Worst Masters Ever?

First topic message reminder :

I vote for Cinci 2011. Poor play. Boring matches. Not to mention retirements. Has there been a worse Masters?

done

I am not a Murray fan, but Imvho I think he is rather nice to watch: on super fast courts like cinci, or when he is meeting an attacking player (like say Fish). He's just not that exciting when: he plays a guy like Simon or, generally, on clay.

Q. to Raiders: Honestly you think Vilas, Borg and Wilander were all much more exciting players to watch?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N301&oId=MC10

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

One thing for sure Craig Andy wont give a "monkeys" what posters on ANY tennis forum say about him and for that matter neither will any other player.

Because he's an ignorant. If he wins a slam he'll be the most dislikeable winner for a while in my flawless opinion (probably close between him and Gaudio.)

Ignorant and you should know - Did you fall out of your pram when a child or are you just naturally stupid?

sportslover wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

One thing for sure Craig Andy wont give a "monkeys" what posters on ANY tennis forum say about him and for that matter neither will any other player.

Because he's an ignorant. If he wins a slam he'll be the most dislikeable winner for a while in my flawless opinion (probably close between him and Gaudio.)

Ignorant and you should know - Did you fall out of your pram when a child or are you just naturally stupid?

You basically admitted that Murray will ignore what others say about him, so I guess that means he knows he is unpopular, capiche?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

sportslover wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

One thing for sure Craig Andy wont give a "monkeys" what posters on ANY tennis forum say about him and for that matter neither will any other player.

Because he's an ignorant. If he wins a slam he'll be the most dislikeable winner for a while in my flawless opinion (probably close between him and Gaudio.)

Ignorant and you should know - Did you fall out of your pram when a child or are you just naturally stupid?

You basically admitted that Murray will ignore what others say about him, so I guess that means he knows he is unpopular, capiche?

Well not really.

I am sure if he read the comments here, he isn't going to lose sleep over them

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

sportslover wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

One thing for sure Craig Andy wont give a "monkeys" what posters on ANY tennis forum say about him and for that matter neither will any other player.

Because he's an ignorant. If he wins a slam he'll be the most dislikeable winner for a while in my flawless opinion (probably close between him and Gaudio.)

Ignorant and you should know - Did you fall out of your pram when a child or are you just naturally stupid?

You basically admitted that Murray will ignore what others say about him, so I guess that means he knows he is unpopular, capiche?

Read it again dummy - "posters on tennis forums" i.e. like YOU - capiche

On the contrary, Murray has a lot of support. It is just unfortunate that his detractors are extremely fond of the sound of their own voices much like the detractors of the other top players.

sportslover wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

sportslover wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

One thing for sure Craig Andy wont give a "monkeys" what posters on ANY tennis forum say about him and for that matter neither will any other player.

Because he's an ignorant. If he wins a slam he'll be the most dislikeable winner for a while in my flawless opinion (probably close between him and Gaudio.)

Ignorant and you should know - Did you fall out of your pram when a child or are you just naturally stupid?

You basically admitted that Murray will ignore what others say about him, so I guess that means he knows he is unpopular, capiche?

Read it again dummy - "posters on tennis forums" i.e. like YOU - capiche

Wrong again dummy. Clearly you didn't know there is a world outside of Scotland and England. Of course nationalistic Scots are going to like Murray no matter what he does. Most tennis goers/fans outside of Britain are not too fond of him, you only have to dig up a few video archives to see why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvzuRedS6sw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NhZbgx1vOg&feature=related

Congratulations on finding something negative. You must be so happy and proud.

Again there is a plethora of positive stuff that you have chosen to ignore and clear evidence of support for Murray in other countries. You will ignore this as well as you clearly have an agenda and won't let facts get in the way.

BTW, in case you are about to go into another xenophobic rant, please check my location.

CaledonianCraig, It is hard to believe that you are 42 years old . Or maybe you are but like sportslover suffering from lapses of memory loss. You all keep forgetting what was being discussed about (hint. Murray's aggressive play in 2011 and in general) and start bringing things that are totally different. Can you go back to my earlier posts and try to remember what exactly was the question I put forwards to you and your fellow Murray's fans. Answer that first then we can talk. See the way I answer to points put by sensible posters like laverfan. So be sensible and address that first. I have put many points and question for which none of the Murray fans have anything to answer. So they start group-bashing up a humble poster on things which I never even mentioned. I never said anything about what great talent, Murray has, how great or poor are his returns, how good or bad he is at drawing errors etc. etc. So why you bring those up.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Q. to Raiders: Honestly you think Vilas, Borg and Wilander were all much more exciting players to watch?

Honestly I didn't get much to watch Vilas, Borg, Wilander play in their best days. I saw a little in the early 90s, but I was too young that time to actually judge tennis more that what the stats would show. I look at the videos and they appear as great players, only not even close to the strength and stamina level the current players exhibit. Serve/Volley is enjoyable and exciting and so is baseline game. What is not exciting to me is an ugly match and a negative player also called 'pusher'. It not exciting at all to watch a player just playing to put the ball back in play and hope that he will be able to outlast the opponent in stamina and the opponent will make mistake and default him the win.

Nice try ROTLA. You started the discussion regarding returns / drawing errors etc. by inaccurately stating that Murray just waits for errors. This naturally led others to point out that his excellent returning skills create the errors in the first place.

As for the last two sentences of your final paragraph. I have never read such utter nonsense in my entire life. You are clearly in no position to "judge" tennis if that is what you conclude.

No genuine tennis fan would come out with such drivel. Everyone has their favourites but not everyone whines about other players. If you post in a more mature fashion you may get more respect.

So your not going to respond to the match of Murray's aggressive play I stated earlier? Or the aggressive play he demonstrated in the MC Semi's that laverfan alluded to?

Sensible? Or sour grapes maybe on your behalf.

Look at this way. Malisse for example is one the best ball strikers I have seen. Yet he makes countless UE's as he does not play defensive when it serves him to. So Would I much rather watch a rally with the ball kept in play or watch someone make countless mistakes????

