PDA

View Full Version : Why Has Murray Beaten Nadal The Last Three Time They Played?


TheRealTruth
02-22-2009, 09:49 AM
Yes Nadal has won the Australian Open so he is no slouch on hard court. But why has he been owned by Murray the last 3 times they played on hard court whilst Nadal is number 1? Was Nadal fortunate to not play Murray at AO?

gj011
02-22-2009, 09:51 AM
Yes Federer has won the US Open so he is no slouch on hard court. But why has he been owned by Murray the last 4 times they played on hard court whilst Federer is number 2? Was Federer fortunate to not play Murray at AO?

Same applies for Djokovic and last two times they played :)

So Murray is regularly beating all three players ranked above him.

heycal
02-22-2009, 09:51 AM
Because Murray is a better player than Nadal.

Next case!

maximo
02-22-2009, 09:52 AM
Murray knows Nadal's weak spots.

oneguy21
02-22-2009, 09:53 AM
Because he's a better player on hardcourts- simple.

Murray could've def. won the AO only if Verdasco wasn't on fire.

TheRealTruth
02-22-2009, 09:56 AM
Yes Federer has won the US Open so he is no slouch on hard court. But why has he been owned by Murray the last 4 times they played on hard court whilst Federer is number 2? Was Federer fortunate to not play Murray at AO?

Good point. I agree Murray would've beaten Federer too had they met at AO. But the question here is about Nadal, Federer is not number 1 anymore lets talk about the new king Nadal. What do you think about this business of Murray owning Nadal?

maximo
02-22-2009, 09:56 AM
^^Would of won me thinks.

TheRealTruth
02-22-2009, 09:56 AM
Because Murray is a better player than Nadal.

Next case!

But not on clay surely?

batz
02-22-2009, 09:59 AM
Good point. I agree Murray would've beaten Federer too had they met at AO. But the question here is about Nadal, Federer is not number 1 anymore lets talk about the new king Nadal. What do you think about this business of Murray owning Nadal?


Murray doesn't own Nadal. Murray has beaten Nadal twice, the second time when Nadal had one functioning leg.

As a Murray fan, I'd love to be able to say he owns Nadal. Fact is, he doesn't.

thalivest
02-22-2009, 10:02 AM
Because he's a better player on hardcourts- simple.

Murray could've def. won the AO only if Verdasco wasn't on fire.

Only problem with your argument is Nadal was able to beat the on fire Verdasco and Murray could not.

TheRealTruth
02-22-2009, 10:04 AM
Murray doesn't own Nadal. Murray has beaten Nadal twice, the second time when Nadal had one functioning leg.

As a Murray fan, I'd love to be able to say he owns Nadal. Fact is, he doesn't.

He actually has beaten Nadal 3 times including Abu Dahbi although it was an exhibition match but anyone who saw the match knows they were both serious, slam serious. As for whether he owns Nadal, I think it's fair to say he owns Nadal on hard court, at least.

maximo
02-22-2009, 10:08 AM
Only problem with your argument is Nadal was able to beat the on fire Verdasco and Murray could not.

The problem with your statement is that the on fire Verdasco was tired from playing a five-set match against Murray. Espeacially when Nadal had very easy rounds leading up to the semi final.

batz
02-22-2009, 10:10 AM
He actually has beaten Nadal 3 times including Abu Dahbi although it was an exhibition match but anyone who saw the match knows they were both serious, slam serious. As for whether he owns Nadal, I think it's fair to say he owns Nadal on hard court, at least.

I saw the match; it was great. But it was a exo, a friendly, a practice match. It doesn't count. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Doesn't really matter whether they tried or not, it was not an official match.

I don't see how you can say Murray owns Nadal on hards when their head to head is 2-4 and one of the 2 was close to a walkover. Like I say, I'd love it to be otherwise, but it ain't so.

The-Champ
02-22-2009, 10:12 AM
Because Murray is a better player than Nadal.

Next case!


because simon is a better player than Federer?

because Stich and krajicek are better than Sampras?

because santoro is better than Safin?

next case!

RalphNYC
02-22-2009, 10:13 AM
Very simple just watch the matches. Where Federer does nothing with Nadal's 2nd serve to his BH, Murray pounds it. Where Federer is neutralized by heavy topsin balls to his BH inh rallies, Murray thrives on those balls and returns them just as deep, penetrating and dangerous, where Federer can make an occasional saving shot lunging for one of Nadal's huge angles off the court, Murray gets there and often squeezes out solid winners on those. And Murray's first serve is quite huge. In one sentence, Nadal's winning strategy "Dictate the points by heavy FH topsin balls to my opponent's weaker side" does not work if the opponent has no weaker side. Murray and Djokovitch are both in this category.

maximo
02-22-2009, 10:14 AM
I saw the match; it was great. But it was a exo, a friendly, a practice match. It doesn't count. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Doesn't really matter whether they tried or not, it was not an official match.

I don't see how you can say Murray owns Nadal on hards when their head to head is 2-4 and one of the 2 was close to a walkover. Like I say, I'd love it to be otherwise, but it ain't so.

Why doesn't it count? You think they were playing for free?

TheRealTruth
02-22-2009, 10:18 AM
I saw the match; it was great. But it was a exo, a friendly, a practice match. It doesn't count. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Doesn't really matter whether they tried or not, it was not an official match.

I don't see how you can say Murray owns Nadal on hards when their head to head is 2-4 and one of the 2 was close to a walkover. Like I say, I'd love it to be otherwise, but it ain't so.

I agree it doesn't count as an official match as there were no ranking points offered. But the way they played you know they were both seriously, unlike those Fed/Sampras exos. Besides anyone knows Nadal is not a quitter he takes every match seriously and he so wanted to beat Murray in that exo but failed in the end.

GameSampras
02-22-2009, 10:18 AM
Well the matches have been on HCs. ANd Murray is the master of 3 set HC matches. These days Murray is a tough son of gun for Nadal to beat on HC's. He can handle Nadal's topspin and bully him from the baseline.

