US Open 2010: Why Murray is a bad match-up for Nadal

[illkhiboy]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/445306-us-open-2010-why-murray-is-a-bad-match-up-for-nadal

People often talk about who is their favorite player to watch on the tennis court. While I have certain favorite players I prefer watching over others, I’m more interested in match ups. My three favorites are Nalbandian, Federer and Davydenko. But give me Nadal vs. Murray any day over a Davydenko vs. Ferrer, Federer vs. Berrer, or Nalbandian vs. Niemenen. I don’t particularly like watching either Nadal or Murray, but I’d say it’s my favorite match up along with Nalbandian vs. Nadal.

Aside from maybe Nalbandian, no player who’s had success against Nadal puts more thought into playing the Spaniard than the Scotsman. On hard courts, Nadal’s used to players stepping in and hurting him off the first strike on faster surfaces. Not many can do it over the course of a set, much less three or five. But even those who can do so, find Nadal making adjustments over the course of two or three meetings and making them feel helpless.

The 24 year old from Majorca has conquered all of the heavy ball strikers who have once thumped him into submission on important occasions. He has won the last few encounters with Fernando Gonzalez since he lost to the Chilean at the 2007 Australian Open in straight sets. He has also won four straight matches against the hard hitting Tsonga, who crushed him in straight sets at the 2008 Australian Open. He has similarly reversed head to head records against Blake, Berdych and Youzhny all of whom once agonized Rafa on fast courts.

Murray, however, has won 4 out of their last 5 encounters on hard courts save for one match in 2009 which we can discount as a freak occurrence because of hurricane winds. The Brit’s success against Rafa boils down to his varied game plan, as opposed to going full throttle on each point to break Nadal’s defenses down. In fact, often Murray will carve out a point such that the winning shot isn’t even close to the lines.

The rest is on...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/445306-us-open-2010-why-murray-is-a-bad-match-up-for-nadal

 

[Heracles]

Let's be serious, I don't think that Murray is a bad match up for Nadal at all. I think that Murray is rather a good match up for Nadal.

When Nadal loses to Murray, he plays badly and this is when he almost lose to journeymen like Benneteau and Kolhschreiber or lose to the likes of Bagdhatis.

When Nadal plays very well, he beat Murray everytime. But when Nadal plays like a top 50, he loses.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

Murray is a choker though

 

[OddJack]

Because Murray has the best BH on tour. If Nadal goes to his BH it comes back with interest. If he goes to his FH, Nadal's slower ball speed allows Murray to be more aggressive.

This is the reason given by Murray himself.

Having that said Nadal is vulnerable on fast HC of north america anyways. Baghy, Lubi, Rod.. they all beat him

 

[Jaitock1991]

Because Murray has the best BH on tour. If Nadal goes to his BH it comes back with interest. If he goes to his FH, Nadal's slower ball speed allows Murray to be more aggressive.

This is the reason given by Murray himself.

Having that said Nadal is vulnerable on fast HC of north america anyways. Baghy, Lubi, Rod.. they all beat him

This is definately one of my favourite match-ups too, especially on HCs. The rallies are always interesting to watch, because there's a lot of variety in them. And not to mention, these are the two greatest defenders in the game, in my opinion. It's unreal to see how many balls they're able to get back over the net, and their oponents often have to win one point 3 or 4 times before actually getting it.
If my beloved Fed isn't going to win the USO this year, I would be thrilled to see Andrew winning it. He's simply too good a player on HCs not to win this tournament, and it's about time that he starts winning some slams now. He deserves it, weather you guys in here like it or not.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

Seems like Murray's fh is different vs Nadal

 

[Jaitock1991]

Because Murray has the best BH on tour. If Nadal goes to his BH it comes back with interest. If he goes to his FH, Nadal's slower ball speed allows Murray to be more aggressive.

This is the reason given by Murray himself.

Having that said Nadal is vulnerable on fast HC of north america anyways. Baghy, Lubi, Rod.. they all beat him

Sorry. My post wasn't meant for you only. I didn't mean to quote it. Sorry...

