The Difference Between Players Ranked Number 3 And 4 Isn't Much Says Nadal

Nadal in a rare show of confidence after beating Ferrer ranked 4 in the Acapulco final said he was very happy with his performance. He believes that there is not much difference between beating the number 4 ranked player and a player ranked 3. He obliviously disagrees with some here who believe the players ranked higher than Ferrer are a class apart.

"If you ask me if I'm capable of beating one of the top three it would be difficult, but today I beat the No. 4 in world and the difference... between No. 3 and No. 4 isn't much,” Nadal told reporters. “Ferrer is one of best, most complete players in world."

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/03/nadal-believes-hes-nearing-elite-level/46675/#.UTTejTc-qkx

There really is, Murray is leagues ahead of Ferrer.
I sense Nadal is too politically correct to say this though, and plus he is friends with Ferrer so will hardly go out against him in public.

Yes, because David Ferrer has one so many grandslam matches against Federer, Djokovic, and Murray that he is hardly indistinguishable from the big 4. I think Nadal is trying to talk up ferrer because David is his friend and he just whipped him in a humiliating fashion. If anything he is talking up ferrer for ferrer's sake. Ferrer himself has said that he is not at the level of the guys ranked above him and in his last grandslam match with Djokovic he managed six games in 3 sets. Against Nadal 2 games in 2 sets.

Yeah Ferrer is his best pal, so he's hardly going to say "the players ranked above David are much better than him" but the truth is they are.

We can all see what HE is reading into his statement, but I also think most on here know that there is a considerable gap between Ferrer in the other 4 guys.

On clay I'd put David above Murray, but everywhere else no way.

I have never understood why Murray is so poor on clay considering that his game suits the surface and he did train on clay in spain as a youth. In the states it is one thing it is very rare even after years of playing to play on anything other than a hardcourt, I don't see why that has always been such a problem for murray.

Every aspect of Murrays game does suit clay socal. It even helps hide his one remaining weak area, the second serve, as he can just kick it quite high and it's less 'hittable'....

But he just can't move well on the stuff. Novak and Roger move just as well as ever, but Murray looks laboured and can't accelerate quite as well. Plus he can't slide very well and nearly snapped his ankle trying to last year.

I actually think he'll end his career having never won a clay tournament, which for a 25 year old slam and Olympic champion and on the all time list for masters is a big thing to say, but he literally looks half the player.

If clay was the only surface tennis was played on he'd be ranked about 8th I reckon.

Danny I can't see him never winning a clay court title. The sliding is just practice but maybe his ankle issues are something that gives him concern on the clay. But I am still perplexed as to why he is so bad on the stuff. The clay should help his defensive and return skills and the big two handed backhand is tailor made for befuddling and crossing up opponents on the clay.

Well, he's 25 and never reached a clay final - let alone won a trophy on the dirt - so I genuinely think he'll struggle to win one.

He is a bit taller than the other 3 main guys and has big long legs which may hinder him I guess, but it is bizarre that one of the best movers the game has seen looks like a cow on ice on clay.

It is definitely the movement that is the issue though. As you say, the rest of his game is quite suited to it.

Murray played a very good match against Nadal @MC 2011 (that too with painkillers). Lendl, yet, may make a good clay-courter out of Murray.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F76qLe9Qel8

Maybe he will do a Sharapova this year, and surprise us all!

It will be interesting to see the results of his clay preparation with Lendl to see if there is any improvement in the movement. But meantime, on clay at least, Rafa is right.

Yes Danny he is a bigger man than the Nadal and Djoko in terms of height but not by that much. It could be the ankles I mean I just don't really know he is a bit enigmatic on the red stuff. LF, yes absolutely I guess lendl would be one of the bests guys out their to teach him a few tricks.