If Murray ever learns to how to play on Grass and Clay. Look out Nadal

saram
02-22-2009, 10:19 AM
Murray doesn't get enough credit for this point construction and thinking while on the court. I think he understands how to beat Rafa and implement his game.

NamRanger
02-22-2009, 10:25 AM
Well the matches have been on HCs. ANd Murray is the master of 3 set HC matches. These days Murray is a tough son of gun for Nadal to beat on HC's. He can handle Nadal's topspin and bully him from the baseline.

If Murray ever learns to how to play on Grass and Clay. Look out Nadal


The current state of grass, I don't think Murray has much of a chance. Clay wise, he'll never be able to beat a 90% Nadal, let alone a 100%.

The-Champ
02-22-2009, 10:26 AM
Murray would have been a nightmare for the best s&v and best baseliners of all time.

He has:

- huge serve
- amazing returns
- solid and powerful off both wings, can produce winners from either side and great passing shots
- great anticipation in general and reliable at the net
- great court coverage, among the quickest I've seen (but somehow, this attribute doesn't translate well on clay)

miyagi
02-22-2009, 10:31 AM
He has improved his game greatly and you have to remember that Hard is Murrays very best surface.

So I think most of their matches will be tight especially 3 set matches.

Plus I think Murray matches up to Nadal well on hard...I think he may well struggle with players like Tsonga

Lets not talk about clay, no way murray even takes a set off Nadal and even grass I think Nadal wins in straights....

TheNatural
02-22-2009, 10:49 AM
Simple, Murray outplayed Nadal a few times and also Nadal was too injured to perform optimally for a few of the losses v Murray so he would have lost to any number of good players.

danb
02-22-2009, 11:12 AM
Murray is so great ...
He chokes when it really matters and wins the small tourneys. And yes he can beat a one-leg version of Nadal.
All Murray wins will matter only the day he starts winning GS.

Feņa14
02-22-2009, 11:20 AM
Murray is so great ...
He chokes when it really matters and wins the small tourneys. And yes he can beat a one-leg version of Nadal.
All Murray wins will matter only the day he starts winning GS.

Funny how all Nadal losses have that excuse, no?

batz
02-22-2009, 11:23 AM
Why doesn't it count? You think they were playing for free?

Because it doesn't appear in the ATP record book. Whether they were paid or not is irrelevant. Like I've said already, I wish it did count, but it doesn't.

edmondsm
02-22-2009, 11:32 AM
Yes Federer has won the US Open so he is no slouch on hard court. But why has he been owned by Murray the last 4 times they played on hard court whilst Federer is number 2? Was Federer fortunate to not play Murray at AO?

Same applies for Djokovic and last two times they played :)

So Murray is regularly beating all three players ranked above him.

The thread was about Nadal and the OP didn't even mention Federer, yet you make most of your post (#2 in the thread) about Federer. You are obviously obsessed with him.

Anyway, Murray's game matches up with Nadal's game nicely on hardcourts. He can take his backhand early so the Nadal crosscourt forehand doesn't bother him on a medium-fast hardcourt. I think at the AO, Murray would have had trouble with Nadal though. Nadal probably wouldv'e won.

Frankauc
02-22-2009, 11:37 AM
As a fan of Nadal, i can say that Murray could be his Nemesis on hard courts. I hope nadal will find an answer to beat him

DoubleDeuce
02-22-2009, 11:40 AM
The current state of grass, I don't think Murray has much of a chance. Clay wise, he'll never be able to beat a 90% Nadal, let alone a 100%.

Actually, watching Murray recently against Nadal, and playing in London, I think Murray has good chance. I am hoping he's in his half because he's perfect matchup against Nadal with his long rallies. My money is on him if they meet in semifinal this year, even against 100% Nadal.

LanceStern
02-22-2009, 11:46 AM
Because Murray plays excellent in hard-court three setters.

He's been beating EVERYBODY in hardcourt three setters. It was no surprise to me that Murray won.

Cloudy
02-22-2009, 11:50 AM
At the USO he was awesome except for in the final when he was tired and didn't play well. He outplayed Rafa simple as that.

The exo - don't think it was indicative of form they looked to be going for it but its an exo you don't know what either was holding back.

Rotterdam - Rafa was clearly injured he never drops his serve like that. Andy let it affect his game and he shouldn't have done.

I love Andy am a huge fan but I don't think he has the measure of Rafa yet in the same way that he does Federer. He is marginally better if they are both on, on hard. On clay and grass I think he would get hammered.


I'm not sure Fed will ever beat Nadal again and I don't think he will beat Andy on a hard court. Grass and clay different can of worms.

Nadalator
02-22-2009, 11:51 AM
Yes Nadal has won the Australian Open so he is no slouch on hard court. But why has he been owned by Murray the last 3 times they played on hard court whilst Nadal is number 1? Was Nadal fortunate to not play Murray at AO?

HMMM

US Open...1
Rotterdam...2

TWO...Or does Murray own Federer 6-2? :twisted:

Why does Nadal own Murray 5-2? :-P

Why can Murray only beat Nadal on a hardcourt? :-P

Tennis_Monk
02-22-2009, 12:03 PM
Murray's game is more natural for Hard courts than Nadal's. It doesnt diminish Nadal's hard court prowess but just that Nadal's game isnt exactly nbuilt for Hardcourt.

In general, the top 3 or 4 players of the world are often seperated by little intangibles. So it is no surprise if one beats the other. After all most players become #1 after serving in 2,3,4 ranks for some time.

Murray beat Nadal those times because he played well. I personally believe, on hard courts, Murray always has good chance of beating Nadal. On Clay courts, Murray might as well not show up.

Murray poses the same problem to Nadal that Nadal throws to Federer. Nadal chases down Fed's shots and then put them into Fed's weak corner (back hand). Murray chases Nadal's shots and puts them in ridiculously impossible positions that are tough even for an exceptional mover like Nadal.

zagor
02-22-2009, 12:10 PM
I guess because he played better than Nadal in those last 3 matches?

