posted Jan 18, 2007

Actually TOwens81, Kohlschreiber played a decent match, and tested Nadal, who really had to be at his best to close out the match.

I think most people's money would be on Nadal, but Murray needs to give a good account of himself whatever the outcome. Perhaps then the media in this country will finally realise (if Murray loses) how much work he will have to do to compete with Federer and Nadal who are at this stage a long way ahead of the field. Whether Murray has previously beaten Federer or not, I seriously doubt we will see that in a slam in the short term, Federer is a totally different player in the slams and ups his levels, as does Nadal. The British public and media blew Murray's win over Federer way out of proportion, it was suddenly a case of Murray will beat Federer, period. That is not the case. Following Roddick's defeat to Murray at Wimbledon the American has beaten Murray twice. So it's worth remembering that Murray is only 19, he has his strengths and weaknesses and has a long way to go yet in his career. If he does lose lets not shoot him down at the first opportunity, he hasn't even beaten Chela yet so lets just see what happens.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

On their day, anyone can get beat, usually that can happen to anyone, but one person who breaks this norm is Federer, and rarely in Grand Slams, he is at his most dangerous.

Murray played a ruthless display in round 1, and a scrappy in round 2, his form therefore, is still suspect, he got out of jail because he was the classier player and the opponent tightened up when he was in control and had the upper hand; Murray's power did not overwhelm Verdasco, more the other way around as compared to Martin, and against a high-ranked opponent who has as much fire and heart as he does - ie Federer and Nadal, that could be the crucial difference if he faces them.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

bitterrose. What makes you so sure Murray and Nadal will reach the fourth round? They both have dangerous third round opponents. It wouldn't be a shock for Chela to beat Murray, like he did last year, or for Warwrinka to beat Nadal.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

mikesiva. You say the winner of Murray/Chela/Nadal will play the winner of Blake/Hewitt/Gonzalez. What about Ginepri and Warwrinka? I think you'll find they're still in the equation. Blake should beat Ginepri but Warwrinka is a very dangerous opponent for Nadal.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

It doesn't matter how unbeautifully Murray won, just that he did. And it was still straight sets.

You just have to play well enough to beat the person you're playing.

Having said that, I think Nadal will likely be a match too far (and I agree that he could even lose against Chela again). But it's silly to say he has no chance of beating Nadal- Nadal's struggling a little as well at the moment.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

Straight sets is straight sets. Murry has played 1 less set than Nadal. Todays performance could have been a blip. 2 days ago everyone was saying how good he was doing. Judge him on the nxt match.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

Nadal may get past Wawrinka and Murray but he will be hoping he doesn't have to play Blake. Blake will exploit Nadal's backhand. Nadal is hitting the ball too short. An interesting match could be Blake versus Hewitt if it comes up. Nadal may need help from Hewitt in terms of eliminating Blake for him. I would be surprised if anyone usurped Federer though. He looks almost unbeatable, as usual.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

Federer is a machine - hardly ever has off days (more than u can say about Nadal)

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

I don't see what the problem is. Verdasco is one of the most powerful players on tour: if he plays well, you have no chance, if he plays badly, you don't have to do much. His form fluctuates so much in a match: Murray did well to capitalise on the bad spells and survive the good spells.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 18, 2007

Which also applies to guys like Tursunov, he gives you no rhythm whatsoever, it's no wonder Henman struggles against him. Watch out Berdych.

add comment | complain about this comment