Are the Big Four Back? (Or is it too soon to say?)

[Riotbeard]

Andy played practically nothing on clay last year so he has a huge potential next few months to make a statement.

Potential is one thing, results are a totally different beast. Until it will happen, I will be circumspect. I would better trust others to make a move on clay than him.

Like who? Other than the usual suspects...because everyone else you name, will also be based on potential and not results.

Like any of the players who have been able to win titles on clay before, unlike Andy Murray.
There are quite a few, who are still improving: Fognini, Cilic, Wawrinka.
I am expecting all of the above to improve on their results in this clay season.

So Fognini and Cilic should be expected to be bigger factors than Murray on clay?

Fognini probably will be. Certainly a safer bet to win a title (a small one). Honestly not sure about Cilic. If Andy had great form going into clay, I would have low expectations (1 win over a top 10 player on the surface, in spite of having the help of a high seed for years). Given his current form, on his by far weakest surface, I have little to no expectations for Murray. The guy is really a different caliber of player on clay compared to his form on grass and hards.

 

[Front242]

Winning small titles though, while impressive, 'cos a title is a title, doesn't come close to winning a masters on clay and Fognini and Cilic are no different to Murray there. In fact he's probably had better results I'm guessing. Semis at Rome 2011 and RG 2011. Cilic and Fognini haven't even come within sniffing distance of that.

Edit: Fognini made the quarters at RG 2011 so it's closer than I thought. But still, Murray has gone a step further for all the slagging he gets with regards to clay. Cilic made the RG 4th round twice. He'd probably trade both of those for Murray's 2011 semi.

Which is better, a title at Umag on clay for Cilic or semis at Rome and RG for Murray? Though one resulted in a title the answer is obvious to me given the level of competition at Rome and RG.

 

[Riotbeard]

Winning small titles though, while impressive, 'cos a title is a title, doesn't come close to winning a masters on clay and Fognini and Cilic are no different to Murray there. In fact he's probably had better results I'm guessing. Semis at Rome 2011 and RG 2011. Cilic and Fognini haven't even come within sniffing distance of that.

Edit: Fognini made the quarters at RG 2011 so it's closer than I thought. But still, Murray has gone a step further for all the slagging he gets with regards to clay.

The best player Murray beat en route to the semi was victor Troicke. I would put more money on Fognini causing a big upset than Murray. Murray's best matches on clay are losses. 1 close matches against Novak, and a semi's run at rg against relative nobodies. At the very least, it's hard to argue he will go as far as say Wawrinka. There is a thread about this in the last month, where the best argument for Murray is he should have better results...

 

[Front242]

^ Well I definitely agree that Wawrinka is better on clay than Murray and in fact I'm no Murray fan but I think he gets undue slagging for his performances on clay. He was great in Rome 2011 against Novak. One of his best matches that was a loss as you pointed out but he displayed a high level there. Would Fognini or Cilic have done any better against Novak?

 

[Fiero425]

Winning small titles though, while impressive, 'cos a title is a title, doesn't come close to winning a masters on clay and Fognini and Cilic are no different to Murray there. In fact he's probably had better results I'm guessing. Semis at Rome 2011 and RG 2011. Cilic and Fognini haven't even come within sniffing distance of that.

Edit: Fognini made the quarters at RG 2011 so it's closer than I thought. But still, Murray has gone a step further for all the slagging he gets with regards to clay.

Fognini and Cilic are quite entertaining and good, but they'll never attain true stardom anywhere near top 4 contention or a major semi! It took Ferrer his entire career to finally get to the FO final last year and Masters are not much easier! I'm not sure how to really describe this; the top 4 winning everything or the 2nd & 3rd tiers so bad, are they worthy of any success? I think players just below the top 4 play very well, but it's something inside them that won't allow them to finish like players of past eras! With the rackets and strings of today, you should be able to serve out a match, but breaks can be rampant these days; just going for broke! I thought this lock would at least have a key ready, but I couldn't believe I heard that Nadal and Djokovic are holding all ATP Masters 1000 titles! I'm dumbfounded with them playing a defensive game; sorta like Borg, but even he was vulnerable to a good net-rusher! They just take all the big titles these days! What's with the rest of the tour? Nadal and Nole aren't pounding people into the clay and cement; WHAT? uzzled :s :nono

 

[Front242]

^ Djokovic didn't look too defensive against Nadal yesterday did he? He's got unbelievable defense and so does Nadal but that doesn't make them defensive players. Simply great defenders. I've seen Nadal play plenty of aggressive matches too.