Funny how all Nadal losses have that excuse, no?

Lol,somewhat true.However he did seem bad in Rotterdam although Murray might have won regardless,hard to tell but Nadal was injuried.Murray's USO win though was completely legitimate and great display of tennis from him as far as I'm concerned,Nadal didn't seem tired to me personally in that match regardless of what he(and his fans)say.

zagor
02-22-2009, 12:12 PM
HMMM

US Open...1
Rotterdam...2

TWO...Or does Murray own Federer 6-2? :twisted:

Why does Nadal own Murray 5-2? :-P

Why can Murray only beat Nadal on a hardcourt? :-P

Because he played better than Fed in those 5 encounters on HC,however he doesn't "own" Fed,you don't own the guy who beats you convincingly in a slam.

miyagi
02-22-2009, 12:22 PM
I guess because he played better than Nadal in those last 3 matches?



Lol,somewhat true.However he did seem bad in Rotterdam although Murray might have won regardless,hard to tell but Nadal was injuried.Murray's USO win though was completely legitimate and great display of tennis from him as far as I'm concerned,Nadal didn't seem tired to me personally in that match regardless of what he(and his fans)say.

Nadal seemed "flat" but Murray won that match fair and square even Nadal said it himself...Murray has caused Nadal problems the last few times....But Nadal was clearly injured in Rotterdam.

Nadal_Freak
02-22-2009, 12:25 PM
Nadal was injured the last time they played so that one shouldn't count. One was an exhibition and a very close one at that. Nadal was a little rusty. The US Open was a fast surface that suits Murray's game perfectly. Slow hardcourts and grass favor Nadal though. See Toronto and Wimbledon for that.

sheq
02-22-2009, 02:35 PM
its 5-2 head to head for nadal and we are still talking about how murray owns rafa..is it a joke or not ?

drive
02-22-2009, 02:39 PM
He actually has beaten Nadal 3 times including Abu Dahbi although it was an exhibition match but anyone who saw the match knows they were both serious, slam serious. As for whether he owns Nadal, I think it's fair to say he owns Nadal on hard court, at least.

I would say that he owns nadal on HC, at most. Remember last year's Wimbledon ownage.

NamRanger
02-22-2009, 02:43 PM
Actually, watching Murray recently against Nadal, and playing in London, I think Murray has good chance. I am hoping he's in his half because he's perfect matchup against Nadal with his long rallies. My money is on him if they meet in semifinal this year, even against 100% Nadal.


I don't know, the way the grass was playing, I think Nadal would edge out against Murray. However, if they sped up the grass to help out Murray (which is a very big possibility) I think Murray would actually enter that match as the favored player.

Nadal_Freak
02-22-2009, 02:44 PM
I don't know, the way the grass was playing, I think Nadal would edge out against Murray. However, if they sped up the grass to help out Murray (which is a very big possibility) I think Murray would actually enter that match as the favored player.
It was playing quite fast. Murray just doesn't move as well on grass as on hardcourts.

capriatifanatic
02-22-2009, 02:44 PM
Capriati would overpower Nadal easily. She would take his moonballs on the rise and slam winners. I think Murray plays similar to Jen Jen and that is how he does so well vs Nadal.

capriatifanatic
02-22-2009, 02:46 PM
Nadal was injured the last time they played so that one shouldn't count. One was an exhibition and a very close one at that. Nadal was a little rusty. The US Open was a fast surface that suits Murray's game perfectly. Slow hardcourts and grass favor Nadal though. See Toronto and Wimbledon for that.

Stop making excuses. Nadal hits moonballs which is why he gets overpowered by big hitters like Murray, Djokovic, the Williams sisters, Capriati, and Tsonga.

capriatifanatic
02-22-2009, 03:55 PM
its 5-2 head to head for nadal and we are still talking about how murray owns rafa..is it a joke or not ?

Yeah I agree. Murray isnt quite good enough to own Rafa but he gives him some trouble. If he had the forehand and mental toughness of the great Capriati to go with his backhand, return of serve, serve, and athletic ability he could own him though.

veroniquem
02-22-2009, 04:10 PM
Yes Nadal has won the Australian Open so he is no slouch on hard court. But why has he been owned by Murray the last 3 times they played on hard court whilst Nadal is number 1? Was Nadal fortunate to not play Murray at AO?
He was lucky not to have to play Murray at the AO for sure although Verdasco certainly gave him something to work with! Now the term "own" is inappropriate as Nadal won a set in their last encounters and their matches are generally tight (unless you want to use the last set of Rotterdam and pretend it had nothing to do with Nadal being injured). The exhibition they payed was extremely tight and AFAIK exhibitions are never taken into account in official head to heads, so Nadal leads Murray 5-2 (and not 5-3).
Murray is still improving on hard courts and he's definitely gonna become the biggest challenge to Nadal on that surface. I'm not convinced that challenge will remain unsolved though. Djokovic beat Nadal on hard courts several times but at the Olympics, Nadal found a way to prevail. That's what Nadal does best: finding ways. When Tsonga blew him off the court at AO 08 people intimated that Tsonga "embodied" the way to play against Nadal, the way to neutralize Nadal's weapons, there were even posts back then stating that people were starting to figure out Nadal's game (on hard) and that Nadal would subsequently be beaten more often and drop in the rankings. We all know what happened after that when Nadal met Tsonga and we all know he didn't drop in the rankings and even won his first hard court slam. So I would be a little more cautious before stating that Murray will systematically block Nadal in the future.

capriatifanatic
02-22-2009, 04:16 PM
I think this is what Capriati would do to Nadal if they ever played:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxMLG_-fYwk

Nadal plays very similar to Hingis so the matchup would probably be quite similar.

arnz
02-22-2009, 04:19 PM
Nadal's weakness has always been, and will always be, hardcourts. Look at the losses he has had against the top 10...how many were on clay and grass? Murray has improved the most on hard....with Nadal the second most improved on hard courts. On grass, Nadal will own Murray, and on clay, well is that even a discussion?



