US open 2012: Matches of the Day: Day 8

2:0. Raonic's history does not promise a fightback, dreamland calls

No fightback indeed. Nice and easy for Murray. With Tsonga gone, he should make the SF even though I have been waiting for a breakthrough win from Cilic for a few months now. To me, Cilic has potential to be up there with Delpo and I am still hoping he will get at least part-way there.

Raonic just can't go any forward with his current coach. He really needs a new team. He is on his way to become another Ancic unless he changes things.

summerblues wrote:No fightback indeed. Nice and easy for Murray. With Tsonga gone, he should make the SF even though I have been waiting for a breakthrough win from Cilic for a few months now. To me, Cilic has potential to be up there with Delpo and I am still hoping he will get at least part-way there.

Tsonga? nah.. Tsonga may trouble Fed but is easy meat for Murray's tactics. Its just like how Delpo can push Federer so much, but gets trounced by Ferrer. Between Tsonga and Cilic I can't pick who would have been his tougher opponent in QF. To beat Murray, one needs to outsmart and out think him, especially in slams.

Results day8:

[3] A Murray (GBR) d [15] M Raonic (CAN) 64 64 62

rotla: -3
tenez: -3
nitb: 3
laverfan: 3
wow: 3
sphairistike: 3
SR: -3

--------------------
[6] T Berdych (CZE) d [11] N Almagro (ESP) 76(4) 64 61

rotla: 6
tenez: 6
nitb: 6
laverfan: 6
wow: 6
sphairistike: 6
SR: 6

--------------------

[12] M Cilic (CRO) d M Klizan (SVK) 75 64 60


rotla: 12
tenez: 12
nitb: 12
laverfan: 12
wow: -12
sphairistike: -12
SR: 12

--------------------
[12] Ivanovic(SRB) def Pironkova(BUL) 6-0 6-4

rotla: 12
tenez: -12
nitb: -12
laverfan: 12
wow: -12
sphairistike: -12
SR: -12

--------------------
S. Errani [10] def A. kerber [6] 7-6 6-3

rotla: -10
tenez: -10
nitb: -10
laverfan: -10
wow: 10
sphairistike: -10
SR: -10

--------------------


Standings as on 4-Sep-2012:

Points:

rotla: 58 + 17 = 75
tenez: 68 -7 = 61
nitb: 262 -1 = 261
laverfan: 37 + 23 = 60
wow: 50 - 5 = 45
sphairistike: 252 - 25 = 227
SR: 35 - 7= 28


--------------------

No. of correct predictions

rotla: 25/42 + 3/5 = 28/47
tenez: 26/42 + 2/5 = 28/47
nitb: 31/42 + 3/5= 34/47
laverfan: 26/42 + 4/5 = 30/47
wow: 24/42 + 3/5 = 27/47
sphairistike: 27/42 + 2/5 = 29/47
SR: 12/18 + 2/5 = 14/23

raiders_of_the_lost_ark

Whats my score?

In the end a simple win for Murray as expected. Murray peaking at the right time and if continues in the same vain then first grand slam is coming on Sunday.

Murray

noleisthebest wrote:Murray does look extremely cardio fit. I'd love to see Fed take time away from him.
I'm sure he'll be a lot more motivated than at the Olympics where he looked half-interested.

Fed will struggle v this Murray. I simply don't understand how can he one day play crap v Lopez and then display this kind of tennis. It's not only the legs but the power of the arms gives him max control of the ball.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Murray does look extremely cardio fit. I'd love to see Fed take time away from him.
I'm sure he'll be a lot more motivated than at the Olympics where he looked half-interested.

Fed will struggle v this Murray. I simply don't understand how can he one day play crap v Lopez and then display this kind of tennis. It's not only the legs but the power of the arms gives him max control of the ball.

Why is it so difficult to understand? Lopez probably is a bad match up for Andy and the heat was a factor too during the day match. Night match with cooler conditions Murray was unstoppable. And yes you might be right now as with this kind of form Andy can take out both Fed and Nole.

