Well Done Andy

First topic message reminder :

Andy Murray, on sealing the Shanghai Masters and winning his third ATP title in as many weeks. That win means that, for the first time in his career, he moves above the legendary Roger Federer in the rankings moving to No.3 in the world and well-deserved it is too. Well deserved I hear some ask? Well rankings are judged on the here and now form not what has gone before from a year or two ago etc. Now on this season alone Andy has a better slam record than admittedly a Federer in decline and a better record in all other tournaments having won five titles to Federer's one so no contest there.

What difference will being No.3 make to Andy's game/mindset? Not a lot in the grand scheme of things but obviously it is a nice feather in his cap and can only boost his own confidence that he is heading in the right direction. I often hear people say that Murray should not be included in the big top four that is often mentioned perhaps solely because he has yet to win a slam which I can understand but equally it is unfair to try to paint him as being in the chasing pack as he has long been ahead of that chasing pack of players such as Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga etc since breaking into the top four in 2008.

What does the future hold for Andy Murray in terms of grand slams? Well he may win one or he may not and that will depend a lot on what happens with those around him such as Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Now Federer is on the wain so he is much in Murray's boat where he may have to depend on others slipping up to benefit unless like Murray he can raise his slam game to another level that he isn't at at the moment. Nadal is going through something of a crisis of confidence himself of late so he isn't as bullet-proof as say a year or two ago. Djokovic has been imperious this season and the question will be:- Can he maintain that level and consistency? If not others will pounce.

Again well done Andy on winning your 21st title and 8th Masters title taking him up to joint 6th on the all-time list of most successful players Masters Series in history.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nope I was working at the time bogbrush. I have posted a message already showing why it is clear the big three try at slam events. But I'll go over it again:-

Rafael Nadal - Masters Titles 19 (most in history)

Roger Federer - Masters Titles 17 (joint 2nd on all-time list)

Novak Djokovic - Masters Titles 10 (5th on all-time list)

Andy Murray - Masters Titles 8 (joint 6th on all-time list)

That list displays clearly to me that they've been trying a heck of a lot to have won those amount of titles. PLUS the WTF are now looked upon as a sort of unofficial 5th slam and to qualify for that you must do well in the Masters (another incentive to try). PLUS The Masters events do mean ranking points and any lack of effort would see their ranking slip and it just hasn't happened. Also is it fair to question the integrity of these great players? I think not.

As for why Andy has not won a slam that is purely down to the sheer excellence he has to beat to win them and coupled with the fact that he has never really produced his best or been aggressive enough come the slam finals in my opinion. Perhaps the fact that three setters are matches which he needs his aggressive game early doors helps him whereas in slams it is five sets and he plays a more tactical game in the early rounds that is nearly always good enough to get him to the semis but then to ask him to switch into aggressive mode come the semis is just not possible.

Disagree, they can make the WTF by doing well in Slams alone.

Your last paragraph is a sensible response to the contrast of success versus the same players. Not saying I entirely agree but it's debate, which is what this is all supposed to be about.

Yes but that doesn't explain away the ranking points they have to defend as well on a year-to-year basis. Also doesn't explain why Nadal, Federer and Djokovic and Murray are so successful at Masters Events. The SDB poster felt they weren't trying hard to win the Masters events yet the players he claims weren't trying are the most successful in Masters Series history. How pecuiliar.

Can we just clear up Federers career and what it tells us:

Slams 16
Masters 17

How many Masters events a year versus Slams?

So Masters successes per event vs Slam success per event? Perhaps you've landed on some evidence that he doesn't try so hard!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Perhaps its less to do with not trying, than with peaking. The aim of the top players is to peak, i.e. play their best tennis, at Slams.
Of course, they can play their best tennis at Masters events as well, at times, and I'm sure they are trying as hard as they can on the day, but the focus will be to be at their very best for the GS.

This is what I've been trying to say all along but certain posters have deliberately misconstrued my words to make them sound like I say the big three don't try at all at the smaller tournaments! I meant they "don't try as hard" at the smaller events. For example, players like Nadal subconsiously don't play as well for Shaghai as he would for say the Astralian Open, an observation based on evidence of his results at that tournament compared to a slam tournament. On a lesser scale Tim Henman played to his maximum at Wimbledon whereas until 2004 his slam form in the other three was nowhere near as good. Players like Henman made a consious effort to give his very best at Wimbledon which resulted in him having his best slam results there. However, that is not to say he "didn't try" at the others majors just that he clearly prioritised Wimbledon.