This is from wikipedia as regards what game style Djokovic employs:

"Djokovic is an all-court player with emphasis on aggressive baseline play."

And Nadal: "Nadal generally plays an aggressive, behind-the-baseline game founded on heavy topspin groundstrokes, consistency, speedy footwork and tenacious court coverage, thus making him an aggressive counterpuncher."

Sorry, but so much for defensive. Great defending is a key component of both their games but they're not Caroline Wozniacki either!

Note: the only defensive player I mentioned (Wozniacki) has zero slams. You don't win the amount of slams Novak and Rafa have playing nothing but defensive tennis.

 

[Riotbeard]

^ Well I definitely agree that Wawrinka is better on clay than Murray and in fact I'm no Murray fan but I think he gets undue slagging for his performances on clay. He was great in Rome 2011 against Novak. One of his best matches that was a loss as you pointed out but he displayed a high level there. Would Fognini or Cilic have done any better against Novak?

No but if his biggest matches are losses, what does he really have to show for it. Andy has more potential than those guys, but when it matters, he hasn't even been able to win against the bottom of the top 10. He has had 6 or 7 years in top 4 to even make a final on clay and beat more than one top 10 player (which his one win was years ago at this point). When do you get to say he doesn't perform well on clay (overall), and I have no expectations for him until he proves otherwise? I wouldn't necessarily list Fognini or Cilic as examples of stability, but I have higher expectations for fognini against the top 10 this season on clay (maybe 1 or 2 wins?) than Murray.

Isner took rafa to 5 rg, has beaten Roger in best of 5 on clay, has a title...

 

[Front242]

^ Well I definitely agree that Wawrinka is better on clay than Murray and in fact I'm no Murray fan but I think he gets undue slagging for his performances on clay. He was great in Rome 2011 against Novak. One of his best matches that was a loss as you pointed out but he displayed a high level there. Would Fognini or Cilic have done any better against Novak?

No but if his biggest matches are losses, what does he really have to show for it. Andy has more potential than those guys, but when it matters, he hasn't even been able to win against the bottom of the top 10. He has had 6 or 7 years in top 4 to even make a final on clay and beat more than one top 10 player (which his one win was years ago at this point). When do you get to say he doesn't perform well on clay (overall), and I have no expectations for him until he proves otherwise? I wouldn't necessarily list Fognini or Cilic as examples of stability, but I have higher expectations for fognini against the top 10 this season on clay (maybe 1 or 2 wins?) than Murray.

Isner took rafa to 5 rg, has beaten Roger in best of 5 on clay, has a title...

Isner's first serve is deadly, even on clay and his first serve % that day was very good. Here's a quote from Nadal after he beat Isner (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/tennis/13527883) :

"It was like a penalty shoot-out," A relieved Nadal said. "Isner's serve is almost unstoppable at the moment. In the tie-break you play under pressure all the time." While Andy has a great serve when first serves are going in, it's nothing like Isner's, plus Isner has a very strong 2nd serve and Andy's is muck. With that serve the guy could beat anyone. Hence the title on clay.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I reckon Murray would win a title on clay if he bothered to play in these smaller tournaments. So I'm not sure what some of these guys winning smaller titles means. Moreover, Isner taking Nadal to 5 is well and good, but that doesn't mean he's more of a factor. It just means he's capable of being a banana peel for anyone on any given day due to his serve. But nobody would actually suggest he's more of a factor as far as going deep in a tournament than Murray.