 

[illkhiboy]

This is definately one of my favourite match-ups too, especially on HCs. The rallies are always interesting to watch, because there's a lot of variety in them. And not to mention, these are the two greatest defenders in the game, in my opinion. It's unreal to see how many balls they're able to get back over the net, and their oponents often have to win one point 3 or 4 times before actually getting it.
If my beloved Fed isn't going to win the USO this year, I would be thrilled to see Andrew winning it. He's simply too good a player on HCs not to win this tournament, and it's about time that he starts winning some slams now. He deserves it, weather you guys in here like it or not.

Absolutely agree. I love all the slicing and dicing, and the incredible gets from impossible positions. Should have mentioned that in the piece.

 

[flyinghippos101]

Murray-Nadal matchup IMO is the best match up you could have. Forget the Federer-Nadal final that everyone seems to want, despite knowing the forthcoming result (Hint* Fed chokes under the pressure while Nadal makes him run around the court and makes him cry, true story. AO 2009) I honestly don't see how people see Murray as a bad match-up for Nadal. In almost every single one of their encounters, Nadal has been either injured or out of form. The match was always on Rafa's racket, forget Murray playing "smart" tennis. You cannot use these matches to accurately evaluate the respective strengths and weaknesses between their encounters. Indian Wells in 2009 was a testamate of Nadal's excellent hard court prowess where he served Muzzaclown a fresh breadstick. Trust me, when they meet in the semis, it will be a three set beatdown. You can count on it.

 

[nikdom]

Their recent semis match in Toronto was great. Murray has great things coming if he can mentally keep his sh*t together during the two weeks of a slam.

 

[OddJack]

Sorry. My post wasn't meant for you only. I didn't mean to quote it. Sorry...

If Not Rodge, I would like to see Murray win as well.

 

[nikdom]

If Not Rodge, I would like to see Murray win as well.

Ditto OddJack. Its Judy Murray that I can't stand.

 

[illkhiboy]

Murray-Nadal matchup IMO is the best match up you could have. Forget the Federer-Nadal final that everyone seems to want, despite knowing the forthcoming result (Hint* Fed chokes under the pressure while Nadal makes him run around the court and makes him cry, true story. AO 2009) I honestly don't see how people see Murray as a bad match-up for Nadal. In almost every single one of their encounters, Nadal has been either injured or out of form. The match was always on Rafa's racket, forget Murray playing "smart" tennis. You cannot use these matches to accurately evaluate the respective strengths and weaknesses between their encounters. Indian Wells in 2009 was a testamate of Nadal's excellent hard court prowess where he served Muzzaclown a fresh breadstick. Trust me, when they meet in the semis, it will be a three set beatdown. You can count on it.

Nadal was playing excellent tennis against Murray at this year's Australian Open. Now I do think that Nadal can hurt Murray, which is why even at Toronto he had chances in both sets. But clearly he has a problem when he's been losing all of their hard court matches in the past 2 years...save the Indian Wells which was on an extremely windy day! That match tells you nothing about how their games match up.

 

[flyinghippos101]

Nadal was playing excellent tennis against Murray at this year's Australian Open. Now I do think that Nadal can hurt Murray, which is why even at Toronto he had chances in both sets. But clearly he has a problem when he's been losing all of their hard court matches in the past 2 years...save the Indian Wells which was on an extremely windy day! That match tells you nothing about how their games match up.

Nadal would've easily beaten Murray had he been healthy, he played mediocre hard court tennis but still gave Murray a run for his money. And that's the thing, Nadal can play so well on hard courts, that even playing his C game, can still have open chances against an on-fire opponent. None of these hard court encounters mean anything, Murray is in for a rude awakening if he thinks his previous wins over Rafa mean anything.

 

[illkhiboy]

Nadal would've easily beaten Murray had he been healthy, he played mediocre hard court tennis but still gave Murray a run for his money. And that's the thing, Nadal can play so well on hard courts, that even playing his C game, can still have open chances against an on-fire opponent. None of these hard court encounters mean anything, Murray is in for a rude awakening if he thinks his previous wins over Rafa mean anything.