I put that to all posters.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Q. to Raiders: Honestly you think Vilas, Borg and Wilander were all much more exciting players to watch?

Honestly I didn't get much to watch Vilas, Borg, Wilander play in their best days. I saw a little in the early 90s, but I was too young that time to actually judge tennis more that what the stats would show. I look at the videos and they appear as great players, only not even close to the strength and stamina level the current players exhibit. Serve/Volley is enjoyable and exciting and so is baseline game. What is not exciting to me is an ugly match and a negative player also called 'pusher'. It not exciting at all to watch a player just playing to put the ball back in play and hope that he will be able to outlast the opponent in stamina and the opponent will make mistake and default him the win.

Yeah. I understand your point of view. You probably started watching tennis at the end of the eighties when Edberg and backer took over the "old guard" of the Wilanders and Lendls. I admit that was an exciting time, being myself a great fan of Edberg I have enjoyed that era more than any other period in modern tennis history. Also in that period the game really sped up, and thanks to new materials and technical improvements it became possible to hit winners from the back of the court, thing hard to do before.

I saw very little of Vilas and Borg but a lot of Wilander : but I remember very well the context in which they could thrive and know well the novelty they introduced in tennis: defensive baseline style based on spin, high balls and outstanding physical preparation. Prior to them tennis was much more a matter of touch, serve and volley and short sliced balls. After them it became:: 40 plus shots baseline rallies, 4+ hrs of matches and the survival of the fitter style of the game. For instance Borg was one of the first great player to adopt a DHBH.

legendkillar wrote:So your not going to respond to the match of Murray's aggressive play I stated earlier? Or the aggressive play he demonstrated in the MC Semi's that laverfan alluded to?

Sensible? Or sour grapes maybe on your behalf.

Look at this way. Malisse for example is one the best ball strikers I have seen. Yet he makes countless UE's as he does not play defensive when it serves him to. So Would I much rather watch a rally with the ball kept in play or watch someone make countless mistakes????

I put that to all posters.

I don't mind tactical players at all, Tomic played that role well against Malisse and Nole for a while on the grass, it's just annoying when some players choose to allow the aggresive player to dictate the outcome which has cost Andy several times against Nadal, Nole and Federer. He lost because he chose to be a passive player, when he was capable of playing much more inspired tennis and putting them under pressure. Lets not lie, had he tried to play aggresively from the baseline he could have won a slam or two already, thats how good he can be.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillar wrote:So your not going to respond to the match of Murray's aggressive play I stated earlier? Or the aggressive play he demonstrated in the MC Semi's that laverfan alluded to?

Sensible? Or sour grapes maybe on your behalf.

Look at this way. Malisse for example is one the best ball strikers I have seen. Yet he makes countless UE's as he does not play defensive when it serves him to. So Would I much rather watch a rally with the ball kept in play or watch someone make countless mistakes????

I put that to all posters.

I don't mind tactical players at all, Tomic played that role well against Malisse and Nole for a while on the grass, it's just annoying when some players choose to allow the aggresive player to dictate the outcome which has cost Andy several times against Nadal, Nole and Federer. He lost because he chose to be a passive player, when he was capable of playing much more inspired tennis and putting them under pressure. Lets not lie, had he tried to play aggresively from the baseline he could have won a slam or two already, thats how good he can be.

Fully agree with your post sir. Sometimes in matches he plays aggressive far too late when the momentum in matches have swung the other way.

legendkillar wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillar wrote:So your not going to respond to the match of Murray's aggressive play I stated earlier? Or the aggressive play he demonstrated in the MC Semi's that laverfan alluded to?

Sensible? Or sour grapes maybe on your behalf.

Look at this way. Malisse for example is one the best ball strikers I have seen. Yet he makes countless UE's as he does not play defensive when it serves him to. So Would I much rather watch a rally with the ball kept in play or watch someone make countless mistakes????

I put that to all posters.

I don't mind tactical players at all, Tomic played that role well against Malisse and Nole for a while on the grass, it's just annoying when some players choose to allow the aggresive player to dictate the outcome which has cost Andy several times against Nadal, Nole and Federer. He lost because he chose to be a passive player, when he was capable of playing much more inspired tennis and putting them under pressure. Lets not lie, had he tried to play aggresively from the baseline he could have won a slam or two already, thats how good he can be.

Fully agree with your post sir. Sometimes in matches he plays aggressive far too late when the momentum in matches have swung the other way.

He is definitely guilty of that - a shame because he is capable of incredible play.

raiders_of_the_lost_of_ark wrote:I'm not focussed on slams alone. I metion WTF as well. I basically focus on great performances and not ugly wins.

I can see why LK has issues with some of your comments. USO 2008, AO 2010, Canada 2010, Shanghai 2010, WTF 2010, MC 2011, FO 2011 are great performances, in some cases without a title.

raiders_of_the_lost_of_ark wrote:but it wasn't like the current aura of invincibility which he has now, existed even at AO 2011.

You may want to add the DC win for Serbia into the equation. 57-2 or 8-0 are just numbers, the confidence factor does not have a quantitative measure.

raiders_of_the_lost_of_ark wrote:I have strong dislike for his attitude on court, his playing style and his constant harping of "I am still young and I have time to win majors".

The dislike is where Murray fans have an objection. As I stated, we should discuss a player who you like, rather than someone you dislike.

Let me give you an example, I watched Pancho Gonzalez, and watching his philandering, his anger and his condescension towards fellow players, smashing trophies in locker rooms, screaming across the net (in contrast, McEnroe should be considered an angel). I used to 'dislike' him. Watching him play was absolute Tennis heaven though. It took me a couple of years to appreciate the entire 'package' that was Pancho. There was no separating his Tennis skills from his persona (almost my way or highway type situation). He was playing competitive tennis till the age of 43, an amazing player.

raiders_of_the_lost_of_ark wrote:It seems like its impossible for him to raise his level to win, so rather he will wait patiently for the top guys to decline which they will with age and Andy can make merry.

