[Yamor]

I agree with you that Murray played brilliantly in the last two sets. All i was disagreeing with was whether Murray played worse in the first two then Gasquet did in the last two. I never said Murray didn't played better in the last two then Gasquet in the first half. Although, I'm not sure how much of either one's good play can be put down to the other ones bad play, so it is still debatable, IMO.

[measdale]

I'd agree with Yamor that the outcome of that match was mainly determined by how badly they played in spells, rather than how well they played in other spells.
Which I think is why the actual points went far more closely with unforced errors than with winners.

[Yamor]

One point to remember (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything here) is that winners and unforced errors can both be very misleading stats, since both can be hugely influenced by the other guys play. For example, if I'd play Murray, he'd be able to hit winner after winner, but that wouldn't mean anything. Also, Nadal can force a lot of players into unforced errors, so in such a case, the amount of unforced errors wolf not always mean the opponent played crap.

[Clydey]

One point to remember (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything here) is that winners and unforced errors can both be very misleading stats, since both can be hugely influenced by the other guys play. For example, if I'd play Murray, he'd be able to hit winner after winner, but that wouldn't mean anything. Also, Nadal can force a lot of players into unforced errors, so in such a case, the amount of unforced errors wolf not always mean the opponent played crap.

Agreed.  My point was directed at Measdale, though.  And my only point was that you can't say that Murray only played half decent in the last 2 sets.  He played some fantastic tennis and came up with some magical shots.