Wimbledon Day 10

by bogbrush Tue 03 Jul 2012, 10:24 pm

First topic message reminder :

Now it's really business time.

The matches have been previewed a done the order of play is out. Federer will be relieved to be on Centre and hoping for rain and a covered court. Murray too, as both stand to benefit if they win and their opponents have to play Thursday. I have no idea what the forecast is though.

by socal1976 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 4:22 am

I just don't get it, I mean it hasn't been a secret that this reverting back to a safe counterpunching shell has been his downfall in big matches against top players. And again today when pressed that is exactly how he played. I mean does he need lendl or miles or judy or anybody to tell him that on a grass court you should be making Ferrer come up with jaw dropping saves and passing shots from the tramlines, not the other way around. Fortunately, for Andy he has enough talent to win some matches against players like Ferrer that way. But that strategy will get him slaughtered against Fed and Djoko. What is more perplexing still is that if there is a guy in the top 10 or 15 that you would think Murray wouldn't counterpunch with is David Ferrer. But that is precisely what he did again, god bless him he is still in the tournament and has a good chance for the final. That style of play however against Djoko and Fed will be suicide. And it is even a more alarming choice against this plucky but lightweight spaniard who is lucky if he is 5'9 and 160 pounds, who although hits cleanly and can run like the wind all day. Just bad tactics, bad execution, that results in a win on sheer physical ability.

I mean really Andy hit some passing shots that were jaw dropping, my problem is that he was forced to hit way too many of those and put on the defensive much more than you would expect. To play attritional, tactical, counter punching with David Ferrer on this surface is a bit inexplicable to me. Win or lose i found it to be a disturbing performance from Murray.

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 8:29 am

socal1976 wrote:I just don't get it, I mean it hasn't been a secret that this reverting back to a safe counterpunching shell has been his downfall in big matches against top players.

With Andy, more than any other player, we seem to seek perfection where any passage of so called "passive" play is wrong. Quite honestly it isn't and I disagree with you (and Rod Laver so what do I know!!) that "reverting back" is wrong. It is tactically smart play provided it is done at the right time for just the right length

Take his last two Ferrer games;-

1) French Open - A complete absence of the 'rope a dope'. Lots of winners, but lots of errors as he tried to make the points short. Result Ferrer's ability to run around all day isn't nullified and bye bye Andy

2) Wimbledon - Cautious tactics to start with (has anybody understood that it's quite simple; Andy is one of those players, like Agassi, that often has to get a feel for the court and conditions) but a definite strategy of using all parts of the court to make sure Ferrer knows he's in a match. Then as the match went on a subtle increase in aggression against a tiring opponent and an almost perfect result. Let's remember that Ferrer has the most match wins this year, so far

I suppose Andy will always be stuck with this "passive" tag - event though he gave up relying on that totally, for the big games, after last years US Open. However, it's a tactic that probably wouldn't give him a combined 15-3 lead over the talented Tsonga, Del Potro and Cilic, i.e. using it is what makes him the player he is (personally I've no interest in him changing as I think it's a wonderful to watch (all those cute slices and caressed shots versus the brutality of DP - no choice for me!!) and gives him the ranking he has

I'm unconvinced that cutting out the passive stuff totally, would give him a Slam win. What'll happen is if he wins a Slam, everyone will say it's because he wasn't passive - when that percentage of play is highly likely to be the same as his losses!!

by mystiroakey Thu 05 Jul 2012, 8:36 am

Ban . For me murray looks to have all the shots- i am not a massive tennis fan - i only watch occasional slams really. But he is abit frustrating to watch.. Not sure if he plays perfect tactics or not. But other top players- obviously i am talking about the feds or nadals of this world look to play all shots on merit. Whereas it seems to be either or with murray. He either goes for to many winners in a period or a whole match or contains for to long a period or a whole match. I dont think he mixes up the play based on merit

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 8:46 am

socal1976 wrote:To play attritional, tactical, counter punching with David Ferrer on this surface is a bit inexplicable to me. Win or lose i found it to be a disturbing performance from Murray.

The aggressive stuff didn't work at the French and certainly didn't work for Del Potro here. You underestimate Ferrer, who is arguably playing the best Tennis of his career - which has included beating Rafa this year, unheard of for a Spaniard!!

Murray tried the aggressive stuff early on and got nowhere - simply because the low bounce helps the great retriever. Hence, Plan B - a tactical battle

Ferrer, is basically having the same kind of spell, Davydenko had in 2009 and hence would have been difficult for any of the Top 4

by killer938 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 8:46 am

Not to mention "reverting back" is terrible English, "reverting" implies going back so the "back" is null and void, like "reversing backwards" Wink

By some of the posters on here you would have thought Murray had been playing an ordinary player in the quarter finals, you know someone like Kohlschreiber, Mayer or Youzhny. He was playing the number 5 player in the world who had just won a grass court tournament, and he beat him in 4 sets, I don't get what people want? I appreciate there are people on here that will always hate Murray and his "attitude" but in terms of results he couldn't have done much more than he has done so far this tournament.

