Paris R2 Murray defeats Blake 6-3 6-7 7-6 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Paris R2 Murray defeats Blake 6-3 6-7 7-6

william_renshaw
11-12-2009, 12:48 AM
Andy was really poor. Movement was poor, but worst of all, he seems not to have learnt from his errors in the last few months. Very defensive, hardly went for any winners, and probably deserved to lose. His traditional strengths (return of serve, passing shots, lobs etc.) really let him down. However, this having been said, he did serve exceptionally well.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 12:50 AM
Worried about his hip problem. Sort of needs to defend his points, though. Might be worth pulling out, having said that.

Junkyard Racket
11-12-2009, 12:50 AM
Andy was really poor. Movement was poor, but worst of all, he seems not to have learnt from his errors in the last few months. Very defensive, hardly went for any winners, and probably deserved to lose.

Nobody deserves to lose when they're playing Blake. ;)

scoobs
11-12-2009, 12:50 AM
Well you just can't get a full performance from Murray at the moment.

Serving was great - 22 aces and a good % first serves in, second serves not bad, and plenty of unreturned serves too.

But return game was very poor from the second set on, and his movement was not good - seemed to be struggling with the hip again at times.

Somehow he gutsed it out....like he does...but he won't go far in this event - even if he gets by Steppa, one of Gonzo or Delpo will take him down.

Johnny Groove
11-12-2009, 12:50 AM
Blake had many chances to win this, but screwed it up as usual.

Murray will need to lift his game for sure. I didn't know he had a hip injury now, was it from that fall in the 2nd set tiebreak or was it pre-existing?

His passive balls might not be destroyed by Sexy Stepanek in the next round, but Gonzalez or JMDP will in the QF.

Voo de Mar
11-12-2009, 12:51 AM
Blake has improved his extremely pathetic record in final set tie-btreak. What a loser...

osalsyst
11-12-2009, 12:51 AM
Blake was playing better than I've seen from him in a long time. I really thought he was going to take this one midway through the third. Hopefully he has a better season next year.

FlameOn
11-12-2009, 12:51 AM
James. :( I should've known it was too good to be true...

Steelq
11-12-2009, 12:51 AM
Murray is so bad it's not even funny.

seljanin
11-12-2009, 12:52 AM
A very bitter loss for James :hug: He played a fine match though and approached the net quite often with a good success (34/46).

Murray didn't play very well, was pretty defensive, but served 22 aces and did just enough to grab a win.

cocrcici
11-12-2009, 12:53 AM
Murray:) Blake :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Clydey
11-12-2009, 12:54 AM
Blake had many chances to win this, but screwed it up as usual.

Murray will need to lift his game for sure. I didn't know he had a hip injury now, was it from that fall in the 2nd set tiebreak or was it pre-existing?

His passive balls might not be destroyed by Sexy Stepanek in the next round, but Gonzalez or JMDP will in the QF.

Neither have beaten him on hard. Having said that, he's clearly struggling.

Geo
11-12-2009, 12:54 AM
if Murray is hurt, why is he playing? :scratch: that's stupid, especially since he'll want to do well in London...

Voo de Mar
11-12-2009, 12:55 AM
Blake was playing better than I've seen from him in a long time.

Me too but it's irrelevant in his case when it comes to the final set tie-break. He missed the ball at *0:1 from very easy position and actually it was over.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 12:56 AM
if Murray is hurt, why is he playing? :scratch: that's stupid, especially since he'll want to do well in London...

Probably worried about losing his ranking.

aussie_fan
11-12-2009, 12:56 AM
Blake's picked up his game a bit towards the end of the year, pity he still crumbles when it gets close.

Bascule
11-12-2009, 12:58 AM
The same as with Nadal. Murray played awful. Blake, brainless as always, didn't take his chances. Another mug. Next.

Voo de Mar
11-12-2009, 01:00 AM
The same as with Nadal. Murray played awful. Blake, brainless as always, didn't take his chances. Another mug. Next.

Yeah, Almagro and Blake are very similar though their on-court reactions are different.

RafitoGoat
11-12-2009, 01:01 AM
Blake is becoming a better player by increasing his net advances, I think he will do better in 2010.