Yes, he is hardly going to say
"Beating Ferrer is a piece of cake for me, but there is a gulf between the real top 4 (including myself) and the mediocrity of Ferrer and the rest of the field , so let's not read too much into it."

laverfan wrote:Murray played a very good match against Nadal @MC 2011 (that too with painkillers). Lendl, yet, may make a good clay-courter out of Murray.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F76qLe9Qel8

Murray was playing his usual tricks in that match. He delayed the final for something like half an hour and the indications he was giving was that he wouldn't play. Nadal could legitimately have had him defaulted but wouldn't have wanted to disappoint an expectant crowd (This is what Nadal said after the match when he was asked about it). To Nadal's great credit he is usually less susceptible to such disruptions (gamesmanship) than other players but on this occasion he was a little thrown. Murray's wrist was fine if I remember and he played the complete and very compact clay season following Monte Carlo and continued injury free throughout the year.

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:Murray played a very good match against Nadal @MC 2011 (that too with painkillers). Lendl, yet, may make a good clay-courter out of Murray.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F76qLe9Qel8

Murray was playing his usual tricks in that match. He delayed the final for something like half an hour and the indications he was giving was that he wouldn't play. Nadal could legitimately have had him defaulted but wouldn't have wanted to disappoint an expectant crowd (This is what Nadal said after the match when he was asked about it). To Nadal's great credit he is usually less susceptible to such disruptions (gamesmanship) than other players but on this occasion he was a little thrown. Murray's wrist was fine if I remember and he played the complete and very compact clay season following Monte Carlo and continued injury free throughout the year.

Incorrect.
Murray was hampered him in the final set. Don't make false allegations like this.

Edit: I knew he was hampered, wasn't sure which body part it was

Actually HE's right - the wrist was indeed absolutely fine - but the elbow wasn't and he pulled out of the next tournament (Barcelona) because of it.
That's not why he lost in MC, but the whole gamesmanship stuff from HE is just ridiculous.

Oh and it would have been an achievement for Murray to delay the final by half an hour since he was already in Barcelona by then. Otherwise great recall by HE.

I think the top 3 (or 4 if you included a fit Nadal) are leagues ahead of the rest, which in my view makes this era slightly lop sided. Yes 4 great players versus a weaker pack. In other era's I think the top 10 could have beaten each other more regularly! IMO

hawkeye wrote:To Nadal's great credit he is usually less susceptible to such disruptions (gamesmanship) than other players but on this occasion he was a little thrown.

IIRC, there was a pee-break at IW at MP, correct?

In your opinion, what is worse, a pee-break at MP or delaying the start of a match for 30 minutes?

tenniseye wrote:I think the top 3 (or 4 if you included a fit Nadal) are leagues ahead of the rest, which in my view makes this era slightly lop sided. Yes 4 great players versus a weaker pack. In other era's I think the top 10 could have beaten each other more regularly! IMO

Good post Tenniseye, nice to have a new poster on board clearly there is a very large gap between David Ferrer and the big 4. Also clearly Nadal was trying to give some support to his friend who he just mauled.

Danny_1982 wrote:Well, he's 25 and never reached a clay final - let alone won a trophy on the dirt - so I genuinely think he'll struggle to win one.

He is a bit taller than the other 3 main guys and has big long legs which may hinder him I guess, but it is bizarre that one of the best movers the game has seen looks like a cow on ice on clay.

It is definitely the movement that is the issue though. As you say, the rest of his game is quite suited to it.

Odd though as he has looked way more competitive against Nadal and Djokovic on clay than most players do. He was one game away from ending Novak's unbeaten streak at Rome 11 and making a big clay court final. I think his back hampered him quite badly last year (mentally at least). Hopefully, he will be back to to 2011 form, which I think gives him a chance to do reasonably well, albeit he has much less of a shot than on the hard.

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:To Nadal's great credit he is usually less susceptible to such disruptions (gamesmanship) than other players but on this occasion he was a little thrown.

IIRC, there was a pee-break at IW at MP, correct?

In your opinion, what is worse, a pee-break at MP or delaying the start of a match for 30 minutes?

laverfan. I'm not sure what your referring to when you talk about a "pee-break at IW but whatever it is it has little to do with what Murray did at the start of that Monte Carlo match.

This from the telegraph gives an indication of the time involved. Although from other reports it was longer than that.

