What exactly makes Djokovic so good/special? Well, when he was so good.

J

jodd

New User
I like Djokovic a lot, so this definitely isn't a thread set up with the intention of bashing.

But...

Compared to the rest of the top 4, there's very little that's unique about his game. Uniqueness doesn't necessarily mean success on the tour, I guess I just more clearly see what the other 3 have that allows them to do so well on the circuit. So does Djokovic just do the power-baseline thing (that most of the tour does) super-well? He's not as defensive as Nadal/Murray, but he's not as offensively minded as Fed, either. Is he just generally more consistent than the rest of the tour? I guess like the other 3, he's achieved a balance between attacking and defending, and a sense for when to transition between the two, which is probably a result of his solid movement...

Does he mix spins(something I wouldn't perceive)? Is it his down-the-line shots? His serve (especially now) isn't the best, but it was really solid... Maybe he's just a very well-rounded version of the typical modern baseliner...He doesn't go all out/attack from the first stroke, but he also doesn't let his opponents have free rein...
 
RyanRF

RyanRF

Professional
I would argue that it's his lack of 'uniqueness' that makes him so good. Instead of having one or two monster shots, he's quick and has a great all-around game. He can adjust well to different situations and surprise his opponents with his variety.

"he's achieved a balance between attacking and defending, and a sense for when to transition between the two, which is probably a result of his solid movement..."

^

You're basically saying the same thing I am: speed + all-court game.
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
His ability to go down the line from almost anywhere on the court was really a big factor for his success. Changing the direction of the ball almost at will.
 
Li Ching Yuen

Li Ching Yuen

Legend
jodd said:
He's not as defensive as Nadal/Murray, but he's not as offensively minded as Fed, either. Is he just generally more consistent than the rest of the tour? I guess like the other 3, he's achieved a balance between attacking and defending, and a sense for when to transition between the two, which is probably a result of his solid movement...
Click to expand...

Here you are wrong.

When he is on he can turn defense into attack like no one else on tour. Some of his forehands are the most vicious shots I have ever seen in tennis, and that is true for his backhand side too. He can be as dominant as Federer when he goes offensive.

Basically, every single aspect of the baseline game, he's a master at it, he had a consistently good serve too, which helped him a lot.
 
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.
 
M

Markov

Semi-Pro
His all-around game is very good when he's playing well. He doesn't have any real weaknesses during such moments. This alone can help a player win a lot of tournaments (assuming he doesn't have problems on the mental side).
 
batz

batz

G.O.A.T.
Anaconda said:
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.[/QUOTE]


That'll be why Murray has made half of the last 4 hardcourt slam finals - while Novak has made precisely zero slam finals in the same period.

Novak hasn't been beyond a slam semi in over two years.
Click to expand...
 
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
batz said:
Anaconda said:
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.[/QUOTE]


That'll be why Murray has made half of the last 4 hardcourt slam finals - while Novak has made precisely zero slam finals in the same period.

Novak hasn't been beyond a slam semi in over two years.
Click to expand...


Let's be honest, Murray doesn't posses the weapons of someone like Djokovic and he doesn't have the game to dominate consistently on the big stage. With the type of game Murray plays he can lose to anyone.

Djokovic 1 slam. Murray 0. People can dance around it but Djokovic has proved he has the game to win a slam at least.
Click to expand...
 
RoddickAce

RoddickAce

Hall of Fame
Djoker was consistent, could hit very heavy shots off both wings, had a decent first serve, had a very good and clutch second serve, excellent footwork, and above average net skills.

While a lot of players had weaker backhands, Djoker had a rock solid and powerful backhand that he can use to really dictate play even when under pressure. And it's not like his opponents could really attack his forehand, as it was a cannon.

In his 2008 AO run, he used the skills mentioned above to take time away from his opponents and thus consistently pressure his opponents into forced errors.
 
Li Ching Yuen

Li Ching Yuen

Legend
Anaconda said:
batz said:
Let's be honest, Murray doesn't posses the weapons of someone like Djokovic and he doesn't have the game to dominate consistently on the big stage. With the type of game Murray plays he can lose to anyone.

Djokovic 1 slam. Murray 0. People can dance around it but Djokovic has proved he has the game to win a slam at least.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but Murray was the most dominant player at the AO2010, overall.
Click to expand...
 