Besides Manchester Utd not trying as hard in the Carling Cup is an observation that holds a lot of weight. The individual players, usually second stringers are clearly trying hard as a team but as a club Man Utd are not trying as hard to win the Carling Cup as they wouldn't be fielding second stringers in the first place if they so desperately wanted the trophy. No need for admissions in interviews or signed statements of fact, just based on evidence it is clear to see MAn Utd as a club do not try as hard in the Carling Cup as they do in the Champs League.

As Fed's fans often like reminding us he did have mono for a while so more Masters events were affected at that time than slams as they come around more regularly. To claim like it now sounds like you are, that Federer doesn't try so hard at Masters doesn't explain away why he has managed to win 17 of them? I'd expect it to be a lot lower. Also if you are claiming he doesn't try so hard I'd also say it is pretty ludicrous to think he'd run the risk of giving psychological advantages to his closest rivals by allowing them to beat him. Tennis like all sports is a game of the mind and so any psychological advantages are like gold dust to these players so can't accept he'd willing not try harder against rivals close to him in rankings and in contention for titles along with him.

Super D Boon wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Perhaps its less to do with not trying, than with peaking. The aim of the top players is to peak, i.e. play their best tennis, at Slams.
Of course, they can play their best tennis at Masters events as well, at times, and I'm sure they are trying as hard as they can on the day, but the focus will be to be at their very best for the GS.

This is what I've been trying to say all along but certain posters have deliberately misconstrued my words to make them sound like I say the big three don't try at all at the smaller tournaments! I meant they "don't try as hard" at the smaller events. For example, players like Nadal subconsiously don't play as well for Shaghai as he would for say the Astralian Open, an observation based on evidence of his results at that tournament compared to a slam tournament. On a lesser scale Tim Henman played to his maximum at Wimbledon whereas until 2004 his slam form in the other three was nowhere near as good. Players like Henman made a consious effort to give his very best at Wimbledon which resulted in him having his best slam results there. However, that is not to say he "didn't try" at the others majors just that he clearly prioritised Wimbledon.

Besides Manchester Utd not trying as hard in the Carling Cup is an observation that holds a lot of weight. The individual players, usually second stringers are clearly trying hard as a team but as a club Man Utd are not trying as hard to win the Carling Cup as they wouldn't be fielding second stringers in the first place if they so desperately wanted the trophy. No need for admissions in interviews or signed statements of fact, just based on evidence it is clear to see MAn Utd as a club do not try as hard in the Carling Cup as they do in the Champs League.

Sorry SDB but isn't this the tennis section? As I explained to you earlier Man. United and Carling Cup holds up because United haven't won that Cup all that often However, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in Masters have been ultra-successful so that tells me that they do indeed try especially with all the extras that go with winning these titles such as prize money, crucial ranking points, confidence, pyschological edge over rivals and sponsorship deal and kudos to them so please tell me what incentive they have not to try as hard?

CaledonianCraig wrote:As Fed's fans often like reminding us he did have mono for a while so more Masters events were affected at that time than slams as they come around more regularly. To claim like it now sounds like you are, that Federer doesn't try so hard at Masters doesn't explain away why he has managed to win 17 of them? I'd expect it to be a lot lower. Also if you are claiming he doesn't try so hard I'd also say it is pretty ludicrous to think he'd run the risk of giving psychological advantages to his closest rivals by allowing them to beat him. Tennis like all sports is a game of the mind and so any psychological advantages are like gold dust to these players so can't accept he'd willing not try harder against rivals close to him in rankings and in contention for titles along with him.

Now it is you who are ignoring the facts in favour of prejudice

Firstly, the mono affected, in proportion, an equivalent number of Slams and Masters

Secondly, if his successes at masters were in proportion to Slams he'd be expected to have about 35-40 in the bag by now. These are facts, not prejudice.

The rest of your post is your subjective opinion. The cold facts suggest his greater application has been directed to the Slams.

Let us presume what you is saying is fact then tell me what he gains from not trying and look at some of these career patterns:-

Federer beat Murray in Cincinatti Master in 2010 just prior to the US Open so surely if he weren't trying (as in to conserve energy) why would he have won that semi-final?

Also three of Fed's other wins over Murray have been at a non-slam event. How so if he isn't trying? And if he isn't trying hard doesn't that throw the whole sport's integrity out of the window?