Also, as far as the attitude goes, I would hazard a guess that most of these people haven't seen an interview with Murray outside of the tennis arena. If anyone has seen him on things like Jonathan Ross or the James Corden interview then you will know in these more relaxed atmospheres he actually has a very good sense of humour and is more than prepared to have a laugh at himself. He has his persona in the tennis arena which works for him but lets not confuse that with his actual personality.

I know this won't convince people to change their minds about him but I thought I would put it out there anyway

by CaledonianCraig Thu 05 Jul 2012, 8:48 am

Well said killer. clap

by mystiroakey Thu 05 Jul 2012, 8:50 am

his persona is fine- i dont understand anyones gripe with that at all.

however his actual play kind off frustrates me. but then it probally frustrates his oponents as well.

good luck to him

by bogbrush Thu 05 Jul 2012, 8:56 am

killer938 wrote:Not to mention "reverting back" is terrible English, "reverting" implies going back so the "back" is null and void, like "reversing backwards"

By some of the posters on here you would have thought Murray had been playing an ordinary player in the quarter finals, you know someone like Kohlschreiber, Mayer or Youzhny. He was playing the number 5 player in the world who had just won a grass court tournament, and he beat him in 4 sets, I don't get what people want? I appreciate there are people on here that will always hate Murray and his "attitude" but in terms of results he couldn't have done much more than he has done so far this tournament.

Yes, I even saw it written that Mayer was the toughest opponent of the 4 favourites. Ferrer was tougher than the other three put together, though i think he'll present Murray with more of a problem than he would to some of the others simply because of styles.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:00 am

Yes bogbrush it is true some players are better match-ups for some more than others. I don't think Ferrer is that great a match-up for Murray so was good to see him come through in four sets. Ferrer is nothing but consistent and you generally need to scrape him off the court but Murray beat him at his own game which alone deserves credit plus he was in a precarious position and turned it around also worthy of credit.

Should he come through against Tsonga he will need to be more aggressive in the final. He can do it and if he does then who knows?

by HM Murdock Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:04 am

I think Murray really won on account of his serve yesterday. It looked a real weapon, especially in comparison to Ferrer who I felt rather conspicuously lacked anything in his game that could be described as a weapon.

In a game as close as that one, 18 aces against just 6 made such a difference, especially as they were often at big moments.

I still have my doubts about whether Andy would beat Roger or Novak on current form but he seems to be a whole lot closer to doing it than his form suggested coming in to the tournament!

by mystiroakey Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:07 am

Well the credit to murray is that he has upped his game when he has needed to, i just hope he doesnt leave it to late. he could and possibly should have been 2 sets down yesterday, ferrer had a mind melt

by CaledonianCraig Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:07 am

Like I said pre-tournament his confidence wouldn't have been great following a mildly disappointing clay court season and his poor show at Queens Club so it was all about rebuilding confidence and he has slowly done that through the rounds and looks the better for it.

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:11 am

killer938 wrote:Also, as far as the attitude goes, I would hazard a guess that most of these people haven't seen an interview with Murray outside of the tennis arena. If anyone has seen him on things like Jonathan Ross or the James Corden interview then you will know in these more relaxed atmospheres he actually has a very good sense of humour and is more than prepared to have a laugh at himself. He has his persona in the tennis arena which works for him but lets not confuse that with his actual personality

My favourite Murray 'off court' incident, is when he agreed to have an interview with the excellent Neil Harman, but it would have to be whilst he was having his ice bath!!

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:15 am

I also think the fact that he's had to be 'on the money' for every round (let's be honest here all his opponents have been more dangerous on this surface than Nole's QF one - apart from perhaps Davydenko) has actually helped him

I thought he was going out at a break down in the 2nd set - however there was no indication from Murray that there was a problem, showing that he is very tuned up for any battles

Think he will beat Tsonga and that he would definitely beat Fed but think Nole is simply too hot at the moment

However, with the roof on - then his chances go up as do Fed's

by killer938 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:15 am

mystiroakey wrote:Well the credit to murray is that he has upped his game when he has needed to, i just hope he doesnt leave it to late. he could and possibly should have been 2 sets down yesterday, ferrer had a mind melt

I wouldn't say that, it was 5-2 in the tie break, Murray won both his serves to get it to 5-4 and then he got a mini break back, he still had to save a set point on his serve and he did it with a big first serve and then followed that up with an Ace, I really don't think Ferrer did anything different or bad, Murray just stepped it up.

by Josiah Maiestas Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:15 am

Murray better keep his foot on the gas for the semis cause Tsonga doesn't blow it when serving for a 2 set lead.

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:24 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray better keep his foot on the gas for the semis cause Tsonga doesn't blow it when serving for a 2 set lead.

