Does Murray have that extra level?

After watching Federer go to that extra level again today, it made me wonder, does Andy have the extra level when he needs it?

Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all have the extra level. Does Andy?

Yes, he just needs Fed to retire.

Does Murray have that extra level?

Not when it comes to slam finals. Don't get me wrong he started well enough but once Federer played those two awesome points to break at 5-6 in the second set and then play so well with the roof closed Andy struggled to try and keep up with him.

Better but still room for improvement.

Well newballs that is open to debate. He or his fans could argue that he had that level for the first set and three quarters but just couldn't maintain it and majorly had the wind taken out of his sails by losing the second set. Matches turn on such small margins.

Yes he has that level. He's at that level now.

However he has the same problem as everyone in tennis... Beating Federer indoors is close to impossible.

If Murray repeats the level he had for 2 sets, and the performance level in Australia he'll do it. He's at the level now.

If we are talking about that extra gear when it really counts I still think that's what separates the top 3 from Andy.

If and when he finds it, guess what? He'll win that first elusive slam.

That is exactly what I am on about Newballs. He doesn't seem to have that extra gear when it really counts.

Like today when Federer needed the extra gear in the second set, he found it. Murray doesn't seem to have that in the Slam Finals yet

I think what Andy needs to improve on are his volleying skills at the net as he will need these I feel if he is to beat the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Lord Federer on a regular basis.

Olly wrote:That is exactly what I am on about Newballs. He doesn't seem to have that extra gear when it really counts.

Like today when Federer needed the extra gear in the second set, he found it. Murray doesn't seem to have that in the Slam Finals yet

That is a one-dimensional way of looking at things. Like I said we could argue Murray had that extra gear in the first set and three quarters could we not?

He doesn't need another gear, he just needs some things to fall his way.

Take for example today's rain; he'd have had better chances outdoors. And what if it'd been dry and windy (my nightmare)?

It's small things. They used to say Lendl would never win one but he ended up with eight.

bogbrush wrote:He doesn't need another gear, he just needs some things to fall his way.

Take for example today's rain; he'd have had better chances outdoors. And what if it'd been dry and windy (my nightmare)?

It's small things. They used to say Lendl would never win one but he ended up with eight.

Fully agree bb.

It was a refreshing final for me. After three consecutive finals of Nadal V Djokovic it was great to see Andy and Roger step up to the plate to meet in a slam final. It gives them some momentum and Djoko and Nadal something to think about both rankings wise and slam wise.

bogbrush wrote:He doesn't need another gear, he just needs some things to fall his way.

Take for example today's rain; he'd have had better chances outdoors. And what if it'd been dry and windy (my nightmare)?

It's small things. They used to say Lendl would never win one but he ended up with eight.

Agreed. The level is there now. Outdoor we may have had a different result. As it was Federer's spectacular indoor form was too good, but it would have been too good for anyone in my opinion.

Set 2 stats were almost identical, although murray had 4 bps and federer had only 2 (and took 1).

Play that set again 10 times and you'd probably get something like 5 or 6 wins for federer. Sometimes we read too much into things - e.g. federer won the set because he stepped it up at the right moment because he's a great champion, when actually it was more like the toss of a coin in a way ...

Murray is on the cusp.

He just had to play Fed on grass.

Believe me, he may have lost the match, but he won our hearts.

Funny I just wrote about this on BBs thread. I don't believe he has that ability...which likely means he won't be a multislammer...but he might still nick one.

Let's face it Murray is not a Federer or Nadal, or Djokovic. Obviously. But he is slowly getting mentally stronger...but come on BB, Murray is no Lendl either.

Murray has improved a little bit. His AO against Djokovic was an improvement as well.

Some people get jammy Slams. Fed and Nadal have had a few where they played nobody. Maybe Murray just needs one of those to get off his duck, and after that......

bogbrush wrote:Some people get jammy Slams. Fed and Nadal have had a few where they played nobody. Maybe Murray just needs one of those to get off his duck, and after that......

Jeez I am agreeing with you too much tonight.

If Murray keeps banging the door will open. He just needs to go on keeping giving himself the chance.

I think Murray's best chances will always be at the US Open and the Aussie Open. I can't see him ever winning the French, and Wimbledon is a maybe

I'm starting to think his best chance is on grass, esp if US Open is as slow as it was last year ... he'll struggle to get past Nadal/Djoko, but reckon he's more natural than either on grass, providing his serve is working.

Olly wrote:After watching Federer go to that extra level again today, it made me wonder, does Andy have the extra level when he needs it?

Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all have the extra level. Does Andy?

