Murray, did he play the right way against Ferrer?

Now I have had this ongoing discussion for a day or so now with Murray fans which has brought up some interesting arguments. There are those that believe that murray played the right way with ferrer slogging it out with him for 4 hours and patiently waiting for Ferrer to breakdown. I have argued that despite the win this was either a poor gameplan or a poorly executed gameplan. Let us remember that Murray lost the first set and was a breaker down late in the second. 3 of the 4 sets went to tiebreak. David Ferrer has never been an overwhelming grass court player, he was playing well, he was attacking with the forehand no question. But I maintain that this match if anything is a tale of doing the wrong thing, doing the more dangerous and lower percentage thing and having it pay off.

Yes David Ferrer is one of the best players in the world, and is a challenge to hit through. On this particular surface however if you are Andy murray and you have the edge on ferrer in quick points, variety, and power shots you should never play the match we just witnessed. Many people are giving Murray credit for breaking down Ferrer's strength. Well we will see if that was effective strategy and if this match and all the other tougher matches murray has had a long the way don't hurt him. I think it will, very rarely does the winner of a slam drop a lot of sets early and go on to win.

Here is another interesting breakdown of the numbers if you take Andy 61 winners out of 166 points won. Won 37 percent of points on winners

Djokovic 50 winners out of 94 total points won. 53 percent of total points won with winners.

Now if you take out both players aces Murray has 43 winners out of 148 points, Djoko has 43 winners out 87 points. Still nearly 50 percent of all points after the return are won with him hitting winners. For Murray just 29 percent of points from the first serve on was won by a Murray winner, the rest of the points 70 percent were opponent errors or forced errors. Now you can argue about murray being crazy like a fox, on a grass court that isn't the way you want to playing. Playing to win the vast majority of points by the opponent making an error. On clay and slow hardcourt you may not have a choice to play Ferrer that way. Still Andy is through and is in the mix with the other 3 to see who lift the trophy. But despite ferrer's ranking, on this particular surface Andy made him a much more difficult opponent than he had to be.

To be honest as long as he wins it doesn't matter how he plays. It's when he loses that you ask did he play the right way

I don't think you can say it's wrong if it was then it wouldn't have worked and he wouldn't have beaten Ferrer but i do think he could of done it in easier circumstances and shorter time but then again when your playing someone of that caliber you have to fight it out and even get a bit lucky at times.

Be interesting to see what he does with Tsonga as he won't slow down like Ferrer did.

no he obviously didnt- but he switched tactics in just about time, and won very convincingly at the end. but he didnt start of right at all, he played right into ferres hands

Olly wrote:To be honest as long as he wins it doesn't matter how he plays. It's when he loses that you ask did he play the right way

Not really sometimes a win or result can mask a bad trend and a mistake. In tennis if you get into the habit of playing the wrong way and having some success it actually damages your mindset in future matches. Murray showed heart, he showed ability, and I don't question his effort. This was win or lose a poor game plan or poorly executed gameplan. And in the future it will be a recipe for disaster.

socal1976 wrote:

Olly wrote:To be honest as long as he wins it doesn't matter how he plays. It's when he loses that you ask did he play the right way

Not really sometimes a win or result can mask a bad trend and a mistake. In tennis if you get into the habit of playing the wrong way and having some success it actually damages your mindset in future matches. Murray showed heart, he showed ability, and I don't question his effort. This was win or lose a poor game plan or poorly executed gameplan. And in the future it will be a recipe for disaster.

How is the gameplan poorly executed if he won? Surely the gameplan is designed to make you win

Ferrer should be given credit for his match. Comparing Ferrer to F Mayer is also perhaps a misnomer.

4,1,4 in the Djokovic-Mayer case vs 3 TB sets should also be an indicator of the differences between Mayer and Ferrer.

For example, compare the 4,1,4 (Mayer) to 4,4,4 (Harrison).

In Harrison case,
31 Winners - 8 Aces = 23 winners.
Total Points won = 98

Just 25% (23/98) in winners.

