Murray, did he play the right way against Ferrer?

First topic message reminder :

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.

Opinions, opinions, opinions how many GS finals did Lendl lose before winning his first, you all know the answer. Back then, many would have been saying the same about Lendl as they are now about Murray.

It all count's for diidley squat.

Just get behind the Brit, win or lose.

skyeman wrote:Opinions, opinions, opinions how many GS finals did Lendl lose before winning his first, you all know the answer. Back then, many would have been saying the same about Lendl as they are now about Murray.

It all count's for diidley squat.

Just get behind the Brit, win or lose.

legendkillarV2 wrote: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.

Good points, well presented.

skyeman wrote:Opinions, opinions, opinions how many GS finals did Lendl lose before winning his first, you all know the answer. Back then, many would have been saying the same about Lendl as they are now about Murray.

It all count's for diidley squat.

Just get behind the Brit, win or lose.

Murray is not lendl, and he doesn't stand a chance. He is also an annoying arrogant player who shouts out and continually frowns. I hope he is dismantled like Nadal was against Tsonga in aussie open that year.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

skyeman wrote:Opinions, opinions, opinions how many GS finals did Lendl lose before winning his first, you all know the answer. Back then, many would have been saying the same about Lendl as they are now about Murray.

It all count's for diidley squat.

Just get behind the Brit, win or lose.

Murray is not lendl, and he doesn't stand a chance. He is also an annoying arrogant player who shouts out and continually frowns. I hope he is dismantled like Nadal was against Tsonga in aussie open that year.

Again, opinions and again don't mean diddley squat.

That is the thing legend in my opinion your argument is contrafactual. You use very little energy trying to out hit someone, win or lose. YOu either end the point quick with a winner or forced error or you lose it quickly with an error and very little running. It takes more energy to try to out run and out fight ferrer that is for sure. You do realize murray played more than 2 times as many points and spent double the time on court of Federer and Nadal. Literally, he played two semis to his closest rivals one. But that isn't the worst of it. Murray is a fit game that won't hamper him that much. The worst of it is that it is a bad way to play that player on grass. And the fact that he won doing it may only in the long term reinforce that instinct.

socal I have to disagree with your viewpoint here.

The name of the game is winning and Andy did that here so gameplan succeeded and that is all that matters. Now I think it was Danny1982 who made a very pertinent point on this earlier in that recently at the French Open Andy went down the all-aggressive route against Ferrer and ended up losing in four sets. The other day he tweaked the gameplan a bit and by all accounts it wasn't all passive and it worked and Andy won in four. Also, whether this is fact or not I am not sure, but people are saying Ferrer is in the form of his life just now and factually he is the world No.5 so was always going to put up a tenacious battle but still Andy won through in four. That will do for me thank you very much. He will come up with alternative gameplans in the upcoming matches so will wait until he loses with wrong gameplan before criticising.

Here is the thing Craig, it wasn't all passive. From the end of the second set on i think he found the right mix more often, still not enough but more often. And guess what that was when he ran away from David. See from my own experience subconsciously unless you really stop and think about it and focus you do what you are used to and what is comfortable. To me when that happens to Murray his first instinct isn't to attack it is to buckle down and defend. Maybe this will work for him but so far at this stage of his career I think he has taken that approach as far as he can take it. He is just a better player when he doesn't play that way in my mind and as I have stated before the opponent and the conditions practically begged him to lean on that ball and make Ferrer feel the weight of his shot. The occassion and circumstances called for it and he didn't do it. Good on him that he can beat Ferrer at his own game but not for one second do I think that was his plan or he wanted to play that way.

Yes socal I do agree he needs to be aggressive more of the time as he can do it but just not often enough. Being overly-aggressive may be outside his comfort zone I don't know but at the end of the day he beat Ferrer in four sets so it can't be called a wrong gameplan until he actually loses. Passivity is a wrong gameplan against Nadal, Federer and Djokovic but if it were one day to win him a slam then who cares. I hope not though as I want that aggression - the sort of game he brought out in the Australian Open semi this year and proved he can most definitely live with Djokovic.