It was five minutes after the players were due out that the crowd were informed that Murray was out the back hitting a few balls and deciding whether he would play or not. In the end, he concluded that he would play, and 20 minutes later than scheduled,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/atptour/8455963/Rafael-Nadal-defeats-Andy-Murray-in-Monte-Carlo-Masters-semi-final-to-set-up-all-Spanish-showdown.html

I can't remember a delay like this. Can you? What was Murray doing "hitting a few balls and deciding whether he would play or not". The rules clearly state that players must be ready when called. Why was he given special permission to have this extra time when his opponent had trained and prepared to be ready when called to play? The delay meant his preparation was disrupted. The rule book clearly states that matches must start when players are called. Murray is a professional and has a team around him who all must know the rules. So why didn't he make his decision in good time so that his opponent wasn't disrupted and the audience left waiting? If he was unable to play when the match was due to start then he should have had no alternative but to withdraw.

Nadal was asked after the match if he realized that he could have asked for Murray to be defaulted. He said he wouldn't have wanted to disappoint the crowd. But of course Nadal shouldn't have to ask for the rules to be enforced. That is for the umpire and the tournament referee. But when Murray didn't appear the expectation must have been that he had a walkover. I'm quite sure the rules would have been enforced on a lower ranked player.

@HE... IIRC, Murray received a cortisone shot in his elbow, correct? Would you consider playing tennis a la Jimbo, who used to go into the locker room for his doctor to administer pain-killer injections in the middle of the match?

PS: “It was a tough day,” said Murray, who was nervous before having the first cortisone injection of his career.

laverfan wrote:@HE... IIRC, Murray received a cortisone shot in his elbow, correct? Would you consider playing tennis a la Jimbo, who used to go into the locker room for his doctor to administer pain-killer injections in the middle of the match?

PS: “It was a tough day,” said Murray, who was nervous before having the first cortisone injection of his career.

laverfan. That quote sounds like something from Neil Harman. What are we supposed to think. Poor Murray he was scared about having a needle so he should not have to play by the rules. If Murray needed any treatment prior to the match he could have had it prior to the match. What about Poor Nadal. He'd prepared for a match to start at a set time and if an opponent doesn't appear he would according to the rules expect a walkover. I've never known of an instance were a player has delayed a match like this. Have you? When he was due to play he was having a hit to see if he wanted to. Why did he think he could get away with this without being defaulted?

Incorrect.

seriously HE, your logic is a tad flawed here.

Red wrote:There really is, Murray is leagues ahead of Ferrer.
I sense Nadal is too politically correct to say this though, and plus he is friends with Ferrer so will hardly go out against him in public.

Ferrer is a better player than Murray at the moment on clay, so Rafa was right, Federer is on decline, only Djoko can consistently play better than Ferrer on clay these days, so I agree with Rafa.

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:@HE... IIRC, Murray received a cortisone shot in his elbow, correct? Would you consider playing tennis a la Jimbo, who used to go into the locker room for his doctor to administer pain-killer injections in the middle of the match?

PS: “It was a tough day,” said Murray, who was nervous before having the first cortisone injection of his career.

laverfan. That quote sounds like something from Neil Harman. What are we supposed to think. Poor Murray he was scared about having a needle so he should not have to play by the rules. If Murray needed any treatment prior to the match he could have had it prior to the match. What about Poor Nadal. He'd prepared for a match to start at a set time and if an opponent doesn't appear he would according to the rules expect a walkover. I've never known of an instance were a player has delayed a match like this. Have you? When he was due to play he was having a hit to see if he wanted to. Why did he think he could get away with this without being defaulted?

No, the quote is from the same link you provided. Apparently it was written By Mark Hodgkinson, Monte Carlo 5:54PM BST 16 Apr 2011.

Needle-scare is not what I am alluding to, but the fact that a player has a cortisone injection 15 minutes prior to a match. There are instances where matches have a scheduled time vs the actual start time. There are numerous instances of matches, especially at slams, where they are delayed, moved, etc. Nadal is a big boy and can handle delays. Courier @AO offered to discontinue his match with Sampras, when Sampras was upset and crying, because of his [Sampras] coach's passing away.