Il Primo Uomo
11-12-2009, 01:05 AM
Blakes is such a loser. He should give his nationality back, not the mentality of a proud Yankee. SMH

fast_clay
11-12-2009, 01:13 AM
trademanlike performance here... no real worries...

Andi-M
11-12-2009, 01:14 AM
It wasn't that bad, Blake played quite well I thought and Murray did OK considering he's not quite fit.

His serve was excellent, but his returns :help: non existant, didnt use much variety in this match i felt or was it everything he tried he couldnt pull off lol, both this week and last the lob has been terrible 99% of his lobs end up being smash winners. sort out Muz :)

Voo de Mar
11-12-2009, 01:15 AM
trademanlike performance here... no real worries...

:lol:

Ozone
11-12-2009, 01:16 AM
Good effort from James. Sad to see this bad year come to an end though:bigcry:

RafitoGoat
11-12-2009, 01:17 AM
most tradesman a fairly unrealiable from my experience :D

RafitoGoat
11-12-2009, 01:18 AM
Good effort from James. Sad to see this bad year come to an end though:bigcry:

lol :p

philosophicalarf
11-12-2009, 01:20 AM
Murray wasn't that good ...... but then again he was nowhere near as bad as against Mayer and Gimeno last week. On top of that, the serve was huge today.

He could certainly have done with winning that 2nd set tiebreak though. 33 games finishing at 2am when you're physically ropey doesn't help, especially when Stepanek was basically given a bye by Troicki.

gulzhan
11-12-2009, 01:37 AM
So close :sad:

I don't like Blake, just picked him PAW to remedy not-picking Clement :lol: Who would have known I should have picked Bennet' :haha:

new-york
11-12-2009, 01:41 AM
James. :rolleyes:

Take these effin' opportunities.
That forehand miss at the beg of the thrid set tiebreak, just to make sure he loses. :mad:

Good luck next round Andy, pick it up.

betowiec
11-12-2009, 01:44 AM
well done Andy

Corey Feldman
11-12-2009, 01:46 AM
good win but he doesnt look a winner here

then again this tournament shows that the better player on the court is not finding the ways to win the match, so who knows what he could do in the next 4 days.

Byrd
11-12-2009, 01:46 AM
Blake should of retired today instead of Safin, big time clown.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 01:58 AM
good win but he doesnt look a winner here

then again this tournament shows that the better player on the court is not finding the ways to win the match, so who knows what he could do in the next 4 days.

The better player on court always wins. Bit of a misconception that there is such a thing as a lucky win, unless someone gets an endless series of netcords.

Topspin Forehand
11-12-2009, 02:10 AM
then again this tournament shows that the better player on the court is not finding the ways to win the match
Not true. Proof is the Federer/Benneteau match.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-12-2009, 02:26 AM
Too bad for Blake. It's usually about the time that he gets a lucky draw and keeps his ranking up by people playing injured and walkovers. Murray was as bad as I've ever seen him and still beat Blake.

kisen
11-12-2009, 03:15 AM
I think both of them played well. Murray's serve was great (his 2nd serve was weak as always).

pica_pica
11-12-2009, 05:53 AM
A bit surprised about the result.
I'd say "very surprised" if the Federer match and the Nadal match are ignored. What a day of tennis :cool:

Sunset of Age
11-12-2009, 06:21 AM
expected result. arriba. :D

jcempire
11-12-2009, 06:27 AM
no surprise

but a good game for both of them

zcess81
11-12-2009, 11:18 AM
Andy was really poor. Movement was poor, but worst of all, he seems not to have learnt from his errors in the last few months. Very defensive, hardly went for any winners, and probably deserved to lose. His traditional strengths (return of serve, passing shots, lobs etc.) really let him down. However, this having been said, he did serve exceptionally well.

That's his usual game, which works most of the time.

rocketassist
11-12-2009, 11:45 AM
Steps might just put him out here.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 12:11 PM
Steps might just put him out here.

Can't see it possibly happening. Not a good matchup for Stepanek, which is fortunate for Murray.

freeandlonely
11-12-2009, 12:23 PM
retire plz

MurrayFan1
11-12-2009, 12:25 PM
Dreadful match from both players. Apart from Blake was class in the 2nd set. The last few years he seems like he can only play well for about a set at a time.

