Worst Masters Ever?

by hawkeye Sat 20 Aug 2011 - 23:05

First topic message reminder :

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

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 8:59

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Nalbandian to Murray??

Hmmmmm 3 Grand Slam finals compared to 1 and 7 Masters titles to 2

You talk crap!!

Try actually researching before spouting crap!

Nalbandian defeated a prime Federer at the WTF 2005 to WIN it. WTF where all top 8 players play, is a no less tough to win than a GS and A prime Federer is so far ahead of anyone that no could even get close. And Nalbandian did it. Has Andy ever been able to take a set of Federer in 2008 US Open. AO 2010 Federer was already in decline, still Andy failed in st. sets. And against Djokovic in AO 2011. Prior to this final Murray had 3 consecutive hard court wins against him. He had an easier opponent in semis ( Ferrer was overwhelmed with his win on Nadal) and looked fit mentally and physically. But what happened in the final? A meek loss. The day when Andy is able to play like Nalbandian, I'll become his fan. But that days hasn't come yet.

So Nalbandian beating Federer in his 'prime' makes him the better player?? I love the crap you post.

So Murray defeating Federer in 2006 in Canada in Masters event doesn't count?

Why on earth would Murray want to play like Nalbandian when he has had more success then him??

One day when you post something that isn't crap, someone may actually agree with anything you say.

by Calder106 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 9:07

So basically what you are saying is that he should change his style because you find it boring. We could always go back to the days of serve, volley, point over. That was really exciting. Players all have different styles and need to be able to adapt these to gain the advantage over their opponents game and therefore win. Why change that when it is working which it does most of the time.
As I said earlier he does need to use different tactics against the top three and to be seen in the same bracket as them needs to be able to excute them consistently through a match. Remember though that these guys will be playing their game to negate Murray's game and that's what they are very good at.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 11:15

legendkillar wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Nalbandian to Murray??

Hmmmmm 3 Grand Slam finals compared to 1 and 7 Masters titles to 2

You talk crap!!

Try actually researching before spouting crap!

Nalbandian defeated a prime Federer at the WTF 2005 to WIN it. WTF where all top 8 players play, is a no less tough to win than a GS and A prime Federer is so far ahead of anyone that no could even get close. And Nalbandian did it. Has Andy ever been able to take a set of Federer in 2008 US Open. AO 2010 Federer was already in decline, still Andy failed in st. sets. And against Djokovic in AO 2011. Prior to this final Murray had 3 consecutive hard court wins against him. He had an easier opponent in semis ( Ferrer was overwhelmed with his win on Nadal) and looked fit mentally and physically. But what happened in the final? A meek loss. The day when Andy is able to play like Nalbandian, I'll become his fan. But that days hasn't come yet.

So Nalbandian beating Federer in his 'prime' makes him the better player?? I love the crap you post.

So Murray defeating Federer in 2006 in Canada in Masters event doesn't count?

Why on earth would Murray want to play like Nalbandian when he has had more success then him??

One day when you post something that isn't crap, someone may actually agree with anything you say.

Firstly for a moderator of the site, the language you use in your posts is not what is expected. Secondly, Murray defeated Federer in 2006, it was Cincinnati and not Canada. You keep harping about research when you yourself are ignorant about it. And that match Andy won 7-5 6-4. It was a 3 setter and it was nothing like a dominant performance from Andy nor a beautiful match by any standards. There were 12 break of server( 5 fed and 7 andy ), 12 in 2 sets!! Imagine the level of play where both players struggling to hold serve. Full of unforced errors. You want to compare this win of Murray to the win that Nalby got at the WTF 2005? You choice to put your case is strange. Nalby played out of the world, his greatest performance of his life to win it when despite being 0-2 sets down and Fed serving for the match and 30-0 up. And he had to do it because anything less would never have been enough against a prime Federer. And what a match it was, stunning winners and great play from both players. Don't even mention these 2 matches in the same bracket, it degrading to both players who put one of the most spectacular display of clean shot making ever in the history of the game.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 11:22

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Nalbandian to Murray??

