Nadal doesnt feel he can beat Murray on Grass or HC

[Josherer]

Not a fan of Murray with his boring game, but I have to agree that Murray -outside the clay season- is favorite to win. That how it is at this moment in my opinion anyway, I feel he simply is the best player at this moment.

edit:
I love how Nadal-fans throw in the last encounter with Murray and keep hammering on that 6-1 6-2 :lol:

How is Murray outside the clay season favoutite to win?

Grass? Hello No!
Carpet? Hell No!
Indoor Hard? Hell No!

Hard Court? Maybe... In the last two slams he played he got beaten by an on fire verdasco, and smashed by Fed...

He just beat Delpotro and Djokovic to win Miami but got smashed the week before by nadal 6-1 6-2

HOW IS HE THE BEST PLAYER ON ALL SURFACES EXCEPT CLAY? YOUR STATEMENTS RIDICULOUS

 

[THERAFA]

Simon Reed is never going to hear the end of this when Nadal demoralizes Murray on a windy US Open day. Any player who can't win in the wind is incapable of ever being number one.

 

[THERAFA]

As for grass, lets see Murray take a set off Nadal at Wimbledon before we even entertain the idea of him being a title threat. This is where Reed really falls flat on his face.

 

[Josherer]

Simon Reed is never going to hear the end of this when Nadal demoralizes Murray on a windy US Open day. Any player who can't win in the wind is incapable of ever being number one.

No. Any player who can't win in the wind is MENTALLY WEAK

They can still be number one but not play many windy matches..

 

[Pirao]

That is an incredible biased and stupid article. Murray should be considered the favourite for every tournament outside of clay? Did that guy already forget what happened on AO? Or that Nadal defends Wimbledon, because, you know, he has actually proved himself on grass, unlike Murray? Nothing against Murray because he seems like a good guy, but this kind of articles make it difficult to root for him.

 

[THERAFA]

I actually appreciate guys like Simon Reed more than someone who knows what they're talking about (a proper tennis analyst like John McEnroe or John Alexander), because guys like Reed are really fun to make fun of when the last ball is hit. He's putting his journalistic reputation completely on the line, all for Murray, a guy who hasn't even won a slam and choked in his one slam Final. It is great to see a misguided member of the media learn his lesson.

 

[jelle v]

How is Murray outside the clay season favoutite to win?

Grass? Hello No!
Carpet? Hell No!
Indoor Hard? Hell No!

Hard Court? Maybe... In the last two slams he played he got beaten by an on fire verdasco, and smashed by Fed...

He just beat Delpotro and Djokovic to win Miami but got smashed the week before by nadal 6-1 6-2

HOW IS HE THE BEST PLAYER ON ALL SURFACES EXCEPT CLAY? YOUR STATEMENTS RIDICULOUS

I'm not stating he is the best player.. I'm stating he is the favorite.. there's a thin line between those two..

And again.. I love how the loss to Nadal with 6-1 6-2 gets thrown around here :lol:

 

[Pirao]

I'm not stating he is the best player.. I'm stating he is the favorite.. there's a thin line between those two..

And again.. I love how the loss to Nadal with 6-1 6-2 gets thrown around here :lol:

Why is he the favourite? Being the favourite means he has the best chance to win said tournament, how does he have a better chance to win Wimbledon than Nadal? The only tournament he would be a favourite above Nadal would be USO because it's Nadal's worst surface, and even then I'm not so sure.

Saying Murray is the favourite for anything outside of clay is ridiculous.

 

[batz]

As for grass, lets see Murray take a set off Nadal at Wimbledon before we even entertain the idea of him being a title threat. This is where Reed really falls flat on his face.

And where you fall flat on your face is that you don't seem to recognise or accept that the Murray of a year ago and the Murray of today are 2 completely different beasties. As I said only 3 or 4 posts ago, there is no comparison to be made between the guy that Rafa played at Wimbledon last year and the guy who's on the cusp of becoming world number 3. The have the same name, that's about it. In terms of achievements, game level and confidence, they may as well be two different guys.

