PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone find Murray's H2H vs Rafa a little surprising?


kragster
10-16-2012, 10:22 AM
I find that Murray's 5-13 H2H vs Rafa is somewhat surprising given that out of the 18 matches only 4 were on clay ( 3 grass, 11 HC). To compare, even prior to his amazing 2011 run, Djokovic led the hard court H2H vs Nadal even when he trailed by a large margin overall. I am not saying Murray should lead this H2H but I think he should get a lot closer than 5-13.

Murray has done much better vs Fed and Djokovic even if you discount the recent gains in 2012. Logically it would seem that Murray's game should match up well vs Nadals much better than it does vs Fed.

Thoughts?

90's Clay
10-16-2012, 10:24 AM
Not really... Anything Murray can do, Nadal can do it 5 times better.. Rafa also has the nerves of steel while Murray 9 times out of 10 buckles under the pressure of big matches. Murray's main reason for a h2h over Roger (non slams mind you) is the fact that Fed is getting old.

Djoker-Murray is interesting. But generally Djoker is the victor there.

BrooklynNY
10-16-2012, 10:27 AM
Not exactly. I don't see why logic dictates he would matchup well against Nadal. It's not like he consistently takes he ball on the rise, or keeps Rafa guessing by attacking net.

Murray can force Federer into erroring himself to death if Fed isn't playing perfectly. The same can be said for Nole, especially when he was mentally up and down.

Until Murray recently improved his aggression and his forehand, I don't think Murray really had anything to hurt Nadal with, and Nadal is less likely to beat himself than Fed or Nole is.

Just my thoughts..

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-16-2012, 10:31 AM
Nadal has a great head-to-head against all of the other top 4 players, and pretty much every other player. (H2Hs like 1-3 with Hrbaty, 5-6 with Davydenko and 0-1 with Rosol are hardly decisive.)

Can't see why this is surprising. The player with the most talent has the greater number of superior H2Hs with his 'rivals'.

Clarky21
10-16-2012, 10:37 AM
Their H2H will be turned around over the next few years. That's if Nadal ever even comes back.

batz
10-16-2012, 10:44 AM
At the risk of being accused of cherry picking....

Since Murray made his first slam QF in July 2008, his record v Rafa on hards in not too shabby - he leads 5-4 overall, 1-1 in slams.

Mike Sams
10-16-2012, 10:59 AM
Nadal/Murray matches on clay and hardcourt are generally fun to watch. Monte Carlo 2011 was very good. Too bad Murray was injured.

Sim
10-16-2012, 11:02 AM
Not surprising to me. Murray doesn't have that "killer instinct" like Nole or Fed.

batz
10-16-2012, 11:06 AM
Not surprising to me. Murray doesn't have that "killer instinct" like Nole or Fed.

So you must find his head to head with Roger very surprising? Or maybe it surprises you to finad that Murray has the same number of slam wins over Rafa as 'killer instinct' Roger?

When was the last time Nole or Fed took a set off Rafa for the loss of 4 points?

BauerAlmeida
10-16-2012, 11:17 AM
What surprises me is how easily Nadal wins. Every time they faced in a GS SF in the last years you could tell Nadal was going to win. And he always did, and pretty easily. Even in USO or Wimbledon. This was something I didn't see coming after the USO 2008.

RF20Lennon
10-16-2012, 11:18 AM
Nadal has a great head-to-head against all of the other top 4 players, and pretty much every other player. (H2Hs like 1-3 with Hrbaty, 5-6 with Davydenko and 0-1 with Rosol are hardly decisive.)

Can't see why this is surprising. The player with the most talent has the greater number of superior H2Hs with his 'rivals'.

Nadal the most talented??? Please don't kid yourself

norbac
10-16-2012, 11:56 AM
At the risk of being accused of cherry picking....

Since Murray made his first slam QF in July 2008, his record v Rafa on hards in not too shabby - he leads 5-4 overall, 1-1 in slams.

2-1 in Slams. USO 2008, AO 2010 were victories for Murray. Nadal won at the USO last year.

batz
10-16-2012, 11:58 AM
2-1 in Slams. USO 2008, AO 2010 were victories for Murray. Nadal won at the USO last year.

How could I forget the USO 08 - doh! Thanks for the correction mate.

Towser83
10-16-2012, 11:58 AM
Murray has never been able to really dominate Nadal on Harcourt, and i am not talking about single matches i mean he's never led the head to head by very much, maybe one match. he's very even with Nadal on Harcourt where as djokovic has managed to lead Nadal by a lot. Murray will win matches, big ones but then get hammered by Nadal like in IW 2009. That was after Murray beat Nadal in a slam and was a big shock really. i would expect Murray to lead the Harcourt head to head but i think he's been too inconsistent to do it.

underground
10-16-2012, 12:00 PM
I'm more surprised that Nadal was crap enough to be bagelled by Murray.

ledwix
10-16-2012, 12:13 PM
I'm more surprised that Nadal was crap enough to be bagelled by Murray.

Did you watch that set? Murray was in God mode; Nadal was just defending against an unstoppable force at the time.

batz
10-16-2012, 12:31 PM
I'm more surprised that Nadal was crap enough to be bagelled by Murray.

Bagelled for FOUR points.

DRII
10-16-2012, 12:35 PM
Nadal the most talented??? Please don't kid yourself

Well, whatever you want to call it :confused:

something has allowed him to have the best record vs and amongst the other Big 4!

I beleive i was the first to point this out. Nadal is still not given enough credit for such a significant acomplishment...

Mainad
10-16-2012, 01:19 PM
Murray's main reason for a h2h over Roger (non slams mind you) is the fact that Fed is getting old.

Fed must have been getting old ever since 2006 then.