You know what, you're right. Nadal is the king. Actually, he could be playing his E game and still beat everyone at the Open. Unfortunately, he is always injured and thus relegated to his F game for the most part. In fact sometimes he plays his G game, which is why he loses to clowns like Youzhny - but it's also the reason he has fans like Lil' Wheezy.

What I personally find infuriating though, is that sometimes he even brings his H game which is when donut-boys like Nalbandian can hang with him. Fortunately, this year in Miami Nadal brought his D game so he won that encounter fairly easy. Though I think he played with his H game in the first set, which is why he lost but only 7-6!

Here is a list of players who Nadal can beat playing at less than his B game:

Federer - B minus
Muzzaclown - C
Djokovic - C Minus (Proof: Olympics)
Fat Dave - D
Tsonga - E Minus

Oh well I can list the whole tour...

 

[clayman2000]

But the big question is: if Murray is a bad matchup for Rafa.... why cant he touch him on grass?

 

[Clay lover]

But the big question is: if Murray is a bad matchup for Rafa.... why cant he touch him on grass?

For some reason Murray's "pushing" just doesn't work against Nadal on grass, maybe because the bounce is lower and the surface is still arguably faster, so the ball is actually more in Nadal's hitting zone and Nadal's flat backhand does more damage. On hardcourt he would just loop high forehands to Nadal's backhand all the time which gives Nadal serious trouble.

 

[veroniquem]

Having that said Nadal is vulnerable on fast HC of north america anyways. Baghy, Lubi, Rod.. they all beat him

They all beat Fed as well... So I guess everyone is vulnerable on fast hard.

 

[NLBwell]

LI don't think that Murray is a bad match up for Nadal at all. I think that Murray is rather a good match up for Nadal.

????

I honestly don't see how people see Murray as a bad match-up for Nadal.

?????

Murray beats Nadal a much higher percentage of the time than most players on tour. Nadal wins about 85% of his matches. They are 4-4 in their last 8 matches - that would be the definition of a bad matchup.

 

[NLBwell]

They all beat Fed as well... So I guess everyone is vulnerable on fast hard.

Pretty true. It is the surface where the most number of players can be competitive against the best guys.

 

[Jchurch]

Murray is just very comfortable going for his shots against Nadal. He seems to be willing to take more chances and let balls rip against Nadal.

 

[Jchurch]

They all beat Fed as well... So I guess everyone is vulnerable on fast hard.

When have any of those players beat Federer on FAST hard court. So many people seem to declare Nadal is currently in his prime, and there is no way Federer lost to any of those players in his prime on FAST hard court.

 

[batz]

Let's be serious, I don't think that Murray is a bad match up for Nadal at all. I think that Murray is rather a good match up for Nadal.

When Nadal loses to Murray, he plays badly and this is when he almost lose to journeymen like Benneteau and Kolhschreiber or lose to the likes of Bagdhatis.

When Nadal plays very well, he beat Murray everytime. But when Nadal plays like a top 50, he loses.

Ah, another ******* who has a caveat for every match that Rafa doesn't win without losing a point.

What is it about some Rafa fans in particular that seeks to make excuse after excuse for Rafa's losses and stops them giving credit to opponents who beat Rafa?

Shall I bother posting the AO 2010 post match presser where Rafa said he was playing his best since the AO final of 2009 - but Murray was too good? Would that have any impact on your thought process or would you simply tell yourself that Rafa doesn't really think that - deep down he knows he should win every game without losing a point?

 

[illkhiboy]

Ah, another ******* who has a caveat for every match that Rafa doesn't win without losing a point.

What is it about some Rafa fans in particular that seeks to make excuse after excuse for Rafa's losses and stops them giving credit to opponents who beat Rafa?

Shall I bother posting the AO 2010 post match presser where Rafa said he was playing his best since the AO final of 2009 - but Murray was too good? Would that have any impact on your thought process or would you simply tell yourself that Rafa doesn't really think that - deep down he knows he should win every game without losing a point?