Bottom line is the opponent across the net determines the game plan and subsequent execution.

olly you can allways improve even when you win- if you dont constanly do that you die

People keep underestimating Ferrer, he is one hell of a fighter on his day and he is consistent, except for Mighty Fed he has beaten everybody atleast once and did it more than comfortably.

Murray knew very well Ferrer will not give up nor die quickly and thats blessing in disguise for Murray coz he wouldn't have won it unless he proved himself he is mentally strong enough to win, so in every aspect it was a good match for Murray and if Fed don't make the finals [which looks very likely] Murray would fancy his chances against Nole in the finals.

For me Murray is the better player in grass than Nole.

mystiroakey wrote:olly you can allways improve even when you win- if you dont constanly do that you die

I know that, but he won the match and can improve next match.

correct but nothing wrong with discusing potential weaknesses in execution. Murray is here to win. And i garantee him and lendal will be discussing these points

Boris has an interesting perspective

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/9377303/Wimbledon-2012-Andy-Murrays-win-over-David-Ferrer-puts-the-biggest-prize-of-all-within-reach.html

socal1976 wrote:Well we will see if that was effective strategy and if this match and all the other tougher matches murray has had a long the way don't hurt him. I think it will, very rarely does the winner of a slam drop a lot of sets early and go on to win.

If I'm correct Murray has lost three sets in his five matches so far (hardly dropping a lot of sets). That is the same as Federer and Tsonga. Djokovic has only lost one.

Massive positives the way murray has seemingly upped his game when needed- but i do feel he got that little bit lucky by not going two sets down in the last.

It has been great prep - but lets not suggest he has looked invincible at times

The gameplan is poorly executed if the plan was to be aggressive with Ferrer, if the plan is to rally with Ferrer then it is a stupid gameplan. So either murray was trying to be aggressive and couldn't, then it is a poorly executed gameplan. Or from the outset he wanted to out grind ferrer, then it is just a stupid game plan from the outset. It has to be one or the other in my mind.

mystiroakey wrote:Massive positives the way murray has seemingly upped his game when needed- but i do feel he got that little bit lucky by not going two sets down in the last.

It has been great prep - but lets not suggest he has looked invincible at times

Great post, I generally root for Andy, he isn't my favorite player but I like his game and personality well enough. To me this win was an ominous win. Andy impressed me with his fight and talent and I never questioned that about him in the first place. Despite showing all of these characteristics against Ferrer it was a terribly thought out match. He plays that way in the semi and the final and we are in for dissappointment. The good news is he still alive and has the talent to play much better. But I wasn't particularly impressed with this match, in fact the opposite. This seems exactly the opposite of what Lendl was supposed to get him to do, the results good, but if this match is a trend it is a very disturbing trend.

Calder106 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Well we will see if that was effective strategy and if this match and all the other tougher matches murray has had a long the way don't hurt him. I think it will, very rarely does the winner of a slam drop a lot of sets early and go on to win.

If I'm correct Murray has lost three sets in his five matches so far (hardly dropping a lot of sets). That is the same as Federer and Tsonga. Djokovic has only lost one.

I agree with that 3 isn't too many sets to drop, but lets see how much the Tsonga match takes out of him. Don't get me wrong I am in noway saying Andy can't win this thing. He has the ability to. But if he plays that way in front of Novak or Federer, straight set humiliation is what I forsee. Hopefully, he and his team are smart enough not to get carried away with the fools gold of this match. On a grass court getting 70 percent of your points after the first serve on Ferrer errors is a very dangerous and poor strategy. ,

mystiroakey wrote:Massive positives the way murray has seemingly upped his game when needed- but i do feel he got that little bit lucky by not going two sets down in the last.

