2015: Review

[Great Hands]

I actually agree with you Kieran. I have no interest in these types of excuses. Very rarely are two players at their absolute best in a match. Every player has profited off of so-so days for their opponents. When Novak straight-setted Andy at the 2011 AO, it was Andy's best tennis ever. What's the point, this is how tennis works. If Novak didn't play his best at the 2013 Wimbledon final that's his fault.

I never said it wasn't Novak's fault. The fact that Novak did not play his best tennis in, for example, the WD final, is simply a fact. I am using this fact to point out that Andy needs Novak to underperform to win. Because Novak is a better player. Or are you denying that Novak, a guy heading for all-time top 5 status at this rate, is a better tennis player than Andy? I'm surprised that this stance is such a controversial proposition. Has Berdych, for example, ever beaten Novak when he was at his best? No. Why? Because Novak is a better player. Same with Andy. It's not that complicated.

For the record, if next year at WD Murray and Djokovic play each other in the final, and Novak has played the longest ever SF in WD history, and the heat is scorching, and despite it being Andy's best surface, and his best surface to play Novak, Novak beats him in straights, and with the last set being 6-0, I will be the first to hold my hands up and say 'Murray is not as good now as he was under Lendl'. But Murray hasn't had chances like he had under Lendl yet to compare to.

I am saying it's a boring discussion, everybody profits from less good play from an opponent here or there, so has Novak. I don't get the point of the discussion?

the poit fo teh dicussion is that we were dbeating how the andy of now compared to the andy under lendl. andy was being cricised for his play this year - e.g. for not beating novak. i am observing the fact that novak's level in that wd f was well below the level he hsd brought to murray amth es this year, and that kieran is thus it is doing a de=iservice to 2015 murray. this is a vslid point.

It was hot? I guess, but it's England! It's not like it was Australia.

the petraure on court wasa round 50. it is a well known fact thast novak does not like hot conditions, and that he copes with them less well than andy. thus this is a relevant point in the discussion.

I live in New Orleans and am a Novak fan, but Andy was the better guy that day. So be it. Did Novak play his best, no. It wasn't even a contest though. Give Andy his credit. I am not convinced anything would have changed had Novak played a shorter semi.

Sorry, it's not you great hands, but these excuses get old. I don't like it when Rafa fans do it (or any other fandom). Let's just give credit to Andy. He played great.

for the record, i am a murray fan. i do give murray enormous credit for how he played in that ws final,. he played briallintly.
but saying that djokvoic was under par and saying that murray played brillaintly are not mutually exculeve. i'm just observing the truth of teh situation.

i'm trying to address the fact that some people seem to have unrealtic expectations of murray. they seem to think eh is as good as feadlaoiv, he is a great player, but he is not on tehie r level. so his perfmorances this year are actually excellent. in other words, i am trying to give andy his due credit, not taking it away.

He can play better against top players than he has played post Lendl. It's not a coincidence, when he won his slams.

i'm not saying it;s a coincdenc.e. i don't think andy woudl have won thoase slams without lendl. but i'm also saying that andy's 2 slams he won were better opportuites to win slams than he has had this year.

look at murray's matched againxt novak this year:

ao f 15 - murray lost in 4 sets, 6-0 in teh 4th.
but when murray played novak int he ao final in 2013, when he was with lendl: he lost in 4 sets, 6-2 in the 4th. quite simiar. so no evidence to suggest 2015 murray is inferioir.


in the miamo final this year, murray lost in 3 sets, final set 6-0.
in the miami final 2012, under lendl, murray lost even more easilt, in 2 sets. he didn't even get a set. and one of the sets he lost was 6-1.
so agani, no major diference. in fact, murray did better this year than under lendl.

murray lost to novak at the fo this year.
under lendl, murray never played novak on clay, so there's no evidence he would have beten novak then on caly. given murray and novals' rlative levels on clay then, i hgihly doubt it. murray was micvh better on clay this year than udner lendl.

etc etc

thus i am just poopsing the 'murray's crap without lendl' narrative, becuase i think it's undfair on murray.

 

[Great Hands]

I actually agree with you Kieran. I have no interest in these types of excuses. Very rarely are two players at their absolute best in a match. Every player has profited off of so-so days for their opponents. When Novak straight-setted Andy at the 2011 AO, it was Andy's best tennis ever. What's the point, this is how tennis works. If Novak didn't play his best at the 2013 Wimbledon final that's his fault.

I never said it wasn't Novak's fault. The fact that Novak did not play his best tennis in, for example, the WD final, is simply a fact. I am using this fact to point out that Andy needs Novak to underperform to win. Because Novak is a better player. Or are you denying that Novak, a guy heading for all-time top 5 status at this rate, is a better tennis player than Andy? I'm surprised that this stance is such a controversial proposition. Has Berdych, for example, ever beaten Novak when he was at his best? No. Why? Because Novak is a better player. Same with Andy. It's not that complicated.

