Japan Open, latest.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/10/40/Tokyo-Friday-Nadal-Faces-Fish-In-SFs.aspx


Nadal will face Fish tomorrow and Murray will take on Ferrer in the two semi finals of the Japan open.

Ferrer has never beaten Murray on the Hard Stuff and Nadal is 2-1 up on Fish, except Mardy won their last outing on HC at Cinicinnati, so it looks to be two interesting matchups on Saturday, if Ferrer can put pressure on Andy's service game.

in other news, the Murray bros have also taken the doubles title to cap off an excellent few weeks for the Murray household, while Berdych has taken the title in Beijing, coming back from a set down to beat Marin Cilic. His first title since 2009, this puts him right back in the mix for the end of year masters.

"A devastating final set, during which he afforded Nadal only four points, has to be considered one of Murray's finest. He was loose and aggressive, constantly stepping inside the baseline. Everything was off the centre of the racket and it was a joy to watch. Nadal didn't seem to be struggling physically - this was sheer brilliance from the Brit. With back to back titles in Bangkok and Tokyo, how he must wish for a major to be magically created in Asia."

Match report : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/15231444.stm

Tenez wrote:It's getting embarassing for Nadal but Murray knows too well that this a different Nadal than the one he meets in slams. In slams Nadal doesn't tire after a set and his weight of shots are heavier.

Just compare the score today with the 3 other matches they played in slams this year...in particular with the last one played just 4 weeks ago. Has Murray improved so much?

It's been like that for years. Slam Nadal is a different animal than smaller-tourney Nadal, you know the one who tires v Garcia-Lopez in a 3 setter.

However this should boost Murray's confidence for the future cause I think he can beat slam Nadal too and will in the future.

Tenez, you're a fairly intelligent writer and a fairly knowledgeable about Tennis. However, your constant need to pump Fed up, means you pay no respect to his rivals. For instance, the reason why I stated that Murray would win this game, was nothing to do with what you stated in your first paragraph above. If it's that simple, how come Nadal easily won their last 3-set match on clay (now there's a clue).

Also, it wasn't that simple when Nadal beat Nadal at the O2 - there we have, what is fair to describe as a medium fast hard court conditions.

Murray's last victory against Nadal was at Toronto last year - one of the fastest courts around

Murray's only slam victories against Nadal were on (then) fast hard courts

Do you get my drift? Japan is a genuine fast court and hence Andy should always win those contents. Hence, I'd have been far more worried about a defeat here than I was at the US Open

And before you state that the US Open is played on a fast court, it used to be, until this year when even the organisers admitted they'd dropped the baton and they were playing slow

Yes. It says a lot about Murray's limitations that he can only beat Nadal on fast hard courts - but in that regard he's no different to Roger

So let's stop the nonsense. Nadal wasn't tired and apparently was superb against (arguably currently) the 5th best hard court player in the world, yesterday

What this illustrated is what Bogbrush and I keep banging on about is that Andy (and Roger) should be aggressively complaining at the appalling insipid court conditions at Wimbledon and the US Open as we need the slams to be on four different surfaces not, in affect what we currently have, two

Can I change my mind? Ok i will, in terms of pure talent, Nadal is the WEAKEST of the top 4. He has more willpower than the others, but talent he lacks badly. 4 points in a set

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez, you're a fairly intelligent writer and a fairly knowledgeable about Tennis. However, your constant need to pump Fed up, means you pay no respect to his rivals. For instance, the reason why I stated that Murray would win this game, was nothing to do with what you stated in your first paragraph above. If it's that simple, how come Nadal easily won their last 3-set match on clay (now there's a clue).

Also, it wasn't that simple when Nadal beat Nadal at the O2 - there we have, what is fair to describe as a medium fast hard court conditions.

