federberg said:
Kiu said:
I guess I have to read this thread, I have an opinion on this and it's a short one.
One match does not make this the end, lets be honest, Mr. Murray was VERY competitive in 2 of those 4 sets.
The problem is... loads of players can hang with the big boys for a few sets. Then they get put away comfortably after that. I've always been amused by comparisons between Murray and Djokovic. It's simply not merited by the evidence we see before us.
Murray is clearly better than the rest. People have used that fact to suggest that because he's better than the rest, it means he hangs with the big boys. Sadly there's another obvious conclusion.. he's better than the rest, but no where near as good as the big 3.
Frankly my view even before the semifinals were concluded was that the winner of the Djokovic-Wawrinka semi would probably win the whole thing. Losing to Nole was definitely a better outcome for Murray than if it had been Stan, but I would have put money on Stan..
I would say Murray certainly is "nearly as good as the big boys," but that's his problem. He's nearly as good, just not quite as good.
If he truly were "nowhere near as good" he wouldn't have beaten all of them at slams multiple times (maybe he only beat Federer once, I can't remember if he beat him another time, but he beat the other two twice each). Unless we're talking about clay in which case I agree.
Margins are quite small at the top and this is evident in Murray's matches with the big 3 in majors. When they play well, that extra bit of ability they have (whether mental, physical or talent wise) makes a difference. Whether it's Federer putting an attacking clinic against him, Djokovic exposing his forehand and demonstrating overall superior baseline play, or Nadal sailing inside out winners past him, that little bit of extra is why they've beaten him as many times as they have. Conversely, the fact that he's been able to drag their levels down with his tennis IQ and smart tactics, or his occasional out of this world performance (vs. Nadal in AO 2010) shows that he's actually not that far behind them.
Nobody watching his match with Djokovic yesterday, or their 2013 final or especially, their 2012 semi final would think: "Man, Djokovic is miles better than Murray." But you will spot some crucial elements that make a substantial difference. So it's not so much a huge skill discrepancy that is leading to huge result discrepancy. It's more like a slight skill discrepancy leading to huge result discrepancy, if that makes any sense.
However, that nit-picking aside, the big picture of what you're suggesting is pretty much the problem for Murray. He's clearly significantly better than everyone else on a week-to-week basis, but not quite as good as the other three.
