Murray Was Wrong Says Nadal

mthierry wrote:

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.

hawkeye wrote:

Do you think Nadal was playing well against Murray in Japan? Do you think he was playing well at the US Open 3 years ago? Do you think being injured in Rotterdam and the AO two years ago may have affected his play?

banbrotam wrote:
Considering I've already declared several times that Murray should beat Rafa on hard courts, I'm wondering what you mean by 'some perspective'. I'm discussing the subtle and important psychology that interferes with Nole, Rafa and Andy. And everybody blinks when Rafa loses to someone outside his surrounding three rivals and always when it's 6-0. Did you see that last set? It certainly will make Rafa more honest, next time they meet!! And that is the point. A defeat that to you (in your simple thinking kind of way) reads 'F of a 500 event - move on' is far far more important when the Top 4 play each other.

Otherwise, why did Federer celebrate like he'd won the French Open when he beat Rafa at Madrid in 2009?

I've not said that he's delivered a 'psychological blow' against Nadal, that's the kind of 'Sun' headline comment I expect off you!! However, it certainly will have reminded Nadal that on a decent paced Hard Court he loses to Murray far more than not, 4 times out of the last 6 meetings (ignoring the US Open, because it must certainly wasn't a decent paced court, having been newly laid)

I also suspect that Nadal is far more bothered about keeping Murray a bay by beating him than he is Berdy, Tsonga or even the slam winning Del Boy. This is simply because Murray is a serial Masters winner and a serial Slam semi-finalist, i.e. an obstacle best sorted, at every opportunity so the psychology of the next Slam SF is firmly with Rafa

Stay with posters who have a considered thought (often wrong of course!!) I know it's difficult in these instant access days - but do try

hawkeye wrote:banbrotam

Do you think Nadal was playing well against Murray in Japan? Do you think he was playing well at the US Open 3 years ago? Do you think being injured in Rotterdam and the AO two years ago may have affected his play?

Do you think Nadal played well against Mayer yesterday when Mayer unlike Murray only needed two sets to beat him? Do you think Nadal will beat Mayer next time they play or do you think this match indicates that Mayer is now stronger on hard courts than Nadal?

I know what my answers to those questions are...

Prior to this match in Japan Nadal had beaten Murray 5 straight times. One match in 500 tournament means little. Especially in this Asian swing were everything feels a little stale.

Murray looks set to earn quite a few points here though and is making the most of this time of year.

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Considering I've already declared several times that Murray should beat Rafa on hard courts, I'm wondering what you mean by 'some perspective'. I'm discussing the subtle and important psychology that interferes with Nole, Rafa and Andy. And everybody blinks when Rafa loses to someone outside his surrounding three rivals and always when it's 6-0. Did you see that last set? It certainly will make Rafa more honest, next time they meet!! And that is the point. A defeat that to you (in your simple thinking kind of way) reads 'F of a 500 event - move on' is far far more important when the Top 4 play each other.

Otherwise, why did Federer celebrate like he'd won the French Open when he beat Rafa at Madrid in 2009?

I've not said that he's delivered a 'psychological blow' against Nadal, that's the kind of 'Sun' headline comment I expect off you!! However, it certainly will have reminded Nadal that on a decent paced Hard Court he loses to Murray far more than not, 4 times out of the last 6 meetings (ignoring the US Open, because it must certainly wasn't a decent paced court, having been newly laid)

I also suspect that Nadal is far more bothered about keeping Murray a bay by beating him than he is Berdy, Tsonga or even the slam winning Del Boy. This is simply because Murray is a serial Masters winner and a serial Slam semi-finalist, i.e. an obstacle best sorted, at every opportunity so the psychology of the next Slam SF is firmly with Rafa

Stay with posters who have a considered thought (often wrong of course!!) I know it's difficult in these instant access days - but do try

Maybe you need to read your comments again. You said Murray dealt Nadal a psychological blow.

And what on earth do you mean by Murray SHOULD beat Nadal on hardcourts? Classic case of jumping above one's station while celebrating a bit of success.

I already addressed your tenuous claims about the pace of hardcourts where both have met (prepostrously claiming Melbourne is a quick hardcourt). It's a case built on hindsight: Murray loses and the court was slow (US Open and year end championships at the O2), he wins and with no visible evidence, you declare it was a quick court (like you did Shanghai).

You speak with a lot of hyperbole -using words like "far" very often- and are very excitable. After witnessing the Murray rollercoaster for years, I'd have thought you'd keep a better perspective on his place.

hawkeye wrote:banbrotam

Ha ha! So only the self selected intellegent can appreciate the psychological significance of Murrays victories?

As for Murrays "consistently hard cross court forehand". Everyone knows or rather everyone should know thats one of his weaknesses. He hits it consistantly crosscourt as his down the line forehand is practically non existant. Also when has Nadal talked about the need to get fitter and stronger? From what I've seen its Murray who thinks thats the secret to success

banbrotam wrote:
Er Nadal was playing as well as he was in the early stages of the US Open. I realise that there's a law that states that Murray can only beat his three rivals when they're either;-

1) Tired
2) or disinterested
3) or injured

... so I assume you're implying that Nadal met conditon No.2

You're analogy of Mayer beating Nadal and relating it to Murray, is of course a very entertaining point. Simplistic though and hence of low intelligence. You see Mayer hasn't beaten Nadal in a Masters series or two Grand Slams, so I'm not certain Nadal would be worrying about Mayer's confidence being higher the next time they play

You seem to be either a little bit too limited in your thinking to understand that Murray's victory was psychologically significant, because he came back from a set down, took the best Nadal could throw at him and came back with interest. It's actually rare anything like that happens to Nadal who is a great front runner. But of course Nole has also lost opening sets to Nadal and lost. See where I'm coming from? There was already a slightly unsure Nadal, given Nole's dominance. Now he's got the passive Murray who (apparently) he 'owns' doing exactly to him what Djokovic did

Of course, he, us and Murray knows that it's a relatively small tournament - but the manner of the turnaround was an important moment. Murray seems to have found a consistently hard cross court forehand - easily his weakest shot and Nadal seems to be running out of ideas, talking about the need to get fitter / stronger!!