Just for the record and in case you think I'm some kind of hater; I love Rafa. He's a worthy number 1 and strikes me as an all round good guy.

 

[Pirao]

And where you fall flat on your face is that you don't seem to recognise or accept that the Murray of a year ago and the Murray of today are 2 completely different beasties. As I said only 3 or 4 posts ago, there is no comparison to be made between the guy that Rafa played at Wimbledon last year and the guy who's on the cusp of becoming world number 3. The have the same name, that's about it. In terms of achievements, game level and confidence, they may as well be two different guys.

Just for the record and in case you think I'm some kind of hater; I love Rafa. He's a worthy number 1 and strikes me as an all round good guy.

He may be a different player, but he still has not proved anything on grass, so indeed Reed's claims that he should be favourite for Wimbledon, over Rafa and Federer, are outlandish.

 

[jelle v]

Why is he the favourite? Being the favourite means he has the best chance to win said tournament, how does he have a better chance to win Wimbledon than Nadal? The only tournament he would be a favourite above Nadal would be USO because it's Nadal's worst surface, and even then I'm not so sure.

Saying Murray is the favourite for anything outside of clay is ridiculous.

Gamewise, confidence, beating Nadal, Djokovic and Federer more than once recently.. Yes I think that Murray has the best odds to win a tournament when it's not on clay if he keeps up this level of play of course.

I'm not stating that he will win every tournament he enters, but imo every tournament he enters outside of clay, he will be favorite. Maybe at Wimbledon "one of" the favorites.

Again, I don't like the guy and I think his game is very boring, but i do not understand why it is so difficult to give Murray praise for his game and the tennis he is playing right now.

 

[Pirao]

Gamewise, confidence, beating Nadal, Djokovic and Federer more than once recently.. Yes I think that Murray has the best odds to win a tournament when it's not on clay if he keeps up this level of play of course.

I'm not stating that he will win every tournament he enters, but imo every tournament he enters outside of clay, he will be favorite. Maybe at Wimbledon "one of" the favorites.

Again, I don't like the guy and I think his game is very boring, but i do not understand why it is so difficult to give Murray praise for his game and the tennis he is playing right now.

Nadal recently spanked him too, and the only surfaces where Murray has beaten Nadal are fast hardcourts, which if you don't remember are Nadal's worse surface. Sorry but your claims have no basis.

 

[jelle v]

Nadal recently spanked him too, and the only surfaces where Murray has beaten Nadal are fast hardcourts, which if you don't remember are Nadal's worse surface. Sorry but your claims have no basis.

Again, I love how the loss to Nadal with 6-1 6-2 gets thrown around..

My claims have very sound basis, you're just not willing to acknowledge them. All you are poiinting out are past results and disgarding the fact that Murray's game has gone sky high. It's ok, doesn't matter. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[batz]

He may be a different player, but he still has not proved anything on grass, so indeed Reed's claims that he should be favourite for Wimbledon, over Rafa and Federer, are outlandish.

I agree Reed's claims are outlandish - I'm not saying Murray is favourite for Wimby, but I dispute that Murray 'has not proved anything on grass'. If by this you mean he hasn't won a grass tournament then you're right; but I would counter that by saying that he's never played in a grass tournament since entering the upper echelons of the game. It's a bit disingenuous to accept my point that Murray is a much better player now but then go on to say he's not yet proved himself on grass when he hasn't yet had the opportunity!

I would also point out that Murray made his breakthrough on grass, that he has improved on grass every year he's played on it and that his win/loss ratio on grass is only marginally worse than his win/loss ratio on hardcourt.

 

[Pirao]

Again, I love how the loss to Nadal with 6-1 6-2 gets thrown around..

My claims have very sound basis, you're just not willing to acknowledge them. All you are poiinting out are past results and disgarding the fact that Murray's game has gone sky high. It's ok, doesn't matter. We'll agree to disagree.

