PDA

View Full Version : Simon Reed: Murray's chance to be world number 1


janipyt05
04-08-2009, 05:10 AM
Reed: Murray's chance to be number one

Eurosport - Wed, 08 Apr 08:00:00 2009

Eurosport-Yahoo! blogger Simon Reed believes Andy Murray can take over as world number one by the end of the year.
TENNIS; Andy Murray, Miami Masters, April 2009 - 0
More Stories

* Murray marches to Miami Masters title
* Murray: Conditioning is crucial

Watching the final of the Miami Masters on Sunday, the overriding feeling I got is that Andy Murray has definitely got into these guys' heads - big time.

I don't believe that either Novak Djokovic or Roger Federer actually believes that they can beat Murray at the moment.

Rafael Nadal's a bit different as he knows he can beat anyone on clay. But I'm not convinced that he'd feel secure playing Murray on any other surface.

And I think that there is a real chance that by the end of the year Murray will be world number one.

If he beats Nadal more than Nadal beats him this year, by which I mean winning the US Open, and possibly also Wimbledon, then he will be number one.

And it would be justified, because I genuinely think he is the best player in the world at the moment - except on clay.

You'd have to expect Nadal to win at Roland Garros, but for every other tournament who is going to be the favourite? It's got to be Murray.

Still, there's a quantum leap between talking the talk and walking the walk. But it's there for him now and he will never have a better chance.

Of course, that feeling could put extra pressure on him and stop him going that extra yard, but right now there's no reason to think he won't do it.

The key thing is that, for my money, the others really don't think they can beat him. You could see it in Djokovic's face as he walked on court on Sunday - he hoped he would win, but didn't think he would, whereas Murray clearly believed that he would do it.

For me there's no doubt that Murray will end up winning more tournaments than anybody else this year; but for his development the only tournaments that matter now are Grand Slams.

And the question with those is whether he has it in him, mentally and physically, to come out on top after two weeks of five-set matches.

Physically, I don't think there are any question marks any more; mentally, it's all to prove.

There's a big, big difference between being the pretender to the throne and becoming the king.

Murray knows that; but then again, he also knows that there's nothing he really needs to add to his game.

Perhaps he could have a bigger second serve; sometimes he can be a little too passive. And there's still the odd gap in his experience, as he showed in high wind at Indian Wells.

The question, however, isn't whether he's capable of beating any other player, it's whether he can do it back-to-back, seven matches in a row, and win a Grand Slam.

And I really think he can.

Simon Reed is one of Britain's top tennis commentators - his exclusive blog appears here every Tuesday and Friday.

Eurosport

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! and Eurosport. All rights reserved.



YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS ARTICLE

Clydey2times
04-08-2009, 06:48 AM
Simon Reed is out of his ****ing mind. He called Verdasco the future of tennis last week (he's 25 ffs) and basically called him the new world number 1 in waiting. He really has a screw loose.

I reckon Murray will finish the year ranked 2nd and will win the US Open.

EtePras
04-08-2009, 06:53 AM
Can Simon Reed name one surface where Nadal isn't better than Murray?

Clydey2times
04-08-2009, 07:07 AM
Can Simon Reed name one surface where Nadal isn't better than Murray?

Hard court. It's tough to separate them on hard. Murray has something like a 58-7 record since the hard court season after Wimbledon. I think Nadal is something like 50-7.

Cyan
04-08-2009, 08:02 AM
Simon Reed is out of his ****ing mind. He called Verdasco the future of tennis last week (he's 25 ffs) and basically called him the new world number 1 in waiting. He really has a screw loose.

I reckon Murray will finish the year ranked 2nd and will win the US Open.

Murray better win the USO after so much hype.

veroniquem
04-08-2009, 08:03 PM
Hard court. It's tough to separate them on hard. Murray has something like a 58-7 record since the hard court season after Wimbledon. I think Nadal is something like 50-7.
Really? I can separate them very easily.
# of hard court slams won: Murray:0, Nadal:1. # of masters won on hard court: Nadal: 5, Murray: 3. Number of Olympic gold on hard court: Murray:0, Nadal:1. Head to head on hard court: 4-2 in favor of Nadal.
I like Murray a lot but he still has some work to do to be better than Rafa, even on hard court!

