Slam prediction for 2013...your pick?

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by smiley_face

2013:

AO: Djokovic (def Murray)
FO: Djokovic (def Federer)
Wb:Tsonga (def Murray)
US: Djokovic (def Berdych)

No way is Tsonga beating Murray in the final of Wimbledon.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Mainad

It's a perfectly valid example to use. Nadal didn't pull out of that match until he was 2 and a half sets down. He himself said that his injury didn't kick in until the start of the 3rd set when he was already being well and truly beaten. It only becomes an inconvenient example to you because it contradicts your statement that Murray always loses at Slams after beating a top player.

Nonsense. It was not a normal match situation at all.

That said, even if you could include the example, he did lose - to Federer - after beating Nadal. He also lost, as I've said he is prone to doing, in lame lame lame fashion.

Originally Posted by Mainad

As I said, is it Murray's fault that Federer wasn't good enough to meet him in the semis at the 2012 USO or that Nadal failed to show up? Is he supposed to hand back his trophy and tell the organisers..

Not at all. It's no-one's fault. But it serves to demonstrate that his win was more likely an anomaly for the year rather than an indication he has suddenly improved his game relative to the other top guys. He just found himself in a fortunate situation where Nadal was out and Federer had a clanger vs Berdych so his path to the final was smoothed.

[EastAngels2014]

AO: Djoker or Murray, maybe Delpo sneaks in
RG: Nadal or Djoker
Wim: Roger or Murray
US: Murray or Djoker, maybe Berdych sneaks in

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Nonsense. It was not a normal match situation at all.

It's perfectly normal to me and I suspect to most other people as well.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Even if you could include the example, he did lose - to Federer - after beating Nadal. He also lost, as I've said he is prone to doing, in lame lame lame fashion.

He lost to Federer in the final after beating Cilic in the semi-final and it was actually his best performance against Federer in a GS final until this year's Wimbledon. He had several set points in the 3rd set and lost a hard-fought tie-break that went to 13-11 and could have gone either way.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Not at all. It's no-one's fault. But it serves to demonstrate that his win was more likely an anomaly for the year rather than an indication he has suddenly improved his game relative to the other top guys. He just found himself in a fortunate situation where Nadal was out and Federer had a clanger vs Berdych so his path to the final was smoothed.

We don't know how Murray would have fared against Federer in the semis. Given how lame Federer was against Berdych, its perfectly possible Murray would have beaten him had he played him. I repeat that to beat two of the top players back to back in a Slam is a rare feat for ANY player, not just Murray. Only Del Potro and Djokovic have ever managed it and Djokovic only managed it barely after surviving match points against Federer in their 2011 USO semi so it seems Murray may not be the only player to benefit from a bit of luck when playing against other top players in a Slam!

But if it makes you happy to dismiss Murray's USO win as a lucky fluke because he never got to play Federer before playing Djokovic, then by all means do so. There seems to be a lot of people on here who think Murray only ever wins anything because of sheer good luck. In the end, you believe what you want to believe!

[Seventeen]

AO: Djokovic
FO: Djokovic
WB: Federer
USO: Djokovic

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Mainad

We don't know how Murray would have fared against Federer in the semis. Given how lame Federer was against Berdych, its perfectly possible Murray would have beaten him had he played him. I repeat that to beat two of the top players back to back in a Slam is a rare feat for ANY player..

Of course we don't know - so don't use ludicrous logic like: because Federer played poorly against Berdych, Murray would have had a good shot at him if they'd faced each other. Ergo: If Federer had played better and beaten Berdych, he would have likely been playing better than that match - so it's spurious to even use it as an indication of form going into a hypothetical match-up which never happened.

Originally Posted by Mainad

But if it makes you happy to dismiss Murray's USO win as a lucky fluke because he never got to play Federer before playing Djokovic, then by all means do so...

Unless he backs it up it will go down in history as a fluke almost surely according to Talk Tennis logic.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Unless he backs it up it will go down in history as a fluke almost surely according to Talk Tennis logic.

How do you fluke 7 5-set matches against the best players in the world? Just how do you do it?

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by MindoverMatter

I think people are forgetting that Murray's best slam is the Australian Open, not the US Open or Wimbledon.