Prisoner of Birth
10-16-2012, 01:20 PM
Fed must have been getting old ever since 2006 then.

He's been getting older since 1981.

Mustard
10-16-2012, 01:32 PM
He's been getting older since 1981.

You will never be as young as you are right now. You will always get older. It's depressing when you think of it like that.

Prisoner of Birth
10-16-2012, 01:33 PM
You will never be as young as you are right now. You will always get older. It's depressing when you think of it like that.

Isn't that the beauty of it?

Mainad
10-16-2012, 01:35 PM
What surprises me is how easily Nadal wins. Every time they faced in a GS SF in the last years you could tell Nadal was going to win. And he always did, and pretty easily. Even in USO or Wimbledon. This was something I didn't see coming after the USO 2008.

Not at the USO or AO. They are 1-1 at both these Slams:

USO: 2008, Murray in 4; 2011, Nadal in 4.
AO: 2007, Nadal in 5; 2010, Murray in 3.

Only at the FO and Wimbledon has Nadal had it a bit easier:

Wimbledon: 2008 & 2010, Nadal in 3; 2011, Nadal in 4.
FO: 2011, Nadal in 3.

All in all, Murray has taken 10 sets off Nadal in their 8 Slam meetings. Not all that bad a record.

Towser83
10-16-2012, 01:37 PM
Well, whatever you want to call it :confused:

something has allowed him to have the best record vs and amongst the other Big 4!

I beleive i was the first to point this out. Nadal is still not given enough credit for such a significant acomplishment...

the main reason is he is near unbeatable on clay, where as everyone else is beatable on their favourite surface. It's no coincidence that his closest H2H amongst the top 4 is with Djokovic, who enjoys the biggest lead in his favourite surface H2H of any of Nadal's top 4 rivals. Murray and Federer have only managed to stay roughly even with Nadal on hardcourt (federer 1 match in the lead, Murray is I think one behind, federer is also only one match ahead in grass H2H) So the only way for any top 4 player to get even with nadal is either have very few clay mettings (which is not likely - if you want to be top 4 you need to be making masters semis even on clay) or dominate Nadal on hardcourt. Djokovic is the only member of the top 4 to do this, but still not enough to lead Nadal yet. Put simply no-one is as good on any surface as nadal is on clay.

Mainad
10-16-2012, 01:37 PM
He's been getting older since 1981.

True. But Murray didn't start beating him until 2006. :wink:

kragster
10-16-2012, 02:11 PM
the main reason is he is near unbeatable on clay, where as everyone else is beatable on their favourite surface. It's no coincidence that his closest H2H amongst the top 4 is with Djokovic, who enjoys the biggest lead in his favourite surface H2H of any of Nadal's top 4 rivals. Murray and Federer have only managed to stay roughly even with Nadal on hardcourt (federer 1 match in the lead, Murray is I think one behind, federer is also only one match ahead in grass H2H) So the only way for any top 4 player to get even with nadal is either have very few clay mettings (which is not likely - if you want to be top 4 you need to be making masters semis even on clay) or dominate Nadal on hardcourt. Djokovic is the only member of the top 4 to do this, but still not enough to lead Nadal yet. Put simply no-one is as good on any surface as nadal is on clay.

Very well put. Basically Rafa is going to dominate the clay H2H, so the only way to get even with him is to dominate the HC H2H (too few grass tournaments for grass H2H to matter). However outside of Djokovic, no one else has been able to dominate Rafa on HC (Fed can do that on indoor HC but most tournaments are outdoor HC). My personal opinion is that Murray has the weapons to dominate the hard court H2H (Big 1st serve, deep penetrating BH's to Nadal's BH) but then again theory is very different from practice.

Towser83
10-16-2012, 02:33 PM
Very well put. Basically Rafa is going to dominate the clay H2H, so the only way to get even with him is to dominate the HC H2H (too few grass tournaments for grass H2H to matter). However outside of Djokovic, no one else has been able to dominate Rafa on HC (Fed can do that on indoor HC but most tournaments are outdoor HC). My personal opinion is that Murray has the weapons to dominate the hard court H2H (Big 1st serve, deep penetrating BH's to Nadal's BH) but then again theory is very different from practice.

Yeah it's weird isn't it? Murray does seem to have the potential to have a decent edge on hardcourt, and when he's really on form he can swamp Nadal's game (taken 2 love sets from him in finals) but he just can't seem to do it consistantly and when Nadal is on top form he just plays the same sort of game but better. Murray sometimes tries to outrally nadal and he often falls short. I think Djokovic is more comfortable at being agressive (though I think even he has become more defensive recently) Murray should try to stay agressive because trying to out rally Nadal is a dangerous game

cknobman
10-16-2012, 03:27 PM
Well, whatever you want to call it :confused:

something has allowed him to have the best record vs and amongst the other Big 4!

I beleive i was the first to point this out. Nadal is still not given enough credit for such a significant acomplishment...

Its easy to have a great head to head against your rivals when you play them on your favorite surface and then on your worst surface you:

Are injured and dont play
Skip the event
Loose to [insert random player]

Crisstti
10-16-2012, 03:45 PM
the main reason is he is near unbeatable on clay, where as everyone else is beatable on their favourite surface. It's no coincidence that his closest H2H amongst the top 4 is with Djokovic, who enjoys the biggest lead in his favourite surface H2H of any of Nadal's top 4 rivals. Murray and Federer have only managed to stay roughly even with Nadal on hardcourt (federer 1 match in the lead, Murray is I think one behind, federer is also only one match ahead in grass H2H) So the only way for any top 4 player to get even with nadal is either have very few clay mettings (which is not likely - if you want to be top 4 you need to be making masters semis even on clay) or dominate Nadal on hardcourt. Djokovic is the only member of the top 4 to do this, but still not enough to lead Nadal yet. Put simply no-one is as good on any surface as nadal is on clay.