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Li Ching Yuen said:
Anaconda said:
I'm sorry but Murray was the most dominant player at the AO2010, overall.
Click to expand...

Wait. What? He beat one good player who had to retire. Got owned in the final. Federer was the most dominant player owning guys like Hewitt, and beat Davydenko playing tennis of his life.


Record books don't tell you who the dominant player was - only the winner. I'm sorry Murray doesn't get bonus points of beating a few journeymen. And that is a weak arguement anyway becasue the guy who dominates at a tournament wins. Because they have won all of there matches which makes it so.
Click to expand...
 
batz

batz

G.O.A.T.
Anaconda said:
batz said:
Let's be honest, Murray doesn't posses the weapons of someone like Djokovic and he doesn't have the game to dominate consistently on the big stage. With the type of game Murray plays he can lose to anyone.

Djokovic 1 slam. Murray 0. People can dance around it but Djokovic has proved he has the game to win a slam at least.
Click to expand...

Your 1st paragraph is conjecture dressed as fact.

Your second paragraph is fact based but is a strawman. Who is arguing about how many slams each player has won - not me.

They've both made 2 slam finals - difference is, Murray has done his within the last 18 months while Novak hasn't made one in over 2 years. I'd say those facts have a bit more bearing on the question 'who will consistently make slam finals in the future' than your opinion based on what Novak did over 2 years ago.

Novak hasn't beaten Murray in 3 years and he's underperformed Murray by any measure over the last 2 years. Those are the facts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
batz

batz

G.O.A.T.
Anaconda said:
Li Ching Yuen said:
Wait. What? He beat one good player who had to retire. Got owned in the final. Federer was the most dominant player owning guys like Hewitt, and beat Davydenko playing tennis of his life.


Record books don't tell you who the dominant player was - only the winner. I'm sorry Murray doesn't get bonus points of beating a few journeymen. And that is a weak arguement anyway becasue the guy who dominates at a tournament wins. Because they have won all of there matches which makes it so.
Click to expand...

He made a slam final for the loss of one set. I'm guessing that's that what LCY meant.

Your analysis is just about the most one-eyed it could be. Everyone from Cilic to Isner to Rafa was supposed to be taking Murray down. Nobody came close to beating Murray until Godmode Roger turned up. Implying that Murray only beat Rafa becasue Rafa had to retire is a laughable distortion of reality
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
batz said:
Anaconda said:
He made a slam final for the loss of one set. I'm guessing that's that what LCY meant.

Your analysis is just about the most one-eyed it could be. Everyone from Cilic to Isner to Rafa was supposed to be taking Murray down. Nobody came close until Godmode Roger turned up.
Click to expand...

I had Murray down to beat Isner and Cilic. Murray isn't good enough to say he would have beaten anyone in the final not named Federer IMO.
Click to expand...
 
Li Ching Yuen

Li Ching Yuen

Legend
Anaconda said:
Li Ching Yuen said:
Wait. What? He beat one good player who had to retire. Got owned in the final. Federer was the most dominant player owning guys like Hewitt, and beat Davydenko playing tennis of his life.


Record books don't tell you who the dominant player was - only the winner. I'm sorry Murray doesn't get bonus points of beating a few journeymen. And that is a weak arguement anyway becasue the guy who dominates at a tournament wins. Because they have won all of there matches which makes it so.
Click to expand...

Way to juggle around the subject in order to make it look favorable for you.
And LOL, is Hewitt a big scary guy for the top players now?...or have you been not watching tennis for the past few years?

Fact is, up to the final, Murray showed a great solid performance in all of his matches.

The fact that Federer is a player that can bring out his best tennis when it matters is another thing.

We're talking here about Murray, who reached the final of the first slam of 2010 thus far.

Oh btw, how did your Djokovic do?
Click to expand...
 
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Li Ching Yuen said:
Anaconda said:
Way to juggle around the subject in order to make it look favorable for you.
And LOL, is Hewitt a big scary guy for the top players now?...or have you been not watching tennis for the past few years?

Fact is, up to the final, Murray showed a great solid performance in all of his matches.

The fact that Federer is a player that can bring out his best tennis when it matters is another thing.

We're talking here about Murray, who reached the final of the first slam of 2010 thus far.

Oh btw, how did your Djokovic do?
Click to expand...

Oh sorry Safin (who is my favourite) retired. I'm sure he won the AO 2005. Beating Prime Hewitt and Federer on the way.