USO is Murray's best slam: 1W, 1F, 1S, 2 R16 are better than 2F, 1S, 2 R16. Only marginally better but still he has a better chance of beating Djoko at USO than at AO. I agree that Wimbledon is his 3rd best slam. But winning the Olympics (beating Fed in the process in a best of 5 for the first time) should give him tons of confidence for grass season next year. And let's not forget he's already won Queen's twice.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

USO is Murray's best slam: 1W, 1F, 1S, 2 R16 are better than 2F, 1S, 2 R16. Only marginally better but still he has a better chance of beating Djoko at USO than at AO. I agree that Wimbledon is his 3rd best slam. But winning the Olympics (beating Fed in the process in a best of 5 for the first time) should give him tons of confidence for grass season next year. And let's not forget he's already won Queen's twice.

Murray at this year's Olympic final was better than Murray at his best on any other surface. I really think Grass could prove to be his best surface over time. He totally dismantled Federer in that match, the only time Federer looked helpless on one of his best surfaces.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Murray at this year's Olympic final was better than Murray at his best on any other surface. I really think Grass could prove to be his best surface over time. He totally dismantled Federer in that match, the only time Federer looked helpless on one of his best surfaces.

After Federer was worn out after a close encounter with Del Potro.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

After Federer was worn out after a close encounter with Del Potro.

That's not a good enough excuse. Even if Federer played as well as he did in the Wimbledon final, he'd have probably still lost in 4 sets.

[joeri888]

AO: Djokovic (though I'd love Federer d. Murray)
RG: Nadal
Wimbledon: Murray or Federer
US Open: Murray or Djokovic

[batz]

[quote=Bobby Jr;7018472]Murray suffered more brain-fart-esque losses than the rest of the top 4 this year. Despite having the best year of his career it doesn't mean he was the best.
QUOTE]

This is a massive strawman and has the square root of feck all to do with your earlier assertion that Murray only played well at the USO. Your continued attempts to traduce Murray's USO win because he didn't beat Federer and Nadal is quite amusing. Were you saying the same after Roger won his first slam at Wimbledon without facing a top 5 player and beating the world number 48 in the final? Of course you weren't. What about Roger's 2007 AO win where the highest ranked player he faced was zero time slam finalist and world number 5 Davydenko - you got an issue with that slam win? Thought not.

I wouldn't mind if you were just an honest Murray hater like the Bawss - I can respect that; I might not like it, but at least it's honest. Whereas your attempts to demean Murray are a bit stealthier, a bit sneakier - you simply hold him to a standard that you don't hold other players to. It's clever, but quite transparent.

[batz]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

After Federer was worn out after a close encounter with Del Potro.

This again?

Roger played for 4 and a bit hours on the Friday afternoon - then had Saturday off, then played Murray on the Sunday afternoon. I'm sure Roger has been involved in a 5 setter in a slam, had the next day off, then won the the next day without being 'worn out' - all of which is analogous to what happened to him at Wimbledon OG.

While 'worn out Roger' was resting after his marathon with Delpo, what was Murray doing? Well, on the Friday, while roger was getting his massage, Murray played Novak Djokovic. Then on the Saturday, while Roger had his feet up in front of the fire, Murray played 2 mixed doubles matches - the Quarter-Final and the Semi-Final, then he played Roger on the Sunday afternoon.

[batz]

Just realised I haven't actually said my picks!

What I want to happen:

Murray to win a slam in 2013

What I think will happen:

AO Noel
RG Rafa
SW19 Rafa
USO Noel

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by batz

This again?

Roger played for 4 and a bit hours on the Friday afternoon - then had Saturday off, then played Murray on the Sunday afternoon. I'm sure Roger has been involved in a 5 setter in a slam, had the next day off, then won the the next day without being 'worn out' - all of which is analogous to what happened to him at Wimbledon OG.

While 'worn out Roger' was resting after his marathon with Delpo, what was Murray doing? Well, on the Friday, while roger was getting his massage, Murray played Novak Djokovic. Then on the Saturday, while Roger had his feet up in front of the fire, Murray played 2 mixed doubles matches - the Quarter-Final and the Semi-Final, then he played Roger on the Sunday afternoon.

I'm sure the Delpo match impacted Roger, both physically and mentally. However, you should not even respond to stuff like this. Murray played superb and Roger played poorly. Both deserved what they got that day. In fact, the fact that Rog had to go 4 hours against Delpo showed that he was not in form to beat Murray at the Olympics. If he was, he would have beaten Delpo a lot easier. He should have not lost serve in the first set, he should have returned better and he should've served it out the first time instead of being broken to love. It's his own fault and it showed that he lacked the form to beat Murray. Full kudos for Murray therefore, for being the best grass player during the olympics.