One match at a time, let's see how he plays against Cilic. He did lose to Cilci two or three years ago

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Murray does look extremely cardio fit. I'd love to see Fed take time away from him.
I'm sure he'll be a lot more motivated than at the Olympics where he looked half-interested.

Fed will struggle v this Murray. I simply don't understand how can he one day play crap v Lopez and then display this kind of tennis. It's not only the legs but the power of the arms gives him max control of the ball.

I didn't see the Lopez match, but saw the Bogomolov one in which he was "terrible", but I never bought it, it was just rust.
The new thing I noticed about Murray is he's striking/placing the ball better than in the first half of the year, and muscling his forehand a little bit less. That energy sapping bludgeoning moonball-less Nadalesque super-bashed forehand (not used to "dictate" just as CC winner) is his "new" weapon and he used it against Fed and Nole at the Olympics. I'm sure he's saving it for them again.
If I were Fed, I'd go for that forehand until it got broken down. At any cost. Murray is playing with more confidence now, but that confidence is still fragile.

The match is still on Fed's racquet, and if his serve is as good as if was in Cincy, I think he'll be fine.

Murray's weakest point is still his mental make-up, I'm sure Fed knows it and will exploit it, can't wait to see him try to school the unruly child!

Something along these lines:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrgxHvNNUc
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlJugdk4OGc
Can't wait!!!!!

wow3 wrote:Why is it so difficult to understand? Lopez probably is a bad match up for Andy and the heat was a factor too during the day match. Night match with cooler conditions Murray was unstoppable. And yes you might be right now as with this kind of form Andy can take out both Fed and Nole.

One match at a time, let's see how he plays against Cilic. He did lose to Cilci two or three years ago

You believeing in bad match ups? then you might know that Murray has a 6/0 record in favour v Lopy and 0/1 down v Rao. SO nothing to do with match-ups here I am afraid. They talk about a "masterful" performance of Murray and I agree but to me it was a clear fitness performance like I never saw before.

Murray is 6ft3 but is proportianally built like Ferrer.

Rao did not play badly at first but was surprised to see so many balls come back, including the serve. Murray stood quite back to return yet he had enough pace to get to the incredibly fast serves of Rao. And again, the control of the ball thanks to arms able to absorb the power of Rao's shots.

Rotla....remember what you said about MUrray after his loss to Chardy at Cincy?

noleisthebest wrote:
The match is still on Fed's racquet, and if his serve is as good as if was in Cincy, I think he'll be fine.

I don't think so anymore. Not on those courts where Murray's leg power can allow him to get to any ball.



Yesterday I saw tennis go up a notch again. This Murray woudl have bludgeoned Nadal. Only Murray's nerves could save Djokovic.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
The match is still on Fed's racquet, and if his serve is as good as if was in Cincy, I think he'll be fine.

I don't think so anymore. Not on those courts where Murray's leg power can allow him to get to any ball.



Yesterday I saw tennis go up a notch again. This Murray woudl have bludgeoned Nadal. Only Murray's nerves could save Djokovic.

I hope you are wrong. I believe in Fed's insatiable hunger and numberoneship. It will be a great match!

Murray's leg power will/should not be enough.
Unlike Nadal, he has a switch-off button and not just when he sees he's outplayed, but also when he thinks he's on top in the match.
To me, it's quite interesting to study his face and all it says during a match. Maybe that's why I can't warm to him
Still, he's a lot better to watch than Nadal.

Tenez wrote:
Rao did not play badly at first but was surprised to see so many balls come back, including the serve. Murray stood quite back to return yet he had enough pace to get to the incredibly fast serves of Rao. And again, the control of the ball thanks to arms able to absorb the power of Rao's shots.

I expected Raonic to lose in R1 itself. I have always told about Raonic's weaknesses and he hasn't improved one bit on any of those. In fact he has gone down, with that 4m standing behind the baseline and moonballing. On occasions he came to the net, he didn't know what to do. Clueless. The moment he twice double faulted to get broken, it was the beginning of the end of him. He struggled to even make easy put-aways like an over head ( for a tall guy like him).