In addition how come Andy Murray's wins over Federer have seen close fought matches with five of those eight wins coming in three sets? Likewise Fed's six wins and three of those have gone the distance. Hardly stats that prove he isn't trying hard is it?

CC and BB are going to drive me to AA! (just a joke)

CC, there is a difference between not trying at a tournament and not being absolutely 100% prepared and determined to win at tournament.*

I think the top players put absolutely everything into every GS. I'm not sure the same can be said for every Masters event. Players are only human, they plan and prepare to be at their best for the GS. Not that they deliberately don't plan and prepare for Masters, but they know where they need to peak and they have to prioritise.

*I suspect, for example, that Fed really wants to win the Paris Masters, to have won all 9. I'm not convinced he's that bothered about, say, another Indian Wells.

So if that is the case why did he win Cincinatti Masters semi V Murray in 2010 and how come so many of their matches have been tight affairs? And can we negate a lot of Federer's Masters wins for the same reasons then? You see how silly it all gets?

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC and BB are going to drive me to AA! (just a joke)

CC, there is a difference between not trying at a tournament and not being absolutely 100% prepared and determined to win at tournament.*

I think the top players put absolutely everything into every GS. I'm not sure the same can be said for every Masters event. Players are only human, they plan and prepare to be at their best for the GS. Not that they deliberately don't plan and prepare for Masters, but they know where they need to peak and they have to prioritise.

*I suspect, for example, that Fed really wants to win the Paris Masters, to have won all 9. I'm not convinced he's that bothered about, say, another Indian Wells.

Julius totally agree with what you say above. The rider being that the player who does turn up 100% prepared and determined to win a tournament deserves the credit if they achieve that victory.

Craig, you're the one with the opinion. I'm not even saying Federer tries less hard, you made a comment about how his Masters success stats show something and I noticed that what they showed us wasn't what you thought it was. Now you're veering away from the statistics to infer his motives based on what you want them to be.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nope I was working at the time bogbrush. I have posted a message already showing why it is clear the big three try at slam events. But I'll go over it again:-

Rafael Nadal - Masters Titles 19 (most in history)

Roger Federer - Masters Titles 17 (joint 2nd on all-time list)

Novak Djokovic - Masters Titles 10 (5th on all-time list)

Andy Murray - Masters Titles 8 (joint 6th on all-time list)

That list displays clearly to me that they've been trying a heck of a lot to have won those amount of titles. PLUS the WTF are now looked upon as a sort of unofficial 5th slam and to qualify for that you must do well in the Masters (another incentive to try). PLUS The Masters events do mean ranking points and any lack of effort would see their ranking slip and it just hasn't happened. Also is it fair to question the integrity of these great players? I think not.

As for why Andy has not won a slam that is purely down to the sheer excellence he has to beat to win them and coupled with the fact that he has never really produced his best or been aggressive enough come the slam finals in my opinion. Perhaps the fact that three setters are matches which he needs his aggressive game early doors helps him whereas in slams it is five sets and he plays a more tactical game in the early rounds that is nearly always good enough to get him to the semis but then to ask him to switch into aggressive mode come the semis is just not possible.

Disagree, they can make the WTF by doing well in Slams alone.

Your last paragraph is a sensible response to the contrast of success versus the same players. Not saying I entirely agree but it's debate, which is what this is all supposed to be about.

Yes but that doesn't explain away the ranking points they have to defend as well on a year-to-year basis. Also doesn't explain why Nadal, Federer and Djokovic and Murray are so successful at Masters Events. The SDB poster felt they weren't trying hard to win the Masters events yet the players he claims weren't trying are the most successful in Masters Series history. How pecuiliar.

Can we just clear up Federers career and what it tells us:

Slams 16
Masters 17

How many Masters events a year versus Slams?

So Masters successes per event vs Slam success per event? Perhaps you've landed on some evidence that he doesn't try so hard!

You could also add Sampras to the slams/masters debate:

Slams 14
Masters 11

What does that say? Being that there are 9 masters to 4 slams per season.

laverfan wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:What are you talking about you weirdo?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:While I was trying to defend Super D's point of view as I thought it was reasonable and he put it across in a civilised way

Civility is a bi-directional concept, not just a uni-directional one!

Murray's lack of a slam is a valid discussion point, but the 'bigger' picture of a good player is somehow being missed.

