Toronto Masters 2008 Semi-final: Murray v Nadal

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: Toronto Masters 2008 Semi-final: Murray v Nadal

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, Murray breaks back, so 3-2 Nadal.

Never seen Nadal as annoyed afte rhe got a time warning and then served double fault to lose the game.

indiana · Tennis legend

3 all. Andy seems really back in the zone.

steven · Tennis legend

Andy lost 7-6 6-3. A shame, because he so could have won this match, but huge progress this week:

- finally beat Nole
- finally played really well in the match following a big win
- he would have beaten any other player in the world by playing as well as he did tonight
- had he been in the opposite half of the draw, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't be in his first AMS Final right now
- he channelled his anger perfectly most (even if not all) of the time
- he didn't let going a set and a break down faze him, even against a player against whom that's almost impossible to recover from
- he was toe to toe with Rafa, but Rafa just had the mental edge on him
- but Rafa currently has the mental edge on every other player in the world too

... and if you needed any confirmation of how well Andy played and how worried Rafa was, you only had to see the intensity of Rafa's celebration at the end to know what he thought!

If he can play like this more frequently and keep the intensity positive like this, he'll be right on the edge of turning the big three into the big four.

Having said this, he'll probably suffer a R2 loss in Cincy next week, but then at least he'll be able to get to Beijing with a fair bit of acclimatisation time - which is why there will probably be more shocks than ever in Cincy next week, though how you pick which ones they'll be, I don't know!

indiana · Tennis legend

All over 7-6, 6-3

Apart from when Andy seemed to lose a little focus for a few games and got down on himselfl for missing a few shots, from 6-5 in the first set and early in the second set, I thought he put in a really good fighting performance.

The loss of focus seemed to come just when he picked up some injury in his knee, which was a bit unlucky timing.

The old drop shot was working well when used, and since it was sparing was likely I felt to be more effective. Missed a few quite bad volleys though in the second set, when he had set up points with really good attacking play. Occasionally, he maybe had chances for a more aggresive shot, but in general he did play with a lot more aggresion, which is definitely the way to take on Nadal. Well, probably the only way to take on Nadal before he rallies you to death ! A few sumptious straight return winners of first serbes when he read them perfectly.

But when Andy plays like that, he's not far away from Nadal, and he must know there are things he can still improve on.

So, I think he should take away real optimism from Toronto. Hope the knee isn't too bad.

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

For the third time this year Rafael Nadal defeated Andy Murray in straight sets, but there were a lot of encouraging signs despite the 7-6(2) 6-3 scoreline.

Murray played aggressive tennis throughout, his double-handed backhand was on fire for much of the match, troubling Nadal both down the line and crosscourt. Andy also went for his forehand whenever the opportunity arose but the execution was sadly missing and ultimately it was this shot that cost him the match.

The first set was dominated by the serve. Murray's first serve percentage was low but the penetration was evident and he backed up his second serve with aggressive initial groundstrokes, striking several impressive backhands crosscourt that broke through Nadal's defences. On return Andy came up with the occasional inspired return winner but neither player had created a break point opportunity as they went into a tiebreak.

Having played some of his best tennis this year, Andy will have been disappointed by his form in the tiebreak. He failed to return two second serves, his forehand broke down and he lost the final five points, finishing with a double fault.

The first break points of the match came in Nadal first service game in the second set. A superb drop shot saved the first but Murray struck a routine backhand into the net on the second. Serving at 1-2 yet another forehand error proved costly as it presented Rafa with a break point and a backhand error handed Nadal the advantage.

But Murray kept attacking, a huge backhand followed by a drop shot got him to 0-30 and a rare Nadal unforced error gave Murray two break points. Rafa double faulted to let Andy back into the match. Serving at 3-4 Murray looked tired, four errors, two from each wing, as he was broken to fifteen. As Nadal served for the match, Andy saved two match points but put an easy volley into the net then a routine backhand error to end what had been an impressive display from the british number one.