For the record, if next year at WD Murray and Djokovic play each other in the final, and Novak has played the longest ever SF in WD history, and the heat is scorching, and despite it being Andy's best surface, and his best surface to play Novak, Novak beats him in straights, and with the last set being 6-0, I will be the first to hold my hands up and say 'Murray is not as good now as he was under Lendl'. But Murray hasn't had chances like he had under Lendl yet to compare to.

I am saying it's a boring discussion, everybody profits from less good play from an opponent here or there, so has Novak. I don't get the point of the discussion?

The point of the discussion is that we were debating how the Andy of now compared to the Andy under Lendl. Andy was being criticised for his play this year - e.g. for not beating Novak. I am observing the fact that Novak's level in that WD F was well below the level he has brought to Murray matches this year, and that Kieran is thus doing a disservice to 2015 Murray.

It was hot? I guess, but it's England! It's not like it was Australia.

The temperature on court was around 50C/122F. It is a well known fact that Novak does not like hot conditions, and that he copes with them less well than Andy. Thus this is a relevant point in the discussion.

I live in New Orleans and am a Novak fan, but Andy was the better guy that day. So be it. Did Novak play his best, no. It wasn't even a contest though. Give Andy his credit. I am not convinced anything would have changed had Novak played a shorter semi.

Sorry, it's not you great hands, but these excuses get old. I don't like it when Rafa fans do it (or any other fandom). Let's just give credit to Andy. He played great.

For the record, I am a Murray fan. I do give Murray enormous credit for how he played in that WD final. He played brilliantly.
But saying that Djokovic was under par and saying that Murray played brilliantly are not mutually exclusive. I'm just observing the truth of the situation.

I'm trying to address the fact that some people seem to have unrealistic expectations of Murray. They seem to think he is as good as Fedalovic, and hold him to those standards, deeming anything less than this a disappointment. Andy is a great player, he is my favourite player, but he is not on their level. So his performances this year are actually excellent. In other words, I am trying to give Andy his due credit, not taking it away.

He can play better against top players than he has played post Lendl. It's not a coincidence, when he won his slams.

I'm not saying it's a coincidence. I don't think Andy would have won those slams before Lendl. But I'm also saying that Andy's 2 slams he won were better opportunities to win slams than he has had this year.

Andy didn't get chances to win slams this year like he had at the USO 2012 and WD 2013 (where, by the way, he played brilliantly in both cases, and deserved his triumphs).

If we compare like for like matches, there is little difference between Murray now and then.

For example, in the AO F this year, Murray lost in 4 sets, 6-0 in the 4th.
But when Murray played Novak in the AO final in 2013, when he was with Lendl: he lost in 4 sets, 6-2 in the 4th. Quite similar.

Or in the Miami final this year, Murray lost in 3 sets, final set 6-0.
In the Miami final 2012, under Lendl, Murray lost even more easily, in 2 sets. He didn't even get a set. And one of the sets he lost was 6-1.
So again, pretty similar. In fact, Murray did better this year than under Lendl.

Murray lost to Novak at the FO this year.
Under Lendl, Murray never played Novak on clay, So there's no evidence he would have beaten Novak then on clay. Given Murray and Novak's relative levels on clay then, I highly doubt it. Murray was much better on clay this year than under Lendl.

Thus I am just opposing the 'Murray's crap without Lendl' narrative, because I think it's unfair on Murray.

 

[Great Hands]

I don't think Murray has a good chance at either AO or RG, especially against Nole. [\quote]

I agree.

At Wimbledon he ran into a Federer who probably had his best ever match serving. Short of playing miraculous tennis and winning 3 tiebreaks he was not winning that match.

i agree.

If he had gotten past Roger that final would've been close to a pick'em.

i think novak wld have been the favourite, but, as long as his match with fed had not been too arduouis, i think andy would ahve had achance. cetainly a much better chance than at the ao or fo. i still novak is, these days, a better player than murray even on grass though. i.e. if novak plays his best, precision offense on grass, he'll beat andy. but it wouldlikely be atussle, and if novak is abit off, like he wass inteh wd f 2103, then grass is andy' best chance ot beatr him.

