Andy Murray - I Have No More Faith

First topic message reminder :

Andy here we are again. The same old problem. Cannot take the incentive in a match when it matters. In my brutal and up most honest assessment of this match was that Djokovic was lucky. That type of performance against anyone more clinical would've won resulted in a 3/4 set defeat. For me Murray had so many chances in the match to win and gave it all back. Simply put he does not believe enough he can win a Slam. For me he wasted chance after chance. I hear all this give him credit, credit for what? Tossing the match in when it was there for the taking? Andy looked so effortsly on his FH and he was bossing Djokovic all around the baseline. I cannot from this match see Andy ever winning a Slam. I am a British tennis fan, but Andy's performance in the 4th set was pathetic. You only chuck in sets when you know for sure you can take the match in the next set. To try and do that against a proven champion was very misjudged and arrogant. Credit to Djokovic yes he won the match, but it wasn't a match he deserved to win. Some of his court play was Ferrer-esc.

When Andy Finally won the 3rd set, I expected him to click into 3rd gear and take the match in the 4th, but did he? Boll0cks did he!! He gifted points like they were going to come back round. Yes he got himself back in it in the 5th, but at the expence of fatigue on Djokovic's behalf.

Great players see out matches when in control. Great players do not dip and create problems for themselves in match winning positions.

Andy has the talent to be great, but wastes it with a poor mindset.

Come on Tenez just admit it.

Jeez, for years on here and before that on BBC 606 I have had to put up with tripe like only slam form and results matter when judging a player's greatness. Well in the past year and a quarter Andy has a better slam record than Roger Federer. Five slam semis and one final is a better return than Federer's plus he is breathing down Federer's neck for the No.3 slot in the rankings. And unless you cannot read banbrotam did say the word 'now' meaning talking the hear and now and not back in the good old days when Federer won slams.

In yesterday's match the world of tennis returned to a whelk era. Even during this narrow period of time the chief whelk Mr Andreas MurrayWhelk couldn't win a match despite it being handed to him on a fish plate by the severely "injured" and hayfeverish Mr No Djokerman, the Laird of the JelliedEel.

In order to return the court back to the Jellied Eel Era, Ms Shriekapova and Ms Azanosurrender are currently exorcising the whelk demons by shrieking them back from whence they came. Hopefully by Sunday the Rod Laver Court will have been returned to the Jellied Eel era.

Or WTFs?

Yes bogbrush because for years people on these forums have never tried pointing to rankings to prove greatness - the rule of thumb was always the slams won. Well as neither Murray or Federer have won slams in the recent past (Murray never) then we have to look at their comparitive slam records and it may pain you but Murray's is better than Federer's over the last year.

Hi Caledonian - you are unlikely to change others viewpoints, and they have a right to that viewpoint. Does it matter how that viewpoint is expressed, either weakly or strongly? If everyone held the same viewpoint then this forum would become "stale".

CaledonianCraig wrote:Come on Tenez just admit it.

Oh I have no problem admitting it. I woudl just like to be convinced beforehand.

You really have a weird logic. Remember a few months ago you were arguing that Murray was better cause his record in slam was better than Federer...overlooking that Federer had faced Djoko every time. Now you realise that DJoko is the wall....but I guess you conveniently overlook that not only Federer was much closer to beating Djoko than Murray ever was and that he actually did beat Djoko.

You really are clutching to straws.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes bogbrush because for years people on these forums have never tried pointing to rankings to prove greatness - the rule of thumb was always the slams won. Well as neither Murray or Federer have won slams in the recent past (Murray never) then we have to look at their comparitive slam records and it may pain you but Murray's is better than Federer's over the last year.

So being the only guy to actually BEAT Djokovic, and WINNING the WTF < getting an extra set in a semi?

All immaterial really. The rule of thumb on these tennis forums as purely been slam records and now we see Fed fans trying to slither out of that and change the rules as it doesn't suit their idol.

I saw no conditions/exceptions given in Murray's case. It was slam record pure and simple and everything else was totally immaterial to detractors so let that be the case here.

I would share your indignity if banbrotam had not used the word 'now' in his term but he did and so it is not as much nonsense as you are both trying to paint it at all.

One extra set, against a different opponent, trumps winning?

Breathtaking. Sometimes you really do dig yourself a big one Craig.

Nice try bogbrush. Caught bang to rights by rules yourself and others have harped on about ad nausea for years.