Hmmmmm 3 Grand Slam finals compared to 1 and 7 Masters titles to 2

You talk crap!!

Try actually researching before spouting crap!

Nalbandian defeated a prime Federer at the WTF 2005 to WIN it. WTF where all top 8 players play, is a no less tough to win than a GS and A prime Federer is so far ahead of anyone that no could even get close. And Nalbandian did it. Has Andy ever been able to take a set of Federer in 2008 US Open. AO 2010 Federer was already in decline, still Andy failed in st. sets. And against Djokovic in AO 2011. Prior to this final Murray had 3 consecutive hard court wins against him. He had an easier opponent in semis ( Ferrer was overwhelmed with his win on Nadal) and looked fit mentally and physically. But what happened in the final? A meek loss. The day when Andy is able to play like Nalbandian, I'll become his fan. But that days hasn't come yet.

So Nalbandian beating Federer in his 'prime' makes him the better player?? I love the crap you post.

So Murray defeating Federer in 2006 in Canada in Masters event doesn't count?

Why on earth would Murray want to play like Nalbandian when he has had more success then him??

One day when you post something that isn't crap, someone may actually agree with anything you say.

Firstly for a moderator of the site, the language you use in your posts is not what is expected. Secondly, Murray defeated Federer in 2006, it was Cincinnati and not Canada. You keep harping about research when you yourself are ignorant about it. And that match Andy won 7-5 6-4. It was a 3 setter and it was nothing like a dominant performance from Andy nor a beautiful match by any standards. There were 12 break of server( 5 fed and 7 andy ), 12 in 2 sets!! Imagine the level of play where both players struggling to hold serve. Full of unforced errors. You want to compare this win of Murray to the win that Nalby got at the WTF 2005? You choice to put your case is strange. Nalby played out of the world, his greatest performance of his life to win it when despite being 0-2 sets down and Fed serving for the match and 30-0 up. And he had to do it because anything less would never have been enough against a prime Federer. And what a match it was, stunning winners and great play from both players. Don't even mention these 2 matches in the same bracket, it degrading to both players who put one of the most spectacular display of clean shot making ever in the history of the game.

Firstly, as a moderator I am also a poster. Secondily you still avoid the facts that Murray is more successful than Nalbandian. You moan about people speaking about Murray against Nadal in the US Open 2008 and your going back further!!!

Don't you dare contradict yourself further. You talk crap and don't dare mention or moan about others remembering players best matches when all your doing is the same!

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 11:40

Yes this is how it has to go on. I asked you not to use offensive language but you just don't listen. Ok your choice.

Lets see their highest performances. What is Murray's and Nalby highest achievement as a tennis pro. Neither of them have a GS wins. GS finals?? Nalby has done that just as Andy. But Nalby has won a WTF tournament in a best of 5 sets match. WTF are only second to GS (In fact often more difficult to win). Andy doesn't even have a final spot in a WTF. So till the day when Andy reaches that height, for me he is behind Nalby.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 11:43

Nope.

More crap.

Andy has won more Masters and appeared in more GS Finals. Andy has reached the Semi's of all GS. Only 7 players have done that.

Keep on dreaming Nalby and you too.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 12:00

legendkillar wrote:Nope.

More crap.

Andy has won more Masters and appeared in more GS Finals. Andy has reached the Semi's of all GS. Only 7 players have done that.

Keep on dreaming Nalby and you too.

You are too blinded by Murray's game that you just can't differentiate between what is called "highest performance" and what is "a larger number of lesser performance".

Anyway I'm done debating on this topic. Good bye.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 12:05

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Nope.

More crap.

Andy has won more Masters and appeared in more GS Finals. Andy has reached the Semi's of all GS. Only 7 players have done that.

Keep on dreaming Nalby and you too.

You are too blinded by Murray's game that you just can't differentiate between what is called "highest performance" and what is "a larger number of lesser performance".

