French Open Day 3 - We like that Konjuh gal, right? Yes, unless she's on the Fritz, Busta.

First topic message reminder :

Schedule - http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/schedule/index.html

Well the procession continues...next!

WOOWOW:
https://www.facebook.com/278612362162774/videos/1242563145767686/

Karlovic slipped up...ONLY 2 sets out of the 3 played went to tiebreaks.

1 more win and he gets to play Murray...for which Andy will be petrified because Ivo is 37 year old also!!!

At this rate he's going to be guilty of geriatricide!

Only if he has to play laverfan!

It Must Be Love wrote:WOOWOW:
https://www.facebook.com/278612362162774/videos/1242563145767686/

What a cracker

Looks like Konta is heading out.  She is playing Julia Georges from Germany.  Georges is a former world No 15 ranked player and last year she reached the fourth round in the French Open.

There is some sort of story developing over comments Mauresmo has apparently made. It is probably a nothing story.

Did someone say Julia Goerges...?    
lol...

What's this NS...new statements?

Interesting.  It was true there was more to the Mauresmo - Murray split than the statements released at the time - consistent with what insiders said - consistent with what I reported and inconsistent with the Murray defenders on this forum.

Amelie Mauresmo wrote:I had the impression that we'd reached the end of what we could do professionally together ... Andy is complex. On a court, he can be the opposite to how he is in life. It can be disconcerting. I was there to help him. I had the feeling that I couldn't improve things anymore ... I reduced the number of weeks that I could be present since the Australian Open and ... effectively, we've spent little time together ... It turned out to be a difficult period for him, where I couldn't help him ... I don't want to go into detail too much. Everyone could see certain things ... I no longer wanted to be there. I wanted to try something else.

She goes on to praise his work ethic and curiosity but basically she said they had reached the end of the road in what they could achieve together ... and that it was obvious to others that it wasn't working.  It seems like she also wasn't prepared to be shouted at any longer when Murray was on court and she was in the players box.   From the translated quotes taken from Mauresmo's interview with L'Equipe, I think Bogbrush might feel vindicated in some of his blunt comments.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/mauresmo-explains-coaching-split-complex-murray-39279724

Thanks NS...
Sounds like they lost that "loving feeling", ie the chemistry went at the end.

Surely people in his box know they're going to get the hairdryer treatment? Maybe Murray lulled her into a false sense of cosyness by conducting the interview over a latte and granola bar in Starbucks?

One senses, more seriously, there is a lot not said under the surface here. Andy isn't going to admit discord right now is he...

Thanks for posting the Rafa hot dog (facebook). I think that's his best one ever that I can recall, and probably on a par with a few of Federer's best. He is real far behind the baseline when he hits it. An early contender for shot of the tournament.

I think Federer's against Djokovic is probably the best ever though, I could be biased because I was watching it live but it just came out of nowhere and it was such a well hit one, a real thrilling moment, especially coming at 5-6 0-30 in a grand slam semi final to cap off such a good performance. Also at the time I'd rarely seen them, they were less common then or at least it'd been a while since I'd seen one in a big match.

Johanna Konta beaten 2-6 3-6 by Julia Goerges.  Although Konta was the seeded player - this defeat was no surprise.  Julia Goerges is a good player (see above).  Laura Robson also lost 6-2 6-2 to Pliskova (28th seed).  Robson needs to be working hard on the ITF circuit.

Azarenka retires at 0-4 from knee injury...probably one of the few players who can trouble Serena. Left the court in tears.
Konta lost 2 & 3.

Goerges never fulfilled her talent tbh.

Maybe like Robson if things don't improve...

Nore Staat wrote:Interesting.  It was true there was more to the Mauresmo - Murray split than the statements released at the time - consistent with what insiders said - consistent with what I reported and inconsistent with the Murray defenders on this forum.

Amelie Mauresmo wrote:I had the impression that we'd reached the end of what we could do professionally together ... Andy is complex. On a court, he can be the opposite to how he is in life. It can be disconcerting. I was there to help him. I had the feeling that I couldn't improve things anymore ... I reduced the number of weeks that I could be present since the Australian Open and ... effectively, we've spent little time together ... It turned out to be a difficult period for him, where I couldn't help him ... I don't want to go into detail too much. Everyone could see certain things ... I no longer wanted to be there. I wanted to try something else.

