What Makes The Top 4 Different From The Rest?

With 20 of the seeds still left in the Mens Singles (subject to change after results) with every chance that the number might go as low as 16 which would mean that in a field of 32 left we could see the field in the mens half be opened up nicely for the 'Big 4'.

My question is this.

What seperates the 'Big 4' from the rest of the field? (apart from Slams won)

What is missing from the rest of the fields game that prevents them making indentations into the Top 4?

Discuss

No player bashing!

I'm no tennis expert but I do enjoy watching it from time to time and I watched Andy Roddick against Andy Murray in the Queen's semi final and found him more one dimensional than Murray - Murray seemed to be able to read his serve too easily and be able to return with more pace than Roddick. Roddick in comparison looked sluggish and didn't seem to create the angles necessary to beat Murray. Roddick is one of my favourite players and I was thrilled he got to the final of Wimbledon a few years back but I really think he is slipping now. I know that's just one example but I think the top 4 play with more pace, power and precision.

legendkillar wrote:No player bashing!

How can I answer your question then?

Work ethics!

LK
Not sure I would (quite) include Murray in this, but the main thing is that the top 3 are able to go deep in tournaments despite putting in only moderate performances on occasion (both Rafa and Roger early last Wimbledon, Rafa again in Paris, Djoko through most of last year other than the USO). As such, they consistently get to the late stages of tournaments.

Andy still has occasions where he plays a 4 out of 10 match and loses - Federer rarely drops below 6/10 and Rafa 7/10, so that level of performance will usually mean they reach at least the QF (by which point in a slam they are usually well in the groove and performing better).

Most of the other players lower in the top 10 are more streaky (except Ferrer, who is consistent but simply not so good as the best) - for example Soderling on his best days can beat almost anyone on hard or clay (not so sure on grass), but he can intersperse 10/10 performances with 3/10 performances that can see him lose early.

So the key thing for someone to move up is to perform consistently over a large chunk of the season, and that means cutting down on the number of sloppy performances. How many times do you watch the top 3 and reckon they've beaten themselves with UEs and general sloppiness?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:No player bashing!

How can I answer your question then?

How about constructively?

This is looking at the positives in the 'Big 4's' game and what is missing from the rest of the field's game.

Not that difficult is it?

I think that all of the top four players have the ability to wear
down their opponents by sheer tenacity and tennis *nous*

They all seem to be able to change their style of play to outfox
the opponent and just play that extra stroke or two.

Does that makes sense ?

Most of this has been covered already but I think the top 4 can weather the storm of a player playing in the zone for a set and a half without giving up. They can change tactics mid match several times if necessary to find the winning formula.

Obviously they can only do this through talent combined with a phenomenal work ethic.

Like I said, most of it has already been covered

There are no short cuts at the top of just about any sport - mental strength and application, physical strength and applications, talent/skill, tactical nous and putting hard work into practice.
The top 4 are not only generally the most talented, but they work the hardest too - even when they sometimes make it look easy they have had to work hard to make it look easy.

Well I agree with Lydian
But in my own words, hard work and dedication. The will to carry on that extra step when the body is crying out to stop. The focus, mindset and above all the dream... The will to sacrifice everything to achieve the goal... to the point of obsession. Never wanting to lose.. self respect and respect for your oponent. A very long list ...all of which can only be achieved by those with talent and a love of their sport. A very very special person

I don't think frankly it comes down to just hardwork for these guys. yes they have to work as hard or harder than everyone else to be the best. All 4 of them are extremely fit and strong. But realistically there are players who work just as hard and don't get nearly the results. You have to have top notch athletic and technical talent. Technically, all the top 4 have weapons and shots that seperate them from the pack. Everyone of them has some technical areas of their game which you would rate as in the top 5 in the game. Nadal the forehand and return of the serve. Federer, the serve and the forehand. Murray the backhand and the return of serve. Djokovic, the backhand and the return of serve as well. Physically, another thing that seperates them from the pack is speed, in modern sport across the board speed kills. Whether it is football, rugby, tennis, American football, the pace of the game is going higher and higher. All 4 of the top 4 players are among the best retrievers and mover in the game. Fed a little less because he has lost a half step although he still moves better than the vast majority of the tour.