Anyway I'm done debating on this topic. Good bye.

You mean like the 'below lesser performance' by Nalbandian against Murray this week?

You sir are too blinded by your dislike for Murray and can't accept that he has achieved more than Nalbandian.

It is you that doesn't know the differences between 'good' performances and 'bad' performances.

by sportslover Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 12:11

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Nope.

More crap.

Andy has won more Masters and appeared in more GS Finals. Andy has reached the Semi's of all GS. Only 7 players have done that.

Keep on dreaming Nalby and you too.

You are too blinded by Murray's game that you just can't differentiate between what is called "highest performance" and what is "a larger number of lesser performance".

Anyway I'm done debating on this topic. Good bye.

At least you are now spelling his name correctly Laugh

by Josiah Maiestas Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 13:05

Nalbandian v Murray is it???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVh3thmQjcw

This was played out before Murray had his mental breakdowns and before Nalbandian's injury/weight problems. Murray actually played good tennis going right near the lines, this is the Murray I enjoyed seeing before he started copying south american clay courters and "passed" the ball to the opponent to attack, a tactic which only really worked in the Borg clay era.

I hope this is the Murray we can see at US (minus the early round loss.)

by **laverfan** Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 13:16

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Nalbandian defeated a prime Federer at the WTF 2005 to WIN it. WTF where all top 8 players play, is a no less tough to win than a GS and A prime Federer is so far ahead of anyone that no could even get close. And Nalbandian did it.

Be careful, Federer was coming back from an ankle injury. He was up two sets and then lost. Sad

. Also, Nalbandian's two masters are based on back-to-back wins against Fedal in Madrid and Paris. Nalbandian is a very good player, but a career marred by injuries and attitude issues. thumbsup

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4437944.stm (also notice the withdrawals in the link).

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Has Andy ever been able to take a set of Federer in 2008 US Open. AO 2010 Federer was already in decline, still Andy failed in st. sets. And against Djokovic in AO 2011. Prior to this final Murray had 3 consecutive hard court wins against him. He had an easier opponent in semis ( Ferrer was overwhelmed with his win on Nadal) and looked fit mentally and physically. But what happened in the final? A meek loss. The day when Andy is able to play like Nalbandian, I'll become his fan. But that days hasn't come yet.

1. You now seem to be focussed on slams only.
2. "Meek loss" to a player playing the tennis of his life with a 57-2 record (including Cincy) and someone who beat Federer in straight sets in the SFs? Erm

3. Andy will never play like Nalbandian. Each player has an individual style, which should be respected. thumbsup

4. AO 2010, Federer in decline? Erm

Beg to disagree. Post-USO 2010, Federer won WTF 2010 (and a few other titles), that you have conveniently forgotten in your argument. The WTF 2010 Murray SF against Nadal was also mentioned to show Murray's skills.
5. To be able to run around and retrieve like Murray, it takes phenomenal conditioning and physical strength. Ask Nadal what it has done to his knees despite his clay roots?
6. If there is a strong dislike for a player, we should refrain from discussing in negatives. If you like Nalbandian, perhaps we should discuss him on a different thread.

by Guest Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 14:45

On the subject of "raiders_of_the_lost_ark"
I would just like to say I see no "crap" in what raiders has written on this thread. I agree that his Nalbandian comparison seemed weak at first but at least he took the time to explain what he meant. His comments are "robust" but not "crap" in my humble and insignificant opinion.

:trudges off slowly back into the wilderness:

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 15:05

I view them as crap. Constantly moving the goalposts to serve his own argument that was clearly player bashing. I don't deem them worthy of being robust at best. People should not try to defeat themselves with logic.

by Jeremy_Kyle Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 15:17

Honestly LK: I may not even share their contents, but those posts are by far some of the few interesting ones I happen to read on here for a while....this obviously IMVHO.

by time please Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 16:29

Nore Staat wrote:On the subject of "raiders_of_the_lost_ark"
I would just like to say I see no "crap" in what raiders has written on this thread. I agree that his Nalbandian comparison seemed weak at first but at least he took the time to explain what he meant. His comments are "robust" but not "crap" in my humble and insignificant opinion.

