Is Murray Closer To The Top Three Now?

Murray put up a fight before losing to Djokovic in 5 sets in their AO semi. Does that performance close the gap between him and the top three?

Murray is taking strength from this loss and thinks that it does.

"I think that gap, I feel tonight I closed it," said the world number four."My job over the next two or three months is to surpass him [Djokovic] and the guys in front of me."The British number one lost last year's final in Melbourne to Djokovic but he thinks he is now nearer to the Serbian as well as world number two and three, Nadal and Federer.

"Everybody matures at different ages and different rates. I feel now like I'm ready mentally [to challenge the top three]," he said."Physically I can still get better, for sure. But in comparison to how I played last year, it was much, much better.

"Tonight's match was important for many reasons. Obviously I wanted to win first and foremost, but after last year, the year that Novak had, I think there's a very fine line between being number one in the world and being three or four."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16765913.stm

I'm not sure how much you can tell from one match but it was a great match. The fact that he believes it closes the gap goes towards closing the gap in itself. He has definitely been guilty of not playing to his full potential against the top three at the slams. Now he is starting to do so we will see what the true picture is.

He says, "My job over the next two or three months is to surpass him [Djokovic] and the guys in front of me."

One close loss to Djoko does not close the gap. IMO the gap will be closed only if he can turn a thrilling slam defeat into a slam victory against the top 3 and grab himself a slice of the slam pie.

I can't fault Murray's performance today, the only disappointment Murray has had since September was the USO SF, should definitely be 1 of the fav's for Wimbledon/Olympics if he keeps it going..

One close loss to Djoko does not close the gap.

It does for a player with limited forehand powers.

I think that Murray's loss of form after AO 2010 and AO 2011 was a sign that he was directionless. He was focusing on his disappointment and not learning from the experience.

With Lendl we can expect Murray to learn from this defeat. So I don't expect to see a dip in form after AO 2012 (as long as Lendl remains by his side). The various tournaments between now and Roland Garros, should all be about development (not turning up to tournaments without a plan, but having a plan that is linked to his intended "career / development" path).

GarthMarenghi wrote:He says, "My job over the next two or three months is to surpass him [Djokovic] and the guys in front of me."

One close loss to Djoko does not close the gap. IMO the gap will be closed only if he can turn a thrilling slam defeat into a slam victory against the top 3 and grab himself a slice of the slam pie.

Yes it bloody well does particularly after the performances of both players last year in Grand Slam Majors. The Murray of a year ago would have capitulated again in straight sets after losing the first set. At least Murray today went down fighting despite losing to a player who is the best player in the World, and a some also-ran nobody. In a year's time I believe that Murray will have won at least 2 Slam Majors (Wimbledon and US Open) and will be challenging Djokovic for the Number 1 in the World Ranking Spot.

gboycottnut wrote:Yes it bloody well does particularly after the performances of both players last year in Grand Slam Majors. The Murray of a year ago would have capitulated again in straight sets after losing the first set. At least Murray today went down fighting despite losing to a player who is the best player in the World, and a some also-ran nobody. In a year's time I believe that Murray will have won at least 2 Slam Majors (Wimbledon and US Open) and will be challenging Djokovic for the Number 1 in the World Ranking Spot.

This is possible, but it will take time to prove to me he has closed that gap. People react very quickly, remember this is just one match. It will take consistent performances for Murray to convince me. Having said that I do believe he will do it and win a slam sooner or later.

GarthMarenghi wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Yes it bloody well does particularly after the performances of both players last year in Grand Slam Majors. The Murray of a year ago would have capitulated again in straight sets after losing the first set. At least Murray today went down fighting despite losing to a player who is the best player in the World, and a some also-ran nobody. In a year's time I believe that Murray will have won at least 2 Slam Majors (Wimbledon and US Open) and will be challenging Djokovic for the Number 1 in the World Ranking Spot.

This is possible, but it will take time to prove to me he has closed that gap. People react very quickly, remember this is just one match. It will take consistent performances for Murray to convince me. Having said that I do believe he will do it and win a slam sooner or later.