Nadal will have his chances on hard, especially with his mental toughness. He used to be beaten by the likes of Blake/Tsonga/Youzhny. I think those days are past. But the 2 top hard court players, Djokovic and Murray, both have the potential to beat him at anytime

veroniquem
02-22-2009, 04:20 PM
I think this is what Capriati would do to Nadal if they ever played:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxMLG_-fYwk

Nadal plays very similar to Hingis so the matchup would probably be quite similar.
I don't know what things Capriati could do to Nadal but beating him at tennis is probably not one of them ;-)

thalivest
02-22-2009, 04:20 PM
But the 2 top hard court players, Djokovic and Murray, both have the potential to beat him at anytime

ROTFL! The top 2 hard court players now, outside of Nadal himself, are Federer and Murray. Djokovic is at best the 4th best hard court player now.

capriatifanatic
02-22-2009, 04:22 PM
I don't know what things Capriati could do to Nadal but beating him at tennis is probably not one of them ;-)

Well her power is far too much for all the other women, and made her pretty much unbeatable to other women in her good years. It has me thinking what she would do to men, especialy those who play a style she could overpower.

JeMar
02-22-2009, 04:24 PM
He's a tall guy with an excellent backhand... that should cover it.

lambielspins
02-22-2009, 04:24 PM
But the 2 top hard court players, Djokovic and Murray, both have the potential to beat him at anytime

You already lose all credability when you refer to Djokovic as one of the top 2 hard court players right now. The guy has lost in the semis of the last 2 slams on hard courts whereas Nadal, Federer, and Murray have either won 1, been in a finals of 1, or in Federer's case both. He has won 1 hard court tournament in the last 11 months, has gone a combined 1-5 vs Federer/Djokovic/Nadal on hard courts during that time and is somehow a top 2 hard court player right now!?! Let me know what planet you are visiting, thanks.

arnz
02-22-2009, 04:31 PM
OK maybe he isnt top 2 on hard, but Djokovic seems to be a bad match up for Nadal on hard courts

tennis_hand
02-22-2009, 05:12 PM
You'll be surprised how much Murray will improve in the clay season.
Let's just watch.

veroniquem
02-22-2009, 05:14 PM
You'll be surprised how much Murray will improve in the clay season.
Let's just watch.
Yes, let's just watch. I can't wait.

NandoMania
02-22-2009, 05:46 PM
Yes Federer has won the US Open so he is no slouch on hard court. But why has he been owned by Murray the last 4 times they played on hard court whilst Federer is number 2? Was Federer fortunate to not play Murray at AO?

Same applies for Djokovic and last two times they played :)

So Murray is regularly beating all three players ranked above him.

very good points.

brc444
02-22-2009, 06:02 PM
People were saying how great it is that Nadal did not retire against Murray sat Rotterdam so Mauuary could earn his win. Now people are using Nadal's injury as an excuse of why Nadal lost and how that loss should not count. I don't think you can have it both ways. What matters in the end is that you were injured and lost and not whether you retire or play on.

ESP#1
02-22-2009, 06:11 PM
What I found interesting was the amount of errors Nadal made in the first set at Rotterdam, I wonder if Nadal had a bad day or maybe its Murray forcing Nadal to go for more, ill have to watch for this next time they play

Cyan
02-22-2009, 06:21 PM
Actually, watching Murray recently against Nadal, and playing in London, I think Murray has good chance. I am hoping he's in his half because he's perfect matchup against Nadal with his long rallies. My money is on him if they meet in semifinal this year, even against 100% Nadal.

Disagree.

On the Wimbledon grass of 1999, definetely Murray wins.

On the Wimbledon grass of 2009, Rafa wins, definetely.

Cyan
02-22-2009, 06:28 PM
Nadal was injured the last time they played so that one shouldn't count. One was an exhibition and a very close one at that. Nadal was a little rusty. The US Open was a fast surface that suits Murray's game perfectly. Slow hardcourts and grass favor Nadal though. See Toronto and Wimbledon for that.

Agreed............

veroniquem
02-22-2009, 06:31 PM
What I found interesting was the amount of errors Nadal made in the first set at Rotterdam, I wonder if Nadal had a bad day or maybe its Murray forcing Nadal to go for more, ill have to watch for this next time they play
Murray definitely pushes Rafa out of his comfort zone on hard. Even when Nadal beat Murray the matches were extraordinarily tense and tight. I'm still convinced that Nadal will beat him again in the future on hard court. I don't think it will ever be a one-sided head to head. We'll see if I'm right or wrong rather soon I guess as I expect them to meet often this year.

mawashi
02-22-2009, 06:53 PM
I have not read most of the post here so I'm sorry if I'm repeating some of what's been said but I believe that Nadal tries to play clay on every surface so unlike clay which requires that you gradually create the point, hc let's you blast your way to success.

Nadal's game play is still somewhat routed in that style of play where he tries to pull you off the court then makes a kill while guys like Murry can end points faster by taking time away from Nadal.

As much as I love Nadal's game, it's rather predictable in the way he hits the balls n his strategy in winning a point.

He has certainly improved his hc game but until he starts to go for shorter rallies n win points faster, he'll always be at the mercy of guys like Murry.

mawashi

arnz
02-22-2009, 06:57 PM
You'll be surprised how much Murray will improve in the clay season.
Let's just watch.

How about a bet? I'll take Nadal on clay to win in straights against Murray....I'll do any bet you want, your fav racquet, money, anything.... :)

I'll make it even better, if Murray gets even one set, you win, deal?

tahiti
02-22-2009, 10:17 PM
Well I wouldn't count Doha and Rotterdam because they're not big tournaments. When you have a lot of points to defend it doesn't make sense in winning them all, there's nothing left to compensate the next year if you lose some.