You are contradicting yourself, there are many examples of 'great' performances, which your dislike for Murray, may inhibit you from appreciating.

raiders_of_the_lost_of_ark wrote:But I doubt even with this strategy he will because there are better players who have already overtaken Murray ( Djo's rise in 2011 is the case).

Is he still not #4? Djokovic has gone from a #3 to #1. You yourself document the decline of the two previous #1s (Fedal), so the pecking order has been re-arranged, but no catastrophic upheavals.

raiders_of_the_lost_of_ark wrote:Federer has been in decline since 2008 itself.

You should also consider match-ups here. Murray and Nadal are bad match-ups for Federer, but Djokovic is not. Even FO 2011 against Djokovic (with his aura of invincibility) did not alleviate the beating from Federer.

Excellent post laverfan

Interesting debate about Murray's style of play. I personally really like watching him most of the time. I'd go for variety every day over someone who just hits the thing as hard as they can. I like his mix of slices and drop shots. Court coverage and defending are skills as well, and ones which Murray does exceptionally well.

Yes, he could be more aggressive more often. Like that first set at SW19 this year, or the WTF semi in London last december, or against Fed and Nadal in Toronto 2010.... But thats not to say his style isn't enjoyable now.

Lets be honest, we're talking fine margins here. Had he not froze in the 3 slam finals he's reached then we could be talking about a multi slam winner NOW. Those final losses may have as much to do with nerves as anything else. I think having won the last master eveny Murray has a really good chance in New York. I said before it that he needed a good run and to beat one of the top guys to get himself back in contention for the open. He did both, and won the title. If he serves well, he won't be far off.

I would like to see him be a little more pro-active, but not completely change his game. It is possible to dictate with a low level of risk. I would like to see his depth become a bit more consistent... But I think Murray's game could win many slams as it is if that first serve percentage could be regularly between 65% - 70%. Whether thats possible with the way he serves i don't know...

Cracking post LF, but I feel it is wasted with someone who no doubt will choose to either argue or just ignore what you have presented. I appreciated that post as would most tennis fans

As for having "a strong dislike of his attitude"....

This is professional sport, not Big Brother. I like Murray and couldn't care less about his occasional strop. He's trying to extract the best out of himself.

The attitude is one of a top sportsman, albeit more vocal than most. This argument and the other favourite 'don't like his personality' I find bizarre... None of us know him!!

laverfan

"Let me give you an example, I watched Pancho Gonzalez, and watching his philandering, his anger and his condescension towards fellow players, smashing trophies in locker rooms, screaming across the net (in contrast, McEnroe should be considered an angel). I used to 'dislike' him. Watching him play was absolute Tennis heaven though. It took me a couple of years to appreciate the entire 'package' that was Pancho. There was no separating his Tennis skills from his persona (almost my way or highway type situation). He was playing competitive tennis till the age of 43, an amazing player."

This is interesting

Do you think that tennis fans choose who to cheer for based on purely tennis skills or is it a mixture of tennis skills and personality (or perhaps nationality). It could even be that judgements about personality affect how tennis skills are judged.

If we "like" someone is our judgement to be trusted?

Gonzalez must have been an amazing player. If he was as bad as you say it makes me wonder if I would have cheered for his opponant. During the years when you didn't "appreciate the entire 'package' that was Pancho" can you remember if you thought he was as skillful as you did later and no doubt do now?

Danny_1982 wrote:As for having "a strong dislike of his attitude"....

This is professional sport, not Big Brother. I like Murray and couldn't care less about his occasional strop. He's trying to extract the best out of himself.

The attitude is one of a top sportsman, albeit more vocal than most. This argument and the other favourite 'don't like his personality' I find bizarre... None of us know him!!

Idiots who don't like a tennis player because of 'personality' just don't like tennis period. Those type of people probably were never good at sport in the first place, hence they bring up another topic to attack a sportsman!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:As for having "a strong dislike of his attitude"....

This is professional sport, not Big Brother. I like Murray and couldn't care less about his occasional strop. He's trying to extract the best out of himself.

The attitude is one of a top sportsman, albeit more vocal than most. This argument and the other favourite 'don't like his personality' I find bizarre... None of us know him!!

Idiots who don't like a tennis player because of 'personality' just don't like tennis period. Those type of people probably were never good at sport in the first place, hence they bring up another topic to attack a sportsman!

JM I'm confused now. In an earlier post you said 'Because he's an ignorant. If he wins a slam he'll be the most dislikeable winner for a while in my flawless opinion (probably close between him and Gaudio.)'. Does that make you an idiot ?

Not because of his personality, he's dislikeable because of his game you plank, Gaudio also had a dislikeable game and was the flukiest slam winner ever I see that you and sportslover keep having digs.... but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz7ifClpT4g

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Not because of his personality, he's dislikeable because of his game you plank, Gaudio also had a dislikeable game and was the flukiest slam winner ever I see that you and sportslover keep having digs.... but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz7ifClpT4g

Not having digs but pointing out facts. I did not say that he was ignorant you did. Being ignorant is a personality trait that has nothing to do with his game. Think you tying yourself in knots here.

sportslover said Murray doesn't care what anyone thinks, so I said that's because he's ignorant (he ignored John Lloyd when asked about his Davis Cup participation.)

Just a straightforward reply to an easy question. I never said I know every inch of his personality did I? Next?

Must admit I didn't see Gaudio much and understand that he was only really a clay court player as all of his titles were won on that surface. Therefore his only chance of wining a major was FO. Don't know if his GS win was a lucky win or not. The fact that Murray has now now been at least the semis of all GS tournaments and has won titles on various surfaces (I know not clay yet) would not in my opinion make him flukey if he were to win a Slam.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:sportslover said Murray doesn't care what anyone thinks, so I said that's because he's ignorant (he ignored John Lloyd when asked about his Davis Cup participation.)