Murray is now better than Federer.



Have a good week end.



BUt don;t look at the ranking though...cause the gap has actually widened.

Ooooh ranking. Sorry not an issue and never has been around these parts to those detractors.

I can't believe you are writing this after all the tripe you wrote about the fact that Murray was deservedly the number 3 cause the ranking was saying so back in October.

No qualms!...and comical!

Not sure where you get the idea I ever disowned the ranking, I mean it's not hardly ever been an issue for Federer with Murray is it? I think he led him once but if I blinked I might have missed it.

This is what happens when the heart overwhelms the head. A salutary lesson.

In response to tripe posted by yourself Tenez. after all banbrotam stated a fact if we are playing by the rules that forum fans for years held true to. That is the point I am making here. On those premises purely then banbrotam is spot on. As for rankings not mattering where did I ever say that? All I am re-iterating here is that Murray detractors have long since pointed to slams for evidence of his standing in the sport and since banbrotam brought up the word 'now' in his statement he is correct if we play by those same rules. Murray, going by recent slams, has a better slam record than Federer so I am now going to use the same stick Murray detractors have used to beat Andy with to make a point and can you really blame me?

CaledonianCraig wrote:In response to tripe posted by yourself Tenez. after all banbrotam stated a fact if we are playing by the rules that forum fans for years held true to. That is the point I am making here. On those premises purely then banbrotam is spot on. As for rankings not mattering where did I ever say that? All I am re-iterating here is that Murray detractors have long since pointed to slams for evidence of his standing in the sport and since banbrotam brought up the word 'now' in his statement he is correct if we play by those same rules. Murray, going by recent slams, has a better slam record than Federer so I am now going to use the same stick Murray detractors have used to beat Andy with to make a point and can you really blame me?

Okay.

Federer = GOAT ( as per http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/fancentre/poll/day10.html votes)

But Murray > Federer by virtue of his semis performance in the AO 2012 and also last year slam performances

Therefore, Murray = "NEW" GOAT.

Now Happy CC

No not talking about GOAT here. Nice try. We are talking about there here and now as originally brought up by banbrotam.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not talking about GOAT here. Nice try. We are talking about there here and now as originally brought up by banbrotam.

What banbro originally brought up was such a comment, i had to laugh at it ( I really did and I always take the posts seriously and I respect posters). He ( and you now) is trying to imply math in tennis to draw out who is better.

It sounds like this:
Djo = rank 1 => 10 points per set won against him
Nadal = rank 2 => 9 points per set won against him
Federer = rank 3 => 8 points per set won against him
Murray = rank4 => 7 points per set won against him..

So AO 2012 semis math exam starts:

Nadal vs Federer = Nadal won 3-1 sets => Nadal : 24 points. Federer: 9 points

Djokovic vs Murray= Djoko won 3-2 sets => Djoko : 21 points. Murray: 20 points. Lost just by 1 point


So at the end of the exam Murray earned 20 points and Federer earned 9 points.

since 20 > 9

therefore Murray > Federer. .


Do you still want to go with what banbro said??

Yes of course I do merely to hold true to what detractors such as yourself have held as to how Murray should be judged purely on slams and in the past year Murray has the better record over Federer. Murray has reached the slam semis or better in his last five slams whilst Federer has not.

So you're happy to support an argument you don't believe in?

CC you seem to be basing this assertion on the fact that Roger "only" made QF at Wimbledon last year.

Of course he also won the year end event or was that only because Andy was injured?

The reality is 3 or 4 respectively there's a real gap between Nadal plus Djokovic then the pair of them a fair way behind.

Andy's biggest challenge is although he's beaten Nadal he still to beat one of Federer or Djokovic in a slam when it really counts. Once he can do that then he can probably win one.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes of course I do merely to hold true to what detractors such as yourself have held as to how Murray should be judged purely on slams and in the past year Murray has the better record over Federer. Murray has reached the slam semis or better in his last five slams whilst Federer has not.

I can't agree that this logic makes Andy a better player than Roger in the "here and now". It's all speculation at this stage. Consider as a counter-argument to your statement that Roger was the only player to actually beat Djoko in a slam last year, at a point when Djoko was on his hottest run on clay ever.

I would actually like to see the pair meet at a slam when it mattered. With their rankings at the moment that will be difficult, but it would shed more light on this debate.