It has been great prep - but lets not suggest he has looked invincible at times

Had to go out during first set and only got back when Murray was 0-3 down in the second set tie break. He served excellently for the rest of the breaker and took 2 of Ferrer's serve to win it. I don't think he got lucky there. I know that Ferrer actually served for the set earlier on but was broken. Was that good play by Murray or bad play by Ferrer ? Not a dig just asking because I didn't see what happened.

ferrer missed 3 easy winners in that service game calder

invisiblecoolers wrote:People keep underestimating Ferrer, he is one hell of a fighter on his day and he is consistent, except for Mighty Fed he has beaten everybody atleast once and did it more than comfortably.

Murray knew very well Ferrer will not give up nor die quickly and thats blessing in disguise for Murray coz he wouldn't have won it unless he proved himself he is mentally strong enough to win, so in every aspect it was a good match for Murray and if Fed don't make the finals [which looks very likely] Murray would fancy his chances against Nole in the finals.

For me Murray is the better player in grass than Nole.

Invisible Coolers not one of your best posts my friend. There is a big gold trophy with the names of Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and yes now Djokovic on it that shows Novak is the better grass court player than Andy. If Andy plays like he did in this great performance against Ferrer in front of Novak he will be lucky on current form to get out of the match with double digit games.

Nobody is underestimating Ferrer except that this is his weakest surface and murray has more power and variety and should have never been in that kind of match with ferrer on this surface. He is basically one or two points at the end of the second set away from being out of the tournament really or at least at death's door. So if you guys see this as a big positive performance that is fine. If you are going to counterpunch david ferrer on this surface then maybe all this talk about being aggressive is just a joke. Maybe you should just remake yourself into the second Mats wilander and be done with it.

socal1976 wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Well we will see if that was effective strategy and if this match and all the other tougher matches murray has had a long the way don't hurt him. I think it will, very rarely does the winner of a slam drop a lot of sets early and go on to win.

If I'm correct Murray has lost three sets in his five matches so far (hardly dropping a lot of sets). That is the same as Federer and Tsonga. Djokovic has only lost one.

I agree with that 3 isn't too many sets to drop, but lets see how much the Tsonga match takes out of him. Don't get me wrong I am in noway saying Andy can't win this thing. He has the ability to. But if he plays that way in front of Novak or Federer, straight set humiliation is what I forsee. Hopefully, he and his team are smart enough not to get carried away with the fools gold of this match. On a grass court getting 70 percent of your points after the first serve on Ferrer errors is a very dangerous and poor strategy. ,

Having experience in his camp at the sharp end of slams is why Lendl was brought in. This will be a good test of how it's working.

mystiroakey wrote:ferrer missed 3 easy winners in that service game calder

ok thanks.

Interesting article.
I really don't see Tsonga as much as a problem for Andy in the SF, I am confident that at most Tsonga will get a set like 2010.

However unfortunately I don't see Murray winning the final when he gets there if he has to play Djokovic (which I am 93% sure he will); but he does have a chance if he faces Federer. Either way I think he will lose his 4th Grand Slam Final in a row

93% sure- nice work. can i have a breakdown of your stat pal!

Of course Murray had a smaller percentage of winners in his quarter final than Novak did in his. Murray was playing one of the best defenders in the game! And a man that's having his best season on the tour.

People keep talking about Ferrer like he was some nobody... He's world number 5! And if he's no good on grass, how come he annihilated Del Potro and found himself in the quarter finals, a week or two after winning a grass tournament?

Murray served better and better as the match went on and was unloading off both wings towards the end. I think he looks in good shape. A 4 set win over Ferrer is in no circumstances a bad result. In fact, it's a good result and justifies the approach. Sometimes players match up in different ways, and Ferrer is someone who gives him problems.

Federer has been at risk lately from Tsonga, yet Murray usually deals with him comfortably. Doesn't mean Murray is better than Fed, just means the match up suits him better. Murray is in fine shape, no question about it.