Raonic is no better server than Isner and we have seen how much Isner struggles to win matches against almost anyone. So no reason to think Raonic was going to have anything comfortable and that too against Murray.

Beating Murray requires one to outsmart him. Slow moving big servers have too obvious weaknesses and are easy prey for Murray.

Tenez wrote: Rotla....remember what you said about MUrray after his loss to Chardy at Cincy?

Yes I do. I won't change it still.

Don't be so harsh on Raonic, rotla, he did play a touch volley or two and very good ones.
It's not easy to go to the net against Murray, not many dare do it, and those who do and beat him with it but just as a mix-up scenario, like Fed in Wimbledon final, show great skill and feel for game.
Raonic is too timid. I think he could be very good at the net technically, it's more his mindset and fear of losing face.

He needs to shake it off if he can and I think he can but am not sure he will. If he loves tennis more than his pride he'll do it in a year or two.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Slow moving big servers have too obvious weaknesses and are easy prey for Murray.

Well was not easy last time they played. I actually don;t think you can outsmart Murray. Only Federer coudl but with this kind of fitness...I am very sceptical he will now. And Federer was not so much outsmarting him but hitting through him.

noleisthebest wrote:Don't be so harsh on Raonic, rotla, he did play a touch volley or two and very good ones.

I know, but one has to do those in those important points which he failed to do. Plus off late he is really trying to play like Nadal, standing 4 behind the baseline and moonballing and hoping the opponent will miss. He does it because perhaps:

1. Weak in return, standing behind gives him more time to see the ball.
2. His own shots go long and often. He stays back to allow a little margin.

But he can't stay long in the rally with Murray who will make him move from corner to corner. Can he run that much? No. So its always a suicidal play.

Anyway, anyone who moves slow is dead meat against Murray no matter where he plays from. Murray isn't top-4 for no reason.

noleisthebest wrote:
Raonic is too timid. I think he could be very good at the net technically, it's more his mindset and fear of losing face.

He needs to shake it off if he can and I think he can but am not sure he will. If he loves tennis more than his pride he'll do it in a year or two.

I agree, I now see him trying not to lose than win.

I think Federer will need just a couple of strategically well played points to go in his favour.

With Murray across the net, the court does seem to shrink, and that's the toughness the player has to have when facing him, but Fed with all his weaponry, serve firing nicely and in form as he seems to be, no, I'm not worried. But competitive, it will be, mainly to Murray fans. I expect a very similar pattern as Wimbledon final.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Don't be so harsh on Raonic, rotla, he did play a touch volley or two and very good ones.

I know, but one has to do those in those important points which he failed to do. Plus off late he is really trying to play like Nadal, standing 4 behind the baseline and moonballing and hoping the opponent will miss. He does it because perhaps:

1. Weak in return, standing behind gives him more time to see the ball.
2. His own shots go long and often. He stays back to allow a little margin.

But he can't stay long in the rally with Murray who will make him move from corner to corner. Can he run that much? No. So its always a suicidal play.

Anyway, anyone who moves slow is dead meat against Murray no matter where he plays from. Murray isn't top-4 for no reason.

noleisthebest wrote:
Raonic is too timid. I think he could be very good at the net technically, it's more his mindset and fear of losing face.

He needs to shake it off if he can and I think he can but am not sure he will. If he loves tennis more than his pride he'll do it in a year or two.

I agree, I now see him trying not to lose than win.

I agree. I think Raonic is still good material for the next RIGHT type of coach. His time is running out, though. For the changes he needs to make, he needs one just about now.

Well it's a fact that when you are tall you are not as agile as when you are shorter....except when you have legs like Murray so this explains why Rao stands a bit back.

Does anyone remember how far back Delpo used to stand in that FO09 semi v Federer? and he still stands back nowadays but those guys can make it up with their power.

Tenez wrote:Well it's a fact that when you are tall you are not as agile as when you are shorter....except when you have legs like Murray so this explains why Rao stands a bit back.

