Murray the heavy favourite now - Part II

First topic message reminder :

No idea what happened to my earlier thread "Murray the heavy favourite for the title" , when I posted the orginal thread I kept Murray's grass court stats in mind which he is 7th overall and 2nd only to Federer among current players.

Now with both Nadal and Federer knocked out Murray is easily the heavy favourite, I know Djoko is still left, but all of a sudden Djoko's draw looks more tough than Murray's draw.

No Tsonga, Nadal and Fed , who can expect this luck, the real danger mens are Del Potro and Berdych and both now breathing hard on the other side of the draw.

Murray make merry of it and get the title and the no.1 for the year, Go Muzza go.

banbrotam wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I struggle to understand how anyone who professes to be a Tennis fan, can be underwhlemed by Murray or Djoko

Murray, in particular, on form has every shot in the book and often uses them to win the same point

Those looking for a new version of Roger, will probaly have to wait a 1000 years

I do like Murray, the problem is he loves playing defensive tennis more than aggressive tennis even though he is capable of playing aggressive. Djoko started an aggressive player but with time completely modeled himself like Nadal.

IC. Don't you think that this is a bit of a myth now? I mean whoever you are, you must have some kind of defence. Even Del Boy has developed this. I also never understand the problem with defensive Tennis. One of my favourite things about Murray is his ability to slow things down, speed up, slow down, speed up, wow! what a winner (when on form of course!!). It takes some skill to do this

I never debate on Murray's skills, but I am sure you won't deny this statement of mine, Murray in the mid match goes for a sleep and happy to just play the balls back rather than go for the kill quick, suddenly he realise the game is slipping up and plays his game and finishes it, however things are getting better and his focus lapse are getting solved as well, so lets see how it goes.

In terms of defensive tennis, yea the current generation players all believe in defensive tennis, its pity Del Potro is playing lot defensive than what he use to be and that won't suit his style of play either, I liked the Del Potro who took bull by its horns on 2009, I am hoping Del Potro watch the replays of that match and get back to that style let alone that level.

Murray can play both defensive and aggressive, the USO Murray specifically the 5th set was awesome, but unfortunately Murray keeps dawning back to defensive tennis, but in grass specifically this edition defensive tennis is not paying up, his match against Robredo would be first indiction of what kind game plan he gonna come up for the 2nd week if he makes there, the Boredo won't be an easy encounter.

banbrotam wrote:One of the reasons for the slipping etc is obviously that players are struggling to keep their grip as they get surprised by balls coming onto them faster

It's great news (apart from the injuries that is!!)

Well its pretty certain the grass is playing faster this year, I really do wish it keeps up pace for the 2nd week as well, thats how the grass have to be.

IC. Out of all the potential matches up to the final, the Robby match worries me the most - particualrly if it's cool conditions

However, looks like it will be 'indoors' with ball flying fast - so should be OK

djoko said the court was slower under the roof Banbro.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I don't care as much if Murray wins now, if he wanted to he should have done in 2009-2011. He was better than all the players that won it in those years.

Wouldn't he have won one of them if he were?

Yeah but the best player doesn't always win.

Yeah right, so you actually mean the best player in your opinion doesn't always win!

2009 Federer beats Roddick (who beat Murray in the SF in 4sets)
2010 Nadal (who beat Murray in the SF in 3sets) beats Berdych  
2011 Djokovic beats Nadal (who beat Murray in the SF in 4sets)

Love how he was better than than the guys who actually beat him or the guys who beat the guys who actually beat him.

Sound's like an Arsenal fans logic to me

LuvSports! wrote:djoko said the court was slower under the roof Banbro.

Makes sense you get more humid conditions unless they have an airconditioning system with de-humidifier, the more water in the hair the slower the ball moves through it.