She goes on to praise his work ethic and curiosity but basically she said they had reached the end of the road in what they could achieve together ... and that it was obvious to others that it wasn't working.  It seems like she also wasn't prepared to be shouted at any longer when Murray was on court and she was in the players box.   From the translated quotes taken from Mauresmo's interview with L'Equipe, I think Bogbrush might feel vindicated in some of his blunt comments.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/mauresmo-explains-coaching-split-complex-murray-39279724

I suggest you look at Murray's post-match press conference - kind of clears things up. Such a bust-up that pair have chatted amicable (by the sounds of it) via texts. Doesn't sound like a heated bust-up like the press are trying to make it. The way I get this is Murray wasn't happy with the time she could commit and ended it and Mauresmo is purporting (or press are reading more into Mauresmo comments) saying she quit because of Andy's rants. But since she has hardly been present at all of late at tournies (maybe due to rants or maybe more down to motherhood only Mauresmo knows which) then his rants can't have been wearing her down as she hasn't been present of late.

With Murray, Edmund and Bedene through it is apparently the first time in 41 years that three British men have reached the Second Round of the French Open.

If anyone can name the three Brits that did it 41 years ago without looking it up I'll be impressed. Any takers? Or, can you even name one?

I didn't say it wasn't amicable, and I am not the newspapers.  From Mauresmo - she didn't think she was able to help Murray any further professionally - that is what she said openly.  She also strongly indicated in addition to that - that she found it disconcerting being in the players box with Murray on court with his complex behaviour - "I no longer wanted to be there".  She never raises her baby being the reason why she stopped being in the players box.  She just mentions being disconcerted and not wanting to be there.  

They're both adults - and their professional relationship was brought to an end amicably.  Presumably she was well paid for her services and on the face of it - it was good PR for women coaches.

Henman Bill wrote:If anyone can name the three Brits that did it 41 years ago without looking it up I'll be impressed. Any takers? Or, can you even name one?

41 years ago strewth.  The Lloyd brothers must be two - David and John?  Buster Mottram rings a bell?

Watching the Murray final set now I'm back from work.

I hear Andy was 2 points from going out! Wow, that's cutting it fine. I doubt it will have too much affect on his chances though, as long as his next couple of matches are a bit more straight forward. He needs to change his approach though. He only started really hitting it at 2 sets down.

Having a battle so early isn't necessarily bad at all. At Wimbledon 2013 he was 2 points from losing against Verdasco, but came through... And we know how that ended.

Nore Staat wrote:I didn't say it wasn't amicable, and I am not the newspapers.  From Mauresmo - she didn't think she was able to help Murray any further professionally - that is what she said openly.  She also strongly indicated in addition to that - that she found it disconcerting being in the players box with Murray on court with his complex behaviour - "I no longer wanted to be there".  She never raises her baby being the reason why she stopped being in the players box.  She just mentions being disconcerted and not wanting to be there.  

They're both adults - and their professional relationship was brought to an end amicably.  Presumably she was well paid for her services and on the face of it - it was good PR for women coaches.

But not so disconcerting as to she keeps in touch with him so wouldn't say it was any form of a heated bust-up like press are trying to make it. Mauresmo, I think, describes Murray as Jekyll and Hyde character as in different off-court to on-court and is why she quit whereas Murray cited the need for full-time coaching for the split and says both agreed to part company. That, I'd say where the waters get muddied. The reason for the split as in Murray says they mutually agreed to part ways but Mauresmo makes it sound like she quit.

Danny_1982 wrote:Watching the Murray final set now I'm back from work.

I hear Andy was 2 points from going out! Wow, that's cutting it fine. I doubt it will have too much affect on his chances though, as long as his next couple of matches are a bit more straight forward. He needs to change his approach though. He only started really hitting it at 2 sets down.

Having a battle so early isn't necessarily bad at all. At Wimbledon 2013 he was 2 points from losing against Verdasco, but came through... And we know how that ended.

