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?

laverfan

I'm glad you liked my questions!

I love tennis but whats makes it exciting to watch is that I "care" about the outcome. I sometimes wonder why I care. These are the sort of questions that could provide the reasons. Its nice to know judging from some of the heated comments here (although I dont agree with them all) that I'm not the only one.

hawkeye wrote:I'm glad you liked my questions!

. Happy to see a fan enjoying and 'caring' for Tennis.

legendkillar wrote: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.

I am not saying it can't be frustrating, but all of this name calling has to stop. Do I agree with Raider's arguments, no absolutely most of them I don't feel hold any water. I took him to task for his Dave Nalbandian is better argument. The guy doesn't like Murray and likes to vent his issues with him, this is after all tennis forum. Rebut his arguments call his opinions garbage and laugh it off. Its just too much stress to get into typing a bunch of swears at someone on the computer because you think they have an agenda and their arguments are bogus. Bogbrush for example, he gets under my skin, but I pretty much take all of his ridiculous posting with a smile, I am sure he is nice person. Relax man, you are stressing yourself out for nothing.

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillar wrote: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.

I am not saying it can't be frustrating, but all of this name calling has to stop. Do I agree with Raider's arguments, no absolutely most of them I don't feel hold any water. I took him to task for his Dave Nalbandian is better argument. The guy doesn't like Murray and likes to vent his issues with him, this is after all tennis forum. Rebut his arguments call his opinions garbage and laugh it off. Its just too much stress to get into typing a bunch of swears at someone on the computer because you think they have an agenda and their arguments are bogus. Bogbrush for example, he gets under my skin, but I pretty much take all of his ridiculous posting with a smile, I am sure he is nice person. Relax man, you are stressing yourself out for nothing.

Bogbrush and Tenez may get under people's skin and they are very good at winding people up.

However there is a subtle difference between them and posters like this one, that being they (usually!) know what they are talking about unlike this one who is pure waffle.

Trying to get through to this type of poster is like wrestling with a jelly - impossible but nevertheless challenging!

Raiders may be anti Murray, but then there are posters who are pro Murray, who, in their eyes, can do no wrong. Like the guy who posted before me, and Craig/Yummy....

I'm afraid I have called for a UN resolution to impose a NATO led no fly-zone on this thread.

Cruise missiles are lock and loaded and ready to fly in order to protect civility in the face of the "go dafty" forces of accusation.

Hello



what's going on here?

Has Boo been around?

@ Socal

socal1976 wrote:The Shanghai semi against Nadal was one of the best matches I have ever seen, as was the Rome semi with Djoko this year..

Which year shanghai are you talking about here socal? If you meant Shanghai 2010, then it was Juan Monaco in the semis and not Nadal. Murray didn't play any other Shanghai semis. But I think you meant WTF 2010 semis which was in London. I have already agreed that that particular match was brilliant. And No I won't accuse you of any missed reality check, it must have been an honest mistake which happens with everyone. Only thing had I done this, 1000s of pro Murray posters would have pounced on me. They are already pouncing on me with even slings of insults when I didn't do any of those.

@Laverfan,

You come up as a sensible poster so I think I can still talk to you. I already agreed to some of Murray brilliant matches and good performances so its not that I don't appreciate Murray or completely defy them. I said he hass great agility and retrieval skills and stamina on court.

Any point you or anyone puts, for which if I don't agree I just don't to trash it off calling it crap and senseless. I clearly give reasons why I don't agree and what I think on it. Eg. You talked about Federer's not being in decline in 2010 for which I didn't agree and gave ample reasoning to why I say so. You said Djo's confidence was just as good as it is now. I didn't agree to it, and gave reasons why I think so. You mentioned about Murray decent aggressive playing style for which I didn't agree and gave reasons why I think otherwise. CC said winning is everything and performance doesn't matter . I didn't agree to it and gave reasons why I think otherwise. So if you see I didn't do anything wrong.