Sorry but they don't. They only have basis if you said he should be favourite in fast hardcourts. On any other surface Murray has not proved he can trouble Nadal. But it doesn't matter, time will put everyone in their place, won't it?

 

[THERAFA]

And where you fall flat on your face is that you don't seem to recognise or accept that the Murray of a year ago and the Murray of today are 2 completely different beasties. As I said only 3 or 4 posts ago, there is no comparison to be made between the guy that Rafa played at Wimbledon last year and the guy who's on the cusp of becoming world number 3. The have the same name, that's about it. In terms of achievements, game level and confidence, they may as well be two different guys.

Just for the record and in case you think I'm some kind of hater; I love Rafa. He's a worthy number 1 and strikes me as an all round good guy.

You should realise how close Wimbledon last year was to US Open last year. Murray at the US Open was the same beast but on hardcourt.

 

[Pirao]

I agree Reed's claims are outlandish - I'm not saying Murray is favourite for Wimby, but I dispute that Murray 'has not proved anything on grass'. If by this you mean he hasn't won a grass tournament then you're right; but I would counter that by saying that he's never played in a grass tournament since entering the upper echelons of the game. It's a bit disingenuous to accept my point that Murray is a much better player now but then go on to say he's not yet proved himself on grass when he hasn't yet had the opportunity!

I would also point out that Murray made his breakthrough on grass, that he has improved on grass every year he's played on it and that his win/loss ratio on grass is only marginally worse than his win/loss ratio on hardcourt.

And I could say he has proved inconsistent in GS so far,even in his favourite surface, so what chance does he have in Fed's favourite surface, and Nadal's 2nd favourite? Nadal has also improved his game. It seems like the loss to Del Potro has really made people understimate Nadal lately. Luckily the clay and grass season will start soon and he'll shut up his critics again (not saying you're criticizing Nadal, just speaking in general).

 

[Gen]

Again, I love how the loss to Nadal with 6-1 6-2 gets thrown around..

My claims have very sound basis, you're just not willing to acknowledge them. All you are poiinting out are past results and disgarding the fact that Murray's game has gone sky high. It's ok, doesn't matter. We'll agree to disagree.

Can I point out that Nadal's game has also grossly improved since last year?
And outside the last spanking, grasswise speaking, Murray lost to Nadal in QF at Queens and again in SF at Wimbledon. Nadal is two times runnerup and a champ at Wimbley. Sorry, but you have nothing to support your claim.

 

[batz]

And I could say he has proved inconsistent in GS so far,even in his favourite surface, so what chance does he have in Fed's favourite surface, and Nadal's 2nd favourite? Nadal has also improved his game. It seems like the loss to Del Potro has really made people understimate Nadal lately. Luckily the clay and grass season will start soon and he'll shut up his critics again (not saying you're criticizing Nadal, just speaking in general).

Woah there, I'm not dissing Rafa for a minute - he's clear favourite for Wimby as far as I'm concerned. Not sure about Fed, as a Murray fan, it's my dearest hope that Andy is drawn in Roger's half at Wimbledon.

Murray has only played 1 slam since entering the top 4. Yes he has had a poor AO, but I don't think you can call someone inconsistent on the back of one event!

 

[batz]

Can I point out that Nadal's game has also grossly improved since last year?
And outside the last spanking, grasswise speaking, Murray lost to Nadal in QF at Queens and again in SF at Wimbledon. Nadal is two times runnerup and a champ at Wimbley. Sorry, but you have nothing to support your claim.

Murray has never played Nadal at Queens or made the semis of Wimbledon.

 

[Pirao]

Woah there, I'm not dissing Rafa for a minute - he's clear favourite for Wimby as far as I'm concerned. Not sure about Fed, as a Murray fan, it's my dearest hope that Andy is drawn in Roger's half at Wimbledon.

Murray has only played 1 slam since entering the top 4. Yes he has had a poor AO, but I don't think you can call someone inconsistent on the back of one event!