Compare to my belief that Murray is the heavy favourite most part of British public is already made to believe by media that Murray is the Wimbledon champion, such is the hype . 

invisiblecoolers wrote:Compare to my belief that Murray is the heavy favourite most part of British public is already made to believe by media that Murray is the Wimbledon champion, such is the hype . 

Really? Where? Most were dumbstruck after that Novak performance. I don't think we should mistake enthusiasm for naive arrogance. I think you might be right, that he's expected, by some, to breeze through to the final

How confident are you against Verdasco BB? putting a straight forward question? do you guess Nando have some chance? what would be the percentage?

Some of you lot, OMG. Sewerage works, comes to mind.

Murray's "stats" put him as the 2nd out of active players? Whatever the individual match "records" are;

Nadal - 5 consecutive finals in which he played; 2 titles
Murray - 1 final

Whatever?

yloponom68 wrote:Murray's "stats" put him as the 2nd out of active players? Whatever the individual match "records" are;

Nadal - 5 consecutive finals in which he played; 2 titles
Murray - 1 final

Whatever?

We are not talking just about Wimbledon but grass in general Murray's stats are no.2 among the current player only behind Fed, and believe it or not he is 7th in overall standings.

I'm getting tired of hearing these stats vs yesteryear...the game is utterly and completely different. Murray doesn't have to change his game plan for any surface now, you can win multi slams with less overall skills in your bag than ever before...what has been taken away skill-wise has been replaced by physical attributes. 15-20 years ago the top players had to be highly adaptive - S&V on grass, baseline play on clay, all court game on hard...now its just baseline preponderance everywhere...so being 7th on all time grass list means nothing to me as grass isn't true grass anymore.

here here lydian!

lydian wrote:I'm getting tired of hearing these stats vs yesteryear...the game is utterly and completely different. Murray doesn't have to change his game plan for any surface now, you can win multi slams with less overall skills in your bag than ever before...what has been taken away skill-wise has been replaced by physical attributes. 15-20 years ago the top players had to be highly adaptive - S&V on grass, baseline play on clay, all court game on hard...now its just baseline preponderance everywhere...so being 7th on all time grass list means nothing to me as grass isn't true grass anymore.

So theoretically harder now to have a high % on grass as everyone should be able to play on it?

No, if you're a top 5 player right now your % will likely be high on everything - as borne out by a guy like Ferrer. Murray's poor movement on clay notwithstanding.

I have kept off this thread. However I will say I would make Murray favourite, but not the heavy. Technically he has the better draw to come through, however against less ranked players Andy can afford to throw in some dodgy play alas yesterday against Youzhny and he was still able to turn it around, however if he has Djokovic in the final (providing he gets there) Djokovic will not allow him the freebies that Andy does.

It's good playing low ranked opponents, but it doesn't encourage the highest standard required.

lydian wrote:I'm getting tired of hearing these stats vs yesteryear...the game is utterly and completely different. Murray doesn't have to change his game plan for any surface now, you can win multi slams with less overall skills in your bag than ever before...what has been taken away skill-wise has been replaced by physical attributes. 15-20 years ago the top players had to be highly adaptive - S&V on grass, baseline play on clay, all court game on hard...now its just baseline preponderance everywhere...so being 7th on all time grass list means nothing to me as grass isn't true grass anymore.

 
You can't have it both ways!! It's either that everyone can now play on grass, so to still excel is an achievement or the fact that, in the past, not many could play on grass so it was easier for a specialist to win
 
The former means, that unless you're a good returner then you've no chance of a slam - simply because as everyone can do everything, you have to have this 'ace' up your sleeve. The latter means having a big serve and say a forehand got you slams
 
Not certain that we can say that one has more 'skills' than the other
 
I maintain that Murray, would simply have adapted to the times he played in. Remember, he was the one of the last (if not the last) teenage Top 20 player - so rose up the rankings based on his play in 05' and 06' when conditions were a bit faster than they are today

I agree that it's a shame that we don't see the variety on show - but to assume that Murray wouldn't have the same brilliant stats in 90's Wimbledon, as you imply for me is folly

If you saw yesterday's match, even when he's at his meandering worst he can still pull off not many players in history can do - as shown by that 2nd set winning point

But your missing the point of how different the game is banbro.