Of course he will now that he has a very experienced multi-Slam winner as his coach in Ivan Lendl. Not only is Lendl the godfather behind the idea of bringing intense physical preparation and strict fitness regimes in before the start of a Slam tournament, but Lendl will also be no doubt looking at improving Murray's second serve such that it eventually becomes as big and as potent a weapon as Pete Sampras's second serve was for him during his playing days in the 1990's. So looking at the other 3 players currently ahead of Murray at present, Federer's game can only go downhill from now on as he gets older, Nadal's knees may not last much longer with all the running he has to do due to his playing style, whilst Djokovic may be the number 1 player in the world now but I really cannot see how his game can be improved further than what it already is at present.

gboycottnut wrote:
Of course he will now that he has a very experienced multi-Slam winner as his coach in Ivan Lendl. Not only is Lendl the godfather behind the idea of bringing intense physical preparation and strict fitness regimes in before the start of a Slam tournament, but Lendl will also be no doubt looking at improving Murray's second serve such that it eventually becomes as big and as potent a weapon as Pete Sampras's second serve was for him during his playing days in the 1990's. So looking at the other 3 players currently ahead of Murray at present, Federer's game can only go downhill from now on as he gets older, Nadal's knees may not last much longer with all the running he has to do due to his playing style, whilst Djokovic may be the number 1 player in the world now but I really cannot see how his game can be improved further than what it already is at present.

Gotta give you top marks for being optimistic. If Lendl can improve Murray's second serve to be as potent as that of Sampras then I'll cash my live savings in and hire him myself!

GarthMarenghi wrote:

Gotta give you top marks for being optimistic. If Lendl can improve Murray's second serve to be as potent as that of Sampras then I'll cash my live savings in and hire him myself!

Welcome to 606v2, Garth.

Thanks LF. Have been viewing the tennis forums here for a couple of weeks and felt it was a place for respectable (in most cases), challenging and lively debate.

The gap is closed, only a little now. Even a win wouldn't have fully closed the gap. The gap is not fully closed until he wins a slam.

GarthMarenghi wrote:
One close loss to Djoko does not close the gap.

LoL, pretty much. Nicely put, makes it sound as silly as it is. See what we're dealing with here?

Yes I see what some are saying that it is only one match. However, lest we not forget Djokovic isn't No. 3 or No. 2 in the world but No. 1 and by a tidy margin. In recent encounters Djokovic has even beaten Nadal more comfortably than he beat Murray today. Also remember that towards the tail end of last year Andy briefly became ranked No. 3 in the rankings list so yes he is very close now. Also it keeps him heading in the right direction especially when you consider that Lendl has only been coaching Andy for three weeks. Consigliare doesn't like it - tough. Ask tennis pundits and ex-pros around the world right now and they'll tell you Andy is right in the mix now.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes I see what some are saying that it is only one match. However, lest we not forget Djokovic isn't No. 3 or No. 2 in the world but No. 1 and by a tidy margin. In recent encounters Djokovic has even beaten Nadal more comfortably than he beat Murray today. Also remember that towards the tail end of last year Andy briefly became ranked No. 3 in the rankings list so yes he is very close now. Also it keeps him heading in the right direction especially when you consider that Lendl has only been coaching Andy for three weeks. Consigliare doesn't like it - tough. Ask tennis pundits and ex-pros around the world right now and they'll tell you Andy is right in the mix now.

Agree 100%. The next few months will be telling but, if he keeps playing like he did today, it wll be fun

He's definitely in the mix, but he's been in the mix for the last several years. I'm not sure he's any more so now.
What worries me is that he'll only get so many chances in his career to win a slam and he's already used up quite a lot of them. You can never be sure if another one will come along.

JHM that's also my concern.

Del Potro seized his one big chance so far. Andy's got to do likewise.

JuliusHMarx wrote:He's definitely in the mix, but he's been in the mix for the last several years. I'm not sure he's any more so now.
What worries me is that he'll only get so many chances in his career to win a slam and he's already used up quite a lot of them. You can never be sure if another one will come along.

To be fair he doesn't appear to have a problem creating chances, it's the final bit that stops him every time. He is finally showing signs of overcoming this that he never has before. This will cause me to think positively for at least a fortnight!

This is my take on Murray today:
As for the match itself, since all the talk is on "poor" Andy, I don't think there's any reason for feeling sorry for him today.
He played a good match and has nothing to be ashamed of.
Lost to a better player. End of.

His game was better today than last year, still despite improvements, his forehand still lags behind the top 3, mainly in its variety. There's a lot more to it than a cross-court flat bullet.

