calitennis127 said:
Kieran said:
Seriously, what's with Murray and the 6-0 sets with Nole? He crumples like the proverbial cheap suit so quick these days. 12 of 13 games in Oz, which is embarrassing, and now this one in Miami, his own patch, after winning the second set? I know Andy was always the Plus-One in the so-called Big 4, but he's getting the stage where he'll be a veteran soon (like
Novak :laydownlaughing ) and he's so far off his best, it's time for something drastic.
Maybe he should seat Amelie beside Ivan at the wedding do?
He has to expend a lot more energy than Djokovic to play at the most elite level. That's why he falls apart late in these matches. He isn't as much of an athletic specimen.
Absolutely.
Djokovic is a naturally different build to Murray. he's muscualr yet lighter, and thus tires less eaisly. Murray's natural physique was to be skinny, and he had to bulk up to be strong, but this means he's carrying more weight around as he runs around the court - also because he's taller too. Murray was naturally skinny when younger, and had to bulk up through training to get strong. Djokovic has the naturally wiry - slim yet strong - physique - it's a major advantage that Murray can do nothing about.
Surely also Novak's amazing ability to slide to balls, whereas Murray has to run to them, also helps Novak to expend less energy? This would add up with every point played.
Murray also has been very dedicated to yoga throughout his entire career for flexibilty, but he's never going to be as flexible as Djokovic.
Djokovic has won the genetic lottery with his physique.
Murray has never been able to hang physically with Djokovic. He won the WD final in straights, and won the 5th set of the USO because Novak was cramping after playing 3 days in a row. The only match where Murray hung physically with Novak was the AOSF12, but even there Andy looked down and out physically before finding something from somewhere for one last push - but still lost.
Also noticeable that Novak is bagelling a lot these days, not just against Murray. He did it to Berdych in Beijing, to both Wawrinka AND Nishikori at the WTFs, to Stan as well as Andy at AO. These are players who are perfectly capable of winning the 3rd, 4th or 5hth set of matches against other players. Novak is just that far ahead at the moment, that he seems to take away the opponents legs by the end.
i suppose some people may say that murray
their attempts to stay with hjim for 2, 3 hours.
Since I debated about Murray's on-court demeanour in a previous thread, I'll just state again that I never disagreed that a player's on court demanour can negatively affect his performance. I don't think you've stated some amazing new truth that no one else had thought of, LB. I think this is a truth that is universally acknowledged. It is also not new to criticise Murray for it, and say that it negztively affects him. People, including the 'mainstreanm press', have been saying this for years.
what i perosnlly disagred with was the statement that this behaviour has cost murray 'countles slams and titles' as you put it [check how he put it!]. take murray's first gs final. let's forget the fac that federer had the major phsycial advantage adfter murray 2-day win of rafa int eh semis. say murray had been less tentative in the final, and a paragon of mental strength. what lwd have happned? murray would have put up a beeter fight, but lost anyway. i mean, this is a 27 year old fed we're talking about, arguably the greaest player to hold a racket. ebven if murray had been as mentally tough as possible, he
still woudl ahve lost.
or what about the ao sf in 2012? what if murray had somehow mangede to win one of those break points he ahd to serve for the match inteh fifth? and then what if murray has managed to serve out that match? do you think, that after 5 hours against novak, he wluld have been able to beat a more rested rafa in the final? i don't.
even take the final the other day. if murray has been able to take that first set, would he have won the second and thus the title? if murray had wo the first set, the second set wld have gone differertly,. becuase djok wld know he had to win thaqt set or lose the mathc, so he wlsd have rrasied his level. and becaase his level is highter than murray, djok wld have won
anyway.
i stilll contend that murray's mental 'flaws' are exagerratwed by him cotniaully having to face 3 all-tiem greats. if he was mentally toguher, he would just put up a better gight and still lose, fi the top guys are p;laying well. if they're undefrperming, he can win, and does.
[int he 3 big events so far this year, murray has got the final , the sf, and the f. on all three occasions he has lost to the owrld no. 1 and an all-tiem great. he has just racke dup 500 carreeer wins at age 27. and yet the thinhg sthat are said are; 'murray needs to see a psycholoasist' (he is , by the way), 'murray does not have a winning metnality'. not ahve aiwning mentalitt? the guy is world no,3, for pete's sake. not as good as djok? yes. NO the winning mentality of an all-tiem great liek djok? yes. but that is a very high yeardstic, of measurement. for the last 6 MONTHS, only 1 player has beaten novak at a big event (masters or gs) - federer. and he's a btter player than murray./ everyne else - eveyone else - has failed. was it their 'mental demons'? or ios dhjok just the best playuer in the world? i think it'as the latter.]
it;s not like murray cannot reposnd to adverisyt. he has raise dhis game when in trouble SO many times in his career. his mental strength and fighitng spirit is one of the things that separats shim from the berdychs and tongas, althoubh he is rarely prasied for it.
