Wimbledon 2012

cgpg5

I see Davenport and Hingis won invitational doubles such a shame Martina declined to play with Roger at olympics

Davenport said Hingis would be well able for top level if she still wanted

Samich

It wasn't the speech that got me, it was the pic above.

Then again, he has more money than I ever will and has a hot girlfriend too so can't feel too bad for him :P

walshb

the groutch wrote: »

tbh I can't see Murray winning a slam for a few years yet.
with such a gulf in class between the top 3 and him, it's going to be very hard to win a slam as he'll likely have to beat two of the three in the process.
this week was an exception rather than the norm, if Murray was playing Nadal in the semi it would have been very tough, and would have taken alot more out of him before the final.

What gulf in class? Yes, they seem a notch better most times, but Murray is so so so close. You don't get to 4 slam finals like he has without having the game to win a slam. In Australia this year he was so so close to toppling Novak. He has beaten Nadal in slam matches too. I really think he can win a slam within 12 months. They too can all win the slams. It's almost a toss up amongst the 4 of them, and there are also others capable of a slam. Look at Wimbledon. Nadal beaten in game two, and Federer almost out in game three.

Murray put up a better show vs. Federer than the world number 1, Novak. This talk of Murray would not have beaten Novak or Nadal in the final means nothing, as both men never even got there. Murray got there.

Samich

walshb wrote: »

What gulf in class? Yes, they seem a notch better most times, but Murray is so so so close. You don't get to 4 slam finals like he has without having the game to win a slam. In Australia this year he was so so close to toppling Novak. He has beaten Nadal in slam matches too. I really think he can win a slam within 12 months. They too can all win the slams. It's almost a toss up amongst the 4 of them, and there are also others capable of a slam. Look at Wimbledon. Nadal beaten in game two, and Federer almost out in game three.

Murray put up a better show vs. Federer than the world number 1, Novak. This talk of Murray would not have beaten Novak or Nadal in the final means nothing, as both men never even got there. Murray got there.

Federer is just a natural imo. I don't get the feeling about the other 3. Some of the shots Fed played I couldn't imagine Murray playing.

walshb

Samich wrote: »

Federer is just a natural imo. I don't get the feeling about the other 3. Some of the shots Fed played I couldn't imagine Murray playing.

Indeed. Federer, as I said, is an all court genius. He certainly flows a lot smoother and shoots a lot slicker than the others. But, in tennis, there is so much more to the game than just artistry, shot selection and fluidness. Court speed, coverage, atheticism and stamina can all swing a match. Federer also has all these traits, it just seems that maybe Novak and Nadal have them to maybe an extra gear or level.

Nadal in particular is a difficult style for Roger. He make Roger play that extra shot all the time, and with Federer's unforced count always high the match always seesm to swing to Nadal.

Novak is just so strong in all areas. Speed, stamina, shot selection, power in the ground strokes, athleticism, and a massive desire to fight for every point.

Murray to me is sso so close to Nadal and Novak in terms of strengths and weakness. He seems just a slight bit below in the strengths department. But, on his day and their day, it's always mighty close. Where Federer can make up any speed difference or stamina difference or athleticism difference with his perfection and smoothness and shot selection, Murray cannot it seems. Hence he has to beat them at their game all the time, which is his game too.

Ultimately what separates Murray from Novak and Nadal is that wee bit of extra aggression and risk that Novak and Nadal apply. They seem to want to win win win the point more than hope that the opponent loses the point. Murray seems to be more interested in the opponenet losing the point.

steelcityblues

RosyLily wrote: »

Ha ha ha! My dad was even converted (he always disliked Andy...but that could be more of a Judy thing)! Going so far as to say "I'm backing Murray to win gold at the Olympics!"

He's spending big bucks on it too...a tenner!!:eek::pac:

Brave bet, because I think the setup of Wimbledon really suits Federer, above all. He has to be the favourite for the US, too.

If the Olympics was outside of UK, I would fancy Murray more, because of less pressure. Think this always gives him a better chance of a slam that is not Wimbledon, too.

Samich

walshb wrote: »

Indeed. Federer, as I said, is an all court genius. He certainly flows a lot smoother and shoots a lot slicker than the others. But, in tennis, there is so much more to the game than just artistry, shot selection and fluidness. Court speed, coverage, atheticism and stamina can all swing a match. Federer also has all these traits, it just seems that maybe Novak and Nadal have them to maybe an extra gear or level.

Nadal in particular is a difficult style for Roger. He make Roger play that extra shot all the time, and with Federer's unforced count always high the match always seesm to swing to Nadal.

Novak is just so strong in all areas. Speed, stamina, shot selection, power in the ground strokes, athleticism, and a massive desire to fight for every point.

Murray to me is sso so close to Nadal and Novak in terms of strengths and weakness. He seems just a slight bit below in the strengths department. But, on his day and their day, it's always mighty close. Where Federer can make up any speed difference or stamina difference or athleticism difference with his perfection and smoothness and shot selection, Murray cannot it seems. Hence he has to beat them at their game all the time, which is his game too.