You don't get it, Nadal could be playing his C game and still beat the Murray-clown. For some of the other ATP-clowns, Nadal could play his E-minus game and still pummel them into the ground. Why last year at the US Open, Nadal was often playing his G game.

 

[batz]

You don't get it, Nadal could be playing his C game and still beat the Murray-clown. For some of the other ATP-clowns, Nadal could play his E-minus game and still pummel them into the ground. Why last year at the US Open, Nadal was often playing his G game.

You're right - I apologise. The only reason Rafa has lost any of his matches on tour is that he wasn't rested/motivated/fit/healthy/match sharp/at the correct altitude/brought his A game

If Rafa is rested and motivated and fit and healthy and match sharp and at the right altitutde with his A game - then he's invincible.

 

[rovex]

Murray-Nadal matchup IMO is the best match up you could have. Forget the Federer-Nadal final that everyone seems to want, despite knowing the forthcoming result (Hint* Fed chokes under the pressure while Nadal makes him run around the court and makes him cry, true story. AO 2009) I honestly don't see how people see Murray as a bad match-up for Nadal. In almost every single one of their encounters, Nadal has been either injured or out of form. The match was always on Rafa's racket, forget Murray playing "smart" tennis. You cannot use these matches to accurately evaluate the respective strengths and weaknesses between their encounters. Indian Wells in 2009 was a testamate of Nadal's excellent hard court prowess where he served Muzzaclown a fresh breadstick. Trust me, when they meet in the semis, it will be a three set beatdown. You can count on it.

Haha ŷou are soo wrong it makes me giggle!

 

[david93]

Haha ŷou are soo wrong it makes me giggle!

Me too.
There we go, Nadal was either injured or out of form when he lost to Murray.
What a coincidence!

 

[batz]

Me too.
There we go, Nadal was either injured or out of form when he lost to Murray.
What a coincidence!

It's an 'essence of fanboy' position.

Their lives are so absolutely wedded to the subject of their fanboyism that they have to rationalise his losses otherwise it's too painful. The fact that this 'rationalistion' is more akin to self delusion and involves making arguments that 4 year olds would question seems to escape these poor deluded folk.

 

[namelessone]

Nadal can definitely beat Murray on HC, in each match that he lost he had chances, in fact he was the one that had chances to strike the first blow in both AO 10' and Tornto 10' but he was passive. It's not like he was losing 2,2 and 2.

Murray beats Rafa on HC because:

1)defends almost as well as Rafa and Rafa almost always has to hit another ball to win the point.

2)Rafa's loopy balls give Muzza time to hit, even when they are hit deep.

3)Rafa's fh, biggest weapon, sits up on this court instead of exploding off court like on natural surfaces. One of the things that was hurting Murray in their WB match is that he was getting abused, even on BH, cause he was always hitting on the run, he couldn't plant his feet to hit the ball like on HC cause the ball was always spinning away from him.

5)Andy's BH can handle Rafa's fh on these courts, even on low angled balls.

6)Murray's fav player is Rafa and they know eachothers games by heart. Rafa feels more confident against Andy on natural surfaces(and it shows in body language) and he feels more down on his luck against Andy on HC. Andy has said that he studies Rafa's game and he loves to watch him play so you know that he is familiar with Rafa's playing style.

In the end it's a matter of match up and history. Murray does to Rafa on HC what Rafa did to Fed on clay. Fed would have the upper hand on clay at times(have BP's first, break first and so on) but would get tight cause he knew this was it, he needs to get this to win and got passive and the same thing happens to Rafa with Murray on HC. Once he gets an advantage he gets tight, serve starts wavering, his baseline play isn't as crisp and Murray breaks back. And what usually happens afterwards is that Murray holds serve pretty easily and Nadal gets broken again afterwards.

Murray has a comfort zone with Rafa on HC cause of his BH and Rafa's loopy shots whereas Rafa knows that he can turn to Fed's BH and keep him on his toes at all times.