For example, Berdych (#6) has been to a W final and his last and only Masters win was in 2005.

Ferrer (#5) is a very nice player, but look at his Masters record.

Soderling has one MS in Paris (2010), so does Tsonga (2008), a slam finalist.

Since 2005, Masters winners are

2005 - Federer (4), Nadal (4), Berdych (1)
2006 - Federer (4), Nadal (2), Robredo (1), Roddick (1), Davydenko (1)
2007 - Nadal (3), Federer (2), Nalbandian (2), Djokovic (2)
2008 - Nadal (3), Djokovic (2), Murray (2), Davydenko (1), Tsonga (1)
2009 - Nadal (3), Federer (2), Murray (2), Davydenko (1), Djokovic (1)
2010 - Nadal (3), Murray (2), Federer (1), Ljubicic(1), Roddick (1), Soderling (1)
2011 - Djokovic (5), Murray (2), Nadal (1)

Notice the consistency of 2 MS titles in 2008-2010.

BB,

Just pointing to this post and also the point of Federer's Master Titles haul v Slam haul.

Notice 2005/2006. I am sure that haul was not down to lack of effort.

2008 minus the US Open was a dry year.

2010 was a good year.

2011 is his challenging to date. Will I be right in the assumption that he will be a massive push in to avoid being caught by Ferrer in the rankings?

Win/Loss ratio

Masters (Career)...

Djokovic - 136/40 (77.3%)
Nadal - 214/45 (82.6%)
Murray - 110/44 (71.4%)
Federer - 243/76 (76.2%)

Slams (Career)...

Djokovic - 111/24 (82.2%)
Nadal - 143/20 (87.7%)
Murray - 78/24 (76.5%)
Federer - 230/34 (87.1%)

Masters vs. Slams differential

Djokovic - 5%
Nadal - 5%
Murray - 5%
Federer - 11%

Based on the 'differential', apart from Federer @11%, the others try 'equally' to win at Masters and Slams, both.

Source of data is ATP Playing Activity (All ATP World Tour Masters 1000 and All Grand Slams) for 'All Years'.

E&OE.

Nope I am saying he tries just as much as the other players and so the figures in titles won etc demonstrates that and would go along with what Calder106 has just posted. Also read the post and you'll see that Fed titles should have his titles negated was a tongue in cheek remark meaning that if posters wish to try to discredit some of Murray's wins then surely it should be the same for every players wins in Masters events.

laverfan wrote:Win/Loss ratio

Masters (Career)...

Djokovic - 136/40 (77.3%)
Nadal - 214/45 (82.6%)
Murray - 110/44 (71.4%)
Federer - 243/76 (76.2%)

Slams (Career)...

Djokovic - 111/24 (82.2%)
Nadal - 143/20 (87.7%)
Murray - 78/24 (76.5%)
Federer - 230/34 (87.1%)

Masters vs. Slams differential

Djokovic - 5%
Nadal - 5%
Murray - 5%
Federer - 11%

Based on the 'differential', apart from Federer @11%, the others try 'equally' to win at Masters and Slams, both.

Source of data is ATP Playing Activity (All ATP World Tour Masters 1000 and All Grand Slams) for 'All Years'.

E&OE.

Thank you laverfan. I rest my case.

LF another cracking bit of research and statistics

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
While I was trying to defend Super D's point of view as I thought it was reasonable and he put it across in a civilised way


Just noticed this so sorry I lost my rag but I was called a "tithead" by legendkiller.

To take a quote from a very typical teacher breaks up playground fight scenario - "He started it!"

And it is fair to say you have finished it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So if that is the case why did he win Cincinatti Masters semi V Murray in 2010 and how come so many of their matches have been tight affairs? And can we negate a lot of Federer's Masters wins for the same reasons then? You see how silly it all gets?

Without being able to remember the Cicinatti Masters match, I would presume Fed won it by being the better player on the day. I'm not suggesting they turn up after a night out at a club and play without any interest.
Nor am I saying the top players never play their best at Masters.
But it would make sense to assume the top players see the GS as more important than Masters ('cos they are) and prioritise them accordingly - a bit like athletes gearing their training towards winning the Olympics and World Championships, not the events in between.
No player can play their best at 14, 15 tournaments a year, and they know it. So they make absolutely sure they are playing their best at the GS.

