Murray 24- 22 vs Top 10 in last three years.

[Front242]

Actually, variety is the spice of life. Reality is its bread n butter!

LOL yeah I was gonna edit to say it's actually variety but it should be reality in this case

 

[NADAL2005RG]

To be honest this X would have happened if Y didn't play, etc is fine if people want to discuss that in a Fantasy Tennis thread, which maybe could be created somewhere if people want to go down that route. Personally I see little point though in debating what could have happened when it not only didn't happen but couldn't happen. Reality is the spice of life.

Edit: And I know you're into reality more too. Was just replying to your last post because it was logical and about reality

This is the first hypothetical hindsight (taking player Y away to see what player X would have done) I have ever posted. I posted it for a reason. There is a purpose to discuss what would have happened in 2011 (without Nadal making the semis), because people seem to be underrating Murray's level in 2011. Murray made semis of all 4 slams in 2011. His level was prime. It was not pre-prime.

 

[tented]

If anyone is interested, the Compare Players Forum would be a good place to begin a fantasy tennis thread. Perhaps multiple threads. There are already some in there speculating on men vs. women, which is certainly a form of fantasy tennis.

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, compared to pre-2011, obviously Murray has hit a peak in his game...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I've got to say, Murray's 2013 AO final and 2013 USO were extremely unconvincing performances for 'prime'. I guess his prime is full of inconsistency. 2011 was certainly Murray's most consistent year of prime tennis. Unfortunately for him it coincided with Djokovic's best form (and not Nadal's best form but still Nadal).

 

[Fastgrass]

I agree with you NSK

 

[brokenshoelace]

its accurate and indication of his weaknesses and shows how overrated he is in prime .
In prime he is 50% against top players .

In 2011, he reached a slam final and 3 semis, losing to Djokovic once and Nadal 3 times (so really his h2h against the top 10 when it mattered is irrelevant, since the guys he lost to are the guys everyone lost to that year).

In 2012, he lost to Djokovic at the AO, Ferrer at the FO (Ferrer is a better clay courter), Federer at Wimbledon, and won the US Open. Again, his record against the top 10 was irrelevant when it mattered.

This year, he lost to Djokovic at the AO, skipped the FO, won Wimbledon, and lost to Wawrinka at the US Open.

So in the past 3 years, in slams, the only "bad" loss (if you could call it that), was the one to Wawrinka. During that stretch, he's won 2 slams, 3 other finals, and 4 semis. Hardly overrated, and hardly bad results. In fact, he's been doing really, REALLY well.

And I know you can point out that "slams are not everything," in which case I'll remind you that Murray has been winning Masters 1000 events for years, and was actually criticized for not taking that level to the slams. Well, now he is.

His H2H against the top 10 isn't that significant when he's winning titles and reaching finals. Tennis is about winning tournaments. If you win a slam without facing a single player in the top 10, you still get 2000 points, and a winner's trophy.

 

[DarthFed]

its accurate and indication of his weaknesses and shows how overrated he is in prime .
In prime he is 50% against top players .

In 2011, he reached a slam final and 3 semis, losing to Djokovic and Nadal 3 times (so really his h2h against the top 10 when it mattered is irrelevant, since the guys he lost to are the guys everyone lost to that year).

In 2012, he lost to Djokovic at the AO, Ferrer at the FO (Ferrer is a better clay courter), Federer at Wimbledon, and won the US Open. Again, his record against the top 10 was irrelevant when it mattered.

This year, he lost to Djokovic at the AO, skipped the FO, won Wimbledon, and lost to Wawrinka at the US Open.

So in the past 3 years, in slams, the only "bad" loss (if you could call it that), was the one to Wawrinka. During that stretch, he's won 2 slams, 3 other finals, and 4 semis. Hardly overrated, and hardly bad results. In fact, he's been doing really, REALLY well.

And I know you can point out that "slams are not everything," in which case I'll remind you that Murray has been winning Masters 1000 events for years, and was actually criticized for not taking that level to the slams. Well, now he is.

His H2H against the top 10 isn't that significant when he's winning titles and reaching finals. Tennis is about winning tournaments. If you win a slam without facing a single player in the top 10, you still get 2000 points, and a winner's trophy.