Murray's last victory against Nadal was at Toronto last year - one of the fastest courts around

Murray's only slam victories against Nadal were on (then) fast hard courts

Do you get my drift? Japan is a genuine fast court and hence Andy should always win those contents. Hence, I'd have been far more worried about a defeat here than I was at the US Open

And before you state that the US Open is played on a fast court, it used to be, until this year when even the organisers admitted they'd dropped the baton and they were playing slow

Yes. It says a lot about Murray's limitations that he can only beat Nadal on fast hard courts - but in that regard he's no different to Roger

So let's stop the nonsense. Nadal wasn't tired and apparently was superb against (arguably currently) the 5th best hard court player in the world, yesterday

What this illustrated is what Bogbrush and I keep banging on about is that Andy (and Roger) should be aggressively complaining at the appalling insipid court conditions at Wimbledon and the US Open as we need the slams to be on four different surfaces not, in affect what we currently have, two

Murray's only slam victory over Nadal in quick conditions was at the '08 US Open. You're including the Melbourne victory which would be incorrect. Also, you're speculating about the speed of the Japan Open. Watching the tournament, it's medium hard - there's no way it's any faster than the recent US Open (which slowed this year) or even the O2.

Saying Murray should ALWAYS win on fast hard is also presumptuous and a little disrespectful of Nadal. And Nadal was never 'superb' against anyone in this tournament and after watching both semis, I certainly thought Murray had the edge.

Question is, will Murray continue to play doubles in the slams if that's what it takes to turn him into MurGod? I don't believe Djokovic has ever bageled Nadal, so that's one thing he has over the Serb

Top effort by Murray, I'm, liking how open the mens game is looking at the moment.

banbrotam, I don't think being tired was the main point of Tenez's point. I think the main point was Nadal is generally a lot tough to beat when it comes to slams. That doesn't mean he didn't try at all here, he did, but he is generally a lot more when its in slams.

Murray played a very good match and won the title. He did what was needed to do and it will indeed give him confidence against Nadal which he often lacks in slams. The fast surface did help, thats why I don't like the slowing of so many courts as it kills variety in tennis. Clay season with 3 Masters and FO is more than sufficient of a slow surface needed in tennis.

Well done Murray for the fantastic 2 weeks.

banbrotam wrote:What this illustrated is what Bogbrush and I keep banging on about is that Andy (and Roger) should be aggressively complaining at the appalling insipid court conditions at Wimbledon and the US Open as we need the slams to be on four different surfaces not, in affect what we currently have, two

I think I stated that long long ago. However today's victory has nothing to do with court pace. Not much for sure. You don't swing the balance of a match from win in 4 sets to a loss in three including a 60 on the way thanks to the surface. It's about energy level. End of story. Those who refuse to see it simply don;t want to see it and prefer attribute the wins and losses down to to some improvement, talent and other factors.

I have not watched the match today but I am pretty sure I can figure out what happened. Tough battle at first until Nadal this time drops half a step first with shots starting to fall short allowing Murray to take the ball earlier and dictate sending the ball further away from Nadal after every single hit. Exactly what happened at Wimbledon this year when those 2 met and that Murray lost half a step, Nadal was made to look brillant that day.

Murray can beat Nadal whether he is 110% or not but expect a much tighter score when Nadal prepares for slams. Nothing new here, it's what has been happening for the last 7 years.

Yes Raiders, I am not finding excuses for Nadal (not my type ) but we are just having a different Nadal there....the one who can't get past the semi at Montreal and Cincy, yet rolls over everybody to win teh USO or gets only stopped by Djoko.

or maybe Murray just played lights out tennis for the better part of two sets, which he didn't do at the Us Open. At the US, Murray made about 15 errors in the sets he lost as opposed to 6 or 7 in the set he won. Today he didn't make that many errors, while still being the aggressor. In fact the third set from Murray was the single best set of tennis I've seen from any player this year...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:or maybe Murray just played lights out tennis for the better part of two sets, which he didn't do at the Us Open. At the US, Murray made about 15 errors in the sets he lost as opposed to 6 or 7 in the set he won. Today he didn't make that many errors, while still being the aggressor. In fact the third set from Murray was the single best set of tennis I've seen from any player this year...

This is tennis! It takes 2 to tango!

Murray's CC BH was absolutely fantastic. Another thing was his ability to push Nadal further back on the baseline with DTL BHs. Murray's DHBH should be mentioned on Tenez's SBH/DHBH thread as well.