:trudges off slowly back into the wilderness:

I don't agree with what raiders has written, but I don't see anything offensive about having a point of view, however controversial or robust that view is, until the word "crap" as in another poster talking it keeps getting posted around - imvho it's needlessly aggressive. Voltaire is so over quoted on forums in these instances that the following phrase has become cliched, nevertheless, at the risk of sounding trite it is worth remembering "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Legend, I am really sorry to say it because I have a great deal of respect for you as fellow poster and setter of wonderful quizzes, but I don't think it is a tenable situation to have a moderator firing back at a poster like that, however provocative or robust their argument is. If we can only be civilized to those who we agree with, or who are treading on eggshells to put forward a controversial point of view, we might ask what is a point of a forum.

May I join you on your trudge Nore?

by Josiah Maiestas Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 16:37

Alot of people have the same opinion as R_O_T_L_A regarding Murray so is all their opinions also crap then??

Rolling Eyes

by Calder106 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 16:53

IMO having a healthy sensible debate is good and what these forums are for. For instance I had no problem with Raiders argument that Nalby has had a better career than Murray because he on the WTF final in 2005. I don't agree with it but it is their opinion which they can air.

What I don't like is the totally negative dissing of a player. In this case Murray. You may not like his style of play (thats fine, happy to debate that as well) but to claim he only wins games when his opponents are injured, waery or virtually give him the game by making errors does not really make for sensible debate when he has won around 18 titles (7 of them are Masters 1000) events.

I know that it is not always Murray. Federer and Nadal have had their fair share of this as well.

by Guest Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 16:58

I can see Raider's pov. Whilst Murray may claim to have a more accomplished career, I will never accept that he is more talented than Nalby.

A fit, motivated Nalby on form is far more dangerous than Murray. Nalby can hit winners from any part of the court with ridiculous ease.

Some of his matches with Federer have been awesome displays of pure shotmaking.

by Calder106 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:06

emancipator wrote:I can see Raider's pov. Whilst Murray may claim to have a more accomplished career, I will never accept that he is more talented than Nalby.

A fit, motivated Nalby on form is far more dangerous than Murray. Nalby can hit winners from any part of the court with ridiculous ease.

Some of his matches with Federer have been awesome displays of pure shotmaking.

Emancipator It may be that Nalby has more natural talent but you use the words fit and motivated. These are crucial to being at the top of the game and I think Murray wins out in these categories. He makes the most of the talent he has hence his long stay around world number 4.

by Guest Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:10

Calder, I don't disagree with you. Fitness and motivation are crucial to success.

Unfortunately Nalby was never the strongest in these areas.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:11

To all the posters that have their views.

As far as I am concerned when raiders was challenged about his/her view and was quick to dismiss the achievements of a certain player and say that it is not valid point and then go to the extreme to use the same very point to justify their argument is insulting in my opinion.

I have no problem with people expressing opinions, I cannot state that enough.

But if you choose to use logic and argue in the face of it and try to bend and manipulate it then sorry I will not respect you as a poster.

If you can't respect logic, then don't use it.

by socal1976 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:25

Murray is clearly better than Nalbandian, what 7 masters to two that Nalbandian has. It isn't really even much of an argument, Murray has been to more grandslam finals and has several more Masters events. One win in WTF doesn't put Nalbandian over murray. Murray has more tournament titles, more masters, more grandslam finals. Nalbandian is a fat tennis player, fat tennis players are never that good.

by hawkeye Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:32

emancipator wrote:I can see Raider's pov. Whilst Murray may claim to have a more accomplished career, I will never accept that he is more talented than Nalby.

A fit, motivated Nalby on form is far more dangerous than Murray. Nalby can hit winners from any part of the court with ridiculous ease.

Some of his matches with Federer have been awesome displays of pure shotmaking.