But Murray has a game that can outcast NAdal, FEderer and Djokovic. He's just a brilliant player. Very fast and he's built up the determination and strength that he needs the last year. He's going to win a grand slam for sure. He's got the game.

Thor
02-22-2009, 11:30 PM
Good thing we are now counting exo's in the head to head,Roddick now has 1 more win against Federer - and so does Sampras...

thalivest
02-22-2009, 11:31 PM
Good thing we are now counting exo's in the head to head,Roddick now has 1 more win against Federer - and so does Sampras...

It is stupid in a sense to count exos in head to head but I think the main point is that Murray seems to be building momentum vs Nadal on hard courts anyway. I somewhat agree with that but Murray also still has alot to prove in general.

Halba
02-22-2009, 11:59 PM
Murray is so great ...
He chokes when it really matters and wins the small tourneys. And yes he can beat a one-leg version of Nadal.
All Murray wins will matter only the day he starts winning GS.

thats not true a wins a win in sport. it all adds up ranking points. Murray is killing it with these Masters series and MM tourneys. Imagine if he did well at FO,Wimbledon and USO this year.

Rhino
02-23-2009, 01:21 AM
because simon is a better player than Federer?

because Stich and krajicek are better than Sampras?

because santoro is better than Safin?

next case!

Tsonga is better than Djokovic?

Nadal is better than Federer?? :)

sheq
02-23-2009, 01:55 AM
look ı wouldnt even discuss who is the better one because our champion is explicit..

plus,, your discourses that murray is a bad match up for nadal are obliged to disproof with a clear fact,,,5-2 head to head for nadal over murray :)

Gorecki
02-23-2009, 02:44 AM
Nadal was injured the last time they played so that one shouldn't count. One was an exhibition and a very close one at that. Nadal was a little rusty. The US Open was a fast surface that suits Murray's game perfectly. Slow hardcourts and grass favor Nadal though. See Toronto and Wimbledon for that.

so according to this genious of Geography and Physics Murray never actually beat Nadal!!!

vince evert
02-23-2009, 02:52 AM
I wonder how Murray would fare against Rafa on the European clay season?

I think he's got the potential to win against Rafa even on clay. Except that is in a best of five match like at the French Open, where Rafa's groundies and superior conditioning will wear Murray out.

Rhino
02-23-2009, 02:52 AM
so according to this genious of Geography and Physics Murray never actually beat Nadal!!!

Yeah talk about tunnel vision!
Nadal Freak actually has a selective memory when it comes to Rafa...
his loses are not actually true loses, no? They are merely matches Nadal would have won apart from outside elements that have nothing to do with his genius and should not really be counted. :)

Gorecki
02-23-2009, 02:59 AM
I wonder how Murray would fare against Rafa on the European clay season?

I think he's got the potential to win against Rafa even on clay. Except that is in a best of five match like at the French Open, where Rafa's groundies and superior conditioning will wear Murray out.

yeah.. right... andy thinks so too! what is that bs you guys keep on talking about conditioning? muscles? you do understand conditioning is also not having your body falling appart every two tournaments?

cknobman
02-23-2009, 05:37 AM
Nadal will be owned by Murray all year long. Unlike Federer, Nadal cant exploit Murrays backhand and Murray can be even more of a grinder than Nadal. Then add the fact that Nadal usually is not in 100% perfect condition and that just makes it even easier for Murray to outlast him.

Unless things change I say at end of 09 it could be:

1. Murray
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Djoker

Cyan
02-23-2009, 06:52 AM
Nadal will be owned by Murray all year long. Unlike Federer, Nadal cant exploit Murrays backhand and Murray can be even more of a grinder than Nadal. Then add the fact that Nadal usually is not in 100% perfect condition and that just makes it even easier for Murray to outlast him.

Unless things change I say at end of 09 it could be:

1. Murray
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Djoker

Disagree. On clay, grass and slow HC's Rafa will beat him. Murray wont even win a slam this year.


At the end of the year


1. Rafa
2. Federer
3. Murray
4. Nole

Cyan
02-23-2009, 06:58 AM
How about a bet? I'll take Nadal on clay to win in straights against Murray....I'll do any bet you want, your fav racquet, money, anything.... :)

I'll make it even better, if Murray gets even one set, you win, deal?

Agreed. And btw, Murrays best chance to win a slam this year was at the AO and he blew it. Fed is winning the USO so this will be a slamless year for Murray.

Rhino
02-23-2009, 07:14 AM
Nadal will be owned by Murray all year long. Unlike Federer, Nadal cant exploit Murrays backhand and Murray can be even more of a grinder than Nadal. Then add the fact that Nadal usually is not in 100% perfect condition and that just makes it even easier for Murray to outlast him.

Unless things change I say at end of 09 it could be:

1. Murray
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Djoker

i doubt Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic would drop a set against Sergiy Stakhovsky.

edberg505
02-23-2009, 07:55 AM
i doubt Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic would drop a set against Sergiy Stakhovsky.

If Nadal dropped a set to the 407 ranked player in the world then anything is quite possible and well, I don't even want to mention Djokovic right now because he is totally off track at the moment.

tintin
02-23-2009, 08:01 AM
because they've played on hard courts,Murray is a hard court specialist
nothing more nothing else,just like James Blake

Nadal creamed Murray on clay and grass

edmondsm
02-23-2009, 08:19 AM
because they've played on hard courts,Murray is a hard court specialist
nothing more nothing else,just like James Blake

Nadal creamed Murray on clay and grass

Nadal was beating Murray on hardcourts back then too. Less then a year later, Murray is a much better player. I would give Murray a very good chance on grass these days, not clay though.

Cyan
02-23-2009, 08:35 AM
Nadal was beating Murray on hardcourts back then too. Less then a year later, Murray is a much better player. I would give Murray a very good chance on grass these days, not clay though.