His game was already top 4 when he played USO too, and he failed to win that too even though people were saying Fed was done and should retire. And like I said I'm not saying you're dissing Nadal, just speaking in general because it's a trend I've noticed in the forum lately.

 

[THERAFA]

It should be pointed out that Murray hasn't improved on grass since last year's Wimbledon. Has he even stood on a grasscourt since Wimbledon? It was no accident that the Rafa lost 2 Wimbledon Finals before he won it, he was gaining experience each time. Murray is yet to gain experience on grass, and let me be the first to say Murray's game doesn't suit grass.

 

[Gen]

Murray has never played Nadal at Queens or made the semis of Wimbledon.[/QUOTE

Sorry, it was QF which doesn't change much.

 

[batz]

It should be pointed out that Murray hasn't improved on grass since last year's Wimbledon. Has he even stood on a grasscourt since Wimbledon? It was no accident that the Rafa lost 2 Wimbledon Finals before he won it, he was gaining experience each time. Murray is yet to gain experience on grass, and let me be the first to say Murray's game doesn't suit grass.

Murray won 2 matches in the Davis on grass last September.

Please enlighten us as to the intrinsic drawbacks that Murray faces on grass that he doesn't face on hardcourt. There was me thinking having a killer first serve, good volleys, great passing ability and 1st class movement would be an advantage on grass, but I'm willing to be educated: over to you.

 

[SteveI]

Can't forget about Tsonga, and Gasquet serve and volleying well at the Australian Open can only mean good at Wimbledon. This year is going to be interesting.

Yes.. I agree.. did not mean to leave anyone out. It should be a great two weeks. Can't wait!

 

[batz]

Murray has never played Nadal at Queens or made the semis of Wimbledon.[/QUOTE

Sorry, it was QF which doesn't change much.

Whether it was the semis or the quarters doesn't change much. Whether or not a match happend at all (Queens QF!) changes quite a lot. Your post implied Rafa had owned Murray twice on grass within a couple of weeks of each other - but that didn't happen did it?

 

[THERAFA]

Murray won 2 matches in the Davis on grass last September.

Please enlighten us as to the intrinsic drawbacks that Murray faces on grass that he doesn't face on hardcourt. There was me thinking having a killer first serve, good volleys, great passing ability and 1st class movement would be an advantage on grass, but I'm willing to be educated: over to you.

Murray tactically is too varied in his approach to grass, he needs to play simpler tennis to win (Nadal and Federer play simple grasscourt tennis, not all inventive). He is too adventurous on grass, he thinks he needs to be, he is wrong. He has too many tactical options, and he screws it up (rather than just playing high% grass tennis, taking care of his serve and getting balls back on return). Murray is trying to make things happen, when really it is best to be completely reactive and just play off instinct. Agassi at Wimbledon is a good example, he just tries to hit clean returns, not mix things up.

 

[batz]

Murray tactically is too varied in his approach to grass, he needs to play simpler tennis to win (Nadal and Federer play simple grasscourt tennis, not all inventive). He is too adventurous on grass, he thinks he needs to be, he is wrong. He has too many tactical options, and he screws it up (rather than just playing high% grass tennis, taking care of his serve and getting balls back on return). Murray is trying to make things happen, when really it is best to be completely reactive and just play off instinct. Agassi at Wimbledon is a good example, he just tries to hit clean returns, not mix things up.

Seriously mate, have you been watching a different Andy Murray to the rest of us?

Murray too adventurous... that's a belter that is.

 

[THERAFA]

^^^ Murray mixes up his pace too much on a grasscourt (and hardcourt sometimes), that is not the way to win Wimbledon. He won't take a set off Federer or Nadal. Meat and potatoes tennis works best, keep it simple, stupid.

 

[jelle v]

Sorry but they don't. They only have basis if you said he should be favourite in fast hardcourts. On any other surface Murray has not proved he can trouble Nadal. But it doesn't matter, time will put everyone in their place, won't it?

