Murray Was Wrong Says Nadal

This is from an article by Niel Harman. IMO one of the best tennis writers around. Unfortunately as most will realise I'm unable to provide links as its a PPV site.

Murray apparently believes that the top 4 have all improved this year. This was put to Nadal and this was his response.

“I am not in agreement,” Nadal said. “I think Djokovic, yes. I played worse than last year. I was very regular, probably even more regular than last year, but I played a little bit worse, I think. Roger played well, but he lost a few more matches that in the past he was never going to lose.”

He didn't mention Murray himself. Don't know if I'm correct to presume this means Nadal thinks Murray has stayed at the same level.

Who is correct Nadal or Murray?

It's a no-brainer really. Djokovic has certainly made a huge leap. It is debatable for Murray himself though he's fitter and stronger than ever. Nadal's game has witnessed retrogression: particularly the serve and backhand not to mention the wilting confidence.

Federer is more aggressive than ever and in the technical side of the game, he's never been better but he's half-a-step slower and he can rarely sustain a high in a match. He seems to switch off mentally in periods of matches.

All-in-all, Murray was talking bull.

Murray is forever talking up the top two, now three, how he is up against the best players ever, etc., and I don’t think it helps his cause. Nadal has done similarly of course but you never really believed he meant it, especially as he was talking about players, eg Federer, whom he could have good reason to feel superior to.

In Andy’s case, I think in constantly bigging up the players ahead of him in the rankings, he’s making a tough task even tougher. Be the man Andy!

Hmmm, I think that Murray may be right that the top 4 have distanced themselves further from the rest than ever before. Only 3 out of 16 slam SF berths have gone to others compared to 7 in 2010 and 8 in 2009. Wider still, thus far they have lost a cumulative total of 38 odd matches out of 270 odd of which only 16 have been against players out of the top 4.

Djoko is much much better this year - that we can all agree on. I think that the key to looking at the rest of the top 4 is that Djoko's improvement has probably distorted the overall picture.

Murray remains frustratingly inconsistent, but marginally less so than in 2010 and in particular at the slams. It seems undeniable (to me) that he's improved from last year, just not as much as Djoko and not enough to take Nadal's scalp.

Nadal has arguably improved compared to everyone else on the tour except for Murray and Djoko. He has made 3 more finals than last year and he still managed to hold off an improved Murray when it mattered. Djoko's consistent exposure of his limitations has played with his mind more than before, thus making him seem more vulnerable at times against others, but the bottom line is that nobody else has truly exploited that and he is still 65-6 vs the rest. His USO 2010 serve was much better, but it was hardly a fixture of his overall game.

Fed is losing matches now he would not have done before, but when he hits the heights it's still truly marvellous and he has suffered 7 out of his 12 losses vs. Nadal or Djoko indicating that their form still plays a large part in our perception of how he's doing.

It's so predictable that when a player has a good run he has to try to make out his achievements are even better by saying others have improved.

Nadal and Federer (clearly) have gone backwards. I honestly can't tell with Murray, he's not really been on my radar as much as ther top 3 - even though he may well take #3 to be honest he's not been a decisive influence on any Slam.

hawkeye wrote:This is from an article by Niel Harman. IMO one of the best tennis writers around. Unfortunately as most will realise I'm unable to provide links as its a PPV site.

Murray apparently believes that the top 4 have all improved this year. This was put to Nadal and this was his response.

“I am not in agreement,” Nadal said. “I think Djokovic, yes. I played worse than last year. I was very regular, probably even more regular than last year, but I played a little bit worse, I think. Roger played well, but he lost a few more matches that in the past he was never going to lose.”

He didn't mention Murray himself. Don't know if I'm correct to presume this means Nadal thinks Murray has stayed at the same level.

Who is correct Nadal or Murray?

I agree about Neil Harman, always enjoy reading what he has to say. I think the key here is that Nadal has had a lesser year so is unlikely to say that he has improved but ended up with less since his annus mirabilis last year. On the other hand, Murray has had a better year at the slams, and could end up as #3 before the year is out and I'm sure he'd rather believe that it was in the face of stiffer competition. Elements of Federer's game may have improved but the whole package has definitely not, otherwise Murray would not be overtaking him.