True, but that is only to Nadal's credit .

Yeah it's weird isn't it? Murray does seem to have the potential to have a decent edge on hardcourt, and when he's really on form he can swamp Nadal's game (taken 2 love sets from him in finals) but he just can't seem to do it consistantly and when Nadal is on top form he just plays the same sort of game but better. Murray sometimes tries to outrally nadal and he often falls short. I think Djokovic is more comfortable at being agressive (though I think even he has become more defensive recently) Murray should try to stay agressive because trying to out rally Nadal is a dangerous game

I do remember Djokovic saying (before 2011) that players thought they had to play points short to beat Rafa, but that he thought it was the opposite, because winning rallies against him hurt Rafa's confidence.
Seems to work well for him, but of course not everyone has the game to be able to do that.

Prisoner of Birth
10-16-2012, 03:58 PM
True, but that is only to Nadal's credit .



I do remember Djokovic saying (before 2011) that players thought they had to play points short to beat Rafa, but that he thought it was the opposite, because winning rallies against him hurt Rafa's confidence.
Seems to work well for him, but of course not everyone has the game to be able to do that.

I think Peak Federer could've outgrinded Nadal if he put his mind to it. Probably less than 50% of the time but he could have. Federer's grinding capabilities are underrated and underacknowledged.

sunof tennis
10-16-2012, 04:23 PM
At the risk of being accused of cherry picking....

Since Murray made his first slam QF in July 2008, his record v Rafa on hards in not too shabby - he leads 5-4 overall, 1-1 in slams.

You may be cherry picking but I think it is instructive. Some pros progress faster than others. Nadal burst on the scene very young and developed quite qucikly. Federer on the other hand, while showing flashes of brillance, took awhile longer to reach his potential. I put Murray on the Federer side of this equation. Assuming Nadal comes back, I think Murray will be a tough match up for Nadal on hard courts. After all, Djokovic has given Murray the blueprint on how to beat Nadal. Murray's game is obviously simialr to Djokovic, the main difference was Novak has been stronger mentally which could change drastically now that Andy was won both the Olympic gold and the US Open.

NadalDramaQueen
10-16-2012, 04:30 PM
You will never be as young as you are right now. You will always get older. It's depressing when you think of it like that.

It is depressing.

True. But Murray didn't start beating him until 2006. :wink:

I'm sure Fed is devastated at the impact Murray has had on his career. :?

http://imageshack.us/a/img577/2886/fed2.gif

I think Peak Federer could've outgrinded Nadal if he put his mind to it. Probably less than 50% of the time but he could have. Federer's grinding capabilities are underrated and underacknowledged.

I'm not sure if he could have outgrinded him, but he could at least have gotten his hands dirty in an attempt to play the type of game necessary to beat him. No need to be a ballerina all the time.

Towser83
10-16-2012, 04:36 PM
True, but that is only to Nadal's credit .



I do remember Djokovic saying (before 2011) that players thought they had to play points short to beat Rafa, but that he thought it was the opposite, because winning rallies against him hurt Rafa's confidence.
Seems to work well for him, but of course not everyone has the game to be able to do that.

Believe me, I wasn't saying it in a way to not credit Nadal, I agree it's to his credit.

And good point. I think in Madrid 2009 Djokovic got close beating Nadal, in MC and Rome he had given him tough matches trying to out rally him. In Madrid Nadal was possibly shaken, he made more errors as Djokovic tested his game. Obviously in 2011 he turned this into straight sets wins. The thing is Djokovic now tries to out rally nadal on hardcourt too, and he's actually had more trouble beating him than he did in 2007-2009. Murray tries and has to be really on form to do it.

Sim
10-16-2012, 06:08 PM
So you must find his head to head with Roger very surprising? Or maybe it surprises you to finad that Murray has the same number of slam wins over Rafa as 'killer instinct' Roger?

When was the last time Nole or Fed took a set off Rafa for the loss of 4 points?

You're taking my line out of context. Of course at times, he can catch fire and be a winner machine or defend better than anyone, but most of the time, he is content to rally. He doesn't go for winners as much as Nole or Fed which means they don't play Nadal's game. Obviously, you already know that Nadal is one of the best defenders already, and Murray is too. But Nadal reached his prime earlier than Murray, so most of the matches would go Nadal's way if they played a similar style. Bageling Nadal in Tokyo doesn't magically give Murray more wins in the H2H. It is still 5-13...

And if they were to play now with this new Murray, I would think that Murray would get more wins now in their matches than previously.

NadalAgassi
10-16-2012, 06:42 PM
Not really. People underrate how great a grass court player Nadal is. By far the 2nd best of this era behind Federer, much superior to Djokovic or Murray career wise at this point. So Nadal winning all the clay and all the grass meetings doesnt surprise me much. Hard courts Nadal is also underrated and is atleast on par with Murray career wise, so again not surprised he could win half and even slightly lead the H2H on hards.

Anyway as others have said there isnt anything that would logically make Murray a tough matchup for Nadal. Nadal mostly has problems with guys who can overpower him.

MSK
10-16-2012, 06:44 PM
Not really... Anything Murray can do, Nadal can do it 5 times better.. Rafa also has the nerves of steel while Murray 9 times out of 10 buckles under the pressure of big matches. Murray's main reason for a h2h over Roger (non slams mind you) is the fact that Fed is getting old.

Djoker-Murray is interesting. But generally Djoker is the victor there.

