PDA

View Full Version : Murray Only Wins When The Top 3 Play Poorly


Josherer
04-10-2009, 12:49 AM
Yes I know Murray makes the other player play poorly, that is one of the fantastic abilities of his game. I do respect Murray alot but I do find his matches even against the top guys quite boring.

Check out the HD highlights of the Fed vs Djokovic US Open Semi Match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFdUvSdl9Ms

Have you ever seen Murray play one of the top 3 and the QUALITY of tennis been this good?

THERAFA
04-10-2009, 12:53 AM
That exhibition before the Aust Open between Murray and Nadal is the best I've seen the 2 of them play at the same time.

madmanfool
04-10-2009, 01:03 AM
That's the thing about Murray. He makes the opponent play bad.

maximo
04-10-2009, 01:06 AM
The top 3 don't play poorly, Murray's just too good.

120mphBodyServe
04-10-2009, 01:08 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Stop talking rubbish.
Murray is a pretty solid, thoughtful all court player with a lot of variety and he mixes things up.. Plus he has a great serve...
The only reason you find his matches boring is you expect a winner to come out of nowhere, which is great when you're on fire... But Murray plays tennis. He constructs points well and this is why he is so solid.
How long have you been watching tennis? A year?

Josherer
04-10-2009, 01:09 AM
The top 3 don't play poorly, Murray's just too good.

No doubt Murray is an exceptional player and I do like him quite alot. I just haven't really seen him in a match against the top 3 where the quality has been really great. Like the Fed-Nadal Wimbledon even.

I haven't seen the exibition match between Murray and Nadal before the AO though.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

Josherer
04-10-2009, 01:12 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Stop talking rubbish.
Murray is a pretty solid, thoughtful all court player with a lot of variety and he mixes things up.. Plus he has a great serve...
The only reason you find his matches boring is you expect a winner to come out of nowhere, which is great when you're on fire... But Murray plays tennis. He constructs points well and this is why he is so solid.
How long have you been watching tennis? A year?

Woah no need for the anger.

I really do like the way he constructs points and always forces an error. Just haven't seen him in a match against one of the top 3 which was mind blowing.


Although the he played exceptionally welll in the first set against DelPotro in Miami. Probably one of the best sets (highest quality) i've seen form Murray.

maximo
04-10-2009, 01:15 AM
^^ He rinsed Djokovic in Miami.

maximo
04-10-2009, 01:15 AM
Double Post.

RFtennis
04-10-2009, 01:24 AM
Murray only wins against top 3 when they are playing poorly.
When Fed was on his game at USOPEN Murray got destroyed.
I doubt if Murray got into a GS final with Fed or Rafa he would come out victorious.

Josherer
04-10-2009, 01:31 AM
^^ He rinsed Djokovic in Miami.

No doubt there. However, how did Djokovic play in Miami Finals compared to the US Open Semi?

Tony48
04-10-2009, 01:52 AM
I have to disagree. Remember the Shanghai 2008 match? That was pretty epic.

Telepatic
04-10-2009, 02:46 AM
Yes, I agree unfortunately.

chiru
04-10-2009, 03:57 AM
Yes I know Murray makes the other player play poorly, that is one of the fantastic abilities of his game. I do respect Murray alot but I do find his matches even against the top guys quite boring.

Check out the HD highlights of the Fed vs Djokovic US Open Semi Match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFdUvSdl9Ms

Have you ever seen Murray play one of the top 3 and the QUALITY of tennis been this good?

I feel like you've answered your own question. That's really just the way he plays. roger is very much a rhythm player. He wants you to go big at him in a well constructed baseline rally. That really let's him get in a groove. If you recall back in the day, eveyron used to talk about how much roger hated dropshots, both using them and having them used against him, because he felt it destroyed "the rhythm" of the point.

that's what murray does better than anyone is keep you from finding any sort of rhythm. I think he's the best in the world at this. It's a brilliant strategy. I think Pete Sampras used a variation on this by attacking. A net rusher prevents you from getting any sort of rhythm by a completely different method, which is namely by keeping the points short and of a hit or miss nature. Murray does this by crafting the points in such a way that he robs himself as well as the opponent of rhythm, but it's on his terms and he likes that. Essentially he "lowers" the quality of the tennis (if you can call it lowering) to a point where even though he's more uncomfrotable, he's less uncomfortable than his opponent, so he comes out on top.

batz
04-10-2009, 05:00 AM
Yes I know Murray makes the other player play poorly, that is one of the fantastic abilities of his game. I do respect Murray alot but I do find his matches even against the top guys quite boring.

