US Open Day 8

First topic message reminder :

Matches of Note:

Murray v Raonic ( )
Federer v Fish
Almagro v Berdych
Cilic v Klizan


Pironkova v Ivanovic (one for the men)
Serena v Hlavackova
Vinci v Aggy Radwanska
Kerber v Errani

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/schedule/index.html?promo=subnav

Raonic has never come back from two sets down to win a match in his professional career.

I like the way that Murray does not look up to his box now when he has played a bad shot. The Lendl influence? Just get on with it.

Murray breaks again in the third and is outplaying the youngster.

A very polished performance by Andy Murray thus far. I think a sign of how much he respects Raonic as he is not letting his focus drop. Touchwood,

Murray 3-2 ahead in the third but 0-30, comes up with four stunning points. Raonic then looked beaten.

Does he not look brilliant today. Breaks again to lead 5-2. And a smile from Lendl

This has been mightily impressive from Andy.

Every clutch moment today Andy as had an answer. Not a single break point for Raonic in the match, says just how well Murray played.

Game over 6-4 6-4 6--2 easy.

Frig me, in the interview, it does not look like he has just played.

Murray wins 6-4 6-4 6-2 and looked sublime. The young pretender put firmly in his place and next up for Andy - a match against Marin Cilic.

One word for that performance and one word only.

Deliciano.

That's old tastes I prefer the previous; SUBLIME.

A good gauge of how far along the best player of the young generation as got.

Glad to hear Murray get through relatively unscatched. Beat the weather too and was through in 2 hours.

Just what the doctor ordered. Shall watch the match later on me Sky +

Well done Andy. Cilic next. 8 consecutive quarter finals made too

Great stuff!! Missed the match, as I have a flipping District Meeting that I have to present at (you'd think that my boss, who is a Scot, would not organise such things during a Slam )

I'll watch it later, as I recorded it

Looks likes rumours of Raonic's greatness have been greatly exaggerated. Unusually for me, I actually dilike him instensely (I don't believe in dislking someone you don't know - but there soemtimes there are exceptions!!) he seems to have the arrogance of Fed, with about 0.1% of the skill

I don't mind Fed reminding us how the match is on his raquet as he has 17 Slams - but not a nearly 22 year old, who has yet to get beyond this stage of a Slam or the QF of a Masters

"It’s really him adjusting more to me than myself to him". http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/other-sports/raonic-i-know-my-serves-can-help-me-win-against-andy-murray-8101658.html

What arrogance!!!!!!!! All the motivation Andy needed and it's great he gave him a good spanking

Anyway it's time I went and starting talking bull as well

Thing for me Banbro is that Raonic blows hot and cold. A 3 set stuffing is not going to help his confidence and I do find it irritating that he is talked up as a Slam winner given the lack of success in the Masters events.

I mean jeez Nadal, Federer, Djokovic all won Masters events prior to Slam success. How on earth can anyone expect a Raonic, Tomic or Dimitrov to breakthrough at a Slam! The guys can't cut it at Masters level. Some may argue Del Potro done it without a Masters title, but he was a runner up in Montreal prior to that succes at the US Open.

I think also being on Ashe helped Andy cope with Raonic's serve.

Congrats to Kyle Edmund, James Ward Hibbert and Liam Broady making the 2nd round of Boys Event.

Brilliant Murray I so wanted to stay up for this match, but my eyes closed after 4 games and I conceded defeat! The first point of the match was obviously a good indicator of how Murray was going to attack.

I love Raonic's serve, and I would like to have seen him make it a closer fight against another player. As it is, glad to see Murray through not having had to leave everything on the court. Do agree with you legend that Raonic blows a little hot and cold and he does seem a little over hyped by the press. I think that is in part because it is natural to look for the successors to the big four now, and he is the one with the most formidable weapons - he also seems to have temperament on his side.

banbrotam wrote:"It’s really him adjusting more to me than myself to him". http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/other-sports/raonic-i-know-my-serves-can-help-me-win-against-andy-murray-8101658.htm

What arrogance!!!!!!!! All the motivation Andy needed and it's great he gave him a good spanking

I disagree a bit banbro - Americans and Canadians are much more comfortable not being self deprecating, and I still think we Brits find that a little odd even though it is more in vogue for sportspeople to evaluate their performance with the media. He is very well behaved on court and respectful to his opponent - which is really all that can be asked.