Yeah Murray wasn't leading 6-2 or anything when Old man Fed, wasn't quite so old.... quit your pish excuses Murrays the man

90's Clay
10-16-2012, 07:21 PM
Yeah Murray wasn't leading 6-2 or anything when Old man Fed, wasn't quite so old.... quit your pish excuses Murrays the man

Wake me up when Murray beats Fed at a slam.. Until then... Forget it..

Hell the main reasons Murray has won much of ANYTHING this year:

1. Fed aging
2. Nadal out injured

Simple truth

RAFA2005RG
10-16-2012, 08:14 PM
Their H2H will be turned around over the next few years. That's if Nadal ever even comes back.

You have badmouthed Rafa more than any poster in this forum (and continue to, despite Rafa killing you at Roland Garros this year). So nobody takes your opinion seriously.

Tony48
10-16-2012, 08:15 PM
Nadal: "Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you."

Clarky21
10-16-2012, 08:28 PM
You have badmouthed Rafa more than any poster in this forum (and continue to, despite Rafa killing you at Roland Garros this year). So nobody takes your opinion seriously.


And nobody takes the opinion of someone with multiple personalites on a tennis forum seriously,either.

RAFA2005RG
10-16-2012, 08:42 PM
And nobody takes the opinion of someone with multiple personalites on a tennis forum seriously,either.

I've supported Rafa from day one. Nothing multiple about me.

I recall you actually claiming to be a Rafa fan at one stage. Yet you spend every day attacking him. That's what I call multiple personalities.

Mainad
10-16-2012, 08:58 PM
Hell the main reasons Murray has won much of ANYTHING this year:

1. Fed aging

Lol...so Fed aged badly in the 4 weeks between the Wimbledon and Olympic finals did he? :)


2. Nadal out injured

Simple truth

Simple conjecture. Murray could well have beaten Nadal at USO this year. He did it once before when he was a much lesser player than he is now!

NadalAgassi
10-16-2012, 09:05 PM
Federer is old and years past his prime at this point, that is a fact. That Djokovic and Murray still sometimes lose in big matches to him despite this only serves as proof of his vast superiority in general over both.

beast of mallorca
10-16-2012, 09:12 PM
You have badmouthed Rafa more than any poster in this forum (and continue to, despite Rafa killing you at Roland Garros this year). So nobody takes your opinion seriously.

And nobody takes the opinion of someone with multiple personalites on a tennis forum seriously,either.

I've supported Rafa from day one. Nothing multiple about me.

I recall you actually claiming to be a Rafa fan at one stage. Yet you spend every day attacking him. That's what I call multiple personalities.

She does not have multiple personalities Rafa2005. She's astupid troll, that's all there is to it.

Clarky21
10-16-2012, 09:28 PM
She does not have multiple personalities Rafa2005. She's astupid troll, that's all there is to it.



Birds of a feather...

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 04:19 AM
Not really... Anything Murray can do, Nadal can do it 5 times better.. Rafa also has the nerves of steel while Murray 9 times out of 10 buckles under the pressure of big matches. Murray's main reason for a h2h over Roger (non slams mind you) is the fact that Fed is getting old.

Djoker-Murray is interesting. But generally Djoker is the victor there.
Was Federer old in 2006?

2006 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard R32 Murray, Andy
7-5, 6-4.

syc23
10-17-2012, 05:04 AM
Yes the H2H is a bit lopsided but Rafa hasn't played Murray since that bagelling in Tokyo.

I would say with a more aggressive game and improved mindset, I would be looking for Murray to start turning the H2H record around.

DRII
10-17-2012, 05:31 AM
Not really. People underrate how great a grass court player Nadal is. By far the 2nd best of this era behind Federer, much superior to Djokovic or Murray career wise at this point. So Nadal winning all the clay and all the grass meetings doesnt surprise me much. Hard courts Nadal is also underrated and is atleast on par with Murray career wise, so again not surprised he could win half and even slightly lead the H2H on hards.

Anyway as others have said there isnt anything that would logically make Murray a tough matchup for Nadal. Nadal mostly has problems with guys who can overpower him.

I agree. Nadal is the only player that plays defense better than Murray, Nole matches him in defense.

Murray knows in order to beat Nadal he must be very offensive almost all the time. Against Nole I think Murray feels he can play his natural game but has to execute very well. Against Nadal Murray feels he can't play his natural game...

DRII
10-17-2012, 05:38 AM
She does not have multiple personalities Rafa2005. She's astupid troll, that's all there is to it.

No, Clarky is just acting like a jilted lover who still has strong feelings for the one that disapointed/crushed her :)

Its a defense mechanism...

NatF
10-17-2012, 05:52 AM
Few people play the big points better than Nadal, Murray's often had some very tight sets against Rafa but he's always been just not quite good enough. Andyin my mind out of all the top 3 most intimidated by Rafa as well, maybe that hinders him in big matches at times. It's no secret that Andy thinks Rafa is the greatest of all time IIRC. Andy's game has improved this year though, if Nadal's has dipped the H2h could start going the other way.

Cup8489
10-17-2012, 06:01 AM
I've supported Rafa from day one. Nothing multiple about me.

I recall you actually claiming to be a Rafa fan at one stage. Yet you spend every day attacking him. That's what I call multiple personalities.

False.

Dissociative identity disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder (MPD),[1] is a mental disorder characterized by at least two distinct and relatively enduring identities or dissociated personality states that alternately control a person's behavior, and is accompanied by memory impairment for important information not explained by ordinary forgetfulness. These symptoms are not accounted for by substance abuse, seizures, other medical conditions or imaginative play in children.[2] Diagnosis is often difficult as there is considerable comorbidity with other mental disorders. Malingering should be considered if there is possible financial or forensic gain, as well as factitious disorder if help-seeking behavior is prominent.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

vllaznia
10-17-2012, 06:11 AM
Lol...so Fed aged badly in the 4 weeks between the Wimbledon and Olympic finals did he? :)



And of course you expect a 31 years old guy to recuperate physically and mentally after the longest 3 set match like he was 25-26 years old.