He had it but unfortunately not many beat Fed when he plays his best unless your name reads Nadal .

Let Fed retire which most likely will happen next year [my assumption] atleast his level would drop and then I expect Murray to dominate his close rivals.

Well he passed the mental toughness bar today. It wasn't a repeat of the previous finals we saw.

Is his best day better than that of the Federer's/Nadal's/Djokovic's? No.

Today he really did at some stage have the match in his grasp. A few minor things might have helped tighten that grasp. When you play a guy who has won 16 Slams and made 23 finals it is difficult to score experience points.

He can compete at this level, whether his game right now has enough to win a slam is another thing.

Ok, well I guess this is all 'if's and maybe's' but I too think that Murray is at 'that' level now.
I think the difference is mental.
Murray's on a different path from the other three, in that he didn't snag one early in his career. I think the 'can i win one?' struggle is a lot harder than the 'how can I add to my tally?' struggle.
To me, this difference is what we see in those knife edge moments when his head drops slightly and it hurts him.
It's all there to be built on and I think in the cold light of day that he will take great heart and encouragement from this final...

Sorry I forgot my and my

He showed he had the level in the first 2 sets. Afterthat he seemed to weaken, looked a bit mental but also physical, looked almost looked he was short of fitness or something. Which I would have thoguht is pretty bad as Fed is 7 years older than Murray, granted Murray put a lot into the first 2 sets.

What Murray I feel needs in his game now is to somehow get his first serve to consistently fire with a lot of pop as John McEnroe would say and then get this aspect into his second serve such that he has 2 big serves like a Pete Sampras of around 2000/2001. Yesterday a lot of Murray's second serves were at times eaten up by Federer's huge forehand.

Some of you may recall a player by name Ivan Lendl. He won Australian in his 7th attempt, French in his 7th, and US in his 7th, and never won Wimbledon. He finished his career with 8 slam titles.

Please stop being too harsh on Murray.

He is playing in a highly competitive era having to compete with Federer, Nadal, and Djoko. When Borg was the top player in the world, he had no interest in the Aus Open; he didn't care about winning every title. Lesser mortals had a chance then. Federer, Nadal and Djoko go everywhere and want everything. It's just too difficult now.

bogbrush wrote:He doesn't need another gear, he just needs some things to fall his way.

Take for example today's rain; he'd have had better chances outdoors. And what if it'd been dry and windy (my nightmare)?

It's small things. They used to say Lendl would never win one but he ended up with eight.

exaclty bb, if mcenroe had beaten ivan in the FO in 84 , who knows maybe lendl would not have won as many slams. that win in the FO set lendl up for his 8 slams. i think andy if he can get himself together again quickly has a good chance of his first slam in the USO in a few months time

Leff - are you saying Murray is as good as Lendl, or the parallel is even relevant?

The problem with the loss is that it will affect his confidence in future when he goes up a lead in another slam final...its those gremlins that will start to nag at him. He really needs to face someone other than Nadal, Federer or Djokovic in a slam final to get the 'lucky' break he needs. Its bound to come along some day...or is it?

bogbrush wrote:He doesn't need another gear, he just needs some things to fall his way.

Take for example today's rain; he'd have had better chances outdoors. And what if it'd been dry and windy (my nightmare)?

It's small things. They used to say Lendl would never win one but he ended up with eight.

Cheers BB. Sensible talk from someone who appreciates Tennis. Fact is that we can talk about Andy's drop in first serve percentages, his tendency to mutter more and his increasing number of error as much as we want

Nobody would have beaten Fed in the entire history of the game, during those last two sets

That's what separates him as the GOAT - he's had so many two to two and a half set phases that have simply made him unplayable

lydian wrote:Leff - are you saying Murray is as good as Lendl, or the parallel is even relevant?

The problem with the loss is that it will affect his confidence in future when he goes up a lead in another slam final...its those gremlins that will start to nag at him. He really needs to face someone other than Nadal, Federer or Djokovic in a slam final to get the 'lucky' break he needs. Its bound to come along some day...or is it?

Of course the parallel is relevant. Both were busy winning all the other events and couldn't quite do it in their first four majors and mentally flunked two out of the first three of these. It's no so outlandish to think that Murray is the Lendl of the day with Fed playing the Mac roll and Nadal / Nole the Connors one

I fail to see how the loss will knock his confidence. Get this played under Saturday's conditions and he probably wins. Get it indoors and Fed wins - that's not a player who should be lacking confidence

And yes the opportunity will come along - I see Andy being driven to be as affective when he is Fed's age as he is now. That's why the more naturally talented Tsonga isn't above him

I'm quite pleased - I thought he was playing rubbish coming into Wimby and said that I'd settle for the SF's at the time. For me the benefit of Lendl will be seen from The Rogers Cup onwards

Plus, I think he would have beaten Nole of Nadal on that form as he has done when he hit it in that 6-0 set against Rafa last year and Nole at Dubai

The gaps still there, but not as big as some would indicate

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:He doesn't need another gear, he just needs some things to fall his way.