So in conclusion, I would say yes the hardwork is a prerequisite but no matter how hard david Ferrer or bjorn phau work, they still don't have a snowballs chance of reaching the very elite levels of the game. You need both athleticism in terms of speed and fitness and big weapons. It is a complete package but what sets them apart is that they are better athletes and masters of the technical aspects of the game at the same time.

What was the difference yesterday between Ljubicic and Murray?

Not much. The fact that Murray was able to run more balls down gave him a clear advantage.

That's the main difference. If you are extremely quick and built an upper body which allows yuo to hit teh ball hard while stretched, then being pushed in the trameline by a good ball stricker is no longer a disadvantage but an advantage as it offers angles for passing shots and yesterday Murray scored many points like that.

Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are excellent while being sent outside the court cause they have amazing fitness.

What makes Federer different than the rest is simply his talent. He is fit too but he is by far the best ball striker. A kind of Ljubicic with more variation and of course fitness. That in turn gives him mental strength which allows him to stay with the top 4.

However we saw yesterday that Ljubo is not very far at 32 from a peak Murray. That shoudl give some food for thought to those who think 2003-2007 was a weak era.

I would caution Tenez that Ljubicic is a player that because he was never a good mover, hasn't lost as much due to ageing as lets say federer. I would posit that while he is a talented player he was a highly deficit world #3. Having never made a grandslam final and having won one Master's event. But since Ljubicic was never a great mover his loss of mobility doesn't effect his game as much as lets say Federer.

socal1976 wrote:I would caution Tenez that Ljubicic is a player that because he was never a good mover, hasn't lost as much due to ageing as lets say federer. I would posit that while he is a talented player he was a highly deficit world #3. Having never made a grandslam final and having won one Master's event. But since Ljubicic was never a great mover his loss of mobility doesn't effect his game as much as lets say Federer.

Yes socal a bit like the old saying 'you never lost what you never had'.

Stay tune here and let's see if Murray can challenge the top 4 in 8 years time.

The reason Ljubo has no more TMS is that he was stopped by Federer a few times and then by Nadal in 5 sets in madrid after having led 2 sets and a break up. If that is a "deficit" world number 3, what does it say of the then number 2?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I would caution Tenez that Ljubicic is a player that because he was never a good mover, hasn't lost as much due to ageing as lets say federer. I would posit that while he is a talented player he was a highly deficit world #3. Having never made a grandslam final and having won one Master's event. But since Ljubicic was never a great mover his loss of mobility doesn't effect his game as much as lets say Federer.

Yes socal a bit like the old saying 'you never lost what you never had'.

That's good news for Ljubicic. He is going to be a contender till he dies!

Tenez, you know you should really consider debating honestly, if Ljubicic manages to be ranked in the top 100 at 80 years old I am on the record now as saying he is the greatest #3 ever and that 2003-07 was the strongest era ever. Compare ljubicic's career accomplishments to those of Murray and Djoko's and you will see exactly how the game has improved in the last few years. In fact, I would say that 2000-07 was a transitional period and that the tennis now is much better than it was then. See Roddick, Ljubici, and hewitt. And a lot of that has to do with Federer and Nadal raising the bar and forcing other talents to improve.

Luber is a good player but never that talented, a booming serve and nice groundstrokes but a wooden mover. For someone who was #3 in the world, his best slams records are: AO - 1 x QF, FO - 1 x SF (2006), Wimbledon - only 1R before this year!, USO - 2 x QF. Hardly stuff of legend.

I'm pretty sure most other #3's have a much better roll-call. Its fair to say his #3 was a blip - he doesnt have anywhere near the overall ability of the current top 10, and I agree that like many of the early transitional 2000's he was rapidly overtaken by the new crop of tennis players. His Y/E ranking from 2000 to 2010 is:
91, 37, 49, 42, 22, 9, 5, 18, 45, 24, 17. So hardly top 10 for a number of years. He's a good solid player alright, but never troubling the top players consistently as his results show.

It doesn't take much crystal ball gazing to suggest the likely Wimbledon semi-finalists that's for sure.

The big question therefore has to be whether Andy can make it one stage further and into the final or not. The what separates Andy from the other 3 becomes the issue as historically he hasn't produced anything like his A game when it counts and they invariably do.

Personally I think he might find the pressure all too difficult to handle again meaning another potential disappointment. Then again he might not and Wimbledon would be the ideal place to start setting the record straight.

