Philisophically speaking, I would rather admire a sportsman or indeed anyone in a competitive field, for being good at what they do and a nice person to boot, rather than on the dubious platform of a shared nationality.
No he didn't. He won set 2. This was a real missed chance for Murray and I have to say, he completely bottled it. I saw the Berdych match where he was super aggressive, aimed for the lines, switched the play and the shots about and his serving was impeccable. In this match, he outserved Djokovic for most of it, but didn't put him under much pressure. He contented himself with winging the ball back to his opponent, dead centre of the court. Djokovic isn't the sort of player you play that game with and win. When Murray did play for the lines and made Djokovic run about, he was a lot more successful. Djokovic was very average by his standards and Murray would easily have beaten him on that form had he played as he did in the semi-final. Murray had loads of chances - after all, he broke the Djokovic serve I don't know how many times. What I think Murray really lacks is a never-say-die attitude which Djokovic possesses in spades. The moment things start not turning out as he would like, he tends to crumble. When things go against Djokovic, he just seems to harden up and get tougher and more determined. You can see that in the body language. Murray has the tennis and the awesome fitness and speed, but would perhaps benefit from Yoda on his team: "Do or do not. There is no try."
Think that accurately sums it up Glidd...Mentally, I don't think Murray has another gear. He let himself get upset with Djokovic and his real or imagined injuries. At that level, surely they are coached on mind games too?
Changing people's minds is very difficult. Some people have it naturally, some don't. Nadal and Djokovic are tougher mentally than Federer or Murray. Federer doesn't give much away, but he doesn't have the mental resistance of his two great rivals when the chips are down. You see him make increasing amounts of unforced errors. Like most sports, tennis is largely in the mind. The difference between being invincible and a loser seems to me to come down to a belief that you are invincible. If you have it, at that level, you will be. Federer was invincible, but now after plenty of defeats, he knows he might well be beaten. You can't always win with that knowledge. Maybe in tennis ignorance is bliss.
Interesting article in the current MCN (for once) about McPint using a 'head' coach recommended by Honda to help his motivation which had taken a dip last year.
Thought I'd do a touch of analysis to bear out my thesis. Murray does seem to bottle finals more than any of the current top 5. Of the top 3, all of them are less successful now in finals than they have been in the past. Federer has clearly slipped, Nadal is the one you'd most want your money on. Djokovic is clearly beatable in finals - not quite as cast iron as I thought.
