Is Murray Closer To The Top Three Now?

First topic message reminder :

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

Well if you consider that John Lloyd has been one of Murray's critics and after all how many times has someone posted up something on here when he has been less than complimentary about Murray. So you see even the doubters are coming around.

Believe me I am not standing saying Murray will win a slam, he may not as he has things to work on but is he really a million miles away? No not at all. Being a now consistent slam semi-finalist for the past year shows he is there or thereabouts and with room for improvement then who knows?

hawkeye wrote:Nadal was asked if he had watched the Djokovic Murray semi ...

RAFAEL NADAL: ... Yesterday he lost another very good opportunity, in my opinion. Because winning two sets to one, winning the third set ... [especially after Djokovic had three set points to win it], you just 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.

... the ... negative thing for me in his match is the beginning of the fourth. When the other ha[s] more doubts, is in real trouble, you [absolutely must not let this moment go and let your opponent back into the match by dropping your intensity. You certainly can't do that with Djokovic but he did and he lost]. ... It's ... a mental thing ...

I thought this analysis by Rafa deserved paraphrasing

bogbrush John Llloyd also believes Wolves will stay in the premiership and that probably we'd be a top Davis Cup team if he was still captain so I think best just to move on here..

raiders_of_the_lost_ark

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

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

Sorry about that, I thought my point was made in my earlier comments, anyway I feel those "nice articles" just support my view.

Will Rafa be pilloried by Murray fans for telling the brutal truth the way Federer was for doing the same in Dubai in 2008?

bogbrush wrote:Will Rafa be pilloried by Murray fans for telling the brutal truth the way Federer was for doing the same in Dubai in 2008?

Not by me I think that what he says is pretty spot on. As I said on another thread if were to criticise Murray for anything yesterday it would be that he frequently lost serve immediately after breaking Djokovic's and that start to the 4th set having just won the 3rd on tie-break allowed him back into the game. Djokovic may have won anyway but the door was opened for him.

Murray definetly lost the match at the start of the 4th set. He basically either tired out or didn't match Djoko's intensity and from the start of the fourth till 5-2 down in the 5th he was not able to regain any traction.

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Will Rafa be pilloried by Murray fans for telling the brutal truth the way Federer was for doing the same in Dubai in 2008?

Not by me I think that what he says is pretty spot on. As I said on another thread if were to criticise Murray for anything yesterday it would be that he frequently lost serve immediately after breaking Djokovic's and that start to the 4th set having just won the 3rd on tie-break allowed him back into the game. Djokovic may have won anyway but the door was opened for him.

Spot on Calder and that is a point worth considering. Andy came mighty close to winning yesterday and yet we can still see areas of his game that can be improved. I do find it bizarre however that those wanting to belittle Andy's showing yesterday, I'll bet if they are being honest were forecasting a comfortable straight sets win for Djokovic.

I do find it bizarre however that those wanting to belittle Andy's showing yesterday, I'll bet if they are being honest were forecasting a comfortable straight sets win for Djokovic.

Stop acting like Murray is a victim, no wonder not many people like him...

I'm staggered JM after all you were no doubt predicting a straight sets win for Djokovic. Jeez and yet Andy surpassed what you thought he'd achieve yet you are still here to rubbish him - amazing and unbelievable.

Murray's level went through peaks and troughs throughout the match but so did Novak's. eg:- From 5-2 up in the 5th he allowed Murray to get back to 5-5 and have him at 15-40 down.

Nole might be a drama queen but yesterday he was not at his 2011 level for a big part of the second and 3rd set. How he managed to turn it around I don't know but I don't thinkwe can use his performance yesterday to gauge Murray's improvement.

Tenez wrote:Nole might be a drama queen but yesterday he was not at his 2011 level for a big part of the second and 3rd set. How he managed to turn it around I don't know but I don't thinkwe can use his performance yesterday to gauge Murray's improvement.

I agree with Tenez in part. Djoko wasn't his best except I think he got pretty close to 2011 level in the 4th and early in the 5th set. Still I think Murray showed some progress eventhough Djoko was off a little bit early on in the match. For one thing at least he consistently stepped in and took the ball on for the better part of 5 sets. Djoko still finished with more winners than Murray but the count was close. In last year's final I don't even thing he even tried to attack. That is some progress, maybe he didn't get the result. Maybe Novak was ripe for the picking but he did pick himself up after losing a set and didn't cry and mope himself into a 3 set capitulation.

And lets remember socal there were areas in Andy's game that were off as well but the end fact is - the match was damned competitive. It, in some quarters, has been labelled the match of the tournament so far so both guys certainly entertained despite what some fans here would have you believe.