Right craig we have both watched Murray play the other way. You have watched him play, which murray is better? Mr. 35 shot rally or the guy who in 2009 looked like he figured out his forehand and was just going to hit thru you. Or the guy this very year who earlier in the year at AO Semi, said I don't care if I hit a few errors I am going to be the one who wins and loses this match on my racquet. You know at the AO semi Murray hit a lot more errors than winners with his forehand but he hit a lot of winners on a slow court against one of the best retrievers. Why couldn't he hit those winners against Ferrer with the surface giving his shots just that little more sting. Yes he lost, AO 2012 it but he pushed Novak to the absolute brink in a big grand slam match on novak's favorite court. Be honest Craig I trust your word, which Murray is better the murray who tries to play with aggression or the murray who plays more passively and tactically? I know as a Djokovic fan which one I fear and it isn't the one I saw against Ferrer.

socal1976 wrote:That is the thing legend in my opinion your argument is contrafactual. You use very little energy trying to out hit someone, win or lose. YOu either end the point quick with a winner or forced error or you lose it quickly with an error and very little running. It takes more energy to try to out run and out fight ferrer that is for sure. You do realize murray played more than 2 times as many points and spent double the time on court of Federer and Nadal. Literally, he played two semis to his closest rivals one. But that isn't the worst of it. Murray is a fit game that won't hamper him that much. The worst of it is that it is a bad way to play that player on grass. And the fact that he won doing it may only in the long term reinforce that instinct.

Again that basis uses very little proof. Why is Tsonga not a top 4 player? Because he tries to blast players from the court and the moment you start that and spraying wide, you start to concede matches. Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic, all players that try the I will outpower you tactic are doomed to fail. It can work say 1/10 but that would be about it. Does Djokovic out hit opponents for 3 sets? Not a chance.

You really are under estimating the importance of defence which is quite shocking given that Djokovic is a similar ilk to that of Murray and Nadal. The new breed of I will defend but also counterpunch when it suits.

I can tell you now that it takes more energy to blast someone from the court than it is to defend.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

skyeman wrote:Opinions, opinions, opinions how many GS finals did Lendl lose before winning his first, you all know the answer. Back then, many would have been saying the same about Lendl as they are now about Murray.

It all count's for diidley squat.

Just get behind the Brit, win or lose.

Murray is not lendl, and he doesn't stand a chance. He is also an annoying arrogant player who shouts out and continually frowns. I hope he is dismantled like Nadal was against Tsonga in aussie open that year.

I am surprised that Murray and Nadal have allowed you to know them so well.

socal1976 wrote:Right craig we have both watched Murray play the other way. You have watched him play, which murray is better? Mr. 35 shot rally or the guy who in 2009 looked like he figured out his forehand and was just going to hit thru you. Or the guy this very year who earlier in the year at AO Semi, said I don't care if I hit a few errors I am going to be the one who wins and loses this match on my racquet. You know at the AO semi Murray hit a lot more errors than winners with his forehand but he hit a lot of winners on a slow court against one of the best retrievers. Why couldn't he hit those winners against Ferrer with the surface giving his shots just that little more sting. Yes he lost, AO 2012 it but he pushed Novak to the absolute brink in a big grand slam match on novak's favorite court. Be honest Craig I trust your word, which Murray is better the murray who tries to play with aggression or the murray who plays more passively and tactically? I know as a Djokovic fan which one I fear and it isn't the one I saw against Ferrer.

For me, personally, the one who plays aggressively of course. However, it is not always a winning gameplan as Andy found out V Ferrer at the French Open.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

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.

Invisible my dear friend don't get carried way and throw gasoline on the fire of your pronouncement of Murray as the superior grass court player to reigning wimbeldon champion Novak Djokovic. Do you know how I determine if one of the big 4 have a tough draw at a slam. I basically look at the quarter and the semi and maybe I peak at the 4th round, maybe at wimby because of the big servers it is a bit different. This is what I am talking about when I get berated for saying that the top guys determine who wins the slam and strength of the era. IC, how many tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands would Novak pay to have Tsonga in the semi as opposed to Fed, as good as Tsonga is? Do you think Djokovic, or Nadal, or Federer for one second would lose any sleep about playing any of Murray's foes up till now? I don't, 90 percent of the time they beat these also rans whoever they are. What determines a tough draw for a top, top guy is basically the quarter and the semi, on grass maybe the odd big server. Do you think Novak would be quaking in his boots or Roger for that matter by being forced to have a slightly harder 3rd or 2nd round opponent, I don't think they are. But I tell you what both those guys are having a little nervous tension right now. Novak wakes up with the prospect of playing the greatest in the history of the world tomorrow on his favorite court on the planet, albeit a half step slower. If I was him playing for all that money, all that glory, all that is at stake against that man on that court I would be crapping myself. Don't you think right now Djokovic would have rather safely flambayed Cilic and Baghdatis and not have to play the man? Or do you think he is more frightened of having to play Marin Cilic?