Towser83
10-17-2012, 06:36 AM
Lol...so Fed aged badly in the 4 weeks between the Wimbledon and Olympic finals did he? :)



Simple conjecture. Murray could well have beaten Nadal at USO this year. He did it once before when he was a much lesser player than he is now!

not saying Murray couldn't beat federer in the Olympic final if federer was in his prime, but not the way he would so easily. even Nadal in his best year needed 5 sets. its impressive what Murray did but still its ridiculous to totally deny age. one thing about age is your consistency and ability to get fired up for every match goes. so him winning at wimbledon just before doesn't really matter. he also lost at halle to tommy haas before that - he doesn't have the ability to win several tournaments in a row as much as before. also at wimby he didn't have a big draining match like the Delpo one. so not denying Murray could win but it wouldn't be a stroll like it was.

Federer is old and years past his prime at this point, that is a fact. That Djokovic and Murray still sometimes lose in big matches to him despite this only serves as proof of his vast superiority in general over both.

and this from someone who is no federer fan. but of course correct, federer is much better than nole and Andy, as good as they are.

tacou
10-17-2012, 06:43 AM
as many have said I'm sure, Murray's game matches up well with Nadal in theory but never in execution. If Murray plays aggressive he has tools to really hurt Rafa, but rarely does he ever play that way. In fact, he pushes more against Nadal than Fed usually.

Pusher Murray is mouthwatering to Rafa.

kalyan4fedever
10-17-2012, 07:14 AM
No matter what.... if rafa comes he will tame muzz

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 07:16 AM
No matter what.... if rafa comes he will tame muzz
Even if he's battling injuries and only practices every three months? :lol:

roberttennis54
10-17-2012, 07:27 AM
Well I think it's a mistake ignore the factor grass has on the head to head. Nadal is a much better grass court player than Murray. Nadal is significantly better on clay, and better on grass. So not surprised Nadal has won all those encounters.

Murray though has a fairly big match up advantage against Nadal, so I am surprised about the difference in hard courts. Nadal once again better than Murray on hardcourts, but it is close between them. Considering Murray is the one with the match up advantage I would expect Murray to lead comfortable on hardcourts.

batz
10-17-2012, 07:34 AM
as many have said I'm sure, Murray's game matches up well with Nadal in theory but never in execution. If Murray plays aggressive he has tools to really hurt Rafa, but rarely does he ever play that way. In fact, he pushes more against Nadal than Fed usually.

Pusher Murray is mouthwatering to Rafa.

This must explain Murray's 5-4 hardcourt record v Rafa (2-1 in slams) since entering the top 5. I guess it must also explain why Rafa got bagelled for just FOUR POINTS in the last set they played. Yep - Rafa sure finds Murray mouthwatering on hardcourts.

batz
10-17-2012, 07:36 AM
not saying Murray couldn't beat federer in the Olympic final if federer was in his prime, but not the way he would so easily. even Nadal in his best year needed 5 sets. its impressive what Murray did but still its ridiculous to totally deny age. one thing about age is your consistency and ability to get fired up for every match goes. so him winning at wimbledon just before doesn't really matter. he also lost at halle to tommy haas before that - he doesn't have the ability to win several tournaments in a row as much as before. also at wimby he didn't have a big draining match like the Delpo one. so not denying Murray could win but it wouldn't be a stroll like it was.



and this from someone who is no federer fan. but of course correct, federer is much better than nole and Andy, as good as they are.


Is or was?

Legend of Borg
10-17-2012, 07:57 AM
You will never be as young as you are right now. You will always get older. It's depressing when you think of it like that.

So you should make it a goal to age like fine wine.

vllaznia
10-17-2012, 10:02 AM
Is or was?

Well he is still number one in the world which imo is better than no 2 and 3.

Towser83
10-17-2012, 04:24 PM
Is or was?

I mean is as in his potential playing ability for his age etc. These days Nole and Andy may be better (keep in mind Federer is still higher ranked than Andy, still higher on the 12 month ranking than Nole, and has more titles than both players) but Federer's ability is still better. When they are 31 I doubt they will be top 4. Obviously they are both very good, but Federer is in an extra special league.

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 04:33 PM
If the field is as weak as it is this year in 2017 and beyond I wouldnt be surprised one bit if Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are all still top 4 at 31 should they chose to be playing then. The guys 5 to ranked lower are just that weak. Who knows if an up and coming group worth a darn in talent (aka something way better than the useless Raonic generation) will emerge by then.

Federer doing well at 31 is nice, but I dont know why people think it is something revolutionary. Agassi was winning slams and ranked #1 when he was 33, and Agassi isnt even as good as Federer. Serena is dominating and by far the best women player in the World (while Federer is not the best mens player in the World) at 31. Again keeping in mind how weak the field is now outside the big 4, perhaps the worst 5-20 ranked field in history, it would be nearly impossible for a player like Federer at almost any age to be out of the top 4, and with Nadal being out injured half the year almost impossible to be ranked outside the top 3. The impressive thing is that he temporarily returned to #1 over Djokovic, but being top 3 or 4 is nothing remotedly shocking.

90's Clay
10-17-2012, 04:35 PM
I can't see Nadal continue to play on after 30 years of age (if he makes it that far).. If he can't get back to reasonably high heights where he is still a top player he may very well just retire..

