tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 08 Feb 2009 21:32:10
From: grif
Subject: Andy Murray still lags behind 'Big Two'
What would Andy Murray have given four months ago to have Roger Federer
serving like Steve Harmison to Andrew Flintoff at second slip?

Federer had the Harmison radar on his rackethead for much of the Australian
Open final.

Had that been the case at the US Open last September, Murray might have been
a grand slam champion by now.

At least that is the view through the British looking glass. The counter
argument put by the rest of the world points out that Federer's serving
accuracy in Melbourne was to a significant degree conditioned by the player
opposing him. Rafael Nadal fills far more space in Federer's head than
Murray, they say.

Murray was the betting favourite for the Australian Open. Victories over
Federer in the weeks leading up to Melbourne were persuasive. He started the
tournament well enough, ripping through sundry bystanders before meeting
with a random variable from Madrid.

Murray can draw some comfort from the hoops through which Fernando Verdasco
had Nadal jumping in the event's outstanding match. Murray had never lost to
Verdasco and managed to push him around the court in a way Nadal never quite
managed in that razor-edged semi-final, yet Nadal prevailed. Murray did not.

With defending Australian champion Novak Djokovic laying down his racket
mid-match for the fourth time in his career, this time because of the heat,
the big four ultimately reduced to the bigger two.

The Nadal-Federer rivalry accurately reflects the distribution of power in
the men's game. It is two plus two rather than the front four the tournament
marketing men would have us believe. Djokovic is able, like Murray, to
penetrate the power bubble when circumstances permit. The problem for both
is that Nadal and Federer are the principal determinants that influence
events. They do not require a break to let them in. They make their own
luck.

The tour moves on to the European indoor season this month before
re-emerging into the sun for the hard-court thrash around the United States
in the spring. Murray might well bash out a Masters Series victory or two in
this period yet when the names go into the hat for the French Open draw in
the latter part of May, the seeding committee at Roland Garros will be
joined by the majority in looking no further than Nadal and Federer to fill
slots one and two.

Murray had made measurable steps since his return from injury last year, not
least his four-set victory over Nadal in New York. The US Open was a grand
slam too far for Nadal, after his double in Paris and London, demonstrating
just how romantic talk of a calendar Grand Slam is in this age of power
tennis.

Nevertheless, Murray crossed a mental threshold that day. It was his
misfortune to meet Federer on the rebound and following the demise of his
relationship with the prettiest pot in tennis. The Wimbledon trophy and
Federer had been inseperable for five years until Nadal smacked his lips on
it.

Federer was almost disappointed when Murray did the job in New York that he
had set for himself and how he made him pay.

In the second week at Melbourne, Federer reproduced his US Open form before
falling into Nadal's psychological vice. The opening service game that
Federer divvied up to Nadal in Melbourne would not have been out of place in
the women's final. Compare that to the turbulence he unleashed at Murray in
New York. The argument comes full circle.

Until we can remove the lids of elite athletes to determine the workings of
the sporting mind, we are left at best guesses to explain the power dynamic
at the top of the game.

For now all Murray can do is keep winning while accepting that the players
who matter most care least about victories posted outside the grand slam
combat zone. Federer won't blink until Murray has done to him at a major
championship what Nadal effected again in Melbourne.

Djokovic laughed when asked to comment on the pre-match betting in
Australia; Federer, too. In the sporting jungle, the joke is still on Murray
until he is smiling for the photographers on the second Sunday of a grand
slam. At this point in the Scot's career, nothing else matters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/4437620/Andy-Murray-still-lags-behind-Big-Two.html