Absolutely, Craig besides its the start of a very long season and the match was highly entertaining. The fans don't give a spontaneous standing ovation for crappy matches. Neither player has hit his mid season form yet. And the number of breaks and errors might have to do with the two best returners and two the best retrievers playing each other on the slowest hardcourt around. More than Murray's game I was enthused by the fact that he didn't just throw in the towel a set and a break down and go into "whoa is me" Andy mode like he did so often in the past when things didn't go his way. If anything the attitude impressed me more than anything he did or didn't do technically.

Absolutely spot on socal - so good to have a voice of reason around here. It will be remembered for a long time that match and the fans certainly showed how much they loved it. Just a pleasure to watch the match even though Andy lost and great respect between the pair at the end.

Yes, it was don't let the federistas get to you. It is a sign of respect for them to attack your favorite player you don't see them taking a run at Marcos Baghdatis do you? If your favorite player has beaten Roger a few times, or could threaten federer consistently then they have to unleash on him because Roger has to be the bestest and goatiest of all. If Murray wins a few slams they really will let him have it. They never even knew Djokovic was alive until last year and now a great number of them have a lot of awful things to say about his unwatchable game and time wasting.

You're right socal. Still, Djokovic has some credit for being the man to stop Nadal of late, probably putting paid to his chances of getting the slam record. Nadal will remain the chief target of Federer fans' ire, although they will claim it's dislike of his game rather than bitterness. If Djokovic was 20 then perhaps they would be scared but he's left it a bit late to start gobbling up slams to really trouble the record. A few more wins from MP down though and things might change!

Exactly, positevly. If Djoko wins all 4 in one year, something that is highly unlikely. Then you will see that Djokovic is the all time villain in the history of tennis, sports, and humanity in general. And how this era is weak, how is game is unwatchable, how he is obviously doping, and so on and so on.

Ha, of course. Djokovic's egg chamber is already being made out to be the doomsday device.

Socal knows federiestas so well... and here I was thinking it would be pretty cool if Novak won this and the FO to achieve something neither Nadal or Fed did. To be fair I don't think most care if Murray has a better game than Fed or not right now, it's obvious he doesn't but for his sake I wish he did.

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, positevly. If Djoko wins all 4 in one year, something that is highly unlikely. Then you will see that Djokovic is the all time villain in the history of tennis, sports, and humanity in general. And how this era is weak, how is game is unwatchable, how he is obviously doping, and so on and so on.

Obviously, tennis fans everywhere all have their own tastes. For me just now the games we are seeing are superb and love watching them. I abhorred the serve and volley era in the 90's but no doubt there were big fans of it somewhere, the same goes for the old era debate. However, speak to those in the know such as ex-pros, pundits, tennis reporters and the paying audience and they seem very happy with tennis at the moment. I didn't hear choruses of boos in Melbourne apart from those directed at Berdych. Both semis so a standing ovation and accolades afterwards for the tennis on show and I agree with that. Others don't and that is their choice. Court conditions have changed of late and some feel for the better and some for the worse depending on who you support personally would like to see one or two quicker surfaces around but apart from that on that front I am happy.

Funny stuff!

My comments on this era of same court blandness, physicality and depthlessness is all on record looooooooong ago, so no need to worry about me switching around.

I'd find it funny if Djokovic won this and the French though. Won't stop social trying to pretend the odds are stacked against Nole and his heroic band of followers though. He still thinks a bye sabotaged Nole at the last French!

Oops the egg chamber is doping and unfair advantage i heard from Federer fans . Apparently berating Djokovic using the latest technology on offer. Laughably, Federer him self was the poineer of devices like these in tennis when he started using the magnetic field recovery device called BEMER when such was not even used by any other player on tour. Of course his fans will have you believe a Mirka massage and apparent 'talent' alone is behind his success while others needs technology for success.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Oops the egg chamber is doping and unfair advantage i heard from Federer fans . Apparently berating Djokovic using the latest technology on offer. Laughably, Federer him self was the poineer of devices like these in tennis when he started using the magnetic field recovery device called BEMER when such was not even used by any other player on tour. Of course his fans will have you believe a Mirka massage and apparent 'talent' alone is behind his success while others needs technology for success.

Links to the complaints?

Or did you just make that up? Yes, I think so.

Of course i did

bogbrush wrote:Funny stuff!

My comments on this era of same court blandness, physicality and depthlessness is all on record looooooooong ago, so no need to worry about me switching around.

I'd find it funny if Djokovic won this and the French though. Won't stop social trying to pretend the odds are stacked against Nole and his heroic band of followers though. He still thinks a bye sabotaged Nole at the last French!

Socal has his eyes on bigger things than just this and FO, only CYGS is good enough for Novak.