For being so young he has been in and around the top since 2005 don't forget.. Thats a long time.. Most guys dont even make it that long. ANd the fact, hes won a slam every year since then I believe.. Thats damn good

I would hope he continues on though to at least make an attempt at the slam record. But physically he may not be able to.. The older you get the more difficult it is to recuperate.. Especially having a history of injuries that he has had.

But hes done pretty much everything there is to do (barring a YEC, which doesn't exactly have the same prestige it used to. Far from it). Not much else to really shoot for for Nadal other then the slam record.

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 04:36 PM
I can't see Nadal continue to play on after 30 years of age (if he makes it that far).. If he can't get back to reasonably high heights where he is still a top player he may very well just retire..

For being so young he has been in and around the top since 2005 don't forget.. Thats a long time.. Most guys dont even make it that long

I would hope he continues on though to at least make an attempt at the slam record

Of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray I agree Nadal is the most likely to either be struggling or retired at 30 for a variety of fairly obvious reasons, but be wary as Nadal often surprises. Djokovic and Murray though I could easily see still going strong into their 30s though, especialy if the mens field stays as weak as it is now.

Towser83
10-17-2012, 05:22 PM
If the field is as weak as it is this year in 2017 and beyond I wouldnt be surprised one bit if Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are all still top 4 at 31 should they chose to be playing then. The guys 5 to ranked lower are just that weak. Who knows if an up and coming group worth a darn in talent (aka something way better than the useless Raonic generation) will emerge by then.

Federer doing well at 31 is nice, but I dont know why people think it is something revolutionary. Agassi was winning slams and ranked #1 when he was 33, and Agassi isnt even as good as Federer. Serena is dominating and by far the best women player in the World (while Federer is not the best mens player in the World) at 31. Again keeping in mind how weak the field is now outside the big 4, perhaps the worst 5-20 ranked field in history, it would be nearly impossible for a player like Federer at almost any age to be out of the top 4, and with Nadal being out injured half the year almost impossible to be ranked outside the top 3. The impressive thing is that he temporarily returned to #1 over Djokovic, but being top 3 or 4 is nothing remotedly shocking.

I agree there is nothing surprising about Federer being top 4, I was thinking about him getting back to number one, winning 3 masters this year, 1 last year and the WTF etc.

You maybe right about Djokovic and Murray being in the top 4 at 31 but I wouldn't be shocked if they retired before then.

Agassi, like Connors was a very good older player. What's the point of mentioning Serena though? The women's game is totally different (Navratilova was winning into her 30s, and winning doubles into her late 40s) and the competition in it is a joke. You may laugh at the mens and say below the top 4 there is no strength, but in the women's there is no strength below serena and no strength above her either. It's just her. In the men's game you have 4 quality players, and in the women's you have 1. If you remove Serena there IS more competiveness than the men's but that's only because the rest of the tour is pretty crappy, but in the men's you'd have to take out 4 players. The players below like Berdych, Tsonga etc are way better than the women's tour, just they have 4 guys who will school them time and time again.

OverratedIvanovic
10-17-2012, 05:56 PM
Nadal hasn't faced Murray 2.0 yet. He got a taste of it at Tokyo 2011. I don't think Rafa will find it easy against new Murray except clay.

RAFA2005RG
10-17-2012, 09:16 PM
Nadal hasn't faced Murray 2.0 yet. He got a taste of it at Tokyo 2011. I don't think Rafa will find it easy against new Murray except clay.

They played at the 2011 US Open. Did Murray magically transform after Nadal beat him at the US Open? :D

Truth is, both Federer and Murray didn't have to play Nadal in 2012 (except for Federer at the AO semis). That's the difference between winning a slam and not. Nadal was not at the Wimbledon/US Open semis and that is why Federer and Murray both won slams.

cc0509
10-17-2012, 09:30 PM
They played at the 2011 US Open. Did Murray magically transform after Nadal beat him at the US Open? :D

Truth is, both Federer and Murray didn't have to play Nadal in 2012 (except for Federer at the AO semis). That's the difference between winning a slam and not. Nadal was not at the Wimbledon/US Open semis and that is why Federer and Murray both won slams.

That is because he lost in the second round. You see in tennis it is a funny thing, a player actually has to make it past the second round into the SF's and F's to win a slam.

Re Murray, you just wait, he will defeat Nadal on HC. He is a much better player now than he was even a year ago.

RAFA2005RG
10-18-2012, 06:59 AM
That is because he lost in the second round. You see in tennis it is a funny thing, a player actually has to make it past the second round into the SF's and F's to win a slam.

Re Murray, you just wait, he will defeat Nadal on HC. He is a much better player now than he was even a year ago.

Actually, Murray played like crap at Wimbledon. And in the US Open final, Djokovic played like crap. Murray has been no different to 2011. I bet 2011 Murray would have beaten 2012 Djokovic at the US Open too.

Murrayfan31
10-18-2012, 07:23 AM
Murray doesn't match up well with Nadal. He prefers playing more traditional styles with less topspin. That and the courts being slow in most tournaments. I agree that Murray needs to take the ball earlier against Rafa. But I think Rafa's game makes it harder for Murray to do it because of the spin. Murray likes a flat ball or close to it.

nethawkwenatchee
10-18-2012, 07:24 AM
Murray's main reason for a h2h over Roger (non slams mind you) is the fact that Fed is getting old.

Not true. Starting all the way back in Shanghai 2005 - Doha 2009 Murray held a 5-2 record versus a then "prime" Federer (That's their first seven meetings) and Murray was an upstart for the first few years, Federer was winning major championships.

joeri888
10-18-2012, 08:11 AM
Not true. Starting all the way back in Shanghai 2005 - Doha 2009 Murray held a 5-2 record versus a then "prime" Federer (That's their first seven meetings) and Murray was an upstart for the first few years, Federer was winning major championships.

