I am so proud of him. I'm disappointed he lost because he could have won, but what a fantastic match that was. Two great players going at it hammer and tongs and just leaving it all out on the court. If it had been Fed and Rafa playing that match it would be hyped to the max - some of the points and rallying from both players were outstanding.

When his first serve deserted him it made things really difficult for him and that's what cost him the match I think. He also didn't play the big points as well as he could have - a really low percentage of BPs were converted and when you play a guy like Nadal you need to finish the job or else they just keep coming back at you.

I think there's so much to take from this match - there is no doubt in my mind that Andy is a top 5 player right now, he just needs to find a way to convert that form into ranking points. It was the best match I've seen him play for ages - maybe Roddick at Wimbledon or Gonzo and the USO would run it close, but I think this surpasses all of it. He was so attacking and so positive and he volleyed great for the most part and it was only when he got mentally tired that he started throwing in the costly UEs at the end.

I hope he's not too down on himself - and I hope people don't make a big deal out of his fitness. I didn't think that was a big thing today, I just think Nadal knew how to play the big points and Andy didn't.

He will have certainly have alerted a few guys to his potential (if it were in doubt) after that performance. Just a shame he couldn't close it out for the win.

Just very proud of him.

As an aside - did anyone else mute the tele when Andrew Castle came on or was it just me? He really doesn't like Andy very much - and still hasn't got over the world cup joke. Jonathan Overend on Five Live basically called it spot on when he told an emailer to 'get over it, it was a joke'. Nice to hear Aucks was in Andy's box as well. 

I wish I could permanently mute Andrew Castle.

No, I wasn't quick enough on the button. Did you hear that rubbish he was spouting about the apparent problem Andy had with his side at one time? According to Castle, that was a psychological problem suffered by players when they are losing.

Hello!!!  I saw Andy first grimace and hold his side when he was leading by one set and 4-1. . .

In my opinion it was that problem, stitch or whatever it was, that caused him to lose the run of games from that point on, and thereby the set.  He didn't seem to overcome it until the second game of the third set. 

Thank you for the commentary Mkkreuk. It really bought the match alive for me reading through. So gutted that Andy couldn't take it the end, but it sounds like a fantastic game of tennis and hopefully next time Nadal won't be so lucky .

Top10 for Andy can't be far away so long as the consistency is there now.

It was to be expected, after this match, that the British Press would be full of praise. However it is nice to see international comment that is just as admiring; this is from Peter Bodo's column in tennis.com :-

Mornin'. Shortly after I rolled out of bed at around 8:30 this morning, I realized it was one of those days when you awake to a changed world, even if it's in a relatively obscure or minor way. Today, people see Andy Murray, the 19-year old Scot who gave Rafael Nadal all he could handle last night, in a different light. It's a cliche, I know, but sometimes the cliche is the most serviceable and accurate form of currency. Andy Murray has arrived.

That was my feeling as I ambled down to the restaurant at Melbourne's Hilton-on-the-Park for breakfast. A few minutes after I sat down with Judith Elian, an old friend and former tennis correspondent for L'Equipe, John Lloyd, the former player who now commentates for the BBC, came in. He cut a good figure, in his immaculate zip-neck, white Nike top and Rodeo Drive-grade suntan. He stopped by to say hi and of course I asked him what he thought about the Murray-Nadal match. He basically said exactly what I had been thinking:

I've been big on Andy since the beginning. I've watched him play and practice a thousand times, going back to when saying he had a big future often got you a raised eyebrow and a remark something like, "Yeah, he's got nice touch and he's versatile but he has no weapons. . ." Well, last night, he showed that he's got all kinds of weapons, it's just that he uses them as he needs them. Some of those backhand passing shots and forehand winners were hit as hard and sharply as anyone hits them. For a set-and-a-half, he had Nadal utterly confused with the way he mixed up his game and kept Nadal out of his comfort zone. But the strange thing is, as high as I've been on Murray, my feelings about his game and potential went to another level yesterday. This guy is going to win Grand Slams. Of that I'm certain.