Murray cna chunter away, get annoyed, even when he is tested, when he is behind in a match, and come though qwith flying couliurs. no one talks about his on court demanour being harmfuol then, because he won. When he does not do this it's al;ways when he's [;ayin gthe big 3, who are better than him and wld win anyway, if they play well, and yet under these circumstances murray's loss is somehow attributed to his on court demanour. it's compeltwely illigcasl. if he didn'thave that demanour, he might get a few more games, another set maybe, here or there, but he wnd't wn. he can't win unless the big 3 are underperfmaornig, because they're phsycioally and techcnially supiroir (with the possibel expcetion of rafa physcially right now!)
i would also add thty it's easier to be mentally strong when you're the better player. fed seemed very metnally stong until soemeon came along who cld beat him - rafa - and then it was a different stroy.how wld djok fare against a player who was as better thatn him as he is than murray? wold he be a paragon of mental stenght, or wld he falter? we can't know for sure, but we can certainyl say it wld be a lot tougher for him to be as mentally strong. and let's say he was playuing a better tplayer than himself int eh final the other day, and lost that second set and had that out[burst as he did. then say he was mentalyy strong in the 3rd set, but because the other player was better than him, hwe lost that set, teh matcha dn teh title. then people wld be satying 'djok is not mentally strong', 'he shldn't have shouteed like that at the end of the secnd set - it sent a bad message to his opponent' etc. but becauze djok is abtter player than murrayu, he won and is thus a paragon of mentla strnegth.
murray is VERY mentally sdtrong aginst players he is better than. if you only looked at murray's matches against non-bog 3 players, you would think: wow, what a mentally tougbn guy! he almost alswyas comes through, even in the touigh moemnts, even when he's behind! he raises his level, he finds a way!]
as regards murray's recent lack of wins against the big 3:
[murray's 3 losses to djok this year have also been on slwo hards.] in his entier carrer, murray has 8 wins over djok, 6 of which are either on grass or on faster hards - 2 on grass, 2 in cinci, 1 at uso, 1 in dubai. this is no coincendence. murray's 2 ins over djok on slower hards - tonroto 2008 and miami 2009 - were when djok was nowhere near the player he is now. and eve that uso win, djok playwed poorly int he iwnd and trhen waas cramping in the fifth.
murray has only 5 wins against raf in his einter career , and in at least 3 of them rafa was not right physcially. since his surgry, murray's only palyed rafa twice, and both times on clay, and he's never betate4n raf on clay his entir caeer,
murray has had success over fed either at smaller tournamet swhen fed was off, or when fed was tired at the os aand ao sf13. i think it's actualyl mkroe difficlut to murray to beat fed now, cos of fed' new racket and m roe atqacking aporahc. in the past, fed was ocntent to rally with murray form the baseline, with gave murray mro of a shot, espciall if fed was having an off day and was making more ue with his grounstroeks. the mai8n chanve i see for murray to beat fed at this stage is at a slam if fed is tird cos he hadf 5-set mathc the preicvous round, ior seomthign liek that (that wa show murray beat fed at the os (fed pkayed the quelvalent of a 50st match egaisnt de,lpo previosu round) and at aosf13 (fed hasd [polajyed 5 set match agisnt tosgoma previous round), whih arwe murray's only wins over fed in best of 5 set format his entire career.
i thin murray's occasianl wins over the big 3 when they're undepepfmding, combined with his otubursts on court, leasd people to think 'if only he was mentally stronger, he'd be as good as teh big 3',. as ui have pointed out before, there are other things goiing in, both technical and phy7scial.
[a word on djok's fitness:
[i have a question. this year, djokovic has bagelled players ? times: names. these are players who are perfectly capable of wining 3rd sets, 4th sets, 5th sets against toher players, and have done. when djok bagelled them, i don't recal you posting to say it was because of their 'metnal demos'. i assume, like most people, you thoguht that they were simply yutplayed once djok had taken their legsby their attempts to stay with hjim for 2, 3 hours. but when EXACTLTY the sam erthing happens to murray, it's becasue of his 'mental demons'. inconsistency, methinks.]