Check out the HD highlights of the Fed vs Djokovic US Open Semi Match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFdUvSdl9Ms

Have you ever seen Murray play one of the top 3 and the QUALITY of tennis been this good?

I think your thread title is far more controversial than what you say in the thread.

In answer to your question:

Murray v Nadal @ USO 2008 was high quality
Murray v Nadal @Oz 2007 was high quality
Murray v Fed @ Shanghai 2008 was high quality

Murray v Fed @ Madrid 2008 and Murray v Djoker @ Cincy 2008 were also pretty high quality.

Cheers.

Nadal_Freak
04-10-2009, 05:07 AM
Murray is a beast. Fed fanboys just don't respect other top players.

cknobman
04-10-2009, 05:14 AM
I can agree to an extent (especially Grand Slams).

I will say that Murrays game is built around forcing his opponents out of their comfort zone which causes them to play poorly.

batz
04-10-2009, 05:21 AM
Murray only wins against top 3 when they are playing poorly.
When Fed was on his game at USOPEN Murray got destroyed.
I doubt if Murray got into a GS final with Fed or Rafa he would come out victorious.

Those are some pretty serious conclusions you're reaching there on a sample of 1.

So Murray can beat Rafa in a slam semi but not a final? Yeah, that makes sense.

Chris De Tone
04-10-2009, 05:25 AM
I always respect everyone's opinion on these boards, but I am tired of hearing the age old excuse..."well, he/she only won because the other person played poorly". This excuse is used at all levels of the game. Just play the game and the result is the result. I am sure that you all know that when you play, very rarely is everything working perfectly. So, when it does go perfectly...that's the aberration, not poor play. Remember, there is another player (or 2 if doubles) trying to stop you from doing what you do best. I know that the top players are capable of playing at ridiculous levels. Heck, even I occasionally get a couple aces a game and can't miss...but I'd hate to bet my house on it happening all the time. As far as the pros go...these guys are all great. But they have the ability to force one another out of the perfect zone more often than not. You can dream of playing well all of the time, but that's all it is...a dream. This is my lebgthy version of saying..."give Murray some credit".

Chris De Tone
04-10-2009, 05:28 AM
See, I mispelled "lengthy"...can't be at your best all the time!

Josherer
04-10-2009, 06:01 AM
Murray is a beast. Fed fanboys just don't respect other top players.

I stated above that I respect Murray alot.

BTW he is one of my favourite players and I admire him alot.

Might want to actually read a thread before you post

vtmike
04-10-2009, 06:12 AM
Theres no question Murray is giving indicators that he might do well in Slams...but as we all know GS is a whole different animal and Nadal & Fed raise their level during grand slams ...and he has not proved he can beat them at the big stages yet

carlos djackal
04-10-2009, 06:26 AM
It is unfair for Murray to say that he only wins when the top three players play poorly.....he has all the tools to be someday be the no.1, just needs time....I think bigger things are coming for him, lets see how he fares for the rest of the season....

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 07:00 AM
Yes I know Murray makes the other player play poorly, that is one of the fantastic abilities of his game. I do respect Murray alot but I do find his matches even against the top guys quite boring.

Check out the HD highlights of the Fed vs Djokovic US Open Semi Match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFdUvSdl9Ms

Have you ever seen Murray play one of the top 3 and the QUALITY of tennis been this good?

Uh, yes. Murray-Nadal AO 07, Murray-Nadal USO 08, Murray-Federer TMC 08.

The quality of each far surpasses the Nole-Fed semi.

All-rounder
04-10-2009, 07:02 AM
Uh, yes. Murray-Nadal AO 07, Murray-Nadal USO 08, Murray-Federer TMC 08.

The quality of each far surpasses the Nole-Fed semi.
We also remeber how murray choked at 07 AO when 2 sets to 1 up against nadal

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 07:03 AM
Theres no question Murray is giving indicators that he might do well in Slams...but as we all know GS is a whole different animal and Nadal & Fed raise their level during grand slams ...and he has not proved he can beat them at the big stages yet

US Open semi is a pretty big stage.

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 07:04 AM
We also remeber how murray choked at 07 AO when 2 sets to 1 up against nadal

That was then, this is now. Doesn't change the fact that Murray played some of the best all court tennis I've ever seen for 2 sets.