Garth I am merely going on the terms/basis that people have used to disparage Andy's standing in the game that is all. No more and no less. All us Murray fans have had rammed down our throats is 'Oh but he hasn't won a slam' and despite us pointing to his other achievements such as multiple Masters Cup wins and wins over Federer, Djokovic and Nadal this forever cut no ice as we came back to the old 'Oh but he has never won a slam' stuff again. Therefore since slams were always painted as the be all and end all and since banbrotam (to be fair to him) did say 'now' in his words then Murray is ahead of Federer.

Of course if we are talking about tennis history - no contest but we weren't.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Garth I am merely going on the terms/basis that people have used to disparage Andy's standing in the game that is all. No more and no less. All us Murray fans have had rammed down our throats is 'Oh but he hasn't won a slam' and despite us pointing to his other achievements such as multiple Masters Cup wins and wins over Federer, Djokovic and Nadal this forever cut no ice as we came back to the old 'Oh but he has never won a slam' stuff again. Therefore since slams were always painted as the be all and end all and since banbrotam (to be fair to him) did say 'now' in his words then Murray is ahead of Federer.

Of course if we are talking about tennis history - no contest but we weren't.

Craig, you're going on as if Andy has been head of Federer on conventional measures but naysayers have been coming up with other measures.

In fact he's headed Fed in the ranking for about 5 minutes.

In terms of "now", you're seriously suggesting we place the ranking on who got more sets in a losing Slam semifinal? If you want to be very contemporary about performance then the WTF kills it.

I can't honestly see how any rational person can go down the road you're travelling. It's pretty foolish and there's not a lot of support for it.

Murray and Fed actually played the best tennis heading into the semis, though some would argue Murray's draw was easy. I'd say they're about par considering they've been the best players on tour since the US Open.

Andy is getting it right and I think his rivalry with Nole will become the pre-eminent fixture in the coming years. I'm still absolutely CERTAIN Andy will be a multi-slammer.

I shall reiterate the stats:

Murray vs top 3 in slams 2 wins 10 losses.

Federer vs top 3 in slams 9 wins 12 losses (2-0 vs Murray).

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Garth I am merely going on the terms/basis that people have used to disparage Andy's standing in the game that is all. No more and no less. All us Murray fans have had rammed down our throats is 'Oh but he hasn't won a slam' and despite us pointing to his other achievements such as multiple Masters Cup wins and wins over Federer, Djokovic and Nadal this forever cut no ice as we came back to the old 'Oh but he has never won a slam' stuff again. Therefore since slams were always painted as the be all and end all and since banbrotam (to be fair to him) did say 'now' in his words then Murray is ahead of Federer.

Of course if we are talking about tennis history - no contest but we weren't.

Craig, you're going on as if Andy has been head of Federer on conventional measures but naysayers have been coming up with other measures.

In fact he's headed Fed in the ranking for about 5 minutes.

In terms of "now", you're seriously suggesting we place the ranking on who got more sets in a losing Slam semifinal? If you want to be very contemporary about performance then the WTF kills it.

I can't honestly see how any rational person can go down the road you're travelling. It's pretty foolish and there's not a lot of support for it.

No not at all as in BBC 606 parlance and now 606v2 parlance Andy's achievements have been past off as meaningless and slams and his record was always what was used against him. banbrotam merely pointed out that now in slams Murray is ahead in slams and going by the last year it is a fact. Now as Murray fans often argued his case by pointing to multiple Masters Cup wins and wins over Federer, Djokovic and Nadal but were told it was all meaningless as slams countermanded all then so be it. That case should apply here, if we are being just, fair and consistent and going by that then Murray is ahead of Federer.

Just to say it wasn't me who made those terms but Murray detractors out there.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I shall reiterate the stats:

Murray vs top 3 in slams 2 wins 10 losses.

Federer vs top 3 in slams 9 wins 12 losses (2-0 vs Murray).

Wake up. We are talking merely in the here and now as per mentioned by banbrotam. In the past calendar year:-

Murray 5 slam semis 1 Final

Federer 4 slam semis 1 Final 1 Quarter-Final

CC, you are not doing any favors to yourself by going on with this argument. Instead its making you look more ridiculous. So for Murray GS hope, please don't do it.

noleisthebest wrote:LF, why are you surprised at that?

