Miami Match Thread (Murray wins!)

[Silver]

First topic message reminder :

After watching Rafael Nadal complete a triumphant hardcourt transition at Indian Wells and break his own record for Masters titles won, the tour rumbles on and circles the wagons at Key Biscayne, Miami. The Miami Masters has been held here since 1987, after originally setting up at none other than Delray Beach in 1985. The cream generally seems to rise to the top at Miami, and by far the most prolific winner of the tournament is Andre Agassi, who notched up an amazing six titles over the course of his career. Amongst currently active players who are present at the 2013 tournament, only Djokovic, Murray and Davydenko have lifted the title previously - though Berdych was a finalist in 2010. Although Federer and Nadal are missing, the vast majority of the tour seems to have turned up, and hopefully we'll have an interesting tournament this year.

Prize: $719,160 (purse of $5,185,625), which marks an increase from last year. And of course, 1000 precious ranking points are on offer to the winner.
Defending champion is Novak Djokovic, who defeated Andy Murray in straight sets in 2012. He also won the 2011 tournament, and is therefore going for a hat-trick of wins.
Click for an updated draw on the ATP website.
Morning sessions typically begin at 11:00 local time, and evening sessions around 20:00.

[The Special Juan]

Yep good win for wee David.

"Almugro" has been a top 15 player for 2 and half years now, why do you call him a mug?

I didn't know he's been there that long. I still think of him as another Juan Monaco: had a good year and won a lot of small tournaments but is now having second season syndrome.

[The Special Juan]

No offence to Bernie but, like everyone outside the top 10, he's (still) a mile away from the best of the best as Sir Andrew is showing him.

[CaledonianCraig]

No doubting Tomic is a talent but he lacks somethings in the mental department. Murray competent so far but not spectacular.

[The Special Juan]

As I thought; a damp squib. Sir Andrew has bigger fish to fry (perhaps not literally) but with JJ out the way to Bellucci, he's pretty much got a clear path to the quarters.

[lydian]

TSJ, Almagro was a top 100 player before he was 19...speaks to significant talent. He's spent 186 weeks in Top20 - nearly 4 years. He has the 17th best W:L record from all currently playing guys. Ok he's not a masters or slam winner but you can't call the guy a mug surely.

Tomic...now there is a mug...to himself. No mental strength.

[CaledonianCraig]

Agreed lydian. Almagro is like a number of players outwith the top four. He consistently wins matches but just struggles to beat the very best hence why he has no Masters/Slam wins.

[The Special Juan]

TSJ, Almagro was a top 100 player before he was 19...speaks to significant talent. He's spent 186 weeks in Top20 - nearly 4 years. He has the 17th best W:L record from all currently playing guys. Ok he's not a masters or slam winner but you can't call the guy a mug surely.

Tomic...now there is a mug...to himself. No mental strength.

Agree with the second comment. I think, for all his good qualities, Nicolas does himself no justice at times. What was that all about against Ferrer at the AO? It was pretty shameful in all honesty.

[lydian]

Yeah CC but when you consider the top 4 have won the last 31 from 32 slams and 63 from 75 Masters you could call them Ferrmuger, Berdmugdych, Tsongmuga, Tipmugavic, Etc, ec.

[CaledonianCraig]

Nope not mugs. All world class tennis players - just unable to win Masters and Slams but that is testament to those at the top of the sport.

[lydian]

The AO was almost a landmark match for Almagro, would have (should have) been his first slam semi and think he let his mental baggage vs Ferrer boil over. I still don't think he's a mug though, for me that means he's everyone's patsy.

[lydian]

Almagro has just taken the first set 6-0.

Pella just received a warning for on court coaching...he needs all the help he can get!

[lydian]

Just watching Almagro now and struck by how good his serve is, must be one of the best on tour. Then I looked on ATP site and he's the ace count leader for 2013!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/MatchFacts.aspx

Pretty good when you consider he's only 6'0 tall and the other ace leaders are inches above him.
He's just won...finished with you guessed it....an ace.