Take for example today's rain; he'd have had better chances outdoors. And what if it'd been dry and windy (my nightmare)?

It's small things. They used to say Lendl would never win one but he ended up with eight.

Cheers BB. Sensible talk from someone who appreciates Tennis. Fact is that we can talk about Andy's drop in first serve percentages, his tendency to mutter more and his increasing number of error as much as we want

Nobody would have beaten Fed in the entire history of the game, during those last two sets

That's what separates him as the GOAT - he's had so many two to two and a half set phases that have simply made him unplayable

To be honest, I don't think it was so much the rain break as the loss of the 2nd set that really knocked the stuffing out of Murray yesterday. First set was tight, and ultimately went Andy's way because he made far fewer UEs than Federer (iirc, it was something like 5 v 16). Second set, Andy was making the running and had break opportunities a couple of times in the middle of the set but was just not able to take them. Then Fed produced a couple of moments of brilliance to snag the two points needed to close out the set - one chance and he nailed it. On another day, Andy would have done something different and taken it into the tie break at least.

After that, Federer had the momentum, especially after the epic game in the middle of the third set. Yes, from then on Andy's first serve wavered, but I think that was at least in part because of the pressure Federer was putting on all aspects of his game in the 3rd and 4th sets. The end of the Djokovic semi and the end of this final are the best I've seen Federer play in about 3 years.

dummy_half wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:He doesn't need another gear, he just needs some things to fall his way.

Take for example today's rain; he'd have had better chances outdoors. And what if it'd been dry and windy (my nightmare)?

It's small things. They used to say Lendl would never win one but he ended up with eight.

Cheers BB. Sensible talk from someone who appreciates Tennis. Fact is that we can talk about Andy's drop in first serve percentages, his tendency to mutter more and his increasing number of error as much as we want

Nobody would have beaten Fed in the entire history of the game, during those last two sets

That's what separates him as the GOAT - he's had so many two to two and a half set phases that have simply made him unplayable

To be honest, I don't think it was so much the rain break as the loss of the 2nd set that really knocked the stuffing out of Murray yesterday. First set was tight, and ultimately went Andy's way because he made far fewer UEs than Federer (iirc, it was something like 5 v 16). Second set, Andy was making the running and had break opportunities a couple of times in the middle of the set but was just not able to take them. Then Fed produced a couple of moments of brilliance to snag the two points needed to close out the set - one chance and he nailed it. On another day, Andy would have done something different and taken it into the tie break at least.

After that, Federer had the momentum, especially after the epic game in the middle of the third set. Yes, from then on Andy's first serve wavered, but I think that was at least in part because of the pressure Federer was putting on all aspects of his game in the 3rd and 4th sets. The end of the Djokovic semi and the end of this final are the best I've seen Federer play in about 3 years.

I agree the rain break was irrelevant. However, the roof coming on was very relevant. Andy's weakness is that he still doesn't adapt to varying conditions, fatal when you go indoors to play Fed

Outside, I honestly think he could still have won - after all in I think in 5 of his previous Fed wins, he'd dropped a set at some stage

lydian wrote:Leff - are you saying Murray is as good as Lendl, or the parallel is even relevant?

The problem with the loss is that it will affect his confidence in future when he goes up a lead in another slam final...its those gremlins that will start to nag at him. He really needs to face someone other than Nadal, Federer or Djokovic in a slam final to get the 'lucky' break he needs. Its bound to come along some day...or is it?

Banbrotam has made a few good comments in response. Some tend to be late bloomers and some are plain unlucky. Sergio, Westy and Donald are yet to win a major. I can't accept that they always choke in majors. I can't accept that they are far inferior to the likes of Lee Janzen, Angel Cabrera, and Paddy, winners of two majors each. I brought up Lendl in this discussion just to make a point that there are some players who may be perceived as perennial failures on the big stage, but they may just be late bloomers and once they bag the first slam, their career may take off rapidly from that point. Lendl was, after all, regarded as someone who just didn't have that mental strength in him to be champ; we know how that turned out to be wrong.

On the topic of bad luck, Lendl is yet to win a Wimby, either as a player or as a coach.

I am not sure Murray will ever win Wimbledon. Too much pressure. I believe he can and will win US and AUS.