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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scapepower)
    I actually wanted Murray to win, but verdasco was far superior. In the fourth set, Verdasco could have won and taken it. In the fifth set too, but it was close.

    Verdasco played far better tennis, and Murray is more talented than what he showed today - maybe he played it smart and safe in the last three , who knows?
    Could've Would've Should've
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TH3-FL45H)
    Verdasco was superior in the first two. After that he wasn't. How did Verdasco play far better tennis if it didn't work?
    He played far superior tennis in the first two , the fourth , and the fifth was half half.

    His style of play was far more finesse, better to watch , and he didn't play to try and get mistakes from Murray , he dictated.

    In the end murray won because verdasco made unlucky errors and his level dropped.

    Verdesco dictated, and murray played to get mistakes from him.

    Verdasco's game was pleasing and direct, and murrays game was passive.

    Murray can do a lot better, he has a lot more in him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 419)
    Could've Would've Should've
    We can't eliminate the factor of luck and a home supporting crowd in sports. The best player even on the day often never always wins.

    Even Tim Henman agree's somewhat in different words.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 419)
    If so, why was he never ahead at any point in the final set or in any danger on been ahead.

    Pointless debating with you, it's obvious you've got something against Murray.

    Haterz' gon hate
    I think there was a very real danger of him going 5-3 (I think) up when it was 0-30 on Murray's serve.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    murray vs the pole in next round will be good, never heard of him before watched a match of him in the earlier rounds vs almagro he was unbelievable firing down aces and winner's from everywhere. Djokovic will win the slam, he was my choice at the start alebit he is ranked number 1.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scapepower)
    We can't eliminate the factor of luck and a home supporting crowd in sports. The best player even on the day often never always wins.

    Even Tim Henman agree's somewhat in different words.
    Can't argue with that...
    Offline

    13
    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.
    yup, totally agree :congrats:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    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.)
    I think the match orders go by seeds anyway, the match involving the top seed (djokovic) goes first just like it was last year
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 419)
    If so, why was he never ahead at any point in the final set or in any danger on been ahead.

    Pointless debating with you, it's obvious you've got something against Murray.

    Haterz' gon hate
    So it's come to this.You don't come around here much do you? The regular posters around here will tell you I don't have anything against Murray, in fact that I actually like the guy. Go find the posts I made in this thread about Murray around when he played Queens this year for proof of this. I rooted for him last year in the final against Federer and also in the US Open final when he won his first major.

    Even if Murray won, I didn't like the way he won the match and that's why I thought Verdasco was the better player - it was a very negative style of play which relied on Verdy dropping his level, which he did. Making a judgement about who was the better player in a match has nothing to do with whether you like a player or not.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    I think the match orders go by seeds anyway, the match involving the top seed (djokovic) goes first just like it was last year
    I didn't think that was the case. I think the committee just choose the order, although admittedly I'm not sure.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    I didn't think that was the case. I think the committee just choose the order, although admittedly I'm not sure.
    I was under this impression too. Although it probably doesn't much matter since they'll want Murray playing second for telly.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    For those saying that Murray was the better player and deserved to win i wonder if you'd be saying the same were the situation reversed, i rather suspect that like often happens there would be excuses made for the performance from Murray in this case.

    Imagine for a second that Murray plays well in sets 1, 2, 4 and 5 but very poorly in set 3. Now imagine that Verdasco was poor in set 1 and 2 but decent in 3, 4 and 5. Now imagine that Murray is 2-0 up and tanks in the third allowing Verdasco in going on to win the match in 5.

    Can you honestly tell me in this instance that you would not be saying "Murray tanked" ect...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can somebody post French open semi finals Rafa vs Nole 2013.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    I think the match orders go by seeds anyway, the match involving the top seed (djokovic) goes first just like it was last year
    The top half of the draw plays first I think, so in a way that means the top seed plays first, as the top seed is position #1 in the draw. So in a roundabout way, you're spot on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubi1)
    Can somebody post French open semi finals Rafa vs Nole 2013.
    Are you not capable of typing it into Youtube?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Past his prime Federer has probably been the best opponent to Djokovic since 2011. What makes people think that Djokovic is on par - or better - than prime Federer?

    IMO, in their primes, Djokovic > Nadal on grass and hard. Nadal > everyone on clay. Federer > Djokovic on grass and >= on hard and clay. Federer > Nadal on grass and hard.

    All in all, I give Federer the edge, and Djokovic and Nadal pretty much tied second (because of Nadal's clay dominance).

    BUT, bear in mind that we are currently in Djokovic's reign of dominance - he's won half the slams since the beginning of 2011. His achievements will rise the most out of the three for the rest of their careers (Nadal can only win on clay IMO, maybe one or two somewhere else).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    For those saying that Murray was the better player and deserved to win i wonder if you'd be saying the same were the situation reversed, i rather suspect that like often happens there would be excuses made for the performance from Murray in this case.

    Imagine for a second that Murray plays well in sets 1, 2, 4 and 5 but very poorly in set 3. Now imagine that Verdasco was poor in set 1 and 2 but decent in 3, 4 and 5. Now imagine that Murray is 2-0 up and tanks in the third allowing Verdasco in going on to win the match in 5.

    Can you honestly tell me in this instance that you would not be saying "Murray tanked" ect...
    In that situation (as this), I would say the player who began well did indeed tank, but the winner probably played better over the whole match. Verdasco might've played the best tennis in the match, but presumably made too many UEs to be classed as playing the better tennis. You could easily say he was unlucky to lose though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So excited that Federer is playing Hamburg and Gstaad. I thought after his shocking 2nd round defeat, that my summer is ruined in tennis terms, but Roger has salvaged it by adding these two tournaments that he is the favourite for.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    On the basis that Murray won more points overall I find it hard to justify how people are saying he wasn't the better player. Having said that, Verdasco played the more attacking brand of tennis and Murray will have to adopt a similar mindset if he is to progress any further. Djokovic is in a different league at the moment; it will take some performance to take him out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kbountra)
    On the basis that Murray won more points overall I find it hard to justify how people are saying he wasn't the better player. Having said that, Verdasco played the more attacking brand of tennis and Murray will have to adopt a similar mindset if he is to progress any further. Djokovic is in a different league at the moment; it will take some performance to take him out.
    Unless he makes the same mistakes that he did in the opening of the second set against Berdych
 
 
 
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
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
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.