As far as natural "talent" goes Nalbandian IMO is right up there with Federer and Nadal.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:34

I would say go easy on Nalbandian socal. I think fat is a harsh label for such a good tennis player. Yes he has been unfortunate with injuries and by the time he had got back to fitness, the game had very much passed him by with advances in the mens game by players such as Djokovic and Murray and also consistent form of such players as Davydenko, Roddick, Gasquet. It is a game that can change so quickly. It will be interesting to see how Delpo fares in the upcoming year.

by Guest Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:35

Murray is a pusher - a fitter version of Simon

Nalby may be fat - but he is a shotmaker extraordinaire.

If both are playing on top form, Nalby is definitely the more dangerous.

Hawkeye - I would agree that he is right up there with the likes of Fed, Agassi, in terms of pure talent. Nadal, I think, is a little below that level. He has never been one to consistently hit outrageous winners. He's more of a grinder.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:38

emancipator wrote:Murray is a pusher - a fitter version of Simon

Nalby may be fat - but he is a shotmaker extraordinaire.

If both are playing on top form, Nalby is definitely the more dangerous.

Hawkeye - I would agree that he is right up there with the likes of Fed, Agassi, in terms of pure talent. Nadal, I think, is a little below that level. He has never been one to consistently hit outrageous winners. He's more of a grinder.

That would be the only point of your post I would disagree with. The only other player bar Federer or Agassi that has made me say 'You are kidding me' when making a shot is Nadal.

I agree that Murray and Simon are carbon copies of themselves.

by Guest Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:41

LK, Nadal does hit outrageous winners - but just not very consistently.

Even now, Fed on average hits more winners than Rafa per set, considerably more.

Nadal's game has always been about incredible defense and wearing the opponent down. It's not first strike tennis. Most of his winners in the past used to come on the stretch when there was no option left but to go for it.

Admittedly nowadays, he is a bit more aggressive.

by socal1976 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:47

Nalbandian is a talented ball striker, so? Murray dwarves his record of accomplishment. Nalbandian couldn't even win a slam in the Rogerless era, when scrubs like Gauston Gaudio and Thomas Johannson were lifting grandslam trophies. He suffered from the same problem of meaty thighs and bulging midriffs that has destroyed the WTA tour, fat people people are never great tennis players. Don't believe me look at pictures of Sampras and Federer they are skinny, Dave didn't like the gym enough so he wasn't particularly good. He could beat a good player in that one month every 4 years that his body wouldn't give out on him the rest of the time a lot of guys on the challengers circuit could beat him.

by Jeremy_Kyle Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 17:56

legendkillar wrote:To all the posters that have their views.

But if you choose to use logic and argue in the face of it and try to bend and manipulate it then sorry I will not respect you as a poster.

If you can't respect logic, then don't use it.

Logic is such a huge word, LK. I have always thought forums are spaces to share opinions rather than to assert logic, which imvho finds its ideal place within the scientific community.

I think the two thesis that mainly Raiders puts forward :

a) That Nalby at his best has been a superior player that Murray at his best,

b) That a WTF win is, in itself, a higher achievement than several wins in the Masters,

Are all highly dabatable, for me and for many others reasonable posters.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:02

Thank you people who came to my rescue for my right to have an opinion. I'm not a very regular poster on 606v2 but I read almost all the topics here and I see quite some very genuine and knowledgeable tennis fans. And yes I did take a little coming to this forum from 606.

legendkiller is again defiant and bitter in his last post. I put forward many questions in my posts , none of which answered by you. Instead defied them and started calling it crap ( repeatedly even when I requested not to). laverfan expressed in his humble posts which I appreciate. You say you respect logic? Then try to answer the questions logically instead of calling it crap and stooping to levels of mud slinging. You started dismissing my posts repeated calling me to do research prior to posting when the fact is it was you missed it yourself. laverfan missed it too, but since he accepted it, it was okay, there are 100s of matches every year and most of us do keep interest in almost all of those, its tough to remember every bit detail of it. I know it.