In defeat Andy demonstrated that he possesses the weapons to beat Nadal but sustaining his level for long enough to be competitive, is still a problem. The Murray forehand has the potential to be a very good shot but right now the consistency isn't there and the error count was alarming. To his credit Andy adopted the right approach and genuinely looked like a future slam winner.

cpmax · Improver

Watched the match on bet365 live streaming (i have no intention of ever betting but the tennis streaming is worth it) and i though he played ABSOLUTELY magnificent. You watch and think he can indeed become the best in the world. After that i have no doubts that he has it what ever IT is to get there. It is a shame he was "injured" and that his forehand did let him down a bit but the amount of times he had Rafa on his own serve.

Just brilliant. This i think has been his best tournament ever after the last 2 rounds. The thing with Rafa is that he blocks more returns than most people realise and that if run around the court can be beaten. Also when to really go for the harder shots is something to really think about. With Rafa it is about timing.

-- Edited by cpmax at 04:06, 2008-07-27

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

I know you shouldn't make excuses, but I can't help wondering if the outcome would have been any different if Andy had been allowed to call the trainer when he wanted to. I understand Cedric Mourier's point that it should be before his own serve or at the end of a set, to be fair to the opponent. But Andy had just served; that meant he had to wait not just one more game while Rafa served, but a game AND a tiebreak. The knee problem was obviously hampering his movement - he moved much better again once the trainer had strapped him up - and I can't help wondering whether if he would have done better in the tiebreak if his knee had been attended to earlier.

Re Rafa's "hissy fit": well I agree with the AMSTV commentators - of course he is always called before a big point, because that is when he takes the most time!

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

Andy really needs to practice playing attacking tennis because the simple reason he lost that match was because when he goes for the forehand, especially down the line, his accuracy isn't anywhere near the level it needs to be. The forehand unforced error count was something like 25, and most of them were the same shot, big inviting space up the line, Andy goes for it and misses. The Murray forehand just isn't a top 20 shot; the potential is clear but right now it breaks down far too often and it was hardly a surprise that Nadal deliberately kept the ball away from Andy's backhand, instead inviting him to hit forehand down the line over the high part of the net.

His volleys are usually high quality but this time they seemed to let him down. He missed several that he should have made. Again he doesn't practice volleying enough in a match situation; especially serve and volley. Indeed even the superb double-handed backhand produced more errors than you might hope.

I seriously hope team Murray rethink their strategy because the current one is far too short term and just doesn't work. He needs weapons that are fine-tuned so that they deliver come the key points against the likes of Nadal. Currently, his attacking game sits in his pocket most of the time and then breaks down when there's an inviting space to hit at 30-30 on Nadal's serve with the match in the balance.

Andy certainly played well but he didn't show us anything we hadn't seen before and on the key points he failed to deliver, no break points saved, only one of three break points taken and that was a double fault, and a shocking tiebreak packed full of Murray errors. In some respects he was close to winning and in others he was a long way away.

Stop playing passive tennis Andy, regardless of the opponent, regardless of the situation, and then when you come to face Nadal next year or the following year, you will have the weapons fine-tuned to beat him. I seem to say the same thing again and again but it was clear to anyone who saw the match in Australia that Andy had the potential to blow Nadal off court yet he chose to go back to his safe, passive game that works well against rubbish opponents who hit the ball out of court if you keep getting it back enough times.

Time to see the big picture. To win slams you need to blow opponents off court. Playing defensive tennis most of the year then expecting to hit winner after winner against Nadal is just unrealistic.

-- Edited by kundalini at 12:51, 2008-07-27

steven · Tennis legend

Yes, I'm sure that's true, and we do keep saying it, don't we ... the thing is, he keeps proving it too (both ways round), so it's no wonder we keep saying it!

Having said that, he was playing great at the net for the first 2/3s of the match when he came in, it was only late in the match that the volleys started going astray.

One other good thing about last night - he drastically limited the droppers, which suddenly turned it into a good shot when he did play it!

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

Not quite sure what to make of the result, and have the posts about the match I've read say that Murray played fantastically well and would have beaten anyone else in the world, but the other half say Nadal didn't play that well but Murray just wasn't good enough to beat him.

I'll try and see some highlights of the match, but I'm going to tend towards Murray playing okay-good (like he did against Djokovic) but Nadal just being better than him, as the stats suggest Murray made quite a few unforced errors, and Nadal made more than he usually does, and didn't hit many winners at all, which suggests to me Nadal wasn't playing as well as he can do.