I consider Federer's prime 2004-2007, if they were from the same generation, Fed would of course look a lot better. But Murray plays who's in front of him and does that well.

The fact that Federer still hangs tough with these guys is and will be a testament to his greatness. He's 1-1 with nadal, 2-2 with Novak, and 2-2 with Murray I think this year.

batz
10-18-2012, 08:52 AM
Actually, Murray played like crap at Wimbledon. And in the US Open final, Djokovic played like crap. Murray has been no different to 2011. I bet 2011 Murray would have beaten 2012 Djokovic at the US Open too.

Murray is both qualitatively and qualitatively different to 2011. From a quantitative perspective, Hawkeye analysis shows that, on average, Murray is standing and hitting the ball 1 metre further forward than he did last year. In addition to this, Murray is having his best ever year on 2nd serve points won.

From a qualitative perspective, his use of the forehand has changed in 2 major ways:

1. He will hit it hard DTL/inside out far more often than he used to

2. Even if he's having a bad forehand day, he'll continue to keep going for it whereas he would stop going for it in previous years.

In addition to the above, I think Murray is generally more aggressive than he's ever been.

joeri888
10-18-2012, 08:55 AM
Murray is both qualitatively and quantatively different to 2011. From a quantative perspective, Hawkeye analysis shows that, on average, Murray is standing and hitting the ball 1 metre further forward than he did last year. In addition to this, Murray is having his best ever year on 2nd serve points won.

From a qualatitive perspective, his use of the forehand has changed in 2 major ways:

1. He will hit it hard DTL/inside out far more often than he used to

2. Even if he's having a bad forehand day, he'll continue to keep going for it whereas he would stop going for it in previous years if he was having a 'bad forehand days.

In addition to the above, I think Murray is generally more aggresive than he's ever been.

I agree. Still dislike his lack of S& V and finishing points at the net in general. He's got the game to play S&V, some chip and charge etc.

That's all taste though. Qualitatively it was long obvious that his forehand to the backhand corner of a righty, and his second serve were the major issues. Lendl helped improve them.

Mike Sams
10-18-2012, 10:16 AM
They played at the 2011 US Open. Did Murray magically transform after Nadal beat him at the US Open? :D

Truth is, both Federer and Murray didn't have to play Nadal in 2012 (except for Federer at the AO semis). That's the difference between winning a slam and not. Nadal was not at the Wimbledon/US Open semis and that is why Federer and Murray both won slams.

Murray had to play back to back days at the USO because of bad scheduling. He was completely exhausted when he faced Nadal at USO 2011.
As for Nadal, the semifinals isn't handed to him on a platter. He has to work for it just like all the other players. Did you notice Federer was basically 2 points away from losing to Benneteau at Wimbledon in the 3rd round? Did you notice Federer lost to Berdych and Tsonga at Wimbledon in previous years? Did you know Nadal got smashed by Djokovic at last year's Wimbledon final?
You have to EARN your spot which means going through the draw and upsets are more likely on fast grass at Wimbledon than anywhere. Big hitters and big servers always have a chance. Nadal struggled at Wimbledon many times.

NadalAgassi
10-18-2012, 10:33 AM
I agree there is nothing surprising about Federer being top 4, I was thinking about him getting back to number one, winning 3 masters this year, 1 last year and the WTF etc.

You maybe right about Djokovic and Murray being in the top 4 at 31 but I wouldn't be shocked if they retired before then.

Agassi, like Connors was a very good older player. What's the point of mentioning Serena though? The women's game is totally different (Navratilova was winning into her 30s, and winning doubles into her late 40s) and the competition in it is a joke. You may laugh at the mens and say below the top 4 there is no strength, but in the women's there is no strength below serena and no strength above her either. It's just her. In the men's game you have 4 quality players, and in the women's you have 1. If you remove Serena there IS more competiveness than the men's but that's only because the rest of the tour is pretty crappy, but in the men's you'd have to take out 4 players. The players below like Berdych, Tsonga etc are way better than the women's tour, just they have 4 guys who will school them time and time again.

People seem to forget that while Serena lords over a weak womens tour now this was not always the case. In 1999-2005 she was the dominant player of perhaps the strongest womens tour in history with Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Pierce, all at or near their best and for some of those years Novotna, Seles, Graf, Hingis, Sanchez Vicario, as well. By contrast Federer has never played in a field anywhere close to the strongest mens field in history, let alone dominated one that would be classified as such.

cknobman
10-18-2012, 12:00 PM
By contrast Federer has never played in a field anywhere close to the strongest mens field in history, let alone dominated one that would be classified as such.

Wow why would you trash your own boy Nadal like that?

Steve0904
10-18-2012, 12:27 PM
Mens tennis is infinitely better than womens tennis in general. It's just the way it is. As for Murray's H2H with Rafa, no not really surprising. Nadal hasn't played the more agressive Murray though. Pre 2012, Nadal was a better grass court player (3 wins there), a much better clay court player of course, and they were at the very least even on HC. Again, pre 2012 Murray just wasn't very consistent, and I didn't get the feeling he believed he could win big matches against the best player, but he's coming around now which is why I'm interested to see how it goes from here on grass and HC. Of course, assuming Nadal is healthy clay will still be a lost cause.

kaku
10-18-2012, 12:53 PM
I agree. Still dislike his lack of S& V and finishing points at the net in general. He's got the game to play S&V, some chip and charge etc.

That's all taste though. Qualitatively it was long obvious that his forehand to the backhand corner of a righty, and his second serve were the major issues. Lendl helped improve them.