Agreed. Before 2012 it was about how well Murray did at everything except majors. Interestingly, right as he started doing well at the big events is when his results have suffered at the smaller ones. Slams are what matter most but if Andy wants to get to #1 he will need to become more consistent at the MS events again.

 

[Kieran]

If he wants to get to #1, he'll also have to start bossing his minor rivals more, if not his major rivals...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If he wants to be #1, his clay game also needs to improve.

 

[Denis]

If he wants to get to #1, he'll also have to start bossing his minor rivals more, if not his major rivals...

He has said that he doesn't care about no 1. Or at least that his priorities lie elsewhere. Namely with the Slams. I think it is wise in his case, also considering his record on clay and the consistency of Nadal and Djokovic. Better to be there when it matters, as he did this year at Wimbledon.

 

[Iona16]

Some of the posts on here are too funny. Of course certain posters want to believe that Andy was in his prime in 2011. Then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surface by a Nadal not in his "best form". Rafa looked pretty good to me in 2011. Djokovic just looked even better.

I'm not sure when it became a prerequisite that you had to beat Rafa for a slam win to be valid. Andy beat the world #1 to win a gold medal, US Open and Wimbledon. If Rafa is knocked out early or injured then that's unfortunate but part of sport. Slams don't start and end with Rafa Nadal.

A Murray v Nadal match can't come soon enough.

 

[DarthFed]

Some of the posts on here are too funny. Of course certain posters want to believe that Andy was in his prime in 2011. Then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surface by a Nadal not in his "best form". Rafa looked pretty good to me in 2011. Djokovic just looked even better.

I'm not sure when it became a prerequisite that you had to beat Rafa for a slam win to be valid. Andy beat the world #1 to win a gold medal, US Open and Wimbledon. If Rafa is knocked out early or injured then that's unfortunate but part of sport. Slams don't start and end with Rafa Nadal.

A Murray v Nadal match can't come soon enough.

No kidding, certain people might make it seem that the absence of a certain unnamed player who lost to Rosol and Darcis in back to back years somehow invalidates titles won by those who actually showed some grass court ability

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Some of the posts on here are too funny. Of course certain posters want to believe that Andy was in his prime in 2011. Then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surface by a Nadal not in his "best form". Rafa looked pretty good to me in 2011. Djokovic just looked even better.

So you think Nadal was playing at the same level in 2011 as he was in 2010....? Well you are entitled to that opinion which many will disagree with.

And you say "then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surfaceby a Nadal not in his best form", but all you need to do is look at the 2013 US Open and you'll see prime Murray was beaten by Wawrinka in straight sets. Or look at the 2013 AO and see Djokovic beat Murray 6-2 in the 4th set after Murray had been a set up. That's prime Murray, and its consistent with 2011 Murray.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

No kidding, certain people might make it seem that the absence of a certain unnamed player who lost to Rosol and Darcis in back to back years somehow invalidates titles won by those who actually showed some grass court ability

Invalidates is your word. I don't recall anyone else saying that about Murray's Wimbledon. But I think I recall someone blaming Djokovic's fatigue. But still, not invalidating Murray's title, just observing the obvious.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Some of the posts on here are too funny. Of course certain posters want to believe that Andy was in his prime in 2011. Then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surface by a Nadal not in his "best form". Rafa looked pretty good to me in 2011. Djokovic just looked even better.

So you think Nadal was playing at the same level in 2011 as he was in 2010....? Well you are entitled to that opinion which many will disagree with.

And you say "then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surfaceby a Nadal not in his best form", but all you need to do is look at the 2013 US Open and you'll see prime Murray was beaten by Wawrinka in straight sets. Or look at the 2013 AO and see Djokovic beat Murray 6-2 in the 4th set after Murray had been a set up. That's prime Murray, and its consistent with 2011 Murray.

Nadal played better in 2010 than he did in 2011. Incidentally, Murray beat him in 2010, on hards, in Canada, weeks after Nadal had just won Wimbledon, and weeks before he won the US Open. Hmmm....

 

[Fastgrass]

Some of the posts on here are too funny. Of course certain posters want to believe that Andy was in his prime in 2011. Then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surface by a Nadal not in his "best form". Rafa looked pretty good to me in 2011. Djokovic just looked even better.