I don't know about you, but I'm not even playing and I'm crapping myself!

bogbrush wrote:I don't know about you, but I'm not even playing and I'm crapping myself!

Exactly. Very nerve-wracking.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Right craig we have both watched Murray play the other way. You have watched him play, which murray is better? Mr. 35 shot rally or the guy who in 2009 looked like he figured out his forehand and was just going to hit thru you. Or the guy this very year who earlier in the year at AO Semi, said I don't care if I hit a few errors I am going to be the one who wins and loses this match on my racquet. You know at the AO semi Murray hit a lot more errors than winners with his forehand but he hit a lot of winners on a slow court against one of the best retrievers. Why couldn't he hit those winners against Ferrer with the surface giving his shots just that little more sting. Yes he lost, AO 2012 it but he pushed Novak to the absolute brink in a big grand slam match on novak's favorite court. Be honest Craig I trust your word, which Murray is better the murray who tries to play with aggression or the murray who plays more passively and tactically? I know as a Djokovic fan which one I fear and it isn't the one I saw against Ferrer.

For me, personally, the one who plays aggressively of course. However, it is not always a winning gameplan as Andy found out V Ferrer at the French Open.

Very different surface and conditions Craig you know that.

Yes but but does surface and conditions make a difference if you are trying to hit lines or be aggressive and it doesn't work? I think not.

Let me just add this.

Ferrer played Del Potro and everyone expected Del Potro to smash him off the court.

Look at what happened. Ferrer feasted on the aggression and dispatched him in 3 easy sets.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes but but does surface and conditions make a difference if you are trying to hit lines or be aggressive and it doesn't work? I think not.

I have played tennis on and off for nearly 30 years and I have never in my life tried to hit a line. That would be insane the line is like 2 and half or 3 inches thick it would be crazy to try to hit them. So yes conditions make a huge difference. How much better does murray play on hardcourt than clay? How much better does Nadal play on clay than on hardcourt? Let me tell you Craig nobody tries to hit the line. In fact every coach I know tells you to try to hit a little away from the line, it is usually just as good and a lot less dangerous.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:That is the thing legend in my opinion your argument is contrafactual. You use very little energy trying to out hit someone, win or lose. YOu either end the point quick with a winner or forced error or you lose it quickly with an error and very little running. It takes more energy to try to out run and out fight ferrer that is for sure. You do realize murray played more than 2 times as many points and spent double the time on court of Federer and Nadal. Literally, he played two semis to his closest rivals one. But that isn't the worst of it. Murray is a fit game that won't hamper him that much. The worst of it is that it is a bad way to play that player on grass. And the fact that he won doing it may only in the long term reinforce that instinct.

Again that basis uses very little proof. Why is Tsonga not a top 4 player? Because he tries to blast players from the court and the moment you start that and spraying wide, you start to concede matches. Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic, all players that try the I will outpower you tactic are doomed to fail. It can work say 1/10 but that would be about it. Does Djokovic out hit opponents for 3 sets? Not a chance.

You really are under estimating the importance of defence which is quite shocking given that Djokovic is a similar ilk to that of Murray and Nadal. The new breed of I will defend but also counterpunch when it suits.

I can tell you now that it takes more energy to blast someone from the court than it is to defend.

Again Legend you are smart guy but sometimes when you don't want to hear you don't want to hear. Against this player, on this court, as the way their skills matched up playing the way he did was ludicrous. It might make sense against a guy who gives you a lot of errors, it doesn't make sense against Ferrer on this court. And I challenge you to ask the question of any, any tennis question and see if 90 percent of them don't agree with me. It is easier for Murray to hit winners on grass that is why he should go for them more.

And again no strawmen nobody is talking about wildly aggressive tennis, just what every other top player who is confident in his attack game would do against David Ferrer on that court.

Of course Novak doesn't play that way and try to blast opponents off the court in every match. It depends on the opponent and it depends onf the surface. The percentages in both in terms of the surface and the opponent called for murray to play 180 degrees different. Either he couldn't or he made the boneheaded decision to do it the hardway.

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes but but does surface and conditions make a difference if you are trying to hit lines or be aggressive and it doesn't work? I think not.