Look at what some of the other pro Murray fans have been doing. I put some points and raise questions. Instead of answering those they are all tossed up in air and then being called up crap, bogus etc. etc. If they think other wise why can't they just give reasons for their view. I put many questions starting from the beginning, why can't those be answered giving reasons. e.g. A poster off late didn't agree with my comment on Federer's not very convincing wins of FO 09 and Wimbledon 09 compared to some of his earlier GS wins. For my point I said that even with FO win, it was more his determination and desire to Get a FO that he was able to win it. He struggled to win against Jose Acasuso, Haas, Delpotro ( whom he double baggled in the AO 2009). Even he struggled to win wimbledon where he almost was 0-2 sets when Roddick had those 4 set points. Thats not very convincing at all for a prime Federer. And Look at the reply I get

wrote:

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.

He just tossed my point in air and went saying Fed's both wins were extremely convincing. If he really thought it was convincing why didn't he give points to his arguments.

This is what I don't like about many fans who just lack the power of reasoning and simply stubbornly reject anything that is not in agreement to their's. This is what I referred to as childish behavior where people lack power of reasoning and simply defy anything that is not in compliance to their own view.


If you have watched laver, Pancho play as you say then you must be one of the oldest tennis fans on this forum who have been able to see many generations of great players. I respect you for that.

ROTLA

That is not what I was referring to re Federer at all. I was responding to you saying that, when Murray beat Federer, it was only because Fed let him win or some other such nonsense. Apologies if this was not clear.

Here we go again. The same old bleating. I have put down matches and highlighted his performances. You choose to ignore. That is because you either can't accept the truth or just haven't watched the matches. Stop chasing your tail and spurting the same nonsense over and over.

rotla

This whole situation blew up because you insinuated Nalbandian to be a better player than Murray and you have clung to that throughout despite mere tennis facts put to you that:-

Murray is fitter than Nalbandian.

Murray has more Masters wins than Nalbandian.

Murray has more title wins than Nalbandian.

Murray has more slam finals appearances than Nalbandian where yes even he put in better fights than Nalby did in his lone slam final (judging scorewise).

Murray has more slam semis than Nalbandian.

Murray has a higher best ever ranking than Nalbandian.

Murray has remained in the top four so much longer than Nalbandian.

Murray is a far better returner of serve than Nalbandian.

Not sure career wise but in their head-to-heads Murray is also a better server than Nalbandian.

And what you have to cling to in favour of Nalbandian is that he has won a World Tour Final. I lay you a bet if you were to ask Nalby if he wanted to swap that for Andy's career achievements he would do so in a flash.

As for your other points regarding Murray that is your opinion and your opinion alone but above I have posted facts. As for your claim Murray has been beaten by players he shouldn't have - correct. So? Every player in their career (yes even Federer and Nadal and Djokovic have suffered that fate). As for your claim that Murray just sits and waits for his opponent to lose - again wrong. Like I pointed out he is the master of retrieving shots that against other players would have been winners but gets the ball back with quality leaving players to play a tricky last shot which a lot of the time they can ansd do miss which is just reward for his remarkable retrieval skills but you prefer to look at that negatively.Like I say there is no point arguing on as it is clear that Murray could win a slam or more and yet you would still not give him the credit as it seems beyond you. But why not start a topic on your own favourite player and why you love his play instead of forcing your negative views about Murray on us - you may find you enjoy it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark

This is an argument you cannot win. Murray fans are Murray fans because they like him. They like his style of play, they like his tennis brain, they like the potential they see in him,they like his on court behaviour and they admire his achievements. You will not be able to persuade them otherwise no matter how reasoned and well researched your argument. If you do they will no longer be Murray fans.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Likewise they cannot understand why you cannot see the same Murray that they see.