Just a straightforward reply to an easy question. I never said I know every inch of his personality did I? Next?

How stupid are you or are you just incapable of reading correctly?

Once again:

One thing for sure Craig Andy wont give a "monkeys" what posters on ANY tennis forum say about him and for that matter neither will any other player.

Any poster on any forum who thinks that their post carries any weight in the "real world" are seriously deluded.

Who were you on the old 606?

I'm sure if everyone met face to face there would be a whole lot more love in the air ...

sportslover wrote:Who were you on the old 606?

Humm interesting, my pick is TITN but I am not so sure on this one

laverfan wrote: I can see why LK has issues with some of your comments. USO 2008, AO 2010, Canada 2010, Shanghai 2010, WTF 2010, MC 2011, FO 2011 are great performances, in some cases without a title.

You are using the word 'great' so easily that it is losing its value. Then this was if you use the word 'great' for Some of Murray's performances without a match win or a title then I don't know for how many players you'll have to keep using the word 'great' because if you look that way there there are many many players who produce 'great' performances but without titles or even wins. So this way all the players in their entire career time will end up having at least a handful of 'great' performances. Use the word 'good' but 'great' is something much much above.

There is a Murray fan in CC who is arguing that winning is the ultimate thing and performance doesn't matter at all. So this way 5 out of 7 tournaments you mentioned become meaningless because Andy didn't win those. Of course I don't agree with CC on this ( read my comment of that post) and I hope you too won't.

laverfan wrote: You may want to add the DC win for Serbia into the equation. 57-2 or 8-0 are just numbers, the confidence factor does not have a quantitative measure.

Agree you can't measure confidence in terms of units, but still "more confident" "less confident" are valid measurements, aren't they? So do you want to say that the Djo had the same level of confidence at the wimbledon 2011 final against Nadal as he had against Murray at the AO 2011 finals? I don't think so. He was far far ....far more confident at wimby finals, the confidence he gained by winning so many matches, masters finals against Nadal ( he had never won a final against Nadal before these wins), and 3 consequtive wins against Federer and wins against Murray in the Rome semis where he was facing defeat when Murray served for the match and few more times when he was able to pull out a win from a very tough position ( e.g. against Bellucci in Madrid ). Winning those tough matches made him feel like he just can't lose at all. This all is what developed his current 'aura' of invincibility that most of the matches are won in the locker room itself. players find it tough to believe that it is possible to beat Djo, even if they perform brilliant. Now do you want to still say the Djo was just as confident in the AO 2011 finals. Not really. And how would he be highly confident against Murray? prior to this meeting Murray defeated Djo 3 consecutive times on hard courts . Djo had a tough and huge win over Federer in semis, its tough to come out again and produce the same kind of performance the next time. Players often feel too overwhelmed with a win like that. Do I have to examples to elaborate this? Not needed as there are far too many occassions when after a huge win, the player lost very easily in the next match. And its even tougher if the next match is a final against a top-4 player like Andy to whom he has a losing record in recent times ( 3 consecutive losses).

laverfan wrote: The dislike is where Murray fans have an objection. As I stated, we should discuss a player who you like, rather than someone you dislike.

My dislike for Murray has mainly got to do with his playing style. I might have been also okay, if he had show good on court attitude or personality and had stopped the "I am young still.." thing.

laverfan wrote:
You are contradicting yourself, there are many examples of 'great' performances, which your dislike for Murray, may inhibit you from appreciating.

I think I already answered this. 'good' but 'great' something still far.

laverfan wrote:
Is he still not #4? Djokovic has gone from a #3 to #1. You yourself document the decline of the two previous #1s (Fedal), so the pecking order has been re-arranged, but no catastrophic upheavals.

Yes he is #4. Djo has gone from #3 to #1 doesn't necessarily mean so will Andy. And Andy can't even wait for Djo fall due to age because he himself is about the same age. I didn't say Nadal was in decline, I said about Federer which was inevitable with age and having played so many years and with a young family he at times lacks the desire and determination which is needed to win big. There are no clear evidence for Nadal's decline. Its rather Djokovic who has stepped ahead. Nadal is still at his own peak level. Only the aura of invincibility he had last year this time, has moved on to Djokovic now.

laverfan wrote:

You should also consider match-ups here. Murray and Nadal are bad match-ups for Federer, but Djokovic is not. Even FO 2011 against Djokovic (with his aura of invincibility) did not alleviate the beating from Federer.

If there is a bad match-up for Federer it is no one other than Nadal and it works the mainly on clay with high bouncing heavy spinning cross court forehands that bounces the ball over the shoulder for Federer's SHBH. Compared to Murray, Nalbandian when fit is a much better match for Federer. Murray wins agaist Federer are mostly ugly matches with many UEs and break of serves. Federer lost those mainly, rather than Murray winning. I say this despite even now with the losing h-2-h Federer when ever wins against Murray, they are absolute crushing performance. Its almost like Federer can win against Murray anytime he wants to. I felt his best win against Federer was the Shanghai Masters 2010 final, it was an impressive performance from Murray indeed. But like I said its not fair to compare a guy nearing his 30s ( till last year when Murray and Fed met) to some much younger.

Raider makes some good points, certainly Novak has grown over the course of the year and is playing more confidently now than he was earlier in the year. And it can be frustrating to watch when Murray plays his defensive style and tries to win matches by extracting errors from the opposition solely. As time goes by I think he will find that this strategy has diminishing returns and that as he gets older he will not be able to play that way.

But I have seen murray play great aggressive tennis before for stretches and to even execute his counterpunching style in an enjoyable manner where he maintains some balance between attack and defend. The Shanghai semi against Nadal was one of the best matches I have ever seen, as was the Rome semi with Djoko this year. He can do some dazzling things on the tennis court he just seems to not be able to consistently produce enough controlled aggression in the big matches. To say that Andy only wins with negative play I think is a bit of an overgeneralization, although he does do his best Giles Simon impersonation too often for my tastes.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: I can see why LK has issues with some of your comments. USO 2008, AO 2010, Canada 2010, Shanghai 2010, WTF 2010, MC 2011, FO 2011 are great performances, in some cases without a title.