Cesc Fabregas
04-10-2009, 07:06 AM
That was then, this is now. Doesn't change the fact that Murray played some of the best all court tennis I've ever seen for 2 sets.

He still choked.

helloworld
04-10-2009, 07:06 AM
5-2 H2H is not about playing poorly anymore. Getting owned 5 times means you're an inferior player, and playing poorly is no longer an option.

Cesc Fabregas
04-10-2009, 07:07 AM
5-2 H2H is not about playing poorly anymore. Getting owned 5 times means you're an inferior player, and playing poorly is no longer an option.

Who are you talking about?

helloworld
04-10-2009, 07:12 AM
Who are you talking about?

Allow me to correct it. It is in fact 6-2! :lol:

SempreSami
04-10-2009, 07:13 AM
Saying Murray will win a Grand Slam in the future is more plausible at least than saying Arsenal will win trophies in the future because they've got the best set of bottling 12 year olds.

Cesc Fabregas
04-10-2009, 07:13 AM
Allow me to correct it. It is in fact 6-2! :lol:

I agree with you Nadal is clearly is superior player than Murray, Nadal can beat Murray 6-1 6-2 on Murray's best surface whilst Murray will never take a set off Nadal on clay.

helloworld
04-10-2009, 07:14 AM
I agree with you Nadal is clearly is superior player than Murray, Nadal can beat Murray 6-1 6-2 on Murray's best surface whilst Murray will never take a set off Nadal on clay.

Uh... I was talking about Federer and Murray actually...

Cesc Fabregas
04-10-2009, 07:15 AM
Saying Murray will win a Grand Slam in the future is more plausible at least than saying Arsenal will win trophies in the future because they've got the best set of bottling 12 year olds.

I will come back to this when we win the FA Cup and Me>Graeme Smith.

All-rounder
04-10-2009, 07:15 AM
I agree with you Nadal is clearly is superior player than Murray, Nadal can beat Murray 6-1 6-2 on Murray's best surface whilst Murray will never take a set off Nadal on clay.
or a game let alone.....its possible

Benefactor
04-10-2009, 07:16 AM
Yes I know Murray makes the other player play poorly, that is one of the fantastic abilities of his game. I do respect Murray alot but I do find his matches even against the top guys quite boring.

Check out the HD highlights of the Fed vs Djokovic US Open Semi Match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFdUvSdl9Ms

Have you ever seen Murray play one of the top 3 and the QUALITY of tennis been this good?

And why the hell did you start this thread exactly? Your title implies that you think he only wins when it's given to him.

Cesc Fabregas
04-10-2009, 07:16 AM
Uh... I was talking about Federer and Murray actually...

Well then I disagree Federer and Murray's head to head would differently if they played more on grass and clay where Federer is far better.

SempreSami
04-10-2009, 07:16 AM
I will come back to this when we win the FA Cup and Me>Graeme Smith.

I doubt you tear up the results of failed medical tests and play anyway so LOLNO.

Cesc Fabregas
04-10-2009, 07:17 AM
I doubt you tear up the results of failed medical tests and play anyway so LOLNO.

Graeme Smith is hardly in shape he's fat.

All-rounder
04-10-2009, 07:18 AM
Well then I disagree Federer and Murray's head to head would differently if they played more on grass and clay where Federer is far better.
true all there meetings have been on hardcourts surprisingly and most best of 3 where there only best of 5 was us open where Federer won

tacou
04-10-2009, 07:19 AM
hog wash, i say

SempreSami
04-10-2009, 07:20 AM
Graeme Smith is hardly in shape he's fat.

Fat people can average over 50 in Tests.

Cesc Fabregas
04-10-2009, 07:23 AM
Fat people can average over 50 in Tests.

Yeah he's an excellent player not as good as Pietersen, Tendulkar or Ponting though.

SempreSami
04-10-2009, 07:26 AM
Nope, he's better than all three combined.

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 07:27 AM
Well then I disagree Federer and Murray's head to head would differently if they played more on grass and clay where Federer is far better.

Federer is better on clay than he is on hard? Wow, you'll just make up any old nonsense.

Benefactor
04-10-2009, 07:28 AM
You guys need to stop talking about soccer and cricket and get your minds back on real sports.

SempreSami
04-10-2009, 07:29 AM
I take offence to that, you try fending off a hard ball coming at you at 80mph with a narrow plank.