I have played with racquets in 80's, 90's and 00's and I can say that over time the racquet heads have become bigger and the strings so much more forgiving and gives the player much more control. Balls have become bigger and lighter making it easier to hit with power and have less feel for it.

The issue at hand is that equipment and conditions have reduced the skill involved in playing.

This isn't taking away from the current crop of players today and their abilities. It is simply saying that comparing players of today with conditions of 15-20 years ago is redundant. We don't hear of Borg or Sampras being compared with today's conds.

The way the draw has 'fallen open' for Murray is hardly unprecedented.
 
If you look at three of Sampras's Wimbledon wins, 1997, 1998 and 2000 (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Sa/P/Pete-Sampras.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=540) you can see that the highest ranked player he faced in 1997 was Becker ranged at 18, 1998 was Henman ranked at 18, and in 2000 it was Rafter in the final ranked at 21.  
 
What was different in those days was that there were noted grass court specialists who were lowly ranked (or perhaps coming back from injury in specific cases).
 
In 1998 in his last three rounds he faced Philippoussis (28), Henman (18), then Ivanisevic (25) - a tougher line-up than the rankings suggest when their grass-court prowess is taken into account.  Perhaps 2000 was a genuinely "easy" draw - the SF opponent was Votchkov (237), and only Rafter (21) in the final was a genuinely stern test, and he proved himself one of Wimbledon's most consistent performers from 1999-2001.  Even so, Sampras still dropped sets to Kucera and Gambill. Also, 1997 was a pretty "easy" draw on paper, with the SF/F opponents being Woodbridge and Pioline, but Korda was a tough opponent in R4, taking him to 5 sets.
 
I think things have changed so much that comparisons are very hard - but if you look at rankings Murray's draw is not that unusual.

legendkillarV2 wrote:But your missing the point of how different the game is banbro.

I have played with racquets in 80's, 90's and 00's and I can say that over time the racquet heads have become bigger and the strings so much more forgiving and gives the player much more control. Balls have become bigger and lighter making it easier to hit with power and have less feel for it.

The issue at hand is that equipment and conditions have reduced the skill involved in playing.

This isn't taking away from the current crop of players today and their abilities. It is simply saying that comparing players of today with conditions of 15-20 years ago is redundant. We don't hear of Borg or Sampras being compared with today's conds.

See my edited version, now I've actually learnt to spell correctly (in the main!!)

I'd say that despite the raquet differences, Murray is the one who does have a good 'feel' and actually overtly relies on it - consequently when a quirky character like Youzny messes with his rythmn, he's all over the place

Sadly, mainly for pragmatic reasons, 90% of the time Andy has become just another ball basher. But the other 10% (Olympics final, Miami 09' victory, US Rafa win, Fedal win for Canadian 10' Masters) at least shows a player who would fit comfortably in any era

Yes Murray has a wonderful touch and feel for the ball, but I can't say say with great certainty that with an 80's wooden racquet and balls that Murray would repeat the same ability and ball striking. It is almost a different game now. Like with golf with wooden faced clubs being phased out and metal ones in. All to help the players. Nothing wrong with it, just a case where do you draw the line before it becomes a higher % of ability is down to the equipment.

Take Becker for example. He would struggle with today's game on fitness alone. Sad but true. Now take Murray. Could generate the pace in strokes that would enable him to hit clean winner after clean winner? I am not so sure.

banbrotam wrote:

lydian wrote:I'm getting tired of hearing these stats vs yesteryear...the game is utterly and completely different. Murray doesn't have to change his game plan for any surface now, you can win multi slams with less overall skills in your bag than ever before...what has been taken away skill-wise has been replaced by physical attributes. 15-20 years ago the top players had to be highly adaptive - S&V on grass, baseline play on clay, all court game on hard...now its just baseline preponderance everywhere...so being 7th on all time grass list means nothing to me as grass isn't true grass anymore.