My own view is that Djokovic improved out of sight, Nadal has been largely similar but displayed frailties at big moments (and in lesser ones, particularly with being broken back or broken when serving for sets), Murray has been more consistent at slam level but seemingly at the expense of being able to pull out a stellar performance when needed against the top guys and Federer has got another year older, making him vulnerable to comebacks from 2 sets down.

P4S - my only difference with you is that I think the key thing is not that Nadal's year has been less stellar (it has) but the reason for that, which is not a drop in Nadal's form but Djoko's huge improvement - if there had been a less striking 50/50 share of those 6 finals Nadal's year would be looking like a very solid follow up from last year and Djoko's improvement would be looking great but not extraordinary.

I disagree with Murray - I think the difference this year is that Novak has really got his act together and is winning the key points - he always looked like a real threat to Rafa but there was a huge gulf between the two in maturity and confidence.

This is not the first time that Murray has talked up a player over another - he has done it time and time again with Roger and Rafa, and he made a very unwise comment about No 2 being not much difference (a few matches here and there I think he said) from No 1 when Federer regained the No 1 in 2009 and Murray was very briefly No 2. In fact it was TMF (often perceived as arrogant) who acknowledged when lifting the Wimbledon Trophy that he did so in the absence of Rafa, and Murray who failed to acknowledge that his No 2 slot was by virtue of Rafa's absence from Wimbledon, with Rafa thereby forfeiting 2000 ranking points. Andy seems publicly to veer uncomfortably between a little arrogance (which is healthy for a top player) and lack of confidence (which isn't) - he needs to learn to keep some of these thoughts to himself I think!!! Certainly it is very silly to make the kind of statement above when one of the greatest players of all time is ever so slightly on the wane, and another of the greatest of all times is likely to be a little p****ed off, which he clearly was!

If Murray actually said that the top four ranked players have all improved this year then he is definitely wrong. However you have to see the article (which I know like me you can't) to see what context this was said in. Think everyone on these forums is aware that one statement in an interview can be taken out of context and made to look something different from what was actually said.

The top four ranked players ( I still see them as top 3 with Murray a consistent fourth) seem to have distanced themselves (especially Djokovic and Murray) from the remainder this year.

With the huge improvement in Djokovic's form I think Nadal's confidence has taken a bit of a knock. As pointed out above though he actually lost six GS or Masters 1000 finals to Novak who has been amazing. So I don't really think he has gone backwards.

Looks like Federer although he still has the game is realistically going to put most of his efforts into GS events and Masters finals from now on. Again apart from his Wimbledon loss to Tsonga it is only Djokovic and Nadal that have beaten him in slams.

By reaching at least the semi's in all four slams this year plus an improved
clay court season I think Murray can claim to have improved but not to the level where he can consistently really challenge the top three.

"Nadal did not agree with Andy Murray’s assessment that the level of the men’s game had gone up another notch this season, instead suggesting that he and Roger Federer had not been as good as in previous years, and therefore were unable to keep pace with World No. 1 Novak Djokovic. "I don’t think the level has been better than 2010 or 2009. I think it has been similar," said the Mallorcan. "For my part and Roger's part a little bit worse for the moment."

FYI Calder - strangely there were quite a few links and comments on this interview with Nadal earlier today on the internet, but I can't find now, so this is taken from a post on Talk Tennis which quotes directly from the article I read earlier in The Times. The comments from both players were from interviews in Tokyo. The Times article, as Hawkeye has pointed out, cannot be linked directly because it is a subscription only site.

Calder106

Shame everyone can't read that article. Harmen doesn't say where he got the quote from Murray. He does appear to have good relationship with the players though so I trust what he says. I think he was there when someone put Murray's view to Nadal because he describes his reaction -

It was put to Nadal that Murray believed all the top four had improved as players in 2011. The Spaniard blanched.

time please

I can remember Federer mentioning Nadal at the Wimbledon trophy ceremony. I was lucky enough to be able to watch that final live. I have many great memories from that day but Federer talking about Nadal after such an emotional final was one of them. I am sure we are watching two all time greats but what makes it extra special is that I think they both recognise and appreciate each other. It would be all too easy for them to be resentful.