No.. only thing bad results will achieve is that at a certain point Murray won't be favorite for the tournament anymore. It takes nothing away from being (or not being) the favorite in previous tournaments.

If i remember correctly, Murray was favorite to win the Australian Open with the bookies. He didn't win the tournament, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was favorite to win the Australian Open. Would Murray have mounted loss after loss since then, he would not be favorite for a while. But he has had a pretty good year so far with imo the best tennis (boring tennis though). You keep pounding on results of the past or lack of results, but you discard Murray's form. I'm not saying I always agree with the bookmakers, but the point is that they do not only look at past results, as you are doing, otherwise Murray wouldn't have been favorite at the AO.

 

[batz]

^^^ Murray mixes up his pace too much on a grasscourt (and hardcourt sometimes), that is not the way to win Wimbledon. He won't take a set off Federer or Nadal. Meat and potatoes tennis works best, keep it simple, stupid.

So is he too adventurous or does he mix it up too much? You've now claimed both.

Of course even if your assertions were correct, these are only tactical nuances rather than any fundamental weakness in Murray's grass game. I'm sure you know better than Murray.

Whatever you say coach, whatever you say.

 

[Gen]

Whether it was the semis or the quarters doesn't change much. Whether or not a match happend at all (Queens QF!) changes quite a lot. Your post implied Rafa had owned Murray twice on grass within a couple of weeks of each other - but that didn't happen did it?

No, you're right, it didn't. I remember Murray playing Queens last year and that Nadal and Djokovic played in the final, so automatically concluded that he lost to Nadal. Actually don't remember who it was.

 

[batz]

No, you're right, it didn't. I remember Murray playing Queens last year and that Nadal and Djokovic played in the final, so automatically concluded that he lost to Nadal. Actually don't remember who it was.

No worries mate, I make mistakes on here every day. Murray was scheduled to meet roddick in the quarters @ Queens but Roddick got the w/o after Murray withdrew as a precaution for Wimbledon - he'd fell the previous day in his win against Gulbis and had a bit of a light sprain on his thumb.

 

[Gen]

No worries mate, I make mistakes on here every day. Murray was scheduled to meet roddick in the quarters @ Queens but Roddick got the w/o after Murray withdrew as a precaution for Wimbledon - he'd fell the previous day in his win against Gulbis and had a bit of a light sprain on his thumb.

Yeah, thanks. What I do remember about Murray in that tourney was his absolutely nasty fall. He didn't toss the racket, and the handle went right into his belly. I thought he might have internal injuries.

BTW I haven't been saying all this time that Murray doesn't have a chance in Wimbledon. He has. Still I don't think that he is quite in the same league with Nadal and Federer. If I make the list of potential winners, I'd say
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Murray
4. Djokovic (early exit last year doesn't eliminate the fact that he's fairly good on grass)
5. Roddick

 

[batz]

Yeah, thanks. What I do remember about Murray in that tourney was his absolutely nasty fall. He didn't toss the racket, and the handle went right into his belly. I thought he might have internal injuries.

BTW I haven't been saying all this time that Murray doesn't have a chance in Wimbledon. He has. Still I don't think that he is quite in the same league with Nadal and Federer. If I make the list of potential winners, I'd say
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Murray
4. Djokovic (early exit last year doesn't eliminate the fact that he's fairly good on grass)
5. Roddick

And I'm not saying he's the favourite or anything daft like that. Agree 100% with your list above. Rafa is a winning machine, and while I'd love Andy to be in Roger's half, only a fool would write off the guy who made the last 6 finals and won 5 in a row, so Murray is third favourite at best.

I think ARod could do pretty well this year too.

 

[miyagi]

Dont you love when you start a thread that you think hardly anyone will respond to and you come back and all hell has broke loose

Anyway here's my opinion....

Murray will now be "one" of the favourites for all tournaments that he takes part in becuase he is part of the big four!

But none of that matters because look at what happened in the A.O

Favourite is just a word lets see if he can actually be #1

 

[Cyan]

Murray has never even reached a final on grass or clay.....