Jōris
11-12-2009, 12:25 PM
Blake out and Murray through is a win both ways.

Nidhogg
11-12-2009, 12:27 PM
Good effort from James. He dismissed Murray's mighty second serve in style everynow and then. He also made his way up to the net quite a lot. Good to see.

scoobs
11-12-2009, 12:27 PM
Can't see it possibly happening. Not a good matchup for Stepanek, which is fortunate for Murray.
It is, but he'll have to return and pass a bit better today - Stepa will come at him and Murray was not great in his ability to dig up great shots on the move in this particular match. Stepa is also in some good form so it could be stickier than some of their past encounters.

sammy01
11-12-2009, 01:28 PM
this match was total stupidity, blake was giving less effort than usual and going for stupid return winners. murray's reaction to this was to go extra defensive. so you had blake swinging for the backfence and murray giving the linespeople trouble being so far back in the court.

the stat that showed how stupidly this match was played was murray serving 20+ aces, cus blake just wanted to rip a winner off serve or let it go past him if not in his strike zone.

10 years and blakes as big an idiot as ever, murray still has no idea how to counteract a player swinging for it, and even though blake was not playing well he almost pulled off the win.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 01:31 PM
this match was total stupidity, blake was giving less effort than usual and going for stupid return winners. murray's reaction to this was to go extra defensive. so you had blake swinging for the backfence and murray giving the linespeople trouble being so far back in the court.

the stat that showed how stupidly this match was played was murray serving 20+ aces, cus blake just wanted to rip a winner off serve or let it go past him if not in his strike zone.

10 years and blakes as big an idiot as ever, murray still has no idea how to counteract a player swinging for it, and even though blake was not playing well he almost pulled off the win.

How can you say that Blake wasn't playing well? He put in an excellent performance.

rocketassist
11-12-2009, 01:42 PM
Fed is the only top player who can put a guy like Blake away with ease.

sammy01
11-12-2009, 01:44 PM
How can you say that Blake wasn't playing well? He put in an excellent performance.

lol if you think shutting his eyes and swinging away at returns like he was playing baseball is playing excellent ok then.

blake played well off the ground in rallies and at net, but when you're a ball basher and your opponents plan is to drop the ball short and scramble for errors its going to make you look like you're playing well. even then he wasn't smart enough to make murray pay for playing into blakes hands.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 01:47 PM
lol if you think shutting his eyes and swinging away at returns like he was playing baseball is playing excellent ok then.

blake played well off the ground in rallies and at net, but when you're a ball basher and your opponents plan is to drop the ball short and scramble for errors its going to make you look like you're playing well. even then he wasn't smart enough to make murray pay for playing into blakes hands.

Murray plays for errors most of the time. How come other players rarely look good against him? Pretty sure Blake had a positive winners/UE ratio over the last two sets, when he played his best tennis. When that happens, it's a very good night for Blake.

Also, he was hitting a hell of a lot of return winners. He punished Murray more often than he missed on return.

Everko
11-12-2009, 01:54 PM
Fed is the only top player who can put a guy like Blake away with ease.

:rolleyes:

Olympics. Remember that match, fool? Or do you federer lovers erase all that from your arrogant memories

Okonsky
11-12-2009, 01:55 PM
Yaya:yeah:

Is Andy injured? As for deserveing victory I agree with all who said - one way or another every wins is deserved (injures excluded).

rocketassist
11-12-2009, 01:56 PM
:rolleyes:

Olympics. Remember that match, fool? Or do you federer lovers erase all that from your arrogant memories

:haha:

Vamos Egypt, keep these Algerian hooligans out of the WC.

Big deal, he lost once to Blake. Hewitt once lost to Henman you know.

sammy01
11-12-2009, 01:58 PM
Murray plays for errors most of the time. How come other players rarely look good against him? Pretty sure Blake had a positive winners/UE ratio over the last two sets, when he played his best tennis. When that happens, it's a very good night for Blake.

Also, he was hitting a hell of a lot of return winners. He punished Murray more often than he missed on return.

now im convinced we were watching different matches, or you were watching it high lol

Everko
11-12-2009, 01:59 PM
:haha:

Vamos Egypt, keep these Algerian hooligans out of the WC.