Ultimately what separates Murray from Novak and Nadal is that wee bit of extra aggression and risk that Novak and Nadal apply. They seem to want to win win win the point more than hope that the opponent loses the point. Murray seems to be more interested in the opponenet losing the point.

Have to say, a few years ago I thought Djockovic was just going to be one of those players who never made it into greatness. He looks to have worked harder than anyone else. Murray can look to him imo.

walshb

Samich wrote: »

Have to say, a few years ago I thought Djockovic was just going to be one of those players who never made it into greatness. He looks to have worked harder than anyone else. Murray can look to him imo.

Agreed. And it's difficult to point to exactly where Novak did it. Even years back Novak still could beat Fed and Nadal, but lately he seems to have the beatings of them on a more confident level.

You would be more confident with him today and from recent months/years. I put it down to improved physical strength in the rallies, faster court coverage and a much improved first serve. With a few wins and a slam or two that confidence and belief is also so important. You know you can do it as opposed to thinking you can do it. Mentally Novak appears rock solid. He doesn't seem to get frustrated or unnerved on court. Like a walk in the park to him. It's almost like he doesn't bother too much if he loses, and he can be so calm under pressure. The OZ open 5th set really really showed this.

If Murray gets the US Open or a slam very soon I believe he could really progress and progress.

brimal

I think one of main improvements in Novak's game is his mental game.

He was too fond of retiring during matches, big matches, when things weren't going his way. He would come up with some pretty lame excuses and there was even a running joke amongst the players like 'what's wrong with him now? what will he say this time?, etc.'

Roddick and Federer alluded to his 'injuries' before in press conferences.

I think he has copped on a bit now and removed this from his game.

It's also worth noting that about 6 months to a year before Novak's amazing winning streak, he had an allergy test and found out he had many allergies and changed his diet. This could also have been a factor.

Masked Man

walshb wrote: »

Indeed. Federer, as I said, is an all court genius. He certainly flows a lot smoother and shoots a lot slicker than the others. But, in tennis, there is so much more to the game than just artistry, shot selection and fluidness. Court speed, coverage, atheticism and stamina can all swing a match. Federer also has all these traits, it just seems that maybe Novak and Nadal have them to maybe an extra gear or level.

Nadal in particular is a difficult style for Roger. He make Roger play that extra shot all the time, and with Federer's unforced count always high the match always seesm to swing to Nadal.

Novak is just so strong in all areas. Speed, stamina, shot selection, power in the ground strokes, athleticism, and a massive desire to fight for every point.

Murray to me is sso so close to Nadal and Novak in terms of strengths and weakness. He seems just a slight bit below in the strengths department. But, on his day and their day, it's always mighty close. Where Federer can make up any speed difference or stamina difference or athleticism difference with his perfection and smoothness and shot selection, Murray cannot it seems. Hence he has to beat them at their game all the time, which is his game too.

Ultimately what separates Murray from Novak and Nadal is that wee bit of extra aggression and risk that Novak and Nadal apply. They seem to want to win win win the point more than hope that the opponent loses the point. Murray seems to be more interested in the opponenet losing the point.

Why do you think Fed needs to make up a stamina difference? Aside from the fact that he conserves energy better than nearly everybody, he's an amazing athlete. When was the last time you saw him out of breath?

Look up his training routine in Dubai, it's pretty sick.

I think your overrating Murray in comparison to the top 3, but I don't really want to get into an argument over it.

Also do you have stats for Roger's high unforced error count?

This is what I got for Wimbledon.

Round 1R 2R 3R 4R QF SF F


Fed Sets played 3 3 5 4 3 4 4

Unforced errors 10 8 29 18 13 10 38


Murray Sets played 3 4 4 3 4 4 4

Unforced errors 6 8 23 15 39 12 25


Novak Sets played 3 3 4 3 3 4

Unforced errors 19 15 14 11 20 21


Rafa Sets played 3 5

Unforced errors 18 16

Doesn't look particularly bad to me.

walshb

Masked Man wrote: »

Why do you think Fed needs to make up a stamina difference? Aside from the fact that he conserves energy better than nearly everybody, he's an amazing athlete. When was the last time you saw him out of breath?

Look up his training routine in Dubai, it's pretty sick.

I think your overrating Murray in comparison to the top 3, but I don't really want to get into an argument over it.

Also do you have stats for Roger's high unforced error count?

This is what I got for Wimbledon.

Round 1R 2R 3R 4R QF SF F


Fed Sets played 3 3 5 4 3 4 4

Unforced errors 10 8 29 18 13 10 38


Murray Sets played 3 4 4 3 4 4 4

Unforced errors 6 8 23 15 39 12 25


Novak Sets played 3 3 4 3 3 4

Unforced errors 19 15 14 11 20 21


Rafa Sets played 3 5

Unforced errors 18 16

Doesn't look particularly bad to me.

Don't get me wrong, I think Federer is as fit as any of them, and yes, his style is not about hard grafting and pummeling. He glides, flows and eases. I meant to imply that IF Federer was behind them on stamina that he had so much other talent that he could overcome this stamina deficit. I am with you, Federer is as fit as they come.

As for the unforced error count. Yes, he has tidied it up. But, even the final showed a very high count.