On fast grass, yes. Like for example Queens. At Wimbledon right now with the slowed down grass, no.

rafan
02-23-2009, 08:38 AM
Nadal will be owned by Murray all year long. Unlike Federer, Nadal cant exploit Murrays backhand and Murray can be even more of a grinder than Nadal. Then add the fact that Nadal usually is not in 100% perfect condition and that just makes it even easier for Murray to outlast him.

Unless things change I say at end of 09 it could be:

1. Murray
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Djoker


And of course Murray is in 100% condition ? I wonder.............

rafan
02-23-2009, 08:39 AM
Murray doesn't own Nadal. Murray has beaten Nadal twice, the second time when Nadal had one functioning leg.

As a Murray fan, I'd love to be able to say he owns Nadal. Fact is, he doesn't.

Good post.

stician
02-23-2009, 09:07 AM
Murray returns well and I mean he returns deep. His backhand can handle the spin from Nadal's forehand because he's tall, strong and uses both hands. He's good and young so I expect him to continue giving Nadal problems. In terms of competing at the big venues, well that comes down to determination and mental strength. At this point Nadal is hands down number one.

TheTruth
02-23-2009, 08:30 PM
I have not read most of the post here so I'm sorry if I'm repeating some of what's been said but I believe that Nadal tries to play clay on every surface so unlike clay which requires that you gradually create the point, hc let's you blast your way to success.

Nadal's game play is still somewhat routed in that style of play where he tries to pull you off the court then makes a kill while guys like Murry can end points faster by taking time away from Nadal.

As much as I love Nadal's game, it's rather predictable in the way he hits the balls n his strategy in winning a point.

He has certainly improved his hc game but until he starts to go for shorter rallies n win points faster, he'll always be at the mercy of guys like Murry.

mawashi

Great post! I agree!

TheTruth
02-23-2009, 08:36 PM
What's missing from this equation is the way Nadal is a. constantly improving, and b. finding a way to win.

Thus far, we have seen Nadal take a more aggressive stance on grass and hardcourt. He has added new elements to his game at an alarming pace.

As time wears on Nadal will improve, so will Murray, but at the present time Nadal leads Murray 5-2. There is no ownage there.

rafan
02-23-2009, 09:32 PM
What's missing from this equation is the way Nadal is a. constantly improving, and b. finding a way to win.

Thus far, we have seen Nadal take a more aggressive stance on grass and hardcourt. He has added new elements to his game at an alarming pace.

As time wears on Nadal will improve, so will Murray, but at the present time Nadal leads Murray 5-2. There is no ownage there.

Another great post and i agree. Nadal is adapting/improving his game all the time. I didn't expect much from him last week - he played an excellent game against Tsonga and that was good enough for me

edmondsm
02-23-2009, 09:34 PM
What's missing from this equation is the way Nadal is a. constantly improving, and b. finding a way to win.

Thus far, we have seen Nadal take a more aggressive stance on grass and hardcourt. He has added new elements to his game at an alarming pace.

As time wears on Nadal will improve, so will Murray, but at the present time Nadal leads Murray 5-2. There is no ownage there.

Well then you could say Nadal isn't improving as fast as Murray, because Murray has turned the tide and won the last two meetings. Before Nadal was killing murray, now it's totally different.

NamRanger
02-23-2009, 10:13 PM
It was playing quite fast. Murray just doesn't move as well on grass as on hardcourts.


It's not fast enough to bother Nadal though. Speed it up to what it once was (which was in that 90s speed) and Murray actually becomes a huge favorite.

edmondsm
02-23-2009, 10:19 PM
On fast grass, yes. Like for example Queens. At Wimbledon right now with the slowed down grass, no.

It all depends on their form at the meeting, but the way Murray has played I would give him a good shot at Nadal on anything but the red stuff.

tahiti
02-24-2009, 01:31 AM
If you've been watching someone's game for long enough, who doesn't have a "predictable game?"

Murray's still complaining about his ankle in Dubai. I bet 75% of the reasons are about the tournament, the draw, the length of matches, the difficulty of the matches and overall fitness when they reach other.

tangerine
02-24-2009, 07:43 AM
1) exhausted
2) tired and injured

Murray can't beat Rafa otherwise. :D

maximo
02-24-2009, 07:54 AM
What's missing from this equation is the way Nadal is a. constantly improving, and b. finding a way to win.

Thus far, we have seen Nadal take a more aggressive stance on grass and hardcourt. He has added new elements to his game at an alarming pace.

As time wears on Nadal will improve, so will Murray, but at the present time Nadal leads Murray 5-2. There is no ownage there.

5-3 actually.

veroniquem
02-24-2009, 08:23 AM
5-3 actually.
You're wrong: it's 5-2. (USO 2008 and Rotterdam 2009 are the only matches Murray has won against Nadal in competition).
Once again Murray doesn't own Nadal, maybe he will in the future but that's all conjectures at the moment. Murray owns Federer in best of 3 set matches as he's leading Fed 5-1 in those (he also leads Fed 5-2 overall). You guys have to go over the meaning of "owning", you don't really get it , you don't "own" somebody unless you're leading the head to head by a landslide. 13-6 (Nadal-Federer) would be a good example of what owning means: winning twice as many encounters as your opponent, you also need enough encounters for the "ownage" observation to be true, the more the better. "Ownage" cannot be very significant on the short term, it's mostly relevant on the long term after a lot of encounters. The best example for that is 16-2 (Federer-Roddick) over a period of time of 7 years or more.
Now if you understood my explanations, you'll see that Murray would have to beat Nadal in their next 4 encounters to just lead their head to head but he would have to win their next 8 encounters to officially "own" him, good luck to him with that!

edmondsm
02-24-2009, 08:59 AM
The best example for that is 16-2 (Federer-Roddick) over a period of time of 7 years or more.
Now if you understood my explanations, you'll see that Murray would have to beat Nadal in their next 4 encounters to just lead their head to head but he would have to win their next 8 encounters to officially "own" him, good luck to him for that!