Big deal, he lost once to Blake. Hewitt once lost to Henman you know.

It was a big deal that loss. Federer wanted the gold badly and lost against the brainless bald basher.

Plus Algeria is gonna win Satruday. My life pretty much depends on it

Okonsky
11-12-2009, 02:02 PM
It was a big deal that loss. Federer wanted the gold badly and lost against the brainless bald basher.

Plus Algeria is gonna win Satruday. My life pretty much depends on it

So, your point is > Federer is/was crapy player and he just had been lucky one throughout his career? I guess next is ballerina tennis 'comments'.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 02:03 PM
now im convinced we were watching different matches, or you were watching it high lol

You didn't see the number of second serve return winners/forced errors he produced? Murray only won 49% of his second serve points, while Blake won 60% of his.

sammy01
11-12-2009, 02:07 PM
You didn't see the number of second serve return winners/forced errors he produced? Murray only won 49% of his second serve points, while Blake won 60% of his.

and this stunning returning resulted in how many breaks or even bp's for blake in sets 2 and 3. blake flashed the odd return winner as usual and murrays 2nd serve is a weakness yet he still won half the points on 2nd serve.

Everko
11-12-2009, 02:09 PM
So, your point is > Federer is/was crapy player and he just had been lucky one throughout his career? I guess next is ballerina tennis 'comments'.

No, youve made a wrong assumption. Good try though


I was simply answering Rocket's ridiculous comment that only Federer can beat Blake, when in fact he lost to him at the Olmypics and just lost to Benneteau

Clydey
11-12-2009, 02:21 PM
and this stunning returning resulted in how many breaks or even bp's for blake in sets 2 and 3. blake flashed the odd return winner as usual and murrays 2nd serve is a weakness yet he still won half the points on 2nd serve.

That's because Murray served at 66% first serves in for the last two sets. That's why Blake didn't create many BPs. Murray's first serve was on fire. Blake was absolutely taking apart Murray's second serve, though. That's why he won 51% of the points on Murray's second serve. I'm sorry, but the stats completely contradict what you're saying.

rocketassist
11-12-2009, 03:16 PM
No, youve made a wrong assumption. Good try though


I was simply answering Rocket's ridiculous comment that only Federer can beat Blake, when in fact he lost to him at the Olmypics and just lost to Benneteau

Haha I said he is the only top player who has an easy time putting Blake away, look how even Nadal, Murray etc have a hard time beating James when he's nowhere near the level of 2005 and 2006.

sammy01
11-12-2009, 03:17 PM
That's because Murray served at 66% first serves in for the last two sets. That's why Blake didn't create many BPs. Murray's first serve was on fire. Blake was absolutely taking apart Murray's second serve, though. That's why he won 51% of the points on Murray's second serve. I'm sorry, but the stats completely contradict what you're saying.

well i trust my eyes over stats anyday ;)

Clydey
11-12-2009, 03:26 PM
well i trust my eyes over stats anyday ;)

So in your eyes, Blake won less than 51% of the points on Murray's second serve? I trust facts over memory.

out_here_grindin
11-12-2009, 03:27 PM
well i trust my eyes over stats anyday ;)

eyes are biased

sammy01
11-12-2009, 03:46 PM
So in your eyes, Blake won less than 51% of the points on Murray's second serve? I trust facts over memory.

stats are very misleading a lot of the time. the 1st set blake broke murray, something he didn't do in sets 2 and 3, yet murray had a higher 2nd sereve points won percentage in the 1st set than sets 2 and 3.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 03:50 PM
stats are very misleading a lot of the time. the 1st set blake broke murray, something he didn't do in sets 2 and 3, yet murray had a higher 2nd sereve points won percentage in the 1st set than sets 2 and 3.

That's because he only served at 56% in the first set. And it was his first serve percentage that kept him in it in sets 2 and 3.

out_here_grindin
11-12-2009, 03:53 PM
For me eyes > stats as well.

Last Year Clemson had a QB named Cullen Harper, the stats said we was good. But every Clemson fan knew he was utter crap.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 03:55 PM
For me eyes > stats as well.