Do you think the delay caused Nadal to lose a set to Murray on Clay?

Have you seen Mark and Neil together at any time?

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:@HE... IIRC, Murray received a cortisone shot in his elbow, correct? Would you consider playing tennis a la Jimbo, who used to go into the locker room for his doctor to administer pain-killer injections in the middle of the match?

PS: “It was a tough day,” said Murray, who was nervous before having the first cortisone injection of his career.

laverfan. That quote sounds like something from Neil Harman. What are we supposed to think. Poor Murray he was scared about having a needle so he should not have to play by the rules. If Murray needed any treatment prior to the match he could have had it prior to the match. What about Poor Nadal. He'd prepared for a match to start at a set time and if an opponent doesn't appear he would according to the rules expect a walkover. I've never known of an instance were a player has delayed a match like this. Have you? When he was due to play he was having a hit to see if he wanted to. Why did he think he could get away with this without being defaulted?

No, the quote is from the same link you provided. Apparently it was written By Mark Hodgkinson, Monte Carlo 5:54PM BST 16 Apr 2011.

Needle-scare is not what I am alluding to, but the fact that a player has a cortisone injection 15 minutes prior to a match. There are instances where matches have a scheduled time vs the actual start time. There are numerous instances of matches, especially at slams, where they are delayed, moved, etc. Nadal is a big boy and can handle delays. Courier @AO offered to discontinue his match with Sampras, when Sampras was upset and crying, because of his [Sampras] coach's passing away.

Do you think the delay caused Nadal to lose a set to Murray on Clay?

Have you seen Mark and Neil together at any time?

laverfan I did know that Harman didn't say it. I was pointing out that from it's totally one sided and biased point of view and the way it was presented in such a way that poor Andy deserves sympathy because of nasty needles it was just the sort of thing Haman would say. In fact I bet he did write something along those lines. "Poor Andy he should have won because of his sore wrist" and not "Murray should have been defaulted according to the rules" and "Poor Nadal. It must have been tricky not knowing whats happening, thinking you have a bye, then thinking you have an inhibited opponent and then having none of those things".

And yes there are lots of times when matches don't start on their scheduled times but not when it's just because one of the players isn't ready. It makes no difference how disrupted Nadal would have been by this because of course it would be disrupting if you think you are getting a bye and then suddenly have to play. Why should Nadal have to pass this particular test? We were told he would have been justified asking for Murray to be defaulted. That's how serious Murray's delay was. But again why should Nadal be put in the position of being the one to deny fans a match. That's what umpires and/or tournament directors are for.

Also why was Murray given such a free ride because of his behavior? Because the press eat out of his hands. I would guess that's why he knew he could get away with it too. He knows the press eat out of his hands. Is that fair? I would say no. If the boot was on the other foot I bet I know what Lendl would do...

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:@HE... IIRC, Murray received a cortisone shot in his elbow, correct? Would you consider playing tennis a la Jimbo, who used to go into the locker room for his doctor to administer pain-killer injections in the middle of the match?

PS: “It was a tough day,” said Murray, who was nervous before having the first cortisone injection of his career.

laverfan. That quote sounds like something from Neil Harman. What are we supposed to think. Poor Murray he was scared about having a needle so he should not have to play by the rules. If Murray needed any treatment prior to the match he could have had it prior to the match. What about Poor Nadal. He'd prepared for a match to start at a set time and if an opponent doesn't appear he would according to the rules expect a walkover. I've never known of an instance were a player has delayed a match like this. Have you? When he was due to play he was having a hit to see if he wanted to. Why did he think he could get away with this without being defaulted?

No, the quote is from the same link you provided. Apparently it was written By Mark Hodgkinson, Monte Carlo 5:54PM BST 16 Apr 2011.