Hewitt beat JMDP at Wimbledon and nearly beat the guy who lost 16-14 to Federer in the final. Hewitt isn't a slouch and is underrated. He is still a handful for the top guns.
Click to expand...
 
batz

batz

G.O.A.T.
Anaconda said:
batz said:
I had Murray down to beat Isner and Cilic. Murray isn't good enough to say he would have beaten anyone in the final not named Federer IMO.
Click to expand...

You might have - plenty on here didn't.

I'm a bit confused by the combination of negatives in the second sentence - are you really saying that Murray would lose to anyone not named Federer if he made another slam final? You really think that if Murray got an unseeded player in slam final (like some guys have) that he would lose?
Click to expand...
 
R

Rina

Hall of Fame
Li Ching Yuen said:
Anaconda said:
I'm sorry but Murray was the most dominant player at the AO2010, overall.
Click to expand...

How on earth was Murray the most dominant player at AO2010??? Did he win it? Are you forgetting that Fed devastated Tsonga and decimated Murray? As for this thread being about Djokovic, I would think that if Djokovic made it to AO finals he may have put an effort to give audience a better match even though he would've probably lost as well. And am I the only one annoyed how Murray fans just have to make everything about Murray?
Click to expand...
 
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Rina said:
Li Ching Yuen said:
How on earth was Murray the most dominant player at AO2010??? Did he win it? Are you forgetting that Fed devastated Tsonga and decimated Murray? As for this thread being about Djokovic, I would think that if Djokovic made it to AO finals he may have put an effort to give audience a better match even though he would've probably lost as well. And am I the only one annoyed how Murray fans just have to make everything about Murray?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. LCY did. It was i mix up. I agree with you.
Click to expand...
 
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
batz said:
Anaconda said:
You might have - plenty on here didn't.

I'm a bit confused by the combination of negatives in the second sentence - are you really saying that Murray would lose to anyone not named Federer if he made another slam final? You really think that if Murray got an unseeded player in slam final (like some guys have) that he would lose?
Click to expand...

No, but Murray isn't a lock against any top 20 player.
Click to expand...
 
batz

batz

G.O.A.T.
Rina said:
Li Ching Yuen said:
How on earth was Murray the most dominant player at AO2010??? Did he win it? Are you forgetting that Fed devastated Tsonga and decimated Murray? As for this thread being about Djokovic, I would think that if Djokovic made it to AO finals he may have put an effort to give audience a better match even though he would've probably lost as well. And am I the only one annoyed how Murray fans just have to make everything about Murray?[/QUOTE]

I don't think LCY is a Murray fan. He/she is wrong to say Murray was the most dominant player at AO - clearly Roger was.

As to your question in bold - the only reason I'm talking about Murray on this thread is because of anaconda's:

Let's be honest, Murray doesn't posses the weapons of someone like Djokovic and he doesn't have the game to dominate consistently on the big stage. With the type of game Murray plays he can lose to anyone.

Now Anaconda isn't a Murray fan either. So it would appear that no Murray fan mentioned Murray except me - but only after others had.

Finding it difficlut to see therefore how 'Murray fans' are 'making it everything about Murray' in this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Li Ching Yuen

Li Ching Yuen

Legend
First of all, Anaconda started talking about Murray, not me.

And I'm not a Murray fan, not even close to that. I think I've used every opportunity that I had on this forum to call him a pusher etc...
 
Li Ching Yuen

Li Ching Yuen

Legend
Markov said:
But you just can't be the most dominant and the second best at the same time!
Click to expand...

You don't understand.

Each finalist has to win 6 matches to reach the final, right?...

Well, let's put it this way, for me Murray's performance in those 6 matches and the way he won his matches was way more impressive than Federer's and not even Fed's straight-set victory in the final could change my opinion of the whole tournament. (mostly because I think Federer owns Murray despite their h2h, so I was kind of expecting it to happen)
 
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
rovex said:
And your boy Roddick Is? :lol:
Click to expand...

Way to troll about clown. Safin. I repeat Safin is still my favourite player.



Out of the active players Hewitt, Ferrer, Roddick, Nalbandian are my favourites to watch.


Please, continue to troll and pick fights at random.
 
batz

batz

G.O.A.T.
Anaconda said:
batz said:
In a slam final, most top 8 guys would be.
Click to expand...