In a match that lasted only 48 mins he served 14 aces...I never realised this guy served so well. Until now.

[LuvSports!]

I think almagro is very talented and has the potential to beat just about anyone but as you say its all mental.
Look what he did to nadal in madrid 2010, he was brilliant for the 1st set and then couldn't keep it up but if you look at FO 2010 it was actually rafa's toughest and closest match of the tournament!

[lydian]

Agree LS, at times he's been the guy to push Nadal the hardest at RG.
I think he is maturing though...ok he should have been in AO semi (served for it 3 times) but think he'll be one to watch at RG this year. His SHBH is one of THE best on tour, I much prefer it to Stan's or Gasquet's...the power he gets on it is ridiculous. To watch it in slow motion (as I've done on YouTube) is to see a very stylish and textbook shot indeed....the extension after the shot and racquet head speed is something else. It's just his mind in the biggest matches.

[lydian]

Look at his racquet fly on these BHs ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBCTH_HXPkg (at Rome Masters)

[hawkeye]

Yeah CC but when you consider the top 4 have won the last 31 from 32 slams and 63 from 75 Masters you could call them Ferrmuger, Berdmugdych, Tsongmuga, Tipmugavic, Etc, ec.

Mmm.. Some of the top four are doing heavier lifting than others in those stats. What have Fedal to gain from watering down their trawl to make the other "slackers" look better?

Am I allowed to say that because it is the truth...

[The Special Juan]

The reason I say "Almugro" is because, as people have mentioned, he's just lacking that mental strength, the same as Gasquet and the same as Berdych. He's definitely not a patsy, especially on clay. His backhand is superb for a SHBH and his serve is also great but he's too prone to a capitulation and, like Tipsy, I have doubts over his fitness when the going gets tough.

[lydian]

Jerzy Janowicz is boo'ed off court after his loss to Bellucci, don't know why though - Sky have mentioned needle in the match.

TSJ, I don't disagree that he's needs to be mentally stronger, guess I'm just averse to calling any staple top 15 tennis player a mug when you consider the huge hill all these guys have climbed to become a top pro. If it was Mount Everest these top 15 guys are all up above Hilarys Step (28,800 ft)....the 'mugs', if they exist, are the guys that never even had the cojones to make it to base camp, some 10,000 feet below.

[LuvSports!]

I agree lydian for me its in the top 3 best shbh's in the game, just a joy to watch.
I think what is different about gasquets is that although sometimes he doesn't take it early (or perhaps cannot do it consistently) he can generate phenomenal power on the back foot and from up high (for me something stan certainly can't do and almagro cannot do as much as he sort of bunts it back when its up high and can't hit winners as gasquet does).

There are so many but here's a good example i think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqhZB1NhQ4

[Henman Bill]

Might be worth having a look at Rufin against Raonic. Could be on around 10pm UK.

[carrieg4]

Yeah CC but when you consider the top 4 have won the last 31 from 32 slams and 63 from 75 Masters you could call them Ferrmuger, Berdmugdych, Tsongmuga, Tipmugavic, Etc, ec.

Mmm.. Some of the top four are doing heavier lifting than others in those stats. What have Fedal to gain from watering down their trawl to make the other "slackers" look better?

Am I allowed to say that because it is the truth...

Truth?? Hmmm, you wouldn't be confusing opinion with fact yet again would you HE? I know it is your MO but it is a very bad habit.

[Cogen]

Haha, terrible decision by the umpire there. Dodig's serve, break point to Isner.
Dodig hits a good serve, Isner barely gets his racquet on it. Serve is called out. Challenge it and it was in. Umpire calls first serve instead of Dodig's point. Dodig is furious and loses the game.

Poor umpiring but I'm not complaining cos I picked Isner to win this match on my ATP Fantasy!

Tie-break now. Dodig could still win this. Isner may have tweaked his calf muscle.