You are using the word 'great' so easily that it is losing its value. Then this was if you use the word 'great' for Some of Murray's performances without a match win or a title then I don't know for how many players you'll have to keep using the word 'great' because if you look that way there there are many many players who produce 'great' performances but without titles or even wins. So this way all the players in their entire career time will end up having at least a handful of 'great' performances. Use the word 'good' but 'great' is something much much above.

There is a Murray fan in CC who is arguing that winning is the ultimate thing and performance doesn't matter at all. So this way 5 out of 7 tournaments you mentioned become meaningless because Andy didn't win those. Of course I don't agree with CC on this ( read my comment of that post) and I hope you too won't.

laverfan wrote: You may want to add the DC win for Serbia into the equation. 57-2 or 8-0 are just numbers, the confidence factor does not have a quantitative measure.

Agree you can't measure confidence in terms of units, but still "more confident" "less confident" are valid measurements, aren't they? So do you want to say that the Djo had the same level of confidence at the wimbledon 2011 final against Nadal as he had against Murray at the AO 2011 finals? I don't think so. He was far far ....far more confident at wimby finals, the confidence he gained by winning so many matches, masters finals against Nadal ( he had never won a final against Nadal before these wins), and 3 consequtive wins against Federer and wins against Murray in the Rome semis where he was facing defeat when Murray served for the match and few more times when he was able to pull out a win from a very tough position ( e.g. against Bellucci in Madrid ). Winning those tough matches made him feel like he just can't lose at all. This all is what developed his current 'aura' of invincibility that most of the matches are won in the locker room itself. players find it tough to believe that it is possible to beat Djo, even if they perform brilliant. Now do you want to still say the Djo was just as confident in the AO 2011 finals. Not really. And how would he be highly confident against Murray? prior to this meeting Murray defeated Djo 3 consecutive times on hard courts . Djo had a tough and huge win over Federer in semis, its tough to come out again and produce the same kind of performance the next time. Players often feel too overwhelmed with a win like that. Do I have to examples to elaborate this? Not needed as there are far too many occassions when after a huge win, the player lost very easily in the next match. And its even tougher if the next match is a final against a top-4 player like Andy to whom he has a losing record in recent times ( 3 consecutive losses).

laverfan wrote: The dislike is where Murray fans have an objection. As I stated, we should discuss a player who you like, rather than someone you dislike.

My dislike for Murray has mainly got to do with his playing style. I might have been also okay, if he had show good on court attitude or personality and had stopped the "I am young still.." thing.

laverfan wrote:
You are contradicting yourself, there are many examples of 'great' performances, which your dislike for Murray, may inhibit you from appreciating.

I think I already answered this. 'good' but 'great' something still far.

laverfan wrote:
Is he still not #4? Djokovic has gone from a #3 to #1. You yourself document the decline of the two previous #1s (Fedal), so the pecking order has been re-arranged, but no catastrophic upheavals.

Yes he is #4. Djo has gone from #3 to #1 doesn't necessarily mean so will Andy. And Andy can't even wait for Djo fall due to age because he himself is about the same age. I didn't say Nadal was in decline, I said about Federer which was inevitable with age and having played so many years and with a young family he at times lacks the desire and determination which is needed to win big. There are no clear evidence for Nadal's decline. Its rather Djokovic who has stepped ahead. Nadal is still at his own peak level. Only the aura of invincibility he had last year this time, has moved on to Djokovic now.

laverfan wrote:

You should also consider match-ups here. Murray and Nadal are bad match-ups for Federer, but Djokovic is not. Even FO 2011 against Djokovic (with his aura of invincibility) did not alleviate the beating from Federer.

If there is a bad match-up for Federer it is no one other than Nadal and it works the mainly on clay with high bouncing heavy spinning cross court forehands that bounces the ball over the shoulder for Federer's SHBH. Compared to Murray, Nalbandian when fit is a much better match for Federer. Murray wins agaist Federer are mostly ugly matches with many UEs and break of serves. Federer lost those mainly, rather than Murray winning. I say this despite even now with the losing h-2-h Federer when ever wins against Murray, they are absolute crushing performance. Its almost like Federer can win against Murray anytime he wants to. I felt his best win against Federer was the Shanghai Masters 2010 final, it was an impressive performance from Murray indeed. But like I said its not fair to compare a guy nearing his 30s ( till last year when Murray and Fed met) to some much younger.

You say you can't measure confidence and yet you claim Djokovic was more confident at Wimbledon than at AO. Words astound me with this contradictory stupidity.

Ivan Lendl won his first GS at the age of 24. So your age theory is a load of crap to begin with.

I miss how he keeps harping on about age. You keep harping on about him and I can say that your personality is that of a gnat.

And in terms of 'great' performances I can't see how you think 'one' performance from Nalbandian puts him out further than Murray. Murray v Gasquet Wimbledon 2009 was a great peformance. Murray v Wawrinka at US Open 2008 was a great performance in terms of sheer dominance. Murray v Stepanek Wimbledon 2005 was a great performance.

I do know a doctor who can remove your head from your backside.

Now legend why do you have to make it so personal?

socal1976 wrote:Now legend why do you have to make it so personal?

Socal if this poster (r-o-t-l-a-) was only interested in putting down Novak you wouldn't be a happy bunny either.

Check out some of his posts and you might agree!

socal if he actually just flat out admits he doesn't like Murray and never will I wouldn't mind. What I don't like is constant contradiction after contradiction which he seems to be doing and making out he isn't. He is clearly out of his depth when he is trying to measure performance.

I would say to you if you remember the Heart of a Lion thread and how annoying that must've been for you to read. This is no different for me.

hawkeye wrote:Do you think that tennis fans choose who to cheer for based on purely tennis skills or is it a mixture of tennis skills and personality (or perhaps nationality). It could even be that judgements about personality affect how tennis skills are judged.