Needle-scare is not what I am alluding to, but the fact that a player has a cortisone injection 15 minutes prior to a match. There are instances where matches have a scheduled time vs the actual start time. There are numerous instances of matches, especially at slams, where they are delayed, moved, etc. Nadal is a big boy and can handle delays. Courier @AO offered to discontinue his match with Sampras, when Sampras was upset and crying, because of his [Sampras] coach's passing away.

Do you think the delay caused Nadal to lose a set to Murray on Clay?

Have you seen Mark and Neil together at any time?

laverfan I did know that Harman didn't say it. I was pointing out that from it's totally one sided and biased point of view and the way it was presented in such a way that poor Andy deserves sympathy because of nasty needles it was just the sort of thing Haman would say. In fact I bet he did write something along those lines. "Poor Andy he should have won because of his sore wrist" and not "Murray should have been defaulted according to the rules" and "Poor Nadal. It must have been tricky not knowing whats happening, thinking you have a bye, then thinking you have an inhibited opponent and then having none of those things".

And yes there are lots of times when matches don't start on their scheduled times but not when it's just because one of the players isn't ready. It makes no difference how disrupted Nadal would have been by this because of course it would be disrupting if you think you are getting a bye and then suddenly have to play. Why should Nadal have to pass this particular test? We were told he would have been justified asking for Murray to be defaulted. That's how serious Murray's delay was. But again why should Nadal be put in the position of being the one to deny fans a match. That's what umpires and/or tournament directors are for.

Also why was Murray given such a free ride because of his behavior? Because the press eat out of his hands. I would guess that's why he knew he could get away with it too. He knows the press eat out of his hands. Is that fair? I would say no. If the boot was on the other foot I bet I know what Lendl would do...

Imagine Nadal defaulted by the rules. I am sure his record would read:

Slams: 0
Masters: 0
ATP 500: 0



Keep digging. I will gladly provide the shovels should you run out.

hawkeye wrote:It makes no difference how disrupted Nadal would have been by this because of course it would be disrupting if you think you are getting a bye and then suddenly have to play. Why should Nadal have to pass this particular test?

You should be happy that Nadal passed such a rigorous test with flying colours. He should have gone up yet another notch in the greatness scale, correct?

hawkeye wrote:We were told he would have been justified asking for Murray to be defaulted. That's how serious Murray's delay was. But again why should Nadal be put in the position of being the one to deny fans a match. That's what umpires and/or tournament directors are for.

Who is this we that you are referring to? If Murray did not show up and defaulted, he would be the one denying the fans and Nadal, both, a match. The objective of the cortisone injection, was to avoid such a scenario, but it did result in a waiting period till the medical and physical evaluation was complete, correct? If your train in the tube is delayed, do you stop taking the train based on this experience. Technically this is an MTO, and the available medical personnel provide valuable advice. Do you remember the Nadal-Del Potro W match?

hawkeye wrote:Also why was Murray given such a free ride because of his behavior? Because the press eat out of his hands. I would guess that's why he knew he could get away with it too. He knows the press eat out of his hands. Is that fair? I would say no. If the boot was on the other foot I bet I know what Lendl would do...

Free ride? He did play the match, did he not? He had a Harmanesque article written about it, and 606v2 is regurgitating this discussion. Is this a free ride?

Also, why is Lendl being chastised for this situation? Lendl became Murray's coach on 31 Dec 2011, IIRC, while the referenced match at MC was 10 Apr 2011, roughly 8 months earlier, correct?

HE - this is comedy gold.

Murray injures his elbow, has to have a cortisone injection in it (I've had one in my knee, NOT nice) and manages to play, puts up a decent fight on his worst surface but loses.

Rafa does what any top player would do, allow the match every chance of taking place... The fans see a great match and everyone comes out with credit.

Although you think it's gamesmanship and /or unfair?

As I say, comedy gold.

Don't know about comedy Danny - I think it's rather sad, but knowing the poster in question what can you expect.

Much ado about nothing as per usual.

Good match though

Hawkeye does have a bee in her bonnet about Murray. I am not the biggest fed fan but i try to be objective about the guy and give him is due and respect. Although I do scratch my head a bit at his dominance of the NIke/Edberg award or some of his press conferences post losses.