2014 Wimbledon Quarterfinals: Murray vs. Dimitrov

[rafanoy1992]

Murray leads the H2H 3-1 but Dimitrov won their only meeting this year at Acapulco in three tight sets.

This is the match-up that everyone anticipated when the draw came out. Dimitrov is playing very well and he has the game and confidence to trouble Murray.

With that being said, Murray will prevail in four tight sets. I think Murray will be prepared and will bring his A game in this match.

 

[tented]

Murray hasn't dropped a set yet, but that could end here. I picked him in 4, but it could go 5 if he gets tight, and Dimitrov is playing really well.


P.S. - Thanks for creating the poll, Rafanoy!

 

[DarthFed]

Murray seems to be playing very well and most importantly his return is on fire and he will need it vs. Dimitrov. I think it'd be a pretty big upset for Dimitrov to win this one, Murray with the home crowd will win this in 4 at most.

It'd be the first true breakout win for Dimitrov if he gets it. He had the mini breakthrough at Australia but the QF of a major is not a result to take much notice of. Semifinal is much different, that is a deep run.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Murray is playing well and he will win this in an epic 5 setter ...

Or a regular 3.

 

[nehmeth]

I am going against convention and picking Dimitrov to take this in four. Hopefully he will be prepared for this "moment" and take it to Andy. If Grigor ever gets a real killer instinct, he will be unbelievable. Unfortunately that's seems to be something that's more innate than learned.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Dimitrov has played well on the grass this year, but Murray has been pretty flawless for most of Wimbledon. I'm a bit worried about this one and I can certainly see Grigor getting a set but I voted for Andy in four.

 

[Iona16]

I'm not worried. My boy in 3. At a push 4.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Dimitrov has been playing well so far in this tournament,but I still think Murray will prevail.

I will give one set to Dimitrov

Murray to win in 4 sets.

 

[Front242]

MacToothy to finally drop a set but ultimately win in 4.

 

[El Dude]

I've gone on record as saying Grigor Dimitrov is my second favorite player, after the great Swiss Maestro. That said, I don't think he's quite there to beat one of the Big Four in a Grand Slam...yet. He's very, very cleose and is on the verge of being in the same league as the best in the sport. I think he loses in 4 (or so), but next year will be a different matter and he'll be, perhaps, the most dangerous player not named Fedalkovicurray.

 

[nehmeth]

I've gone on record as saying Grigor Dimitrov is my second favorite player, after the great Swiss Maestro. That said, I don't think he's quite there to beat one of the Big Four in a Grand Slam...yet. He's very, very close and is on the verge..

Dimi's growing on me too. I just want him to have his break-out-slam-win against one of the big four other than Djokovic :blush:

 

[El Dude]

I've gone on record as saying Grigor Dimitrov is my second favorite player, after the great Swiss Maestro. That said, I don't think he's quite there to beat one of the Big Four in a Grand Slam...yet. He's very, very close and is on the verge..

Dimi's growing on me too. I just want him to have his break-out-slam-win against one of the big four other than Djokovic :blush:

Ha ha, I hear that my man. I wouldn't worry. I could maybe see him squeeze one out against Andy, but Novak? Seems less likely.

That said, next year might be a different matter. Two or three QFs this year could translate to a couple SFs, even a final, next year.

 

[Moxie]

While Dimitrov has had a really good grass season, I think this next round for Andy will be as it was last year v. Verdasco: the testing round. And he'll come out of it, and with more confidence, because I think Grigor will give him a scare. But he won't beat him.

 

[Fiero425]

While Dimitrov has had a really good grass season, I think this next round for Andy will be as it was last year v. Verdasco: the testing round. And he'll come out of it, and with more confidence, because I think Grigor will give him a scare. But he won't beat him.

Oh please, Verdasco's just gutless and has never been able to finish; same with Lopez! That was a gift match from Nadal a few weeks ago! These guys find ways to lose matches even with huge leads! I told someone after he won those 2 sets from Murray last year at Wimbledon that "he's going to give it all back; mark my words!" :nono :angel:

 

[Moxie]

While Dimitrov has had a really good grass season, I think this next round for Andy will be as it was last year v. Verdasco: the testing round. And he'll come out of it, and with more confidence, because I think Grigor will give him a scare. But he won't beat him.

Oh please, Verdasco's just gutless and has never been able to finish; same with Lopez! That was a gift match from Nadal a few weeks ago! These guys find ways to lose matches even with huge leads! I told someone after he won those 2 sets from Murray last year at Wimbledon that "he's going to give it all back; mark my words!" :nono :angel:

I'll admit I was surprised at the level that Verdasco brought to that match last year, and I think Andy's nerves had something to do with it, but it's unfair of you to just proclaim Fernando "gutless," if you actually watched that match last year. MY point is that Andy got tested in the same round last year, after sailing. I think he'll be somewhat tested by Grigor here, again, but will come through, and it'll give him a bounce.

 

[Fiero425]

While Dimitrov has had a really good grass season, I think this next round for Andy will be as it was last year v. Verdasco: the testing round. And he'll come out of it, and with more confidence, because I think Grigor will give him a scare. But he won't beat him.