I don't know if it's that cut and dry with the h2h. If Murray wins their next 4 matches then that will mean he has won 6 straight and it will be obvious that Murray has Nadal's number. Just like with Federer/Hewitt, they were basically even on h2h by 2005, but Federer had won 6 straight. It was obvious that Federer owned Hewitt by that point.

veroniquem
02-24-2009, 09:31 AM
I don't know if it's that cut and dry with the h2h. If Murray wins their next 4 matches then that will mean he has won 6 straight and it will be obvious that Murray has Nadal's number. Just like with Federer/Hewitt, they were basically even on h2h by 2005, but Federer had won 6 straight. It was obvious that Federer owned Hewitt by that point.
That's a good point but "own" is a strong word, you could project that it would happen real soon but IMO as long as a head to head is 6-5 or something like that, you still have to wait for the "own" statement. You can predict that the "ownage" is on the verge of happening and you can predict that the losing player won't be able to reverse the trend with more and more accuracy with each loss but I would still consider head to head as an important indicator. If Nadal were to lose his next 4 matches to Murray, that would be a serious block for sure. I don't see that prediction as particularly likely but we'll see.

DarthFed
02-24-2009, 10:18 AM
For once i agree with Veroniquem...regardless of whether Murray was to make the head to head 7-5 it wouldn't be an owning..

It's what i call a "domination trade" examples being Hewwit-Fed,Nalby-Fed, Agassi Fed....the domination switches and the score changes

Owning is what Federer does to most of the rest of the tour

A rivalry is like Federer Nadal 13-6, or Nadal Djokor 10-4

Imo opinion even a 20-0 is a rivalry, rivalry to me isn't about both wining, its about the sheer number of encounters...and playing Federer 19 times in the span of a few years is A LOT

cknobman
02-24-2009, 11:06 AM
Look why cant we all agree that Murray is just better than Nadal :twisted:

arnz
02-24-2009, 11:27 AM
Look why cant we all agree that Murray is just better than Nadal :twisted:

Sure,on hardcourts. And results wise it may not matter, unless Murray finds a way to avoid getting taken out in the Slams.

On clay, forget it. Nadal is probably the best clay courter ever. And Murray on clay is a nobody.

On grass, nadal 3 Wimby finals - 1 win, 1 Queens club title. I give it to him too

gooberwho
02-25-2009, 11:04 PM
You already lose all credability when you refer to Djokovic as one of the top 2 hard court players right now. The guy has lost in the semis of the last 2 slams on hard courts whereas Nadal, Federer, and Murray have either won 1, been in a finals of 1, or in Federer's case both. He has won 1 hard court tournament in the last 11 months, has gone a combined 1-5 vs Federer/Djokovic/Nadal on hard courts during that time and is somehow a top 2 hard court player right now!?! Let me know what planet you are visiting, thanks.

Says the guy who believed Donald Young would one day reach #1. I don't really disagree with your points, but I take issue when you make such an outrageous claim and then proceed to bash others for their lack of "credability."

luckyboy1300
02-25-2009, 11:09 PM
nadal has nothing to exploit on murray, as he's consistent off both wings and will be more than happy to trade shots with nadal all day. but he certainly uses his brain and varies the pace of the ball very much, getting nadal by surprise on many times. plus the fact that murray now has a more consistent 1st serve which is "huge" by the standards. murray's advantage on nadal will only be on hardcourts.

edmondsm
02-25-2009, 11:21 PM
Says the guy who believed Donald Young would one day reach #1. I don't really disagree with your points, but I take issue when you make such an outrageous claim and then proceed to bash others for their lack of "credability."

Yes, Lamielspins must be kicking himself for starting that thread.

rubberduckies
02-26-2009, 12:18 AM
Which players have actually won 3 consecutive ATP-level matches against Nadal?

I can only think of Blake so far, any others?

Nadal_Freak
02-26-2009, 04:51 AM
Look why cant we all agree that Murray is just better than Nadal :twisted:
Why can't we all agree that Nadal is just better then Fed? :twisted:

Gen
02-26-2009, 05:12 AM
Very simple just watch the matches. Where Federer does nothing with Nadal's 2nd serve to his BH, Murray pounds it. Where Federer is neutralized by heavy topsin balls to his BH inh rallies, Murray thrives on those balls and returns them just as deep, penetrating and dangerous, where Federer can make an occasional saving shot lunging for one of Nadal's huge angles off the court, Murray gets there and often squeezes out solid winners on those. And Murray's first serve is quite huge. In one sentence, Nadal's winning strategy "Dictate the points by heavy FH topsin balls to my opponent's weaker side" does not work if the opponent has no weaker side. Murray and Djokovitch are both in this category.

Nadal, Rafael 5-2 Murray, Andy
Nadal, Rafael 10-4 Djokovic, Novak

Murray and Djokovic are both in what category?

cknobman
02-26-2009, 05:19 AM
Why can't we all agree that Nadal is just better then Fed? :twisted:

I will agree to that......once Nadals achievements surpass Feds until then Nadal just gets an honorable mention.

tahiti
02-26-2009, 11:54 AM
Why can't we all agree that Nadal is just better then Fed? :twisted:

We know Rafa is better than Fed. He dethroned him.
Murray has quite a few points needed before he can claim that.
Right now, he's got a virus.

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 11:58 AM
Which players have actually won 3 consecutive ATP-level matches against Nadal?

I can only think of Blake so far, any others?
No, just Blake. Murray has actually beaten Nadal twice in a row in competition, not 3 times. Djoko and Federer haven't been able to beat Nadal more than twice in a row.

arnz
02-26-2009, 05:20 PM
I will agree to that......once Nadals achievements surpass Feds until then Nadal just gets an honorable mention.