If you think that Murray going two sets to love down, would mean that Ferrer would have won - think again. You need to show me evidence of this version of Tsonga you've come up, who has such a steely resolve he has just one Masters to him name Rolling Eyes

Aged 27 by the way

by mystiroakey Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:40 am

killer938 wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:Well the credit to murray is that he has upped his game when he has needed to, i just hope he doesnt leave it to late. he could and possibly should have been 2 sets down yesterday, ferrer had a mind melt

I wouldn't say that, it was 5-2 in the tie break, Murray won both his serves to get it to 5-4 and then he got a mini break back, he still had to save a set point on his serve and he did it with a big first serve and then followed that up with an Ace, I really don't think Ferrer did anything different or bad, Murray just stepped it up.

murray was a break down in the second set dude. wasnt ferrer serving for the 2nd set.

basically murray did step it up- but i am arguing he left it abit late- he also stepped it up in his last match after 2 sets an all. He is either stepping up to late, or his opponents are flaking. Either way though we are seeing a significant difference in performance from the first part of his games to the second part

by barrystar Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:45 am

HM Murdoch wrote:I think Murray really won on account of his serve yesterday. It looked a real weapon, especially in comparison to Ferrer who I felt rather conspicuously lacked anything in his game that could be described as a weapon.

In a game as close as that one, 18 aces against just 6 made such a difference, especially as they were often at big moments.

I still have my doubts about whether Andy would beat Roger or Novak on current form but he seems to be a whole lot closer to doing it than his form suggested coming in to the tournament!

Murray's 1st serve that is - his second serve was trailing 40-50mph behind his first and was not a weapon, but his first serve when in was clocking up the free points. Ferrer did have a weapon, his forehand - once he had manoeuvred himself into position he was unleashing very powerful forehands or great angles, just Murray seemed to have so many more options open to him (too many of them defensive).

by HM Murdock Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:47 am

banbrotam wrote: However, with the roof on - then his chances go up as do Fed's

I see this the other way. The players have said that the court is slower under the roof. I think a slower court favours Novak and would certainly harm Fed.

by reckoner Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:53 am

banbrotam wrote:Think he will beat Tsonga and that he would definitely beat Fed but think Nole is simply too hot at the moment

banbrotam wrote:You need to show me evidence of this version of Tsonga you've come up, who has such a steely resolve he has just one Masters to him name Aged 27 by the way

On that basis Murray would definitely lose to Federer in the final - perhaps you need to provide evidence for your version of Murray when he has lost every single slam final he has been in!

I do agree that Murray should have the edge against Tsonga - going by ranking and ability he should comfortably get through. However that depends entirely on his ability to execute and that isn't guaranteed with Murray.

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:55 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray better keep his foot on the gas for the semis cause Tsonga doesn't blow it when serving for a 2 set lead.

Ask Wawrinka at the FO2011 Whistle

by socal1976 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:03 am

Banbro, I can't agree. Clay is different than grass and of course if Murray was ultra aggressive against Ferrer on clay and passive against him on grass shows that he has a serious problem with strategizing during match. Why on earth would you hit at Ferrer on clay and then work the points on grass?

I am not a murray critic, in fact I have often defended him and will compliment him on his good performances like in AO 2012. However I found this match to be really, really weird. It was the exact opposite of what he should be doing, and he stuck to it religiously. Of course you don't go full bore against every opponent every match. That is not the issue, the issue is that if you don't go big against a David Ferrer on a grass court, when is the right time? I mean do you choose to counterpunch with a guy you have a bigger serve than, better volleys than, and more weight of shot on both sides; on a grass court of all places. Especially, if said guy is one of the best counterpunchers in the game and lives in matches like that? I don't, maybe he should have played this match in front of ferrer at the french and played like he did at the french today?
But it is academic he is one of the four men who still have a chance at the trophy. Mark my words that kind of tennis will not win this tournament, if he raises it a gear or two then he has as good a chance as any.

This is the case of doing the percentage wrong thing and having it pay off. Sorry in tennis that is still a mistake. Like when you go for a shot that is the wrong shot but for some strange reason it works. Yes you got the result, but you made it harder on yourself and in my mind didn't maximize your chances at winning.

by reckoner Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:12 am

socal1976 wrote:Banbro, I can't agree. Clay is different than grass and of course if Murray was ultra aggressive against Ferrer on clay and passive against him on grass shows that he has a serious problem with strategizing during match. Why on earth would you hit at Ferrer on clay and then work the points on grass?