Not sure who is calling ferrer a nobody- He has been on top form this year.. I know many have dismissed him before in this wimby- but its like they havent seen tennis for a year to be doing that!! I will admit i havent seen much but i knew about ferrers massive improvement on all surfices in the build up to this event

but to say that Murrays approach was justified by looking at a 4 set win is missing the key point- ferrer made errors in his service game at 5/4 in the second set to let murray back in. We have to look past the scoreline and look at the realities of it.

Same time all GS winners go though those sort of games- your right murrays in top shape..

mystiroakey wrote:93% sure- nice work. can i have a breakdown of your stat pal!

Chances of Djokovic winning: 93%
Chances of Federer winning: 7%

what about both dqed for kicking an advertsing board into refs legs at the same time.

we gotta factor in a .00001% chance of that happening

mystiroakey wrote:what about both dqed for kicking an advertsing board into refs legs at the same time.

we gotta factor in a .00001% chance of that happening

No advertising board at Wimbledon remember

well what about a punch up between them both?

mystiroakey wrote:well what about a punch up between them both?

Hmm we can't rule that one out.

laverfan wrote:Ferrer should be given credit for his match. Comparing Ferrer to F Mayer is also perhaps a misnomer.

4,1,4 in the Djokovic-Mayer case vs 3 TB sets should also be an indicator of the differences between Mayer and Ferrer.

For example, compare the 4,1,4 (Mayer) to 4,4,4 (Harrison).

In Harrison case,
31 Winners - 8 Aces = 23 winners.
Total Points won = 98

Just 25% (23/98) in winners.

Bottom line is the opponent across the net determines the game plan and subsequent execution.

Precisely my point laverfan. I am not perplexed Murray had to grind out matches everyone on tour does that. I am perplexed as to why he decided to grind it out with a guy he hits harder than, has more variety than and is a nightmare to play in those type of matches. Harrison also is not David Ferrer. He hits a lot harder and gives you way, way more errors. Playing harris safer is smart, playing for errors from Ferrer isn't.

mystiroakey wrote:no he obviously didnt- but he switched tactics in just about time, and won very convincingly at the end. but he didnt start of right at all, he played right into ferres hands

I share your opinion about Murray changing tactics at the right time. What won him the match in the end was his very effective serving in the fourth set. Apart from the game at 3-4 in the fourth, he was rarely troubled on serve and held serve quite comfortably. In the tiebreak, the same serving trend continue. It is apropos that he won the match against Ferrer on a first serve ace. If he can keep up this type of serving performance, he will be in good shape for the rest of the Championships.

socal1976 wrote:The gameplan is poorly executed if the plan was to be aggressive with Ferrer, if the plan is to rally with Ferrer then it is a stupid gameplan. So either murray was trying to be aggressive and couldn't, then it is a poorly executed gameplan. Or from the outset he wanted to out grind ferrer, then it is just a stupid game plan from the outset. It has to be one or the other in my mind.

I agree with this.
IMHO Murray can win nearly of all his matches playing they way he did against Ferrer, and it's almost as if that blocks him mentally from changing it around, even when he knows that he should do so. Maybe he doesn't have the belief in his 'aggressive' game that he definitely needs to have - the question is, will he ever get it?

Danny_1982 wrote:Of course Murray had a smaller percentage of winners in his quarter final than Novak did in his. Murray was playing one of the best defenders in the game! And a man that's having his best season on the tour.

People keep talking about Ferrer like he was some nobody... He's world number 5! And if he's no good on grass, how come he annihilated Del Potro and found himself in the quarter finals, a week or two after winning a grass tournament?

Murray served better and better as the match went on and was unloading off both wings towards the end. I think he looks in good shape. A 4 set win over Ferrer is in no circumstances a bad result. In fact, it's a good result and justifies the approach. Sometimes players match up in different ways, and Ferrer is someone who gives him problems.

Federer has been at risk lately from Tsonga, yet Murray usually deals with him comfortably. Doesn't mean Murray is better than Fed, just means the match up suits him better. Murray is in fine shape, no question about it.

