Time to stop talking about Murray being on Djokovic's level.....

[calitennis127]

According to ESPN, the voting before the match had people's opinion split right down the middle at 50-50 on who would win this match. I found that remarkable, but I still knew it was true. I think it really is time to stop looking at Murray as being near Djokovic's tier of ability, and also not really a part of the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic group either. Murray is right in between the Big 3 and the next top group.

After Murray won Wimbledon in 2013, I remarked that I was glad the wait for him to win Wimbledon was finally over and that I expected Djokovic to own the head-to-head going forward. Djokovic is now 5-0 since then against him. Part of that may have to do with Murray's injuries, but I also think it is just because whatever mental edge Murray had from the hunger for a Slam and the hunger for Wimbledon is now gone. That desperation is no longer there and it simply can't be duplicated.

But what separates Djokovic from Murray tennis-wise?

In my view, Murray has always been overrated to a large degree. He obviously has great tennis skills and he covers the court well. But I think that what his game and his personality lack are an explosive pop, if you will. As I said during the match, he has to push himself to such an extreme in his personality to be aggressive that there is no way aggression can be a consistent status quo for him. He always has a couple moments a year it seems when people are declaring "Murray is aggressive now!" and it does have some merit at times. But when push comes to shove, that's not who he is or what he is. You'll see it for a flash and then it will go away, and that's because it just isn't in him to be like that. He has to go to an uncomfortable place in his own psychology to play in a way that Djokovic, for instance, can take for granted.

Also, I think that Murray's athleticism has been a bit overrated. People always talk about him running sprints and drinking protein shakes and working out in Miami (without apparently being able to get a tan either). But there is a difference between being fast/quick and then explosive. Murray is certainly the former, but he is not the latter. His play just doesn't have an eye-popping emphatic character to it. It is rather dry, even when the skill of his shots is undeniably impressive. Aesthetics are very important in the psychology of big matches, and how impressive your shots look does wear on your opponents over time. When even your winners appear stale, they are unlikely to discourage your opponent from giving up.

Murray's natural tendency is to hit neutral shots. He is most definitely a counter-puncher. Is his skill level outstanding? Yes. Does he have an excellent arsenal of shots? Yes. Is he on the overall talent level of Djokovic or Federer, or in the same athletic-assertive category as Nadal? No.

And I think that this match should finally put that notion to rest.

 

[Front242]

A lot hung on that 3rd set 3-3 30-40 point imo or that missed volley at the end of the first set TB at 5-5. If he converted on either of those he may have won. Yes I realize that could be said of many matches but I don't think he did as badly as people are making out. The worst thing of course was how he fell apart after losing the break in set 3 to go 4-3 down but he certainly had his chances. To mentally check out and lose the 4th with a bagel was a bit too Monfils-esque. I commented earlier though that whoever won that service game at 3-3 would win the match and also win the 4th set convincingly but it could just have easily have been Murray who won that point and ran away with a 6-2 4th set. Sure, he's obviously not in the league of Djokovic, Federer or Nadal but he had a good shot at winning this match save for a few key points messed up.

He'll also be tough to beat at Wimbledon I reckon but who knows.

 

[calitennis127]

A lot hung on that 3rd set 3-3 30-40 point imo or that missed volley at the end of the first set TB at 5-5. If he converted on either of those he may have won. Yes I realize that could be said of many matches but I don't think he did as badly as people are making out. The worst thing of course was how he fell apart after losing the break in set 3 to go 4-3 down but he certainly had his chances. To mentally check out and lose the 4th with a bagel was a bit too Monfils-esque. I commented earlier though that whoever won that service game at 3-3 would win the match and also win the 4th set convincingly but it could just have easily have been Murray who won that point and ran away with a 6-2 4th set. Sure, he's obviously not in the league of Djokovic, Federer or Nadal but he had a good shot at winning this match save for a few key points messed up.

He'll also be tough to beat at Wimbledon I reckon but who knows.

I don't think Murray would have run away with a 6-2 set in the 4th had he won the third set. What makes you think he would have done that?

 

[Front242]

Just a hunch. Novak's adrenaline kicked in and his energy came back 'cos he was ahead. I know he plays better much of the time when behind but I just got the impression he was toast if he lost set 3 from his body language. He'd have been playing serious catch up then and the semi against Stan may have had a negative impact.

 

[shawnbm]

Andy played so tough in the first three sets--right up to 3-3 and that ending. He had his chances, but seemed a bit deflated mentally after not taking the third. The first two sets were tough as nails. These two were going at it. Nole has been the better of the two in most occasions and today was no exception. Novak is ascending the ladder rapidly amongst the greats. Personally, I think he wins another major this year. He will have nine going into 2016. Remarkable stuff

 

[brokenshoelace]

Murray not being on Djokovic's level has been common knowledge for a while, at least around these parts.