The USO was different, weak loss to Anderson and if he managed to get past Federer in the semi he'd have had a legit chance in the final though I'd have favored Nole for sure. And the way Roger played up until the final he probably would've hit Murray off the court in the semis again. People talking the fatigue excuse for Nole at Wimby 2013 are ignoring the fact that Murray has always fared pretty decent against Novak on faster surfaces. On slow courts he is badly overmatched.
:dodgy:

murray's los to andwerosn was dispaointing, but if he'd got throught aht, he would have had to playu sttan in the qfs - a toug matchup for him , especialyl ath uso - they've played there twice before and stan own both times. and even if h'ed got through that, he'd have had to pl;ay an in form fed. i would hav been astonished if am had beaten fed at this year's uso. and then even if he'd won that, he wld have had to face novak. i mean, it was an aboslute nightmarwe drasw, with 3 mathces in a row where andy's opppnent wld have been a heavy favourite in my imo. the chances of andy winning the uso this year, givn his draw, were vitally nil.

so given what you said about murrayu's chances at this year's ao, fo and wd, which i agree with compeltely, murray actually didn't have a great oppotunity to win a slam this year. it was all long shots.

i am a murray fan, i am just a realist. i know and underst5and his game.

 

[Great Hands]

I don't think Murray has a good chance at either AO or RG, especially against Nole. [\quote]

I agree.

At Wimbledon he ran into a Federer who probably had his best ever match serving. Short of playing miraculous tennis and winning 3 tiebreaks he was not winning that match.

I agree.

If he had gotten past Roger that final would've been close to a pick'em. [\quote]

i think novak wld have been the favourite, but, as long as his match with fed had not been too arduouis, i think andy would ahve had achance. cetainly a much better chance than at the ao or fo. i still novak is, these days, a better player than murray even on grass though. i.e. if novak plays his best, precision offense on grass, he'll beat andy. but it wouldlikely be atussle, and if novak is abit off, like he wass inteh wd f 2103, then grass is andy' best chance ot beatr him.

The USO was different, weak loss to Anderson and if he managed to get past Federer in the semi he'd have had a legit chance in the final though I'd have favored Nole for sure. And the way Roger played up until the final he probably would've hit Murray off the court in the semis again. People talking the fatigue excuse for Nole at Wimby 2013 are ignoring the fact that Murray has always fared pretty decent against Novak on faster surfaces. On slow courts he is badly overmatched.
:dodgy:

murray's los to andwerosn was dispaointing, but if he'd got throught aht, he would have had to playu sttan in the qfs - a toug matchup for him , especialyl ath uso - they've played there twice before and stan own both times. and even if h'ed got through that, he'd have had to pl;ay an in form fed. i would hav been astonished if am had beaten fed at this year's uso. and then even if he'd won that, he wld have had to face novak. i mean, it was an aboslute nightmarwe drasw, with 3 mathces in a row where andy's opppnent wld have been a heavy favourite in my imo. the chances of andy winning the uso this year, givn his draw, were vitally nil.

so given what you said about murrayu's chances at this year's ao, fo and wd, which i agree with compeltely, murray actually didn't have a great oppotunity to win a slam this year. it was all long shots.

i am a murray fan, i am just a realist. i know and underst5and his game.

 

[Great Hands]

I don't think Murray has a good chance at either AO or RG, especially against Nole.

I agree - Nole is a tough barrier for Andy at both AO and FO.

At Wimbledon he ran into a Federer who probably had his best ever match serving. Short of playing miraculous tennis and winning 3 tiebreaks he was not winning that match.

I agree.

If he had gotten past Roger that final would've been close to a pick'em.

I agree with you that Murray has a much better chance to beat Novak on faster surfaces, most of his wins coming on faster courts. But I think Novak would have been the favourite, but, as long as his match with Fed had not been too arduous, I think Andy would have had a chance. Certainly a much better chance than at the AO or FO. I think Novak is, these days, a better player than Murray even on grass though. i.e. If Novak plays his best, precision offense on grass, he'll beat Andy. But it would likely be a tussle, and if Novak is a bit off, like he was in the WD F 2013, then grass is Andy's best chance to beat him.

The USO was different, weak loss to Anderson and if he managed to get past Federer in the semi he'd have had a legit chance in the final though I'd have favored Nole for sure. And the way Roger played up until the final he probably would've hit Murray off the court in the semis again. People talking the fatigue excuse for Nole at Wimby 2013 are ignoring the fact that Murray has always fared pretty decent against Novak on faster surfaces. On slow courts he is badly overmatched.
:dodgy:

Murray's loss to Anderson was disappointing, but if he'd got through that, he would have had to play Stan in the QFs - a tough matchup for him , especially at the USO - they've played there twice before and Stan won both times. And even if he'd got through that, he'd have had to play an in form Fed. I would have been astonished if Murray had beaten Fed at this year's USO. And then even if he'd won that, he would have had to face Novak. I mean, it was an absolute nightmare draw, with 3 matches in a row where Andy's opponent would have been a heavy favourite imo. The chances of Andy winning the USO this year, given his draw, were virtually nil.

So given what you said about Murray's chances at this year's AO, FO and WD, which I agree with completely, Murray actually didn't have a great opportunity to win a slam this year. It was all long shots.