[Danny_1982]

Yeah CC but when you consider the top 4 have won the last 31 from 32 slams and 63 from 75 Masters you could call them Ferrmuger, Berdmugdych, Tsongmuga, Tipmugavic, Etc, ec.

Mmm.. Some of the top four are doing heavier lifting than others in those stats. What have Fedal to gain from watering down their trawl to make the other "slackers" look better?

Am I allowed to say that because it is the truth...

Fair enough. But since we're on the subject.... Why are you placing Rafa with Roger? Roger has way more slams than Rafa. Don't water down Rogers achievements by grouping him with someone who has less slams.

[banbrotam]

What a terrible match (Muz v Tomic)

There was one point where Andy (still in undercooked mode - I know I'm getting as exasperated as LK ) could only be bothered to just, quite literally, get the ball over the net and Tomic still fired it 6 feet wide!!

Let's remember Tomic is the best of the youngsters

The weak era is on it's way!!

[hawkeye]

Yeah CC but when you consider the top 4 have won the last 31 from 32 slams and 63 from 75 Masters you could call them Ferrmuger, Berdmugdych, Tsongmuga, Tipmugavic, Etc, ec.

Mmm.. Some of the top four are doing heavier lifting than others in those stats. What have Fedal to gain from watering down their trawl to make the other "slackers" look better?

Am I allowed to say that because it is the truth...

Truth?? Hmmm, you wouldn't be confusing opinion with fact yet again would you HE? I know it is your MO but it is a very bad habit.

Federer = 17 slams and 21 masters, Nadal = 11 slams and 22 masters, Djokovic = 6 slams and 13 masters, Murray = 1 slam and 8 masters. This is a fact and not an opinion! No way is that an even distribution. Lumping them together waters down how good the two higher achievers in this group are and bolsters up the achievements of the other two players. It is deceptive so why do it? Sorry.

Danny_1982 Fair comment. Note I have listed them separately.

[Silver]

Yeah CC but when you consider the top 4 have won the last 31 from 32 slams and 63 from 75 Masters you could call them Ferrmuger, Berdmugdych, Tsongmuga, Tipmugavic, Etc, ec.

Mmm.. Some of the top four are doing heavier lifting than others in those stats. What have Fedal to gain from watering down their trawl to make the other "slackers" look better?

Am I allowed to say that because it is the truth...

It may be the truth, but what does that have to do with the original point lydian was making? Nothing, as far as I can see Grouping the top four together makes sense in that context.

Tomic has got to be disappointed with that display. Dimitrov up next for Murray...

[Danny_1982]

Two higher achievers?

The second person you've mentioned waters down the first, so I wouldn't group them together at all. If you want to seperate 3 and 4 from 1 and 2 it's only fair you seperate 1 and 2.

Me? I'll be referring to them as the top 4 like the rest of the world.

[hawkeye]

Danny_1982. Two higher achievers? Well yes! Federer might object to Nadal being put in the same group as him because he has less slams but I doubt that he would... cough. I'm sure he is well aware of the argument that he may even be slightly behind Nadal so best to keep quiet about that...

You like many can talk about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray as a group "The top four" but stats and history will see things a little clearer. Federer and Nadal will be remembered as the amazing two. Sorry...

[Henman Bill]

Haha, terrible decision by the umpire there. Dodig's serve, break point to Isner.
Dodig hits a good serve, Isner barely gets his racquet on it. Serve is called out. Challenge it and it was in. Umpire calls first serve instead of Dodig's point. Dodig is furious and loses the game.

Poor umpiring but I'm not complaining cos I picked Isner to win this match on my ATP Fantasy!

Tie-break now. Dodig could still win this. Isner may have tweaked his calf muscle.

Yes, very unlucky. I think the issue is umpires put the point out of their mind too quickly, it is just natural to do so. It is so hard for the umpire here. They really need to say after the point "hold on for point replay decision" and then they wait 5 to 10 seconds while someone watches the reply and tells them in their ear "it's Dodig's point".

[Henman Bill]

Might be worth having a look at Rufin against Raonic. Could be on around 10pm UK.