Murray has certain limitations that tend to get exposed against certain players on slow to medium courts. Obviously, you conveniently left out Nadal in the talent department in your OP, but one huge difference between him/Federer/Djokovic and Murray is the other 3's abilities to take control with the forehand. Murray's forehand on these courts is just not penetrating enough. On faster courts, he can kind of play his way around that fact, where his variety and counter-punching are more noticeable, but when he has to create his own shots, you can visibly see how hard he has to work to push forward in the rallies and work super hard to gain control, as opposed to Djokovic who just needs one inside out forehand to gain the ascendancy.

Murray's lack of aggression for the most part, is not simply due to some mental approach to tennis. It is first and foremost a result of his relatively below par forehand. There's also the fact that while he can serve big, his serve is just not dominant enough so it doesn't allow him to compensate.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I didn't realise people were talking about Andy being on Nole's level in the first place so a bit of an odd title to the thread.

It's hard to draw conclusions about the "Big Four" at the moment.

Roger had a very strong 2014 but has been knocked out by Tsonga, Stakhovsky, Robredo, Gulbis, Cilic and Seppi within the last eight grand slams.

Novak should really become the dominant force on tour now but he still has his dodgy moments and he's yet to get it done at the French.

Murray may be back in the mix after this tournament but it's too soon to say that he's back at his usual level based on this one alone. If he continues this form then we can quite fairly conclude that his poor year in 2014 was a blip caused by the surgery and the road back from that. Even if the fitness woes are behind him though, many argue that he's a different player without Lendl and if he loses another couple of major semis and finals in this manner to 'Fedalovic' then its hard to argue with that assessment.

Who knows with Nadal at the moment? This tournament is the first time since he won the French Open that it's taken a top ten player to knock him out. In that time frame he's been beaten by Dustin Brown, Borna Coric, Feliciano Lopez, Nick Kyrgios, Martin Klizan and some German guy from Doha that I can't remember. Still, only a fool would be surprised to see him win again in Paris this year.

The problem with these moments in the year is that people always try and make sweeping conclusions about players and rivalries based on the tournament or match that's just been. The next time Murray and Djokovic play, it'll be a different day and a different match and the guy who plays better under the circumstances will win. Sure, there will be a cumulative confidence effect on each guy now that Nole is on such a winning spree against Andy but ultimately the day will come again where Djokovic isn't at his best and Murray's firing on all cylinders and he'll win.

I wouldn't go taking ESPN polls predicting a single match as a true representation of popular opinion of whether people put Murray in the same bracket as Djokovic!

 

[brokenshoelace]

The ideas raised in the OP are valid though.

The problem for Murray is against guys like Federer and Djokovic, his gameplan generally revolves around dragging their levels down. So you'll see him play with variety, relative lack of pace, retrieve, and in a way "slow the game down."

You can clearly see it in the first set, where in part due to both guys' nerves, but in large part due to Murray's gameplan, it looked like a WTA match where neither guy was putting much behind his groundstrokes.

This could work to an extent, and it actually bothers plenty of players. But against the elite, it's risky. Sure, you'll have performances by Federer when he's not super sharp and this clearly bothers him, so he starts pushing the issue and go for too much, which results in plenty of UE. However, you'll also get a performance similar to the one he had last year against Murray at this tournament, where he just blows him out with aggression.

Djokovic is too consistent for that, and while it might trouble him for a set/set and a half, he'll eventually hit his way out of it, at least on this sort of surface. From there, Murray often has to resort to fighting fire with fire and get more aggressive, but he's just not as good at doing it as the other 3, and more importantly, he's not as good at suddenly upping the aggression mid-match and maintaining that level, so even when he does get aggressive, it generally doesn't last because he's just not as comfortable doing it. That's why some of his more impressive performances have been when he just went all guns blazing from the word go, such as his 2010 AO QF with Nadal. The reason Murray actually plays with more aggression against Rafa is because his above mentioned tactic just doesn't trouble Nadal and will get him killed, since Rafa deals with "dead" balls better than anyone, so Murray knows he has to be aggressive.

Against Novak's flatter hitting, deeper ground strokes, or Fed's onslaught when he's on, it's even more complicated to play with that sort of aggression.

I feel for Murray's initial gameplan to work, he would need to gain the ability to suddenly inject pace mid-rally. In other words, he would be lulling his opponent to sleep (sort of) by slowing the rallies down and suddenly catch him off guard with a big backhand down the line or something like that. He needed to able to do that to keep Novak honest, otherwise Djokovic would know that it was just up to him to step up the aggression and consistency.