I am not a murray critic, in fact I have often defended him and will compliment him on his good performances like in AO 2012. However I found this match to be really, really weird. It was the exact opposite of what he should be doing, and he stuck to it religiously. Of course you don't go full bore against every opponent every match. That is not the issue, the issue is that if you don't go big against a David Ferrer on a grass court, when is the right time? I mean do you choose to counterpunch with a guy you have a bigger serve than, better volleys than, and more weight of shot on both sides; on a grass court of all places. Especially, if said guy is one of the best counterpunchers in the game and lives in matches like that? I don't, maybe he should have played this match in front of ferrer at the french and played like he did at the french today?
But it is academic he is one of the four men who still have a chance at the trophy. Mark my words that kind of tennis will not win this tournament, if he raises it a gear or two then he has as good a chance as any.

This is the case of doing the percentage wrong thing and having it pay off. Sorry in tennis that is still a mistake. Like when you go for a shot that is the wrong shot but for some strange reason it works. Yes you got the result, but you made it harder on yourself and in my mind didn't maximize your chances at winning.

I agree, it was very strange on the face of it. But perhaps the idea (as bogbrush suggested) was to wear Ferrer down? In the end he got through so maybe Murray was being "crazy like fox".

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:13 am

I am not a murray critic, in fact I often defend him and will compliment on his good performances like in AO 2012. However I found this match to be really, really weird. It was the exact opposite of what he should be doing, and he stuck to it religiously. Of course you don't go full bore against every opponent every match. That is not the issue, the issue is that if you don't go big against a David Ferrer on a grass court, when is the right time?

This is the case of doing the percentage wrong thing and having it pay off. Sorry in tennis that is still a mistake. Like when you go for a shot that is the wrong shot but for some strange reason it works. Yes you got the result, but you made it harder on yourself and in my mind didn't maximize your chances at winning.

The reason Murray didn't go for the FH was because it wasn't there to be hit. I mean look at all the shots he played and how low over the net they travelled. Ferrer didn't hit anything low until he had control of the rallies. You can't hit a ball if it's not there to be hit.

Ferrer is the counter puncher. He was never going to attack Murray and win and that was his undoing. Ferrer faltered in the big moments of the match and he shouldn't have. Instead of sticking to what served him well in the match he started going big on shots he never normally does and hence gave Murray the incentive.

It shows why Ferrer is so economical on Clay. He has all the time in the world and he doesn't normally close out 4-5 shot rallies. Hence why he is quite the challenge on Clay.

For me Murray showed why he is good on Grass. He can mix it up and still remain in the match. He was battering Ferrer with the BH in 3rd and 4th set. I think one BH winner clocked at 101mph!!

by mystiroakey Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:15 am

"
I agree, it was very strange on the face of it. But perhaps the idea
(as bogbrush suggested) was to wear Ferrer down? In the end he got
through so maybe Murray was being "crazy like fox""

if your tactic is to wear someone down but chances are lose 2 sets in the process- he isnt crazy like fox- he is crazy full stop

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:16 am

socal1976 wrote:Banbro, I can't agree. Clay is different than grass and of course if Murray was ultra aggressive against Ferrer on clay and passive against him on grass shows that he has a serious problem with strategizing during match. Why on earth would you hit at Ferrer on clay and then work the points on grass?

I am not a murray critic, in fact I have often defended him and will compliment him on his good performances like in AO 2012. However I found this match to be really, really weird. It was the exact opposite of what he should be doing, and he stuck to it religiously. Of course you don't go full bore against every opponent every match. That is not the issue, the issue is that if you don't go big against a David Ferrer on a grass court, when is the right time? I mean do you choose to counterpunch with a guy you have a bigger serve than, better volleys than, and more weight of shot on both sides; on a grass court of all places. Especially, if said guy is one of the best counterpunchers in the game and lives in matches like that? I don't, maybe he should have played this match in front of ferrer at the french and played like he did at the french today?
But it is academic he is one of the four men who still have a chance at the trophy. Mark my words that kind of tennis will not win this tournament, if he raises it a gear or two then he has as good a chance as any.

This is the case of doing the percentage wrong thing and having it pay off. Sorry in tennis that is still a mistake. Like when you go for a shot that is the wrong shot but for some strange reason it works. Yes you got the result, but you made it harder on yourself and in my mind didn't maximize your chances at winning.

When paying Ferrer, it's not a simple case of aggressive Tennis, i.e. fast serve = volley = point one. For starters it's not the grass of twenty years ago. I actually think that tactics at both events were spot on, it's actually pointless getting tactical with Ferrer on Clay because he can chase things down even better - so the only way you're going to have a chance of beating him is playing aggressive. When Murray does this against Ferrer away from the hard courts, he still reduces his chances greatly, i.e. aggressive Tennis v Ferrer for all the match, means a defeat

I don't think you can talk about one match, look at the style of play and relate it to the next ones, that's the lazy Rudseski way of looking at things. Tsonga is different to Ferrer, so expect more aggressive stuff as Tsonga is fairly good at handling slice but isn't great at facing sustained power. It's horses for courses and in some respects if our two meet in the final, as is nearly always the case; it's who turns up on the day

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:23 am

mystiroakey wrote:"if your tactic is to wear someone down but chances are lose 2 sets in the process- he isnt crazy like fox- he is crazy full stop

Not if you win!! The reason why I've always said that Murray is ideal for 5 set Tennis is that he's prepared to play a strategic waiting game. Now we can call that boring or passive or whatever, but it shows that this is a player who thinks about how he's going to be a player - rather than instinctively just play your best with little tactics

Conversely, I admire Fed for sticking to his artistic instinctive self - but let's be honest here, if he'd actually thought about tactics during any number of Slams during the last two and a half years - he's have at least 17, now

We should see the tactical side of Tennis, just as valid as the instinctive side and not get so easily bored because it becomes attritional.