Murray's returning today was excellent. Absolute top-notch.

His attitude was a lot better, as well. Notably love vibes flowing between him and the new coach, very nice to see.

If he continues to build on today's match, come clay season, he'll be a nightmare...

His game has been transmuting a lot in the last 3 years and is still work in progress.

In my opinion, Murray still hasn't found identity in his game, or maybe he lost it.

The real Murray was the 2009 weaving counter-puncher.

Nadal exploded, so Murray went Nadal way: piled on pounds of flesh, increased fitness to stupid levels, even started moonballing his forehand.

Thankfully, Lendl stopped the rot.

will be interesting to see where he takes him. Seems like Lendl likes Nole's game a lot .

Yes he has been in the mix ie slam semis and finals but has he ever come so close to beating the world no. 1 in a match of such importance in a slam? Not that I can recall and that is a definite plus. Also being overlooked is the cutting down of rants and raves on court which is also a positive and puts him in a much better place mentally.

YES. He seems to have added some sting to his forehand.Most importantly, his on-court antiques when things weren't going his way was visibly less conspicuous. (I missed the first and 4th set though but he seemed more relaxed overall in other sets) He is getting there, just a matter of time.

10IS wrote:...on-court antiques...

Now that's what I call a typo!

Talent and physically - Yes

Mentally - No

If he can balance the 2, who knows.

I have come to the conclusion that Murray's key problem at the moment is finding his own game. Synchronising his spirit with his tennis.

Once he gets comgortable with himself and the winning game, things may turn around.
At least he's trying. And that's not easy.

He thinks he is, and that's what counts.

wrote:
"I think that gap, I feel tonight I closed it," said the world number four."My job over the next two or three months is to surpass him [Djokovic] and the guys in front of me."The British number one lost last year's final in Melbourne to Djokovic but he thinks he is now nearer to the Serbian as well as world number two and three, Nadal and Federer.

I don't know why Murray has to make these sentiments in public. I feel he says these things more to himself and wants us to believe it but he himself doubts it. How has one match which Andy lost closed any gaps? Just because the match went to 5 sets and was highly exhausting? Look at the match stats, Both players played poor with 18 break of serves and hence the match went to 5 sets. As bad Djo was playing, he is still ahead of Andy in every department of the stats. More winners, Less UEs, more aces, higher first serve %, better returns.. etc etc. So how does Andy (or some of his fans) believe that he is now closer? If the match was of utter quality tennis and Andy was playing extremely high level of tennis throughout a few tournament, even if he has lost, it would have meant he was getting closer. But do we have anything like that? Prior to the AO2011 final Andy had 3-0 in the last 3 encounter against Djo on hard courts. But how did he play in the AO finals?? And what happened after that? Multiple losses to players one would not expect from a #4 player.

He had a great chance to finish #3 year end and he really wanted to reach that goal. But he couldn't. People may think, but a match end result doesn't show everything. Andy Murray will only get closer to the top 3 when his game gets closer. And it hasn't I think. His draw really opened for him, Djo was playing well below his ability, yet Andy wasn't able to take advantage. Now he really thinks he has closed any gaps. I don't think so. The only gaps that he has closed is on the physical side where I do rate him at par with Djo and Nadal.

wrote: "Everybody matures at different ages and different rates. I feel now like I'm ready mentally [to challenge the top three]," he said."Physically I can still get better, for sure. But in comparison to how I played last year, it was much, much better.

I agree the match was very important. But he lost it despite many factors favoring him. Yes it got close in the end. But not because of high level of play. Quite opposite, it was close because of poor play from both. 18 break of serves from 50 BPs ?? Far more UEs than winners??? Look at the quality of the tennis played. Why he keeps telling he can get better physically? How much more physically stronger he wants to get? Is he any less physically strong than the top#3? The 3 of the top 4 players are the physically strongest the tennis world has ever seen. I think he believes thats the only way he can beat them by getting more stronger, hit harder, outlast them. If Andy had played better and even if he had lost in 3 tight sets like Fed lost to Djo in AO semis last year, I might have liked to think he is closer to the top#3 game wise. Both playing poor and the match going to 5 sets doesn't mean he closed any gaps. No way.

wrote:
".... but after last year, the year that Novak had, I think there's a very fine line between being number one in the world and being three or four."