Ultimately, this is the era of the forehand. It's the dominant shot, and most baseline exchanges come down to that. There's a reason Murray has been pretty much beat down by Nadal at Wimbledon in all 3 of their meetings, and it often boiled down to Nadal's superior forehand. The problem for Murray isn't just his inability to consistently change directions, but it's the fact that his rally forehand isn't damaging, so he can't work himself into a dominant position as easily (much more difficult to do that with the backhand), which further undermines his ability to change directions since he can't set up the shot and hit it on his terms.

The other notable thing, especially against Djokovic and Nadal, is that the deeper the match goes, the more they'll be able to out-muscle him physically, and it's not just an athleticism issue. Murray just has to work harder to win points against them because they find it easier to dictate.

 

[mrzz]

It is funny how this match had something quite similar to the 2013 final. It was completely level untill the first half of the third. Than Djokovic simply run from there. It is compelling to think that this is a pattern (that Djokovic will always come out on top in closely contested matches between them).

But Front242 post above is quite plausible. Maybe the pattern is, given how physical they play, how similar their style is, whoever wins the key points in the middle stage of the match has a big upper hand from there on.

 

[Denis]

I think the serve is an important factor here too. Novak's serve is on the whole much better. Murray get's into a ton of trouble on his second.

 

[nehmeth]

I think the serve is an important factor here too. Novak's serve is on the whole much better. Murray get's into a ton of trouble on his second.

Nole's serve has certainly come a long way since its 2010 incarnation. :snicker

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah the second serve is a major problem for Murray and it's not just due to the serve itself but also due to the way he plays. For instance, Nadal doesn't possess a much better second serve (though the lefty spin helps a bit), but he's better at neutralizing the rallies and gaining the ascendancy from there, so unless someone really goes after the return (see what Djokovic, Nalbandian or Davydenko do/did to him), he'll be fine. Murray doesn't have that luxury.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Djokovic has a very underrated serve

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic has a very underrated serve

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

Second serve, especially.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think people were putting Murray on Djokovic's level rather it's the fact that many people are slaves of the moment. People saw Murray play great against Berdych 3 days ago and saw a poor performance from Nole a day later. Therefore why wouldn't Murray have a great chance right? Wrong. Totally different day and totally different match. Granted I did give Murray a better chance in this match than any other match at AO vs. Nole based on how aggressive he was playing, particularly off the forehand side.

When you look at AO 2012 - Wimbledon 2013, the period that Murray gave Nole lots of problems, it was the best Murray we've seen and more importantly in regards to that matchup it was the most aggressive Murray we've seen. In general Murray gives Djokovic a lot of problems on fast courts and that will probably still be the case going forward. That is mostly about Murray's big serve earning more cheap points and Murray's counterpunching being more effective. On slow hardcourts and clay it is huge edge to Djokovic.

So yeah, that 50-50 poll is similar to what you see from the big game tonight. New England should not be the favorite at all, but people saw New England win easy just 3 hours after they witnessed one of the ugliest games in playoff history that Seattle managed to survive. If you flipped that script you'd have Seattle as a touchdown favorite tonight. Different sport, same mistaken logic.

 

[sid]

As said,Murray may be back in the mix after this tournament,come grass i don't think many will want to face Murray.@ AO Nole is getting like Nadal @ RG,only Stan got the better of Nole over the last x amount of years.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

After he loses AO, Andy usually tends to sulk over that and goof up all other tourneys for
the next three or four months. Let us see whether he does it again this year.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Some people on this board were predicting great things for Murray since he won Wimbledon.
I remember threads saying he will make 100 million next year and thread titiled Andy, the
great Dunblane warriror etc. Hopefully, all of them have come down to earth now.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Some people on this board were predicting great things for Murray since he won Wimbledon.
I remember threads saying he will make 100 million next year and thread titiled Andy, the
great Dunblane warriror etc. Hopefully, all of them have come down to earth now.

That thread you're referring to was made by Clay Death. That's a very important piece of context

 

[Billie]

I think the serve is an important factor here too. Novak's serve is on the whole much better. Murray get's into a ton of trouble on his second.

Nole's serve has certainly come a long way since its 2010 incarnation. :snicker

Nole won more points on his 2nd serve than on his 1st serve (or at least he was winning them the last time I saw the stats on TV). :eyepop How is that even possible??? I know he is not a big server, but when I saw the stats, I wasn't really that upset when he missed his 1st serve, as he was better off his 2nd anyway. I really don't remember if I ever saw a stat like that.:snicker