There's no need for the impatience.
Here's my little "take" on it all today. I know I'm no tennis great, but at least I says it as it is

As for the match itself, since all the talk is on "poor" Andy, I don't think there's any reason for feeling sorry for him today.
He played a good match and has nothing to be ashamed of.
Lost to a better player. End of.

His game was better today than last year, still despite improvements, his forehand still lags behind the top 3, mainly in its variety. There's a lot more to it than a cross-court flat bullet.

Murray's returning today was excellent. Absolute top-notch.

His attitude was a lot better, as well. Notably love vibes flowing between him and the new coach, very nice to see.

If he continues to build on today's match, come clay season, he'll be a nightmare...

His game has been transmuting a lot in the last 3 years and is still work in progress.

In my opinion, Murray still hasn't found identity in his game, or maybe he lost it.

The real Murray was the 2009 weaving counter-puncher.

Nadal exploded, so Murray went Nadal way: piled on pounds of flesh, increased fitness to stupid levels, even started moonballing his forehand.

Thankfully, Lendl stopped the rot.

will be interesting to see where he takes him. Seems like Lendl likes Nole's game a lot .

Excellent summary and I agree entirely - particularly the line about the 2009 form. Actually his win over Nole at Miami remains arguably his best performance. I do think the "rot" stopped around 10 months ago when he started working with Cahill

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:CC, you are not doing any favors to yourself by going on with this argument. Instead its making you look more ridiculous. So for Murray GS hope, please don't do it.

Errr why not? After all it is a tactic that has been rammed down Murray fans throats for about five, six or seven years now. And how does it make me ridiculous or if it does then it surely makes Murray detractors equally as ridiculous as it is their rule of thumb I am going by here. Take your pick.

legendkillar wrote:Jubbha,

I am not a Murray hater.

I am still a fan. Just don't believe he can capture that elusive Slam.

But LK, there's no logic to your argument. If Murray was 29 and it was 2005, i.e. there were young versions of himself, Rafa and Novak plus an at peak GOAT, then I'd agree

However, one thing the last year has told us, is how much the Top 4 are ahead of the rest. Of course there are exceptions - if Berdy can ever get half as mentally tough as the supposedly weak Murray, then I think he can win a Slam, but really there are no other threats. Del Potro was never that good and no surprise given his frame. Tsonga, we have to accept just can't cut it. After than we're left with the youngsters of which a 22 year old who Murray creamed at this event, is one of the best!!!!

Even his knockers have now sat up and taken notice. Remember, Lendl has hardly worked with Murray. Imagine how more improved that forehand will be in 6 months!!

Most importantly I think Andy is acutely aware that in 2 years, he and Nole should be dominating and everything is geared to him maximising his talent up to say, 2018. If he does this, then Tennis must be some game to have stopped him winning a Slam - if so we are all the winners

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Novak broke Murrays serve 11 times today, 4 more than he was broken by the Scot, and according to Legend Murray was the better player...
A "better player" doesn't get his serve broken that many times in 1 match, I think you are really overlooking the bread and butter of tennis today, fine sir.

On this surface they do and when they are up against a great returner they do as he does to others

Murray's strength has never been his serve - I've always maintained he gets his "muse" from this return, i.e. if he's returning good he plays well. I rememeber him getting 70% of first serves in against Gonzo at FO-09 and still getting creamed

However, I think Andy does have an onstinate mindset about his serve, gets prickly about critcism of it "nobody talks about my returning game" he once griped. But he is now working with someone who will demand that he pays it attention and once he does, the today's 5 set defeat is a 4 set win

If the serve is the only thing he has to worry about then that's more good news

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Jubbha,

I am not a Murray hater.

I am still a fan. Just don't believe he can capture that elusive Slam.

But LK, there's no logic to your argument. If Murray was 29 and it was 2005, i.e. there were young versions of himself, Rafa and Novak plus an at peak GOAT, then I'd agree

However, ...

... there are fans, there are fairweather fans and then there are those that are not fans.

bogbrush wrote:I thought things like the rankings, and actually winning something big like the WTF, would settle matters.

But no, the details of the scorelines of two semi matches against different opponents outweighs that? Really?

BB / Tenez

No not the score-line of two SF's but beyond then

On these boards, you often think beyond the rankings - for instance Tenez's physicality debate.