 
You can't have it both ways!! It's either that everyone can now play on grass, so to still excel is an achievement or the fact that, in the past, not many could play on grass so it was easier for a specialist to win
 
The former means, that unless you're a good returner then you've no chance of a slam - simply because as everyone can do everything, you have to have this 'ace' up your sleeve. The latter means having a big serve and say a forehand got you slams
 
Not certain that we can say that one has more 'skills' than the other
 
I maintain that Murray, would simply have adapted to the times he played in. Remember, he was the one of the last (if not the last) teenage Top 20 player - so rose up the rankings based on his play in 05' and 06' when conditions were a bit faster than they are today

I agree that it's a shame that we don't see the variety on show - but to assume that Murray wouldn't have the same brilliant stats in 90's Wimbledon, as you imply for me is folly

If you saw yesterday's match, even when he's at his meandering worst he can still pull off not many players in history can do - as shown by that 2nd set winning point

I generally don't agree with Banbro but here she nailed it, it can't be either way, so Lyd you mean to say Nadal's 5 finals were due to homogenization only? if thats the case both Fed's and Murray stats are more incredible, coz Sampras might not be that successful on today's grass against these players.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Yes Murray has a wonderful touch and feel for the ball, but I can't say say with great certainty that with an 80's wooden racquet and balls that Murray would repeat the same ability and ball striking. It is almost a different game now. Like with golf with wooden faced clubs being phased out and metal ones in. All to help the players. Nothing wrong with it, just a case where do you draw the line before it becomes a higher % of ability is down to the equipment.

Take Becker for example. He would struggle with today's game on fitness alone. Sad but true. Now take Murray. Could generate the pace in strokes that would enable him to hit clean winner after clean winner? I am not so sure.

Its very difficult to compare because today, players are going for extraordinary shots, the lines and corners that 80's players simply weren't good enough to pull off so many times. Murrays cross court passing shot from a running stance is spectacular, an unheard of shot 20 years ago, mostly defensive lobs in those days. It comes down to the fact that they have had to manufacture the ability to pull off shots like that to beat the top players. That in itself should illustrate just how adaptive Murray and the top players are today, constantly pushing the boundaries in a strong era, because they have to.

Doesn't Murray realise that he won't get away with his poor second serves against Novak? Seemingly inexplicably, none of Murray's opponents thus far have taken advantage. Coaches seem to be a waste of money. Also, Murray strategy is poor or non existent. Why does he hardly ever play his excellent backhand down the line winning shot, and why isn't he more creative with his slice? In fact his whole game is too predictable and if the final is indeed Djokovic-Murray, I see only one winner. Unless he summons a gale a la US open.

Andy - Murray goes for more on the second serve against the top players. He tends to roll it in against players that don't have a great return. Therefore people watch him play against average returners and say "Novak would be all over that serve" but the truth is he will serve differently against top players.

PS - there was no gale at the Olympics in the semi final last year, which is the only grass meeting they've had to date.

Right because second serve speed is the only factor. Murray can slice his second serve in and even generate a kick serve or serve out wide. Clearly you took these into account.

Maybe you should become a coach given these other ones are a waste of money as you so put it.

JubbaIsle wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Yes Murray has a wonderful touch and feel for the ball, but I can't say say with great certainty that with an 80's wooden racquet and balls that Murray would repeat the same ability and ball striking. It is almost a different game now. Like with golf with wooden faced clubs being phased out and metal ones in. All to help the players. Nothing wrong with it, just a case where do you draw the line before it becomes a higher % of ability is down to the equipment.

Take Becker for example. He would struggle with today's game on fitness alone. Sad but true. Now take Murray. Could generate the pace in strokes that would enable him to hit clean winner after clean winner? I am not so sure.

Its very difficult to compare because today, players are going for extraordinary shots, the lines and corners that 80's players simply weren't good enough to pull off so many times. Murrays cross court passing shot from a running stance is spectacular, an unheard of shot 20 years ago, mostly defensive lobs in those days. It comes down to the fact that they have had to manufacture the ability to pull off shots like that to beat the top players. That in itself should illustrate just how adaptive Murray and the top players are today, constantly pushing the boundaries in a strong era, because they have to.

But they are aided by technology. Hence strings are forgiving and require less wrist action for the player to generate the speed and spin required. Slower courts have allowed for higher bounce and players able to find their hitzone with ease. Players in the past at the net for example played shots only those in today's game can only dream about.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Right because second serve speed is the only factor. Murray can slice his second serve in and even generate a kick serve or serve out wide. Clearly you took these into account.

Maybe you should become a coach given these other ones are a waste of money as you so put it.

I didn't refer to the speed of his serve. Do you think Youzhny's coach should have told him to attack Murray's serve? It was madness not to.

Andy11 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Right because second serve speed is the only factor. Murray can slice his second serve in and even generate a kick serve or serve out wide. Clearly you took these into account.

Maybe you should become a coach given these other ones are a waste of money as you so put it.

I didn't refer to the speed of his serve. Do you think Youzhny's coach should have told him to attack Murray's serve? It was madness not to.

How do you know he didn't?

That's a pretty poor set of tactics if the only advice is "attack the second serve"

Players need more than that in their locker if they are to beat Andy.

I don't know whether you are being dense on purpose. Where did I say that was the only advice Youzhny should have been given?

So in your words you said that coaches are a waste of money basing it on Youzhny not attacking the second serve.

Now your saying it should not be the only tactic.

So what are you saying exactly because your basing a coaches value on a tactic you didn't witness. Coaches up and down the land will be fully aware of the weakness that exists on Murray's second serve. What they can't do is legislate for poor execution of a tactic in the match.

Maybe I watch too much tennis but I have to admit I sometimes wonder about players adapting tactics. Is it lack of advice from coaches and/or stubbornness or inability to adapt from players. Simple things like attacking a 2nd serve like Andy11 pointed out or playing to an opponents weaker side.

So Murray standing to his heavy favorite tag.

I actaully was cheering for Nole today as I think he's having too many brain fades and would love to see what potential 90 degree heat and a fast court will do it him against Murray

Didn't feel that confident before the Berdych match, but he really should have been tested more there

If Murray serves like he has done for the last two matches - then he should win

I view Murray as the favorite as Murdoch has pointed out Novak has been so wasteful of break points during this tournament. I mean the margins are thin but I really like how resilient and mature Murray has been in this tournament

banbrotam wrote:I actaully was cheering for Nole today as I think he's having too many brain fades and would love to see what potential 90 degree heat and a fast court will do it him against Murray

Andy's not exactly been short of brain fades either though, has he?!

socal1976 wrote:I view Murray as the favorite as Murdoch has pointed out Novak has been so wasteful of break points during this tournament. I mean the margins are thin but I really like how resilient and mature Murray has been in this tournament

Djokovic's big match play is vastly superior to Murray's.

When push comes to shove, like against Del Potro, Djokovic finds a way to get the W.

Djokovic has already humped Murray at the Australian Open this year, so there's nothing to suggest Murray's a favourite.

Gerry SA wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I view Murray as the favorite as Murdoch has pointed out Novak has been so wasteful of break points during this tournament. I mean the margins are thin but I really like how resilient and mature Murray has been in this tournament

Djokovic's big match play is vastly superior to Murray's.

When push comes to shove, like against Del Potro, Djokovic finds a way to get the W.

Djokovic has already humped Murray at the Australian Open this year, so there's nothing to suggest Murray's a favourite.