As a Murray fan, the sort of scenario that would get me excited about the possibility of Murray winning a slam would be: only having to play one of big 3/Stan to do it, and then in favourable conditions - that's what he needed even under Lendl - a Fed coming off a 5 set match at the AO, for example (the only time Murray's beaten Fed at a slam), or a tired Novak on really hot day on grass, or when it's really windy. As a Murray fan, those are the sort of situations where I would think Murray's got a chance. He is, as herios rightly put it, a dark horse rather than a favourite. But he could take advantage if the top dog/s falter.

 

[Kieran]

Great Hands,

You're utterly talking down Murray under Lendl, and raising the others to heights that he can't reach. He was reaching them under Lendl! Forget this nonsense about Novak being tired in the Wimbledon final. He dropped - er - exactly two sets on his way to the final, and he was knackered? :cover

It's kinda like the excuses why he lost to Stan in Paris this year: he was tired cos he dropped two sets on the way to the final and had to play on a Saturday. Trust me, if you spoke to any of these players on the first Monday and offered them that, they'd crush you in the stampede. let's not hear that one again, please.

Murray has difficulties now, and they're not related to Federer suddenly resurging improbably sprightly by charging industriously to the net, or Novak having a good nights kip: Andy goes away. He was in control in Oz then he lost 12 of the last 13 games. This isn't because Novak is that much better: it's because Andy goes away.

He had the momentum going into the final set of the RG semi and guess what? Exactly.

Add to this his old default settings have returned with a pungence: self-recrimination, screaming at the players box, punching his faux-dodgy thighs, and we see a bloke who's regressed from the forward place that Lendl brought him to. Ditch Amelie, get in a man who understands the ATP mentality, and plan for next year. Oh, and by "man", I don't mean Jonas Bjorkman...

 

[Great Hands]

Great Hands,

You're utterly talking down Murray under Lendl, and raising the others to heights that he can't reach. He was reaching them under Lendl!

As herios correctly pointed out in an earlier post, Murray was never as good as Fedalovic under Lendl. He got some wins against them, but that's not the same thing. You are talking up Murray under Lendl, as if he was an all-time great.

Tell me when exactly did Murray beat Novak at the AO under Lendl? Or at the FO? Never, is the answer. These are the slams where Andy played Novak this year.

Where are all these imaginary times under Lendl when Murray was continually thrashing GOAT-contender Federer, getting him quaking in his boots at facing the 17 time slam champion Murray - oh wait, he doesn't have 17 slams, does he? Maybe Federer, who does, is just a little bit better than him, then.

Andy has one win over Federer at slams. One. How is this 'reaching the heights' of Federer or Novak? Give me a break.

Forget this nonsense about Novak being tired in the Wimbledon final. He dropped - er - exactly two sets on his way to the final, and he was knackered? :cover

You're uttelry oversimplifying what I'm saying. I'm saying that the fact that Novak had played the longest SF in WD history in the previous round, that was mentally, as well as physically taxing, whereas Murray was fresher, had some bearing on the result. It was one of many factors. Combined with the heat. And the pro-Murray crowd. And the fact that Andy played brilliantly. And the fact that grass is Andy's best surface and is the surface where Andy has the best chance to beat Novak. All these things combined together.

Murray has difficulties now, and they're not related to Federer suddenly resurging improbably sprightly by charging industriously to the net, or Novak having a good nights kip: Andy goes away. He was in control in Oz then he lost 12 of the last 13 games. This isn't because Novak is that much better: it's because Andy goes away.

But he went away under Lendl too. How do you know those matches would have been any different under Lendl? Murray went away in the AOF13, under Lendl. And in the WDF12, under Lendl, for that matter. His level slipped. He competed well initially, but couldn't sustain the level required. He lost to Novak in Miami under lendl, and in Shanghai under Lendl, and at the WTF under Lendl. He lost to Federer in Dubai when with Lendl. He lost to Federer at the WTF under Lendl. Both in straight sets, mind you. The same as this year.

his old default settings have returned with a pungence: self-recrimination, screaming at the players box, punching his faux-dodgy thighs, and we see a bloke who's regressed from the forward place that Lendl brought him to.

[I am an expericned Murray watcher. I watch his matches live whenever I can.] Watch the USO final 2O12 again. Murray is chuntering all over the place. In the Olympic final 2012, he was swearing and bashing his racket in his hands. Both were when he was with Lendl. Murray can act like that and play great, and be calmer, like he was in the WD SF this year, where he was pretty controlled, and lose comfortably. And vice versa. Murray has been calm in some matches post Lendl, and grumpy in ones when he was with Lendl, and you can't really predict from his demeanour whether he's going to win. It tends to have more to do with the level of play of the two players.