Oh please, Verdasco's just gutless and has never been able to finish; same with Lopez! That was a gift match from Nadal a few weeks ago! These guys find ways to lose matches even with huge leads! I told someone after he won those 2 sets from Murray last year at Wimbledon that "he's going to give it all back; mark my words!" :nono :angel:

I'll admit I was surprised at the level that Verdasco brought to that match last year, and I think Andy's nerves had something to do with it, but it's unfair of you to just proclaim Fernando "gutless," if you actually watched that match last year. MY point is that Andy got tested in the same round last year, after sailing. I think he'll be somewhat tested by Grigor here, again, but will come through, and it'll give him a bounce.

There's a reason 35 of the last 37 majors have gone to only 4 players of the ATP; pretty much the same at most Masters event! Some may call it a "golden age!" I don't see it that way and blame the players; lack of courage and just not very bright in finishing off the "Big 4" when they're down! Even Sampras, who I believe is the consummate grass court artist lost during his reign! He had a rival that could blast him off the court and he actually "finished" by winning the tourney a few rounds later; Richard Krajicek in '96! Players like Federer and Murray are the most vulnerable right now, but you see how it is; players with ability just can't think and do well when it counts! Knocking them out in Cincinnati or Montreal isn't going to cut it; reputations are made at the majors and I find it disgusting that only Del Po and Wawrinka have shown any kind of intestinal fortitude to actually challenge the top players and win in the last several years!

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'll pick Murray but to be honest, he always struck me as someone who kind of struggles against one-handed backhand players. Yes, he's done well against Roger but when Federer's backhand is on, Murray really struggles against him. I think the versatility of the one handed backhand coupled with the fact that Murray will generally give you time to line up that shot gives one handed backhand players some freedom to dictate against him. Plus, most one handed backhands handle the slice just fine (be it by slicing it back or top spin) so Murray's slices will not have the same effect they usually do.

I'm interested in seeing how aggressive Dimitrov is with the forehand since that's the shot that will win him the match (if he is to win it, of course).

I'm looking forward to this one. Should be some fun, versatile tennis. Murray in 4.

 

[nehmeth]

There's a reason 35 of the last 37 majors have gone to only 4 players of the ATP; pretty much the same at most Masters event! Some may call it a "golden age!" I don't see it that way and blame the players; lack of courage and just not very bright in finishing off the "Big 4" when they're down! Even Sampras, who I believe is the consummate grass court artist lost during his reign! He had a rival that could blast him off the court and he actually "finished" by winning the tourney a few rounds later; Richard Krajicek in '96! Players like Federer and Murray are the most vulnerable right now, but you see how it is; players with ability just can't think and do well when it counts! Knocking them out in Cincinnati or Montreal isn't going to cut it; reputations are made at the majors and I find it disgusting that only Del Po and Wawrinka have shown any kind of intestinal fortitude to actually challenge the top players and win in the last several years!

Well said Fiero. All of the big four have been on the ropes, have been vulnerable. Whether in the Masters or the Slams, when it came down to it, very few of the others have had the fortitude to step up and capitalize on their opportunities.

There will always be those who point to the speed of the courts (or lack thereof) as the reason for the Big Four's reign. To some degree I can see their point. But I also believe that those who hold that line will will just as readily agree with you. There have been numerous situations where one or more of the "Four" have been in trouble and their opponent was not able to finish the job.

I conclude with one other thought: that there are four (rather than two or three), has in itself been part of the problem. Unless there is an early upset - in the Masters and Slams any other player will find himself facing a gauntlet of at least two and often three of the "four". To me, that is a much greater ask than someone like Krajicek would ever have faced.

 

[britbox]

Fiero, you're comparing Sampras with the sum of four top players with that assessment. Like Sampras, Federer has been beaten at Wimbledon. Nadal has lost at Roland Garros. Djokovic has lost at Melbourne...

The main difference is that the field then didn't have 3 or 4 "Sampras" type dominating players to go through. They might knock off one, but then generally they get another.

Is this unprecedented? No - You could say a pretty similar situation was happening when Borg, McEnroe and Connors were dominating proceedings. If you discount the AO, as these guys rarely played it (I'll even discount Connors' 74 title for the purpose of the comparison) then 3 players won 22 of 27 slams taking in Wimbledon, USO and FO in the same 9 season time frame from 74-82.
That's just 3 players doing the damage not 4. That was also hailed as a golden era.

Some players do lack mental fortitude, but that's always been the case. (I agree on Verdasco by the way)

But the bigger reason is that they are not consistently good enough. I emphasize "consistently" because it's not as if any of these players are titans week in week out and then just folding against the big four... They are inconsistent period. For instance, it's not as if Berdych or Tsonga are dominating everywhere until they meet a member of the elite - they are inconsistent without the Big 4 being anywhere on the radar.

[Edit: nehmeth pre-empted my post with the last couple of sentences above - I agree with him on the last part of the post]

 

[nehmeth]

Since the top players bypassed the Australian Open during the "troika's" era of dominance, adding up their wins without counting Oz is quite a telling (and very similar), stat to what we are seeing now.