The point about Murray being too passive at times? The problem is Murray's natural game is that he is a counter-puncher and a bit defensive, so he will end up being quite passive at times (the thing is though, it works, and could well get him to the top 5) - example of this was against Wawrinka... Murray was playing very passively, but because Wawrinka couldn't keep the ball in play, passive tennis was the right tactics to play to win the match.

Kundalini's final point about having to blow players off-court to win slams... don't agree entirely, as Nadal doesn't blow players off the court... he grinds them down and beats them by not making errors and forcing opponents to beat him, rather than hitting plenty of winners and playing thrilling attacking tennis... you can wins slams by being defensive (Nadal, Hewitt, even Djokovic isn't the most attacking of players)

Does look like Murray played the big points poorly, as he didn't save a break point, and struggled to break Nadal, and played a shocking tiebreak, which is a bigger problem than his attacking game not working... if he'd played a better tiebreak, taken his break point chances, or saved some break points, he could have won the match.

Still, he reached the semi finals, which is better than any of us expected at the start of the week, so we can't really complain too much

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

Match stats (mine rather than official):

1st set:

Unreturned Serves: Murray 7 (4 aces + 2 first + 1 second) - Nadal 11 (1 ace + 5 first + 5 second)

Winners: Murray 15 (4 aces + two bh return + one fh return + 4 fh + 3 bh + 1 volley) - Nadal 5 (1 ace + 2 fh + 1 drop + 1 smash)

Forcing Shots: Murray 7 (5 bh + 2 fh) - Nadal 3 (2 bh + 1 fh)

Unforced Errors: Murray 19 (13 fh + 4 bh + 1 v + 1 df) - Nadal 8 (5 fh + 3 bh)

2nd set:

Unreturned: Murray 5 (2 aces + 1 first + 2 second) - Nadal 5 (4 first + 1 second)

Winners: Murray 8 (2 aces + 2 smashes + 1 drop + 1 fh + 1 return fh + 1 bh) - Nadal 4 (3 fh + 1 drop)

Forcing Shots: Murray 5 (1 fh return + 1 bh return + 2 fh + 1 bh) - Nadal 3 (2fhs + 1 unknown)

Unforced errors Murray 20 (11 fh + 3 volley + 6 bh) - Nadal 9 ( 3 fh + 3 bh + df + 2 pass)

I missed one point in the match so no idea what happened apart from Nadal won it.

Totals:

Unreturned Serves: M 12 - N 16

Winners: M 23 - N 9

Forcing Shots: M 12 - N 6

UEs M 39 - N17

Forcing shots are how I describe huge groundstrokes that the opponent just gets his racquet on but can't cope with the power, thus producing a forced error(?). I use the term winner to describe a shot that bounces twice before the opponent hits it, or never gets near to hitting it.

Nearly all Andy's UEs were aggressive shots, attempting to win the point or force an opening, very few were simple rally errors. The key figures are the 24 fh UEs from Murray and the 6 unreturned 2nd serves from Nadal.

Need to revise my system to show intent on UEs. Currently it doesn't distinguish between a fierce shot that just misses the line and an inept passive shot that barely makes it halfway up the net.

-- Edited by kundalini at 15:17, 2008-07-27

steven · Tennis legend

I might be able to shed some light on all that. I don't think those saying that Nadal didn't play well are being at all fair - he played a normal Rafa match and any signs of frailty (which were few and far between) were clearly a reaction to Andy playing so well - the Scot was really getting into Rafa's head at times, which is a very unusual thing to see, and Rafa's big celebration at the end, clearly rooted in sheer relief, said it all.

Also, Andy played a lot better than he did against Nole and the high UE count (very forgivable UEs for the most part) was because he was really going for it, e.g. for most of the match, Andy was really going for it (just the way most of us want him to play) instead of sending those nothing balls to just past the service line (mixed with a few dodgy dropper) like he sometimes does when he makes us despair. Also, for most of the match and despite another low 1st serve %, Andy's serving was spectacularly good - goodness only knows where he got that from!