Cesc Fabregas
04-10-2009, 07:30 AM
Federer is better on clay than he is on hard? Wow, you'll just make up any old nonsense.

No but Murray is far better on hard than on clay and Federer is a very good on clay and Murray is very poor.

rubberduckies
04-10-2009, 07:38 AM
Murray in good form is able to consistently beat Federer at his best.
He has also beaten Djokovic when he was playing at a high level.
The only one left is Nadal. Murray hasn't yet beaten a good Nadal, but he certainly has the game to do so.

Benefactor
04-10-2009, 07:39 AM
I take offence to that, you try fending off a hard ball coming at you at 80mph with a narrow plank.

We have baseball here in the US, and I don't consider that to be a sport, either.

Josherer
04-10-2009, 07:42 AM
Federer is better on clay than he is on hard? Wow, you'll just make up any old nonsense.

Tell me, how many matches has Federer lost on clay in the last 5 years excluding Nadal?

Do a bit of research you monkey ;)

vtmike
04-10-2009, 07:44 AM
Federer is better on clay than he is on hard? Wow, you'll just make up any old nonsense.

And Murray is better on clay than Federer....rightttt :roll: The only player better than Fed on clay is Nadal...

Josherer
04-10-2009, 07:46 AM
^^^^ Since Hamburg 2005 Fed has lost to 2 people on clay besides Nadal.

Now considering Nadal is probably the GOAT on clay, and has been at his peak over these past years, that's impressive.

Now compare Fed's win loss ratio on hard.

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 07:49 AM
Tell me, how many matches has Federer lost on clay in the last 5 years excluding Nadal?

Do a bit of research you monkey ;)

Really, so you are actually going to make the argument that Federer is a better clay court player than a hard court player?

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 07:50 AM
And Murray is better on clay than Federer....rightttt :roll: The only player better than Fed on clay is Nadal...

That's not what I said. How did you manage to so spectacularly miss what I said?

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 07:52 AM
^^^^ Since Hamburg 2005 Fed has lost to 2 people on clay besides Nadal.

Now considering Nadal is probably the GOAT on clay, and has been at his peak over these past years, that's impressive.

Now compare Fed's win loss ratio on hard.

And you don't think that has something to do with clay being a specialist surface? The number of players who play well on hard far, far outweigh the number who play well on clay.

Seriously, you need your head checked if you think Federer is better on clay than he is on hard.

Serve_Ace
04-10-2009, 07:54 AM
Yeah seriously, how many slams has Roger won on hard? Now how many on clay?

rubberduckies
04-10-2009, 07:58 AM
Yeah seriously, how many slams has Roger won on hard? Now how many on clay?

He has a great record on clay when Nadal is not part of the equation.
He won Hamburg 4 times and won the prestigious Estoril Open last year.

vtmike
04-10-2009, 07:59 AM
That's not what I said. How did you manage to so spectacularly miss what I said?

So whats you point? I thought you said Murray will beat Fed on clay isn't that right?

Josherer
04-10-2009, 07:59 AM
Yeah seriously, how many slams has Roger won on hard? Now how many on clay?

Heard of Nadal knob head? Considered probably the best clay courter of time!

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 08:01 AM
So whats you point? I thought you said Murray will beat Fed on clay isn't that right?

No, that's not what I said. Of course Murray is not a better clay courter than Federer. He has a chance to beat him because I think his tactic against Fed will work on clay, but of course Federer is a much better clay courter.

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 08:04 AM
Heard of Nadal knob head? Considered probably the best clay courter of time!

Federer is considered one of the greatest hard courters of all time, genius. He won't go down as one of the greatest clay courters of all time. And it's not just because of Nadal.

There's not much depth when it comes to clay court specialists right now. That's why Federer has a better ratio on clay than on hard. Seriously, get your head checked if you think Federer is better on clay than he is on hard.

helloworld
04-10-2009, 08:05 AM
Fed isn't going to win French Open in any era. He couldn't even beat an old and broken hip guga during his prime years 2004-2007. Nadal is not an excuse of him failing to win the French. It's just that he's not good enough on clay.

Josherer
04-10-2009, 08:10 AM
^^^^ Since Hamburg 2005 Fed has lost to 2 people on clay besides Nadal.

Now considering Nadal is probably the GOAT on clay, and has been at his peak over these past years, that's impressive.

Now compare Fed's win loss ratio on hard.