Who has talked about Ferrer like he is no body. I give the man his due but if you believe he is as dangerous at wimbeldon as on other surfaces well sorry the numbers don't bear it out. No a good result doesn't justify the approach, not until you test the approach over time and get a bigger sample size. You can hit a 19 in blackjack and one time you might do that and guess what you draw a 2 and win. Does that mean you should always hit on 19?

Lets look at those numbers, you do realize that murray played more than twice as many points as Roger and Novak. Murray practically had to win two semis last night. Great come from behind, he showed his heart, he showed his ability, I just would like him to show that tactical mind and faith in his attack game that I don't believe he showed last night. If you play Ferrer even in the neutral points in terms of winners you are carving yourself a big mountain. Especially, when you have more power and more variety. To chose to make it a battle of fitness, feet, and consistency is mind numbingly inexcusable. Lets say murray loses one or two more points at the end of the second set and went out playing the exact same type of match. I would be able to hear the howls of outrage all the way across the Atlantic.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The gameplan is poorly executed if the plan was to be aggressive with Ferrer, if the plan is to rally with Ferrer then it is a stupid gameplan. So either murray was trying to be aggressive and couldn't, then it is a poorly executed gameplan. Or from the outset he wanted to out grind ferrer, then it is just a stupid game plan from the outset. It has to be one or the other in my mind.

I agree with this.
IMHO Murray can win nearly of all his matches playing they way he did against Ferrer, and it's almost as if that blocks him mentally from changing it around, even when he knows that he should do so. Maybe he doesn't have the belief in his 'aggressive' game that he definitely needs to have - the question is, will he ever get it?

Exactly Julius, you put your finger on it good post. That is why I found this win ominous, there are such things as ominous wins. It is a reflection of what we have been talking about unfortunately with murray for a long time lack of belief in his attack game. He believes in his defensive game, but does he really when push comes to shove believe in his attack mode? From the evidence I saw against ferrer I would say the answer is no.

kemet wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:no he obviously didnt- but he switched tactics in just about time, and won very convincingly at the end. but he didnt start of right at all, he played right into ferres hands

I share your opinion about Murray changing tactics at the right time. What won him the match in the end was his very effective serving in the fourth set. Apart from the game at 3-4 in the fourth, he was rarely troubled on serve and held serve quite comfortably. In the tiebreak, the same serving trend continue. It is apropos that he won the match against Ferrer on a first serve ace. If he can keep up this type of serving performance, he will be in good shape for the rest of the Championships.

That is one good thing I took from the match his heart and his first serve got the job done for him.

Socal - I'm pretty sure the gameplan would have been what Murray produced in the last 2 sets. Serving well, unloading from both wings but not kamikaze, only when the opportunity was there to hit it.

I think that was the idea from the outset, but Murray didn't start well and Ferrer did. You say that this approach is not the right approach against Ferrer, but it's how I've always seen him play against Ferrer, away from clay. Away from clay the record is 6-1 to Murray. I think that's a decent result set for you.

I think you're reading way too much into it. Federer was far closer to going out against a far lower ranked player in this tournament. Djokovic nearly fell to Tsonga on clay at RG (by far Tsonga's least favourite surface by his own admission) but he came through the battle. These things happen.

If Murray had started swinging when not playing that well, he'd be out now! He worked his way back in and became more aggressive the more confident he got. I think that's the sign of someone who knows how to turn a match around and what tactics to use to do it.

Bottom line is that it worked! Ferrer is by a mile the most accomplished player any of the top 4 have met all tournament and Murray beat him in 4 sets.

Ferrer looked set to inflict more heartache on Murray as he nearly engineered a two-set lead. The Valencia native initially squandered a 5-3 lead, but regrouped to take the opening set in a tie-break. He then served for the second set at 5-3, having broken serve in the eighth game, but Murray immediately drew level with a service break to 15. Ferrer led 5-2 in the ensuing tie-break, and had a set point chance at 6-5, but was denied by Murray who converted his first opportunity after a lengthy baseline exchange that ended in Ferrer finding the net.