The match basically turned on the fact that Rafa was intelligently attacking Andy's forehand, and Andy still isn't comfortable enough on that wing and Rafa's mental strength was better than Andy's when it mattered most. In fact, Andy was about as mentally strong as i have ever seen him play for most of the match, but Rafa outdoes every other player in the world in that department.

I'm always ready to have a go at Andy when he turns into Mandy Murray the Moonball Muppet, but for the people you've seen elsewhere to be writing that he only pushed Rafa close because Rafa wasn't playing well is rubbish in my opinion. Andy's not there with the big three yet, but his last two matches have shown that he's getting there, and this is the first time I can remember him having played more really good matches than mediocre matches over three consecutive tournaments and that's got to be progress worth celebrating.

steven · Tennis legend

Very interesting stats, kundalini - they nicely illustrate what I was trying to say in my last post. Some of those backhand returns were indeed awesome, leaving Rafa completely helpless. If Andy's forehand was half as good as his backhand, I'm sure the result would have been different.

indiana · Tennis legend

steven wrote:

I might be able to shed some light on all that. I don't think those saying that Nadal didn't play well are being at all fair - he played a normal Rafa match and any signs of frailty (which were few and far between) were clearly a reaction to Andy playing so well - the Scot was really getting into Rafa's head at times, which is a very unusual thing to see, and Rafa's big celebration at the end, clearly rooted in sheer relief, said it all.

Also, Andy played a lot better than he did against Nole and the high UE count (very forgivable UEs for the most part) was because he was really going for it, e.g. for most of the match, Andy was really going for it (just the way most of us want him to play) instead of sending those nothing balls to just past the service line (mixed with a few dodgy dropper) like he sometimes does when he makes us despair. Also, for most of the match and despite another low 1st serve %, Andy's serving was spectacularly good - goodness only knows where he got that from!

The match basically turned on the fact that Rafa was intelligently attacking Andy's forehand, and Andy still isn't comfortable enough on that wing and Rafa's mental strength was better than Andy's when it mattered most. In fact, Andy was about as mentally strong as i have ever seen him play for most of the match, but Rafa outdoes every other player in the world in that department.

I'm always ready to have a go at Andy when he turns into Mandy Murray the Moonball Muppet, but for the people you've seen elsewhere to be writing that he only pushed Rafa close because Rafa wasn't playing well is rubbish in my opinion. Andy's not there with the big three yet, but his last two matches have shown that he's getting there, and this is the first time I can remember him having played more really good matches than mediocre matches over three consecutive tournaments and that's got to be progress worth celebrating.

Having followed Andy's carrer with great interest, and also often being critical about quite a few things, I have to say Steven , after watching all of last night's match, I agree with practically every word of the above. That's what I saw and believe.

Re FD's point about playing the big points poorly, some truth in the relative few such points that there were actually in this match. Very few break points either way, and yes bad tie break, but there may have been extenuating circumstances around that time.

In general I have noticed a real improvement in Andy's break point statitics.

Currently, he is 15th on the ATP stats for this year for saving break ponts at 65% ( Federer is 66%, Nadal is 64% and Djokovic 68% )

He is 20th for converting breakpoints at 43% ( Federer is 42%, Nadal is 45% and Djokovic 48% )

Re his unforced error count, it must be difficult with quite a few of them last night to determine whether they were forced or unforced when you are dealing with intensity of Naadl's play. There were definitely some truellly iunforced errors when he wenr for shots but didn't make them ( but that's what we want him to try imore isn't it ? ). The commentators, saying "no problem" with these, on occasion, I think summed it up right. You live and die by the sword sometimes. I thought his absolute unforced error count was not bad at all, yes mainly forehand, but a few surprise backhannds into the net, and latterly volley problems.

A lot of what Kundalini says, as usual, makes a great deal of sense, but his general analysis would be much more pessimistic than mine.

I am more opotimistic than for some time that Andy is going in the right direction, and that his team will be aware of and work to omprove his problem areas.

But yes, more generally attacking tennis, and certainly not the almost totally passive approach that we have seen sometimes. However, I do think there is an inbetween when good opposing players are clearly having an inconsistent day, that playing % tennis and keeping the ball in court more does make sense rather than trying to blow them off court. I say "good" opposing players to distinguish them from really lower ranked players, who of coursehe should generally try to blow off court.