FEDERER>buttpicker.
04-08-2009, 08:04 PM
what a great article!!!

Clydey2times
04-08-2009, 09:15 PM
Really? I can separate them very easily.
# of hard court slams won: Murray:0, Nadal:1. # of masters won on hard court: Nadal: 5, Murray: 3. Number of Olympic gold on hard court: Murray:0, Nadal:1. Head to head on hard court: 4-2 in favor of Nadal.
I like Murray a lot but he still has some work to do to be better than Rafa, even on hard court!

I am not talking in terms of results. Nadal has been posting good results on hard for years. Murray only came into his own 9 months ago. I am talking about current form, not achievements. You know better than to make such an illogical argument. Of course Nadal is miles ahead based on results over their whole career, but I was clearly talking about current form.

If we're using achievements as a guide to current form, I could say that Agassi is a far better hard court player than Nadal on current form. I mean in the last 9 months it has been tough to separate them.

Tshooter
04-08-2009, 09:36 PM
"If he beats Nadal more than Nadal beats him this year, by which I mean winning the US Open, and possibly also Wimbledon, then he will be number one."

Gee ya think someone that beats the current number one more times than not in a year and wins the USO and W in the same year should be number one. Wow. That's going out on a limb. I think that if you take the number two and subtract the number one, that will also be the number one. I realize it's a controversial statement but that's what good writing is sometimes about.

"You'd have to expect Nadal to win at Roland Garros, but for every other tournament who is going to be the favourite? It's got to be Murray."

It's "got to be Murray." Nadal is the defending W champ and Federer has won it multiple times. But Murray's "got to be the favorite." Good thing this guy isn't a bookmaker.

veroniquem
04-08-2009, 10:13 PM
I am not talking in terms of results. Nadal has been posting good results on hard for years. Murray only came into his own 9 months ago. I am talking about current form, not achievements. You know better than to make such an illogical argument. Of course Nadal is miles ahead based on results over their whole career, but I was clearly talking about current form.

If we're using achievements as a guide to current form, I could say that Agassi is a far better hard court player than Nadal on current form. I mean in the last 9 months it has been tough to separate them.
Sorry but the comparison of results between Murray and Nadal is perfectly legitimate, given that they are less than a year apart. Agassi OTOH is 16 years older!! And even if we compare the last 9 months (which is a completely arbitrary decision by the way) I still see Nadal with a slam on hard and Murray with none, that's a big difference, no?

Leublu tennis
04-08-2009, 10:22 PM
Really? I can separate them very easily.
# of hard court slams won: Murray:0, Nadal:1. # of masters won on hard court: Nadal: 5, Murray: 3. Number of Olympic gold on hard court: Murray:0, Nadal:1. Head to head on hard court: 4-2 in favor of Nadal.
I like Murray a lot but he still has some work to do to be better than Rafa, even on hard court!Figures sure tell their own story, don't they.

carlos djackal
04-08-2009, 10:32 PM
possible but i highly doubt it, he could possibly pass djoker and fed but not nadal?

Leublu tennis
04-08-2009, 10:42 PM
Hard court. It's tough to separate them on hard. Murray has something like a 58-7 record since the hard court season after Wimbledon. I think Nadal is something like 50-7.
And ATP thinks that Murray has 52-7 and Nadal 46-7. But Murray played in two more tournaments than Nadal. St.Pete (5-0) and Dubai (2-1). If, for comparison's sake, you deduct these last two from the totals, then you have Murray at 45-6 and Nadal at 46-7. You are welcome.

Clydey2times
04-09-2009, 01:39 AM
Sorry but the comparison of results between Murray and Nadal is perfectly legitimate, given that they are less than a year apart. Agassi OTOH is 16 years older!! And even if we compare the last 9 months (which is a completely arbitrary decision by the way) I still see Nadal with a slam on hard and Murray with none, that's a big difference, no?