Anyway, I don't expect Murray to do that well on clay. His game just isn't suited and he's not in great form. But at RG, I'd take him far more seriously than I would Cilic, Isner, Fognini, or the like.

 

[Riotbeard]

I reckon Murray would win a title on clay if he bothered to play in these smaller tournaments. So I'm not sure what some of these guys winning smaller titles means. Moreover, Isner taking Nadal to 5 is well and good, but that doesn't mean he's more of a factor. It just means he's capable of being a banana peel for anyone on any given day due to his serve. But nobody would actually suggest he's more of a factor as far as going deep in a tournament than Murray.

Anyway, I don't expect Murray to do that well on clay. His game just isn't suited and he's not in great form. But at RG, I'd take him far more seriously than I would Cilic, Isner, Fognini, or the like.

My point about isner was that it's the same type of result that advocates of Murray on clay use(In general Murray is one of the best, just not on this surface IMO). It's a near win against a great player, and that is all Murray has.

 

[Fiero425]

I reckon Murray would win a title on clay if he bothered to play in these smaller tournaments. So I'm not sure what some of these guys winning smaller titles means. Moreover, Isner taking Nadal to 5 is well and good, but that doesn't mean he's more of a factor. It just means he's capable of being a banana peel for anyone on any given day due to his serve. But nobody would actually suggest he's more of a factor as far as going deep in a tournament than Murray.

Anyway, I don't expect Murray to do that well on clay. His game just isn't suited and he's not in great form. But at RG, I'd take him far more seriously than I would Cilic, Isner, Fognini, or the like.

My point about isner was that it's the same type of result that advocates of Murray on clay use(In general Murray is one of the best, just not on this surface IMO). It's a near win against a great player, and that is all Murray has.

Murray might have won a couple of those claycourt semi's against Nole or Rafa if he had closed them out instead of retreating into that "passive/agressive" game; sometimes within a point or 2 of winning! I wish I knew what has hot-wired him to do this and just grind out matches for no other reason than ego! It's one thing to play like that against lesser players, but a match against the top tier needs a little more attack to finish; hense his 3 biggest wins to date (Oly gold, Wimb., & USO)! :nono :angel:

 

[herios]

^ Well I definitely agree that Wawrinka is better on clay than Murray and in fact I'm no Murray fan but I think he gets undue slagging for his performances on clay. He was great in Rome 2011 against Novak. One of his best matches that was a loss as you pointed out but he displayed a high level there. Would Fognini or Cilic have done any better against Novak?

No but if his biggest matches are losses, what does he really have to show for it. Andy has more potential than those guys, but when it matters, he hasn't even been able to win against the bottom of the top 10. He has had 6 or 7 years in top 4 to even make a final on clay and beat more than one top 10 player (which his one win was years ago at this point). When do you get to say he doesn't perform well on clay (overall), and I have no expectations for him until he proves otherwise? I wouldn't necessarily list Fognini or Cilic as examples of stability, but I have higher expectations for fognini against the top 10 this season on clay (maybe 1 or 2 wins?) than Murray.

Isner took rafa to 5 rg, has beaten Roger in best of 5 on clay, has a title...

Glad you mentioned his name. Isner is another one who could do a lot better on clay big events. He has been strangely not performing well outside USA in the masters.
We will nwed to watch him more carefully in the following events, as he has just rised to his best career ranking ever again #9, and with Delpo out, he will become automatically top 8 ranked which could help him with a friendlier seeding.
Unless he is passed before the clay masters, Milos being only 5 points behind him.
About Milos I am also optimistic. Since working with Ivan, he has adopted a more aggressive style, moving in behind his serve many times and sometimes being able to end the points with successful volleys.
His game will improve without a doubt even further.
He is in good hands and is a smart kid who listens to the advices.