I would not derive from this, however, that Federer is done beating Murray on grass. I think it's a 55-45 for Murray maybe at this point. But the quicker the grass, the more advantage Federer. As long as Federer can keep his slice backhand low, he still stands a good chance against anyone on any surface.

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by batz

Just realised I haven't actually said my picks!

What I want to happen:

Murray to win a slam in 2013

What I think will happen:

AO Noel
RG Rafa
SW19 Rafa
USO Noel

Don't be so pessimistic. There's no reason why the new Murray could not hang with Rafa at Wimbledon, or with Djokovic at the US Open. If anything, a optimistic Murrayfan should believe in Murray winning 2 Slams next year.

[batz]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Don't be so pessimistic. There's no reason why the new Murray could not hang with Rafa at Wimbledon, or with Djokovic at the US Open. If anything, a optimistic Murrayfan should believe in Murray winning 2 Slams next year.

Thanks Joeri - I accept I'm erring on the side of pessimism, but I'm trying to be realistic. Noel looks like he's at least half a notch above everyone else. Rafa usually does well after a long layoff - he'll be favourite for RG and if he wins that, then he'll take a bundle of momentum into SW19 - which I think is Noel's worst surface. I'm not saying Roger or Murray couldn't compete with Rafa @ Wimbledon - of couse they could, especially Roger - but if the Spaniard wins RG I think he'll be a force to be reckoned with @ SW19. In addtion to this, there's the 'after 1st slam effect' to consider - it doesn't always happen, but it can take time for a 1st time slam winner to bag that second one - and it wouldn't surprise me at all if that happened to Murray.

[batz]

Originally Posted by joeri888

I'm sure the Delpo match impacted Roger, both physically and mentally. However, you should not even respond to stuff like this. Murray played superb and Roger played poorly. Both deserved what they got that day. In fact, the fact that Rog had to go 4 hours against Delpo showed that he was not in form to beat Murray at the Olympics. If he was, he would have beaten Delpo a lot easier. He should have not lost serve in the first set, he should have returned better and he should've served it out the first time instead of being broken to love. It's his own fault and it showed that he lacked the form to beat Murray. Full kudos for Murray therefore, for being the best grass player during the olympics.

I would not derive from this, however, that Federer is done beating Murray on grass. I think it's a 55-45 for Murray maybe at this point. But the quicker the grass, the more advantage Federer. As long as Federer can keep his slice backhand low, he still stands a good chance against anyone on any surface.

Only stupid people would form this conclusion. Roger will be a force on grass for some time to come.

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by batz

Thanks Joeri - I accept I'm erring on the side of pessimism, but I'm trying to be realistic. Noel looks like he's at least half a notch above everyone else. Rafa usually does well after a long layoff - he'll be favourite for RG and if he wins that, then he'll take a bundle of momentum into SW19 - which I think is Noel's worst surface. I'm not saying Roger or Murray couldn't compete with Rafa @ Wimbledon - of couse they could, especially Roger - but if the Spaniard wins RG I think he'll be a force to be reckoned with @ SW19. In addtion to this, there's the 'after 1st slam effect' to consider - it doesn't always happen, but it can take time for a 1st time slam winner to bag that second one - and it wouldn't surprise me at all if that happened to Murray.

I think Murray's got the advantage that the after effects of his first Slam victory take place now. Struggling through Shanghai, Tokyo, WTF.. He knows he has to keep working hard and I think he's got every time of the world now to improve further. His game has more fixable weaknesses than Novak's as we saw this year already. Imo, he fixed his predictability (always cross court) and passiveness on the forehand side a lot, and stopped to well and truly 'push' against lower ranked opponents (for an example, see his Wimbledon match with Gulbis a couple of years ago, which he won comfortably, but basically by keeping the ball in play with slice backhands). However, I think Murray still has weaknesses, which Lendl will see and help him improve on.

- Not willing enough to run around the Backhand to attack a neutral rally shot with an inside out forehand.
- Not willing enough to come to the net, one of his main strengths when he actually does come in imo. Even a S&V on his first serve every now and then would not hurt his game at all.
- Lack of ability to turn it around when his first serve % is down.
- An improving, yet still attackable second serve

I think these are more obvious AND fixable flaws, than Nadal's knees, Djokovic's lack of free points on first serve, or Federer's declining movement. I would be surprised if Murray doesn't win a Slam next year. I'd say he's not a >50% favourite anywhere, but stands a good chance at 3 out of 4.