Really, so you are actually going to make the argument that Federer is a better clay court player than a hard court player?

And you don't think that has something to do with clay being a specialist surface? The number of players who play well on hard far, far outweigh the number who play well on clay.

Seriously, you need your head checked if you think Federer is better on clay than he is on hard.


Nearly all Europeans grow up on clay courts. Considering the top male professional players are predominantly Europeans, the French Open can be considered the hardest GS to win due to the competition.

Fed grew up playing on clay courts.

He has lost 2 matches on clay, besides Nadal, since 2005 Hamburg for crying out loud!

Federer is exceptional on clay. Besides Nadal, he is undoubtably the best clay courter currently in the mens game.

Now, besides Nadal is he currently without a doubt the best hard court player?

Josherer
04-10-2009, 08:13 AM
Fed isn't going to win French Open in any era. He couldn't even beat an old and broken hip guga during his prime years 2004-2007. Nadal is not an excuse of him failing to win the French. It's just that he's not good enough on clay.

Fed has lost to Nadal at the french in the last four occasion (05 semis, 06,07,08 finals)

I'm pretty sure Nadal is the reason he hasn't won the french.

'It's just that he's not good enough on clay.'

^^^ AGAIN! He has lost to 2 other people besides Nadal on clay since Hamburg 2005!

Josherer
04-10-2009, 08:15 AM
Federer is considered one of the greatest hard courters of all time, genius. He won't go down as one of the greatest clay courters of all time. And it's not just because of Nadal.

There's not much depth when it comes to clay court specialists right now. That's why Federer has a better ratio on clay than on hard. Seriously, get your head checked if you think Federer is better on clay than he is on hard.

NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN TENNIS PLAYER GREW UP PLAYING ON CLAY AND IS THEIR PREFERED SURFACE

I guess you're not very bright.

batz
04-10-2009, 08:17 AM
Nearly all Europeans grow up on clay courts. Considering the top male professional players are predominantly Europeans, the French Open can be considered the hardest GS to win due to the competition.

Fed grew up playing on clay courts.

He has lost 2 matches on clay, besides Nadal, since 2005 Hamburg for crying out loud!

Federer is exceptional on clay. Besides Nadal, he is undoubtably the best clay courter currently in the mens game.

Now, besides Nadal is he currently without a doubt the best hard court player?


Sorry, but I disagree completely. The USO is the hardest slam to win - why? Well, it comes toward the end of the season, there is much greater depth of field i.e. more men have chance of winning the USO than RG, and you have to play two 5 set matches on consecutive days.

The fact that the USO is the only tournament the world's best player has yet to win would seem to back up my contention.

batz
04-10-2009, 08:23 AM
NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN TENNIS PLAYER GREW UP PLAYING ON CLAY AND IS THEIR PREFERED SURFACE

I guess you're not very bright.

Giles Simon, JW Tsonga, Andy Murray, and Richard Gasquet are four prominent Europeans off the top off my head who would seem to have better records on hardcourt than they do on clay. Which kinda refutes your shouty statement above.

Josherer
04-10-2009, 08:35 AM
Giles Simon, JW Tsonga, Andy Murray, and Richard Gasquet are four prominent Europeans off the top off my head who would seem to have better records on hardcourt than they do on clay. Which kinda refutes your shouty statement above.

You just named 3 french players along with a GBR player.

All players from Spain, Russia, Serbia, Czech Republic, Switzlerland, Belgium, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Belarus and Ukraine (just to name a few) as well as many other European countries grew up on clay court and prefer it over hard.

SempreSami
04-10-2009, 08:38 AM
We have baseball here in the US, and I don't consider that to be a sport, either.

What do you consider a sport, wise arse?

batz
04-10-2009, 08:48 AM
You just named 3 french players along with a GBR player.

All players from Spain, Russia, Serbia, Czech Republic, Switzlerland, Belgium, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Belarus and Ukraine (just to name a few) as well as many other European countries grew up on clay court and prefer it over hard.

I'm not sure I buy that Djokovic, Safin, Melzer, Berdych or Lopez prefer clay to hard.

Several of the countries you listed aren't in Europe incidentally.

Benefactor
04-10-2009, 08:51 AM
What do you consider a sport, wise arse?

Something that requires you to be active the vast majority of the time (that rules out baseball and cricket) and requires you by your very nature not to be a big whiny ****** (that rules out soccer).

