Does anyone find Murray's H2H vs Rafa a little surprising?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

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]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

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]

Originally Posted by DRII

Well, whatever you want to call it

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]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

He's been getting older since 1981.

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

[kragster]

Originally Posted by Towser83

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]

Originally Posted by kragster

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]

Originally Posted by DRII

Well, whatever you want to call it

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]

Originally Posted by Towser83

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 .

Originally Posted by Towser83

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]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

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]

Originally Posted by batz

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]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

Originally Posted by Mainad

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

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

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

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]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

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]

Originally Posted by batz

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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]

Originally Posted by MSK

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]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

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]

Nadal: "Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you."

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

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.