Last Year Clemson had a QB named Cullen Harper, the stats said we was good. But every Clemson fan knew he was utter crap.

I don't get the reference, so it's hard for me to argue against that point.

Eyes can be deceiving. You might think a football player sucks, but if the stats say that he scores 30 goals per season, you're wrong.

out_here_grindin
11-12-2009, 03:57 PM
I don't get the reference, so it's hard for me to argue against that point.

Eyes can be deceiving. You might think a football player sucks, but if the stats say that he scores 30 goals per season, you're wrong.

Well if someone scores 30 goals a year then they are certainly producing. My reference is a little more complex because his good stats dealt with completion percentage.

In tennis you can usually tell when a player is playing well without stats.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 03:58 PM
Well if someone scores 30 goals a year then they are certainly producing. My reference is a little more complex because his good stats dealt with completion percentage.

In tennis you can usually tell when a player is playing well without stats.

What sport is your first point referring to? I'm generally pretty ignorant when it comes to American sports.

out_here_grindin
11-12-2009, 04:00 PM
What sport is your first point referring to? I'm generally pretty ignorant when it comes to American sports.

It's referring to college American football, about my team that I watch every week, Clemson.
Sorry I shoudl have said that because I know in the world football means soccer.:p

Clydey
11-12-2009, 04:02 PM
It's referring to college American football, about my team that I watch every week, Clemson.
Sorry I shoudl have said that because I know in the world football means soccer.:p

Ah, I see. I couldn't even begin to break down American Football stats.

sammy01
11-12-2009, 04:02 PM
That's because he only served at 56% in the first set. And it was his first serve percentage that kept him in it in sets 2 and 3.

points won on 1st and 2nd serve by murray per set -

set 1 - 93% - 55%

set 2 - 76% - 47%

set 3 - 88% - 46%

now if you had never seen the match and asked to guess what set murray was broke in set 1 would be your last pick, yet it was the set he was broken in.

i always trust what i see over numbers like these as they tell you nothing about the actual match.

for me blake returned badly throughout and let some aces pass by that he could have at least got rackets on, he also went for broke way to often on 2nd serve hence only winning half the points on murrays weakest shot.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 04:12 PM
points won on 1st and 2nd serve by murray per set -

set 1 - 93% - 55%

set 2 - 76% - 47%

set 3 - 88% - 46%

now if you had never seen the match and asked to guess what set murray was broke in set 1 would be your last pick, yet it was the set he was broken in.

i always trust what i see over numbers like these as they tell you nothing about the actual match.

for me blake returned badly throughout and let some aces pass by that he could have at least got rackets on, he also went for broke way to often on 2nd serve hence only winning half the points on murrays weakest shot.

No, it wouldn't. You're not including first serve percentage. You can't get anything from those stats unless you know the first serve percentage. It was lowest in the first set and that's why he got broken.

Nice try, though. If you're going to break stats down, do it right. Don't omit key information in order to bolster your argument.

sammy01
11-12-2009, 04:19 PM
No, it wouldn't. You're not including first serve percentage. You can't get anything from those stats unless you know the first serve percentage. It was lowest in the first set and that's why he got broken.

Nice try, though. If you're going to break stats down, do it right. Don't omit key information in order to bolster your argument.

so you do agree with me then stats are useless without context, thank you. thus you firing stats doesn't mute my point as all stats need context. like a roddick vs ivo set with 7 ue's between them is because they don't have rallies to make UE's not because they played some all time classic set.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 04:30 PM
so you do agree with me then stats are useless without context, thank you. thus you firing stats doesn't mute my point as all stats need context. like a roddick vs ivo set with 7 ue's between them is because they don't have rallies to make UE's not because they played some all time classic set.

Without context? Yes, if you're going to use a stat without another stat that is required to provide context. You cannot refer to the percentage of points won on serve without supplying the first serve percentage.

For all anyone knows those stats mean that Murray won 93% of the points with 23% first serve percentage. It's completely misleading if you omit that information.

As for your example, the stats would show why they only had 7 UEs between them. That's why we have an ace count, service winner count, etc. The stats show how the points were won.

roberthenman
11-12-2009, 05:15 PM
Andy :yeah: