US Open Day 4 - Anyone coming to my Haase (or even Mahut) for a Knapp? (Everybody Wang Chung tonight)

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/22713811

Seems another choke fest. Credit to Murray for hanging in there. Again, if your telling me a player is knackered after one BO5 match, then frankly they shouldn't be on the tour!

Murray might lose for some reasons but it won't be for fatigue, the guy is a machine.

Oh I don't know about that. Last night's match will come back and haunt his legs later in the tournament.

I don't actually think that is the kind of match Murray himself takes pleasure in. As much credit is due to Mannarino, Murray's returning was pig awful.

If you can't put a player away when 2 sets up and everything working for you, then you need shooting. That's what is so underwhelming with the current game.

Just watched some highlights of Federer's match and I'm very impressed.

I think Cincy was basically a week long showboat for him, with every aggressive element of his game ratcheted up to 10.

The surface here won't support such abandon, so he's reigned himself in a bit but the mindset appears the same: as aggressive as possible without tipping into recklessness.

I've mentally upgraded his chances here.

I watched the whole match and very large stretches were like a highlights reel, especially the first two sets. It was getting difficult to work whether he was operating a game plan, practising stuff for future rounds, or plain showboating. Maybe a mix of it all.

He's not done himself any harm with time on court either; 2 hrs 37 mins to get into the 3rd round is helpful. He won't find Kohlschreiber so compliant in the next round.

He's mentioned more than once that the roof is really helping him and I hope the weather stays as it is so the balls whizz through, the event looks to be playing faster this year for some reason.

Kohlschreiber will be a good test of where Federer's game really is.

Kohly is one of those players whom I consider to be better than their ranking might suggest.

If Fed swats him aside, then we know he (Federer) is really playing well.

bogbrush wrote:Murray might lose for some reasons but it won't be for fatigue, the guy is a machine.

Tosh. In Cincinatti he was a spent force and it showed and ultimately crashed out in the semis. I have seen him lose many matches when he has looked knackered. He is human.

How did he turn the match around? He began to return serve better as first two sets he was poor as demonstrated when he yelled out something like it was the worst he had returned in his life. Now no way was Mannerino a spent force after just two sets as he has won five set matches before so lets rule that out. Murray broke early in the third set and this injecting him with self-belief and was a blow to Mannerino's and whilst Murray's hope and level raised then Mannerino's went in the opposite direction. Murray will know how poorly he played and knows that level will not get him too much further in this tournament so he has to up his game and change his game plan.

Sounded from his interview like Murray had a slight cold as well? Just needs to deal with Bellucci easily to give himself a chance at the tougher matches ahead.

Re-write it if you like, but it was obvious to anyone that fitness won this one. Murray's tactics were soundly in the category of keeping everything as long as possible and waiting for the guy to stop running, which he did.

At least you didn't mention that he lost the first two sets "because he was too passive".

Fed at his best last night.

Murray floating by, he is tired from Toronto/Cincy/pregnancy.

bogbrush wrote:Re-write it if you like, but it was obvious to anyone that fitness won this one. Murray's tactics were soundly in the category of keeping everything as long as possible and waiting for the guy to stop running, which he did.

At least you didn't mention that he lost the first two sets "because he was too passive".

So can you please tell me how Mannerino ran out of gas after two hours when has won five set matches on multiple occasions? I can't work that one out. He has gone the distance before and won so fatigue alone does not explain the result. They had been on court around 2 hours or so when Murray turned things in his favour.

And for the record I have posted (last night) about his passiveness and his poor return of serve.

bogbrush wrote:Re-write it if you like, but it was obvious to anyone that fitness won this one. Murray's tactics were soundly in the category of keeping everything as long as possible and waiting for the guy to stop running, which he did.

At least you didn't mention that he lost the first two sets "because he was too passive".

I'd say it was a combination. I have to say again it was another case of the dominant player choking this one away. It is a massive demonstration that if you have the fitness to hang about and not do a lot else, you can depend on your opponent just fudging it away.

This is what is so disappointing with the field right now. They lack the balls and killer instinct to close a match out.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Re-write it if you like, but it was obvious to anyone that fitness won this one. Murray's tactics were soundly in the category of keeping everything as long as possible and waiting for the guy to stop running, which he did.