If he mutters and gets annoyed with himself and loses, people say 'he lost beacause he muttered and got annoyed with himself'.
But when he mutters and gets annoyed with himself and wins - which is often, including both wins when he was with Lendl and now - do people say 'he won becaue he muttered and got annoyed with himself'? No, they do not, which is rather illogical. I think it is because a simplistic inaccuracy is more convenient than a complex truth.

We're starting to go round in circles, aren't we? But you're a fine debater, Kieran, and I've enjoyed our dialogue. Maybe there's not anywhere left to go with it, though...

 

[Great Hands]

Great Hands,

You're utterly talking down Murray under Lendl, and raising the others to heights that he can't reach. He was reaching them under Lendl!

As herios correctly pointed out in an earlier post, Murray was never as good as Fedalovic under Lendl. He got some wins against them, but that's not the same thing. You are talking up Murray under Lendl, as if he was an all-time great.

Tell me when exactly did Murray beat Novak at the AO under Lendl? Or at the FO? Never, is the answer. These are the slams where Andy played Novak this year.

Where are all these imaginary times under Lendl when Murray was continually thrashing GOAT-contender Federer, getting him quaking in his boots at facing the 17 time slam champion Murray - oh wait, he doesn't have 17 slams, does he? Maybe Federer, who does, is just a little bit better than him, then.

Andy has one win over Federer at slams. One. How is this 'reaching the heights' of Federer or Novak? Give me a break.

Forget this nonsense about Novak being tired in the Wimbledon final. He dropped - er - exactly two sets on his way to the final, and he was knackered? :cover

You're utterly oversimplifying what I'm saying. I'm saying that the fact that Novak had played the longest SF in WD history in the previous round, that was mentally, as well as physically taxing, whereas Murray was fresher, had some bearing on the result. It was one of many factors. Combined with the heat. And the pro-Murray crowd. And the fact that Andy played brilliantly. And the fact that grass is Andy's best surface and is the surface where Andy has the best chance to beat Novak. All these things combined together.

Murray has difficulties now, and they're not related to Federer suddenly resurging improbably sprightly by charging industriously to the net, or Novak having a good nights kip: Andy goes away. He was in control in Oz then he lost 12 of the last 13 games. This isn't because Novak is that much better: it's because Andy goes away.

But he went away under Lendl too. How do you know those matches would have been any different under Lendl? For the record, I'm not saying he would or he wouldn't, you are the one insisting Murray was better under Lendl. I am just saying, and have been saying throughout, that we don't know yet. The jury is still out. The only data we have for an AO F under Lendl was similar to the AO F this year. Murray went away in the AOF13, under Lendl. And in the WDF12, under Lendl, for that matter. There were moments in both those matches when Andy could have taken charge, but he didn't (the outstanding play of the all-time greats he was playing may also have had something to do with it). He lost to Novak in Miami under Lendl. He lost to Novak in Shanghai under Lendl. He lost to Novak at the WTF under Lendl. He lost to Federer in Dubai when with Lendl. He lost to Federer at the WTF when with Lendl. Both in straight sets, mind you. The same as this year.

his old default settings have returned with a pungence: self-recrimination, screaming at the players box, punching his faux-dodgy thighs, and we see a bloke who's regressed from the forward place that Lendl brought him to.

Watch the USO final 2O12 again. Murray is chuntering all over the place. In the Olympic final 2012, he was swearing and bashing his racket in his hands. Both were when he was with Lendl. Murray can act like that and play great, and be calmer, like he was in the WD SF this year, where he was pretty controlled, and lose comfortably. And vice versa. Murray has been calm in some matches post Lendl, and grumpy in ones when he was with Lendl, and you can't really predict from his demeanour whether he's going to win. It tends to have more to do with the level of play of the two players.

If he mutters and gets annoyed with himself and loses, people say 'he lost because he muttered and got annoyed with himself'.
But when he mutters and gets annoyed with himself and wins - which is often, including both wins when he was with Lendl and now - do people say 'he won because he muttered and got annoyed with himself'? No, they do not, which is rather illogical. I think it is because a simplistic inaccuracy is more convenient than a complex truth.

We're starting to go round in circles, aren't we? But I've enjoyed our debate. Thank you for responding to my posts. Maybe there's not anywhere left to go with it, though...

 

[Kieran]

Just read your long post, buddy, and you reminded me: Murray reached 4 slam finals in two years with Lendl, and won two of them. I forgot that.

Yeah, he's definitely doing as well as that now...

 

[Backhand_DTL]

When looking closer at the H2H between Murray and Djokovic it's interesting, that Andy leads 7:1 in the part of the season from Wimbledon to the US Open (the loss is from the US Open 2014) but is 2:20 everywhere else (the wins are Dubai, which is also a rather fast court, in 2011 and Miami in 2009).

So it obviously seems like the match-up favours him on faster courts like Grass and the Hard Courts of the North American summer tournaments.