Stepanek is an awkward customer and the type of player that has always ruffled Murray's feathers - hard and flat-hitters. All I will take from it is that this time he came through against him and he held himself together when it got very close. He'll know he has to up his game and get his next match over with the minimum of fuss.

She said disconcerting for her when he was on court and she was in the players box. She said outside of the court he was completely different and hence not disconcerting.

CC

Someone earlier posted the scores from the last few Murray v Stepanek matches, and it certainly vindicates your comment - Radek causes Andy more problems that most others outside the top 3 or 4 do, so there's obviously a match-up thing going on.

A 5 setter over 2 days in the first round, especially against someone like Stepanek who keeps the points short, is probably not that big a deal in terms of accumulated fatigue. It's more now just for Andy to play better next time and not let things snowball.

Nore Staat wrote:She said disconcerting for her when he was on court and she was in the players box.  She said outside of the court he was completely different and hence not disconcerting.

Yes. Not sure if the Jekyll and Hyde reference came from her or was on ITV4.

dummy_half wrote:CC

Someone earlier posted the scores from the last few Murray v Stepanek matches, and it certainly vindicates your comment - Radek causes Andy more problems that most others outside the top 3 or 4 do, so there's obviously a match-up thing going on.

A 5 setter over 2 days in the first round, especially against someone like Stepanek who keeps the points short, is probably not that big a deal in terms of accumulated fatigue. It's more now just for Andy to play better next time and not let things snowball.

It happens. Some players Murray has very few problems with can cause others in the top four problems. Match-ups are curious things. Characteristics of one player whose strengths trouble another player etc. I didn't see a lot of yesterday's play as I was out but by all accounts his (Andy's) hitting was inconsistent and was not hitting deep enough ie finding the baseline or close to it. That allows Stepanek or other such big hitters to step into the shot and bludgeon winners.

Last time Stepanek played Novak he lost 46 36 76 67 at Wimbledon. He is a tricky match up generally nowadays, particularly in the early rounds.

Ironically, when he was at his "peak" he has pretty easy for the top guys. I remember watching a 17 year old Murray making a peak Stepanek look like a nobody at Wimbledon 2005.

D- 82: "Having a battle so early isn't necessarily bad at all. At Wimbledon 2013 he was 2 points from losing against Verdasco, but came through... And we know how that ended."

Invariably the Slams are won by (Djokovic of late, of course) by someone who at times has struggled in the early rounds. The time to be wary is if you follow a player who sails through the initial matches. They can then come a cropper the first time they get into trouble.
Fed's last Slam win (SW19 in 2012) saw him in all sorts of difficulties early on. Seem to remember Andy M having no trouble at all at Wimbledon in 2014 until going out horribly to Dimi.

Nore Staat wrote:Interesting.  It was true there was more to the Mauresmo - Murray split than the statements released at the time - consistent with what insiders said - consistent with what I reported and inconsistent with the Murray defenders on this forum.

Amelie Mauresmo wrote:I had the impression that we'd reached the end of what we could do professionally together ... Andy is complex. On a court, he can be the opposite to how he is in life. It can be disconcerting. I was there to help him. I had the feeling that I couldn't improve things anymore ... I reduced the number of weeks that I could be present since the Australian Open and ... effectively, we've spent little time together ... It turned out to be a difficult period for him, where I couldn't help him ... I don't want to go into detail too much. Everyone could see certain things ... I no longer wanted to be there. I wanted to try something else.

She goes on to praise his work ethic and curiosity but basically she said they had reached the end of the road in what they could achieve together ... and that it was obvious to others that it wasn't working.  It seems like she also wasn't prepared to be shouted at any longer when Murray was on court and she was in the players box.   From the translated quotes taken from Mauresmo's interview with L'Equipe, I think Bogbrush might feel vindicated in some of his blunt comments.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/mauresmo-explains-coaching-split-complex-murray-39279724

Just in case you count me as one here is one of my statements on the Mauresmo split thread.

he BBC article from Goran explicitly said that Murray 'let Lendl go' but you also previously linked a very similar article which said 'sacked' and you used the word again in this thread. I am still of the opinion that Murray wanted to continue with Lendl but as reported Ivan could not commit to the time/travel he required so they split. Surely if you are the person who is going to pay someone to do a job you have the right to say what the job requirements are and there is only so far you will be prepared to compromise.While I think something similar has happened with Mauresmo there could be more behind this one.