I've always liked the players who work a point and show variety, i.e. Mecir - for me that requires far more mental toughness rather than the 'blast and hope' Tennis

by reckoner Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:25 am

mystiroakey wrote:"
I agree, it was very strange on the face of it. But perhaps the idea
(as bogbrush suggested) was to wear Ferrer down? In the end he got
through so maybe Murray was being "crazy like fox""

if your tactic is to wear someone down but chances are lose 2 sets in the process- he isnt crazy like fox- he is crazy full stop

I've seen Murray appear to give up on a set as a lost cause and then really press on the next one, so I wouldn't say its unprecedented for him to sacrifice a set for the greater cause. Not saying it was some masterplan in action yesterday but just the way it panned out. Anyway he only gets the "like fox" qualifier because he won - otherwise yes it was plain crazy!

by socal1976 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:27 am

Well maybe, I don't know call it dope a rope, call it cagey, call it what you will; I don't think it is a smart play. Again that is just my opinion. But if you were ever invited to be the aggressor in a match it was this one. Everything pointed to you being the guy who dictates.

I watched the match legend it is true that Ferrer didn't give murray much to hit but maybe because Andy was waiting and handing over the initiative. It wasn't like Ferrer was crushing every first ball he got a look at. That isn't the way he plays. But Murray for much of the match let him play. And it did almost cost him. Ferrer doesn't get tight at the end of the second set and it could be all she wrote. Again look at how close the margins were in this match, 4 hrs of energy it took, was that his most effective strategy? To counterpunch the counterpuncher on a fast surface when he enjoys the power advantage in virtually every facet and the better variety? I don't believe there is a cogent argument to be made other then that it worked and he is through. But it isn't the smart percentage play, and despite the result as a Djoko fan it didn't strike fear in my heart if Djoko happens to get through.

by socal1976 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:29 am

HM Murdoch wrote:
banbrotam wrote: However, with the roof on - then his chances go up as do Fed's
I see this the other way. The players have said that the court is slower under the roof. I think a slower court favours Novak and would certainly harm Fed.

Novak would love it if they closed the roof. I think it gets heavier and more humid. He has played great whenever the roof has been closed this tournament.

by reckoner Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:31 am

Hmm yes but it did show that Andy is prepared to physically outlast his opponent. I mean it is quite an achievement to tire out David Ferrer.

by barrystar Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:31 am

I think a Murray vs. Fed final would be fascinating. On the strength of yesterday Fed is my marginal favourite, but they faced such different opponents that it's very difficult to ascertain how they might deal with one another.

Ferrer plays to a very consistent level and neither Fed nor Murray really do that. They have higher highs and lower lows than Ferrer. For that reason each of them is probably better at seizing the initiative and creating and taking advantage of half-chances (including each other's mistakes) than Ferrer.

I think Fed would have the marginal advantage because I have him as favourite to capitalise on any Murray errors in the first set and take a lead which it would be more difficult for Murray to claw back than he found it against Ferrer.

In Murray's favour is his ability to claw his way back and keep his focus against a very tough opponent so that in the points that really mattered he was just the better man.

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:33 am

socal1976 wrote:Well maybe, I don't know call it dope a rope, call it cagey, call it what you will; I don't think it is a smart play. Again that is just my opinion. But if you were ever invited to be the aggressor in a match it was this one. Everything pointed to you being the guy who dictates.

I watched the match legend it is true that Ferrer didn't give murray much to hit but maybe because Andy was waiting and handing over the initiative. It wasn't like Ferrer was crushing every first ball he got a look at. That isn't the way he plays. But Murray for much of the match let him play. And it did almost cost him. Ferrer doesn't get tight at the end of the second set and it could be all she wrote. Again look at how close the margins were in this match, 4 hrs of energy it took, was that his most effective strategy? To counterpunch the counterpuncher on a fast surface when he enjoys the power advantage in virtually every facet and the better variety? I don't believe there is a cogent argument to be made other then that it worked and he is through. But it isn't the smart percentage play, and despite the result as a Djoko fan it didn't strike fear in my heart if Djoko happens to get through.

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:37 am

socal1976 wrote:Well maybe, I don't know call it dope a rope, call it cagey, call it what you will; I don't think it is a smart play. Again that is just my opinion. But if you were ever invited to be the aggressor in a match it was this one. Everything pointed to you being the guy who dictates.