Their meetings in 2014 and 2015 have mostly been on the slower courts, where Novak always had a big edge if you look at these numbers. 2014 they often met comparatively early because of Andy being seeded between No. 5 and 8 most of the time, but in 2015 he massively improved his consistency on the slower courts to routinely reach at least the semi finals, but especially on the higher bouncing ones their match-up is very favourable for Novak as his forehand is much more effective on those surfaces and it's very hard for Andy to get a ball past Novak without taking considerable risks. So Andy needs a great day on serve and with the cross court backhand or execute a game plan that's much more aggressive than he is comfortable with on a very high level to beat a decently playing Novak on such courts. And that rarely seemed to happen regardless of the coach.

So in a way I would say, that Andy's improvement on the slower surfaces that allows him to reach the final stages there regularly is an important factor for his record against Novak being as bad as it is this year.

 

[tennisville]

This has been the year of the Novak and seeing how far ahead he is from the rest of the tour, you really got to say that match with Stan at the french is probably the highlight of the year. That was probably one of the best displays of tennis in a grand slam final. I said this even after the final but many disagreed back then. Now I dont think anyone can disagree

 

[herios]

This has been the year of the Novak and seeing how far ahead he is from the rest of the tour, you really got to say that match with Stan at the french is probably the highlight of the year. That was probably one of the best displays of tennis in a grand slam final. I said this even after the final but many disagreed back then. Now I dont think anyone can disagree

I said it before, after the USO and I will reiterate, this year for Novak tops the 2011 for him, because in 2011 after the USO he was totally spent and a non factor for the rest of that year while now, he continues his usual victorious fall campaign.
Kudos also to Stan, who has won his second slam, at 30 years of age, which is not copped liver. He will finish for the second year in a row in the top 4, and that is remarkable as well.
The Fedal domination ended a while ago, but this is the first year when almost surely, both Roger and Nadal will be out of the top 2 at year end.

 

[herios]

Andy just can't beat Novak, and hasn't been able to beat Roger for awhile. But everyone else? He's pretty much the favorite - unless Rafa's incline brings him above him. Right now Rafa is just a hair below.

I remembered that I wanted to reply on a statement El Dude made at the beginning of this thread.
"a hair" below means 3800 points?? :huh:
. That is imo a full wig, not a hair...

 

[Great Hands]

When looking closer at the H2H between Murray and Djokovic it's interesting, that Andy leads 7:1 in the part of the season from Wimbledon to the US Open (the loss is from the US Open 2014) but is 2:20 everywhere else (the wins are Dubai, which is also a rather fast court, in 2011 and Miami in 2009).

So it obviously seems like the match-up favours him on faster courts like Grass and the Hard Courts of the North American summer tournaments.

Their meetings in 2014 and 2015 have mostly been on the slower courts, where Novak always had a big edge if you look at these numbers. 2014 they often met comparatively early because of Andy being seeded between No. 5 and 8 most of the time, but in 2015 he massively improved his consistency on the slower courts to routinely reach at least the semi finals, but especially on the higher bouncing ones their match-up is very favourable for Novak as his forehand is much more effective on those surfaces and it's very hard for Andy to get a ball past Novak without taking considerable risks. So Andy needs a great day on serve and with the cross court backhand or execute a game plan that's much more aggressive than he is comfortable with on a very high level to beat a decently playing Novak on such courts. And that rarely seemed to happen regardless of the coach.

So in a way I would say, that Andy's improvement on the slower surfaces that allows him to reach the final stages there regularly is an important factor for his record against Novak being as bad as it is this year.

Exactly FG, brilliant points. I've mentioend this before, all of Murray's matches against novak this year have been on slower surfaces, since that's what most of the tour is made up of, particularly medium-slow hards, which is Novak's ideal. Murray never beat Djokovic on these surfaces under Lendl either, a point Kieran refuses to notice, for some reason.

 

[Great Hands]

When looking closer at the H2H between Murray and Djokovic it's interesting, that Andy leads 7:1 in the part of the season from Wimbledon to the US Open (the loss is from the US Open 2014) but is 2:20 everywhere else (the wins are Dubai, which is also a rather fast court, in 2011 and Miami in 2009).

So it obviously seems like the match-up favours him on faster courts like Grass and the Hard Courts of the North American summer tournaments.

Their meetings in 2014 and 2015 have mostly been on the slower courts, where Novak always had a big edge if you look at these numbers. 2014 they often met comparatively early because of Andy being seeded between No. 5 and 8 most of the time, but in 2015 he massively improved his consistency on the slower courts to routinely reach at least the semi finals, but especially on the higher bouncing ones their match-up is very favourable for Novak as his forehand is much more effective on those surfaces and it's very hard for Andy to get a ball past Novak without taking considerable risks. So Andy needs a great day on serve and with the cross court backhand or execute a game plan that's much more aggressive than he is comfortable with on a very high level to beat a decently playing Novak on such courts. And that rarely seemed to happen regardless of the coach.

