rather than questioning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adolfo Rios Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Lloyd getting his knickers in a twist over Andy reverting to "the old Andy" getting frustrated etc and Pat Cash saying he needs to "take a long hard look at himself" was quite amusing. Yes Andy was clearly frustrated but I think it was more down to just having nothing left in the tank once he was broken in the 3rd. A little under 3 hours for the first two sets would break most physically, if not mentally. It nearly did for Djokovic and It would have been interesting had Andy broken again for 4-3 in the 3rd how it may have played out. If the final had been a little later in the year I would have fancied Andy to at least take it to 5. Nobody would have believed you if you had said 3 months ago he would reach the final and more than compete with Djokovic for 3 hours. That was by far the most challenging match physically since his return from injury and certainly stands him in good stead for the rest of the season. Far more positives than negatives for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Agreed - Murray got humiliated by Federer and that was only in November and he looked like a shadow of his former self and to bounce back to where he got to in such a short space of time is again very impressive for him. I don't really think the better player did win yesterday, Murray was very unlucky not to take the first set and very unlucky at the third and then he simply went to f**k, i think he beat himself more than anything and don't think there was much difference in quality. The amount of work Murray had to go to just to win any point though was insane, i was exhausted watching it so can only imagine how he would have felt. Definitely fancy him to win a grand slam this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 Agreed - Murray got humiliated by Federer and that was only in November and he looked like a shadow of his former self and to bounce back to where he got to in such a short space of time is again very impressive for him. I don't really think the better player did win yesterday, Murray was very unlucky not to take the first set and very unlucky at the third and then he simply went to f**k, i think he beat himself more than anything and don't think there was much difference in quality. The amount of work Murray had to go to just to win any point though was insane, i was exhausted watching it so can only imagine how he would have felt. Definitely fancy him to win a grand slam this year I'd say the US Open is his best chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I'd say the US Open is his best chance Wimbledon for me, i would have rather he won yesterday than Wimbledon again though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widge Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Murray's bear surface is grass and maybe only Federer is better on it than him, depends on his form. Wimbledon is clearly Murray's best chance, US is second with Aus third and let's face facts if he makes the semis of the French he's performed above expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I don't really know the differences of playing grass, hard court and clay and how each surface favours each individual. He has never done well at the French open so why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I don't really know the differences of playing grass, hard court and clay and how each surface favours each individual. He has never done well at the French open so why is that? To do with speed of court and bounce. Traditionally Grass is the fastest, fast court low bounce. In the past thus really favoured serve volleyers ie. Big serve lack of bounce means in return will have to be scooped up at height... charge in and volley. They have off course slowed grass down to make rallys longer. Lower bounce tho is favourable to Murray... ie he can use his slice. Its also negates against players with strong forehands. Clay is opposite. .. its slower with higher bounce.. this favours fit people but more importantly it gives players with big forehands to run around ball and belt it.. because they have more time and a higher bounce. . Couple this with topspin.. it can be unplayable. E.g nadak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I would have thought the grass surface would be the slower with less bounce as well. The French open really never appeals to me at all, i don't think i have ever really watched it. Wimbledon however is my fav time of year, i suppose this stems back to being a kid and it reminded me of the start of the school holidays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I would have thought the grass surface would be the slower with less bounce as well. The French open really never appeals to me at all, i don't think i have ever really watched it. Wimbledon however is my fav time of year, i suppose this stems back to being a kid and it reminded me of the start of the school holidays Grass does have less bounce, but faster than clay.... tho slowed down dramatically since 90s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widge Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Personally I hate playing clay. It's just so slow and the bounce is something I always struggle with being relatively small. It doesn't suit Murray as clay requires more aggression than anything else, because it's so slow, you're being asked to hit harder and deeper more and more, something Murray doesn't do massively well at. Also his biggest weapon is his back hand, his slice is next I useless on Clay and IMO he's got the best slice in the game. Plus his two handed is pretty flat, which usually stays low, but comes up higher on clay making it easier to play against, plus again you're needing to hit it harder, meaning more errors. The reason Nadal does so well is the topspin on his shots. It causes the ball to jump up almost above shoulder height, whereas a Murray ball will remain 3 or 4 inches lower. It's incredibly difficult to constantly play with the ball so high. Meaning Nadal can dominate and force his opponents back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Plus factor in he fucking hates the stuff! He has been on record as saying that his body picks up more aches and pains playing on clay. Murray fucked up the third set. That is without question. There is no one to blame but himself. However the fourth set, Novak played an almost perfect set. His unforced error count was zero (as was his first five games in the first set) and he was hitting winner after winner, red lining. Novak is the best player on that plexicushion surface. If you noticed that his ball toss became more erratic as he tired and Novak started to read the direction and pattern of his serving far better. This time last year he was out of the top four. So being a top four seed going into the North American Hard Court masters season will be an opportunity to further gain on last years points totals. He will certainly have chances to win Wimbledon and the US Open this season. The French could be interesting if Nadal drops out of the top four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.