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

[vllaznia]

Originally Posted by batz

Is or was?

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

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by batz

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.

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]

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.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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]

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]

Originally Posted by OverratedIvanovic

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?

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]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

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

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]

Originally Posted by cc0509

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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]

Originally Posted by nethawkwenatchee

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]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

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]

Originally Posted by batz

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]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

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

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.

Originally Posted by Towser83

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]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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]

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]

Originally Posted by joeri888

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