You're into the realms of fantasy now.

You are arguing that Murray has some intrinsic problem that only kicks in when he makes slam finals, a problem that other players in the top 8 don't suffer from, and that because of this problem, he has less of a chance of beating a player from the top 20 in a slam final than other players in the top 8.


Maybe Agassi suffered from the same problem until he won his first slam? Is there a name for this condition?
Click to expand...
 
rovex

rovex

Legend
Anaconda said:
Way to troll about clown. Safin. I repeat Safin is still my favourite player.



Out of the active players Hewitt, Ferrer, Roddick, Nalbandian are my favourites to watch.


Please, continue to troll and pick fights at random.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you said Hewitt was your favorite player not long ago. You don't like sticking with the same player it seems do you? Troll? I'm just pointing the irony in within your posts. Oh, and the severe fanboyism!
 
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
rovex said:
Hmm, you said Hewitt was your favorite player not long ago. You don't like sticking with the same player it seems do you? Troll? I'm just pointing the irony in within your posts. Oh, and the severe fanboyism!
Click to expand...

When did i say Hewitt was my favourite player? I didn't.

You talk but you can't prove any of that because you're full of trash. Pfft. Dirty troll.
 
A

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
batz said:
Anaconda said:
You're into the realms of fantasy now.

You are arguing that Murray has some intrinsic problem that only kicks in when he makes slam finals, a problem that other players in the top 8 don't suffer from, and that because of this problem, he has less of a chance of beating a player from the top 20 in a slam final than other players in the top 8.


Maybe Agassi suffered from the same problem until he won his first slam? Is there a name for this condition?
Click to expand...

Because of Murray's defensive game he can lose to anyone. That's why he isn't a lock IMO. He very well could win slams but you never know.
Click to expand...
 
jackson vile

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
jodd said:
I like Djokovic a lot, so this definitely isn't a thread set up with the intention of bashing.

But...

Compared to the rest of the top 4, there's very little that's unique about his game. Uniqueness doesn't necessarily mean success on the tour, I guess I just more clearly see what the other 3 have that allows them to do so well on the circuit. So does Djokovic just do the power-baseline thing (that most of the tour does) super-well? He's not as defensive as Nadal/Murray, but he's not as offensively minded as Fed, either. Is he just generally more consistent than the rest of the tour? I guess like the other 3, he's achieved a balance between attacking and defending, and a sense for when to transition between the two, which is probably a result of his solid movement...

Does he mix spins(something I wouldn't perceive)? Is it his down-the-line shots? His serve (especially now) isn't the best, but it was really solid... Maybe he's just a very well-rounded version of the typical modern baseliner...He doesn't go all out/attack from the first stroke, but he also doesn't let his opponents have free rein...
Click to expand...


At one point he had the best serve out of the top 10 players, returns are one of the best, ground game one of the best.

What is failing him is all mental.

Oh and he should not have changed rackets and to those crapy string combination that is not made for a closed string pattern.
 
rovex

rovex

Legend
jackson vile said:
At one point he had the best serve out of the top 10 players, returns are one of the best, ground game one of the best.

What is failing him is all mental.

Oh and he should not have changed rackets and to those crapy string combination that is not made for a closed string pattern.
Click to expand...

He never changed racquets as far as i know. Using the same mold he had with Wilson.
 
jackson vile

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
rovex said:
He never changed racquets as far as i know. Using the same mold he had with Wilson.
Click to expand...

let's see here, flex is different, swing weight is different, static weight is different, balance is different, ...

Futhermore, consider this. If I used a liquid metal presitge one day and then a youtek pristige the next day, did I swith rackets or is it the same racket?
 
M

Markov

Semi-Pro
Li Ching Yuen said:
You don't understand.

Each finalist has to win 6 matches to reach the final, right?...

Well, let's put it this way, for me Murray's performance in those 6 matches and the way he won his matches was way more impressive than Federer's and not even Fed's straight-set victory in the final could change my opinion of the whole tournament. (mostly because I think Federer owns Murray despite their h2h, so I was kind of expecting it to happen)
Click to expand...
Alright alright... I agree that Murray surprised me a lot more. And I think you're completely entitled to having your opinion :) I just wouldn't say that Murray dominated...
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
batz said:
Anaconda said:
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.[/QUOTE]


That'll be why Murray has made half of the last 4 hardcourt slam finals - while Novak has made precisely zero slam finals in the same period.