I honestly can't figure out how Ljubicic made World No.3 but then again history throws in such at times. No mistake, a decent player with a great serve and what i'll call a technically sound and great backhand but every thing else is his game lacking. Poor movement and an average forehand especially when he hits cross court. Never improved on such areas and his peak carrer rank again was as a result of a lack of depth and great talent in the mens tour up to from early 2000s to 2007. Capable of having a great match at times but that's all.

A good topic, and some interesting points.

1. Hard work and dedication. This has been talked about, and indeed all of the top 4 have worked incredibly hard at their game. This in turn means they're all also very fit, and thus able to keep making those slights adjustments to make the shot during a long match, or to keep chasing the ball down. Another example is how Nadal and Murray have adapted to their weaker surfaces to be contenders.

2. The big weapons. Basically what socal said: hard work and dedication is not enough on its own, otherwise someone like David Ferrer would probably be right up there. However the top 4 each rank in my top 5 weapons list in at least two areas (again, what socal said).

3. tennis nous. The thing that always impresses me about the top 4 is just how well they read the game. Some examples player by player
Murray. How often do you see Murray pick the right side on a 50-50 shot where he has to "guess" (overhead, short forehand, etc.)? I'd say at least 75%, this guys seems to know where his opponent will hit it before he plays the shot.
Federer. How often do you see Federer out of position? Almost never. At the net he usually picks the pass, and the way he dismantles the big servers suggests he gets a great read on the return.
Djokovic. Top of the returners stats. This is because he reads an opponents serve so well. Also reads the rallies beautifully, almost always plays the right shot at the right time.
Nadal. Phenomenal athlete who chases everything down, but it pure athletic skills I would rank Monfils above him. However, Rafa's reading of the game allows him to be one step quicker in going for the opponent's shot and thus that much quicker in reaching it and getting it back.

These are just examples, and there are many more, but I think this is a key point.

I more or less agree with Tenez but I would add:-

Rafa -
To hit the the forehand the way he does with that swing generating that amount of spin takes incredible timing. Add to that he's using his so called weaker arm, he should miss hit the ball far more than he does. As he's right handed that is the dominant hand when he plays a backhand, becuse of this and his movement, I remember Federer saying something like "it's like palying a guy with two forehands".

Federer -
Probably the most talented player I've ever seen. You can tell when someone's really good at something cause they make it look easy. When I watch him play I always think if I got fit and practiced a bit I'm sure I could do that. I never get that feeling when I watch the other top 4 players. In fact the only other player who made me feel like that was McEnroe.

Novak & Murray
Both have that abilty around the court as mentioned by Tenez but they both return serve incredibly well and are better off the backhand wing. So as a lower ranked player how are you going to win enough points and games to win the match ?

Also one of them thinks he's the best player on the planet the other thinks he's one of the best, and that's a big difference.

Maybe I should ignore this as I don't want to be accused of "player bashing" but I find it provocative so I'll jump in...

Nadal and Federer have separated themselves from the rest. Havn't they greedily taken nearly all the Grand Slams since 2003? I would say that Djokovic also separated himself from the rest of the pack but even he doesn't put himself in the same category as them.

"I guess every time you expect the match between Federer and Nadal, it's always the biggest match that exists in tennis. I think they have a biggest rivalry from active players. Maybe the biggest rivalry ever. So it's just great to be part of the era with those two guys."

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/interviews/2011-06-19/201106191308489707605.html

What separates them from the rest? Not just slam titles but a consistantly
high standard of play. Any loss is a shock. They produce their best when it is needed. Murray is number 4 in the world. He is a good player. So are other players. To say Murray is in the same "class" as Nadal and Federer and a different "class" to Soderling, Berdych, Rodick, Del Potro, Ferrer, Davydenko etc is wishful thinking by Murray fans and disrespectful to other players..... Sorry

I think the one thing that has been overlooked is the passion
I think you have to be passionate about the game you love to be successful. Obviously all the other things that have been mentioned too. To play with a heart that refuses to give up never wanting to stop playing the game that has become your life. That makes a champion