It is difficult to separate tennis skills from the overall personality. One example is the 150,000 year comment by Federer to Courier before the AO 2010 final. It is an accumulation of the two that leads to an overall "liking". In Pancho's case, I liked the Tennis first, the personality came later. Tennis skills are easily discernible on a court, the personality, perhaps not as much.

Federer, of late, when he misses a shot now, shakes his head in disappointment. 2003-2008 was much more Borg-like.

hawkeye wrote:If we "like" someone is our judgement to be trusted?

Sometimes, 'like' requires knowing a person better than a stranger and can lead to 'trust', which is a natural progression. In contrast, an infatuation may not be as trustworthy.

hawkeye wrote:Gonzalez must have been an amazing player. If he was as bad as you say it makes me wonder if I would have cheered for his opponant. During the years when you didn't "appreciate the entire 'package' that was Pancho" can you remember if you thought he was as skillful as you did later and no doubt do now?

Pancho's skills were never in question. The fire (or as NitB calls it, the desire
to win), in some cases destructive, took a bit longer to appreciate. The closest contemporary example is Nadal.

for asking such questions.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Use the word 'good' but 'great' is something much much above.

We are now in the qualitative measurement of 'greatness'. I have no problem with my referenced Murray matches being called 'good'. In order to get our 'qualitative' yardsticks calibrated, two matches for you to consider, Nadal-Verdasco AO 2009 vs. Nadal-Verdasco Cincy 2011. Which would be a 'great' and which would be a 'good' match?

This is also in response to your "I didn't say Nadal was in decline" statement. You can always give the Japanese restaurant 'hot-plate-blisters' argument, if you like.

legendkillar wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: I can see why LK has issues with some of your comments. USO 2008, AO 2010, Canada 2010, Shanghai 2010, WTF 2010, MC 2011, FO 2011 are great performances, in some cases without a title.

You are using the word 'great' so easily that it is losing its value. Then this was if you use the word 'great' for Some of Murray's performances without a match win or a title then I don't know for how many players you'll have to keep using the word 'great' because if you look that way there there are many many players who produce 'great' performances but without titles or even wins. So this way all the players in their entire career time will end up having at least a handful of 'great' performances. Use the word 'good' but 'great' is something much much above.

There is a Murray fan in CC who is arguing that winning is the ultimate thing and performance doesn't matter at all. So this way 5 out of 7 tournaments you mentioned become meaningless because Andy didn't win those. Of course I don't agree with CC on this ( read my comment of that post) and I hope you too won't.

laverfan wrote: You may want to add the DC win for Serbia into the equation. 57-2 or 8-0 are just numbers, the confidence factor does not have a quantitative measure.

Agree you can't measure confidence in terms of units, but still "more confident" "less confident" are valid measurements, aren't they? So do you want to say that the Djo had the same level of confidence at the wimbledon 2011 final against Nadal as he had against Murray at the AO 2011 finals? I don't think so. He was far far ....far more confident at wimby finals, the confidence he gained by winning so many matches, masters finals against Nadal ( he had never won a final against Nadal before these wins), and 3 consequtive wins against Federer and wins against Murray in the Rome semis where he was facing defeat when Murray served for the match and few more times when he was able to pull out a win from a very tough position ( e.g. against Bellucci in Madrid ). Winning those tough matches made him feel like he just can't lose at all. This all is what developed his current 'aura' of invincibility that most of the matches are won in the locker room itself. players find it tough to believe that it is possible to beat Djo, even if they perform brilliant. Now do you want to still say the Djo was just as confident in the AO 2011 finals. Not really. And how would he be highly confident against Murray? prior to this meeting Murray defeated Djo 3 consecutive times on hard courts . Djo had a tough and huge win over Federer in semis, its tough to come out again and produce the same kind of performance the next time. Players often feel too overwhelmed with a win like that. Do I have to examples to elaborate this? Not needed as there are far too many occassions when after a huge win, the player lost very easily in the next match. And its even tougher if the next match is a final against a top-4 player like Andy to whom he has a losing record in recent times ( 3 consecutive losses).

laverfan wrote: The dislike is where Murray fans have an objection. As I stated, we should discuss a player who you like, rather than someone you dislike.

My dislike for Murray has mainly got to do with his playing style. I might have been also okay, if he had show good on court attitude or personality and had stopped the "I am young still.." thing.

laverfan wrote:
You are contradicting yourself, there are many examples of 'great' performances, which your dislike for Murray, may inhibit you from appreciating.

I think I already answered this. 'good' but 'great' something still far.

laverfan wrote:
Is he still not #4? Djokovic has gone from a #3 to #1. You yourself document the decline of the two previous #1s (Fedal), so the pecking order has been re-arranged, but no catastrophic upheavals.

Yes he is #4. Djo has gone from #3 to #1 doesn't necessarily mean so will Andy. And Andy can't even wait for Djo fall due to age because he himself is about the same age. I didn't say Nadal was in decline, I said about Federer which was inevitable with age and having played so many years and with a young family he at times lacks the desire and determination which is needed to win big. There are no clear evidence for Nadal's decline. Its rather Djokovic who has stepped ahead. Nadal is still at his own peak level. Only the aura of invincibility he had last year this time, has moved on to Djokovic now.

laverfan wrote:

You should also consider match-ups here. Murray and Nadal are bad match-ups for Federer, but Djokovic is not. Even FO 2011 against Djokovic (with his aura of invincibility) did not alleviate the beating from Federer.

If there is a bad match-up for Federer it is no one other than Nadal and it works the mainly on clay with high bouncing heavy spinning cross court forehands that bounces the ball over the shoulder for Federer's SHBH. Compared to Murray, Nalbandian when fit is a much better match for Federer. Murray wins agaist Federer are mostly ugly matches with many UEs and break of serves. Federer lost those mainly, rather than Murray winning. I say this despite even now with the losing h-2-h Federer when ever wins against Murray, they are absolute crushing performance. Its almost like Federer can win against Murray anytime he wants to. I felt his best win against Federer was the Shanghai Masters 2010 final, it was an impressive performance from Murray indeed. But like I said its not fair to compare a guy nearing his 30s ( till last year when Murray and Fed met) to some much younger.