Novak hasn't been beyond a slam semi in over two years.
Click to expand...




Murray also didn't have to go through Federer to get to the finals, Djokovic did at the USO in 2008 and 2009.



BTW, Murray's game is too defensive to win slam finals against strong opposition. If he got a little lucky and managed to get a weaker opponent he might be able to do it, but against the likes of Federer, Nadal, Del Potro, heck even Roddick or Djokovic if they made a slam final, I think his defensive style of play will not work in the later rounds, as that relies on your opponent to make mistakes, which doesn't happen often at that stage of a slam.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
R

Rina

Hall of Fame
I didn't say that. LCY did. It was i mix up. I agree with you

Sorry didn't realize it was a mix up.
 
batz

batz

G.O.A.T.
NamRanger said:
batz said:
Murray also didn't have to go through Federer to get to the finals, Djokovic did at the USO in 2008 and 2009.



BTW, Murray's game is too defensive to win slam finals against strong opposition. If he got a little lucky and managed to get a weaker opponent he might be able to do it, but against the likes of Federer, Nadal, Del Potro, heck even Roddick or Djokovic if they made a slam final, I think his defensive style of play will not work in the later rounds, as that relies on your opponent to make mistakes, which doesn't happen often at that stage of a slam.
Click to expand...

This is a brilliant peice of sophistry. As with Anaconda, you imply that there is an inherent weakness that will manifest itself in a final, but not in any of the previous six rounds. Of the players you list, Murray only has a losing slam head to head with Federer. He's 1-0 v Delpo, 2-2 v Rafa (won the last 2), 1-1 v Roddick and 0-0 with Novak.

Yet again - the facts don't square with your assertions; but when has that ever bothered you.

When Murray has lost a couple of slam finals to guys not named Roger then you might be on to something - until then, there is zero evidence to back up your hypothesis. You said Isner would take Murray out at the AO, then Cilic was going to do it. The fact is - since Murray entered the top 6, only Roger Federer has made more slam semis and finals than Murray.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ambivalent

Ambivalent

Hall of Fame
Anaconda said:
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.
Click to expand...

Djokovic's net game is horrid. I have no idea what you are trying to say at #5.

#4 - No one can hit 100mph+ forehands all day long.

#1 - His weakness all along has been his fitness and thus his movement cannot be said to be great.
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
batz said:
NamRanger said:
This is a brilliant peice of sophistry. As with Anaconda, you imply that there is an inherent weakness that will manifest itself in a final, but not in any of the previous six rounds. Of the players you list, Murray only has a losing slam head to head with Federer. He's 1-0 v Delpo, 2-2 v Rafa (won the last 2), 1-1 v Roddick and 0-0 with Novak.

Yet again - the facts don't square with your assertions; but when has that ever bothered you.

When Murray has lost a couple of slam finals to guys not named Roger then you might be on to something - until then, there is zero evidence to back up your hypothesis. You said Isner would take Murray out at the AO, then Cilic was going to do it. The fact is - since Murray entered the top 6, only Roger Federer has made more slam semis and finals than Murray.
Click to expand...




I never said Cilic was going to take him out, I said Murray should be able to take out Cilic because Del Potro and Roddick were both injured, and Cilic was mighty lucky to win both of those matches.


Brilliant work of sophistry? Murray so far has lost to these guys in the later rounds of a slam (I'm not just talking about slam finals) :


1. Cilic USO 2009, he basically didn't even play this match

2. Roddick Wimbledon 2009, was too defensive in the critical moments of this match

3. Verdasco Australian Open 2009, defensive again during critical moments of the match, and Verdasco takes advantage

4. Federer, Australian Open 2010, U.S. Open 2008. Federer playing great offensive tennis, Murray playing his same defensive tennis.

5. Gonzalez, French Open 2009. Supposedly Gonzalez was a "better claycourt" player when Murray had a clay court season (which I honestly don't buy at all; Gonzalez is good on clay, but Murray was having a pretty good clay season). Yet, Murray played too defensive and lost again here, when he had a good opportunity to make the SF.



Do you love Andy Murray so much that you can't even fathom that his defensive style of play is what is holding him back? In the key rounds of a slam (meaning the 2nd week, from the Round of 16 and on), most guys are not going to beat themselves. Murray if he runs into a hot opponent, is going to have trouble, because he simply doesn't have any offensive weapons to play from behind.