At least you didn't mention that he lost the first two sets "because he was too passive".

So can you please tell me how Mannerino ran out of gas after two hours when has won five set matches on multiple occasions? I can't work that one out. He has gone the distance before and won so fatigue alone does not explain the result. They had been on court around 2 hours or so when Murray turned things in his favour.

And for the record I have posted (last night) about his passiveness and his poor return of serve.

It's not difficult to see.

1. It was extremely hot and humid, other players were fainting yesterday.
2. Playing Murray is very physically demanding, he'll run himself and make you run a lot too.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Re-write it if you like, but it was obvious to anyone that fitness won this one. Murray's tactics were soundly in the category of keeping everything as long as possible and waiting for the guy to stop running, which he did.

At least you didn't mention that he lost the first two sets "because he was too passive".

I'd say it was a combination. I have to say again it was another case of the dominant player choking this one away. It is a massive demonstration that if you have the fitness to hang about and not do a lot else, you can depend on your opponent just fudging it away.

This is what is so disappointing with the field right now. They lack the balls and killer instinct to close a match out.

Just for the record - is that a uniform point? For example did Falla choke at Wimbledon V Federer to lose in five with Federer using his superior fitness? Same for Novartis in beaten Stan in five in Australia. Many other instances as well so do they all fit the same bill in your opinion?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Re-write it if you like, but it was obvious to anyone that fitness won this one. Murray's tactics were soundly in the category of keeping everything as long as possible and waiting for the guy to stop running, which he did.

At least you didn't mention that he lost the first two sets "because he was too passive".

I'd say it was a combination. I have to say again it was another case of the dominant player choking this one away. It is a massive demonstration that if you have the fitness to hang about and not do a lot else, you can depend on your opponent just fudging it away.

This is what is so disappointing with the field right now. They lack the balls and killer instinct to close a match out.

Yeah, though in his defence I'd point out he's only #66. Probably got a nosebleed.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Re-write it if you like, but it was obvious to anyone that fitness won this one. Murray's tactics were soundly in the category of keeping everything as long as possible and waiting for the guy to stop running, which he did.

At least you didn't mention that he lost the first two sets "because he was too passive".

I'd say it was a combination. I have to say again it was another case of the dominant player choking this one away. It is a massive demonstration that if you have the fitness to hang about and not do a lot else, you can depend on your opponent just fudging it away.

This is what is so disappointing with the field right now. They lack the balls and killer instinct to close a match out.

Playing in 33 degrees with 60% humidity coupled with suffering with a cold against a player who was playing out of his skin ( in the first two sets) I doubt if some of you posters could work your keyboards properly under these conditions!

Sorry but are you saying that Mannerino went from firing on all cylinders to go two sets up to being totally knackered in the space of one game when Murray broke at the start of the third. No that is far too fanciful to believe.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Re-write it if you like, but it was obvious to anyone that fitness won this one. Murray's tactics were soundly in the category of keeping everything as long as possible and waiting for the guy to stop running, which he did.

At least you didn't mention that he lost the first two sets "because he was too passive".

I'd say it was a combination. I have to say again it was another case of the dominant player choking this one away. It is a massive demonstration that if you have the fitness to hang about and not do a lot else, you can depend on your opponent just fudging it away.

This is what is so disappointing with the field right now. They lack the balls and killer instinct to close a match out.

Just for the record - is that a uniform point? For example did Falla choke at Wimbledon V Federer to lose in five with Federer using his superior fitness? Same for Novartis in beaten Stan in five in Australia. Many other instances as well so do they all fit the same bill in your opinion?

Novartis are a massive Pharmaceutical company...trying to make an accusation about Djokovic?!!?

I think there was a part of Mannerino which was conserving energy once Murray broke at the start of the third set. Murray definitely upped his level, whilst Mannerino dropped his quite considerably.

Some of it must be mental energy, two sets up at a slam against one of the favourites. Also he would know Murray isn't going away physically, so it's an extra pressure on Mannerino.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Re-write it if you like, but it was obvious to anyone that fitness won this one. Murray's tactics were soundly in the category of keeping everything as long as possible and waiting for the guy to stop running, which he did.