You say you can't measure confidence and yet you claim Djokovic was more confident at Wimbledon than at AO. Words astound me with this contradictory stupidity.

Ivan Lendl won his first GS at the age of 24. So your age theory is a load of crap to begin with.

I miss how he keeps harping on about age. You keep harping on about him and I can say that your personality is that of a gnat.

And in terms of 'great' performances I can't see how you think 'one' performance from Nalbandian puts him out further than Murray. Murray v Gasquet Wimbledon 2009 was a great peformance. Murray v Wawrinka at US Open 2008 was a great performance in terms of sheer dominance. Murray v Stepanek Wimbledon 2005 was a great performance.

I do know a doctor who can remove your head from your backside.

You are not only dim witted but also dim sighted. I wrote that I agree that confidence can't be measured in terms of "units", If you only had passed out of kindergarten you would have known what measuring in terms of units means. You are just mad because you and your equally childish Murray fans had absolutely no answer to the reasoning I put forward. When you start to lose the argument, you start mud slinging and stoop low throwing insults on a humble poster. You got burnt down to the very last iota and you know it loser. I didn't dislike Murray as much as I do now knowing that you and some other trolls are his fans. Keep telling yourself ( just like Andy does to himself ) about Lendl and how he won slams at 24 or even better about Andres Gimeno (he won at 34 ) when that was only 1-2 cases out of a 1000 players in history of tennis.

I'm not discussing anything more with trolls.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: I can see why LK has issues with some of your comments. USO 2008, AO 2010, Canada 2010, Shanghai 2010, WTF 2010, MC 2011, FO 2011 are great performances, in some cases without a title.

You are using the word 'great' so easily that it is losing its value. Then this was if you use the word 'great' for Some of Murray's performances without a match win or a title then I don't know for how many players you'll have to keep using the word 'great' because if you look that way there there are many many players who produce 'great' performances but without titles or even wins. So this way all the players in their entire career time will end up having at least a handful of 'great' performances. Use the word 'good' but 'great' is something much much above.

There is a Murray fan in CC who is arguing that winning is the ultimate thing and performance doesn't matter at all. So this way 5 out of 7 tournaments you mentioned become meaningless because Andy didn't win those. Of course I don't agree with CC on this ( read my comment of that post) and I hope you too won't.

laverfan wrote: You may want to add the DC win for Serbia into the equation. 57-2 or 8-0 are just numbers, the confidence factor does not have a quantitative measure.

Agree you can't measure confidence in terms of units, but still "more confident" "less confident" are valid measurements, aren't they? So do you want to say that the Djo had the same level of confidence at the wimbledon 2011 final against Nadal as he had against Murray at the AO 2011 finals? I don't think so. He was far far ....far more confident at wimby finals, the confidence he gained by winning so many matches, masters finals against Nadal ( he had never won a final against Nadal before these wins), and 3 consequtive wins against Federer and wins against Murray in the Rome semis where he was facing defeat when Murray served for the match and few more times when he was able to pull out a win from a very tough position ( e.g. against Bellucci in Madrid ). Winning those tough matches made him feel like he just can't lose at all. This all is what developed his current 'aura' of invincibility that most of the matches are won in the locker room itself. players find it tough to believe that it is possible to beat Djo, even if they perform brilliant. Now do you want to still say the Djo was just as confident in the AO 2011 finals. Not really. And how would he be highly confident against Murray? prior to this meeting Murray defeated Djo 3 consecutive times on hard courts . Djo had a tough and huge win over Federer in semis, its tough to come out again and produce the same kind of performance the next time. Players often feel too overwhelmed with a win like that. Do I have to examples to elaborate this? Not needed as there are far too many occassions when after a huge win, the player lost very easily in the next match. And its even tougher if the next match is a final against a top-4 player like Andy to whom he has a losing record in recent times ( 3 consecutive losses).

laverfan wrote: The dislike is where Murray fans have an objection. As I stated, we should discuss a player who you like, rather than someone you dislike.

My dislike for Murray has mainly got to do with his playing style. I might have been also okay, if he had show good on court attitude or personality and had stopped the "I am young still.." thing.

laverfan wrote:
You are contradicting yourself, there are many examples of 'great' performances, which your dislike for Murray, may inhibit you from appreciating.

I think I already answered this. 'good' but 'great' something still far.

laverfan wrote:
Is he still not #4? Djokovic has gone from a #3 to #1. You yourself document the decline of the two previous #1s (Fedal), so the pecking order has been re-arranged, but no catastrophic upheavals.

Yes he is #4. Djo has gone from #3 to #1 doesn't necessarily mean so will Andy. And Andy can't even wait for Djo fall due to age because he himself is about the same age. I didn't say Nadal was in decline, I said about Federer which was inevitable with age and having played so many years and with a young family he at times lacks the desire and determination which is needed to win big. There are no clear evidence for Nadal's decline. Its rather Djokovic who has stepped ahead. Nadal is still at his own peak level. Only the aura of invincibility he had last year this time, has moved on to Djokovic now.

laverfan wrote:

You should also consider match-ups here. Murray and Nadal are bad match-ups for Federer, but Djokovic is not. Even FO 2011 against Djokovic (with his aura of invincibility) did not alleviate the beating from Federer.

If there is a bad match-up for Federer it is no one other than Nadal and it works the mainly on clay with high bouncing heavy spinning cross court forehands that bounces the ball over the shoulder for Federer's SHBH. Compared to Murray, Nalbandian when fit is a much better match for Federer. Murray wins agaist Federer are mostly ugly matches with many UEs and break of serves. Federer lost those mainly, rather than Murray winning. I say this despite even now with the losing h-2-h Federer when ever wins against Murray, they are absolute crushing performance. Its almost like Federer can win against Murray anytime he wants to. I felt his best win against Federer was the Shanghai Masters 2010 final, it was an impressive performance from Murray indeed. But like I said its not fair to compare a guy nearing his 30s ( till last year when Murray and Fed met) to some much younger.