The game that stands out for me was from 0-40, three aces (204 kmph, 217 kmph, 197 kmph - IIRC) @3-1 in the second set.

If Andy had played the first game in set 1 with better focus, the scoreline may have been different.

“He [Murray] played very aggressive and made no mistakes. When you are playing someone at that level, the only way is to try and get more free points on serve and for me [Nadal] it was impossible today because his return was very impressive."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/10/40/Tokyo-Sunday-Murray-Beats-Nadal-In-Final.aspx

Glad to see Murray playing aggressive and taking the game to his opponent.

laverfan wrote:Murray's CC BH was absolutely fantastic. Another thing was his ability to push Nadal further back on the baseline with DTL BHs. Murray's DHBH should be mentioned on Tenez's SBH/DHBH thread as well.

As said, I have not watched the match yet and I wasn;t particularly impressed by Murray's BH in his last 4 previous encounters with Nadal.

Good to see he can turn it on.

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Tenez, you're a fairly intelligent writer and a fairly knowledgeable about Tennis. However, your constant need to pump Fed up, means you pay no respect to his rivals. For instance, the reason why I stated that Murray would win this game, was nothing to do with what you stated in your first paragraph above. If it's that simple, how come Nadal easily won their last 3-set match on clay (now there's a clue).

Also, it wasn't that simple when Nadal beat Nadal at the O2 - there we have, what is fair to describe as a medium fast hard court conditions.

Murray's last victory against Nadal was at Toronto last year - one of the fastest courts around

Murray's only slam victories against Nadal were on (then) fast hard courts

Do you get my drift? Japan is a genuine fast court and hence Andy should always win those contents. Hence, I'd have been far more worried about a defeat here than I was at the US Open

And before you state that the US Open is played on a fast court, it used to be, until this year when even the organisers admitted they'd dropped the baton and they were playing slow

Yes. It says a lot about Murray's limitations that he can only beat Nadal on fast hard courts - but in that regard he's no different to Roger

So let's stop the nonsense. Nadal wasn't tired and apparently was superb against (arguably currently) the 5th best hard court player in the world, yesterday

What this illustrated is what Bogbrush and I keep banging on about is that Andy (and Roger) should be aggressively complaining at the appalling insipid court conditions at Wimbledon and the US Open as we need the slams to be on four different surfaces not, in affect what we currently have, two

Murray's only slam victory over Nadal in quick conditions was at the '08 US Open. You're including the Melbourne victory which would be incorrect. Also, you're speculating about the speed of the Japan Open. Watching the tournament, it's medium hard - there's no way it's any faster than the recent US Open (which slowed this year) or even the O2.

Saying Murray should ALWAYS win on fast hard is also presumptuous and a little disrespectful of Nadal. And Nadal was never 'superb' against anyone in this tournament and after watching both semis, I certainly thought Murray had the edge.

Strange that Murray was saying that it was playing faster than last week, unless of course that surface was painfully slow. God help us, if there are courts playing slower than this years US Open, where a 6-2 set takes 50 minutes due to the greater length of the rallies. Or should we be believing you or the organisers who stated that the newly laid courts hadn't had time to 'harden'

The Melbourne victory is actually correct. It's a fast court that generally favours Murray. 4 times out of every 5 hard court matches, you would favour Murray. Of course Nadal is going to win the occasional one or two - my point is to make out that this victory is down to Nadal's tiredness is lazy. Nadal doesn't like Murray on fast hard courts, because Murray's 'shots on the run' skills are more significant on such surfaces. As the surface slows down, this signifcant part of Murray's strategy to beat Nadal, is negated

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:Murray's CC BH was absolutely fantastic. Another thing was his ability to push Nadal further back on the baseline with DTL BHs. Murray's DHBH should be mentioned on Tenez's SBH/DHBH thread as well.

As said, I have not watched the match yet and I wasn;t particularly impressed by Murray's BH in his last 4 previous encounters with Nadal.

Good to see he can turn it on.