Lydian, the early 2000s was sort of dull period in tennis. Look at Hewitt and Roddick, these two battled it out for #1 and then with the emergence of Fed, after that Nadal, and later Novak and Andy and a whole slew of others they simply fell of the radar. Hewitt did suffer some difficult injuries, but even when healthy he just seemed to lack the weight of shot. Both Roddick and hewitt had the game literally pass them by when they should have just been entering their peak. For both players, by their early to mid 20s they had seen their better days. And in the case of Roddick you didn't have injuries or burnout ever being part of the equation, it was more like his game just wasn't good enough anymore. His forehand went from being won of the top 5 in the game to being barely won of the top 20 in a span of 2 or 3 seasons. Ferrerro is another guy who showed such promise but again like Hewitt seemed to lack that additional firepower off the ground to cut it, another player whose best days were in his early 20s. For me 2000 to approximately 2006 was a step back in tennis evolution. Tennis gets better constantly, but the progress isn't always linear; sometimes you move two steps forward and then a step back to go forward again. Hence why I see 2000-06 as a transitional if not weak era.

Hawkeye, the way I see it if you are talking about legacy then of course even Novak can't compare his accomplishments to Nadal and Fed's. But if you are talking about 2011 and the current state of the game then in my mind it is definetly a big three, and maybe a big 3 plus one is the best way to account for murray. i think Murray has seperated himself from the rest of the tour. His six master's series is more than the rest of the players ranked beneath him in the top ten combined. Del Po has the one slam over him and he definetly is a guy that you want to put in the conversation. But outside that one forthnight due to injury mainly he can't be in the conversation just yet. He has yet to consistently be a top 5 talent like the other 4 guys.

But if we aren't talking about legacy and career accomplishment, but the current state of the game, then Novak is right up there with the other two and frankly this year he is the consensus player of the year and most likely if doesn't get hurt will be year end #1. A grandslam, 4 masters and 7 total tournaments won is quite amazing, he gets another masters this year and he will have accomplished something not even Rafa and Roger have, winning 5 masters in a single season.

You can have all the "passion" in the world !

If you ain't good enough, you aint good enough that's it !

Read my post again eric.... you are cherry picking

" With Obviously all the other things that have been mentioned too."

Rafa - To hit the the forehand the way he does with that swing generating that amount of spin takes incredible timing.
----------------------------------

Thanks for "more or less" agreeing with me Eric but this point above is not actually true. I'll explain this later but it is a crucial misconception of "great timing".

Is this article was about what separates the top 4 from the rest or what separates Murray from the top 3 ?

As a lot of posters on here seem to be getting confused.

Murray is there with the top 3 in my view. He is certainly closer to them than he is from 5 and above.

Having said that Gasquet might test him on Monday.

i think the order is like this:

federer nadal

djokovic

murray


the rest

n among of top 4,,murray is most exposed to 'upsets'

murry not won a grand slam the other 3 have

Pauline,

Please read the article before posting.

What seperates the 'Big 4' from the rest of the field? (apart from Slams won)

1) Murray is in the big 4
2) As above, Slams was not to be an answer

Haddie-nuff wrote:Read my post again eric.... you are cherry picking

" With Obviously all the other things that have been mentioned too."

I have read your post and I stand by my comment !

erictheblueuk wrote:You can have all the "passion" in the world !

If you ain't good enough, you aint good enough that's it !."

" With Obviously all the other things that have been mentioned too."



For goodness sake do I actually have to spell it out for you obviously the rest goes with it.. I wasn´t going to write it all out again.,...

One important factor which needs to extend past player characteristics (including all individual skills and talent), are the teams behind these players.

Coaches, Fitness Trainers, Hitting Partners, Travelling Companions, Management Companies.

The individual characteristics allow them to get to a point in their career, where the affordability (in some cases) and availability of such resources who can push players from mere 'mortal' status to 'immortal' status is a significant factor.

Toni (Nadal), Carter/Lundgren (Federer), Sanchez/Brad Gilbert/Miles Maclagan (Murray), Vajda (Djokovic) should also get mentioned in such conversations.

Rafa, Federer and Djokovic know how to prepare themselves properly for Grand Slams so they have nothing to think about except winning matches. Everything is carefully planned so that their way of life works in harmony with achieving that.

I saw Rafa and Murray play on Monday on Centre. One of them has the demeanour of a champion, the other looks quite honestly as if he does not want to be bothered. This is what the TV just doesn't capture. Rafa and Federer will sniff out that body language and take advantage time and again..Andy Murray really needs to sort that out otherwise he looks as if he has lost a match before a ball is even struck. Such a pity as he is brimming with talent.