By the way SDB, there's only one response to being called a tithead - pat your hair down and say 'sorry, is my nipple showing?'

Super D Boon wrote:break_in_the_fifth wrote:
While I was trying to defend Super D's point of view as I thought it was reasonable and he put it across in a civilised way


Just noticed this so sorry I lost my rag but I was called a "tithead" by legendkiller.

To take a quote from a very typical teacher breaks up playground fight scenario - "He started it!"

Can I apologise to you on LK's behalf?

Let us have a civilised, even if a divergent debate.

Craig and BB, if I have misconstrued here, please excuse - have been speed reading!

There are two issues here, and I think it is correct to say that Nadal and Federer have timed their peaks very well in the past. It is a fact (and I really know more about equine athletes having had something to do with training show jumpers in the past) that you cannot have an athlete in peak condition all the time, the fitness or excellence tends to fall away a little. It is noticeable that Nadal is an expert, or Toni is, at bringing himself to peak for the clay season and increasingly for the summer - after that his 'peak' fitness falls away just a little.

In the beginning, Fed was scooping masters as he did slams. As he became a little older, it took more skill to peak for a few - his body wouldn't maintain that absolute 'peak' and he and his team did a good job at timing it for what was of primary importance to him - the majors (what has been extraordinary about the younger Fed is what an athlete he was and what a competitor throughout the year, but now there are more noticeable pits and troughs). The fact that Murray has beaten Fed in master's finals is because he is an outstanding player, the fact that Murray hasn't taken a set from Fed (to date) in a slam final may be due to a number of issues discussed in the thread.

I think in the past Murray was a little confused and some of the criticism levelled at Andy forgot that his career trajectory is behind Fed's, unsurprising as he is 6 years younger. I think Murray's recent statement about starting the year wanting to be number 1, but now he is adjusting aims to No 3 (reached) and winning the WTF shows that he is beginning to focus on the correct goals for his career for the next few months. The higher he can push his ranking will ensure more favourable draws at the slams. As he scoops more masters, and then perhaps adds a slam and is himself becoming older, I think we will see him peaking at different times - that is nothing to do with trying or not trying - it's very hard to explain, but different players will become match fit in different ways to each other and that in itself changes with age (well it does with horses anyway! )

Fed's masters scoops = 2002 - 1
2003 - 0
2004 - 3
2005 - 4
2006 - 4
2007 - 2
2008 - 0
2009 - 2
2010 - 1
2011 - 0

Obviously this year has been all Novak's so Nadal's tally has dropped off, but I wouldn't be surprised to see his team now really targeting 'peak' for the slams because although he is only a year older than Andy, he is much older miles wise and I don't think, unless he is truly super human, that we can expect to see him contesting every competition at the same level - of course he will be trying as hard, he will just time his absolute peak preparation for the majors now. Novak needed to establish this domination this year, but there is no way his body will take contesting every final with the same ferocity as the next for a following year.

I am explaining really badly, but with horses you begin to get a lessening of interest and concentration if you have them at peak all the time - you have them fit and ready to go, but it is that extra intensity you bring to the training before a big one, a bit more focus, extra careful with diet and every limbering up has real purpose - it's hard to explain.

Just noticed Julius's post and he says it much more eloquently than I have.

Yes Julius but that being the case then it would be the same case for every player so the Masters wins remain relevant.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So if that is the case why did he win Cincinatti Masters semi V Murray in 2010 and how come so many of their matches have been tight affairs? And can we negate a lot of Federer's Masters wins for the same reasons then? You see how silly it all gets?

Without being able to remember the Cicinatti Masters match, I would presume Fed won it by being the better player on the day. I'm not suggesting they turn up after a night out at a club and play without any interest.
Nor am I saying the top players never play their best at Masters.
But it would make sense to assume the top players see the GS as more important than Masters ('cos they are) and prioritise them accordingly - a bit like athletes gearing their training towards winning the Olympics and World Championships, not the events in between.
No player can play their best at 14, 15 tournaments a year, and they know it. So they make absolutely sure they are playing their best at the GS.

By the way SDB, there's only one response to being called a tithead - pat your hair down and say 'sorry, is my nipple showing?'

I have to that last sentence cracked me up. I swear you have a book of gags Julius

JuliusHMarx wrote:By the way SDB, there's only one response to being called a tithead - pat your hair down and say 'sorry, is my nipple showing?'