That's because Andy thrives on pace so he can get his BH working perfectly. His big weakness is that he is a poor generator of pace. Players who (in the past) have mixed it up against him are the ones who generally beat him or are playing him on slower courts

There's no great mystery about Murray's game, he's after Fed, the most instinctive player in the world, i.e. thrives on split second timing that you get on the genuine hard surfaces. Put him on slower ones, against his three rivals and his relatively weak forehand is exposed

20 titles. None on clay. Two on the fastest grass courts. Lots on the fastest of the hard courts. We may think these are not important facts. Methinks it's a different Murray when he plays on courts he believes are best for his game

And yes this is a very big weakness of his. Against his three rivals, he is the least flexible when it comes to playing surfaces

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWWOaUWYB0I

Doesn't look particularly quick to me.

I am almost scared to say anything against Nadal because everyone here somehow see the N word and out to assassin the poster... but anyways, I watched some part of the third set and it was demolition. Since I genuinely want to know, can somebody tell me if there has ever been a set where a person inside top 100 has won only 4 points... and no, this is not an attempt to wind Nadal up, just curious to know, incase anyone happens to know here.

Berdych was good today but not as imperious as he was against Tsonga yesterday.

I watched Angie Radwanska beat Petkovic and that was a good match - Angie played well, hit 32 winners and 12 unforced. Together they did Petko dance at the end - nice!

Have to agree with Banbro, Murray in the past has often been a victim of his own pessimism and self-critical nature. Its OK to do that to get yourself better prepared but it goes against him when it conflicts with mentally focusing on his own game.

Hard Court has always given him the greatest confidence, but this year he has gone in a completely different direction.

He did well/better at the FO, played more intelligently at SW19 and from there he has played some of his best tennis. I think he is finally recognising that he has the game for all surfaces and now the right temperament.
He only has to transfer this to the slams and he will stand a better chance of playing more competitively in the finals.

Just saw the link, and found it interesting how Murray almost exclusively uses his forehand for counter-punching and bakchand for attacking...he needs to further work on that forehand asap if he wants to win a slam.

banbrotam wrote:

Strange that Murray was saying that it was playing faster than last week, unless of course that surface was painfully slow. God help us, if there are courts playing slower than this years US Open, where a 6-2 set takes 50 minutes due to the greater length of the rallies. Or should we be believing you or the organisers who stated that the newly laid courts hadn't had time to 'harden'

The Melbourne victory is actually correct. It's a fast court that generally favours Murray. 4 times out of every 5 hard court matches, you would favour Murray. Of course Nadal is going to win the occasional one or two - my point is to make out that this victory is down to Nadal's tiredness is lazy. Nadal doesn't like Murray on fast hard courts, because Murray's 'shots on the run' skills are more significant on such surfaces. As the surface slows down, this signifcant part of Murray's strategy to beat Nadal, is negated

The Australian Open rubber has never been seen as a quick hardcourt so you're highly mistaken. The US Open concrete is traditionally one of the quickest surfaces and though it was slower this year, it was no slower than the Japan open. The length of the Nadal - Djokovic match doesn't prove your point about court speed because:

- they have the most attritional baseline games on tour which can make an ice surface look like clay.
- they both spend more time between points than any players on tour.
- there were very long deuce games in the 6-2, 50 min set.

The problem in your post is drawing absolute conclusions from comparative arguments. I actually believe Murray has an edge on quick hard but not by your margins.

Paris Bercy was pretty quick last year, so look forward to that. Shame it's such a marginalised tournament at the end of the year so the best players don't give their best effort there.

They should've done a Roddick and ask Nadal if he was thinking of retirement..

Fedex_the_best wrote:I am almost scared to say anything against Nadal because everyone here somehow see the N word and out to assassin the poster... but anyways, I watched some part of the third set and it was demolition. Since I genuinely want to know, can somebody tell me if there has ever been a set where a person inside top 100 has won only 4 points... and no, this is not an attempt to wind Nadal up, just curious to know, incase anyone happens to know here.

Berdych was good today but not as imperious as he was against Tsonga yesterday.

I watched Angie Radwanska beat Petkovic and that was a good match - Angie played well, hit 32 winners and 12 unforced. Together they did Petko dance at the end - nice!