Does anyone remember how far back Delpo used to stand in that FO09 semi v Federer? and he still stands back nowadays but those guys can make it up with their power.

yes, almost like the court is too small for their size, which it probably is. Back wen tennis started, tennis players did not look like basketball players.

Yes tall like Basketball players but built like rugby players.

That is what's needed to reach the top nowadays.

Tenez wrote:Yes tall like Basketball players but built like rugby players.

That is what's needed to reach the top nowadays.

I know, terrible, even more so in women's tennis, such is Williams sisters' legacy

That's why I'm so glad Nadal's out of the picture. He's done enough damage, although to be fair to him, he was allowed to do so for a long time.

I am convinced with him out of the way, the game will revert back to more or less "normal". Nobody wants to spend more time in the gym than absolutely necessary.
Nadal was a real head-case in that way, if ever he had a talent that was this blinkered single-mindedness about his shameless style of play and all he used in order to execute it.
To me the real interesting thing is if we could work out how many of those 11 slams really belong to Tony, i.e. what Nadal would have won without his "guidance". I reckon he'd've looked a lot like Hewitt.
I don't think we are going to see a repeat of that. yes, the likes of Tipsarevic and Ferrer still around, but even they must hate the gruelling side of their success. They've got to! I know Nole does.

Nadal showed the way but the others followed suite.

Tenez wrote:Nadal showed the way but the others followed suite.

They also had the choice to go Fed's route.

Tenez wrote:Nadal showed the way but the others followed suite.

They did. They ALL had to do something to stay competitive. Look how long it took Federer to adjust. And just look at Nole's 2011. THAT's what was needed to stop the rot.
Nole should be knighted for that and give the honorary Golden Slam. It really took some heart and determination to stand up to the bully, but he did it. He always knew and believed he was better.

wow3 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Nadal showed the way but the others followed suite.

They also had the choice to go Fed's route.

I am afraid, that's only a choice for Federer!

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Nadal showed the way but the others followed suite.

They did. They ALL had to do something to stay competitive. Look how long it took Federer to adjust.

Fed adjusted by being more aggressive, especially on teh return, not by trying to throw 20-shots rallies at will.

Even Gasquet now mentions 'fitness' as does Wawrinka.

Murray followed Nadal and now has another example in Djokovic's 2011 to go further up the ladder.

There are very few who can match Federer in being aggressive. Tsonga, and perhaps Soderling can.


Soderling has the power, but lacks movement. I wonder how he is doing now?

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Nadal showed the way but the others followed suite.

They did. They ALL had to do something to stay competitive. Look how long it took Federer to adjust.

Fed adjusted by being more aggressive, especially on teh return, not by trying to throw 20-shots rallies at will.

he,he...Fed had been aggressive to start with, I don't think his adjusting was as straightforward as you make it out to be.
But I did notice he played super aggressively in Cincy and his serve helped a lot there.

I do like watching him play aggressively from the base-line, however, I prefer when he's in the court, like Blake against Granollers, you can't beat that.
I know it's not easy in today's conditions, but when it works out in a match it's just the best .

Fed is so court aware that he doesn't waste his charges to the net, I'd like to believe that that particular aspect will win him the match against Murray.

To me, despite all the hype (which I'm sick of) Murray's tennis is not that shrewd. Federer is probably the shrewdest out there. He won the last one against Novak in that department in Cincy and I can't wait to see what Novak's got as a reply.

laverfan wrote:Even Gasquet now mentions 'fitness' as does Wawrinka.

Indeed. DO they have a choice? They must be tired to look like good looking losers!

Murray followed Nadal and now has another example in Djokovic's 2011 to go further up the ladder.

Yes..though to be fair Murray has been trying to go up that ladder for years but often ended up injured asking his body way too much. He is the least naturally fit of the top 5...so his acquired fitness will always be more fragile.

tenez, why do you not like Murray?

I can't say I don't like him....I am just not a fan of those physical games.