 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 03:44:43
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Andy Murray still lags behind 'Big Two'
On Feb 8, 9:32=A0pm, "grif" <griffin_...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> What would Andy Murray have given four months ago to have Roger Federer
> serving like Steve Harmison to Andrew Flintoff at second slip?
>
> Federer had the Harmison radar on his rackethead for much of the Australi=
an
> Open final.
>
> Had that been the case at the US Open last September, Murray might have b=
een
> a grand slam champion by now.
>
> At least that is the view through the British looking glass. The counter
> argument put by the rest of the world points out that Federer's serving
> accuracy in Melbourne was to a significant degree conditioned by the play=
er
> opposing him. Rafael Nadal fills far more space in Federer's head than
> Murray, they say.
>
> Murray was the betting favourite for the Australian Open. Victories over
> Federer in the weeks leading up to Melbourne were persuasive. He started =
the
> tournament well enough, ripping through sundry bystanders before meeting
> with a random variable from Madrid.
>
> Murray can draw some comfort from the hoops through which Fernando Verdas=
co
> had Nadal jumping in the event's outstanding match. Murray had never lost=
to
> Verdasco and managed to push him around the court in a way Nadal never qu=
ite
> managed in that razor-edged semi-final, yet Nadal prevailed. Murray did n=
ot.
>
> With defending Australian champion Novak Djokovic laying down his racket
> mid-match for the fourth time in his career, this time because of the hea=
t,
> the big four ultimately reduced to the bigger two.
>
> The Nadal-Federer rivalry accurately reflects the distribution of power i=
n
> the men's game. It is two plus two rather than the front four the tournam=
ent
> marketing men would have us believe. Djokovic is able, like Murray, to
> penetrate the power bubble when circumstances permit. The problem for bot=
h
> is that Nadal and Federer are the principal determinants that influence
> events. They do not require a break to let them in. They make their own
> luck.
>
> The tour moves on to the European indoor season this month before
> re-emerging into the sun for the hard-court thrash around the United Stat=
es
> in the spring. Murray might well bash out a Masters Series victory or two=
in
> this period yet when the names go into the hat for the French Open draw i=
n
> the latter part of May, the seeding committee at Roland Garros will be
> joined by the majority in looking no further than Nadal and Federer to fi=
ll
> slots one and two.
>
> Murray had made measurable steps since his return from injury last year, =
not
> least his four-set victory over Nadal in New York. The US Open was a gran=
d
> slam too far for Nadal, after his double in Paris and London, demonstrati=
ng
> just how romantic talk of a calendar Grand Slam is in this age of power
> tennis.
>
> Nevertheless, Murray crossed a mental threshold that day. It was his
> misfortune to meet Federer on the rebound and following the demise of his
> relationship with the prettiest pot in tennis. The Wimbledon trophy and
> Federer had been inseperable for five years until Nadal smacked his lips =
on
> it.
>
> Federer was almost disappointed when Murray did the job in New York that =
he
> had set for himself and how he made him pay.
>
> In the second week at Melbourne, Federer reproduced his US Open form befo=
re
> falling into Nadal's psychological vice. The opening service game that
> Federer divvied up to Nadal in Melbourne would not have been out of place=
in
> the women's final. Compare that to the turbulence he unleashed at Murray =
in
> New York. The argument comes full circle.
>
> Until we can remove the lids of elite athletes to determine the workings =
of
> the sporting mind, we are left at best guesses to explain the power dynam=
ic
> at the top of the game.
>
> For now all Murray can do is keep winning while accepting that the player=
s
> who matter most care least about victories posted outside the grand slam
> combat zone. Federer won't blink until Murray has done to him at a major
> championship what Nadal effected again in Melbourne.
>
> Djokovic laughed when asked to comment on the pre-match betting in
> Australia; Federer, too. In the sporting jungle, the joke is still on Mur=
ray
> until he is smiling for the photographers on the second Sunday of a grand
> slam. At this point in the Scot's career, nothing else matters.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/4437620/Andy-Murra...

so we are back to the "big 2" now then....
Pre aus open it was the "big 4"
Maybe some unknown can win one of the upcoming masters, with djoko +
murray also reaching finals... then we can be up to "big 5" ?


  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 05:13:03
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Andy Murray still lags behind 'Big Two'
On Feb 9, 12:08=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
>
> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/4437620/Andy-Murra..=
.
>
> > so we are back to the "big 2" now then....
> > Pre aus open it was the "big 4"
>
> I thought the big 4 was Fed, Rafa & Mirka....?

lol


  
Date: 09 Feb 2009 23:08:47
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Andy Murray still lags behind 'Big Two'
Professor X wrote:
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/4437620/Andy-Murra...
>
> so we are back to the "big 2" now then....
> Pre aus open it was the "big 4"



I thought the big 4 was Fed, Rafa & Mirka....?