So in a way I would say, that Andy's improvement on the slower surfaces that allows him to reach the final stages there regularly is an important factor for his record against Novak being as bad as it is this year.

Exactly FG, brilliant points. I've mentioned this before, all of Murray's matches against Novak this year have been on slower surfaces, since that's what most of the tour is made up of, particularly medium-slow hards, which is Novak's ideal. Murray never beat Djokovic on these surfaces under Lendl either, a point Kieran refuses to notice, for some reason. (For the record, Novak would still be the favourite on faster hards too, IMO, because he's just the overall better player - he's consistently been ranked above Murray for the vast majority of their careers, has more Slams, more Masters, more overall titles etc etc - but Andy has a much better chance on the faster courts than the slower ones.)

 

[Great Hands]

Just read your long post, buddy, and you reminded me: Murray reached 4 slam finals in two years with Lendl, and won two of them. I forgot that.

Yeah, he's definitely doing as well as that now...

o.k., since we're still going here...

2014 Andy was not the same player, trying to come back from back surgery. He was definitely not as good as he was under Lendl then. I'm not talking about 2014. I'm talking about this year.

When you talk about Murray's 4 slam finals under Lendl, again you're talking about results, without actually analysing his path to the final or the level of play in the matches in question.

Murray's 4 slam finals under Lendl -
WD12 - he got there without having to play Novak, Fed or Rafa. He played Tsonga in the SFs. Murray won both his meetings with Tsonga this year, so no difference there.
Murray then promptly lost to Fed in the final, as he has this year.
So no difference at all then.

USO12 - Again, Murray got there without having to play Fedalovic. Beat Berdych in the semis. Again, 2015 Murray has beaten Berdcyh all 3 times they've played. So again, no difference there.

Then he got a below par Novak. I'm not making this up. Just watch the match, and try telling me that Novak played anything like as well in that match as he has this year. The fact that Novak was making tons of UEs, or errors caused by the wind, and mistiming shots, and getting annoyed with the conditions etc, was commented on by the commentators, and by all press reports on the match afterwards. I'm just saying what's perfectly visible to anyone who watches the match. Murray did very well to win that match, but 2015 Murray could have won that match too, with Novak playing the way he was.

AO13 - Murray got to the final, beating a Fed who was coming off a 5 set match, and on a slower surface. Exactly the conditions where I'd be much more hopeful of Andy beating Fed now. He then lost to Novak in the final. What happened this year? He lost to Novak in the final.

WD13 - Guess what? No Fedalovic till the final again. He played Janowicz in the semi. Do you think 2015 Andy wouldn't beat Janowicz? If you do, I'd love to take that bet. Then he faced a, again, below par Novak on a surface that suits Andy. Andy played great, but again, an underperforming Novak on grass is just the sort of situation where I'd be much more hopeful of Andy beating Novak now.

This thing about Novak undeperforming, this is not controversial stuff. A lot of comments on forums at the time were about how poorly Novak was playing, all the write ups on the match in the newspapers afterwards commented on Novak's amazingly high number of UEs, and his strange tactics of charging to the net at inopportune times and going for winners too early in the rallies and missing - 2 clear indicators of fatigue. I'm not making this up, you know. These were conclusions being made by millions. Even before the match started, the commentators were questioning if Novak would be tired after that semi, and were looking for signs of it early on, and mentioning how the extraordinary heat could combine with this, making it an even bigger factor. Djokovic's trips to the net were being discussed by Henman and Becker in commentary as signs of fatigue. And these guys were pros for years. They know what they're talking about.

This year, Murray lost to Djokovic or Fed at 3 of the 4 slams, it's just that in 2 cases they were in the SFs this time, because of his draws. 3 of Andy's 4 slam finals under Lendl were achieved without having to beat the top players. If Murray had chances like those year, he would have made the finals too.

What we need is for Andy to play Fed or Novak under conditions similar to any of the times he beat Fed or Novak when with Lendl. Then we would have a level playing field, as it were, to observe and draw conclusions.

Plus see the post above from FG, and the analysis of the Paris final that Nehmeth posted, both are very illuminating, and provide proper analysis of the Djokovic-Murray matchup and why we shouldn't be surprised that he's losing to Novak, particularly on slower courts, which is all Murray has faced him on this year. These are courts where Murray never beat Djokovic under Lendl either.

But go ahead, keep spouting your narrative without actually, you know, looking at the facts...

 

[nehmeth]

Very interesting read GH. I see your points, and I like the way you laid them out. Thanks.

 

[Kieran]

Facts are actually made of this kinda stuff: 4 slam finals in two years, winning half of them.