How lucky to be there hawkeye - for me watching on television it was one of the poignant moments - TMF had his W crown back, but he was gracious enough to acknowledge that it was won in Rafa's absence and to express regret that he wasn't there.

There have a much better relationship between them than their fans do, that's for sure

bogbrush wrote:It's so predictable that when a player has a good run he has to try to make out his achievements are even better by saying others have improved.

Nadal and Federer (clearly) have gone backwards. I honestly can't tell with Murray, he's not really been on my radar as much as ther top 3 - even though he may well take #3 to be honest he's not been a decisive influence on any Slam.

Murray more than anything else wanted to highlight how much he has improved mainly based on his all 4 semis performances. Yes it looks like this but I'm not sure he has really improved in his game even when considering only the 4 slams this year.

AO, 2011: the draw opened good for him and even then he had some struggle to beat Dolgopolov and Ferrer to his 3rd final. In the finals he lost without a whimper.

FO, 2011: He could easily have been out in R16 against Troicki, only if Troicki had managed to hold his nerve which unfortunately he couldn't. Troicki has a history of losing matches from winning positions. In the semis again a very one sided tame loss to Nadal where he got beaten in every department of the game.

Wimbledon, 2011: After his queens victory, was high on confidence and form. But lost to Nadal easily in semis. Yes he won the 1st set, but by only marginally, then Nadal wiped the grass court with Murray in the next 3.

USopen , 2011: Again was on the brink of defeat in the 2nd round, but just scrapped to survive. But didn't impress anything much when faced with Nadal in the semis.

Apart from these Murray has losses to players like Donald Young, Bolgomolov jr., Bellucci, Anderson. A masters win with a retirement in the fianls in a tournament which was talked much about for being the worst masters ever.

If you are only going to see the "on-paper" in slams, Murray has improved. But game wise, he is still there where he was, not much different. Pulling out an occasional aggressive game, but mostly back to what he is comfortable at defending and outlasting on stamina. I think Murray's game is just about as far as it can go. Thats why he can show improvement "on-paper" but not much in game. Just a win doesn't mean someone played better and has improved his game. Winning or losing have other factors influencing the outcome as well. I can only see his game from a neutral tennis fan, and from what I see, he hasn't improved much bit game-wise.

I think most posters are in agreement that 2011 hasn't been the best year for Federer and Nadal.

But for me it is impossible to improve on 'greatness' when you look at how much Djokovic has improved and the level he is playing at, the field can't cope.

Murray for me is wrong, and it is somewhat of a bit of kidology.

Look at the picture. Murray has had his best year in the Slams. Is he going to put the short-comings down to him not being able to capatilise on players like Nadal for example not being at his best at Wimbledon or the US Open? No of course not.

It is not Murray 'glamourising' his year, but more of a motivational way of saying I can still get amongst the top 3. I don't think publicly saying that is the right way to go about it though.

Well hopefully the superb Tokyo result (I didn't see, so going from match reports) will lift Murray into remembering that he has had the game to beat the top three in the past.

He needs to put his head down now and just get on with it. Until this result, I would agree that he did look as if he was stagnating slightly - yes the results at slams were more consistent this year, but at none did he look a real threat as I remember him doing at AO 2010 up to the final.

In any event, and taking nothing away from Novak who has been superb all year, Rafa has not looked so dangerous as in the past, nor Federer as fleet of foot and consistent as in earlier days.

legendkillar wrote:It is not Murray 'glamourising' his year, but more of a motivational way of saying I can still get amongst the top 3. I don't think publicly saying that is the right way to go about it though.

I agree legend and think this is the crux of the matter. I actually think it is a very healthy way for Murray to be thinking privately to himself and using it as a motivational tool. However, he should keep schtum because once again he is heaping a little bit more pressure and attention on himself when comments like this come under scrutiny by a journalist...........personally, unless you have an unbreakable iron will, it is unwise to motivate Rafa, even more than he will naturally be, into thrashing you soundly next time you meet

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's so predictable that when a player has a good run he has to try to make out his achievements are even better by saying others have improved.