Agree with most part that Djoko is a big match player, but Murray will still start the favourite since we are playing in grass not a slow hard court.

Gerry SA wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I view Murray as the favorite as Murdoch has pointed out Novak has been so wasteful of break points during this tournament. I mean the margins are thin but I really like how resilient and mature Murray has been in this tournament

Djokovic's big match play is vastly superior to Murray's.

When push comes to shove, like against Del Potro, Djokovic finds a way to get the W.

Djokovic has already humped Murray at the Australian Open this year, so there's nothing to suggest Murray's a favourite.

Well I think Murray has a couple of advantages in the homecourt and in the fact that he has a bit better volleys and slice backhand. I mean I have him as the thinnest of favorites as I view this matchup close to a toss up. But because of the homecourt and Murray's game being more naturally suited to the grass I make him slight favorite in the final.

After you, Claude.

The psyche-down begins.

HM Murdoch wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I actaully was cheering for Nole today as I think he's having too many brain fades and would love to see what potential 90 degree heat and a fast court will do it him against Murray

Andy's not exactly been short of brain fades either though, has he?!

No. But I think they have a more telling affect if Novak has them, than Andy. As the latter has them in every match - hence it's less of an issue.

Novak spent virtually all of 2011 not having any of these spells and hence scares the living daylights out of his rivals when he has his 'game face' on - but consequently loses more if his mind wanders

The French final this year was a classic example of the latter

But it's fair to say that Murray didn't take advantage of an 'average' Novak at this years Aus

At the French semi Novak had some brain fades, maybe (not that that was why he lost) and still pushed the greatest Clay player of all time, in good though not his best Clay form. That example should not give Murray confidence. The fact that he beat Novak at the US Open should be infinitely more of a boost

I favour Novak slightly. But only slightly. Whoever serves better will probably win.

In terms of how they match up everyone knows the details. Both great backhands, both can be a bit less reliable on the forehand, both great movers, both great defenders, both with great first serves, Novak with a much better second serve, both great returners, Murray with a much better slice and better volleys, yet Novak will probably be at the net more....

Murray with home advantage and will be feesher, but Novak has played better this fortnight and has had the better of the match up lately. That's why I edge Novak.

Oh and another area they match up well... Both terrible on the overheads. Competing for worst in the top 20.

Danny, that's a great analysis.

I disagree on one thing though - Novak beats Andy in the "bad overhead" stakes hands down!

Although I've seen him make a few (well, three) this last fortnight, so maybe it's closer now!

banbrotam wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Compare to my belief that Murray is the heavy favourite most part of British public is already made to believe by media that Murray is the Wimbledon champion, such is the hype . 

Really? Where? Most were dumbstruck after that Novak performance. I don't think we should mistake enthusiasm for naive arrogance. I think you might be right, that he's expected, by some, to breeze through to the final

I agree with you guys. The media have already given Murray the trophy. Most of the two week tennis fans (i.e colleagues etc) seem to be convinced he will definitely breeze through to the title. The way Murray has been playing it looks that way but with Djokovic you don't know if you will get blown away (AO 2011) or if it will be the US Open all over again where he started too slow by which time it was too late.

I sense history is repeating itself here. Last year JMDP wore Federer down for 4 and a half hours in the semis of the Olympics leaving the Swiss possibly drained for the Sunday showpiece. A match from Federer on grass at Wimbledon with a scoreline such as that hints to fatigue.
JMDP has done it again to Murray's opponent and I am just wondering whether Djokovic will have enough in the tank not just to hang with Murray but to be sharp/alert. I know he mentioned Australia but that was night sessions.

Djokovic will have plenty in the tank. He is possibly the fittest player on Tour.

The home crowd will work in Murray's favour but Djokovic won't get fazed by it like JJ was

JJ fazed? He was making much more noise and protests about when the roof was being closed more than anything else.