Then I will agree that Murray is better than Nadal once Murray achieves 6 grand slams on three different surfaces and has a winning record against Nadal instead of being 5-2 down. At least Nadal has a winning record against Fed. Until then Murray gets an honorable mention :)

Nadal_Freak
02-26-2009, 05:26 PM
No, just Blake. Murray has actually beaten Nadal twice in a row in competition, not 3 times. Djoko and Federer haven't been able to beat Nadal more than twice in a row.
He beat Nadal in an exhibition. It doesn't count statistically but it looked obvious they were both trying hard. Murray is probably Nadal's toughest matchup in tennis now. Not when he was younger and weaker.

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 05:30 PM
He beat Nadal in an exhibition. It doesn't count statistically but it looked obvious they were both trying hard. Murray is probably Nadal's toughest matchup in tennis now. Not when he was younger and weaker.
Murray is gonna be very hard to beat I agree. Technically though we don't want to start throwing exhibitions in the mix, that's confusing. Let's stick to competition for statistics. I's always hard (in general) to evaluate players' motivation in exhibitions.

arnz
02-26-2009, 05:32 PM
Murray has been in form for less than a season now. Why dont we all just wait and see how he does in the clay court and grass season before pronouncing him. Not too long ago Djokovic was the heir apparent, and look what happened to him. I think when all is said and done, people will just find it remarkable how resilient and consistent the top 2 players (Fed/Nadal) are, while others may come and go and have their ups and downs. I would still bet the next 3 slams will be won by one of those two

I actually like Murray's game, but lets wait and see

OddJack
02-26-2009, 05:34 PM
Why? Because he controls the rallies, has him run and run till he's out of breath or injures a leg.
Murray is going to own Nadal from now on except for dirt. He has improved substantially while Nadal has peaked.

I am already feeling bad for couple of Nadal fans here, their party is going to be so short lived.

tennis_hand
02-26-2009, 05:44 PM
as said, murray doesn't have obvious weaknesses that anyone can exploit. but federer can't handle a high topspin to his backhand for long rallies. (federer can do it in short rallies). so nadal can't do much damage to murray.

also, murray's backhand is more powerful than fed's when playing against nadal. that makes a lot of difference.

regarding clay event, we haven't seen the current murray on clay yet. so don't predict first.
also, just as u don't expect federer to keep on winning 3 slams, u can't expect nadal to win on dirt all the time. the day when he is defeated will come sooner or later. it could be this year, or it may not.

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 05:54 PM
as said, murray doesn't have obvious weaknesses that anyone can exploit. but federer can't handle a high topspin to his backhand for long rallies. (federer can do it in short rallies). so nadal can't do much damage to murray.

also, murray's backhand is more powerful than fed's when playing against nadal. that makes a lot of difference.

regarding clay event, we haven't seen the current murray on clay yet. so don't predict first.
also, just as u don't expect federer to keep on winning 3 slams, u can't expect nadal to win on dirt all the time. the day when he is defeated will come sooner or later. it could be this year, or it may not.
By Murray? Bold prediction :lol:

Gen
02-27-2009, 04:56 AM
1. Murray has a knee problem which he was born with.
2. He is nowhere close to Nadal in terms of fitness and durability.
3. His movement and footwork are not good enough for clay. His sliding is awkward.
4. He is down with the mono.

Predictions failed.

doctor dennis
02-28-2009, 01:38 PM
Murray is on a roll against Nadal but does not "own" him. Murray does have a better "suited" game for hardcourts than Nadal's but i'm still not that convinced he's the better player on that surface. I'd rather have Nadal's hardcourt titles all day every day over Murray's hardcourt titles. Its going to be interesting to see how this rivalry develops in the future, i'm looking forward to it to be honest.

devila
02-28-2009, 10:21 PM
Murray needed a free gift from Roddick in Wimbledon, 2007 San Jose, Miami, Shanghai and Doha. Roddick choked while serving for the set in San Jose because he celebrated his Davis Cup bullcrap wins. He couldn't move at all, with 10 break points wasted away on grass, with Brits' annoying roar in his ears. Did he even mind retiring in Miami and dragging crap feet around in Shanghai? The Doha match looked like "who cares? I'm old and lucky" net charging and moonballing exhibition.

tahiti
02-28-2009, 11:12 PM
Why? Because he controls the rallies, has him run and run till he's out of breath or injures a leg.
Murray is going to own Nadal from now on except for dirt. He has improved substantially while Nadal has peaked.

I am already feeling bad for couple of Nadal fans here, their party is going to be so short lived.

We've been partying since Rafa won his first FO and during his no. 2 reign.
The party is alive and kicking!

roysid
03-03-2009, 02:53 AM
Other than James Blake who had defeated Nadal 3 times in a row, these are the players

Thomas Berdych (2005 - Cincinati, 2006-Toronto & Madrid)
Gauston Gaudio (2003,2004 and 2005)
Lleyton Hewitt

Of course, none of them can beat Nadal now.
At present, Murray seems his hardest opponent in Hard, Federer on grass and blisters on clay.

veroniquem
03-03-2009, 09:17 AM
Other than James Blake who had defeated Nadal 3 times in a row, these are the players

Thomas Berdych (2005 - Cincinati, 2006-Toronto & Madrid)
Gauston Gaudio (2003,2004 and 2005)
Lleyton Hewitt

Of course, none of them can beat Nadal now.
At present, Murray seems his hardest opponent in Hard, Federer on grass and blisters on clay.
Ah you're right. Hewitt's dates are :AO 2004, Canada master 2004, AO 2005. Nobody has beaten Rafa 4 times in a row though or am I forgetting about somebody again?

NandoMania
03-16-2009, 03:36 AM
edit: wrong thread :roll:

Safinator_1
03-16-2009, 03:40 AM
well...two if not for injury but nonetheless its still a loss Murray beat Nadal because he was the better player in the match and probably the better player out of the two besides on clay

fednad
03-16-2009, 10:03 AM
Patience, variety, unpredictability of shot selection and solid backhand are the reasons. Murray (on hard courts for sure) is an extremely bad matchup for Nadal.