Nadal and Federer (clearly) have gone backwards. I honestly can't tell with Murray, he's not really been on my radar as much as ther top 3 - even though he may well take #3 to be honest he's not been a decisive influence on any Slam.

Murray more than anything else wanted to highlight how much he has improved mainly based on his all 4 semis performances. Yes it looks like this but I'm not sure he has really improved in his game even when considering only the 4 slams this year.

AO, 2011: the draw opened good for him and even then he had some struggle to beat Dolgopolov and Ferrer to his 3rd final. In the finals he lost without a whimper.

FO, 2011: He could easily have been out in R16 against Troicki, only if Troicki had managed to hold his nerve which unfortunately he couldn't. Troicki has a history of losing matches from winning positions. In the semis again a very one sided tame loss to Nadal where he got beaten in every department of the game.

Wimbledon, 2011: After his queens victory, was high on confidence and form. But lost to Nadal easily in semis. Yes he won the 1st set, but by only marginally, then Nadal wiped the grass court with Murray in the next 3.

USopen , 2011: Again was on the brink of defeat in the 2nd round, but just scrapped to survive. But didn't impress anything much when faced with Nadal in the semis.

Apart from these Murray has losses to players like Donald Young, Bolgomolov jr., Bellucci, Anderson. A masters win with a retirement in the fianls in a tournament which was talked much about for being the worst masters ever.

If you are only going to see the "on-paper" in slams, Murray has improved. But game wise, he is still there where he was, not much different. Pulling out an occasional aggressive game, but mostly back to what he is comfortable at defending and outlasting on stamina. I think Murray's game is just about as far as it can go. Thats why he can show improvement "on-paper" but not much in game. Just a win doesn't mean someone played better and has improved his game. Winning or losing have other factors influencing the outcome as well. I can only see his game from a neutral tennis fan, and from what I see, he hasn't improved much bit game-wise.

Yeah, I don't like to run him down but in reality at all 4 Slams he made no real impact despite reaching a final and 3 semis. It seems extrordinary to say that he still made no impact but one set taken off the big boys in those 4 events backs me up.

In contrast Djokovic won 3, Nadal 1 and TMF beat Djokovic once, took him to mp in another and took a set off Nadal at Roland Garros. If we look at the top boys in terms of what they brought to the big days then they really are 1 ND, 2 RN, 3 RF and 4 AM, emphatically in that order.

Hawkeye, you didnt have to provide a link, but you could have given us a short quote, as that does not infringe copyright.

But then again, even a PPV site has an internet address and there are some of us who do subscribe to such things.

Maybe you could post the link anyway and some of us can see what exactly Murray was alleged to have said.

I have a feeling that the minute Murray wins his first slam (fingers crossed) he'll be cut an awful lot more slack for his public utterances.

Wisdom doesn't come with slam wins, but respect does.

True enough.

I really hope he gets one too, but I'm feeling it may be drifting away. I'd still back any of the other top 4 against him in a final.

bogbrush wrote:True enough.

I really hope he gets one too, but I'm feeling it may be drifting away. I'd still back any of the other top 4 against him in a final.

BB agreed and the following link from today's Daily Record shows that Murray knows it himself.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis-news/2011/10/13/andy-murray-talk-in-with-coaches-after-us-open-defeat-laid-foundation-for-double-victory-86908-23486014/

Jubbahey

The article was from The Times. I gave the complete quote from Nadal and then later the bit from the article that lead to it. Neil Harmon travels extensively with the tour and appears to know the players personally - unlike other journalists reporting tennis. IMO he is to be trusted.

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:True enough.

I really hope he gets one too, but I'm feeling it may be drifting away. I'd still back any of the other top 4 against him in a final.

BB agreed and the following link from today's Daily Record shows that Murray knows it himself.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis-news/2011/10/13/andy-murray-talk-in-with-coaches-after-us-open-defeat-laid-foundation-for-double-victory-86908-23486014/

It's so annoying because only a few years ago he looked almost like an heir apparent.

Good luck to him.

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:True enough.

I really hope he gets one too, but I'm feeling it may be drifting away. I'd still back any of the other top 4 against him in a final.