I have played tennis on and off for nearly 30 years and I have never in my life tried to hit a line. That would be insane the line is like 2 and half or 3 inches thick it would be crazy to try to hit them. So yes conditions make a huge difference. How much better does murray play on hardcourt than clay? How much better does Nadal play on clay than on hardcourt? Let me tell you Craig nobody tries to hit the line. In fact every coach I know tells you to try to hit a little away from the line, it is usually just as good and a lot less dangerous.

That was merely me coining a phrase 'hitting the lines' but the point stands that the surface really doesn't make a difference as the courts are of the same dimensions. Being aggressive means hitting with pace and close to the lines and against some opponents it works and against others it can go wrong as was the case of Murray V Ferrer at FO.

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:That is the thing legend in my opinion your argument is contrafactual. You use very little energy trying to out hit someone, win or lose. YOu either end the point quick with a winner or forced error or you lose it quickly with an error and very little running. It takes more energy to try to out run and out fight ferrer that is for sure. You do realize murray played more than 2 times as many points and spent double the time on court of Federer and Nadal. Literally, he played two semis to his closest rivals one. But that isn't the worst of it. Murray is a fit game that won't hamper him that much. The worst of it is that it is a bad way to play that player on grass. And the fact that he won doing it may only in the long term reinforce that instinct.

Again that basis uses very little proof. Why is Tsonga not a top 4 player? Because he tries to blast players from the court and the moment you start that and spraying wide, you start to concede matches. Berdych, Del Potro, Cilic, all players that try the I will outpower you tactic are doomed to fail. It can work say 1/10 but that would be about it. Does Djokovic out hit opponents for 3 sets? Not a chance.

You really are under estimating the importance of defence which is quite shocking given that Djokovic is a similar ilk to that of Murray and Nadal. The new breed of I will defend but also counterpunch when it suits.

I can tell you now that it takes more energy to blast someone from the court than it is to defend.

Again Legend you are smart guy but sometimes when you don't want to hear you don't want to hear. Against this player, on this court, as the way their skills matched up playing the way he did was ludicrous. It might make sense against a guy who gives you a lot of errors, it doesn't make sense against Ferrer on this court. And I challenge you to ask the question of any, any tennis question and see if 90 percent of them don't agree with me. It is easier for Murray to hit winners on grass that is why he should go for them more.

And again no strawmen nobody is talking about wildly aggressive tennis, just what every other top player who is confident in his attack game would do against David Ferrer on that court.

Of course Novak doesn't play that way and try to blast opponents off the court in every match. It depends on the opponent and it depends onf the surface. The percentages in both in terms of the surface and the opponent called for murray to play 180 degrees different. Either he couldn't or he made the boneheaded decision to do it the hardway.

You and me must've seen some very different Slam final matches. In no way did Djokovic try and blast Nadal off the court.

It is not a case of not wanting hear socal. You know full well that players don't blast Ferrer from the court. Not even Djokovic in his encounters with Ferrer has blasted him from the court!

The Ferrer and Murray match was a long arsed match and Murray would've learnt from the Del Potro match that heavy hitting is not going to do the job. Like I stated why does Federer play the slice to Ferrer? In fact why does Djokovic endure long rallies against Ferrer?

Nadal and Ferrer contested 131 points at RG this year in 3 sets. Djokovic and Ferrer at the AO this year in 3 sets contested 189.

So yeah Djokovic does blast him from the court

And all this gameplan was wrong stuff? How? He won didn't he?

In any case Djokovic surely must have had some wrong gameplan against Seppi at FO to be on the brink of defeat against someone far lower ranked than David Ferrer you see so no one is infallible.

Legend this is a different court. You just don't want to accept that. don't you see the massive winner numbers and the lower error numbers when compared to RG or Ao this year. So it pays on this court to do that and it doesn't pay to play the opposite way. I mean I guess it paid for him this time but if you don't want to acknowledge the surface and the match up as being a huge difference then I don't know where I can take it with you if you don't accept that basic assumption.

socal1976 wrote:Legend this is a different court. You just don't want to accept that. don't you see the massive winner numbers and the lower error numbers when compared to RG or Ao this year. So it pays on this court to do that and it doesn't pay to play the opposite way. I mean I guess it paid for him this time but if you don't want to acknowledge the surface and the match up as being a huge difference then I don't know where I can take it with you if you don't accept that basic assumption.

Right, so Djokovic playing on his favoured surface cannot blast him off the court he doesn't favour compared to Clay to which he was blasted off it by Nadal to which it was his favoured surface?

socal the problem here is that you have decided to jump on something that isn't there. Murray is limited on his FH. You have 2 players who are limited with their FH and then all of a sudden you think Murray should blast him from court. I am not sure where you got that logic from.