Hm, might have been worth a look but Sky chose to put on Berdych - DG Traver instead. Not sure I agree with that. DG Traver wins the first set but wasn't mentally strong enough in second set tiebreak.

[Cogen]

In my opinion this is why they've come to be known as the "top 4"

2008 Year End Rankings:
1) Nadal
2) Federer
3) Djokovic
4) Murray
5) Davydenko

2009:
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Djokovic
4) Murray
5) Del Potro

2010:
1) Nadal
2) Federer
3) Djokovic
4) Murray
5) Soderling

2011:
1) Djokovic
2) Nadal
3) Federer
4) Murray
5) Ferrer

2012:
1) Djokovic
2) Federer
3) Murray
4) Nadal
5) Ferrer


... My point being, they've been the top 4 guys in the world for a long time now. No.5, and the rest of the top 10 has changed quite frequently.

Sure, Federer and Nadal may be in a class of their own in the record books, and Djokovic a significant way ahead of Murray... but as a combined group, they have been so incredibly consistent in the rankings. More or less untouchable. And that's only been spoiled now because of Nadal's 6 month absence!

[carrieg4]

Ooh! Would that be objective backing of the big 4 tag by Cogen?? If you are going to split it further why stop at 2 and 2? Federer has by far the most slams so it really should be 1 and 3.

Or alternatively you could just accept the fact that, although Federer and Nadal will be remembered more in history, they are all incredible players and we are lucky to see them all at the same time. Just a thought.

[LuvSports!]

Might be worth having a look at Rufin against Raonic. Could be on around 10pm UK.

Hm, might have been worth a look but Sky chose to put on Berdych - DG Traver instead. Not sure I agree with that. DG Traver wins the first set but wasn't mentally strong enough in second set tiebreak.

Are you talking to yourself?
First signs of madness

[hawkeye]

Cogen. Yes if you are describing Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in terms of ranking they have consistently been the top four. But lydian was referring to these four players and listing their COMBINED slam and masters count. That's the point that is deceptive,

carriege4. Ha ha! Why would Nadal want to pool his 11 slams and 22 masters with Djokovic and Murray who together could only muster up 7 slams and 21 masters? And if I was to be really honest then Djokovic would be doing most of the mustering. In fact he might object to the 2 and 2 split of the top 4. If you were Djokovic would you agree to pool your slams and Masters with Murray?

let me know if this is upsetting as I don't intend it to be...

[LuvSports!]

djoko will get closer to nadal than nadal will to feds so maybe you should put it as 1) feds 2,3) nadal djoko 4) murray

[hawkeye]

Luvsports. Is that wishful thinking? If the wishful thinking slam count is included it would be a very crowded top 4...

[Danny_1982]

Danny_1982. Two higher achievers? Well yes! Federer might object to Nadal being put in the same group as him because he has less slams but I doubt that he would... cough. I'm sure he is well aware of the argument that he may even be slightly behind Nadal so best to keep quiet about that...

You like many can talk about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray as a group "The top four" but stats and history will see things a little clearer. Federer and Nadal will be remembered as the amazing two. Sorry...

Right now, history judges Federer as the top 1. Not sure why you can't follow your own rules and categorise them seperately if that's what you insist for the other 2.

You doubt Federer would mind being grouped with Rafa? I doubt he minds being grouped in the top 4 either.

Me and the rest of the world shall continue with that reference.

[lydian]

I agree lydian for me its in the top 3 best shbh's in the game, just a joy to watch.
I think what is different about gasquets is that although sometimes he doesn't take it early (or perhaps cannot do it consistently) he can generate phenomenal power on the back foot and from up high (for me something stan certainly can't do and almagro cannot do as much as he sort of bunts it back when its up high and can't hit winners as gasquet does).