Then I should say Nishikori ( who bageled Djo and won) and Tipsy (defeated Djo at WTF) and Ferrer( beat st. sets at WTF) are closer to Novak compared to Murray who lost a poorly played match from both players. Just the result of one match doesn't prove anything. He shouldn't say that about a fine line between #1 and #4 . At the moment that gap is vast for Murray and the top3 are ahead of him very very clearly.

Welcome back Raider. Very good post too. I however believe that Murray woudl have done better v Nadal for instance or even maybe v Federer. In that sense he is closer.....but as you say certainly not based on what we saw yesterday.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark

"I should say Nishikori ( who bageled Djo and won) and Tipsy (defeated Djo at WTF) and Ferrer( beat st. sets at WTF) are closer to Novak compared to Murray "

------------------------------------------------------------

Murray has more victories over Novak than Nishikori and Tipsy combined. Also when Ferrer played Novak here he couldn't even get a set, and Novak was playing awful.

Thanks for the welcome Tenez. . Its hard to leave 606v2 and its wonderful posters and discussions.

erictheblueuk wrote:
Murray has more victories over Novak than Nishikori and Tipsy combined. Also when Ferrer played Novak here he couldn't even get a set, and Novak was playing awful.

eric, I didn't try to say Nishikori or Tipsy are are closer to Novak than Murray. I just wanted to imply that the result of one poorly played match by both players (which btw Andy lost) can't be made the basis for player closing on the gaps. If this be the case then Nishilori or Tipsy or Ferrer are closer by virtue of their wins. But is it the case in reality?? Of course not. Novak played bad againts Ferrer and yet Ferrer couldn't take a set, I agree. Andy took 2 sets from Djo, but this can also mean Djo played even worse than what he did againt Ferrer. Like I said before if Andy had played great tennis and still lost in st. sets because Djo played better on some key points ( like Fed vs Djo AO 2011 semis) I would have seen him closer to Djo. But what can be concluded from a match where both player played bad making errors after errors. Does Murray think that Djo will play this poorly in all his future matches and hence he will have chances like he had in this match? No way.

Andy will close on any gaps when his game gets closer, not the end results ( which depends on lot of factors ).

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Thanks for the welcome Tenez. . Its hard to leave 606v2 and its wonderful posters and discussions.

And you belong here!

but Lendl will also be no doubt looking at improving Murray's second serve such that it eventually becomes as big and as potent a weapon as Pete Sampras's second serve was for him during his playing days in the 1990's.

Quoting Gboycotnut from above.

Ok maybe I misread this and you were being sarcastic. But lendl would have an easier time curing cancer than making Andy Murray's second serve as potent as Pete Sampras' second delivery, which was by far the most lethal weapon in his potent arsenal and the most effective second serve I have ever seen. Murray won 19 of 64 points on his second serve less than 30 percent. In the 4th and 5th set when djoko was finding his groove he hit almost every other second serve for an outright winner.

I agree, I am optimistic about Andy and have always maintained he is too good not to win a slam or two, maybe even more if he can get right quickly. But this is a bit ridiculous, Lendl will find away to make Murray's second serve into Pete's second serve.

What I wrote about second serves in another thread...

The thing is that a second serve has little to do with practice or even stats but nerves!...or heart as we call it.

Why? cause a second serve can turn into a double fault. That's why there is a huge gap between Murray's first serve and 2nd serve. That's the reason why Sampras has 14 slams and Goran only 1. Those 2nd serve pulled their careers apart. Pete had a great gutsy second serve while Goran, despite having a better first serve, was getting very nervous on his second serve, especially on key points.

Murray's poor second serve pace is simply teh reflexion of his passive game at rallies. Give him a weak player he can physically outlast like Llodra and he shows lots of heart, give him a tougher opponent and teh fears can be easily read in his game.

Disagree with raider this was a very high quality match from middle of the second set on. First of all people talk about the fact that both players hit more errors than winners. Well when you have the two best returners in the game who aren't going to drop a lot of meatball returns in the center of the court, then you can expect less winners. When you have two of the best and fastest movers who track everything down you can expect less winners. And when you have one of the slowest hardcourts on the entire tour again you can expect less winners. The conditions and the styles dictated that a great number of long rallies would be played and that the players would have to pick their spots to be aggressive.