Who in this championship has he blasted off the court? Murray is not a court blaster and I am amazed you actually think it's different because it is Grass. This Wimbledon Grass is on par with the AO surface in speed. The last time Murray played Ferrer on a HC in a Slam in won in 4.

If Murray was a multi-slam winner I would probably go with this theory slightly. But he isn't and all the time the logic points to Murray being a court blaster is some what bizarre.

Murray upped the serve % and put more welly into his BH. The fact he chugged along in the first set and 2nd set suggests that the tactic was spot on because come the 4th set there was only one winner.

It's like saying did Djokovic have the right tactic against Stepanek because he couldn't see out a set he was in control of.

Socal - dude, you were arguing the same things when I went to bed last night, and you're still arguing them now 10 hours later. I like debating with you, but man you've got to start accepting other peoples opinions.

You don't agree with his approach in the Ferrer match, we get it. Others think differently. Davydenko thinks he won't win a slam, Agassi thinks he'll win many. People have different views, and sometimes you've got to just accept that.

I think what SoCal is trying to say is that he is disappointed with how passive Murray was at times against Ferrer.
I tend to agree, as I felt their were patches where Ferrer was being allowed to go on the front foot and play the match on his own terms too many times.
In-fact generally I think it was quite a patchy display- if not for his mental strength 2-5 down in the 2nd set TB he would have been 2 sets down and in big trouble. As much as we commend his mental fortitude, he doesn't believe in himself as much against the big guns compared to Ferrer, if he was 5-2 down in the TB vs Federer/Djokovic it would be unlikely he could come back.

But back to the OP, I thought Murray could have played with more 'controlled aggression.' This doesn't mean try to blast him of the court like Tsonga would do- or play such high risk that he will make many UEs like in Paris (vs Ferrer) but play with controlled aggression- a la Djokovic.
Too many times he allowed Ferrer to get on the front foot- and OK he won the match- but that is also because he believes in himself against players such as Ferrer much more than the top 3; and hence is mentally strong in the key moments against the likes of Ferrer.

CC, he was within a point (or two?) of being 2 sets down. Surely he didn't go out there with the intention of sacrificing the first 2 sets to wear Ferrer down?
Being aggressive doesn't necessarily equate to blasting off the court. Harder, deeper approach shots, coming to the net more, playing away from Ferrer more, forcing the errors - that sort of thing. Too often, in too many matches, Murray is content to hit the ball back to his opponent and wait for the error - it works most of the time, but there are times he needs to change it up a gear (and not wait til just the crunch moments to do it - if he did it more often, there wouldn't be so many crunch moments).

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC, he was within a point (or two?) of being 2 sets down. Surely he didn't go out there with the intention of sacrificing the first 2 sets to wear Ferrer down?
Being aggressive doesn't necessarily equate to blasting off the court. Harder, deeper approach shots, coming to the net more, playing away from Ferrer more, forcing the errors - that sort of thing. Too often, in too many matches, Murray is content to hit the ball back to his opponent and wait for the error - it works most of the time, but there are times he needs to change it up a gear (and not wait til just the crunch moments to do it - if he did it more often, there wouldn't be so many crunch moments).

Yep, spot on.
As I said controlled aggression is key.

He can't bail himself out of troubled positions (like 2nd TB) against the big guns.

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC, he was within a point (or two?) of being 2 sets down. Surely he didn't go out there with the intention of sacrificing the first 2 sets to wear Ferrer down?
Being aggressive doesn't necessarily equate to blasting off the court. Harder, deeper approach shots, coming to the net more, playing away from Ferrer more, forcing the errors - that sort of thing. Too often, in too many matches, Murray is content to hit the ball back to his opponent and wait for the error - it works most of the time, but there are times he needs to change it up a gear (and not wait til just the crunch moments to do it - if he did it more often, there wouldn't be so many crunch moments).

We are then working on the assumption that Ferrer can't return the more powerful strokes with depth.

There is something to be said of Ferrer this year if Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are the only players to have defeated him in a BO5.