Rotla one of the main questions you asked was is Murray 'a pusher'. I sort of replied earlier that he may be seen as that. However on further consideration I would say that his game is more about probing. Yes he doesn't often play a game where he outright attacks (Roddick at Queens this year being an example of where he did). His game tends to be more defensive. In it he uses different skills such as spin, slice, floating the ball to take pace off, speeding the pace up, manouvering his opponent from side to side on court, drop shots. This is done with aim of either forcing his opponent into a mistake or getting them out of position to hit a winner. This game plan all requires a lot of skill to implement and can either get his opponent into either an UE or to go for risky shots.
Yes it is different from serve and volley but it works for him against most opponents barring the big three where he knows now that he must play to a different strategy. I don't think he has quite mastered playing an attacking strategy consistently yet against these top players yet but hope it will come.

hawkeye wrote: raiders_of_the_lost_ark

This is an argument you cannot win. Murray fans are Murray fans because they like him. They like his style of play, they like his tennis brain, they like the potential they see in him,they like his on court behaviour and they admire his achievements. You will not be able to persuade them otherwise no matter how reasoned and well researched your argument. If you do they will no longer be Murray fans.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Likewise they cannot understand why you cannot see the same Murray that they see.

vmp - lol - Still got that Murray OCD

This poster is very similar to yourself - tries hard to put him down but fails miserably.

A bit like your recent Cincy article.

hawkeye wrote: raiders_of_the_lost_ark

This is an argument you cannot win. Murray fans are Murray fans because they like him. They like his style of play, they like his tennis brain, they like the potential they see in him,they like his on court behaviour and they admire his achievements. You will not be able to persuade them otherwise no matter how reasoned and well researched your argument. If you do they will no longer be Murray fans.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Likewise they cannot understand why you cannot see the same Murray that they see.

Hawkeye As a Murray fan I can see why people do not like his style of play. I admit sometimes I see it as too passive and allowing his opponent to get a rythm in a match. However it does seem to work most of the time so I guess he knows what he is doing. Don't have any issue with people constructively critising it.

His on court behaviour/body language can admiittedly be poor and cost him points/games. I think he is trying to address this now. I do think however that sometimes it is magnified more for him than some others. Take Cinci for instance. Simon spent most of the second set of his match against Murray chuntering away at himself in French but there was very liitle comment on that. In the semi against Fish both player went through a splell where they were moaning a bit about there game and showing signs of fatiguestrains. Yet on the Sky summary after the game it was only Murray who got panned for his body language. We were told Djokovic never shows that sort of body language any more it gives your opponent an advantage. Roll forward to the final. Yes Djokovic definitely had a shoulder injury but his body language was terrible. No comment on that from the Sky summariser.

I support him as a British player who has played at near the top of the sport for a number of years now. He has dedicated his life to tennis and being the best he can. It may never get him to the very pinnacle of the game, some may always be better. He is not perfect but who is.

hawkeye wrote: raiders_of_the_lost_ark

This is an argument you cannot win. Murray fans are Murray fans because they like him. They like his style of play, they like his tennis brain, they like the potential they see in him,they like his on court behaviour and they admire his achievements. You will not be able to persuade them otherwise no matter how reasoned and well researched your argument. If you do they will no longer be Murray fans.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Likewise they cannot understand why you cannot see the same Murray that they see.

True hawkeye. The thing is put up a poll on tennis forums/sports programmes around the world and ask who is the better player:- Murray or Nalbandian and it is no contest as to what the result would be. So it is not Murray bias bringing us to the conclusion just pure hard facts.

What if you put that poll up in Argentina...

hawkeye wrote:What if you put that poll up in Argentina...

No doubt you would be on the first flight to get over there and put your "X" next to Nalbys name.

Fray Bentos would win it...

hawkeye wrote:What if you put that poll up in Argentina...

Put it up across the world - open to Brits and Argentines and the rest of the world and it is a no-brainer. Try going around global internet sites as well with previews of the US Open and no doubting Murray will be mentioned as a main contender but will Nalbandian. No - and that has been the case in about the last dozen slams I'd say.

I think what hawkeye means is if you ask Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc who is more difficult to play against, they would probably say a prime Nalbandian. We know he hasn't achieved as much as Murray, that's a fact (although he has been in all 4 GS semi's.) Nalbandian could return the ball freakishly good, so can Murray at times, but Nalbandian was constant.

Better achievements = Murray
More difficult to play on form = Nalbandian

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I think what hawkeye means is if you ask Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc who is more difficult to play against, they would probably say a prime Nalbandian. We know he hasn't achieved as much as Murray, that's a fact (although he has been in all 4 GS semi's.) Nalbandian could return the ball freakishly good, so can Murray at times, but Nalbandian was constant.