Yep. In fact, deep into last night's live match-call experiment I wrote of Andy's prospects of winning Wimbledon that it wasn't a question of "if" but "when". Of course, there is this little matter of the people who need to get out of his road for that to happen, but its hard to imagine Roger Federer not having a hiccup or two somewhere along his grassy path. BTW, I did stick around for Andy's presser last night, and I also saw that a comment he made about hoping that Federer would be "gone" soon has gotten a few noses here at TW out of joint.  We all know that context counts, and trust me on this: there was nothing disrespectful or trash-talky about Andy's comment. It came in response to the question of whether or not we have a new rivalry (Murray vs. Nadal) on our hands. His answer was in two parts, of which only the second aspect is relevant:

I hope that I can get to a level where I'm getting the chance to play against him deep in tournaments. Still got a long way to go. When Federer's gone, which I hope is pretty soon (smiling), I hope we can play against each other a lot.

There was nothing dismissive or ill-intentioned about the way Andy said it, and the subtext is obvious: It's not  about me and Rafael; it's about The Mighty Fed and Rafa. Andy could have chosen a better phrasing, for sure, but, hey - it was around 2 AM, the kid has just played the match of a lifetime, and he's got the Scotsman's plain-spoken, direct-bordering-on-brusque manner. As an issue, there is no there there.

What Murray demonstrated last night was that there is a way to bamboozle Nadal, and I think the approach is also true of TMF, if to a lesser degree and in a different way. The key is a keeping Nadal out of his comfort zone - that is, doing things that prevent the match from becoming the tennis version of the Paris-to-Dakar rally: a headlong, pedal-to-the-metal race that raises a storm of dust and leaves the contestants grimy and soaked in perspiration. This involves putting him under pressure to make decisive, accurate placements, preferably from uncomfortable positions, before he can turn a point into a rallying contest.

Easier said than done, for sure. Which brings us to Part 2 of the equation, which is getting enough stick on the ball to put him under pressure, psychologically as well as tactically (a matter of forcing him to make decisions and even execute strokes faster than he would prefer).

You can't do that without having a nuclear option of which he is acutely aware: in Murray's shot vocabulary, that means using a big serve to which Nadal has to pay attention because it keeps him off balance, and having the Wilanders to pull the trigger and smack the winning placement on any shot Nadal delivers that has the beguiling character of a Trojan horse: Oh, Andy, here's a happy, innocuous little topspin backhand to the mid-court. Nothing to worry about, Braveheart, just say "Hi, little ball! and send it right back the way it came . . .

That's how Nadal lures so many of his victims into the abattoir.

Murray was having none of that last night. He played remarkably positive tennis, showing decision-making ability and creative use of the court beyond his years and experience. That he was able to execute at such a high level while treating break points like they were so many useless pennies destined to be left on a desk, unused, was intriguing. It spoke of both Murray's talent and his  inexperience. And in the late stages, fitness and strength became an issue for Murray, especially in contrast with Jet Boy, who appeared to become stronger as the match progressed. That's understandable: Murray is from the north, where people have not been softened and molded by the sun for resilience and endurance; he's more brittle than Nadal, but there is ample toughness - and different kinds of toughness -  to compensate for his smaller reservoir of stamina and strength.

With Nadal, what you see is what you get. But Andy is Mr. Unpredictable.

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/

Just a few points to make from watching the Eursport coverage, and the coverage on Spanish TV.

1) Matts Willander on Eurosport stated that he now thinks Andy has the best backhand in the game!

2) According to Spanish TV, Rafa has never lost on the tour proper to a player younger than him. (Though he lost to Gasquet in a futures/challengers event a few years ago).

3) Again, according to Spanish TV, Nadal has won every time that it's gone to five sets against Federer.

Anyone got the stats for Nadal losing a five setter?