I watched the match legend it is true that Ferrer didn't give murray much to hit but maybe because Andy was waiting and handing over the initiative. It wasn't like Ferrer was crushing every first ball he got a look at. That isn't the way he plays. But Murray for much of the match let him play. And it did almost cost him. Ferrer doesn't get tight at the end of the second set and it could be all she wrote. Again look at how close the margins were in this match, 4 hrs of energy it took, was that his most effective strategy? To counterpunch the counterpuncher on a fast surface when he enjoys the power advantage in virtually every facet and the better variety? I don't believe there is a cogent argument to be made other then that it worked and he is through. But it isn't the smart percentage play, and despite the result as a Djoko fan it didn't strike fear in my heart if Djoko happens to get through.

In fairness I think it was the only strategy. His serve was misfiring and you could see Andy didn't have the confidence to go on and hit heavier shots. He didn't fancy the FH up and down the line. Ferrer is very much one pace and is about creating angles. Andy played to that tune for 2 sets.

The 3rd and 4th were much different as there was a sense of urgency in Murray's play and he started to take on his BH and stop with using the slice so much. Once Murray started to reduce the shots in the rallies by 3-4 shots, it took the advantage away from Ferrer.

Take Djokovic. He played a one pace player in Mayer and he couldn't even serve above 55%. I don't see that Djokovic will trouble Federer or Murray on that form. Yes you can argue he can play better, but for that to happen we are talking massive margins!

by socal1976 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:42 am

reckoner wrote:Hmm yes but it did show that Andy is prepared to physically outlast his opponent. I mean it is quite an achievement to tire out David Ferrer.

Yes it is Andy is one of the few guys on the tour that has the wheels, solid shots, hurt, and lungs to do it. But why would you want to? 4 hrs of brutal fight and one late break in the second away from really, really being in trouble.

@banbro, well I disagree, I am not a coach but I have played and watched the game for a long time and I can't think of too many coaches that would advise going like that at the strength of your opponent. Especially, when you have the edge in power, serve, and variety on a faster court. David Ferrer is a very good player but there is only one reason that Murray should have played that way in front of Ferrer. The only reason murray, at this court could possibly have for playing that way is that he just couldn't hit through him today. Either ferrer was hitting bigger or murray was not confident in his ability on this day to hit through ferrer for pace. If that was the case the match made sense. But I don't believe for a minute this what Murray and lendl drew up before the match and that they were being cagey. This isn't cagey going a set and a break down and fighting 4 hours is not smart, the exact opposite of cagey.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:43 am

I think, going on to the Fed/Djoko semi that it is highly imperative that Roger Federer wins the first set. If he wins that he is definitely in with a shout but if Djoko wins it I see no way back for Federer taking into consideration the physical effort that would take against an intense Djokovic. Now we have seen Djoko drop sets early on against lesser players than Fed this Wimbledon so it is certainly possible.

by CaledonianCraig Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:48 am

socal1976 wrote:
reckoner wrote:Hmm yes but it did show that Andy is prepared to physically outlast his opponent. I mean it is quite an achievement to tire out David Ferrer.

Yes it is Andy is one of the few guys on the tour that has the wheels, solid shots, hurt, and lungs to do it. But why would you want to? 4 hrs of brutal fight and one late break in the second away from really, really being in trouble.

@banbro, well I disagree, I am not a coach but I have played and watched the game for a long time and I can't think of too many coaches that would advise going like that at the strength of your opponent. Especially, when you have the edge in power, serve, and variety on a faster court. David Ferrer is a very good player but there is only one reason that Murray should have played that way in front of Ferrer. The only reason murray, at this court could possibly have for playing that way is that he just couldn't hit through him today. Either ferrer was hitting bigger or murray was not confident in his ability on this day to hit through ferrer for pace. If that was the case the match made sense. But I don't believe for a minute this what Murray and lendl drew up before the match and that they were being cagey. This isn't cagey going a set and a break down and fighting 4 hours is not smart, the exact opposite of cagey.

I do see what you are saying socal but you can look at it another way. Murray played to Ferrer's strength and yet still he won. More aggression will be needed should he reach the final and we know he can play more aggressively a la Australian Open semi. If he implements that game plan he certainly would have a chance. Remember Andy is very versatile in the type of games he can play which helps.

by barrystar Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:50 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:I think, going on to the Fed/Djoko semi that it is highly imperative that Roger Federer wins the first set. If he wins that he is definitely in with a shout but if Djoko wins it I see no way back for Federer taking into consideration the physical effort that would take against an intense Djokovic. Now we have seen Djoko drop sets early on against lesser players than Fed this Wimbledon so it is certainly possible.

Agree with that completely - it's very true of Federer generally. He has shown that he is very good at clawing it back against lesser players, but against the likes of Djoko and Nadal it's very tough. All through his career he has been above all else a front-runner.