We need to get Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson to weigh in on that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes Julius but that being the case then it would be the same case for every player so the Masters wins remain relevant.

Of course they are relevant Craig - I tried to explain a bit about 'peaking' re horses above, but not sure if it makes sense?

Yes I do see what you are saying time please and still shows that the players aren't trying any less. Players will always try but look to peak at slam events but the masters events they play (and win) remain relevant in any case.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes Julius but that being the case then it would be the same case for every player so the Masters wins remain relevant.

Absolutely, and that's why it's great that Murray has won so many and helped make him No 3 (No 2 at one point wasn't he?) For that he gets a hearty 'Well done Andy' from me.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes I do see what you are saying time please and still shows that the players aren't trying any less. Players will always try but look to peak at slam events but the masters events they play (and win) remain relevant in any case.

Of course they aren't trying any less - that is what was entirely wrong, imo, with SDB's argument. Andy is at a different stage in his career to Fed and Rafa - as I said Rafa may only be a year older than A, but he has many more miles on the clock and is a completely different physical specimen. If I am using the analogy about horses again, Rafa is built like a big strong sprinter - the type you expect to mature earlier. Andy is not such a natural athlete as Rafa and probably has to work harder to get half as fit - you'd expect a horse like this to mature later.

Andy is peaking better for the slams this year, but he always looks his most dangerous at this time of the year and he should capitalise on this to advance his ranking, as Rafa has historically capitalised on the clay swing.

Well Julius that was basically the main point to this thread to say well done. Andy may win a slam or he may not but I really think that is more to do with the brilliance that has stood in his way than any serious flaws in his game. I am hoping he'll adopt more aggression to all of his matches - he can do it in patches and spells in matches now he must do it all the time especially in crunch slam semis and finals.

Sorry, there's a lot of writing since I last looked and I can't completely discern the intention, but has there been some massive analysis to prove that 16 of something you get 4 goes of a year and 17 of another that you get 9 goes of are the same proportion?

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, there's a lot of writing since I last looked and I can't completely discern the intention, but has there been some massive analysis to prove that 16 of something you get 4 goes of a year and 17 of another that you get 9 goes of are the same proportion?

Not really, someone presented a bunch of figures earlier which apparently seemed to prove that the big three try just as hard or are at their maximum in the masters the same as slams but Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have a 11%, 5% and 5% (respectively) better success rate at the slams whilst Murray interestingly also has a 5% better slam to masters ratio. To me it doesn't really prove anything. However, it would be nice to see Murray win a slam one day and despite the suspicions of two posters I'm not a football wum that wants Murray to lose because of what he said about the England football team!

Super D Boon wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, there's a lot of writing since I last looked and I can't completely discern the intention, but has there been some massive analysis to prove that 16 of something you get 4 goes of a year and 17 of another that you get 9 goes of are the same proportion?

Not really, someone presented a bunch of figures earlier which apparently seemed to prove that the big three try just as hard or are at their maximum in the masters the same as slams but Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have a 11%, 5% and 5% (respectively) better success rate at the slams whilst Murray interestingly also has a 5% better slam to masters ratio. To me it doesn't really prove anything. However, it would be nice to see Murray win a slam one day and despite the suspicions of two posters I'm not a football wum that wants Murray to lose because of what he said about the England football team!

yummymummy wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, there's a lot of writing since I last looked and I can't completely discern the intention, but has there been some massive analysis to prove that 16 of something you get 4 goes of a year and 17 of another that you get 9 goes of are the same proportion?

Not really, someone presented a bunch of figures earlier which apparently seemed to prove that the big three try just as hard or are at their maximum in the masters the same as slams but Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have a 11%, 5% and 5% (respectively) better success rate at the slams whilst Murray interestingly also has a 5% better slam to masters ratio. To me it doesn't really prove anything. However, it would be nice to see Murray win a slam one day and despite the suspicions of two posters I'm not a football wum that wants Murray to lose because of what he said about the England football team!

Classic. Still didn't have to wait long!

time please wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes I do see what you are saying time please and still shows that the players aren't trying any less. Players will always try but look to peak at slam events but the masters events they play (and win) remain relevant in any case.

Of course they aren't trying any less - that is what was entirely wrong, imo, with SDB's argument.

I think SDB has a point, and that would be naive to ignore it outright.

Murray himself said once, famously he had been "experimenting" during the Dubai ATP. Now that was a naive piece of pubblic relation but there is no doubt around what he really meant by that.