So lets see what I did. I questioned if Murray's style of play isn't 'pusher' why his name appears in that league in wikipedia. I said Murray's natural style is not aggressive and the level he played in a few matches like 2008 US open and WTF 2010 semis is not his normal level and hence he can't keep it for long time. Murray himself agrees to his defensive style of play and his comfortable in being so. I don't think only its me who think Murray as a pusher. e.g. larry stefanki ( google if you don't know who he is) So can some poster use their logic to answer these?

Nalbandian's debate started off when a post appeared saying Federer and Nadal benefited with big wins from Murray and Djo's off form or injuries. Every player have their share of luck in the long run, but this is like putting Federer and Nadal in same bracket as Murray and Djo. I just think they haven't achieved enough till now that this statement can be made that their off form/injury actually significantly benefit the career achievements of Federer and Nadal. For Murry he first need to get to at least what Safin, Hewitt, *Nalbandian* got before we can even think about Nadal or Federer. Maybe I should have left Nalbandian out, this is what was the most controversial. One could ave even ignored the Nalandian as I also mentioned Hewitt and Safin to whom Murray is far .. far behind in accomplishments. Can any murray fan answer this? In fact Nalbandia himself doesn't measure upto Safin and Hewitt. So why couldn't all this be discussed with sane 'logic' instead of calling it crap.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:02

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
legendkillar wrote:To all the posters that have their views.

But if you choose to use logic and argue in the face of it and try to bend and manipulate it then sorry I will not respect you as a poster.

If you can't respect logic, then don't use it.

Logic is such a huge word, LK. I have always thought forums are spaces to share opinions rather than to assert logic, which imvho finds its ideal place within the scientific community.

I think the two thesis that mainly Raiders puts forward :

a) That Nalby at his best has been a superior player that Murray at his best,

b) That a WTF win is, in itself, a higher achievement than several wins in the Masters,

Are all highly dabatable, for me and for many others reasonable posters.

Logic is not big or that difficult JK. If you criticise someones opinion for using a 'logic' and then use it in the next very sentence. Not that difficult to digest.

1) If Nalbandian was that 'good' he would've won more.

2) A WTF doesn't touch reaching all 4 GS Semi Finals or equate to 7 Masters victories. One of them he beat Federer and Nadal on route.

I would like to see someone try to argue the accomplishments.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:05

Murray doesn't measure to Hewitt or Safin because they have won slams. If you read fellow posts you would see that yourself.

How about answer why you attacked the opinion of laverfan when 'she' said about the 2008 US Open Semi-Final performance and then say he can't hang his hat on it and yet you then highlight only 1 performance by Nalbandian?

by hawkeye Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:06

legendkillar wrote:
emancipator wrote:Murray is a pusher - a fitter version of Simon

Nalby may be fat - but he is a shotmaker extraordinaire.

If both are playing on top form, Nalby is definitely the more dangerous.

Hawkeye - I would agree that he is right up there with the likes of Fed, Agassi, in terms of pure talent. Nadal, I think, is a little below that level. He has never been one to consistently hit outrageous winners. He's more of a grinder.

That would be the only point of your post I would disagree with. The only other player bar Federer or Agassi that has made me say 'You are kidding me' when making a shot is Nadal.

I agree that Murray and Simon are carbon copies of themselves.

Nadal has the talent to hit "You are kidding me" shots. The reason he doesn't do so more often is down to strategy.

by sportslover Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:21

socal1976 wrote:Murray is clearly better than Nalbandian, what 7 masters to two that Nalbandian has. It isn't really even much of an argument, Murray has been to more grandslam finals and has several more Masters events. One win in WTF doesn't put Nalbandian over murray. Murray has more tournament titles, more masters, more grandslam finals. Nalbandian is a fat tennis player, fat tennis players are never that good.

lol - Murray is way better than Nalbandian who turns 30 on his next birthday and will probably be lucky to pick up another 250 title at most.