Murray was under pressure early in the third set, saving two break points at 15/40 in the fourth game. He then took the lead in the match when he broke Ferrer in the ninth game and served out to love. Ferrer again had the chance to break early in the fourth set, but was denied two break points in the eighth game before then rallying from 15/40 down himself in the following game. Play was suspended for 24 minutes at 5-5 due to rain, and at the resumption Murray claimed victory in the tie-break, finishing with an ace after three hours and 52 minutes.


"I think the key was in the second set, when I had one set point in the tie-break," said Ferrer. "But Andy, in important moments he played really good. He played more aggressive than me, and he was better.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/07/27/Wimbledon-Wednesday2-Murray-Overcomes-Ferrer.aspx

Danny_1982 wrote:Socal - I'm pretty sure the gameplan would have been what Murray produced in the last 2 sets. Serving well, unloading from both wings but not kamikaze, only when the opportunity was there to hit it.

I think that was the idea from the outset, but Murray didn't start well and Ferrer did. You say that this approach is not the right approach against Ferrer, but it's how I've always seen him play against Ferrer, away from clay. Away from clay the record is 6-1 to Murray. I think that's a decent result set for you.

I think you're reading way too much into it. Federer was far closer to going out against a far lower ranked player in this tournament. Djokovic nearly fell to Tsonga on clay at RG (by far Tsonga's least favourite surface by his own admission) but he came through the battle. These things happen.

If Murray had started swinging when not playing that well, he'd be out now! He worked his way back in and became more aggressive the more confident he got. I think that's the sign of someone who knows how to turn a match around and what tactics to use to do it.

Bottom line is that it worked! Ferrer is by a mile the most accomplished player any of the top 4 have met all tournament and Murray beat him in 4 sets.

+1

There is something to be said about that. But remember, Novak didn't look good against Tsonga and seppi and although he made the final he lost. He was not playing as well as he needed to win that tournament. Right now I don't know if Murray is there yet either. I don't want to make to negative because his first serve was impressive and he defended his second pretty well against one of the best returners in the world. That to me is a positive of the murray performance overall.

But there is a big grey streak lets say in this story Danny. And it isn't one performance, this isn't the first time people have questioned Andy's belief in his ability to attack. He brought in lendl and removed his good friend precisely I thought to get aggressive and win in slams. To me these stats indicate that Murray's forehand laid a big dud in this match. Either through indecision in pulling the trigger or ineffectiveness. The serve was there, the legs were there, the backhand was there. But the dictator of most rallies the forehand was not effectual enough for my money. And it wasn't some flaw he just wasn't willing to take the first forehand and committ.

And Danny don't build a strawman no one is calling for kamikaze tennis. We are talking about playing the style of tennis that all the best players play on a fast court against a great counterpuncher. Aggressive consistent 1-2 punch tennis. No one is calling for him to charge in or belt the first forehand for the lines that is not what I am saying. There is however difference from that and 4 hours of tennis over 4 sets, with a grinder on a grass court. It would be like brazil playing Italy in football and deciding that they were going to pack everyone behind the ball and play for an odd goal off the set piece.

The thing is Murray did something that Federer has struggled to with Djokovic in the last year and what Djokovic failed to do with Nadal at the FO and what Nadal failed to do against Rosol. Change the match around.

A player worth his salt has a back up plan. Murray clearly upped his intensity because his Plan A wasn't working. What was evident was that Murray didn't want to start as the aggressor and hence why he didn't fancy the FH or BH. What Murray did was take incentive. Seal the 2nd set and work upwards. His serving % went up by 10 and he started adding a little power to his game.

Some players have the intelligence and execution to change matches around. Nadal and Djokovic this year have waited for a win rather than change their fortunes themselves.