So you think Nadal was playing at the same level in 2011 as he was in 2010....? Well you are entitled to that opinion which many will disagree with.

And you say "then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surfaceby a Nadal not in his best form", but all you need to do is look at the 2013 US Open and you'll see prime Murray was beaten by Wawrinka in straight sets. Or look at the 2013 AO and see Djokovic beat Murray 6-2 in the 4th set after Murray had been a set up. That's prime Murray, and its consistent with 2011 Murray.

Nadal played better in 2010 than he did in 2011. Incidentally, Murray beat him in 2010, on hards, in Canada, weeks after Nadal had just won Wimbledon, and weeks before he won the US Open. Hmmm....

he was 1-4 against nadal in 2011 .
nadal beat Murray in 3 GS matches successively just dropping two sets . in the same year nole beat nadal consistently (7-0) . Shows that his level was low .
In 2010 he didn't beat nadal , nadal was injured .
13-5 tells the story !murra is just bread and butter for rafa "

 

[brokenshoelace]

Some of the posts on here are too funny. Of course certain posters want to believe that Andy was in his prime in 2011. Then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surface by a Nadal not in his "best form". Rafa looked pretty good to me in 2011. Djokovic just looked even better.

So you think Nadal was playing at the same level in 2011 as he was in 2010....? Well you are entitled to that opinion which many will disagree with.

And you say "then they can convince themselves that a prime Murray will still be beaten on every surfaceby a Nadal not in his best form", but all you need to do is look at the 2013 US Open and you'll see prime Murray was beaten by Wawrinka in straight sets. Or look at the 2013 AO and see Djokovic beat Murray 6-2 in the 4th set after Murray had been a set up. That's prime Murray, and its consistent with 2011 Murray.

Nadal played better in 2010 than he did in 2011. Incidentally, Murray beat him in 2010, on hards, in Canada, weeks after Nadal had just won Wimbledon, and weeks before he won the US Open. Hmmm....

he was 1-4 against nadal in 2011 .
nadal beat Murray in 3 GS matches successively just dropping two sets . in the same year nole beat nadal consistently (7-0) . Shows that his level was low .
In 2010 he didn't beat nadal , nadal was injured .
13-5 tells the story !murra is just bread and butter for rafa "

Urgh, there's so much wrong with this post. Let's start with 2010:

Nadal got injured in the game right before the tie-break of their second set in Australia, when he was already a set down.

Also, as mentioned, Murray beat him at the 2010 Canada Masters in July, when Nadal was NOT injured, and was coming off his Wimbledon win. Nadal would also go on to win the US Open weeks later. The least you can do is check some facts before you throw around numbers and stats.

Also, Nadal losing to Djokovic in 2011 doesn't show that his level was "low" since ALL those meetings were finals. I don't think he'd reach all those finals with a "low" level.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Hey Broken Shoelace, Murray also beat Nadal in 2011 just after the US Open at Tokyo - Murray bagelled Nadal in the 3rd set. You know who else got bagelled in 2011? Djokovic. Nishikori defeated Djokovic 26 76 60.... What's it all mean? Obviously nothing, compared to slams.

That's why I only care about slam h2hs, not overall h2h. Unless its like 1-0 (upsets), I think slam h2hs tell the whole story. Overall h2hs, can be very misleading, because its a long season, and most top players treat the slam seasons more seriously than the Asian swing or other post US Open events.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hey Broken Shoelace, Murray also beat Nadal in 2011 just after the US Open at Tokyo - Murray bagelled Nadal in the 3rd set. You know who else got bagelled in 2011? Djokovic. Nishikori defeated Djokovic 26 76 60.... What's it all mean? Obviously nothing, compared to slams.

That's why I only care about slam h2hs, not overall h2h. Unless its like 1-0 (upsets), I think slam h2hs tell the whole story. Overall h2hs, can be very misleading, because its a long season, and most top players treat the slam seasons more seriously than the Asian swing or other post US Open events.

OK.... Murray has twice beaten Nadal in slams.

And yeah Nadal has beaten him far more in slams, but nobody's arguing who's been the better player. I'm debating the stupid assumption that Murray can't beat Nadal in slams, when in fact he's done it twice.