Mrs L wrote:One of them has the demeanour of a champion, the other looks quite honestly as if he does not want to be bothered. This is what the TV just doesn't capture. Rafa and Federer will sniff out that body language and take advantage time and again..Andy Murray really needs to sort that out otherwise he looks as if he has lost a match before a ball is even struck. Such a pity as he is brimming with talent.

Andy showed quite a bit of 'emotion' in the Looby match. Also, he admits being shy, which can be misinterpreted as being dour.
Think of Borg (or IceBorg, if you like). No public show of emotion whatsoever. Contrast that with McEnroe.

But we cant judge their overall characters too much because at the end of the day Murray is #4 in the world...his character isnt affecting his success too much! Well, at least until the very highest slam level.
Its just the way Murray is...dour and yet expressionate. Against the highest guys like Nadal and Federer, Murray has more lapses..maybe due to his burst of expressions, etc, which reveals he not quite as mentally strong. The problem is that if Murrat became more even and calmer he may become more consistent but not reach quite the same highs during a match...?

Andy is Andy - I am sure he is now aware of his demeanor etc. on court and I think he is slowly getting to grips with it.

Off court he is a completely different animal, he does have a sense of humour and is very much liked by a lot of people including his fellow tour players.

However he does take his game seriously, maybe too much at times but you cant deny that he has the talent.

Apart from Marcos Baghdatis who seems to be smiling most of the time, there are very few players that you can say that about.

It's about confidence though. Murray gives off the impression he hasn't got any. His shoulders were slumped and he growled around the court. Rafa was jumping about and gave off lots of energy. He was smiling. Murray looked at his entourage too much. He didn't swear at them this time though. At least not while I was watching. There is just something about Federer and Rafa that makes them special. They have 'it' when they walk on court. They are different but there is that charismatic common factor. Mentally Murray is not in the same league. Talentwise maybe, not mentally. Not yet anyway. I have seen him play many times and this was the most negative I have seen him. And I have seen play twice before at Wimbledon...

The key phrase there is "Murray gives off the impression" .

To whom ? He is a tennis player going about his trade.
WHY does everyone and his mother berate Murray but
NO OTHER PLAYER ?

Mental fortitude is an intangibe that is inseparable from the conquest and achievements of the current Top 2 of tennis, and that which has begun to reap benefits for Djokovic, and something that is still to be shown by Murray, at the highest level of the game.

Becker said it some years ago, when he was still playing, that Major finals, didn't have alot to do with mechanics, forehands, backhands, etc., but that it was what we between the ears, that made that difference between receiving the runner's up, vs the Winner's trophy.

You can look at quite a few of the victories that Federer and Nadal have had, over Murray and Djokovic and point out perhaps a half dozen points, that, had they been won by the evertual loser of the match, could easily have changed the outcome.

In his last two losing efforts at SW19, Murray was very close, however, it was that "last point," in a close moment, that he was unable to "break through."

Djokovic has now "cracked that nut," and I think that whatever happens to him for the rest of the year, will have moved past that point with his game, matches, strategies, etc.,

I still believe that IF Murray should win his first major in the next 18 months, that he will win a few of them. It's such a mental thing, as the top level of sports as a whole, including tennis.

Nadal and Federer seem to raise their level, meaning not making unforced errors; choosing the "right"shot at that crucial time; and not gifting that moment away, to their opponent.

The Top 4, are aware of each other's physical and technical attributes, it comes down to that "moment," whether it's at a Major, or at a regular tour event, whatever the "listing", (250, 500, or TMS).

Regards the "rest of the pack," there are quite a few player who, on a given day, can play a "world beating" match, however they are one off, or occasional happenings, and not something that they are able to produce week in and out, month in and out, or season in or out. Why? The mental aspect.

Anyone who has played the game, at more than a "Friday night" club level, knows the difficulty, and committment needed to be "there," mentally for the length of the match. Throw in, the high level of media, the physical effort, and so on, it is such a difficult thing to do at the highest levels of the game. One can point to so many incidents where a player has been "close," or has taken a significant lead, only to be unable to continue that effort, through the winning of that "final point."

What Federer has done for so long, and Nadal, and what we have seen from Djokovic throughout all of 2011, is that ability to mentally stay in, at every point - and it makes alot of spectators and followers of the game, underestimate what that takes, in order to do this match, after match; season, after season.

The mental aspect of the game, is what separates the "Top 4" from the rest of the field.

