2013 Wimbledon Final: Djokovic vs. Murray

[kskate2]

It is official, Andy will be introduced in match opening as the defending USO champion and Wimbledon champion..... who'd have thought that a year ago?

Iona! :clap

Definitely Mox.

 

[britbox]

I always felt that recently Murray has benefited from Rafa's inconsistent play in the GSs the past 2 years.

How so?

 

[Ricardo]

I always felt that recently Murray has benefited from Rafa's inconsistent play in the GSs the past 2 years.

How so?

Murray can't get a proper win according to some people

 

[Haelfix]

It's interesting to go back and relive the narrative about Murray. For the longest time it was that he was a flawed player incapable of winning a slam. Usually he argument was.

Not mentally strong enough
Too passive (except once or twice vs Nadal)
Exposed by the other top three when it matters most.

Well, a gold medal and 2slams later I think we can dispense with hypothesis 1 and 3.

And it's interesting to see that it was precisely the passiveness that allowed him to negotiate the USO and Wimbledon finals so well. Eg he won with his own game, not some analysts vision of how he should play.

The flip side is that we can see just how good the other top 3 were when they beat him in years past. It takes a ridiculously high level to beat that annoying cat and mouse game.

 

[Ricardo]

It's interesting to go back and relive the narrative about Murray. For the longest time it was that he was a flawed player incapable of winning a slam. Usually he argument was.

Not mentally strong enough
Too passive (except once or twice vs Nadal)
Exposed by the other top three when it matters most.

Well, a gold medal and 2slams later I think we can dispense with hypothesis 1 and 3.

And it's interesting to see that it was precisely the passiveness that allowed him to negotiate the USO and Wimbledon finals so well. Eg he won with his own game, not some analysts vision of how he should play.

The flip side is that we can see just how good the other top 3 were when they beat him in years past. It takes a ridiculously high level to beat that annoying cat and mouse game.

i remember a poster specifically said that Djoker is a 'much better' player interesting these hindsight experts are always so wise after......

 

[DarthFed]

It's interesting to go back and relive the narrative about Murray. For the longest time it was that he was a flawed player incapable of winning a slam. Usually he argument was.

Not mentally strong enough
Too passive (except once or twice vs Nadal)
Exposed by the other top three when it matters most.

Well, a gold medal and 2slams later I think we can dispense with hypothesis 1 and 3.

And it's interesting to see that it was precisely the passiveness that allowed him to negotiate the USO and Wimbledon finals so well. Eg he won with his own game, not some analysts vision of how he should play.

The flip side is that we can see just how good the other top 3 were when they beat him in years past. It takes a ridiculously high level to beat that annoying cat and mouse game.

Good post though I would say that Murray has been less passive than years past because he finally improved the forehand and now has confidence to go big with it when the opportunity presents itself. That has been the biggest transformation in his game. Aside from that he is just more confident on the big stages and that comes from wins and possibly even closer matches. IMO if Murray had a "curse" in slam finals he broke it at 2012 Wimbledon. Of course there was still the same negativity mostly from those who badly wanted Federer to lose but it was a much different Andy in that match. After that match I knew it was only a matter of time before he won a major.