 

[herios]

I will explain further why I think those 3 players I mentioned will do better on clay than before:
1. Cilic is reported to have a faster serve speed than before since working with Goran, thus his better results. That will also translate well clay as well, even with lesser impact like on hards.
And by the way, people forgot that he also has been deep in a slam before (SF at AO)

2. Fognini also has been deeper in a master event on clay, aside his RG QF run, last year he was a SF at Monte Carlo. In his case confidence will take him further. His rise last year happened only after Wimbledon, when he won his first 2 clay titles back to back. This year he has won another small one. With these under his belt, he will enter the spring clay season with much more confidence than ever before.

3. Wawrinka. I am already seeing doubts in the posters statements, after his last 2 events results, thinking that his break-out was flukish. I am giving him the benefit of doubt, because he was injured in DC and took time off after that. I don't think he was well trained before the last 2 masters.
Once he will get his mojo back, he will be as dangerous like this winter and also his confidence will make a difference. Here I am sure Norman will make the magic happen again.

 

[Fiero425]

I will explain further why I think those 3 players I mentioned will do better on clay than before:
1. Cilic is reported to have a faster serve speed than before since working with Goran, thus his better results. That will also translate well clay as well, even with lesser impact like on hards.
And by the way, people forgot that he also has been deep in a slam before (SF at AO)

2. Fognini also has been deeper in a master event on clay, aside his RG QF run, last year he was a SF at Monte Carlo. In his case confidence will take him further. His rise last year happened only after Wimbledon, when he won his first 2 clay titles back to back. This year he has won another small one. With these under his belt, he will enter the spring clay season with much more confidence than ever before.

3. Wawrinka. I am already seeing doubts in the posters statements, after his last 2 events results, thinking that his break-out was flukish. I am giving him the benefit of doubt, because he was injured in DC and took time off after that. I don't think he was well trained before the last 2 masters.
Once he will get his mojo back, he will be as dangerous like this winter and also his confidence will make a difference. Here I am sure Norman will make the magic happen again.

For a lot of these standout players, you have to consider the same thing we knew would happen to Tommy Haas; a limited shelf-life of great play! It's easy enough to get into the zone for a while, but it won't last! I don't think any of these players will do anything great after the next few months! They're on a high they can't defend; esp. Cilic and Fognini! Wawrinka has the better chance to stay relevant longer with encouragement and work from teammate Roger Federer! :angel:

 

[Iona16]

I reckon Murray would win a title on clay if he bothered to play in these smaller tournaments. So I'm not sure what some of these guys winning smaller titles means. Moreover, Isner taking Nadal to 5 is well and good, but that doesn't mean he's more of a factor. It just means he's capable of being a banana peel for anyone on any given day due to his serve. But nobody would actually suggest he's more of a factor as far as going deep in a tournament than Murray.

Anyway, I don't expect Murray to do that well on clay. His game just isn't suited and he's not in great form. *But at RG, I'd take him far more seriously than I would Cilic, Isner, Fognini, or the like.

I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed by Andy's results on clay. Yes, it is his weakest surface but he's also been rather unlucky the past 3 years with injury. The back problems in 2013 and 2012. Even in 2011 he was having cortisone injections for an elbow injury. His match against Rafa at MC was delayed 20 mins so Andy could have treatment. I thought he played well against the US on clay earlier this year. He's rumoured to be playing all 3 days against Italy for Davis Cup. I was hoping he'd play MC but he isn't. I'll wait and see how he performs in Italy before I condemn him to failure on clay this year.

* It would be interesting to know what players Nadal, Djokovic and Federer would rather play Murray over.

 

[Riotbeard]

I reckon Murray would win a title on clay if he bothered to play in these smaller tournaments. So I'm not sure what some of these guys winning smaller titles means. Moreover, Isner taking Nadal to 5 is well and good, but that doesn't mean he's more of a factor. It just means he's capable of being a banana peel for anyone on any given day due to his serve. But nobody would actually suggest he's more of a factor as far as going deep in a tournament than Murray.

Anyway, I don't expect Murray to do that well on clay. His game just isn't suited and he's not in great form. *But at RG, I'd take him far more seriously than I would Cilic, Isner, Fognini, or the like.