 

[batz]

Nadal can definitely beat Murray on HC, in each match that he lost he had chances, in fact he was the one that had chances to strike the first blow in both AO 10' and Tornto 10' but he was passive. It's not like he was losing 2,2 and 2.

Murray beats Rafa on HC because:

1)defends almost as well as Rafa and Rafa almost always has to hit another ball to win the point.

2)Rafa's loopy balls give Muzza time to hit, even when they are hit deep.

3)Rafa's fh, biggest weapon, sits up on this court instead of exploding off court like on natural surfaces. One of the things that was hurting Murray in their WB match is that he was getting abused, even on BH, cause he was always hitting on the run, he couldn't plant his feet to hit the ball like on HC cause the ball was always spinning away from him.

5)Andy's BH can handle Rafa's fh on these courts, even on low angled balls.

6)Murray's fav player is Rafa and they know eachothers games by heart. Rafa feels more confident against Andy on natural surfaces(and it shows in body language) and he feels more down on his luck against Andy on HC. Andy has said that he studies Rafa's game and he loves to watch him play so you know that he is familiar with Rafa's playing style.

In the end it's a matter of match up and history. Murray does to Rafa on HC what Rafa did to Fed on clay. Fed would have the upper hand on clay at times(have BP's first, break first and so on) but would get tight cause he knew this was it, he needs to get this to win and got passive and the same thing happens to Rafa with Murray on HC. Once he gets an advantage he gets tight, serve starts wavering, his baseline play isn't as crisp and Murray breaks back. And what usually happens afterwards is that Murray holds serve pretty easily and Nadal gets broken again afterwards.

Murray has a comfort zone with Rafa on HC cause of his BH and Rafa's loopy shots whereas Rafa knows that he can turn to Fed's BH and keep him on his toes at all times.

Re bolded sentence - of course he can beat Murray; he's done it 4 times!

Re the rest: +1

 

[Spider]

It is ridiculous to even suggest Nadal was injured even once when Murray spanked him bad. I am sorry to break your bubble, Murray is one of best talents on tour who happens to be a nightmare match up for anyone on hard courts. Nadal is tough but doesn't have it him to beat Murray on hard courts (which proves why he has lost the last 4 out of 5 times they played).

Murray's toughest challenge has been Federer on hard courts, and Fed might be the only one capable enough to stop him from winning the US open this year.

 

[above bored]

But the big question is: if Murray is a bad matchup for Rafa.... why cant he touch him on grass?

Grass plays completely differently and hardcourt is Murray's favourite surface. There's a traction issue on grass. That, coupled with the fact balls die more quickly after the bounce means it's more difficult to push off and get to balls before they are past you or bounce twice. On hardcourts everyone can get to balls significantly more quickly and the ball stays in the air longer after the bounce. Murray can effectively chase down balls all day and become the wall that Nadal often is to his opponents. He can also couple that consistency with aggression and put pressure on Nadal's game in a way he cannot as effectively on other surfaces. I think Nadal's serve is also more effective on grass than it is on hardcourts.

 

[david93]

Nadal is probably capable of beating Murray on HC but therefore he has to play his best tennis, which he defenitely does not at the moment.
But he'll maybe surprise us and pull off some magical stuff at the USO

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Nadal's level has to be higher than Murray's on this surface. If they are at the same level, Murray wins imo.

 

[above bored]

It goes without saying that all the top players are capable of beating each other. Even if they have been on a 10+ match losing streak, the margins are very small and there is always a chance they can win the next one. On hardcourt it's just clear that Murray is, at least, Nadal's equal and probably a little better, so he is always going to go into the match with a good chance of success, all things being equal.

 

[thalivest]

When have any of those players beat Federer on FAST hard court. So many people seem to declare Nadal is currently in his prime, and there is no way Federer lost to any of those players in his prime on FAST hard court.

Federer has lost to Hrbaty, 18 year old Berdych, and Canas in his "prime" on fast hard courts. And if you are talking about just the U.S Open or TMC, well Nadal in his prime would never lost to a hip busted way past his prime Kuerten at the French Open either.