Murray himself has made the odd 'I didn't have to do anything special to beat him' about a certain 12 slam winning Fed. In other words, hey guys my b game is good enough to take down this ol' has been!!! I didn't blame him for that, and in fact that lack of fear really helped Murray at first against Fed and Rafa in two slams.

For me, though I have only read the transcript and not listened to the interview so I might have lost a nuance, Raonic was talking to the media as he might have discussed with his coach and all he is basically saying, as I understood it, is I can't worry about his game and adjusting to it, I play mine which I have confidence in and make him play me.

I am posting this link to an interview with Fed this week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/sports/tennis/roger-federer-takes-on-news-media-interviews-like-pro.html?pagewanted=all

For his part, Federer said he sometimes regretted his answers and how they were interpreted. But for the most-interviewed athlete in a star-driven sport, “that’s part of who we are,” he said.

“We are normal people,” Federer said. “If you’re not allowed to speak your mind, what’s the point?” "




He has 150 interview requests a month, and generally spends a hour after each match conduction press interviews - how boring if all the top guys said the same 'I hope I get lucky' sort of response. I enjoy listening to the players evaluating their game and that of others - just as much as listening to the commentators - it's informative and it often helps me appreciated different aspects of match play and their game - I don't need them to be diplomats!

Hard courts not playing fast enough surely with this one sided scoreline..certainly the Canadian needs to improve his defensive abilities, i'm not confident Murray will find it so easy with Cilic who can really play rallying tennis and scoop balls back from the backboard. Could be a bit like cat and mouse for the Quarter.

I've no great issue with any of the Top 7 doing this as they already have a certain status

New kids on the block need to be a bit more respectful, as all they do is motivate such players

I think Raonic has an attitude problem, which inhibit his progress. The less talented, but more focused Harrison will (IMHO) have a better career

New kids on the block need to be a bit more respectful, as all they do is motivate such players

Nothing wrong there, all's Raonic was trying to do was get Murray off his game and playing aggressively which would suit Raonic more. Its called sports psychology, and besides you don't show any respect to your opponent before the match, you show it after..

We should also thank the US Open officials as they actually did something right for a change and moved the match forward to avoid the rain. It seems Murray loves a deadline to beat someone. First Baghdatis at Wimbledon, now this.

Arrogant, perhaps not, but confident in his own game yes. I think that's closer to the truth with Raonic. But I thought he was good in defeat. He wasn't happy to be beaten of course but I think he learned more from that match than any other. I like the way he smiled and said "Good luck" to Murray when they were shaking hands. And I like this snippet too.

"Raonic also described the brief exchange of words he two men had shared as they shook hands at the net. “He said, ‘Sorry, I got lucky a few times.’ I said, ‘Don't be sorry, it was simply amazing, keep it up and you'll do well.’” "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/usopen/9519223/Andy-Murray-reaches-US-Open-quarter-finals-after-dominant-performance-against-Milos-Raonic.html

Still, until he adds more variety to his game, he's not a player I'll enjoy watching in the future. I'm not saying ball battering isn't the "right" way to play tennis, but it's not a style I personally enjoy watching.

banbrotam wrote:
New kids on the block need to be a bit more respectful, as all they do is motivate such players

I think Raonic has an attitude problem, which inhibit his progress. The less talented, but more focused Harrison will (IMHO) have a better career

Have you seen the latest Rafter-Tomic spat?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Hard courts not playing fast enough surely with this one sided scoreline .

Do you think it might have something to do with a player at the top of his game, playing great Tennis, i.e. one that's now reached the last 8 Slam QF's?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:i'm not confident Murray will find it so easy with Cilic who can really play rallying tennis and scoop balls back from the backboard. Could be a bit like cat and mouse for the Quarter.

I don't think a QF is easy for any of the Top 4, but as Andy has beaten Cilic 6 out of 7 times, with the one defeat coming when he was carrying a wrist injury -it could be far worse, i.e. Berdych

laverfan wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
New kids on the block need to be a bit more respectful, as all they do is motivate such players

I think Raonic has an attitude problem, which inhibit his progress. The less talented, but more focused Harrison will (IMHO) have a better career

Have you seen the latest Rafter-Tomic spat?

I'd heard about it - but Tomic is another one, who thinks he's something

banbrotam wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Hard courts not playing fast enough surely with this one sided scoreline .