Murray is closer to Berdych and Ferrer than he is to Federer and the rallying macaques! I'd like to be more optimistic with Murray, but he usually looks like he's happy to finish 2nd to the top 3, where it matters in the slams.

Can anyone make sense of what Shimple is saying?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray is closer to Berdych and Ferrer than he is to Federer and the rallying macaques!

Total nonsense. He is not up with the other three but is miles ahead of all others.

Hmm Australian Open report thinks differently to JM.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/articles/2012-01-28/201201271327676349082.html

I don't fault his effort Craig, but his technique is not good enough to qualify alongside the top 3 above him, he is more like a little better version of Ferrer (very tight head to head) and Berdych. Just because the match went 5 sets (Djokovic was serving tamely and allowing Andy to dictate the angles) doesn't mean he's suddenly as good as them or close to them. He has to win these matches to be close to them, and definitely not lose a set by 6-1 when he has the momentum.

Read socal's take on the match for the basic elements of tennis. And more like a better version of Ferrer and Berdych?? Hmmm nope far too many stats would argue with you there and tennis pros and ex-pros and pundits and...well most people actually.

Craig if you think not winning a slam will not change people's minds about how good Murray is or was then you are completely deluded, or you like censoring that stuff out of your head?

Probably someone has already mentioned this, but on the basis of ATP ranking points Murray is further away from the top three now - that is the gap between position four and position three will have widened come next monday.

However, from the more qualitative perspective it would seem that Murray is closer, performance wise, to the top three. But ... the skeptics can argue that a loss is a loss, and that there is no such thing as "nearly". For the more optimistic, there is much promise in the Murray - Lendl partnership, but for the more pessimistic promises are worth nothing - it's results that count. Of course there are also those that couldn't give a fig about Murray.

It will certainly not change the minds of those who have already chosen to have a dislike for him. Point of fact - Nadal has won TEN slams and look at the abuse he takes with some childishly wanting to call him Nadull.

Nore Staat wrote:Probably someone has already mentioned this, but on the basis of ATP ranking points Murray is further away from the top three now - that is the gap between position four and position three will have widened come next monday.

However, from the more qualitative perspective it would seem that Murray is closer, performance wise, to the top three. But ... the skeptics can argue that a loss is a loss, and that there is no such thing as "nearly". For the more optimistic, there is much promise in the Murray - Lendl partnership, but for the more pessimistic promises are worth nothing - it's results that count. Of course there are also those that couldn't give a fig about Murray.

Fully agree there Nore Staat.

It will certainly not change the minds of those who have already chosen to have a dislike for him. Point of fact - Nadal has won TEN slams and look at the abuse he takes with some childishly wanting to call him Nadull.

It's the same with Shankerer or Eggovic.

Probably someone has already mentioned this, but on the basis of ATP ranking points Murray is further away from the top three now - that is the gap between position four and position three will have widened come next monday.

Yes on points he is closer to 3 then 5, but in terms of beating Federer and losing to Ferrer, the latter is more likely to happen.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Probably someone has already mentioned this, but on the basis of ATP ranking points Murray is further away from the top three now - that is the gap between position four and position three will have widened come next monday.

Yes on points he is closer to 3 then 5, but in terms of beating Federer and losing to Ferrer, the latter is more likely to happen.

Once again utter nonsense with no basis.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray is closer to Berdych and Ferrer than he is to Federer and the rallying macaques!

I completely disagree with your point, and completely agree with socal and Craig in terms of Andy's progress, and I love the way tennis is played nowadays by all of the top 4... But I have to admit, 'rallying macaques' is maybe the funniest comment I've ever read on here. Harsh, but it really made me chuckle.

carrieg4 wrote:
Once again utter nonsense with no basis.

This is the tennis thread, no evidence is ever needed.

I would like to throw a general question out to 606v2 members: how smart is Murray?
I used to think he was smart from listening to his interviews a while back but when his stubborn streak began to be known, him doing it his way or the high way, talk of having to always improve himself physically, him not being able to offer any explanation as to why he physically faded in the Wawrinka US Open 2010 match, his dejection and losses after the AO2010 and AO2011 tournaments, his inconsistency, the same old same old, it began to dawn on me that perhaps he might be a bit of a "dumbass" (pardon the expression).

It seemed clear to many what Murray needed to do to take the "next step", but he didn't. There was much comment when Murray didn't hire a full coach after he fired Miles McClagen, and then hired a mate of his as a part time something.