You can not in isolation look at the winners to Unforced error number and determine the match was played poorly. And the first two sets both guys were getting their timing and dealing with nerves the last 3 sets I think were very high quality with each player having their ups and downs.

Quality is a subjective matter and I'm not sure what you define quality of tennis, but its looks like its different from my definition. You are assuming I didn't see the match and drawing my conclusion from stats alone, but I saw every bit of it.

You are making too much about their returnings in this match. A very high number of balls were returned at around the T area, yet neither of them chose to step up and hit a winner. They both backed their wheels for retrievals and strength of lungs to play percentage tennis, keeping long rallys instead of going for the lines. Lots and lots of returns were just to keep the ball in play and hoping for an error from the oppenent. Playing 2-3m behind the baseline and the points ending in an error is no definition of great quality in my book.

18 break of serves from 50BP doesn't show great returning. It only shows poor serving and poor error prone play. Look at the other stats. I don't know in what terms you think this was a high quality match. High Drama, yes. High Quality of tennis, Big NO.

Compare the match Murray and Novak played here last year to the one they played here this year. Then decide for yourself if Murray is closer.

But as I said previously Murray "thinks he is and that's what counts".

Exactly. They did not try to battle on their tennis skills but on the physical side of their game. Little creativity, lots of ruuning.

socal1976 wrote:Disagree with raider this was a very high quality match from middle of the second set on. First of all people talk about the fact that both players hit more errors than winners. Well when you have the two best returners in the game who aren't going to drop a lot of meatball returns in the center of the court, then you can expect less winners. When you have two of the best and fastest movers who track everything down you can expect less winners. And when you have one of the slowest hardcourts on the entire tour again you can expect less winners. The conditions and the styles dictated that a great number of long rallies would be played and that the players would have to pick their spots to be aggressive.


You can not in isolation look at the winners to Unforced error number and determine the match was played poorly. And the first two sets both guys were getting their timing and dealing with nerves the last 3 sets I think were very high quality with each player having their ups and downs.

Spot on socal. It was like Matts Wilander pointed out during the Nadal/Federer semi where there were a high number of unforced errors. They are hardly unforced errors in the real sense as their opponents are hitting shots into so many unretrievable areas. Mere mortal tennis players wouldn't even get a racket on those balls (and the shot would go down as a winner for his opponent) but since the players on show can and do get to potential winners but can't quite keep the rally going it harshly goes down as an unforced error even though it was very much a forced error.

erictheblueuk wrote:Compare the match Murray and Novak played here last year to the one they played here this year. Then decide for yourself if Murray is closer.

Well you have to consider whether Djoko was the same as last year....and clearly he wasn't!

erictheblueuk wrote:Compare the match Murray and Novak played here last year to the one they played here this year. Then decide for yourself if Murray is closer.

But as I said previously Murray "thinks he is and that's what counts".

Compare the occasion it was last year ( AO finals) to the occasion it was this year ( AO semis ) as well. Playing in a final is always a different beast all together. Compare the level of play Djo showed last year and what he did this year. Murray won against Nadal ( then #1) in the US Open semis 2008 and again in AO 2010 qtrs. He ( and his fans) might have liked to think he is closer to Nadal surely. But how did those fare out in their 3 slam meetings last year? Decide yourself.

If Djo played below his top and then the gap looks closer doesn't mean Murray closed on the gap. Murray just stayed where he was. He didn't UP his level to close any gaps. If Murray had played a very level against Djo too playing high level, then I might have seen as him getting closer. Did that happen? Decide yourself.

And I doubt actually thinks this. Or rather he thinks this but doesn't believe it himself. He is telling this to himself and everyone, but he doesn't believe it.

Yes Tenez but lets remember the question would always be this year whether Djoko could keep up his madly high standard that was on a different plateau to every other player on the planet. Now, of course, it is far too early to say and tomorrow's final will give us a good idea. Lets remember Djoko is in the final so quite clearly is NOT playing too shabbily at all. Also take into account whether Andy has improved from twelve months ago and anyone who says he hasn't doesn't watch tennis that much.

Gone are the on-court misdemeanours that riddled his game, he is definitely playing more aggressively, has a coach he undoubtedly respects and his mind is in a much better place. Evidence? Last year in the final Andy lost the first set 6-4 and was broken early in the second and fell away tamely whilst yesterday he lost the first set and went a break down in the second and showed no tantrums and stormed back. There is the improvement straight away. Forget how Djoko played this is about Andy having the spirit and aptititude to fightback even through spells of poor stuff.