Do you think it might have something to do with a player at the top of his game, playing great Tennis, i.e. one that's now reached the last 8 Slam QF's?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:i'm not confident Murray will find it so easy with Cilic who can really play rallying tennis and scoop balls back from the backboard. Could be a bit like cat and mouse for the Quarter.

I don't think a QF is easy for any of the Top 4, but as Andy has beaten Cilic 6 out of 7 times, with the one defeat coming when he was carrying a wrist injury -it could be far worse, i.e. Berdych

JM does have a point I share. Ashe is the slowest court and even the commentators are remarking how quick Armstrong/Grandstand and the others are playing in comparison. When Cilic beat Murray in 2009 was it not on Armstrong IIRC? If it is on Ashe, you have to go with Murray. Ashe is becoming the graveyard for big hitters. Izzy went out Sunday night.

The scoreline in the Murray/Raonic means nothing in regards to just being the conditions. Raonic beat Murray on Clay earlier this year.

Raonic has not won a 5 set match after dropping the first set. A good indication that he is not good at chasing the match in that format.

I think tales of Andy having more of a problem on a faster court are exaggerated. He's second to Federer on the fastest courts, as proven this year (Dubai, Wimbledon)

It was his dozy attitude that caused the Lopez problems

Don't see it being a problem against Cilic as he returns any serve in any conditons plus it helps him finish off points faster against movers who are worse than him

However, I do hope for Ashe and freezing temperatures if he plays Roger in the semi's!!

I am not saying Murray has problems. A faster court brings Cilic into the match. Andy can play well on fast courts, it just so happens that big hitters can too.

No surprise that Roddick has been on Ashe for all his matches given that his returning game is awful from what it used to be.

Are all QF's played tomorrow with regards to the men's draw? If so, I can see Murray v Cilic being Grandstanded/Louis Armstronged (whatever court is bigger).

Aye they are. Remember there will be a night session, so I expect all the QF's to be on Ashe given there will be no women's action.

Andy's last three matches on Armstrong were the defeat to Stan, the five set win over Haase and the match against Lopez. The suggestion would seem to be that there is something about Armstrong he doesn't like. It may be it is just the change in speed from Ashe that he struggles to adapt to.

Thanks, I didn't know that. I can see Berdych v Federer being on at night, along with the possible Del Potro/Djokovic match. Or do they put one blockbuster on at night and one in the afternoon? Hmmm.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Aye they are. Remember there will be a night session, so I expect all the QF's to be on Ashe given there will be no women's action.

No they are not. Two mens QFs will be on Wednesday (Fed and Murray) and two on Thursday, before they all have Friday off. I'd assume Murray-Cilic will be during the day on Ashe and Fed-Berdy the evening.

Well the Raonic scoreline surprised me...if Milos wasnt badly off form then Murray is surely a strong contender with that type of performance. That said Raonic does need to develop his all court game, he cant base it just on the serve...or rely on it completely. This is where he's no Sampras...ok Pete had that once in a century serve but he had other weapons too. With Milos you wonder where the ability to grind out points where necessary lies...his movement needs to improve - especially up and down, and his BH is just a ralleying shot really...in an age of baselining its not going to help him at the highest levels.

I saw some highlights, and plenty of the time it was Raonic 40-0 down on Murray's serve..i think that tells you what Raonic needs to get better on. Nothing to be ashamed of relying on the serve, when you are playing doubles, but this is singles. Raonic could do with learning to slice a bit..no point playing for volleys like Rafter as everyone can hit past you.

No Raonic wasn't off form as he alluded to in his press conference. Agreed that he has plenty of work to do but he has a solid base to build from as in the most potent serve in tennis at the moment. He needs to work on his backhand, court coverage and service returns and if he can do all of that then who knows? Hopefully, he doesn't put too much stock into his serve as he will not win tournaments by relying on serve alone as there are a plethora of top notch serve returners in the game just now as he found out last night.

He could start by standing somewhere in hailing distance of the baseline. That was idiotic, and I knew that doing that (and posted so on this thread) that he had no chance at all.

Just from a post earlier in one thing I don't like was Murrays reaction at the net. Apparently, he said he got lucky to Raonic. Bad move. That is no way to talk to a future contender. Keep him mentally down and just say hard lines or something but don't feed your opponent crumbs of comfort as it does you no favours. I can't see Roger a s ting anything like that and th s the US one of the reasons he is where he is.