You say you can't measure confidence and yet you claim Djokovic was more confident at Wimbledon than at AO. Words astound me with this contradictory stupidity.

Ivan Lendl won his first GS at the age of 24. So your age theory is a load of crap to begin with.

I miss how he keeps harping on about age. You keep harping on about him and I can say that your personality is that of a gnat.

And in terms of 'great' performances I can't see how you think 'one' performance from Nalbandian puts him out further than Murray. Murray v Gasquet Wimbledon 2009 was a great peformance. Murray v Wawrinka at US Open 2008 was a great performance in terms of sheer dominance. Murray v Stepanek Wimbledon 2005 was a great performance.

I do know a doctor who can remove your head from your backside.

You are not only dim witted but also dim sighted. I wrote that I agree that confidence can't be measured in terms of "units", If you only had passed out of kindergarten you would have know what measuring in terms of units means. You are just mad because you and your equally childish Murray fans had absolutely no answer to the reasoning I put forward. When you start to lose the argument, you start mud slinging and stoop low throwing insults on a humble poster. You got burnt down to the very last iota and you know it loser. I didn't dislike Murray as much as I do now knowing that you and some other trolls are his fans. Keep telling yourself ( just like Andy does to himself ) about Lendl and how he won slams at 24 or even better about Andres Gimeno (he won at 34 ) when that was only 1-2 cases out of a 1000 players in history of tennis.

I'm not discussing anything more with trolls.

You are a plank aren't you?

No-one here actually agrees with crap you post.

You are far the most un-intelligent WUM I have ever come across.

Murray fans and tennis fans have provided facts and you have ignored them because your that stupid.

Go and troll elsewhere.

laverfan - Don't waste your energy by replying to this ignorant moroon.

You can see how well educted he isn't by just reading his replies.

Jeez, what is up here, why is everyone in such a fighting mood? I don't get it, who cares if someone does or doesn't like murray or if his arguments are bogus. It just seems that u guys need a chill pill, its just tennis. There are people out there who think all kinds of players you and I like are just plain sheeeet! So what, Tenez and bogbrush are way more irritatingly biased lets all just relax.

socal1976 wrote:Jeez, what is up here, why is everyone in such a fighting mood? I don't get it, who cares if someone does or doesn't like murray or if his arguments are bogus. It just seems that u guys need a chill pill, its just tennis. There are people out there who think all kinds of players you and I like are just plain sheeeet! So what, Tenez and bogbrush are way more irritatingly biased lets all just relax.

Funny socal I was telling you to chill out the other night

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:If you only had passed out of kindergarten you would have known what measuring in terms of units means.

It is not very conducive to any debate to have such invective.

LK... please help us return to a civil debate.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:You are just mad because you and your equally childish Murray fans had absolutely no answer to the reasoning I put forward.

This is a bit below the belt and tad unfair. Children, as I have found out over the years, seem much more open-minded compared to adults. Let us not give 'children' a moniker that they do not deserve. My children and grand-children are some of the best teachers I have had.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:IWhen you start to lose the argument, you start mud slinging and stoop low throwing insults on a humble poster. You got burnt down to the very last iota and you know it loser.

Trading insults is the anathema to a civil debate.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I didn't dislike Murray as much as I do now knowing that you and some other trolls are his fans. Keep telling yourself ( just like Andy does to himself ) about Lendl and how he won slams at 24 or even better about Andres Gimeno (he won at 34 ) when that was only 1-2 cases out of a 1000 players in history of tennis.

The objective is not to make you change your opinion of Murray, but appreciate a 'good' ( ) player. No one can predict what the future holds, otherwise we would all be millionaires in a jiffy.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I'm not discussing anything more with trolls.

Courtesy begets courtesy.

socal,

I am tennis fan. There may be some players that I might not take to warming to, but either way they have earned my respect. Now I don't mind for example when people post 'topics' that may be 'contraversal' but i know that most posters do concede on certain points and new perspectives are shared as a result.

What pisses me off is when people come on here with an agenda to moan and moan about a player that 'personally' they don't know and try to cover it up with performance based crap which time and time again they get proven wrong. Like I said before if posters try to use logic, it will get challeneged and sometimes on that front you may need to concede defeat.

Tennis is a great sport and should be enjoyed by all, but sometimes people are that pathetic that they try to ruin the experience for everyone else.

Respect is something that lacks in this forum sometimes.

sportslover wrote:laverfan - Don't waste your energy by replying to this ignorant moroon.

You can see how well educted he isn't by just reading his replies.

SL... Hopefully, R-o-t-l-a may just 'appreciate' Andy after this discussion, but may never 'like' Murray. I am willing to try to have him have an open mind next time Murray plays a 'great' match, which is perhaps around the corner @USO 2011.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You did not take my well intended advice about more mature posting did you ROTLA? I have a few questions /statements.

Even you must see you are grasping at straws with your Federer arguments? Fed won both the GSs extremely convincingly and deserved to just as Murray deserved his wins. It is insulting to Federers' professional integrity to suggest otherwise.

Also, the age thing that you appear obsessed by. Does it really matter? Do you really expect Murray to say I'm too old to win when he is clearly not?? Ridiculous. All that matters is the match at hand.

In answer to a previous question you put to LF -No "more" and "less" confident are not valid measurements as they are subjective in nature.

How can you dislike a player due to their playing style?? Obviously I prefer watching some players to others but dislike is extreme. I like varied play and Murray has that by the bucketload. So, he beats himself up on court a bit, so what? He is always courteous to his opponent which is a lesson many others could do with learning.

There will probably be more as I am still re-reading the thread but that is enough for now.