By the way lets not forget this will be seen as a classic match for years to come. There were many jaw-dropping rallies and great shots. An epic match aced with drama and the watching fans there loved it. Well done to both men.

"Andy Murray says gap is closing after loss to Novak Djokovic":-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16765913.stm

erictheblueuk wrote:"Andy Murray says gap is closing after loss to Novak Djokovic":-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16765913.stm

You got me wrong here. I didn't say he didn't really "say" it. I know he said it, and he likes to think this way too. Does he believe it? I doubt it. Does he have the game to close on the gap? No, not yet, even after this close 5 setter could suggest otherwise, its not there yet. Even if he had won, I would doubt he really believes he has closed any gaps to the top3. One match doesn't prove anything.

After his 2006 RG loss to Nadal , Djo also said Nadal is beatable on clay. He said it and he believed it and brought his game to match it. Look at his results now.

Nadal was asked if he had watched the Djokovic Murray semi

Q. Did you stay up late last night watching the match the other match?
RAFAEL NADAL: I watched the second set, beginning of the third I went
for dinner, and I came back after the 4‑1 in the fourth and I watched
the rest of the match.


He was then asked if he thought after this match Murray was closer to the top three.


Q. Andy said last night that he thought he had
closed the gap on the top three. Do you feel there has been a little to
choose between yourself, Roger, Novak, and Andy now?

RAFAEL NADAL: He never was very far. That's the true. He's playing
well. He always played fantastic. He's unlucky not to win a Grand Slam
yet.
Yesterday he lost another very good opportunity,
in my opinion. Because winning two sets to one, winning the third set,
probably losing a lot chances, and then winning with 7‑6 ‑‑ to win a
tournament like this and to play against player like Djokovic, you
cannot start the fourth set like this.
It's the moment
to play with more intensity than ever, not start with 3‑Love down and
two breaks in five minutes. That way you lose the match. You want to
win the tournament, you cannot start ‑‑ you can lose ‑‑ the other can
beat you, but you cannot lose in the beginning.
But
he's playing well. He's playing fantastic. He deserve to win a Grand
Slam. He was unlucky at the end, but the only negative thing for me in
his match is the beginning of the fourth.
When the
other have more doubts, is in really trouble, you make for the opponent
easier than what should be, no? That's my feeling.

For the rest, he can be No. 1 at the end of the season. I don't have
any doubt on that. The level is there. When you are able to play how
many, five Grand Slams in a row playing semifinals or final, it's only a
mental thing.
The rest of the things are there. He
started the season another time playing very well winning a tournament,
playing semifinals here, and few points away to win against No. 1 player
of the world.
He's ready for everything.

erictheblueuk wrote:"Andy Murray says gap is closing after loss to Novak Djokovic":-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16765913.stm

It is not just Andy Murray who is thinking positive thoughts though is it?

John Lloyd (in the past one of his critics):-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16763327.stm

Troll newspaper reports for ex-pros opinions and I guarantee the big majority will only take positives from such a performance.

Raider, again, I watched the match so did you but I think 90 percent of fans would watch that match and stated that it was high quality match. You keep harping on 18 breaks of serve. Last year Novak and Andy averaged around 40 percent break percentage against the whole tour, in this match there were 49 service games and the two players broke 18 times. That is less than what there average against the tour was last year. So is every Djokovic match poor quality because he breaks his opponents 40 percent of the time? Or is every Murray match poor quality because he breaks his opponent 40 percent of the time?

This match started a bit patchy which is to be expected in a big grandslam final or semi and the number of errors to winners or service breaks without looking at the opposition being played or the conditions is not a reasonable or logical metric. In fact, Murray broke his opponent at a lower rate than his average against the tour. Djokovic broke his opponent about at the same rate as his average against the tour. So 18 breaks of serve tell you nothing about the quality of match when the two best returners in the world play each other on blue clay, now does it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes Tenez but lets remember the question would always be this year whether Djoko could keep up his madly high standard that was on a different plateau to every other player on the planet. Now, of course, it is far too early to say and tomorrow's final will give us a good idea. Lets remember Djoko is in the final so quite clearly is NOT playing too shabbily at all. Also take into account whether Andy has improved from twelve months ago and anyone who says he hasn't doesn't watch tennis that much.