If Fed gets his nose ahead vs. Djoko and can keep his serve as good as it was yesterday the pressure becomes immense on Djoko, who would be only a couple of errors away from going out and has never played Fed on grass. It could be a classic. Even so, Djoko is my favourite to prevail somehow. It's interesting to note that for all his travails this year compared to last he has drawn level with Nadal in the ATP "Race to London", well ahead of Federer. He's clearly still doing something right (http://live-tennis.eu/race).

by CaledonianCraig Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:56 am

barrystar wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:I think, going on to the Fed/Djoko semi that it is highly imperative that Roger Federer wins the first set. If he wins that he is definitely in with a shout but if Djoko wins it I see no way back for Federer taking into consideration the physical effort that would take against an intense Djokovic. Now we have seen Djoko drop sets early on against lesser players than Fed this Wimbledon so it is certainly possible.

Agree with that completely - it's very true of Federer generally. He has shown that he is very good at clawing it back against lesser players, but against the likes of Djoko and Nadal it's very tough. All through his career he has been above all else a front-runner.

If Fed gets his nose ahead vs. Djoko and can keep his serve as good as it was yesterday the pressure becomes immense on Djoko, who would be only a couple of errors away from going out and has never played Fed on grass. It could be a classic. Even so, Djoko is my favourite to prevail somehow. It's interesting to note that for all his travails this year compared to last, he has drawn level with Nadal in the ATP "Race to London", well ahead of Federer. He's clearly still doing something right (http://live-tennis.eu/race).

The reason I purely have Djokovic as favourite is recent form at slams. It is now two and a half years since Roger Federer won a slam whilst Djokovic has been hoovering them up consistently which is a form pointer in itself. To expect or tip Federer to win is fanciful on those grounds especially if you consider the age factor. A Federer win is not out of the question but, in my eyes, unlikely as it would really need a big turning back of the clock. Should be a great match though.

by barrystar Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:00 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
barrystar wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:I think, going on to the Fed/Djoko semi that it is highly imperative that Roger Federer wins the first set. If he wins that he is definitely in with a shout but if Djoko wins it I see no way back for Federer taking into consideration the physical effort that would take against an intense Djokovic. Now we have seen Djoko drop sets early on against lesser players than Fed this Wimbledon so it is certainly possible.

Agree with that completely - it's very true of Federer generally. He has shown that he is very good at clawing it back against lesser players, but against the likes of Djoko and Nadal it's very tough. All through his career he has been above all else a front-runner.

If Fed gets his nose ahead vs. Djoko and can keep his serve as good as it was yesterday the pressure becomes immense on Djoko, who would be only a couple of errors away from going out and has never played Fed on grass. It could be a classic. Even so, Djoko is my favourite to prevail somehow. It's interesting to note that for all his travails this year compared to last, he has drawn level with Nadal in the ATP "Race to London", well ahead of Federer. He's clearly still doing something right (http://live-tennis.eu/race).

That's my "somehow" - Djoko finds a way to win slams these days, Fed hasn't for a long while.

The reason I purely have Djokovic as favourite is recent form at slams. It is now two and a half years since Roger Federer won a slam whilst Djokovic has been hoovering them up consistently which is a form pointer in itself. To expect or tip Federer to win is fanciful on those grounds especially if you consider the age factor. A Federer win is not out of the question but, in my eyes, unlikely as it would really need a big turning back of the clock. Should be a great match though.

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:05 am

barrystar wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:I think, going on to the Fed/Djoko semi that it is highly imperative that Roger Federer wins the first set. If he wins that he is definitely in with a shout but if Djoko wins it I see no way back for Federer taking into consideration the physical effort that would take against an intense Djokovic. Now we have seen Djoko drop sets early on against lesser players than Fed this Wimbledon so it is certainly possible.

Agree with that completely - it's very true of Federer generally. He has shown that he is very good at clawing it back against lesser players, but against the likes of Djoko and Nadal it's very tough. All through his career he has been above all else a front-runner.

If Fed gets his nose ahead vs. Djoko and can keep his serve as good as it was yesterday the pressure becomes immense on Djoko, who would be only a couple of errors away from going out and has never played Fed on grass. It could be a classic. Even so, Djoko is my favourite to prevail somehow. It's interesting to note that for all his travails this year compared to last he has drawn level with Nadal in the ATP "Race to London", well ahead of Federer. He's clearly still doing something right (http://live-tennis.eu/race).