It's not legitimate because we are talking about current form. The same applies if we were talking about Agassi's current form and Nadal's current form. Why are titles won in 2005-2007 relevant to *current form*?

Yes, Nadal has a slam on hard. First of all, Murray was ill at the Australian Open.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/australian-open/murray-out-of-sick-bed-and-still-on-course/2009/01/25/1232818249302.html

http://www.andy-murray.com/australian-open-2009-murray-chrashes-out-to-verdasco/

People can choose to overlook that fact if they want, but facts are facts.

Secondly, even while ill at the AO, Murray took Verdasco to five sets and won 1 more point than him. Nadal, on the other hand, beat Verdasco over 5 sets. He also won 1 more point than Verdasco. You're putting an awful lot of stock in that tournament given the circumstances.

As I said, Nadal and Murray are tough to separate on hard courts over the last 9 months. I'm not saying one is better than the other. However, it's ridiculous to compare their results over the last 4 years when I am merely referring to current form. It's obvious Murray is miles behind Nadal in terms of achievements.

If we're using your logic, presumably you'll agree that on current form Djokovic is better than Murray?

Clydey2times
04-09-2009, 01:46 AM
And ATP thinks that Murray has 52-7 and Nadal 46-7. But Murray played in two more tournaments than Nadal. St.Pete (5-0) and Dubai (2-1). If, for comparison's sake, you deduct these last two from the totals, then you have Murray at 45-6 and Nadal at 46-7. You are welcome.

They haven't updated it from Miami yet.

If you are going to deduct them, try and get it right. Murray didn't lose in Dubai. It was a walkover. And add the Miami results.

Clydey2times
04-09-2009, 01:48 AM
Figures sure tell their own story, don't they.

By all means explain how results from years ago are relevant to current form? I am talking about the form they are showing on hard courts currently.

Retra
04-09-2009, 04:59 AM
By all means explain how results from years ago are relevant to current form? I am talking about the form they are showing on hard courts currently.

¿Currently? OK, I see that Nadal has won this year a Slam and a Master in HC, Murray "only" a Master. And three weeks ago Nadal destroyed Murray badly on a HC final.

I wouldnt say Andy is better than Nadal on hardcourts "currently". They are probably at the same level right now. When the HC is slow and high bouncing, Nadal has the edge, and when the HC is fast and low bouncing, Murray has it.

Clydey2times
04-09-2009, 01:09 PM
¿Currently? OK, I see that Nadal has won this year a Slam and a Master in HC, Murray "only" a Master. And three weeks ago Nadal destroyed Murray badly on a HC final.

I wouldnt say Andy is better than Nadal on hardcourts "currently". They are probably at the same level right now. When the HC is slow and high bouncing, Nadal has the edge, and when the HC is fast and low bouncing, Murray has it.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said, if you had read what I wrote.

I said that it is hard to separate them right now. I absolutely did not say that Murray is better on hard courts. No idea where you got that from.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
04-09-2009, 03:27 PM
Who is this clown? British i suppose?? So typical British behaviour,when England beats lets say...Iceland 2-0 in a friendly game of football the headlines the next day in the newspapers is "England to win the World Cup". Get a clue man!

veroniquem
04-09-2009, 03:55 PM
It's not legitimate because we are talking about current form. The same applies if we were talking about Agassi's current form and Nadal's current form. Why are titles won in 2005-2007 relevant to *current form*?

Yes, Nadal has a slam on hard. First of all, Murray was ill at the Australian Open.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/tennis/australian-open/murray-out-of-sick-bed-and-still-on-course/2009/01/25/1232818249302.html

http://www.andy-murray.com/australian-open-2009-murray-chrashes-out-to-verdasco/

People can choose to overlook that fact if they want, but facts are facts.

Secondly, even while ill at the AO, Murray took Verdasco to five sets and won 1 more point than him. Nadal, on the other hand, beat Verdasco over 5 sets. He also won 1 more point than Verdasco. You're putting an awful lot of stock in that tournament given the circumstances.