Murray has beaten him the last three times they have met and probably has another five years + to accomplish more.

If the original poster wants to enter into a debate at least spell the player in questions name correctly this may show he has some idea of what he is talking about.

socal

In most tennis circles now he is known as "fat Dave slim" having lost some weight over the last year or two.

by yummymummy Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:23

According to his Biography Rafa HATED tennis - he wanted to

pursue a Golfing career !

*strategy* Hawkeye ?? What *I am going to purposefully

miss this shot bacause my *stategy* is to lose the point!

by carrieg4 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:26

Hawkeye

Are you VMP from 606 or just channelling him??

by socal1976 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:27

Agree with hawkeye, I have never seen anyone hit the backhand passing shots on the dead run like Nadal, a thing of true beauty.

Can't argue that murray isn't as accomplished as hewitt or safin, that is a fact. But Nalbandian, that is a bridge that is way too far. Murray has more tourney wins, masters, and grandslam finals. Both have zero grandslam titles, plus murray is in the middle of his career and Dave is done, the margins in terms of accomplishment are only going to grow.

Legend take it easy on Raider he has got a right to his opinion. Andy is a bit of a pusher, what is infuriating to all of us who want to see him do better is that he has the talent and ability not to play that way and be successful.

by Jeremy_Kyle Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:30

legendkillar wrote:
Logic is not big or that difficult JK. If you criticise someones opinion for using a 'logic' and then use it in the next very sentence. Not that difficult to digest.

1) If Nalbandian was that 'good' he would've won more.

2) A WTF doesn't touch reaching all 4 GS Semi Finals or equate to 7 Masters victories. One of them he beat Federer and Nadal on route.

I would like to see someone try to argue the accomplishments.

Instead, I believe the rigorous use of logic is more difficult that you think, and in many ways not apt to a forum, which is mostly based on subjective judgements. For example:

When you say:

"1) If Nalbandian was that 'good' he would've won more"

you are not considering that Nalbandian has just been able to stay at his peak for a very short period of time (this due to injuries and other fitness problems)

and stating:

"2) A WTF doesn't touch reaching all 4 GS Semi Finals or equate to 7 Masters victories. One of them he beat Federer and Nadal on route." (forgetting here that you need to add to the overall calculation the 2 Masters won by Nalby)You are merely stating a subjective opinion that may or may not be shared by others.

by socal1976 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:31

Exactly, sportslover, I defy anyone to contradict my thesis that great men's tennis players are never fat. I have yet to see a great fat male tennis player. It is a little late to keep talking up chunky dave's potential greatness when the guy is 30 years old. No question the man was really good at hitting a tennis ball, but fat guys are never that good at tennis, at least not when they inconveniently keep score. And as you stated Murray in mid career is only going to increase the already massive gulf in accomplishment between himself and Nalbandian.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:31

Where have I stated that andy is not a pusher???? FFS can't people read?

by socal1976 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:34

"1) If Nalbandian was that 'good' he would've won more"

you are not considering that Nalbandian has just been able to stay at his peak for a very short period of time (this due to injuries and other fitness problems) j. kyle

A lot of fitness problems were due to his own lack of desire. If you are overweight and out of shape attempting to play a full season of world class tennis it is going to result in you always getting hurt. Some players work hard and have injury problems anyway like Nadal, those are the ones I feel for. Other players bring on their own injury problems because they refuse to do the hard yards, ie Nalby and Safin. I have less sympathy for their issues. And I love marat by the way.

by socal1976 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:35

LK, I know when I read Raider's post he is saying that Andy is a pusher, I mean that is not a completely illogical position to hold. So all I am saying is not to get so hot with Raider on this issue.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:36

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
Logic is not big or that difficult JK. If you criticise someones opinion for using a 'logic' and then use it in the next very sentence. Not that difficult to digest.

1) If Nalbandian was that 'good' he would've won more.

2) A WTF doesn't touch reaching all 4 GS Semi Finals or equate to 7 Masters victories. One of them he beat Federer and Nadal on route.