Good post julius precisely, I mean it could be as subtle as just hitting it a little flatter and earlier or changing the direction and going up the line. There are a lot of ways to impose more of your game on your opponent. And quite a few ways that you can manage the additional risk, and on a grass court you just get so much more joy for going for a little more with your shots. Hitting that smidge flatter or earlier.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC, he was within a point (or two?) of being 2 sets down. Surely he didn't go out there with the intention of sacrificing the first 2 sets to wear Ferrer down?
Being aggressive doesn't necessarily equate to blasting off the court. Harder, deeper approach shots, coming to the net more, playing away from Ferrer more, forcing the errors - that sort of thing. Too often, in too many matches, Murray is content to hit the ball back to his opponent and wait for the error - it works most of the time, but there are times he needs to change it up a gear (and not wait til just the crunch moments to do it - if he did it more often, there wouldn't be so many crunch moments).

We are then working on the assumption that Ferrer can't return the more powerful strokes with depth.

There is something to be said of Ferrer this year if Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are the only players to have defeated him in a BO5.

No, we are working on the assumption that more powerful strokes with depth are harder to return, and put your opponent at more of a disadvantage in the rally.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC, he was within a point (or two?) of being 2 sets down. Surely he didn't go out there with the intention of sacrificing the first 2 sets to wear Ferrer down?
Being aggressive doesn't necessarily equate to blasting off the court. Harder, deeper approach shots, coming to the net more, playing away from Ferrer more, forcing the errors - that sort of thing. Too often, in too many matches, Murray is content to hit the ball back to his opponent and wait for the error - it works most of the time, but there are times he needs to change it up a gear (and not wait til just the crunch moments to do it - if he did it more often, there wouldn't be so many crunch moments).

We are then working on the assumption that Ferrer can't return the more powerful strokes with depth.

There is something to be said of Ferrer this year if Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are the only players to have defeated him in a BO5.

No, we are working on the assumption that more powerful strokes with depth are harder to return, and put your opponent at more of a disadvantage in the rally.

But he can still return them. Quite the massive assumption.

Why hit yourself out in 2 sets. Even if Ferrer was 2 sets down after 'harder' hitting, it can't be a gimmie that Murray would've seen it out in 3 and sustained it for 3 sets.

Who in this tournament has actually played a flat hitting match in 3?

There's no reason why Murray would have had to hit himself out in the first two sets. Being more aggressive does not necessarily equate to hitting yourself out.
Have I got this wrong, or are you really saying Murray would be better off being 2 sets down, but with Ferrer a bit tired, than 2 sets up with himself a bit tired?
Is Ferrer not fit enough to last 4 sets? Is that why Murray won the 4th set yesterday?

Now I cannot judge if Murray was super-passive or not the other day as I was working and missed the match. Some people on here are suggesting he was and some aren't so I'd guess he was somewhere in between and he won in four sets so how is that the wrong gameplan V a world No.5 by many people's opinions playing some of his best tennis just now? It was a match won in four sets and I keep hearing how he could have lost the second set but also was he not a mini-break up in the first set tie-break so kind of negates that. End of the day the sport is all about results and Andy got the result he was looking for - a win. He came from behind against a notorious battler so surely alone that deserves credit.

No not all. I stated from the outset that Murray needed patience. Even if Murray had dropped one of the first 2 sets, there was no need to panic or even a sense of urgency. Even if Ferrer had taken a 2 set lead, I still would've favoured Murray.

In my opinion Murray got the tactics spot on. If anything he went the reverse order of how people on here to think he should've played. What is encouraging is that as the match progressed he got better. He didn't tighten up.

The thing is with Ferrer he can deal with heavier strokes. Federer doesn't try to hit heavy in every rally with Ferrer and if anything plays a far more passive game. Albeit not in the Murray fashion, but Murray was never going to be the aggressor in the match. Look at how many of his BH's and FH's were played in the deuce court. It was a confidence issue and I think he was a more taken back by how clinical Ferrer was.

Murray was far more consistent on the serve in the last 2 sets and gradually increased the pace in rallies.

It was always going to be a long drawn out match.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Even if Ferrer had taken a 2 set lead, I still would've favoured Murray.

I guess that's the main difference in our viewpoint.

It was the only way Murray COULD go about winning on Wednesday as his forehand is still in depression mode. A nice win for sure, but 3 of 4 set going to tiebreaks is not the making of a slam champion, especially against a guy with zero slam finals. I won't be having too much of a go, because I will get quoted and whinged at, but I don't see how you can win a slam by praying for a choke. *5-4 down.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Even if Ferrer had taken a 2 set lead, I still would've favoured Murray.

I guess that's the main difference in our viewpoint.

Strangely enough I can't find a Ferrer 5 setter against the top 4.

That makes for such an interesting debate. Ferrer as a front runner in a match against the big guns.