Well I don't buy that Legend completely subjective in my opinion and not really supported by the facts. Djoko can just as easily win with plan A and plan B as murray probably more so. The question for me is not just murray choosing a different approach, it is murray choosing the wrong approach. This was the wrong playbook executed well enough to win. Ferrer is no world beater on grass although he had a great grass court season this year. The point is not playing one of the most consistent and fastest guys out there in a match determined by drawing or forcing errors. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Socal - you can sound as negative as you like, it really doesn't matter to me. I respect your opinion, but in my opinion you are wrong and reading too much into what was essentially not a good start.

He turned it around and beat a fine player, so I'm happy. There is a massive difference between the reaction when Murray wins a match like this and any of the top 3 win a match like this.... The top 3 get praised for winning when not playing well, whereas Murray - even when he turns it around like yesterday - has the bad bit analysed to death, and the positives are swept into the background.

I do find that strange, but it's how it is and how it always seems to be. Maybe that will only change if/when he wins a slam.

For now, we clearly disagree and will have to agree to disagree. I think his stock went up yesterday, you think it went down. Each to their own.

socal1976 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:People keep underestimating Ferrer, he is one hell of a fighter on his day and he is consistent, except for Mighty Fed he has beaten everybody atleast once and did it more than comfortably.

Murray knew very well Ferrer will not give up nor die quickly and thats blessing in disguise for Murray coz he wouldn't have won it unless he proved himself he is mentally strong enough to win, so in every aspect it was a good match for Murray and if Fed don't make the finals [which looks very likely] Murray would fancy his chances against Nole in the finals.

For me Murray is the better player in grass than Nole.

Invisible Coolers not one of your best posts my friend. There is a big gold trophy with the names of Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and yes now Djokovic on it that shows Novak is the better grass court player than Andy. If Andy plays like he did in this great performance against Ferrer in front of Novak he will be lucky on current form to get out of the match with double digit games.

Nobody is underestimating Ferrer except that this is his weakest surface and murray has more power and variety and should have never been in that kind of match with ferrer on this surface. He is basically one or two points at the end of the second set away from being out of the tournament really or at least at death's door. So if you guys see this as a big positive performance that is fine. If you are going to counterpunch david ferrer on this surface then maybe all this talk about being aggressive is just a joke. Maybe you should just remake yourself into the second Mats wilander and be done with it.

Socal if Fed -Nadal would have met in 2010 Wimbledon most likely Nadal would have won do that mean Nadal is still the inferior player to Fed just coz Fed has 6 trophies? Djoko is a better player than Murray overall but on grass I feel its Murray the better player however Murray is a mental midget in closing stages and hence could not win the decisive one in the end, but we will see this year how it goes, Murray having tough draw had made him stronger with every match.

Yeah, well argued Danny there is something to be said about not reading too much into one much. Other stars do have to grind out matches many of the times. But usually in a match against this type of player, on this surface they don't, I guess that is the point I am trying to make.

Oh, and you need to read my post again because I never said that you suggested kamikaze tennis. So nobody was building a strawman.

Like draw rigging is not supported by facts, but some choose to believe it. Yes Djokovic can utilise different plans, the point remains he hasn't. A slam is not bad going neither.

Ferrer is no mug. Criticise the guy, but he is too evenly matched to Murray and how he plays. All players have that boogie man that they find difficult to overcome. Federer and Djokovic have it in Nadal, Agassi had it in Sampras, Gonzales had it in Laver.

Plenty of facts legendkillar, numbers are facts, statistical analysis is evidence. Ferrer is not Andy's nemesis on anything but clay. Andy has won 6 out of 7 matches against him off of the clay and would have won this easy if not for really bad strategy or tacitcal execution. Ferrer is no mug but he isn't Rafa Nadal either. And if murray played Nadal also a very dangerous counter puncher I would tell him the same thing you are going to win this match by out hitting him not by out grinding him.

How much effort and energy do you think Andy would've spent on trying out hit someone who is going to retrieve every shot? There lies the intelligence. Tennis is not about trying to blast players off the court. Like I stated on the match thread that day, patience would see Murray through and it did.

Why do you think Federer uses the slice against Ferrer so much and not blast him off the court?

That tells you something.