At least you didn't mention that he lost the first two sets "because he was too passive".

I'd say it was a combination. I have to say again it was another case of the dominant player choking this one away. It is a massive demonstration that if you have the fitness to hang about and not do a lot else, you can depend on your opponent just fudging it away.

This is what is so disappointing with the field right now. They lack the balls and killer instinct to close a match out.

Just for the record - is that a uniform point? For example did Falla choke at Wimbledon V Federer to lose in five with Federer using his superior fitness? Same for Novartis in beaten Stan in five in Australia. Many other instances as well so do they all fit the same bill in your opinion?

It was a uniform point. The thing is I am not piling all the credit on Murray's performance.

I find it frustrating that these players can't put the match away when in such a winning position.

I don't know why we feel so over sensitive about that. 

Was this a vintage Murray performance?

legendkillarV2 wrote:I find it frustrating that these players can't put the match away when in such a winning position.

For me, it's not so much that they lose (which I expect), but that they collapse.

If the remaining sets are 7-5 or go to tie breakers, but Murray's superior quality gets him home, I'd tip my metaphorical cap to both players.

But Mannarino went from two sets up to receiving two bread sticks. In set 3, Murray was only landing 33% of first serves but Mannarino only managed to win a mere 13 points (that's overall - not just receiving!). In set 5, he only won 12 points overall.

Far from vintage lk. He was below par in a number of areas but lives to fight another day.

As for this choking thing it is NOT unique to this erase. It has been part and parcel of tennis ad infinitum. Look at Nalbandian - he was a noted choker yet reached No.2 in the world. Who can forget Henman'so mega-choke V Goran. Heck there are so many more such as Falla V Federer etc etc etc.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but are you saying that Mannerino went from firing on all cylinders to go two sets up to being totally knackered in the space of one game when Murray broke at the start of the third. No that is far too fanciful to believe.

Absolutely agree, it's fanciful to even pretend that is what I said and there's no point floating giant-sized strawmen with big signs on their heads saying "I bear no resemblance to your argument but please pretend like I do" at a seasoned internet debater - save that stuff for the kids.  

Far more reasonable to observe that the process of exhaustion followed the normal path where you start out great and keep that up until the fatigue starts to set in after which it just gets worse. If you recall, the break of serve at the start of the 3rd set was a classic mental lapse / silly error type of game and the path from there was marked with gradually fewer strenuous efforts, more obvious energy saving tactics (letting points & games go) and finally complete capitulation. Much more reasonable than the fanciful idea that Murray raised his game to a massive 33% 1st serve % in the 3rd set to overwhelm the bouncing plucky Belgian.

Guest82 wrote:Novartis are a massive Pharmaceutical company...trying to make an accusation about Djokovic?!!?

Bloody Hell - I never noticed that before!!!

Coincidence? I must consult the internet to learn the truth!!

Belgian BB??

isnt Mannarino French?
The difference is that Murrays average level, mentally physically and game wise is better then Mannarinos, the problem with an upset is that you RARELY see players finish a big match in the great manner that they used to get there, they usually need to be given help over the line by the better guy.

Murray never lets guys do that, he did play much better 2 sets down, but he let Mannarino punch himself out, Mannarino wasnt tired in the third set, he just expected Murray to fold and he refused.

The point is that Murray was below par for 95% of the match whereas Mannerino  played excellent for 40% of the match and sub par for 60% of the match and Murray won. If people want solely tennis skills to win out then perhaps we should change the format to a one set sudden death.

Aye. Tennis is a game where scoring is the norm. Not the exception. That lends itself to people who can be consistent , than talented players who can score s couple of times

interesting what federer said about it no longer being a wind tournament and that it makes a big difference

You could add that you get out of this sport what you put in. Murray trains damned hard for occasions such as these and here is his reward. There is nothing stopping Mannerino or any player conditioning themselves to a higher degree. If they can't be arsed or don't think that way then they suffer the consequences. The same applies to mental midgets. It is a man's game not a kindergarten.

He won't play every match on AA will he?

CaledonianCraig wrote:The point is that Murray was below par for 95% of the match whereas Mannerino  played excellent for 40% of the match and sub par for 60% of the match and Murray won. If people want solely tennis skills to win out then perhaps we should change the format to a one set sudden death.