SempreSami
04-10-2009, 10:02 AM
Typical mongy ADHD suffering 'sports' fan, just because it's goes along rather slowly, that doesn't mean it doesn't take a lot out of you. Have you ever tried concentrating for more than five minutes?

egn
04-10-2009, 11:00 AM
Wow are you serious. Murray only wins when they play bad. Murray wins because he makes them make errors. Murray's game is strategic. He sets his opponents up, Murray has a wonderful mind for tennis. He is a unqiue player, he might not be interesting, but he can approach the same situation for tons of different angles. It is almost as if sometimes Murray knows what way to hit it is going to hurt his opponent. This is a fail..Murray is the reason they look so poor when he plays them.

thejoe
04-10-2009, 11:24 AM
Federer is better on clay than he is on hard? Wow, you'll just make up any old nonsense.

I think you misinterpreted. I think he means far better than Murray, which is very reasonable.

Clydey2times
04-10-2009, 11:35 AM
NEARLY EVERY EUROPEAN TENNIS PLAYER GREW UP PLAYING ON CLAY AND IS THEIR PREFERED SURFACE

I guess you're not very bright.

I love how you pulled that statistic from your ***.

Moron.

egn
04-10-2009, 11:35 AM
I'm not sure I buy that Djokovic, Safin, Melzer, Berdych or Lopez prefer clay to hard.

Several of the countries you listed aren't in Europe incidentally.

Huh what country on that list is not in Europe?

Spain, Russia, Serbia, Czech Republic, Switzlerland, Belgium, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Belarus and Ukraine

all of those are in Europe, Russia extends into Asia but it is in Europe. That's one.

batz
04-10-2009, 12:15 PM
Huh what country on that list is not in Europe?

Spain, Russia, Serbia, Czech Republic, Switzlerland, Belgium, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Belarus and Ukraine

all of those are in Europe, Russia extends into Asia but it is in Europe. That's one.

You're right - I was taking a too EU-centric view of 'Europe'.

Leublu tennis
04-10-2009, 01:26 PM
Yes I know Murray makes the other player play poorly, that is one of the fantastic abilities of his game. I do respect Murray alot but I do find his matches even against the top guys quite boring.

Check out the HD highlights of the Fed vs Djokovic US Open Semi Match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFdUvSdl9Ms

Have you ever seen Murray play one of the top 3 and the QUALITY of tennis been this good?Great tennis. Thanks.

Leublu tennis
04-10-2009, 01:27 PM
That's the thing about Murray. He makes the opponent play bad.Yah, UE, UE, and UE. Dull.

canuckfan
04-10-2009, 01:35 PM
Murray is not flashy. He can be described as boring. But his mix of softballing and slicing and flat drives and topspin groundies and crazy passing shots is interesting to me because it is uncommon. Fed used to play like that sometimes earlier in his career. If you've ever tried it yourself you'll quickly find out it is extremely difficult to do well.

veroniquem
04-10-2009, 04:37 PM
I like it that Murray mixes a lot. To me it makes the match more interesting. A player who goes for winners every shot generally ends up with a huge number of UEs and that can be vastly annoying too. Point construction is much more satisfying.
I think Murray can beat the top players regardless of how well they play but so far he has tended to underperform in the most important events.

Serendipitous
04-10-2009, 04:44 PM
I like it that Murray mixes a lot. To me it makes the match more interesting. A player who goes for winners every shot generally ends up with a huge number of UEs and that can be vastly annoying too. Point construction is much more satisfying.
I think Murray can beat the top players regardless of how well they play but so far he has tended to underperform in the most important events.


On the other hand, it's kind of frustrating to watch Murray's opponents beat themselves with countless unforced errors when they try to attack.

egn
04-10-2009, 04:45 PM
On the other hand, it's kind of frustrating to watch Murray's opponents beat themselves with countless unforced errors when they try to attack.

It is really boring to watch and frustrating but it works for Murray. Nobody said strategy had to be interesting, sometimes it is the boring game that is the best. Murray sets them up and they go for it and screw up. He deserves credit for that.

Serendipitous
04-10-2009, 04:49 PM
It is really boring to watch and frustrating but it works for Murray. Nobody said strategy had to be interesting, sometimes it is the boring game that is the best. Murray sets them up and they go for it and screw up. He deserves credit for that.


Don't get me wrong....I'm not criticizing Murray. I think he's a wonderful player.