 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 14:44:53
From:
Subject: Re: Andy Murray still lags behind 'Big Two'
On Feb 8, 4:32=A0pm, "grif" <griffin_...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> What would Andy Murray have given four months ago to have Roger Federer
> serving like Steve Harmison to Andrew Flintoff at second slip?
>
> Federer had the Harmison radar on his rackethead for much of the Australi=
an
> Open final.
>
> Had that been the case at the US Open last September, Murray might have b=
een
> a grand slam champion by now.
>
> At least that is the view through the British looking glass. The counter
> argument put by the rest of the world points out that Federer's serving
> accuracy in Melbourne was to a significant degree conditioned by the play=
er
> opposing him. Rafael Nadal fills far more space in Federer's head than
> Murray, they say.
>
> Murray was the betting favourite for the Australian Open. Victories over
> Federer in the weeks leading up to Melbourne were persuasive. He started =
the
> tournament well enough, ripping through sundry bystanders before meeting
> with a random variable from Madrid.
>
> Murray can draw some comfort from the hoops through which Fernando Verdas=
co
> had Nadal jumping in the event's outstanding match. Murray had never lost=
to
> Verdasco and managed to push him around the court in a way Nadal never qu=
ite
> managed in that razor-edged semi-final, yet Nadal prevailed. Murray did n=
ot.
>
> With defending Australian champion Novak Djokovic laying down his racket
> mid-match for the fourth time in his career, this time because of the hea=
t,
> the big four ultimately reduced to the bigger two.
>
> The Nadal-Federer rivalry accurately reflects the distribution of power i=
n
> the men's game. It is two plus two rather than the front four the tournam=
ent
> marketing men would have us believe. Djokovic is able, like Murray, to
> penetrate the power bubble when circumstances permit. The problem for bot=
h
> is that Nadal and Federer are the principal determinants that influence
> events. They do not require a break to let them in. They make their own
> luck.
>
> The tour moves on to the European indoor season this month before
> re-emerging into the sun for the hard-court thrash around the United Stat=
es
> in the spring. Murray might well bash out a Masters Series victory or two=
in
> this period yet when the names go into the hat for the French Open draw i=
n
> the latter part of May, the seeding committee at Roland Garros will be
> joined by the majority in looking no further than Nadal and Federer to fi=
ll
> slots one and two.
>
> Murray had made measurable steps since his return from injury last year, =
not
> least his four-set victory over Nadal in New York. The US Open was a gran=
d
> slam too far for Nadal, after his double in Paris and London, demonstrati=
ng
> just how romantic talk of a calendar Grand Slam is in this age of power
> tennis.
>
> Nevertheless, Murray crossed a mental threshold that day. It was his
> misfortune to meet Federer on the rebound and following the demise of his
> relationship with the prettiest pot in tennis. The Wimbledon trophy and
> Federer had been inseperable for five years until Nadal smacked his lips =
on
> it.
>
> Federer was almost disappointed when Murray did the job in New York that =
he
> had set for himself and how he made him pay.
>
> In the second week at Melbourne, Federer reproduced his US Open form befo=
re
> falling into Nadal's psychological vice. The opening service game that
> Federer divvied up to Nadal in Melbourne would not have been out of place=
in
> the women's final. Compare that to the turbulence he unleashed at Murray =
in
> New York. The argument comes full circle.
>
> Until we can remove the lids of elite athletes to determine the workings =
of
> the sporting mind, we are left at best guesses to explain the power dynam=
ic
> at the top of the game.
>
> For now all Murray can do is keep winning while accepting that the player=
s
> who matter most care least about victories posted outside the grand slam
> combat zone. Federer won't blink until Murray has done to him at a major
> championship what Nadal effected again in Melbourne.
>
> Djokovic laughed when asked to comment on the pre-match betting in
> Australia; Federer, too. In the sporting jungle, the joke is still on Mur=
ray
> until he is smiling for the photographers on the second Sunday of a grand
> slam. At this point in the Scot's career, nothing else matters.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/4437620/Andy-Murra...

Wait for the USO......