Mrs L wrote:It's about confidence though. Murray gives off the impression he hasn't got any. His shoulders were slumped and he growled around the court.

Did you watch Novak break his racquet against Baghdatis? (I like Novak, BTW, in fact I like all the players).

Mrs L wrote:Rafa was jumping about and gave off lots of energy. He was smiling

Not sure if you have seen Bartoli practicing shots. Sometimes, my impression is that it is a waste of energy and could be better channelled towards the actual match. Just a different perspective.

Mrs L wrote:Murray looked at his entourage too much. He didn't swear at them this time though. At least not while I was watching.

Novak is an example who constantly talks to his entourage. The match against Federer@FO comes to mind.

Mrs L wrote:There is just something about Federer and Rafa that makes them special. They have 'it' when they walk on court. They are different but there is that charismatic common factor.

I am sure you can recall the Toronto SF (Nadal) and F (Federer).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG2bV6ElTZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ALfgGuV-bo

Andy has charisma too.

Mrs L wrote:Mentally Murray is not in the same league. Talentwise maybe, not mentally. Not yet anyway. I have seen him play many times and this was the most negative I have seen him. And I have seen play twice before at Wimbledon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtRWdLkigCg

Bit of a bias on my part by just showing Andy's wins, but hope that it creates a more balanced view of Andy.

The one top player that amazes me (apart from his brilliant tennis) is Federer.

He never changes his expression, you never see him moaning, getting flustered or looking at his box, got to be a lesson to be learnt there.

Certainly wouldn't like to play against him at poker!

yloponom68 wrote:What Federer has done for so long, and Nadal, and what we have seen from Djokovic throughout all of 2011, is that ability to mentally stay in, at every point - and it makes alot of spectators and followers of the game, underestimate what that takes, in order to do this match, after match; season, after season.

Yes.......being present at every critical moment of a match can turn a loss into a win......it's what Andy needs to work on.

That's an excellent post you've made there, yloponom68, thanks : )

Solerina

Between those 4, it's down to the form of the day. Whoever has the form of the day wins.

I don;t think one is really mentally weaker/stronger than the others. And if we can say that of one slam, the next slam might be very different.

However Djoko certainly looks the strongest mentally atm cause he has the best talent/fitness ratio. Sure he did not show that yesterday but he still won not playing well and with the crowd against him.

Federer is in my view the best when on form but that form is more irregular due to the nature of his game. More than any of the three he relies on his form of the day, his timing....but that timing is quite inconsistent over 5 sets.

Nadal is still by far the most physical player but the less talented of the 4. So he relies heavily on bringing the battle to a physical level, blunting his opponent's talent over the course of a 5 setter. If things don;t go his way, he slows the game down and engages in long rallies...unless he deals with a Djoko or a Murray on form....then he might be pushed to attack but there he will fall short.

Murray has a good talent/fitness ratio too but though his talent is quite consistent, it's his physique that is not up to the Nadal and Djoko so this is where he will be tested. If he is physically fit, he can certainly beat Nadal. ...beating the other 2 will depend much on their form more than Murray's in my view.

Tenez wrote:Between those 4, it's down to the form of the day. Whoever has the form of the day wins.

I don;t think one is really mentally weaker/stronger than the others. And if we can say that of one slam, the next slam might be very different.

However Djoko certainly looks the strongest mentally atm cause he has the best talent/fitness ratio. Sure he did not show that yesterday but he still won not playing well and with the crowd against him.

Federer is in my view the best when on form but that form is more irregular due to the nature of his game. More than any of the three he relies on his form of the day, his timing....but that timing is quite inconsistent over 5 sets.

Nadal is still by far the most physical player but the less talented of the 4. So he relies heavily on bringing the battle to a physical level, blunting his opponent's talent over the course of a 5 setter. If things don;t go his way, he slows the game down and engages in long rallies...unless he deals with a Djoko or a Murray on form....then he might be pushed to attack but there he will fall short.

Murray has a good talent/fitness ratio too but though his talent is quite consistent, it's his physique that is not up to the Nadal and Djoko so this is where he will be tested. If he is physically fit, he can certainly beat Nadal. ...beating the other 2 will depend much on their form more than Murray's in my view.

Who could argue with all that? I can't..

Very fair and balanced post.

Cheers GP!

And tomorrow we will see whether they are much better than teh lower ranked players. There might not be much between the top 4 and teh rest.