Join TSR now and chat about whatever you’re intoSign up now
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Speaking of second serve speeds, Murray's second serve was much better in this match. The speed was almost always 80+, usually about 85mph.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TH3-FL45H)
    Better in 3/5 means better overall over 5 sets...
    Yes but the point is it was a sub-par performance and a gifted victory.

    I suspect this may be why Verdasco never reached the top because somebody like Nadal would have gone for the kill in the third.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatPerson)
    Speaking of second serve speeds, Murray's second serve was much better in this match. The speed was almost always 80+, usually about 85mph.
    Speed is only part of the story. Verdasco's second serves were brilliant and not just because of the pace on them. His placement was exceptional at times, whereas Murray still tends to be too safe with both speed and placement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    Speed is only part of the story. Verdasco's second serves were brilliant and not just because of the pace on them. His placement was exceptional at times, whereas Murray still tends to be too safe with both speed and placement.
    My point was, that just the faster speed was a big improvement compared to his previous match, where he was serving around the 75mph range, players like Djokovic will find that too easy to attack.

    Also, while there is still room for improvement, the second serve is meant to be safe.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sirocco11)
    It's possible - you can be the one forcing the play, being aggressive like Verdasco was and seizing the chances, or you can wait for errors and play passive tennis like Murray did today.
    Just because you were the more aggressive forceful player doesn't make you better on the day. Murray was playing a more rounded game and Verdasco was taking more risk because he knew that was the only was he stood any chance against Murray and it paid off for him especially in the first two sets
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Yes but the point is it was a sub-par performance and a gifted victory.

    I suspect this may be why Verdasco never reached the top because somebody like Nadal would have gone for the kill in the third.
    Or maybe Murray gifted Verdasco the first 2 sets

    See what I did there...........
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone see Janowicz' interview after his match? Guy was so choked up he could barely talk.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 419)
    Or maybe Murray gifted Verdasco the first 2 sets

    See what I did there...........
    Technically you can be right but i'd generally say that if somebody is sets up and then drops their level that they are the ones giving gifts. What's done is done but ultimately my opinion is that Murray got lucky and should have lost in straight sets.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Technically you can be right but i'd generally say that if somebody is sets up and then drops their level that they are the ones giving gifts. What's done is done but ultimately my opinion is that Murray got lucky and should have lost in straight sets.
    No he shouldn't have. He upped his game, Verdasco dropped. Ergo Murray didn't deserve to lose in straight sets otherwise he would have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Technically you can be right but i'd generally say that if somebody is sets up and then drops their level that they are the ones giving gifts. What's done is done but ultimately my opinion is that Murray got lucky and should have lost in straight sets.
    Your argument makes literally no sense
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TH3-FL45H)
    No he shouldn't have. He upped his game, Verdasco dropped. Ergo Murray didn't deserve to lose in straight sets otherwise he would have.
    This, so much this. How does anyone not understand?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 419)
    Just because you were the more aggressive forceful player doesn't make you better on the day. Murray was playing a more rounded game and Verdasco was taking more risk because he knew that was the only was he stood any chance against Murray and it paid off for him especially in the first two sets
    I would hardly say Murray was playing the 'more rounded game'. Look at the final set - he was just pushing the ball back into court against Verdasco with little pace. He wasn't forcing errors, he was waiting for them., He let Verdasco beat himself at the important moments.

    When Verdasco dictated, Murray was at his mercy, that's the truth; when his game dropped off Murray outlasted him in the final set. Murray spent the match about 20 feet behind the baseline and he wasn't even counterpunching to force errors. Overall was Murray good enough to win? Yes. Was he the better player on the day? No. It's a moot point we can argue over all day but that's how I saw it, and obviously a lot of other people in this thread agree with me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sirocco11)
    I would hardly say Murray was playing the 'more rounded game'. Look at the final set - he was just pushing the ball back into court against Verdasco with little pace. He wasn't forcing errors, he was waiting for them., He let Verdasco beat himself at the important moments.

    When Verdasco dictated, Murray was at his mercy, that's the truth; when his game dropped off Murray outlasted him in the final set. Murray spent the match about 20 feet behind the baseline and he wasn't even counterpunching to force errors. Overall was Murray good enough to win? Yes. Was he the better player on the day? No. It's a moot point we can argue over all day but that's how I saw it, and obviously a lot of other people in this thread agree with me.
    If he wasn't the better player, then he wouldn't have won.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Del Potro is a big threat in this championships. He's made his first GS semi-final since that US Open and may actually push on to even win this thing.His forehand and serve are firing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sirocco11)
    I would hardly say Murray was playing the 'more rounded game'. Look at the final set - he was just pushing the ball back into court against Verdasco with little pace. He wasn't forcing errors, he was waiting for them., He let Verdasco beat himself at the important moments.

    When Verdasco dictated, Murray was at his mercy, that's the truth; when his game dropped off Murray outlasted him in the final set. Murray spent the match about 20 feet behind the baseline and he wasn't even counterpunching to force errors. Overall was Murray good enough to win? Yes. Was he the better player on the day? No. It's a moot point we can argue over all day but that's how I saw it, and obviously a lot of other people in this thread agree with me.
    Maybe he was just pushing the ball back into play, but if that's working well enough to win him the match then why the hell not?

    Tennis is a game (unlike others like football and rugby) where the better player on the day almost always wins.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know when we will find out which of the semis will be played first on Friday? Would love to see a full Murray match for once..damn the old 9-5!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hayles101)
    Does anyone know when we will find out which of the semis will be played first on Friday? Would love to see a full Murray match for once..damn the old 9-5!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would guess that Murray's match will be on second, so that more people can watch it. (But obviously I don't know for certain.)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hayles101)
    Does anyone know when we will find out which of the semis will be played first on Friday? Would love to see a full Murray match for once..damn the old 9-5!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Murray's match should be in the evening so that everyone has time to get back from work and see it.

    Two cracking semis in store anyway, am really intrigued by the Djoko vs Del Potro match-up!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Still think Djocovich is the greatest player of all time, followed by federrer and Nadal in joint second (and i am a huge fedal fan).

    Verdasco played far better tennis today, and lost because of the errors he made, but credit to Murray for never giving up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    1 - Having a full time job is well annoying. Whatever happened to the old today at wimbledon which was like 3 hours long? This hour long is a joke.
    2 - Andy looks to have played pretty defensively from what I've seen of his match, but hey. Verdasco looked pretty good in the first 2 sets. I hope he can get it together a bit to get back to somewhere near the top 10.
    3 - I love Mac and Boris but I want to see Del Potro smash some forehands. Put it on BBC!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 23, 2014
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered sport threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.