There are so many but here's a good example i think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqhZB1NhQ4

Good observations and clip LS - Gasquet does stand quite far back due to that huge and high take back he has with his SHBH...because of that he can get a huge swing on the ball and give it a fair crack. The only problem comes when he rushed on the shot - like Federer he's liable to shanks. However, he does have a much better slice than Almagro and his helps enormously on faster surfaces such as grass where Gasquet is more effective in blocking the ball back. If you look at their H2H Almagro is 3-1 up with wins on clay and hard so his groundstroke capability stands out. Gasquet's win was on grass last year at Wimbledon. In many respects they're quite similar players.

[hawkeye]

Right now, history judges Federer as the top 1. Not sure why you can't follow your own rules and categorise them seperately if that's what you insist for the other 2.

You doubt Federer would mind being grouped with Rafa? I doubt he minds being grouped in the top 4 either.

Me and the rest of the world shall continue with that reference.

Danny_1982. Well that's a start! If you now agree that Federer is in a different group to Djokovic and Murray. I will leave it there for now and save my reasoning for why Nadal has earned the right to be grouped alongside Federer (or maybe slightly higher) until another time. I love a GOAT debate... specially if the rest of the world joins in.

[lydian]

The categorisation of players is always easier once they've hung up the racquets. The point of the discussion from which my earlier comments were extracted is that no top player is a 'mug' whether they've got 70 titles or just a couple. In the scheme of things there is very little between Murray and the more successful top 3 above him. As I say, best to compare once they're all done because whilst Federer is taking his kids to school in years to come, the other 3 will still be adding to their tally given they're 5-6 years younger than him.

HE, if you look ahead to when Djokovic turns 30 you've got another 20 slams to play, that's a lot to spread around. Who knows what totals the top4 will be on after that...it's not inconceivable that Novak get half of them putting him on 16!

[Danny_1982]

I agree Federer stands alone at number 1, above Djokovic Murray and above Rafa. The vast majority of stats back this up and only a fanboy/fangirl would argue otherwise (of which I'm not) so I am more than happy to agree with you on that.

As much as I acknowledge that Federer stands alone at the top of the game - as all logical and objective posters will agree - I will still be referring to them as the top 4.

[CaledonianCraig]

Hawkeye you are missing or choosing to ignore my initial point. That point about the top four was that invariably Almagro just cannot beat any of them to stand a chance of winning slams or masters. Now unless you are arguing against that point then the top four remark stands.

[HM Murdock]

Yeah CC but when you consider the top 4 have won the last 31 from 32 slams and 63 from 75 Masters you could call them Ferrmuger, Berdmugdych, Tsongmuga, Tipmugavic, Etc, ec.

Mmm.. Some of the top four are doing heavier lifting than others in those stats. What have Fedal to gain from watering down their trawl to make the other "slackers" look better?

Am I allowed to say that because it is the truth...

Because if you don't include your sacred Fedal with Novak, the last couple of years don't look so great.

Slams from 2011 onwards
Federer: 1
Nadal: 2
Djokovic: 5

Masters from 2011 onwards
Federer: 4
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 8

So take it as a compliment. Craig saying "the top 4 have won 31 from 32 slams" looks much better than saying "Fedal have only won 3 of the last 9 slams".

[ryan86]

And whilst Murray is very much 4 of 4 at the moment, during this period he has won almost the same as the entire rest of the field put together.

[carrieg4]

The categorisation of players is always easier once they've hung up the racquets. The point of the discussion from which my earlier comments were extracted is that no top player is a 'mug' whether they've got 70 titles or just a couple. In the scheme of things there is very little between Murray and the more successful top 3 above him. As I say, best to compare once they're all done because whilst Federer is taking his kids to school in years to come, the other 3 will still be adding to their tally given they're 5-6 years younger than him.

HE, if you look ahead to when Djokovic turns 30 you've got another 20 slams to play, that's a lot to spread around. Who knows what totals the top4 will be on after that...it's not inconceivable that Novak get half of them putting him on 16!

[LuvSports!]