BB agreed and the following link from today's Daily Record shows that Murray knows it himself.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis-news/2011/10/13/andy-murray-talk-in-with-coaches-after-us-open-defeat-laid-foundation-for-double-victory-86908-23486014/

It's so annoying because only a few years ago he looked almost like an heir apparent.

Good luck to him.

If you could point to one match (and I accept it's probably a nonsense), the SF defeat to Roddick at Wimbledon 2009 must have been a real hammer blow. OK, Fed would probably have gotten him in the final, but watching that match conjoured up visions of glass ceilings for me I had not had before.

The "Daily Record" is a Scottish paper...

And today Nadal has further proven Murray wrong by losing his 13th match of the season to journeyman Florian Mayer.

hawkeye wrote:The "Daily Record" is a Scottish paper...

Yes. Sister paper to the Daily Mirror Is that a problem ?

barrystar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:True enough.

I really hope he gets one too, but I'm feeling it may be drifting away. I'd still back any of the other top 4 against him in a final.

BB agreed and the following link from today's Daily Record shows that Murray knows it himself.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis-news/2011/10/13/andy-murray-talk-in-with-coaches-after-us-open-defeat-laid-foundation-for-double-victory-86908-23486014/

It's so annoying because only a few years ago he looked almost like an heir apparent.

Good luck to him.

If you could point to one match (and I accept it's probably a nonsense), the SF defeat to Roddick at Wimbledon 2009 must have been a real hammer blow. OK, Fed would probably have gotten him in the final, but watching that match conjoured up visions of glass ceilings for me I had not had before.

I dunno, Fed made terribly hard work of Roddick in the final but from Murrays pov it was a possible.

Surely the biggest of all was the AO '09 when he went into the final the favourite with many and was really battered. That was the point where I started to wonder whether all these Masters wins were misleading.

Still time though, and I think he has the game, he just might need some help in the draw.

bogbrush wrote:

barrystar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:True enough.

I really hope he gets one too, but I'm feeling it may be drifting away. I'd still back any of the other top 4 against him in a final.

BB agreed and the following link from today's Daily Record shows that Murray knows it himself.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis-news/2011/10/13/andy-murray-talk-in-with-coaches-after-us-open-defeat-laid-foundation-for-double-victory-86908-23486014/

It's so annoying because only a few years ago he looked almost like an heir apparent.

Good luck to him.

If you could point to one match (and I accept it's probably a nonsense), the SF defeat to Roddick at Wimbledon 2009 must have been a real hammer blow. OK, Fed would probably have gotten him in the final, but watching that match conjoured up visions of glass ceilings for me I had not had before.

I dunno, Fed made terribly hard work of Roddick in the final but from Murrays pov it was a possible.

Surely the biggest of all was the AO '09 when he went into the final the favourite with many and was really battered. That was the point where I started to wonder whether all these Masters wins were misleading.

Still time though, and I think he has the game, he just might need some help in the draw.

AO 2009 he was beaten whilst he had a virus by Verdasco on his great run, I think you mean 2010. I had started to get the jitters before then.

I do indeed, thanks.

At Aus 2010 I was wondering if Murray had slightly peaked and not pressed home his advantage in 2009. I was impressed by his victory over Nadal in the QF for sure and Murray looked good, but the critter did withdraw so you could not be sure whether it signalled a real change

barrystar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:True enough.

I really hope he gets one too, but I'm feeling it may be drifting away. I'd still back any of the other top 4 against him in a final.

BB agreed and the following link from today's Daily Record shows that Murray knows it himself.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis-news/2011/10/13/andy-murray-talk-in-with-coaches-after-us-open-defeat-laid-foundation-for-double-victory-86908-23486014/

It's so annoying because only a few years ago he looked almost like an heir apparent.

Good luck to him.

If you could point to one match (and I accept it's probably a nonsense), the SF defeat to Roddick at Wimbledon 2009 must have been a real hammer blow. OK, Fed would probably have gotten him in the final, but watching that match conjoured up visions of glass ceilings for me I had not had before.