Just from a post earlier in one thing I don't like was Murrays reaction at the net. Apparently, he said he got lucky to Raonic. Bad move. That is no way to talk to a future contender. Keep him mentally down and just say hard lines or something but don't feed your opponent crumbs of comfort as it does you no favours.

Seriously?

We want to portray Andy in a positive light and you come up with that?

How ungracious!

Do you honestly believe that Raonic will take that comment to heart and say to his coach "well that wasn't bad. He got lucky is all"

I thought that was a decent touch from Andy. While on earth do you want to crap on potential future flag bearers of the sport with comments like "well you're just not good enough mate, keep trying"

It pays to add a touch of humility.

Post-match interview with Brad Gilbert... 'my passing shots worked well'....

laverfan wrote:Post-match interview with Brad Gilbert... 'my passing shots worked well'....

Does not look good for Rafter than, who had a much less powerful serve than Raonic. Poor Rafter would not even be top 20 these days.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just from a post earlier in one thing I don't like was Murrays reaction at the net. Apparently, he said he got lucky to Raonic. Bad move. That is no way to talk to a future contender. Keep him mentally down and just say hard lines or something but don't feed your opponent crumbs of comfort as it does you no favours. I can't see Roger a s ting anything like that and th s the US one of the reasons he is where he is.

That's way to analytical - it sounds like a platitude to me. If you are going to be analytical, perhaps it was a cunning double-bluff designed to try and stop Raonic changing much. I don't think telling Raonic he got lucky after a 3-set drubbing in which he never lost serve is going to make a difference.

Tennis is a game often played in the mind as well as on court. Now Andy would not have been ungracious just leaving it at a commiserations and other non descript pleasantries. He had just beaten Raonic fairly comprehensively scoring a psychological victory over a potentially dangerous new kid on the block. Does it make any sense for Andy to partially give up that edge gained by doing himself a disservice by saying he got lucky and boosting the morale of a deflated opponent? That is my gripe. Note people another post by me criticising Andy.

How on earth would he be giving the edge away by saying 'I was lucky?' Andy knows at this moment in time he is a better player than Raonic and I am sure he knows it too. That's why players improve to beat the best out there. I highly doubt Raonic came away from that match feeling 'Murray was lucky'

Players take whatever positives they can from matches and if Murray goes telling opponents he was lucky it is not exactly protracting himself in the best light is it? He worked hard for the psychological edge that the win gives then hands part of it back by telling his opponent he was lucky. Sorry but psychologically not very good as far as I am concerned. Apart from that last night Murray was sublime.

Raonic didn't seem to be under misapprehension:

‘Don't be sorry, it was simply amazing, keep it up and you'll do well.’

That said, we seem to be attempting to squeeze meaning from chicken entrails on this topic.

Craig,

I have lost count over the amount times I have walked to the centre of a court after a match and said 'Well played or got the rub of the green there' when you do things like a frame a ball onto the lines or get net cords or the opponent plays bad or play high risk and find the small margins on those shots or whatever. Sometimes players will 'I was lucky or that was lucky' it might not be a fair refelection on the match in the 'whole' context, but if you want to credit an opponent when it hasn't been his day, sometimes little touches like that earn you respect. It is not like Andy will genuinally believe he was lucky to get through the match.

I think Raonic's reaction to both Murray and then to the press afterwards showed how seriously he took that comment from Murray, he knows he was beaten by the much better player.

I do think though that Raonic believes he would have beaten most players yesterday, Murray was just unbelievable, at a level that only he and 3 other players could probably reach at the moment so although Raonic didn't take the comment seriously, I don't think he will be down about the defeat, no matter what Murray had said. He will just see it as a learning experience and a brilliant way to see what he has to work on.

There are many words to use to earn respect but a saying "I was lucky" on beating a player who is likely to be a key player in years to come is selling yourself woefully short on the psychological front. That is a mental weakness in my opinion that does him no favours whatsoever. Words like "well played" or "Hey we had some great rallies there" etc still gets respect without selling yourself short. Heck it took relatively green Raonic to point out to him that he wasn't lucky so why did Andy even say it. Odd.

If it's a mistake it would be in risking coming across as smarmy. You don't lose 18-10 on bad luck and any fool knows that.

As for what Craig's saying, it's just soft - there's no danger in such a comment.