I believe that in the 1983 French open quarter Mats Wilander won the 4th set against John McEnroe 6-0, for the loss of ONE point.

noleisthebest wrote:Just saw the link, and found it interesting how Murray almost exclusively uses his forehand for counter-punching and bakchand for attacking...he needs to further work on that forehand asap if he wants to win a slam.

Indeed, just watched it and Murray gets more pace on his backhand.

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Strange that Murray was saying that it was playing faster than last week, unless of course that surface was painfully slow. God help us, if there are courts playing slower than this years US Open, where a 6-2 set takes 50 minutes due to the greater length of the rallies. Or should we be believing you or the organisers who stated that the newly laid courts hadn't had time to 'harden'

The Melbourne victory is actually correct. It's a fast court that generally favours Murray. 4 times out of every 5 hard court matches, you would favour Murray. Of course Nadal is going to win the occasional one or two - my point is to make out that this victory is down to Nadal's tiredness is lazy. Nadal doesn't like Murray on fast hard courts, because Murray's 'shots on the run' skills are more significant on such surfaces. As the surface slows down, this signifcant part of Murray's strategy to beat Nadal, is negated

The Australian Open rubber has never been seen as a quick hardcourt so you're highly mistaken. The US Open concrete is traditionally one of the quickest surfaces and though it was slower this year, it was no slower than the Japan open. The length of the Nadal - Djokovic match doesn't prove your point about court speed because:

- they have the most attritional baseline games on tour which can make an ice surface look like clay.
- they both spend more time between points than any players on tour.
- there were very long deuce games in the 6-2, 50 min set.

The problem in your post is drawing absolute conclusions from comparative arguments. I actually believe Murray has an edge on quick hard but not by your margins.

I dunno where your getting your information from, but the Aus Open, whilst not as quick as the normalUS Open, was still quicker than this years US Open. Just go away and watch highlights of the Andy / Rafa match of Aus 2010 and compare to this year

We seem to agree anyway, but you seem to want an argument. All I am going on from about the Japan open, is Andy's comments after his a match against Baggy. He's hardly going state that the speed of the courts surprised him (paraphrasing) if it's playing slower that the US, given that he'd played there barely a month ago!!

Andy's edge on the hard courts of today, is about 60/40 i.e. he wins 6 out of 10. But therein lies the problem, lots of the hard courts now play almost as slow as the clay (nobody can deny that the US Open, played slow this year on the show courts. Even Roddick put his Ferrer victory down to the fact that one of the outside courts was the fastest available which helped him)

So I see no great shock in this victory and certainly do not believe for one moment that Nadal wasn't up for it

bogbrush wrote:

Fedex_the_best wrote:I am almost scared to say anything against Nadal because everyone here somehow see the N word and out to assassin the poster... but anyways, I watched some part of the third set and it was demolition. Since I genuinely want to know, can somebody tell me if there has ever been a set where a person inside top 100 has won only 4 points... and no, this is not an attempt to wind Nadal up, just curious to know, incase anyone happens to know here.

Berdych was good today but not as imperious as he was against Tsonga yesterday.

I watched Angie Radwanska beat Petkovic and that was a good match - Angie played well, hit 32 winners and 12 unforced. Together they did Petko dance at the end - nice!

I believe that in the 1983 French open quarter Mats Wilander won the 4th set against John McEnroe 6-0, for the loss of ONE point.

Thanks BB - really appreciate!

Tenez wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWWOaUWYB0I

Doesn't look particularly quick to me.

Yep, looks pretty slow

noleisthebest wrote:Just saw the link, and found it interesting how Murray almost exclusively uses his forehand for counter-punching and bakchand for attacking...he needs to further work on that forehand asap if he wants to win a slam.

Quite true. I was not very impressed by their FHs (Nadal's and Murray's). However it seems that the guy who posted that clip is a big Nadal fan and therefore showed essentially Nadal's best points.

droogle wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Just saw the link, and found it interesting how Murray almost exclusively uses his forehand for counter-punching and bakchand for attacking...he needs to further work on that forehand asap if he wants to win a slam.

Indeed, just watched it and Murray gets more pace on his backhand.