Better achievements = Murray
More difficult to play on form = Nalbandian

I must disagree there and I am sure if you were to ask any of the top three players who they'd prefer to face in the final - Murray or Nalbandian and we all know what the answer would be.

In this day and age they would rather play Nalbandian, because he's in total decline!! He's not in his prime and his form is terrible now, years of struggling to maintain his weight and nasty hip injuries put paid to his chances. Nalbandian from 2002-2006 was not a player you would feel confident against!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:In this day and age they would rather play Nalbandian, because he's in total decline!! He's not in his prime and his form is terrible now, years of struggling to maintain his weight and nasty hip injuries put paid to his chances. Nalbandian from 2002-2006 was not a player you would feel confident against!

Sorry but disagree again as in what impact did Nalbandian have in his prime (fit) years compared to Murray. Nalbandian's two head-to-head wins against Murray came when Andy was a mere pup in 2005 most memorable Murray led 2-0 in sets at Wimbledon and then his physical fitness let him down and he suffered severe cramp and lost in five and do believe Nalby's other win came when Andy was still green. Since then Andy has won all other meetings. Check out Nalbandian's record in slams (against lesser players than Federer and Nadal era) to see that they don't measure up to Andy's record.

Not as simple as that Craig, Nalbandian did have too many off days against players he SHOULD beat, but he did rise to the occasion against the top 3 players several times, and has beaten Federer in a bo5. Did you even watch tennis before Murray came on the scene?!

A) I do think that most posters on this thread show a good level of tennis knowledge.

B) I do think the level of civility has been variable (active and reactive). Since I am assuming most here are Human Beings we should understand that they can be quite reactive. Of course if there were more Vulcans here (live long and prosper) then the reaction would be different (a Vulcan death lock probably, nice and quick).

C) I do think the level of supporting arguments /"evidence" put forward with details of context has been highly variable.

D) I am opposed to "witch hunts" of supposed 606 members - for example the supposed outing of "vmp" and "catalan powers". I think it is irrelevant, we should focus on the content and not place 606 labels to members here. The quality of contributions here is currently FAR SUPERIOR on average to what was found on 606. So much utter nonsense and crude vile ad hominem statements laid at 606 members, "fans" and players. I generally don't see it here to the level experienced on 606. This suggests that the moderation here has been at least partly a success, and that former 606 members have at least adapted their ways.

E) Clearly Andy Murray is the deserved No 4 ranked player at the moment. There are clearly issues with his game (first serve percentage, second serve quality, forehand, tendency to passivity) and he does seem to be incredible stubborn and resistant to "advice" (judging from comments of those around him, and the make-up of the Murray team). I feel however he has shown that he has the potential of winning a "slam" and has the potential of upping his game (making it more consistent - consistently good rather than consistently bad) to take that extra step. Whatever Murray is doing (training wise etc) it has been successful for him (in terms of longevity in the top 5 and tournament wins except at the very highest of levels and on clay) so I think we should give him some slack. However when judging him in terms of the history of tennis he is clearly not a great (yet?) and seems unlikely to be a "tennis great". It is not certain that he will join those who have become a slam winner but he is close enough and is knocking at the door. Yet with time others will become a threat below Murray as they come through the ranks (Tomic, Raonic?? etc) and return from injury (Del Potro?).

F) Can we move on from Nalbandian? Raiders has already mentioned that the initial reference was not important to the main thrust of his argument. It is better to drop it - we could perhaps have a separate thread on him. One argument suggests that Nalbandians game at the highest level was better than Murrays current game/performances, another argument shows that in terms of overall career record Murray comes out on top.

On a separate note I think a separate thread debating the relative merits of the ATP World Tour Final and Master's series tournaments would be interesting.

I notice that Nadal has only once been in an ATP "WTF" final while Murray hasn't, whilst Federer has an impressive record. However in comparing, we must note the different format of the ATP WTF compared to the Master Series. The ATP WTF seems to be an indoor hard court tournament, whereas Masters are played on various hard courts and clay courts. The ATP WTF occurs at the end of the year during a so-called "ATP rest period" (end of season tournament), whereas Masters tournaments occur during the in-season, and throughout the year.