Great point and i'm in full agreement. For me it's definitely the 'one that got away'. Earlier in the year, we can argue that if you get a virus (like he did at the Aus) then that's just tough luck and he was obviously hampered at that years US Open against Cilic, due to his wrist

But Wimbledon 09, is genuinely his one missed opportunity

Looking at the various comments, I think once again there is a gross underestimation of the Top 4

For instance if they haven't improved as a group, given their dominance (particularly since the start of the clay court season) then goodness knows what it says about the rest

Actually Nadal has improved on hard courts - his movement is oceans better than 2009 and even improved on last year. Of course Nole's vast improvement kind of masks Nadal's 'quality'

Fed's understandably gone backwards, but really only mentaly. No-one can deny the sheer quality of his defeats at the FO and US - it's just now there is more self doubt. However, I think he's better than he was in the hard court season of 2008/9

Murray's actually done a bit of a Nick Faldo and gone backwards (Feb 10 - March 11) as he kind of re-modelled himself. This of course doesn't mean to say he didn't have any good results or good play - but whilst he was tinkering with his game (forehand etc) it meant we had a very inconsistent player. Now, he's got the consistency he never had in beating the lesser opponents (since the start of the clay court season he's had one 'shock' defeat). His issue is a tendency to go back to his old self, particularly against Nadal. However, I think he would have beaten Nole at Canada, regardless. Contrary to popular opinion, Murray and Nole are still 'close' when it comes their matches - if one is slightly down this is immediately seized by the other

We now seem to be seeing the subtle metamorphosis drawing towards it's completion. Certainly, no-one can have seen a set of Tennis like Murray displayed against Nadal last Sunday, ever before. Even today's 'expected' victory' against Wawrinka would probably have been a defeat a year ago

It's fine for people to be cynical if there had been no improvement and indeed Murray's form was extremely worrying earlier in the year - but the fact is he simple too good not to win a Slam. It's feasible that he can play to this quality for another 5 year and with the Top 4 being so far ahead of the rest, it's difficult to see him not been at any of these positions during this spell, that surely means a Slam

banbrotam wrote:Certainly, no-one can have seen a set of Tennis like Murray displayed against Nadal last Sunday, ever before.

bantrotam

It sounds like you are a big Murray fan. I'm sure you enjoyed watching that set of tennis and I have to admit it was unusual. Do you think as Murray beat the newly improved 2011 version of Nadal?

Well, Nadal doesn't like to play quick points, especially in tournaments that are non-slam and non-clay. I don't think I will be reading anything at all into the 6-0 set that Murray hit him with. We've seen this before against Nadal, remember?

http://www.milfordonsea.com/Nadal%20Rotterdam%20Feb%2009.jpg

hawkeye wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Certainly, no-one can have seen a set of Tennis like Murray displayed against Nadal last Sunday, ever before.

bantrotam

It sounds like you are a big Murray fan. I'm sure you enjoyed watching that set of tennis and I have to admit it was unusual. Do you think as Murray does he beat the newly improved 2011 version of Nadal?

Yes! My point is that there has been an 'average' improvement in the Top 3, i.e. Nole up 5%, Nadal 0.5%, Fed down 2%. It's only 4 months ago when Murray was closer to falling out of the Top 6 than he was making the Top 3

I think Murray was mentaly blown away by just how good Nole was in the Aus final, as he'd genuinely thought he was as good and could always beat him. Suddenly, he realises he's got to step up even further and fast. Then this causes a conflict - defensive comments about his game "I'm not going to radically change my game" and even an indication that friends and the good life he has was more important than Slams. Very worrying talk for a Murray fan

That was February though and since then Murray has relaxed and realised he is good enough to win - then it's a matter of putting the previous tweaks he'd made in practice and stopping the messing around

Not certain his play he showed against Nadal is needed to beat Nole (I actually think he will most times from now on beat Fed) as it's a different type of match - but ensuring that Nadal fears (once again - as he did up to this time last year) him on hard courts is the key

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Well, Nadal doesn't like to play quick points, especially in tournaments that are non-slam and non-clay. I don't think I will be reading anything at all into the 6-0 set that Murray hit him with. We've seen this before against Nadal, remember?

http://www.milfordonsea.com/Nadal%20Rotterdam%20Feb%2009.jpg

Even us Murray fans, put an * against that victory, given that Nadal was playing on one leg for two sets. No Josiah, the arguments before was that Murray only ever beats a tired / injured Nadal - which could not be used as an excuse this time

You also need to understand that Nadal (strangely for most on these boards ) respects Murray on hard courts and hence will always want to 'put him in his place'. Remember Nole, Nadal and Murray are the next 5 years neither wants to lose to the other (Fed's in there for as long as he wants, but you know what I mean)

banbrotam

I'm glad you understood my comment as it came out a bit garbelled.