As I said, Nadal and Murray are tough to separate on hard courts over the last 9 months. I'm not saying one is better than the other. However, it's ridiculous to compare their results over the last 4 years when I am merely referring to current form. It's obvious Murray is miles behind Nadal in terms of achievements.

If we're using your logic, presumably you'll agree that on current form Djokovic is better than Murray?
The AO victory was in January, that's as recent as it gets. Rafa's one-sided victory against Murray in IW is even more recent. And I'm putting a lot of stock in the AO victory?? You're kidding right???!! Doha and Rotterdam are small tournaments. AO is a slam. You can't tell the difference? Well, I surely can. I agree all that could change and Murray has a bright future ahead of him but as of right now Nadal is still better, whether you want to consider form, points, wins or whatever else.
And I'm not even going to comment on that Verdasco business as you're actually trying to convince me that Murray did better in a match he LOST than Nadal did in a match he WON. That my friend is so crazy that it doesn't even deserve an argument. I have no doubt Murray is gonna keep improving, he's my favorite player after Nadal and I hope he will win that first slam soon but in the meantime, he's not THERE yet and unlike Nadal he hasn't proven yet his ability to win a slam which is the most important achievement in tennis on any surface.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-09-2009, 04:38 PM
And ATP thinks that Murray has 52-7 and Nadal 46-7. But Murray played in two more tournaments than Nadal. St.Pete (5-0) and Dubai (2-1). If, for comparison's sake, you deduct these last two from the totals, then you have Murray at 45-6 and Nadal at 46-7. You are welcome. That makes Murray look better I hope you realise. In that Murrays winning percentage is 88.24% and Nadals is 86.79%. Comparing Murrays and Nadals H2H record is pathetic, who cares if Nadal won 2 years ago, is that a good reflection on how he plays today? Does it show how much Murray has improved in the last year? Compare their H2H record since Wimbledon and that is a very good reflection of how they are currently playing on HC. You will find that it is 2-2 but Murray has won the more important clash at the US Open.

Clydey2times
04-09-2009, 05:44 PM
The AO victory was in January, that's as recent as it gets. Rafa's one-sided victory against Murray in IW is even more recent. And I'm putting a lot of stock in the AO victory?? You're kidding right???!! Doha and Rotterdam are small tournaments. AO is a slam. You can't tell the difference? Well, I surely can. I agree all that could change and Murray has a bright future ahead of him but as of right now Nadal is still better, whether you want to consider form, points, wins or whatever else.
And I'm not even going to comment on that Verdasco business as you're actually trying to convince me that Murray did better in a match he LOST than Nadal did in a match he WON. That my friend is so crazy that it doesn't even deserve an argument. I have no doubt Murray is gonna keep improving, he's my favorite player after Nadal and I hope he will win that first slam soon but in the meantime, he's not THERE yet and unlike Nadal he hasn't proven yet his ability to win a slam which is the most important achievement in tennis on any surface.

Congratulations on completely distorting almost everything I said.

I did not try to argue that Murray did better than Nadal in a match that he lost. I was referring to the difference between a loss and a win. We're talking inches. I in no way implied that Murray did better in defeat, so de me favour and don't twist what I say and then act incredulous. I didn't make that argument. There's no quicker way to wind me up than to misrepresent what I say.

When I said you are putting a lot of stock in the AO, I'm referring to the fact that an ill Murray made an early exit. It's not as though both were healthy at the AO, Nadal took the title and Murray made an early exit. We'll never know how far a fit Murray would have gone.

And are you really going to use the farcical IW final as evidence of Nadal's superiority over Murray?

Also, Murray has more points than Nadal since the hard court stretch started after Wimbledon. So no, Nadal is not superior "whatever way you want to consider it".

clayman2000
04-09-2009, 05:48 PM
I really dont see Murray taking the no 1 rank this year. Nadal is playing with too much confidence coming into the clay season. Despite the fact that he won what he set out to accompish in Wimbledon, i bet he will be even more pumped this year to defend it because their are still ignorant people who cannot stand the fact of a basliner / clay court built cheetah being the favourite at Wimbledon.