My own view is that the ATP WTF tournament favours hard court "specialists" who play more conservatively relying on versatility and shot play rather than a more powerful/attritional style of play. The reasons being that a) the ATP WTF tournament is a hard court tournament and b) it relies on end of season performance levels.

[I think I will start a new thread on this]

Nore Staat wrote: Clearly Andy Murray is the deserved No 4 ranked player at the moment. There are clearly issues with his game (first serve percentage, second serve quality, forehand, tendency to passivity) and he does seem to be incredible stubborn and resistant to "advice" (judging from comments of those around him, and the make-up of the Murray team). I feel however he has shown that he has the potential of winning a "slam" and has the potential of upping his game (making it more consistent - consistently good rather than consistently bad) to take that extra step. Whatever Murray is doing (training wise etc) it has been successful for him (in terms of longevity in the top 5 and tournament wins except at the very highest of levels and on clay) so I think we should give him some slack. However when judging him in terms of the history of tennis he is clearly not a great (yet?) and seems unlikely to be a "tennis great". It is not certain that he will join those who have become a slam winner but he is close enough and is knocking at the door. Yet with time others will become a threat below Murray as they come through the ranks (Tomic, Raonic?? etc) and return from injury (Del Potro?).

Nore Stat As someone who has supported Murray on this thread I think your summary of where he is at present is spot on.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
If you have watched laver, Pancho play as you say then you must be one of the oldest tennis fans on this forum who have been able to see many generations of great players. I respect you for that.

Thanks.

I started really watching Pancho in the early 60s all the way to when he stopped playing (around 43+). I have a few years left in me discussing Tennis. But I do not want my 'geriatric' status to affect any arguments you make and do not claim any 'seniority' on viewpoints. Respect your views.

There is another Bollettieri article regarding Murray on these boards. Very interesting view points from him (and Becker).

Mathematical/statistical comparisons sometimes can lead to erroneous conclusions and hence should be coupled with a more exhaustive view of a player's career.

As Nore Staat says, Nalbandian is just one yardstick, but there are others. He has provided a succinct summary regarding Murray. :notworthy:

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img855/4571/piczs.jpg

Josiah Maiestas wrote:https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img855/4571/piczs.jpg

That is hilarious.... Socal should be happy....

laverfan wrote: I started really watching Pancho in the early 60s all the way to when he stopped playing (around 43+). I have a few years left in me discussing Tennis. But I do not want my 'geriatric' status to affect any arguments you make and do not claim any 'seniority' on viewpoints. Respect your views.

Hi LF,

Must have been good to see the stars of the past, and the transition to the Open era. Underlines my view that you are the doyen of this forum

Pancho also had a big influence on Agassi, who speaks very fondly of him in his autobiography.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

laverfan wrote: I started really watching Pancho in the early 60s all the way to when he stopped playing (around 43+). I have a few years left in me discussing Tennis. But I do not want my 'geriatric' status to affect any arguments you make and do not claim any 'seniority' on viewpoints. Respect your views.

Hi LF,

Must have been good to see the stars of the past, and the transition to the Open era. Underlines my view that you are the doyen of this forum

Pancho also had a big influence on Agassi, who speaks very fondly of him in his autobiography.

Amazing player. Self-taught. Playing Charlie Pasarell at 41 yo in 1969 W. I have biased opinion that this is still the greatest match ever played.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales#One_of_the_greatest_matches_ever_played

Borg-McEnroe W 1980 and then Nadal-Federer W 2008.

My other favourite Laver, I feel, was cheated, due to the Pro-Am split. Open Era did not come quick enough for Laver.

PS. Thanks for the 'doyen' tag.

laverfan

How did you manage to watch all that stuff? I can remember a time when in this country tennis disappeared from one Wimbledon until the next. I have to confess that I only watched my first FO in 2007... I have got memories back in the day of watching live scores on cfax (I think thats what its called).

Ah ceefax, that brings back memories. Very tense memories of shouting at a crt screen to refresh quicker so I can see the updated score but memories just the same.