Imo, it is important to distinguish between:

1) Professionalism: which is undoubtedly at the highest level for all the top guys, who are expected to provide the maximum possible commitment once they agree to partecipate to an event.

2) Motivation: which is more of subjective and immaterial nature, and is closely related to the desire of a player to fulfil a certain goal.

Now, while you can "choose" intentionally to behave in a professional manner , it is more difficoult to influence your motivational profile, which is set at a deeper level and depends on personality, achievements and career so far.

But that is just it. Look back and he made a point that he has only won eight of these masters titles because the other top players don't try as hard (making it sound like Murray was playing eye-balls out tennis bursting every musacle in his body to win eight whilst the others weren't trying. No comment from him that Federer, Nadal or Djokovic only won their titles as others weren't trying. I tend to agree with the view of when players peak and when they do they win the titles and so deserve the credit for it.

I think though, as you would agree JK, is that a player might not go flat out earlier in a tournament in order to pace themselves for a season. However, finding themselves in any final would mean both players are likely to be trying their hearts out.

I just wonder if the other top three have a higher pain threshold in a bo5 slam final that allows them to take that to an even higher level when the need arises.? Or whether the team needs to just fine tune the peak fitness of Andy for the majors?

time please wrote:I think though, as you would agree JK, is that a player might not go flat out earlier in a tournament in order to pace themselves for a season. However, finding themselves in any final would mean both players are likely to be trying their hearts out.

I just wonder if the other top three have a higher pain threshold in a bo5 slam final that allows them to take that to an even higher level when the need arises.? Or whether the team needs to just fine tune the peak fitness of Andy for the majors?

Yes I agree. You are not going to be a top 10 player if you don't meet the highest standards of professionalism.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

time please wrote:I think though, as you would agree JK, is that a player might not go flat out earlier in a tournament in order to pace themselves for a season. However, finding themselves in any final would mean both players are likely to be trying their hearts out.

I just wonder if the other top three have a higher pain threshold in a bo5 slam final that allows them to take that to an even higher level when the need arises.? Or whether the team needs to just fine tune the peak fitness of Andy for the majors?

Yes I agree. You are not going to be a top 10 player if you don't meet the highest standards of professionalism.

Totally agree JK

ERM - Is THAT why Andy is #3 in the World then

CaledonianCraig wrote:But that is just it. Look back and he made a point that he has only won eight of these masters titles because the other top players don't try as hard (making it sound like Murray was playing eye-balls out tennis bursting every musacle in his body to win eight whilst the others weren't trying. No comment from him that Federer, Nadal or Djokovic only won their titles as others weren't trying. I tend to agree with the view of when players peak and when they do they win the titles and so deserve the credit for it.

I agree with this comment in it's entirety

Peak is different to lack of effort!!

By the way Super D Boon you claim to not hate Murray yet you posted this here a few weeks ago:-

Super D Boon wrote:Actually lost a lot of respect for Murray over the years, used to like the guy. He needs a shorter tour to accommodate his gruelling and inefficient style of play. Andy Roddick also complained some years ago, yet was also a power player with limited skill - some coincidence.

Can't understand his reasoning it's not like he's ever going to be forced to play on one leg and if he's feeling tired he get get the doctor to write him a sick note.

Rubbish excuse for a sportsman.

Sounds like a lot of hate there.

nah CC that doesn't prove anything. Someone probably hacked his computer when he wrote that (and all the other times he wrote anti-Murray bile). I love the way he's trying to come across as the voice of reason in this thread. Personally Sonic I find LF's stats much more convincing than your repeated unfounded and quite frankly daft opinion that Murray only wins when nobody else is trying. Still by all means keep deluding yourself if it makes you feel better (does it? I've always been curious as to why people feel the need to come on message boards and insult great sportsmen for no particular reason - do tell).

Let anarchy reign

What does that prove Caledonian? Nothing. Again I'm entitled to voice an opinion on Murray's conduct what with this being a forum. Nowehere does that statement express "hate". Let's be honest, you seem to be a patriotic little scot who does not want anyone saying anything but lovely things about your countryman and you defned him to the hilt.

Anyway, who is this Mad for Chelsea hit and run merchant.? But out pal you have nothing useful to add judging by your drivel. At least I have a little begrudging respect for Caledonian, who has a great love for his hero Murray and he's entitled to express his love as he sees fit. You aint worth commenting on.

and yet you still took the time to comment on me anyway. I feel very touched

calling someone a "rubbish excuse for a sportsman" suggests you have some serious issues. Was it the "everyone hates England" comment? Do tell, what exactly did Andy do to upset you so much?