I actually think there will be truth on both sides. She was not comfortable with Murray's on court behaviour that was obvious when she sat in the stands in Miami. However as she had been away with the baby from July until the WTF, then a short training block in Dubai, followed by AO, according to reports 4 days practice before Miami and then nothing before she was meant to return for Rome there was not a lot of time being spent coaching. Murray possibly felt he needed more as he struggled in IW and Miami and when you are playing poorly surely that's the time a coach earns their corn.

sirfredperry wrote:D- 82: "Having a battle so early isn't necessarily bad at all. At Wimbledon 2013 he was 2 points from losing against Verdasco, but came through... And we know how that ended."

Invariably the Slams are won by (Djokovic of late, of course) by someone who at times has struggled in the early rounds. The time to be wary is if you follow a player who sails through the initial matches. They can then come a cropper the first time they get into trouble.
  Fed's last Slam win (SW19 in 2012) saw him in all sorts of difficulties early on. Seem to remember Andy M having no trouble at all at Wimbledon in 2014 until going out horribly to Dimi.

I strongly doubt this, my gut feeling is saying no. For some in some cases I suspect if you did a detailed statistical analysis that would not hold up. You also get cases of players cruising through the early rounds in straight sets and going on to win the title, I bet Nadal 2008/2010 and Federer 2004-2007 (A Open) might provide some examples.

If anything the logic states that poor performances in earlier rounds are more likely to lead to poor performances later on, or have no effect on average.

sirfredperry wrote:D- 82: "Having a battle so early isn't necessarily bad at all. At Wimbledon 2013 he was 2 points from losing against Verdasco, but came through... And we know how that ended."

Invariably the Slams are won by (Djokovic of late, of course) by someone who at times has struggled in the early rounds. The time to be wary is if you follow a player who sails through the initial matches. They can then come a cropper the first time they get into trouble.
  Fed's last Slam win (SW19 in 2012) saw him in all sorts of difficulties early on. Seem to remember Andy M having no trouble at all at Wimbledon in 2014 until going out horribly to Dimi.

Andy's win in New York was full of scraps. He came through a long epic battle with Lopez early on, was a set and 5-1 down vs Cilic before coming back, and had a long 4 setter in the semi v Berdych before the 5 setter against Novak. Similarly at W13, he had a five setter and two 4 setters to reach the final.

I will say though that to win this title he needs to arrive in the final with a physical advantage over his opponent, whether that's Novak or Rafa. He has to hope they take chunks out of each other and he gets through relatively easily from his semi. Assuming all get there, of course.

I don't know I have a hard time believing Murray Should be favored over Nadal. This isn't peak Nadal by any stretch of the imagination but I still rate him to be a bigger threat still at this event. Nadal is better than he was in 2015, and I think he will do or die play his best tennis at this event, I mean that is just what he does.

Nore Staat wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:If anyone can name the three Brits that did it 41 years ago without looking it up I'll be impressed. Any takers? Or, can you even name one?

41 years ago strewth.  The Lloyd brothers must be two - David and John?  Buster Mottram rings a bell?

OK,
41 years ago that should be 1975, so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_French_Open_%E2%80%93_Men's_Singles

Martin Robinson - R2
Roger Taylor - R3
John Lloyd - R2.

There were also another few Brits playing and losing in addition to those.

Looks like they played best of three sets only in the first two rounds.

socal1976 wrote:I don't know I have a hard time believing Murray Should be favored over Nadal.

If they meet in the final, Rafa will probably have conquered Nole by then, and - of course - he will be the strong favorite against Andy.

But I can see how they can have roughly same chances to win from here. Rafa will likely need to beat both Nole and Andy, while Andy would only play one of them - that difference may be enough to give them roughly the same odds.

Did not see any of Andy's match, but it must have been pretty tight.  Now that he is through I do not think it will necessarily hinder him down the road.  It is still early, he still has a chance to have a couple of easy matches and come to the later rounds reasonably fresh.  Novak had a similarly difficult match against Kev at W last year, and he was fine in the end.