I support players who still rely on their talent to some extend to play the game. I care about what a player brings on the court, not what his team and doctors can do for him.

If you look at Jamie Murray(same size as his brother, 190cm) and then you compare their built you see a tennis player and a mutant.

I have had enough of those "great athletes" who would typically not be that great like LA.

But yes, I still enjoy tennis and can watch with ..curiosity.

Murray was playing good even when he was just a skinny guy, it's just that today's game demands it. If you look around then it's only Fed who has not gone overboard with endurance or fitness. He has just played smooth to last for how many consecutive Qfs?????

I think Andy's plan is simple now and which is to peak for slam and that's what he is doing now. I will be happy if he wins at least one slam, whether physical or now, I think that he deserves one slam min.

wow3 wrote:Murray was playing good even when he was just a skinny guy, it's just that today's game demands it. If you look around then it's only Fed who has not gone overboard with endurance or fitness. He has just played smooth to last for how many consecutive Qfs?????

I think Andy's plan is simple now and which is to peak for slam and that's what he is doing now. I will be happy if he wins at least one slam, whether physical or now, I think that he deserves one slam min.

Starkovsky was also playing great while skinny. He is still skinny though but plays his game using his talent, same for Llodra and many others. I just wish they were all playing within the rules.

Yes Murray - and his team - will get a slam but that is not going to impress me in any way.

Did Delpo's USO 2009 impress you?

I like Llodra, haase and Dimitorv but today's tennis does not give them much scope to win. Dimi couldnt even cope with Gasquet's physicality at Wimby. Poor boy has no future.

wow3 wrote:Did Delpo's USO 2009 impress you?

Yes, Delpo is a player helped by natural power though maybe also using "unatural" substances but his stamina and court coverage is not what he banks on.

I don't automatically dislike those who beat Federer. I can see beyond that. It's just that Federer is by far the most talented player and most of his opponents have gone the physical route to blunt his talent and edge.

The physical display is obscene nowadays cause we know it's everything but natural. Again check the difference between Andy and Jaime. It's all there. Andy even says that Jamie is more talented than him. What's Jamie's single ranking? That's tennis nowadays in a nutshell.

wow3 wrote:I like Llodra, haase and Dimitorv but today's tennis does not give them much scope to win. Dimi couldnt even cope with Gasquet's physicality at Wimby. Poor boy has no future.

I think Dimi is stronger than Gasquet and certainly will be.

Let's face it wow, you support Murray cause he is British. Nothing wrong with that but I am sure if he were Spanish (and he got his tennis there) you would not be a fan, would you?

Erm, I am not sure that I would have disliked Andy if he was Spanish. I like berguera, barrastegui, moya, ferrero etc. I like Andy's style of play when he plays like he played against Milos. I didn't like his play against Lopez but I think he had some issues that day.

It will be futile to compare fed with anyone else because Fed is mighty fed and no one will ever compare to him. I said this before as well and sayig it again that Andy and Nole were similar until that Davis cup 2010. It was only after that davis cup win that Nole started to string better results. Nole also improved his fitness, gamewise and shotmaking there is not much difference between two. Delpo is different as he relied more on power and attacked. I liked Sod as well but Sod doesn't have much variety. He will be coming back soon.

And you probably know that I am not British by birth

Yes Murray and Nole were pretty similar bu one played the big matches looser, more rlaxed and with more guts.

Yes Djoko can outlast anbodybut his mouvement is more natural and though he is no shrimp, he hasn't addedtons of mucles as he relies on some form of flexibilty and timing to create pace.

wow3 wrote:And you probably know that I am not British by birth

Murray is only British when he wins

veejay

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Tsonga? nah.. Tsonga may trouble Fed but is easy meat for Murray's tactics.

You may be right. Two years ago I would have been certain you were right. But over the last year or so, Tsonga seems to have become more consistent. Also his RG match against Nole impressed me, and even Wimbledon against Andy was not entirely hopeless. Nevertheless, you may well be right, Tsonga certainly would have been heavy underdog.