I actually think that Nole's lack of a tough match, will prove his undoing either against Fed or if Murray reaches the final. I actually think, that like Murray he has to get himself 'tuned in' to a Slam by having at least one tough game. His toughest has been Ryan Harrison!! When he won in Australia last year, he got Alamagro in the last 16 and a then on form Berdych in the last 8

by socal1976 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:07 am

Come on Legend what are you talking about Legend what Match did you watch? Djokovic hit 65 percent of first serves not 55 percent. He also hit 50 winners v. 20 errors. A very clean and aggressive match and great first serve percentage. What exactly poor form is it that you keep talking about with Djokovic this year? Last year at this point in the tournament he lost 2 sets till the semi, this year he has dropped one set. A set in which frankly he had blew a boatload of break points, won more total points, and got broken on the only break chance of the set. That sound like good form to me. Yet you keep talking about how poor Djoko's form is this tournament, funny that isn't how the media, the statistics or the vegas line is looking at it.

by socal1976 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:10 am

Banbro, Novak's toughest opponent was sTepanek who took a set off him and is a very dangerous grass court player. By the way his first two rounds were very difficult he played ferrerro in the first round better than the number 100 pluses that most of the top seeds get first round and Harrisson as well. Two top 40 guys in the first two rounds of a slam. Either way who cares his opponents got upset and he beat the guys in front of him. By the way Novak's draw is about ten times as hard, would you like to trade semi opponents Banbro? be honest now?

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:24 am

socal1976 wrote:Come on Legend what are you talking about Legend what Match did you watch? Djokovic hit 65 percent of first serves not 55 percent. He also hit 50 winners v. 20 errors. A very clean and aggressive match and great first serve percentage. What exactly poor form is it that you keep talking about with Djokovic this year? Last year at this point in the tournament he lost 2 sets till the semi, this year he has dropped one set. A set in which frankly he had blew a boatload of break points, won more total points, and got broken on the only break chance of the set. That sound like good form to me. Yet you keep talking about how poor Djoko's form is this tournament, funny that isn't how the media, the statistics or the vegas line is looking at it.

Bizarre. The Wimbledon website said it was 55% yesterday and now it's 65%? I stand corrected.

by banbrotam Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:32 am

socal1976 wrote:Banbro, Novak's toughest opponent was sTepanek who took a set off him and is a very dangerous grass court player. By the way his first two rounds were very difficult he played ferrerro in the first round better than the number 100 pluses that most of the top seeds get first round and Harrisson as well. Two top 40 guys in the first two rounds of a slam. Either way who cares his opponents got upset and he beat the guys in front of him. By the way Novak's draw is about ten times as hard, would you like to trade semi opponents Banbro? be honest now?

Strange when Murray played Harrison it was an easy first round at the Aus Rolling Eyes

Ferrero is no longer a dangerous first round, certainly not more dangerous than Davy, who himself wasn't that fearsome on paper

Stepanek is now 33?

I feel Nole needed a test like the unpredictable Baghdatis or a Ferrer in the QF, before suddenly facing a tuned in Fed

Nole's draw is hard now. It hasn't been, relative to Murray, for the last 3 rounds, therein lies the difference

Of course it could be that Murray will be knackered, but if it got to a 4th set, my money's on Andy

Assuming he gets past Tsonga of course!!

by Danny_1982 Thu 05 Jul 2012, 11:59 am

I'm still really confused at the criticism of Murray here, everyone is talking like Ferrer is Stepanek or something. He's the world number 5 with 4 titles this year, a win over Rafa and won a title on grass the other week!

The stats say that Murray hit far more winners and made more errors, yet we're saying he was the passive one. Sure, he looked nervours for an hour and a half, but Ferrer really is in the form of his life and played very very well. But Murray still beat him in 4 sets.

On terms of why he was more aggressive at the French, because Ferrer moves like a dream on clay and certainly far better than Andy. If he'd waited for the right ball to hit on clay then Ferrer would have murdered him in my opinion. He can match (or better) Ferrer's movement on grass so waiting for the right ball to hit is the right approach in my opinion.

Murray will get more junk back from the remaining guys off his slice than against Ferrer who had no trouble getting down to it. That will give him more opportunities to hit through the court. Ferrer didn't give him that chance. Ferrer played really well.

If Murray serves like he did in the last couple of sets I think he's looking great, and that tough match will have played him into form nicely. However hairy the first 2 sets were, beating the world number 5 in 4 sets is a really good result. And I thought Murray got better and better as the match went on.

A lot of people have had similarly tough matches and dropped sets against players not in the top 20, let alone the top 5... So sorry to against the grain here but Murrays win has made me even more optimistic rather than pessimistic.

I think he'll beat Tsonga in 3 or 4 sets. Might get a bit tight again as Tsonga is a very very good player, but MurrY is a better player.

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 12:18 pm

Are we acknowledging the womens semi's today?? chin

by Josiah Maiestas Thu 05 Jul 2012, 12:20 pm

Radwanska and Azarenka for me Leg.

I wish Azarenka would stop grunting more often, she played a great few strokes in her qf match when the grunting quietened.

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 12:28 pm

That is a mighty call backing Azarenka. I think Williams has been the girl in form.

I am going for Kerber and Williams. The power hitters Smile

by Sponsored content