But he will want to avoid any more five setters in the first week

Martin Robinson, anyone ever heard of him? Looked him up on the ATP site, peak ranking 105, that FO 1975 only slam win I saw probably his career highlight, otherwise lots of R1 losses.

Henman Bill wrote:Martin Robinson, anyone ever heard of him? Looked him up on the ATP site, peak ranking 105, that FO 1975 only slam win I saw probably his career highlight, otherwise lots of R1 losses.

Nice good for Martin, not enough is said about the good journeyman that can mix it up against the world's best but maybe just lacks something to get up into the higher levels of the game. These guys put in the work but just can't get to the higher echelons. Despite the lack of money I would love to be able to say hey I have one grand slam win, or i was a top 100 or whatever. These guys are the ones who only do it for the love of the game because usually pretty clearly and early it is clear they aren't going to be millionaires.

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I don't know I have a hard time believing Murray Should be favored over Nadal.

If they meet in the final, Rafa will probably have conquered Nole by then, and - of course - he will be the strong favorite against Andy.

But I can see how they can have roughly same chances to win from here.  Rafa will likely need to beat both Nole and Andy, while Andy would only play one of them - that difference may be enough to give them roughly the same odds.

I still see Murray as being much more susceptible to other players in the field. I mean just being opposite Novak doesn't help you unless you make the final. Can't see Nadal losing to anyone but a top favorite, can't say the same for Murray at this event.

I agree socal. Murray is more at risk that both Rafa and Novak in the early rounds, largely because of his approach to those rounds. He was fairly passive in sets 1&2 against Stepanek, and not massively aggressive in set 5 either.

In Rome, where he didn't lose a set in winning the tournament, his ground strokes were on average about 15kph faster than they were in Madrid. Against Stepanek, he abandoned that apart from sets 3&4. As Courier said, that's not conditions, that's a strategy change.

It might be he simply didn't feel comfortable enough to just go and hit it, but hitting with more velocity is his only chance of winning this title. He doesn't beat Novak or Rafa or Stan or Nish by being passive. My hope is he'll get more aggressive the more comfortable he feels, but it nearly cost him against Step.

Everytime I hear Leon Smith he makes a lot of sense. He is off course a little on the political correct side but he is reasonable. He says with Andy Murray's on court behaviour it is a delicate balancing act --> between being quiet and flat and being vocal towards his players box and being sufficiently fiery to endure and beat his opponent. Unfortunately that is just how Murray does things - but with it he has given Britain two grand slams and a Davis Cup. My feeling is that too much is put on Andy's shoulders - we need to be developing more tennis players that are good enough to make top twenty - but nobody seems to know how to do this.

socal1976 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I don't know I have a hard time believing Murray Should be favored over Nadal.

If they meet in the final, Rafa will probably have conquered Nole by then, and - of course - he will be the strong favorite against Andy.

But I can see how they can have roughly same chances to win from here.  Rafa will likely need to beat both Nole and Andy, while Andy would only play one of them - that difference may be enough to give them roughly the same odds.

I still see Murray as being much more susceptible to other players in the field. I mean just being opposite Novak doesn't help you unless you make the final. Can't see Nadal losing to anyone but a top favorite, can't say the same for Murray at this event.

Whilst instinctively that seems right, it's 35 clay court wins in a row for Murray over non Djokray players. It's 4 years since he lost to anyone else at the French and he's not exactly known for losing early in slams. Rafa's recent record in slams and against other players on clay suggests he may be more susceptible.

I get the impression Andy was quite nervous as he feels he has a fantastic chance to win here. I'd hope he should be over those early nerves now and should work his way into the tournament.

Yes BS I would certainly agree on the nerves side of things. He realises this is a great chance to go deeper than he ever has at RG and he feels in great nick so heightens the nerves AND Stepanek being the type of player that historically causes Murray problems heightens the nerves more. Add to that just how well Stepanek played and there you have why it was so close.

summerblues wrote:But he will want to avoid any more five setters in the first week

I said this after Andy's first match.  Little did I know he would do the same in the second round.  Nevertheless, I still think that he still has time to play himself into a better form over the next couple of rounds and that this may not mean much at all by the time we are in QF/SF.

That said, I now really really think that he will want to avoid any more five setters in the first week