For example, you really go to some lengths to downplay his achievements, mentioning in a previous post how much greater than Murray Federer is - and he is, no doubt about it - but you don't subject Federer's achievements, or Nole's, to the same "context" you're putting on Murray, for those two seasons. Example:

"USO12 - Again, Murray got there without having to play Fedalovic."

"WD13 - Guess what? No Fedalovic till the final again."

Federer won a slew of slams without even having to face a great player at all.

Or else you say something like, "AO13 - Murray got to the final, beating a Fed who was coming off a 5 set match." What? Are you using the tired excuse again? You realise that Federer hadn't dropped a single set before the quarters, and there he went to five sets and it left him too tired to compete?

Same as Novak in Wimbo 2013? Dropped two whole sets across 6 matches, and it knackered him out? These boys train for best of five at slams!

Gimme a well-earned break, brother: your "context" isn't context at all, it's propaganda. According to you, Andy making 50% of slam finals over two seasons is as bad at this year, because it's not really about what he does: what he does depends on whether other better players need an extra hours lie-on before a big match. :cover

Nah, the facts say it clearly: Andy is weaker and less successful now that he was under Lendl. An octogenarian is dispatching him as if he was a mere wisp. And Nole knows now that Andy isn't going to persevere when the going gets rough. Remember Andy's breakthrough slam, the 2012 US Open? Remarkably - and this will tickle you - he dropped a lung-busting three sets on the way to the final, and he wasn't a bit tired.

And then, having seen Novak come back from two sets down, he did something he never does now: he stuck around to the finish.

We disagree, buddy, that's cool, but just for the record, I was under the impression you're a Muzza fan. Obviously I got that wrong...

 

[Backhand_DTL]

When looking closer at the H2H between Murray and Djokovic it's interesting, that Andy leads 7:1 in the part of the season from Wimbledon to the US Open (the loss is from the US Open 2014) but is 2:20 everywhere else (the wins are Dubai, which is also a rather fast court, in 2011 and Miami in 2009).

So it obviously seems like the match-up favours him on faster courts like Grass and the Hard Courts of the North American summer tournaments.

Their meetings in 2014 and 2015 have mostly been on the slower courts, where Novak always had a big edge if you look at these numbers. 2014 they often met comparatively early because of Andy being seeded between No. 5 and 8 most of the time, but in 2015 he massively improved his consistency on the slower courts to routinely reach at least the semi finals, but especially on the higher bouncing ones their match-up is very favourable for Novak as his forehand is much more effective on those surfaces and it's very hard for Andy to get a ball past Novak without taking considerable risks. So Andy needs a great day on serve and with the cross court backhand or execute a game plan that's much more aggressive than he is comfortable with on a very high level to beat a decently playing Novak on such courts. And that rarely seemed to happen regardless of the coach.

So in a way I would say, that Andy's improvement on the slower surfaces that allows him to reach the final stages there regularly is an important factor for his record against Novak being as bad as it is this year.

Exactly FG, brilliant points. I've mentioned this before, all of Murray's matches against Novak this year have been on slower surfaces, since that's what most of the tour is made up of, particularly medium-slow hards, which is Novak's ideal. Murray never beat Djokovic on these surfaces under Lendl either, a point Kieran refuses to notice, for some reason. (For the record, Novak would still be the favourite on faster hards too, IMO, because he's just the overall better player - he's consistently been ranked above Murray for the vast majority of their careers, has more Slams, more Masters, more overall titles etc etc - but Andy has a much better chance on the faster courts than the slower ones.)

Yes, I think Novak's game in general works best on slow to medium paced hard courts with a low or medium bounce. But in the match-up against Andy slow with a high bounce (like Indian Wells and Paris Bercy this year) plays most into his hands as the ability to play with controlled aggression from the forehand, which together with the second serve is his biggest technical advantage over Andy in my opinion, is very important on those surfaces. Big hitters like Wawrinka, Berdych or Del Potro in contrast seem to be harder to handle for Novak on higher bouncing courts.

Cincinnati is a hard court where I think Andy would be a slight favourite if they play each other. In Canada and at the US Open it's pretty close. Of the five matches Novak lost to Andy at those venues I think the final of the US Open 2012 is the only one which Novak "should" have won as in my opinion his level during that tournament was considerably higher and the combination of a lot of wind especially during the first two sets and having had to play three sets against Ferrer the day before was quite unfortunate for Novak.

A meeting on grass would also be very interesting as since 2013 Novak improved his serve, slice and approaches as well as his movement and I think his understanding of how to play on grass, so their match-up on the surface would probably not be as favourable anymore for Andy as it was then.

 

[Fiero425]

^^^ It's all about the match-ups I guess! Heaven knows Roger smoked Andy on grass; terribly embarrassing for him and his fans! It was so decisive; IN STRAIGHT SETS to the old man! :nono :cover