Oh so this is the reason for Andy's closing gap on Djo ? Are you really waiting for Djo level to drip so that Andy has some chance? This means you don't believe that there is any way Andy can up his own level to beat Djo and the other 2 unless their level comes down. Not exactly nice from a Murray Fan I would say.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Gone are the on-court misdemeanours that riddled his game, he is definitely playing more aggressively, has a coach he undoubtedly respects and his mind is in a much better place. Evidence? Last year in the final Andy lost the first set 6-4 and was broken early in the second and fell away tamely whilst yesterday he lost the first set and went a break down in the second and showed no tantrums and stormed back. There is the improvement straight away. Forget how Djoko played this is about Andy having the spirit and aptititude to fightback even through spells of poor stuff.

you at times look highly optimistic, I have to give it to you. Just because last year Andy played very poor in AO finals and this year it went in a close 5 setter, does it imply that Murray's all future encounters with Djo are going to be close and Anndy will surely win some good bit of those? Do things work like this? If one match is going to set things up then ANdy shouldn't have ever lost any GS match against Nadal after the fantastic US open 2008 semis win. But things don't work like that CC. Every day is new day and the previous day may not count an iota. Andy wan't playing all by himself, so how can Djo be forgotten about. I might have agreed had andy blown away Djo after losing the 1st set. But did that happen? Both players had lots of chances ( 50 BPs in total... imagine). Andy's spirit and aptitude to fightback through spells of poor play is nothing new as you like to potray based on yesterday's match. He won matches even last year showing spirit and aptitude ( remember Tokoyo 2011 finals).

CaledonianCraig wrote: By the way lets not forget this will be seen as a classic match for years to come. There were many jaw-dropping rallies and great shots. An epic match aced with drama and the watching fans there loved it. Well done to both men.

well.. if you say so.

"marathon match shows gap between Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic is closing":-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/9045564/Australian-Open-2012-marathon-match-shows-gap-between-Andy-Murray-and-Novak-Djokovic-is-closing.html

"Murray: I'm closing the gap on Djok":-
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/tennis/4092562/Andy-Murray-Im-closing-the-gap-on-Novak-Djokovic.html

"Murray convinced he is a better player despite loss":-
http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=/2012/1/28/sports/2012-01-27T150545Z_1_TRE80Q18H_RTROPTT_0_UK-TENNIS-OPEN-MURRAY&sec=sports

"I think that gap, I feel tonight I closed it":-
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/133305.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

"in comparison to how I played last year [in the final], it was much, much better.":-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/tennis/epic-with-djokovic-leaves-murray-defeated-but-not-despondent.1327719999

Novak Djokovic "It was one of the best matches I played. Emotional and mentally":-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/27/novak-djokovic-andy-murray-australian-open

erictheblueuk wrote:"marathon match shows gap between Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic is closing":-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/9045564/Australian-Open-2012-marathon-match-shows-gap-between-Andy-Murray-and-Novak-Djokovic-is-closing.html

"Murray: I'm closing the gap on Djok":-
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/tennis/4092562/Andy-Murray-Im-closing-the-gap-on-Novak-Djokovic.html

"Murray convinced he is a better player despite loss":-
http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=/2012/1/28/sports/2012-01-27T150545Z_1_TRE80Q18H_RTROPTT_0_UK-TENNIS-OPEN-MURRAY&sec=sports

"I think that gap, I feel tonight I closed it":-
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/133305.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

"in comparison to how I played last year [in the final], it was much, much better.":-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/tennis/epic-with-djokovic-leaves-murray-defeated-but-not-despondent.1327719999

Novak Djokovic "It was one of the best matches I played. Emotional and mentally":-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/27/novak-djokovic-andy-murray-australian-open

Ok.. nice articles.. and your point is....????

CaledonianCraig wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:"Andy Murray says gap is closing after loss to Novak Djokovic":-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16765913.stm

It is not just Andy Murray who is thinking positive thoughts though is it?

John Lloyd (in the past one of his critics):-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16763327.stm

Troll newspaper reports for ex-pros opinions and I guarantee the big majority will only take positives from such a performance.

Oh well if John Lloyd says it........