I think the issue we are raising here CC is that Mannarino for the best part was outplaying Murray and had much more purchase in his shot making. What BB is saying which is what I in part agree with is that even though Mannarino's level dropped and Murray platoed or even improved, that even though a Mannarino can throw a winning position in a match away, it still takes some endurance to encourage that out of the opponent over 3 sets. It's like not like Murray bounced back and hit the guy off the court as convincingly as Mannarino was in the early part.

On your latter parts I agree. The emphasis shouldn't just solely rest on Murray's endurance capabilities. For me, these players need to grow some. #62 in the world or not, they should be able to make a better fist of it on the final stretch.

Mannarino is inside the top 40. Just saying.

Out playing a well below par Murray though let's not avoid that pertinent fact. Sure Adrian played great stuff but equally Murray was abject and though he improved slightly he still got the job done playing guff when in years gone by he could easily have lost that type of match. If nothing else it shows that the mental toughness cannot be questioned though he must raise the skill and energy and tactics up a few gears.

LuvSports! wrote:Mannarino is inside the top 40. Just saying.

I was going by BB so I assumed it was fact. Should've known after he thought he was Belgian!

I think BB was with me and some colleagues on the lunch time beer round!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Out playing a well below par Murray though let's not avoid that pertinent fact. Sure Adrian played great stuff but equally Murray was abject and though he improved slightly he still got the job done playing guff when in years gone by he could easily have lost that type of match. If nothing else it shows that the mental toughness cannot be questioned though he must raise the skill and energy and tactics up a few gears.

Isn't that the thing though that stacks in favour of those who bracket this result being predominately a war of attrition decided on fitness? That's the thing. Murray hung on in there which is good for him. Yet that kind of praise does feel a bit 'boring' which leads us back to the discussion when we wanted to see a more aggressive Murray. He can do it. Look at the FO in those 5 set hauls when he went for broke because he was hampered. The fact he can sit back, take the blows and still come out on top too. It's like Ali's rope a dope and finishing with a Mayweather defence masterclass to win.

French, Belgian... is there a difference?


(confession, I was thinking of Darcis)

LuvSports! wrote:Mannarino is inside the top 40. Just saying.

God, that was Darcis too!!  


So, apart from nationality and ranking I was 100% correct who Murrays opponent was.

I think you've been on the Duvel sir!

Murray is a reactive player though. Aggression kicks in only periodically and not enough. Very frustrating I know and I can't see that changing now

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think you've been on the Duvel sir!

Funny thing is that I don't drink so I don't have that excuse.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Murray is a reactive player though. Aggression kicks in only periodically and not enough. Very frustrating I know and I can't see that changing now

You make that sound like it's involuntary but it isn't (by the way, aggression to the box kicks in just after every losing point!).

Hes what 28 now? Theres no way he will change his ways now, hes a counterpuncher at heart, and tbh do we want him to change?

Hes kickstarted the us open with that comeback victory, a trademark of his career now, and despite the disappointment at his form, its definitely exciting.

Fact is, hes basically the Jim courier of his time, a great great player, wholl pick up the odd great title, but not as consistently good as the best of his time.

I have a lot of time for Jim, as I do Murray, I dont think he should be gotten down on for who he is.

Two very different players mind.

Yeah but his interviews will be rubbish compared to Jim's.

The only reason I get down on Murray temp is that he does have the ability to adopt a bit of risky play into his game. I am not screaming out for him to hit winner after winner after winner, as that just isn't possible, but just some intent would be a nice thing. From the off. It's good he can do it reactively, but starting would be nice.

At the end of the day, he can't be blamed if the opponent decides to play utter cr@p! That side often gets overlooked.

Federer very unsympathetic to players fainting. Says there's no excuse for not being fit. Come on Fed, don't hold back. Say what you man
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/34152383

To be fair roger. Perhaps you'd like to volunteer for some day matches. ..  To be fair retirements through lack of fitness maybe but heatstroke  can hit anyonr

And he would probably say he gets evening matches because he trains very hard and gets the results which ensures prime match time.

True. In that case he doesn't really need to worry about heatstroke. Heat retirements aren't because people are necessarily unfit. I think that's a bit unfair to those who have to play in that