It seems to me that Lendl is actually providing the "intelligence" needed for Murray to take the next step. Three weeks with Lendl and those that have an interest in Murray actually saw quite significant progress in his performance at the AO 2012 (attitude and focus). Given this was only three weeks with Lendl, one might hope that in six months time, with Lendl's guidance and coaching and "intelligence", we might expect to see much more substantive improvements. I think with Lendl those that have an interest in Murray might actually see Murray fulfill his potential. His potential might not be sufficient to win a slam, but there seems to be no doubting that there is much room for improvement, and he already seems to be reasonably "close".

Whatever the result tomorrow Nadal at Number 2 will move further ahead of Federer at number 3. Therefore at present we really have a top 2 who are well clear of the rest.

Federer at number 3 has to protect more points (around 1000) over the next couple of months (until April) than Murray (20). Therfore they could be very close for the number 3 slot by then.
However I am aware that the rankings although fair cannot really say who is currently the better player. I would love to see a meaningful head to head between them which would give a more realistic picture of where they stand against other (remember I'm talking about currently).

Calder106 wrote: ... However I am aware that the rankings although fair cannot really say who is currently the better player. I would love to see a meaningful head to head between them which would give a more realistic picture of where they stand against other (remember I'm talking about currently).

That there is a contentious issue with several on this forum. I have a sense that as long as Murray follows the "Yogi" Lendl, and does what he tells him, that not before too long Murray will start beating Federer regularly and move up to No. 3 convincingly. However whether that would make Murray a "better" player than Federer would certainly be a subject for remaining debate.

Certainly the next few months are the time for Murray to make hay in terms of ranking points, even a couple of semis at the 1000's and maybe a title at a 500 will gain him 1,000 points on last year and that's the paradox of the ranking points in that beating Isner, Roddick and Gasquet in Amerstdam would move him closer to the higher rungs, but would have shown nothing.

Was trying to word it in a non-inflamatory fashion. I think that Federer has been and still is the most natural player in the game for a long time. I would never claim that Murray could equal that. I would say however that if (and its a big if) he were to beat Federer regularly he would then have to be regarded as the better player at that particular time.

The answer is probably yes as Federer can't keep up with either Djokovic or Nadal.

Whilst that sounds great it actually only means Murray has a chance of going past Federer in the foreseeable future. The other two are, for the moment at least, way ahead in the rankings.

So 3rd in the world is achievable this year. Any higher would need some victories against all three currently rated ahead of him.

Nore Staat wrote:I would like to throw a general question out to 606v2 members: how smart is Murray?
I used to think he was smart from listening to his interviews a while back but when his stubborn streak began to be known, him doing it his way or the high way, talk of having to always improve himself physically, him not being able to offer any explanation as to why he physically faded in the Wawrinka US Open 2010 match, his dejection and losses after the AO2010 and AO2011 tournaments, his inconsistency, the same old same old, it began to dawn on me that perhaps he might be a bit of a "dumbass" (pardon the expression).

It seemed clear to many what Murray needed to do to take the "next step", but he didn't. There was much comment when Murray didn't hire a full coach after he fired Miles McClagen, and then hired a mate of his as a part time something.

It seems to me that Lendl is actually providing the "intelligence" needed for Murray to take the next step. Three weeks with Lendl and those that have an interest in Murray actually saw quite significant progress in his performance at the AO 2012 (attitude and focus). Given this was only three weeks with Lendl, one might hope that in six months time, with Lendl's guidance and coaching and "intelligence", we might expect to see much more substantive improvements. I think with Lendl those that have an interest in Murray might actually see Murray fulfill his potential. His potential might not be sufficient to win a slam, but there seems to be no doubting that there is much room for improvement, and he already seems to be reasonably "close".

I think that he moved on from Miles McLagan at the right time. That partnership had run its course. However I do think that from at least Wimbledon last year onwards it was obvious that he needed someone strong in his coaching team. It took a long time to dawn but I think it did after USO. Hopefully Lendl is the answer.

ryan86 wrote:Certainly the next few months are the time for Murray to make hay in terms of ranking points, even a couple of semis at the 1000's and maybe a title at a 500 will gain him 1,000 points on last year and that's the paradox of the ranking points in that beating Isner, Roddick and Gasquet in Amerstdam would move him closer to the higher rungs, but would have shown nothing.

Hopefully Lendl will get it into Murrays head that these tournaments are not just about gaining ranking points, but about opportunities to develop and test aspects of his game, in preparation for matches against the "top players", and in preparation for the next Grand Slam(s).

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray is closer to Berdych and Ferrer than he is to Federer and the rallying macaques!

And the thing is that that's completely true.

consigliare wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray is closer to Berdych and Ferrer than he is to Federer and the rallying macaques!

And the thing is that that's completely true.

If that is based on acheivements/titles won in his career you are going by then you are spot on.

If you are going by the here and now and rankings then sorry but that is clearly ridiculous.