I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed by Andy's results on clay. Yes, it is his weakest surface but he's also been rather unlucky the past 3 years with injury. The back problems in 2013 and 2012. Even in 2011 he was having cortisone injections for an elbow injury. His match against Rafa at MC was delayed 20 mins so Andy could have treatment. I thought he played well against the US on clay earlier this year. He's rumoured to be playing all 3 days against Italy for Davis Cup. I was hoping he'd play MC but he isn't. I'll wait and see how he performs in Italy before I condemn him to failure on clay this year.

* I'd be interesting to know what players Nadal, Djokovic and Federer would rather play Murray over.

I will say I find Andy's poor results on the surface surprising (at least the extremely poor results). If he starts getting wins, I will shut up. Because his game should translate better than it does. (now I am not talking to you Iona right here) My main point is let's stop with the high expectations that do not appear until Andy does finally make a big move on clay. It's also insulting (IMO) to the players with better records on the surface, that they are always forgotten in favor of Andy.

 

[Iona16]

As well as I hope Andy does on the clay I'll be supporting Novak and Roger at RG. Novak to get his first French Open crown or Federer to get his 2nd. Beating Rafa in the final would be a bonus for either.

 

[El Dude]

"It was like a penalty shoot-out," A relieved Nadal said. "Isner's serve is almost unstoppable at the moment. In the tie-break you play under pressure all the time." While Andy has a great serve when first serves are going in, it's nothing like Isner's, plus Isner has a very strong 2nd serve and Andy's is muck. With that serve the guy could beat anyone. Hence the title on clay.

Funny - I didn't notice the end quote and thought for a moment that the whole thing was a quote from Rafa and thought, "Wow, that's pretty ballsy from Rafa calling Andy's second serve 'muck.'"

 

[Fiero425]

"It was like a penalty shoot-out," A relieved Nadal said. "Isner's serve is almost unstoppable at the moment. In the tie-break you play under pressure all the time." While Andy has a great serve when first serves are going in, it's nothing like Isner's, plus Isner has a very strong 2nd serve and Andy's is muck. With that serve the guy could beat anyone. Hence the title on clay.

Funny - I didn't notice the end quote and thought for a moment that the whole thing was a quote from Rafa and thought, "Wow, that's pretty ballsy from Rafa calling Andy's second serve 'muck.'"

Can Murray's 2nd serve get any weaker and slower? :laydownlaughing OMG, with a little less confidence, I can see him going to the flip toss, left foot lift and swat of Franciose Durr! It won't register on a speed gun then! :nono :snigger :laydownlaughing :angel: POSSIBLE?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I reckon Murray would win a title on clay if he bothered to play in these smaller tournaments. So I'm not sure what some of these guys winning smaller titles means. Moreover, Isner taking Nadal to 5 is well and good, but that doesn't mean he's more of a factor. It just means he's capable of being a banana peel for anyone on any given day due to his serve. But nobody would actually suggest he's more of a factor as far as going deep in a tournament than Murray.

Anyway, I don't expect Murray to do that well on clay. His game just isn't suited and he's not in great form. But at RG, I'd take him far more seriously than I would Cilic, Isner, Fognini, or the like.

My point about isner was that it's the same type of result that advocates of Murray on clay use(In general Murray is one of the best, just not on this surface IMO). It's a near win against a great player, and that is all Murray has.

Murray has more than that, in the shape of actually going deep in the biggest clay court tournaments in the world. Give me that over a 5 setter (which was far from a near win) against the king of clay any day of the week.

PS: People forget that Murray had a REALLY strong clay court season in 2011. He pushed Nadal to the limit in the MC semi, came within inches of becoming the first man to beat Djokovic that year in that epic Rome semi, and made the RG semi. 2012 was disappointing for him on clay, but last year, he was injured.

I don't think his game on clay will be where it was in 2011 (that year, he was using his forehand more "heavily" on clay, as in, hitting it with even more spin, and it was working), so I think he'll struggle, by his standards, this year. That still doesn't mean he doesn't have a better resume than many of the names thrown above.