Nadal didn't refer to Murray in the quote so I assumed he thought Murrays standard of play has stayed the same. Do you think that Murrays standard has improved this year? If so by how much?

hawkeye wrote:banbrotam

I'm glad you understood my comment as it came out a bit garbelled.

Nadal didn't refer to Murray in the quote so I assumed he thought Murrays standard of play has stayed the same. Do you think that Murrays standard has improved this year? If so by how much?

Murray's play has varied so much in the last 15 months that I don't think any of us can get an angle on it!! Brilliance at last years Toronto Masters was followed by his most abject Slam performance (by some distance!!) Another good Aus showing followed by a defeat to Donald Young

However, there does seem to be a significant improvement in as much as he's got a far more stable 'C' game - meaning he now doesn't lose daft matches. Having said that he is still prone to pointless long matches as shown at the US Open and even today

I think we have to judge at the end of the year and in fairness Nadal would have been damned whatever he'd said. If he states Murray's improved it sounds condescending given that Nadal's beatne him in the last 3 slams

It was great to see that Murray had beaten Nadal so conclusively on a hardcourt banbrotam, it really used to be calling it 50/50 before the match when they met on this surface but lately, however well Murray is playing beforehand, it is hard to predict anything but a Nadal win.

Hopefully this confidence will carry him on well into next year. I was interested to read that Jamie Murray had turned to a sports pscychologist lately (well I presume he did, he mentioned talking to someone to help him with the 'mental side of things'), and I know that Murray has obviously had an indepth talk with his team as reported in Daily Record, but hope very much that he is really focusing on this area - concentration and positivity!

Jubbahey wrote:Hawkeye, you didnt have to provide a link, but you could have given us a short quote, as that does not infringe copyright.

But then again, even a PPV site has an internet address and there are some of us who do subscribe to such things.

Maybe you could post the link anyway and some of us can see what exactly Murray was alleged to have said.

Hawkeye did tell everyone it was from Neil Harman in The Times. The Times is a subscription only site. If you want to access the article, the choices before you are to a) click on The Times Newspaper link - you will see the front page displayed, but when you try and click on an article you will be invited to subscribe to the Newspaper in order to read - help is given in this area. 2) contact the newspaper and ask for a back copy, they usually only charge price of paper plus p&p. c) Sure your local library will have a copy.

It is unfortunate that alone out of the broadsheets, the Times has decided to only allow access online to those who subscribe, but as Hawkeye says Neil Harman is one of the most respected tennis journalists and so it might be worth considering subscribing - it costs £5 a week and you will have a voucher for the paper itself everyday, including the Sunday Times,so it is not a bad deal - you save £2 doing this rather than buying the paper every day. The Times also features a blog from Nadal during Wimbledon and US, which may appeal? Harman is, as H says, very close to all the players, particularly the Nadal camp - so it was actually quite surprising when it was The Daily Telegraph that outbid The Times for serialisation of Rafa's autobiography.

Hope this helps - I can't remember which day the article was on now - would love to help but late for work already, sure someone will point you to correct day.

Hawkeye - can you help Jubb and say which day this article was featured - ta!

Novak's improved, I don't think anyone would argue with that.

Nadal, I feel has lost some confidence from all those beatings at the hands of Novak. Also I feel this year his serve isn't the weapon it was at USO 2010.

Federer, I don't think he's improved, but now he's 30 can you really expect him to get much better ?

Murray, I think he's got better he had a slump after the AO final but had a great clay season, made the semi's of the other 3 slams and currently seems to be playing well.

Thanks Hawkeye and TP.

erictheblueuk wrote:Novak's improved, I don't think anyone would argue with that.