I agree lydian for me its in the top 3 best shbh's in the game, just a joy to watch.
I think what is different about gasquets is that although sometimes he doesn't take it early (or perhaps cannot do it consistently) he can generate phenomenal power on the back foot and from up high (for me something stan certainly can't do and almagro cannot do as much as he sort of bunts it back when its up high and can't hit winners as gasquet does).

There are so many but here's a good example i think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqhZB1NhQ4

Good observations and clip LS - Gasquet does stand quite far back due to that huge and high take back he has with his SHBH...because of that he can get a huge swing on the ball and give it a fair crack. The only problem comes when he rushed on the shot - like Federer he's liable to shanks. However, he does have a much better slice than Almagro and his helps enormously on faster surfaces such as grass where Gasquet is more effective in blocking the ball back. If you look at their H2H Almagro is 3-1 up with wins on clay and hard so his groundstroke capability stands out. Gasquet's win was on grass last year at Wimbledon. In many respects they're quite similar players.

Yes it is interesting with head to heads, some of them you really don't expect!
I think gasquet has a better transition game to and at the net. Many a time almagro will get into say no mans land looking to finish off the point and really could finish the point off far quicker by approaching the net but it seems he is unwilling or even unable to do so.

[hawkeye]

Because if you don't include your sacred Fedal with Novak, the last couple of years don't look so great.

Slams from 2011 onwards
Federer: 1
Nadal: 2
Djokovic: 5

Masters from 2011 onwards
Federer: 4
Nadal: 4
Djokovic: 8

So take it as a compliment. Craig saying "the top 4 have won 31 from 32 slams" looks much better than saying "Fedal have only won 3 of the last 9 slams".

I think lydian's point about waiting until they have all hung up their racquets before judging holds more weight than taking out a selective period that favors one player. Djokovic would still be floundering around at Murray's level if you take out 2011. Following lydians advice would leave us with little to talk about for a few years so perhaps in the mean time we should use ALL the data.

lydian. We don't know what the future will bring but if Novak sweeps up slams at the rate you suggest into his thirties questions would be asked about the strength of the era (cough... not here of course )

CaladonianCraig. Almagro is a good player. He has a great serve and a beautiful backhand. Admittedly he has never beaten Federer, Nadal or Djokovic so it proves that they perhaps will form a barrier at the later stages of tournaments. But is it fair to include Murray in this list? Almagro won their only slam match. Murray has scored three wins against Almagro but one of these wins was by retirement and the other came on grass at the Olympics. Playing on grass with that crazy pro British crowd! I think it's fair to say that Murray had more than a little advantage in that match. Almagro would have been terrified to pull off a win there. Ha ha!

[lydian]

Agree again LS. But then Almagro is better at the back, has more power (IMO) and a much better serve. But similar careers with similarish level results. I get the feeling both want to now put more effort into realising the obvious talent both have in abundance - I think both could achieve much more if they just gain that 5% extra mental strength.

[lydian]

HE, by all means compare careers at this point but you know that Federer's career is largely done whereas the guys 5-6 years younger see still making their statements. It would be like calling time and judging Federer's career against Sampras back in early 2008. Lets not get into weak eras because if you deem the era to come as weak then it renders the one just gone similar.

[Born Slippy]

CaladonianCraig. Almagro is a good player. He has a great serve and a beautiful backhand. Admittedly he has never beaten Federer, Nadal or Djokovic so it proves that they perhaps will form a barrier at the later stages of tournaments. But is it fair to include Murray in this list? Almagro won their only slam match. Murray has scored three wins against Almagro but one of these wins was by retirement and the other came on grass at the Olympics. Playing on grass with that crazy pro British crowd! I think it's fair to say that Murray had more than a little advantage in that match. Almagro would have been terrified to pull off a win there. Ha ha!

An interesting theory. I suppose then we should assume that Djokovic is no barrier to Jurgen Melzer winning a slam. Despite a 3-1 H2H in favour of Djokovic, Melzer won their only slam match. Not only that but he beat Nadal and Federer in their last matches! Must only be Murray who forms a barrier to him then.

[Sponsored content]