As for what was wrong with your previous posts, I would suggest you go and read the house rules. You might find them illuminating.

Spot on Mad For Chelsea.

And also it seems that threads discussing Andy Murray (and largely he alone) brings Super D Boon out with his dissing. A 'rubbish excuse for a sportsman' does not sound at all like someone who wants Murray to win a slam at all - quite the opposite actually.

As for having a right to comment on Murray's conduct you have as long as it is not fabricated nonsense. As for only wanting lovely things said about Andy - well on this thread perhaps as that was the general intention of it for a player to have won a hat-trick of back-to-back titles (a pretty rare accomplishment) yet for all you say you want Murray to do well you hijack the thread and (despite the thread's topic) choose to discredit Andy Murray and Murray alone. I didn't see you devalue Nadal, Djokovic or Federer's masters titles wins in any way you specifically rounded on Murray's achievements. Not fair don't you think?

Actually there's at least 2 ways "rubbish excuse for a sportsman" could be interpreted. For example the way I first interpreted it was that the excuse in his previous paragraphs is a rubbish excuse for a sportsman to make. I guess though you guys interpreted it as him saying Murray is a poor excuse for a sportsman. Either way only sdb knows which one he really meant.

Super D Boon wrote:What does that prove Caledonian? Nothing. Again I'm entitled to voice an opinion on Murray's conduct what with this being a forum. Nowehere does that statement express "hate". Let's be honest, you seem to be a patriotic little scot who does not want anyone saying anything but lovely things about your countryman and you defned him to the hilt.

Anyway, who is this Mad for Chelsea hit and run merchant.? But out pal you have nothing useful to add judging by your drivel. At least I have a little begrudging respect for Caledonian, who has a great love for his hero Murray and he's entitled to express his love as he sees fit. You aint worth commenting on.

Is the nipple still showing on your head??? I think it is.

laverfan wrote:Win/Loss ratio

Masters (Career)...

Djokovic - 136/40 (77.3%)
Nadal - 214/45 (82.6%)
Murray - 110/44 (71.4%)
Federer - 243/76 (76.2%)

Slams (Career)...

Djokovic - 111/24 (82.2%)
Nadal - 143/20 (87.7%)
Murray - 78/24 (76.5%)
Federer - 230/34 (87.1%)

Masters vs. Slams differential

Djokovic - 5%
Nadal - 5%
Murray - 5%
Federer - 11%

Based on the 'differential', apart from Federer @11%, the others try 'equally' to win at Masters and Slams, both.

Source of data is ATP Playing Activity (All ATP World Tour Masters 1000 and All Grand Slams) for 'All Years'.

E&OE.

I have two comments to make on these numbers:
1) Federer has previously said that it is "easier" to beat him (a top player) over a best of three set match than over a best of five set match. These numbers support that statement. I remember Davydenko beating Federer in a best of three setter in one tournament quite convincingly in two sets (I think it was a WTF), but then losing to Federer in the next slam tournament (the AO and after Davydenko had played very well at the beginning of the match).

2) Number of Masters tournament matches played / Number of Grand Slam tournament matches played

Djokovic - 176 / 135 (130%)
Nadal - 259 / 163 (159%)
Murray - 154 / 102 (151%)
Federer - 319 / 264 (121%)

Percentage number of more Masters matches played
Djokovic +30%
Nadal +59%
Murray +51%
Federer +21%

So clearly Federer puts less of his efforts into the Masters tournaments over the season than do either Nadal or Murray.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Actually there's at least 2 ways "rubbish excuse for a sportsman" could be interpreted. For example the way I first interpreted it was that the excuse in his previous paragraphs is a rubbish excuse for a sportsman to make. I guess though you guys interpreted it as him saying Murray is a poor excuse for a sportsman. Either way only sdb knows which one he really meant.

It doesn't take an Einstein to work it out. Here is a poster that has actively sought out topics solely on Andy Murray (one of which was encouraging positive thoughts) and both were negative slants made to discredit Murray .I think Trigger could work out the posters motives.

NS I have a question. When does defeat constitute effort applied?

For me yes it is easier to defeat Federer over 3 sets like it is with Nadal too.