 

[thalivest]

Murray is not a bad matchup for Nadal at all. He has been creamed everytime by Nadal on clay and even grass, which on grass would not be the case so emphatically if he was a bad matchup. And even on hard courts, Murray's best surface where he has many Masters titles and 2 slam finals, and Nadal's worst of course, they still split the meetings.

 

[rovex]

Murray is not a bad matchup for Nadal at all. He has been creamed everytime by Nadal on clay and even grass, which on grass would not be the case so emphatically if he was a bad matchup. And even on hard courts, Murray's best surface where he has many Masters titles and 2 slam finals, and Nadal's worst of course, they still split the meetings.

Mugza beaten Nadal pretty much every time on hard since being a top plAyer, it's needless to use results from a pre peak Murray.

 

[Kaz00]

Delpo vs Nadal = bad match up

 

[OddJack]

They all beat Fed as well... So I guess everyone is vulnerable on fast hard.

Sure anyone can be vulnerable on HC, or any surface for that matter.
The diff. is Nadal still doesnt have a major in NY, and he never dominated HC... so when you compare him with Federer you want to consider these facts, then talk about who's more vulnerable.

 

[Heracles]

????



?????

Murray beats Nadal a much higher percentage of the time than most players on tour. Nadal wins about 85% of his matches. They are 4-4 in their last 8 matches - that would be the definition of a bad matchup.

I think you have a logic problem.

If Murray beat Nadal more time than the lambda player it's only because he is better (number 4) that the other players.

If I take account your logic, then Murray is a bad match up for Nadal and Nadal is a bad match up for Murray. Your logic fails.

 

[Heracles]

Ah, another ******* who has a caveat for every match that Rafa doesn't win without losing a point.

What is it about some Rafa fans in particular that seeks to make excuse after excuse for Rafa's losses and stops them giving credit to opponents who beat Rafa?

Shall I bother posting the AO 2010 post match presser where Rafa said he was playing his best since the AO final of 2009 - but Murray was too good? Would that have any impact on your thought process or would you simply tell yourself that Rafa doesn't really think that - deep down he knows he should win every game without losing a point?

Nadal was absolutely awful, clownish during all the Australian Open 2010. Bewteen Roma 2009 and MC 2010, Nadal was a joke, in his slump following his injury. He was not even top 10 by his level of play and was losing against any decent opponent.

At OA 2010, Kohlschreiber almost took him to a fifth set.

Basically you are proving my points. Murray is beating Nadal but only when Nadal is struggling against everybody. Murray is just too good to lose against a bad Nadal unlike most of the players.

 

[abmk]

Nadal was absolutely awful, clownish during all the Australian Open 2010. Bewteen Roma 2009 and MC 2010, Nadal was a joke, in his slump following his injury. He was not even top 10 by his level of play and was losing against any decent opponent.

At OA 2010, Kohlschreiber almost took him to a fifth set.

Basically you are proving my points. Murray is beating Nadal but only when Nadal is struggling against everybody. Murray is just too good to lose against a bad Nadal unlike most of the players.

You actually need to watch those matches . yes nadal was off vs kohlschreiber, but he improved his play as the tournament progressed and played darn well vs murray >> Go and watch the match ....

you are a real *clown* if you watched the match and actually believe that nadal didn't play well vs murray

 

[batz]

Nadal was absolutely awful, clownish during all the Australian Open 2010. Bewteen Roma 2009 and MC 2010, Nadal was a joke, in his slump following his injury. He was not even top 10 by his level of play and was losing against any decent opponent.

At OA 2010, Kohlschreiber almost took him to a fifth set.

Basically you are proving my points. Murray is beating Nadal but only when Nadal is struggling against everybody. Murray is just too good to lose against a bad Nadal unlike most of the players.

Of course he was. That's why he said he was playing his best since the AO 09 final in his presser after losing to Murray in January. But, as I predicted earlier, you will choose to ignore this fact as it doesn't fit into that self deluding, essence of fanboy 'Rafa would have won were it not for <insert excuse here>' worldview of yours.