I think Murray tried some chip and charge at the USO. But S&V Murray would be great to see. I know that during the off season will be the first time Lendl and Murray work together for an extended period of time, so hopefully Lendl will convince Murray to S&V more. In the long run, it will help him save energy in the later stages of Grand slams

Prisoner of Birth
10-18-2012, 01:17 PM
People seem to forget that while Serena lords over a weak womens tour now this was not always the case. In 1999-2005 she was the dominant player of perhaps the strongest womens tour in history with Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Pierce, all at or near their best and for some of those years Novotna, Seles, Graf, Hingis, Sanchez Vicario, as well. By contrast Federer has never played in a field anywhere close to the strongest mens field in history, let alone dominated one that would be classified as such.

Comparing the WTA to ATP is as meaningless as comparing 60s Tennis to Tennis today. They're totally different. But I guess unfair comparisons are all you can come up with to put down Federer.

Smasher08
10-19-2012, 08:13 AM
Wow why would you trash your own boy Nadal like that?

Correction: he trashed both his boys, Nadal AND Agassi. Not to mention Sampras, Hewitt, Roddick, Philippousis, etc.

But when your starting proposition is that, all evidence to the contrary be damned, Federer sucks, then of course everyone else becomes just so much weaker. :rolleyes:

Towser83
10-19-2012, 07:00 PM
People seem to forget that while Serena lords over a weak womens tour now this was not always the case. In 1999-2005 she was the dominant player of perhaps the strongest womens tour in history with Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Pierce, all at or near their best and for some of those years Novotna, Seles, Graf, Hingis, Sanchez Vicario, as well. By contrast Federer has never played in a field anywhere close to the strongest mens field in history, let alone dominated one that would be classified as such.

This just shows your bias both towards serena and against Federer, because you're straying off the point.

This is about NOW. We're talking about a 31 year old Serena and a 31 year old Federer, which puts us now. Not 1999-2005 (which I didn't call weak, and I agree it was a pretty strong era)

But today, the men's tour has a better standard than the women's.

Btw I don't think you can include Navratilova and Graf in that strong era, and I thought you were of the opinion that Clijsters was not that great and lucky to have won what she has.. but that's another story.The point is you were making a comment that it was not remarkable for a 31 year old Federer to be where he is since some other players have done the same. I'm saying A- the women's tour is totally different from the men's so not really comparable so we should compare men's players, and B- Serena doesn't have much competition. As we are talking about 31 year old serena, of course I am refering to NOW and not her general levelof opposition.

harrpau7
10-20-2012, 08:39 AM
I can't believe Murray is 0-3 vs Rafa at Wimbledon. that surprises me.

Would love to see Murray beat Rafa at Wimbledon in the future.

I think that in 2013 if Murray plays Rafa anywhere but clay he will notch up some more victores, maybe go something like the below....

Murray victories - Miami, Wimby, Cincy, US Open, WTF
Rafa victories - Madrid, Roland Garros

H2H at end of 2013 - RN 15 AM 10

MichaelNadal
10-20-2012, 11:27 AM
I can't believe Murray is 0-3 vs Rafa at Wimbledon. that surprises me.

Would love to see Murray beat Rafa at Wimbledon in the future.

I think that in 2013 if Murray plays Rafa anywhere but clay he will notch up some more victores, maybe go something like the below....

Murray victories - Miami, Wimby, Cincy, US Open, WTF
Rafa victories - Madrid, Roland Garros

H2H at end of 2013 - RN 15 AM 10

Why is the first sentence surprising for you? Nadal is a better grass court player than Murray.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 11:37 AM
Wow why would you trash your own boy Nadal like that?

Since when is one player the field?

Clay lover
10-21-2012, 08:38 AM
Murray has always handled Nadal pretty well on hardcourts. Not on anything else.

Magnus
10-22-2012, 01:26 AM
I find that Murray's 5-13 H2H vs Rafa is somewhat surprising given that out of the 18 matches only 4 were on clay ( 3 grass, 11 HC). To compare, even prior to his amazing 2011 run, Djokovic led the hard court H2H vs Nadal even when he trailed by a large margin overall. I am not saying Murray should lead this H2H but I think he should get a lot closer than 5-13.

Murray has done much better vs Fed and Djokovic even if you discount the recent gains in 2012. Logically it would seem that Murray's game should match up well vs Nadals much better than it does vs Fed.

Thoughts?

He will get closer, and he will beat Rafa many times on HC in the future, not that's he's at his peak. Murray is a better player than Nadal on hard courts, and that's it (Nadal more accomplished on the surface, but not for long). Nadal will always lead H2Hs due to his beloved clay. On HC he's inferior to Fed, Nole and Murray, and on grass he's inferior to Fed, and on par with the other two (maybe superior to Murray).

harrpau7
10-22-2012, 07:01 AM
Why is the first sentence surprising for you? Nadal is a better grass court player than Murray.

Because whilst at this time I sort of agree Nadal is slighty better on grass, I still think Murray had a decent shot in both the 2010 and 2011 Wimbledon SF's. I think if they had met this year at Wimbledon Murray would have won. Murray is easily capable of beating Nadal on grass, he has already defeated both Djokovic & Federer on Centre Court, why not Nadal in the next couple of years?

An 0-3 head to head says that the player who won all 3 is vastly superior, whilst Nadal currently has the better career by far and overall head to head I would have expected Murray to have or eventually defeat Nadal at Wimbledon.

syc23
10-22-2012, 07:30 AM
Before 2012, it was Murray's mindset that defeated himself rather than Rafa's abilities on grass. I'm pretty sure 2013 will see the Scot overturning the negative H2H on grass and even some matches on clay. Murray had what like 18 BPs against Rafa at RG '11 so it's not like he's useless on clay.