Pretty similar to Nadal, thinking of it. Well not as extreme as Murray but Nadal's CC BH is probably his paciest shot as it's basically the only one he flattens..but uses it rarely though.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Just saw the link, and found it interesting how Murray almost exclusively uses his forehand for counter-punching and bakchand for attacking...he needs to further work on that forehand asap if he wants to win a slam.

Quite true. I was not very impressed by their FHs (Nadal's and Murray's). However it seems that the guy who posted that clip is a big Nadal fan and therefore showed essentially Nadal's best points.

yeah pretty much. Murray made a few points with his forehand, particularly an absolute sizzler flat down the line to get to match point, but it was certainly his backhand that won him the match. This video is incredibly Nadal-biased.

bogbrush wrote:

Fedex_the_best wrote:I am almost scared to say anything against Nadal because everyone here somehow see the N word and out to assassin the poster... but anyways, I watched some part of the third set and it was demolition. Since I genuinely want to know, can somebody tell me if there has ever been a set where a person inside top 100 has won only 4 points... and no, this is not an attempt to wind Nadal up, just curious to know, incase anyone happens to know here.

Berdych was good today but not as imperious as he was against Tsonga yesterday.

I watched Angie Radwanska beat Petkovic and that was a good match - Angie played well, hit 32 winners and 12 unforced. Together they did Petko dance at the end - nice!

I believe that in the 1983 French open quarter Mats Wilander won the 4th set against John McEnroe 6-0, for the loss of ONE point.

Was it that match where McEnroe had won the first set 60?

Edit..no was 6/1 actually. BUt Federer/Nadal often remind me of the McEnroe/Wilander matches with often similar scoring where the attacking player starts strong and then gets bogged down into a physical battle with the same winner. McEnore however hasa positive H2H over Wilander 7/6 but that might be helped by the then faster conditions which made it more balanced.

Just watching the 5 minute highlights it seemed Murray was able to go toe to toe with Nadal but after taking the second set Nadal must have folded? (it seemed rather like Murray was playing like Djokovic and keeping the ball in play but Nadal didn't make the unforced errors as he often does against Djoko).

luciusmann wrote:Just watching the 5 minute highlights it seemed Murray was able to go toe to toe with Nadal but after taking the second set Nadal must have folded? (it seemed rather like Murray was playing like Djokovic and keeping the ball in play but Nadal didn't make the unforced errors as he often does against Djoko).

I wouldn't say Nadal folded so much as couldn't find a solution. Murray was playing so well, and Rafa as he can do when under pressure basically resorted to moonballing, which Andy thrived on, particularly on the backhand side, where he just stepped in and mullered it. To my mind, one of the single best sets of individual tennis I've ever seen (though some Federer played in his prime - particularly that one against Roddick at wimbledon which he won 6-1, can't remember the year? - stand out still).

Murray looked to me to have been taking tips from Djokovic. He concentrated on looping it to the Nadal backhand, getting short replies and whacking the backhand. Obviously there was plenty of variety but that was a frequent go-to play.

It must be hugely worrying to Nadal to realise that he now has two opponents who have completely worked him out, one of whom has shown he has the endurance to outlast him. If Murray steps up his fitness a tad he'll get the same dominance over Nadal.

BB

I don't think Andy has too much trouble with having the fitness to match Nadal - the issue still is whether he can maintain the consistency and quality of his play, and get the balance right between aggression and care. Wimbledon showed that he can beat Rafa with an extremely aggressive gameplan, but also showed that Andy isn't that comfortable with this approach, so once he made a mistake he retreated and totally lost confidence in going for his shots, resulting in a very one sided match from the middle of the 2nd set.

Looks like he got the balance better this match, and hopefully it will build his mental strength to accept he has to play on the front foot to get the better of the best players.

An interesting point elsewhere about AM being most successful on faster courts - he is probably the best pure timer of a shot in the business, so is very effective when he's got pace to work with, especially with the short punchy swing on the DHBH, but he isn't as powerful a 'blaster' as most of the others in the top 10. As such, clay is always going to be his weakest surface, where his chances of winning points depends on coming to the net or successfully using the drop shot and lob, while he will always be more dangerous on faster courts.

bogbrush wrote:Murray looked to me to have been taking tips from Djokovic. He concentrated on looping it to the Nadal backhand, getting short replies and whacking the backhand. Obviously there was plenty of variety but that was a frequent go-to play.