We get it. Rafa has never lost a match where there wasn't a caveat that explains how Rafa should have won it. Rafa would go through his entire career unbeaten were it not for these caveats.

 

[batz]

You actually need to watch those matches . yes nadal was off vs kohlschreiber, but he improved his play as the tournament progressed and played darn well vs murray >> Go and watch the match ....

you are a real *clown* if you watched the match and actually believe that nadal didn't play well vs murray

Rafa had more than twice the break points in that AO match than he had during their Wimby semi final. Murray played the big points great, but for the first 2 sets, it was nip and tuck. A bit like a mirror of their Wimby match.

 

[Heracles]

You actually need to watch those matches . yes nadal was off vs kohlschreiber, but he improved his play as the tournament progressed and played darn well vs murray >> Go and watch the match ....

you are a real *clown* if you watched the match and actually believe that nadal didn't play well vs murray

I watched those match and I say again what I say, and more time than 1.

Nadal was horrible against Kohlshreiber for the most part and was bad against Karlovic and Murray. If you disagree you can as well go away. I feel I am perfectly right and what happened before and after that match shows me that I was right.

So Murray beat Nadal at Rotterdam, when Nadal was almost losing to the likes of Bolleli and Dimitrov, at AO, during Nadal slump and in Toronto, when Nadal almost lost to Kohlschreiber and in the following tourney almost lost to Benneteau and lost to Bagdhatis.

I am perfectly right.

When Murray beat Nadal, it's when Nadal is struggling against everybody eslse. As simple as that. Facts are facts and you can't deny them.

Each time Murray has beaten Nadal, Nadal was playing poor and losing/almost losing to inferiors players.

 

[aphex]

Of course he was. That's why he said he was playing his best since the AO 09 final in his presser after losing to Murray in January. But, as I predicted earlier, you will choose to ignore this fact as it doesn't fit into that self deluding, essence of fanboy 'Rafa would have won were it not for <insert excuse here>' worldview of yours.

We get it. Rafa has never lost a match where there wasn't a caveat that explains how Rafa should have won it. Rafa would go through his entire career unbeaten were it not for these caveats.

Don't be so insensitive.
That was when Rafa heard that Donald Trump got a divorce from Ivana and was really upset.

Also, the water level in Australian lakes had dropped 1 centimeter in the past six months...that had a really adverse effect on his match plan...Murray was very lucky...

 

[abmk]

I watched those match and I say again what I say, and more time than 1.

Nadal was horrible against Kohlshreiber for the most part and was bad against Karlovic and Murray. If you disagree you can as well go away. I feel I am perfectly right and what happened before and after that match shows me that I was right.

umm, then you are clueless/delusional, he played pretty well vs karlovic ( the only break and set that karlovic won was due to some fluke play) and darn good vs murray ...

So Murray beat Nadal at Rotterdam, when Nadal was almost losing to the likes of Bolleli and Dimitrov, at AO, during Nadal slump and in Toronto, when Nadal almost lost to Kohlschreiber and in the following tourney almost lost to Benneteau and lost to Bagdhatis.

I am perfectly right.

umm, no you are perfectly delusional ... Did I even talk about rotterdam ?

When Murray beat Nadal, it's when Nadal is struggling against everybody eslse. As simple as that.

Each time Murray has beaten Nadal, Nadal was playing poor and losing/almost losing to inferiors players.

umm, no ...

Facts are facts and you can't deny them.

yes, fact is murray is 4-1 vs nadal in their previous 5 HC encounters

 

[Murrayfan31]

Murray likes the high ball on both sides. He feasts on those type of shots from Nadal. It's definitely a nightmare matchup for Nadal. His only chance to winning the US Open is if Murray was on the other side of the draw and Federer found a way to beat him.

 

[Heracles]

All of Murray's victories over Nadal (except maybe the USO one) were when Nadal was playing s.hit and was getting dominated by inferior players.

Now that nobody deny that , I can say without doubt that my point has been proved.

When Nadal is at his best he wins, when Nadal plays badly and struggle against top 50's , he loses against Murray.