Ruthless Murray stonewalls Latvian invasion

Caught on the back foot for the umpteenth time, Ernests Gulbis watched helplessly as Andy Murray rifled yet another devastating forehand beyond his reach and threw up his hands in frustration.

What else could I do, he seemed to cry out.

He had thrown everything in his arsenal – big forehands, dropshots, even two-handed backhand volleys – at the second highest-ranked player left in the draw, yet Murray had an answer for almost everything.

Countless times Ernests hit what appeared to be certain winners, only to have Murray come loping from out of nowhere to retrieve the ball: slicing, diluting the pace, and deftly capitalising on Ernests’ susceptibility to unforced errors by luring him into hitting that one extra shot.

“I can hit it once, twice, third time…” Ernests said. “Then I will make a mistake. I’m not consistent enough from the baseline to go into long rallies. He knew that perfectly well, and he slices very good. He didn’t miss it. I think it is the perfect tactic.”

It wasn’t that Ernests played badly: he showed occasional flashes of brilliance in sharply-angled volleys and painted the lines with penetrating forehands.

However, against the in-the-zone Murray, Ernests’ execution was just that tad sloppier, his aim just that little bit off, and his reflexes just that half-step too slow.

On any other day, against a less agile opponent, Ernests probably could have got away with the dropshots and serve-and-volley tactics that he attempted in this match.

Unfortunately for him, Murray’s reputation for having serve-and-volleyers for breakfasts was not for nothing, and time and time again the Scot wrong-footed Ernests, catching him stunned at the net only to blast a passing shot into the open back court.

However, Ernests appeared to have no back-up plan, and repeatedly resorted to the backhand dropshot despite the fact that it made easy pickings for Murray.

He confessed afterwards to being guilty of venturing to the net without fully fleshing out a tactic. “When I go to volley sometimes I don’t know what to do, and then the easiest thing is to make a dropshot.”

The statistics speak for themselves: Ernests scored 38 winners to Murray’s 36, but also committed 24 unforced errors to Murray’s five.

He might have obtained a positive margin of winners over unforced errors, but against a foe who was barely making any mistakes, that performance just was not good enough.

However, the problem was not merely a superior opponent on the day.

Several times in the match it was evident that Ernests had prematurely given up on a point, appearing to resign himself to the eventuality of Murray hitting a winner. Perhaps Ernests would be wise to learn from Rafael Nadal, who chases down every shot, believing that no point is over before it is over.

Despite his 6′3″ frame, Ernests still cut a small, forlorn figure against the vast canvas of the Centre Court audience, the majority of whom are willing on the lone British hope to break the hosts’ 70-odd year title drought.

Had Ernests beaten Murray, he certainly would have been the most reviled man in Great Britain today.

But he did not, and he could go home secure in the knowledge that that dubious honour is still waiting for somebody to lay claim to it.

After he lost to Rafael Nadal last year, Ernests walked off-court to thunderous applause by an appreciative crowd, sensing the promise of great things to come.

However, as Ernests strode away to a decidedly less optimistic reception 12 months later, his ranking down to No. 74 with the Cincinnati Masters quarterfinal points still to be defended, one can’t help but wonder if this is the beginning of his recovery or how far he still has left to fall.

Much ado about nothing

The British press will waste no time before rubbing their hands in glee and pointing out that Ernests should have known better than to provoke Murray days before facing him on Centre Court, in front of a home crowd baying for a British victory.

Much had been said about Ernests’ press conference comments regarding his match against Murray at Queen’s last year.

Ernests took the first set before Murray fought back to reclaim the next two, and Ernests said that the medical time-out taken by the Scot at 5-all in the final set broke his rhythmn as he “wasn’t an experienced enough player to deal with that at the time.”

The press, however, interpreted the remark as Ernests suggesting that the time-out taken by Murray was a deliberate stalling tactic, rather than a comment on his own shortcoming at the time.

Media outlets lapped up this potential grudge match angle and breathlessly jazzed up their coverage with the supposed ’score to settle’ between the vengeful boy from Riga and the home crowd favourite, Murray, who was purportedly ‘outraged’ by the unjust accusation of gamesmanship.

Unsurprisingly, the media appeared to have kicked up a mighty fuss about nothing.

Murray was not surprised when informed by the BBC during an interview this morning that Ernests’ comments had been taken out of context, stating that they talk to each other “all the time” and that the media had a propensity to blow things out of proportion.

“That took the edge right out of this match then,” exclaimed a BBC pundit, sounding almost disappointed. Welcome to the real world.

WIMBLEDON R2: (3) Andy Murray (GBR) def. Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 6:2 7:5 6:3

~ by Zahirah on June 26, 2009.