It must be hugely worrying to Nadal to realise that he now has two opponents who have completely worked him out, one of whom has shown he has the endurance to outlast him. If Murray steps up his fitness a tad he'll get the same dominance over Nadal.

A tad premature perhaps? He lost 3 slam semis to him this year before this win. It may come to pass that Murray starts to get the better of Nadal in the big matches, but not sure he's completely worked him out just yet despite your wishful thinking. You should work in the media with your penchant for hyperbole...

The worrying bit here is the 63 of the first set. That's the kind of game Nadal can play for 5 sets in slams but seems not able in those smaller tournies, especially after the slam season.

Murray played well but having seen a bit of the 3rd, Nadal's shots landed alarmingly short giving him all the timing and confidence he may not have in a slam.

As I said, I know Murray can win in slams too but I doubt you woudl get those kind of scorelines....and the last 4 times they played, it was Nadal playing better. So we should not get carried away. Remember Wimbledon 11...wasn't that long ago.

Tenez wrote:The worrying bit here is the 63 of the first set. That's the kind of game Nadal can play for 5 sets in slams but seems not able in those smaller tournies, especially after the slam season.

Murray played well but having seen a bit of the 3rd, Nadal's shots landed alarmingly short giving him all the timing and confidence he may not have in a slam.

As I said, I know Murray can win in slams too but I doubt you woudl get those kind of scorelines....and the last 4 times they played, it was Nadal playing better. So we should not get carried away. Remember Wimbledon 11...wasn't that long ago.

I think that's absolutely right Tenez.

Tenez wrote:That's the kind of game Nadal can play for 5 sets in slams but seems not able in those smaller tournies, especially after the slam season.

.

Nadal has played 77 matches so far this season (65-12) compared to Murray's 61 (50-11).

If nothing else, this should help the Murray confidence. Djokovic's confidence has played a big part in 2011, and so has Nadal's lack of it at the tail end of tournaments in 2011.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's the kind of game Nadal can play for 5 sets in slams but seems not able in those smaller tournies, especially after the slam season.

.

Nadal has played 77 matches so far this season (65-12) compared to Murray's 61 (50-11).

Do you think it explains why Nadal got tired after the first set?...And why Nadal gets tired after every single slam season for the last 7 years?

I suppose after this result the obvious question is what happened to
1)Nadal
2)Murray
to produce such massively different scores in the space of one month?

Is it that Nadal isn't that bothered outside slams (which can't be the case bearing in mind his clay season and all those zillion of touraments) or has Muray raised the level of his game so significantly higher since USO?

NITB

I think it's reasonable to say that Andy has played better in the last couple of weeks than he has for much of the rest of the season (AO perhaps excepted), and that the gap between him and Nadal on quicker courts is quite narrow anyway (using the example of the Wimbledon SF, Andy was on top for the first set and a half until THAT error - shows that when he is on his game he can better Rafa).

I do think at this stage of his career Rafa, along with Fed and probably now Djokovic, doesn't put quite the same effort into winning a 500 point tournament as he would an MS 1000 or a slam, but having reached the final I certainly wouldn't expect a tank - if he was planning to just show up and not worry about the results, he'd be more likely to lose one of his earlier matches as he did at Queens. Obviously he has played more matches than Andy this year, and so Andy will be a bit fresher (both physically and mentally), but there seems to be no suggestion that Rafa is struggling physically as used to be the case later in the year.

Also, it has to be said that Murray beating Nadal is not exactly an unheard of occurrence (although the bagel set for the loss of 4 points is very un-Rafa), so I thnk some people are reading too much into this match.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's the kind of game Nadal can play for 5 sets in slams but seems not able in those smaller tournies, especially after the slam season.

.

Nadal has played 77 matches so far this season (65-12) compared to Murray's 61 (50-11).

Do you think it explains why Nadal got tired after the first set?...And why Nadal gets tired after every single slam season for the last 7 years?

No, he did not get tired at all, but Murray played a very controlled and tactical match.