It is now fair to state that Murray's current game is as good as Federer's current game as follows;-

1) In the last 5 slams Murray has equalled or bettered the GOAT (taken as a whole)
2) Murray has won 2 Masters events to Fed's one

Yes. The GOAT won O2 - but I'm sure if Murray had won it under similar circumstances you'd be citing the fact that he'd played none of his rivals as they were all injured or carrying injuries

I mean, you've actually used tiredness as an excuse for the Fed's 2009 US Open lost - so hopefully you'll be as equally sanguine about his O2 victory

Also, kindly remember that since the start of 2011 Fed has done no better than Murray against the Top 2.

So when they've been all available, i.e. fit. Fed has done worse at the Slams (as an average), worse at the Masters and has the same poor record against the Top 2. We won't even consider the outcome of the last 3 times they met!!

Could we ever have a debate, where the possibility of Fed being the 4th best player in the world is not met by the sounds, similar to those uttered in the House of Commons, when debating the value of the Euro

If the serve is the only thing he has to worry about then that's more good news

His forehand is goood enough for you then?

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:NITB

Who hit the most FH winners today?

Legend who hit more errors off the forehand side. Murray hit more winners and way more errors off that wing as well. In no way does that make Murray's forehand quote "pi$$" on Djokovic. A lot of guys hit more winners off the forehand side than Nadal or djokovic but hitting winners alone is not the sole analysis of strokes effectiveness. If someone hits 10 winners and 20 errors, is his forehand better than a guy that hits 8 winners with 5 errors? James Blake hit a lot of winners with his forehand as well I wouldn't take his forehand over Djoko or Nadal's. But I do agree until the 4th or 5th set Novak was not hitting his forehand well at all. But when they went cross court to cross court with the forehands I think Novak's forehand was clearly better and for most of the points that was the shot that dictated the play.

socal,

Djokovic was dreadful on the FH side yesterday. Andy looked and was much more dangerous on the FH side. Whether Djokovic has the better FH was irrelevent because he lacked execution yesterday and Andy was hitting the money with his. Yes Djokovic has the better FH, but the ease Andy was hitting his yesterday and depth he got was brutal!

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Jubbha,

I am not a Murray hater.

I am still a fan. Just don't believe he can capture that elusive Slam.

But LK, there's no logic to your argument. If Murray was 29 and it was 2005, i.e. there were young versions of himself, Rafa and Novak plus an at peak GOAT, then I'd agree

However, one thing the last year has told us, is how much the Top 4 are ahead of the rest. Of course there are exceptions - if Berdy can ever get half as mentally tough as the supposedly weak Murray, then I think he can win a Slam, but really there are no other threats. Del Potro was never that good and no surprise given his frame. Tsonga, we have to accept just can't cut it. After than we're left with the youngsters of which a 22 year old who Murray creamed at this event, is one of the best!!!!

Even his knockers have now sat up and taken notice. Remember, Lendl has hardly worked with Murray. Imagine how more improved that forehand will be in 6 months!!

Most importantly I think Andy is acutely aware that in 2 years, he and Nole should be dominating and everything is geared to him maximising his talent up to say, 2018. If he does this, then Tennis must be some game to have stopped him winning a Slam - if so we are all the winners

No logic? Where's the logic to the above post? You merely dodging facts that I have provided throughout my argument.

You trying to justify your argument by highlighting the quality of the top 3. Are you saying that Andy had no chance yesterday? Because that is what your implying and ignoring the fact Andy chucked in his match.

Andy at Masters level can hold his own against the top 3. And players like Tsonga or Berdych can be more of match for Murray. Over a best of 3 your tactics are forced because of the lack of time and games to play long periods of passive junk. If Masters were BO5 how many would have Murray won? I raise questions because In a Slam he outlasted Djokovic in the 3rd set. That should've been the death blow because the main strength of Djokovics game was taken away from him in that set. You can't give away sets at a Grand Slam semi-final unless you have a strong service game to back it up. Like Sampras when he did that v Agassi at the US Open in 2002.

legendkillar wrote:Andy at Masters level can hold his own against the top 3. And players like Tsonga or Berdych can be more of match for Murray. Over a best of 3 your tactics are forced because of the lack of time and games to play long periods of passive junk. If Masters were BO5 how many would have Murray won? I raise questions because In a Slam he outlasted Djokovic in the 3rd set. That should've been the death blow because the main strength of Djokovics game was taken away from him in that set. You can't give away sets at a Grand Slam semi-final unless you have a strong service game to back it up. Like Sampras when he did that v Agassi at the US Open in 2002.