No-ones saying this makes Murray the 2nd best in the world. What it does is show that the five defeats weren't necessarily a true reflection of their match up on hard courts, given that the closest defeat was on the fastest courts of those five matches. No-one thinks that Murray is going to beat Nadal at the French and Wimbledon yet (I'm a Murray fan who thinks Wimbledon is far too slow for him against Nadal)

time please wrote:FYI Jubb - article is 'Rafa eager to maintain that he is happy with his form and his team' from The Times 12th October.

You are a charmer aren't you mthierry - weren't you someone who was complaining about the courtesy in other peoples' posts?

time please wrote:FYI Jubb - article is 'Rafa eager to maintain that he is happy with his form and his team' from The Times 12th October.

You are a charmer aren't you mthierry - weren't you someone who was complaining about the courtesy in other peoples' posts?

time please wrote:FYI Jubb - article is 'Rafa eager to maintain that he is happy with his form and his team' from The Times 12th October.

Calder106 wrote:So did Murray say that he 'believes that the top 4 have all improved this year' as stated in the OP. Or as reported in all other articles I have seen the question put to Nadal was that Murray had said that 'the level of Mens tennnis has gone up a notch this year

time please wrote:Well to be honest Calder I think that is the intepretation we would all probably reach given Rafa's reaction to, and how he addresses the point. I think it is just a case of paraphrasing from an article and trying to remember exact words when you are unable to paste and copy. It doesn't alter the sense in any way imho.

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Er Nadal was playing as well as he was in the early stages of the US Open. I realise that there's a law that states that Murray can only beat his three rivals when they're either;-

1) Tired
2) or disinterested
3) or injured

... so I assume you're implying that Nadal met conditon No.2

You're analogy of Mayer beating Nadal and relating it to Murray, is of course a very entertaining point. Simplistic though and hence of low intelligence. You see Mayer hasn't beaten Nadal in a Masters series or two Grand Slams, so I'm not certain Nadal would be worrying about Mayer's confidence being higher the next time they play

You seem to be either a little bit too limited in your thinking to understand that Murray's victory was psychologically significant, because he came back from a set down, took the best Nadal could throw at him and came back with interest. It's actually rare anything like that happens to Nadal who is a great front runner. But of course Nole has also lost opening sets to Nadal and lost. See where I'm coming from? There was already a slightly unsure Nadal, given Nole's dominance. Now he's got the passive Murray who (apparently) he 'owns' doing exactly to him what Djokovic did

Of course, he, us and Murray knows that it's a relatively small tournament - but the manner of the turnaround was an important moment. Murray seems to have found a consistently hard cross court forehand - easily his weakest shot and Nadal seems to be running out of ideas, talking about the need to get fitter / stronger!!

No-ones saying this makes Murray the 2nd best in the world. What it does is show that the five defeats weren't necessarily a true reflection of their match up on hard courts, given that the closest defeat was on the fastest courts of those five matches. No-one thinks that Murray is going to beat Nadal at the French and Wimbledon yet (I'm a Murray fan who thinks Wimbledon is far too slow for him against Nadal)

You know, questioning someone's intelligence or calling their argument daft doesn't make your points appear any more convincing: it just makes you appear really juvenile, petty and pathetic. It's possible to have civilized discourse without sinking to that level.

I thought you denied claiming Murray dealt Nadal a psychological blow but you're repeating the absurd claim again. Going as far as comparing it to Nole only shows how out of touch with reality you are. That ludacris claim may have some justification when Murray wins 6 consecutive grand slam and masters 1000 finals for the loss of just 4 sets.

There is nothing "apparent" about Nadal owning Murray. A 13-5 record is an owning in my book and would be a lot worse if they hadn't met just 4 times on clay. And believe it or not, Wimbledon -despite the changes to the surface- is still one of the quickest surfaces on tour. It records significantly more aces and less breaks of serve than any grand slam. Being comparatively slower than the 90's court doesn't make it a slow surface. Murray just gets owned there by Nadal and you can't deal with it.

And did you just have the cheek to make snide remarks about Nadal needing to get stronger and fitter? Isn't the irony lost on you considering Murray talks about it FAR more than any player? There really are too many hilarious comments above to address so I guess I'll allow you wallow in your delusion till the slams next year give you better perspective.

Tenez wrote:Banbro - you are making too much of that last week win over Nadal. Way too much. What about Mayer? Is he going to go on and win slams from now on too?

There is no doubt that Murray can beat the top guys on the day. He has done it before and will eventually do it in slams again soon. But please don't get carried away by that 60. Even Lacko the number 150 in the world bagled Nadal. You have to understand though that the Nadal of post USO season is not the same as the one of spring summer season. It's a completely different player post slams, simply running out of juice.

You first came up with the explanation that Tokyo playing faster helped swing the result from the USO encounter into a Nadal thrashing in just 3 weeks when clearly everybody including Nadal said that Tokyo had actually slow balls (obvious to the eye)?!?. Please stop being so focused on Murray and try to analyse his opposition as well.

Ad BTW, Murray, like Djoko, has the game to beat Nadal on all surfaces in slams ...but he needs to be himself on top form. Next year should be interesting.