I would like to see someone try to argue the accomplishments.

Instead, I believe the rigorous use of logic is more difficult that you think, and in many ways not apt to a forum, which is mostly based on subjective judgements. For example:

When you say:

"1) If Nalbandian was that 'good' he would've won more"

you are not considering that Nalbandian has just been able to stay at his peak for a very short period of time (this due to injuries and other fitness problems)

and stating:

"2) A WTF doesn't touch reaching all 4 GS Semi Finals or equate to 7 Masters victories. One of them he beat Federer and Nadal on route." (forgetting here that you need to add to the overall calculation the 2 Masters won by Nalby)You are merely stating a subjective opinion that may or may not be shared by others.

If you read above posts I said Murray had 7 Masters victories to Nalby's 2. For someone reason people bang about his WTF victory.

If Nalbandian like I have said of Hewitt is suffering 'regular' injuries, it is also down to that individual to manage how the injury is treated. Yes he has had injuries, but I can't say he has made enormous efforts to utilise his 'talent'

That is many of the reasons he should not be classed above Murray.

by legendkillar Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:37

socal1976 wrote:LK, I know when I read Raider's post he is saying that Andy is a pusher, I mean that is not a completely illogical position to hold. So all I am saying is not to get so hot with Raider on this issue.

That is not the issue I hold with him!!!

It is the fact he criticised laverfan's opinion for bringing up past performances and then done it himself. That is not a logical position to hold.

by sportslover Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:54

carrieg4 wrote:Hawkeye

Are you VMP from 606 or just channelling him??

You seem to be perceptive carrieg what makes you think it is she?

by time please Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 18:59

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, sportslover, I defy anyone to contradict my thesis that great men's tennis players are never fat. I have yet to see a great fat male tennis player. It is a little late to keep talking up chunky dave's potential greatness when the guy is 30 years old. No question the man was really good at hitting a tennis ball, but fat guys are never that good at tennis, at least not when they inconveniently keep score. And as you stated Murray in mid career is only going to increase the already massive gulf in accomplishment between himself and Nalbandian.

socal - you make me laugh more than anyone else on this forum, and I mean that really affectionately - this whole thread got really heated and then you come up with the gem 'fat guys are never that good at tennis' Laugh

Wonderfully succint - I think it is called 'keeping it real' thumbsup

Anyway you've made this thread a happy place once again!

by socal1976 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 19:06

Thanks, timeplease, I always try to have a laugh. But sometimes humor can also make a point. If we wanted to do threads on 30 something guys who are overweight and at one time had athletic potential then I would nominate myself. Anyway, always nice to hear your comments as well.

by carrieg4 Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 19:14

sportslover wrote:
carrieg4 wrote:Hawkeye

Are you VMP from 606 or just channelling him??

You seem to be perceptive carrieg what makes you think it is she?

The tone and language of the posts is very familiar.

by time please Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 19:15

Catch you later......I'm still Laugh

!

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue 23 Aug 2011 - 19:21

legendkillar wrote:It is the fact he criticised laverfan's opinion for bringing up past performances and then done it himself. That is not a logical position to hold.

I didn't criticize laverfan at all and certainly not for for bringing up past performance by Murray in US open 2008. I just stated that using this almost 3 year old semis match as an example to state that Murray doesn't play a pusher's wait-for-errors style of play and defeated a fully fit great player as Nadal and has many great wins with super shot makings isn't right. If there are examples of his great performances with super shot makings as in US Open 2008 semis, there are examples of poor performances by Murray with losses to players which are never expected with a #4 ranked player ( I won't repeat the names ). And also a large percentage of his wins are ugly too ( waiting for opponents to start making errors and lose themselves and defaulting the win to Murray. I don't have to go far back in this either).

laverfan posted a link of the AO 2010 qtrs match against Nadal to elaborate his shot-makings. I said I can post 100s of links when Murray just waited for errors to come ( win or loss not being an issue). So what is so offensive here?

by Sponsored content