He certainly has the capabilities of doing it, as he really blew Nadal off the court during the USO 2008 SF. However, he has not ever replicated a match that has even come close to that level of play.




You can keep it up all you want, but the fact of the matter is, tennis is a game that favors the player that takes risk at the highest level. Why? Because someone like a Federer, or a Nadal, or any other champion in the later rounds of a slam, are simply not going to miss that often. You cannot rely on your opponent to miss; you have to go out there, and win it. Murray for whatever reason simply doesn't do that.


He had one good tournament where he was showing some decent level of aggression, now he has reverted back to Andy Murray of 2006 who mopes around on the court and just simply pushes everything back.
Click to expand...
 
TheTruth

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic is a great player, he just seems to lack motivation at times. Who knows what's going on in any of their lives? There's a lot of life to be played after a tennis match is over. I hope he gets back and does well.
 
batz

batz

G.O.A.T.
NamRanger said:
batz said:
I never said Cilic was going to take him out, I said Murray should be able to take out Cilic because Del Potro and Roddick were both injured, and Cilic was mighty lucky to win both of those matches.


Brilliant work of sophistry? Murray so far has lost to these guys in the later rounds of a slam (I'm not just talking about slam finals) :


1. Cilic USO 2009, he basically didn't even play this match

2. Roddick Wimbledon 2009, was too defensive in the critical moments of this match

3. Verdasco Australian Open 2009, defensive again during critical moments of the match, and Verdasco takes advantage

4. Federer, Australian Open 2010, U.S. Open 2008. Federer playing great offensive tennis, Murray playing his same defensive tennis.

5. Gonzalez, French Open 2009. Supposedly Gonzalez was a "better claycourt" player when Murray had a clay court season (which I honestly don't buy at all; Gonzalez is good on clay, but Murray was having a pretty good clay season). Yet, Murray played too defensive and lost again here, when he had a good opportunity to make the SF.



Do you love Andy Murray so much that you can't even fathom that his defensive style of play is what is holding him back? In the key rounds of a slam (meaning the 2nd week, from the Round of 16 and on), most guys are not going to beat themselves. Murray if he runs into a hot opponent, is going to have trouble, because he simply doesn't have any offensive weapons to play from behind.


He certainly has the capabilities of doing it, as he really blew Nadal off the court during the USO 2008 SF. However, he has not ever replicated a match that has even come close to that level of play.




You can keep it up all you want, but the fact of the matter is, tennis is a game that favors the player that takes risk at the highest level. Why? Because someone like a Federer, or a Nadal, or any other champion in the later rounds of a slam, are simply not going to miss that often. You cannot rely on your opponent to miss; you have to go out there, and win it. Murray for whatever reason simply doesn't do that.


He had one good tournament where he was showing some decent level of aggression, now he has reverted back to Andy Murray of 2006 who mopes around on the court and just simply pushes everything back.
Click to expand...


Opponents didn't get any hotter than Isner at the AO - you yourself said he was 'the hottest guy on tour' whe nyou predicted he would take Murray out. Murray straight setted him. Yet again, your assertions and the facts don't square up. Just to repeat:


Murray if he runs into a hot opponent, is going to have trouble, because he simply doesn't have any offensive weapons to play from behind

Andy Murray wins in straight sets.

I'm also confused as to how a guy who quote "simply doesn't haven't any offensive weapons" unquote is able to " blow Nadal off the court during the USO 2008 SF" not to mention AO 2010. So which is it Nam - is Murray capable of blowing one of the best defenders the game has ever seen off the court in grand slams or does he simply have no offensive weapons - because hey - both those statments can't be right can they?

If Murray has no offensive weapons, what does he use to blow Nadal away with? Perhaps he borrows someone else's offensive weapons on those days?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
What makes Nadal so good?
Replies
19
Views
2K
pound cat
P
RF-18
What is so special about Novak Djokovic?
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
RF-18
RF-18
2
What makes Nalbandian so good at rallying?
2
Replies
60
Views
6K
SStrikerR
S
BreakPoint
What makes Marcos Baghdatis so good?
2
Replies
79
Views
6K
bismark
B
SpinDr.
What makes Nadal's second serve so good?
Replies
29
Views
3K
Roddick85
Roddick85
Top