Nadal, I feel has lost some confidence from all those beatings at the hands of Novak. Also I feel this year his serve isn't the weapon it was at USO 2010.

Federer, I don't think he's improved, but now he's 30 can you really expect him to get much better ?

Murray, I think he's got better he had a slump after the AO final but had a great clay season, made the semi's of the other 3 slams and currently seems to be playing well.

Couldn't agree more, which makes those who think that Nadal wasn't bothered last week sound ridiculous. The last think 'The Bull' needs is Murray turning around the form like Nole has done. For me, he's actually the least confident of the Top 4 - hence why he's the hardest trainer

bantro, are you seriously trying to say that Federer plays as good tennis as ever? That flies in the face of defeats to ordinary players who he'd have never been troubled against (Tsonga is one that always satnds out as a player he would have owned at peak but who not troubles him). The speed has gone.

As for your comment about the standard of Murrays final set v Nadal, hyperbole gone mad. I like Murray but you're letting yourself get carried away there.

bogbrush wrote:bantro, are you seriously trying to say that Federer plays as good tennis as ever? That flies in the face of defeats to ordinary players who he'd have never been troubled against (Tsonga is one that always satnds out as a player he would have owned at peak but who not troubles him). The speed has gone.

As for your comment about the standard of Murrays final set v Nadal, hyperbole gone mad. I like Murray but you're letting yourself get carried away there.

Er no. As I'm agreeing that he's not as good. However, he is still playing great Tennis at some of the Slams. My point about the Nadal final set, is that it sent out a vital psychological blow to Nadal, remembering that this is a player who already has seen Nole turn the form around on him and he doesn't want Murray doing it. Having seen some of the play, if you've seen a better double backhand this year........

These are all subtle things and I said earlier this week that Murray beating Nadal on hardcourts i no big deal. For me it was the manner of the victory that was important

Interesting that Murray wants to bring up the subject of consistent balls, likening the situation to a golfer suing different balls every time!!

banbrotam wrote:

Er no. As I'm agreeing that he's not as good. However, he is still playing great Tennis at some of the Slams. My point about the Nadal final set, is that it sent out a vital psychological blow to Nadal, remembering that this is a player who already has seen Nole turn the form around on him and he doesn't want Murray doing it. Having seen some of the play, if you've seen a better double backhand this year........

These are all subtle things and I said earlier this week that Murray beating Nadal on hardcourts i no big deal. For me it was the manner of the victory that was important

Interesting that Murray wants to bring up the subject of consistent balls, likening the situation to a golfer suing different balls every time!!

I honestly believe you're making too much of that victory. I'm not saying anyone, including Nadal, flies out to Asia to get beaten but compared to the slams, the depths to which they're willing to dig up and exploit the reserves of their max potential and willpower is very different. Nadal also notoriously struggles badly this time of the year.

I could imagine him getting a worse mauling at the hands of an in-form Tsonga, DelPotro, Berdych at this time of the year and few would blink at the news of it.

Murray has delivered no psychological blow in a 500 tournament considering he was well beaten by the same player in 3 consecutive slams and coming off 5 consecutive losses to the player including the 02 tie.

You are making too much of a tour win and you need some perspective.

Calder106 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:The "Daily Record" is a Scottish paper...

Yes. Sister paper to the Daily Mirror Is that a problem ?

A hateful rag.
a.k.a Old Firm Oracle

I think the blows have already been done to Nadal this year mentally.
He needs to stop eating humble pie now and come out as a fighter, he seems to have lost self-belief and his approach of always down-playing his chances in the long term doesnt help his overall winning mentality IMO.

I was interested to read after his loss that he needs to spend the next 2-3 months training to come back with stronger shots next season...does that mean building raw strength(!) or tweaking his game to hit harder/flatter...

super_realist wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:The "Daily Record" is a Scottish paper...

Yes. Sister paper to the Daily Mirror Is that a problem ?

A hateful rag.
a.k.a Old Firm Oracle

Article in the Guardian also but then again that's a Manchester based paper so that's probably not acceptable either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/oct/13/andy-murray-shanghai-atp-tour-finals