I actually think that the longer format of the game is Andy's strenght. He rarely fails to meet his ranking. However, it's also a big strength of his rivals. He's probably not quite as good as the Top 2 - because Nole rasied the bar further last year and Nadal has really been the best during the past 4 years

I'd back him to beat Federer, right now though - i.e. I think he's caught him up. Next on the list is Nadal

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

If the serve is the only thing he has to worry about then that's more good news

His forehand is goood enough for you then?

You were talking about the serve!!

But since you've changed tack. No. But it's a lot better than it was last year and can improve further

Out of all the players in the current Top 10, Murray is still the one who can improve even more

I agree with the comments above regarding his form over the last couple of years.

His game appeared to be more honed a few years ago to be honest, back in 08 and 09.

Even watching baby murray in '06 against Federer you really get the impression you knew exactly where his game was:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0zP1Tqh6I

More recently he has been going out of his comfort zone to try and match Nadal and Djokovic physically and technically. Only now do I think he is starting to understand his game again.

mthierry wrote:Murray and Fed actually played the best tennis heading into the semis, though some would argue Murray's draw was easy. I'd say they're about par considering they've been the best players on tour since the US Open.

Andy is getting it right and I think his rivalry with Nole will become the pre-eminent fixture in the coming years. I'm still absolutely CERTAIN Andy will be a multi-slammer.

Nay... Federer had not lost a set on his way to the semi and he played a tough opposition, including Delpotro the most dangerous seed. Didn't Murray lose a set to Harrison? Fed looked the most impressive to me and I have little doubt he woudl have taken care of Murray and ailing Djoko too. The reason is lost v Nadal is that Nadal sends him a very energetic ball, neither Djoko or Murray can produce. Murray and Djoko are better equipped to handle Nadal's shots but history tells us that if you have not got that very fizzy ball coming from the opponent LH, you are in trouble versus in form Federer.

That's where the situation stands for me. Sure maybe Murray and Djoko can beat Federer but thus far it's not that obvious.

Well let us put it this way.

Going into the Australian Open I would say it is a fair assumption to say that Novak Djokovic was a warm favourite to win the title. Rafael Nadal less so and his chances were not rated too highly for varying reasons ie injuries and form. Roger Federer came into this tournament with his fans buoyant with some saying that he was playing better than back when he was winning slams so hopes were high. Andy Murray also came into the tournament with form and hope for another strong slam showing. All four reached the semis and so lets analyse how they went.

Federer took the first set against Nadal but succumbed in a Murrayesque collapse (as that is what it would have been labelled if Murray had been playing that match. A damp squib of an end to the match with Fed on a downer. In the other semi, Djokovic powered into an early lead going a set and a break up and Murray came back to lead 2-1 before his lapse so Djokovic stormed through to the brink of victory and despite another Murray fight back at the end Djokovic won through in a very tight match. A disappointing end to the match but Murray and his fans can take far more from it than Feds fans in my opinion as he was far more competitive in a slam semi match.

Now of course this was one match so let us all not get in front of ourselves. However, from Murray's point of view it was a match that gave him an injection of self-belief (lacking in the past) and that comes through in his post-match comments and with Lendl now in his corner I am sure they will analyse and work on what went wrong.

Andy Murray is the greatest sportsman GB has.

banbrotam wrote:
I'd back him to beat Federer, right now though - i.e. I think he's caught him up. Next on the list is Nadal

This backing up is based on what exactly? Murray hasn't played Fed in more than a year now. So other than being his big fan what is the logical reason to back him against Federer? How has Andy caught him up?? Can you tell me just how exactly for us to understand?

Next on the list is Nadal?? . We will get to that but can you first answer the previous question?

Messymesina wrote:Andy Murray is the greatest sportsman GB has.

And Miss. Wei Kiera is the greatest pie eater Timbaktu has.

What does your post even mean??

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well let us put it this way.

This is the problem with your argument CC. You put things on your own way to draw conclusion and start arguing.

BB rightly said it

bogbrush wrote:
Craig, you're going on as if Andy has been head of Federer on conventional measures but naysayers have been coming up with other measures.

When we talk about conventional measures, you pick your own ways to think and put the blame on others for being "murray detractor".

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Going into the Australian Open I would say it is a fair assumption to say that Novak Djokovic was a warm favourite to win the title. Rafael Nadal less so and his chances were not rated too highly for varying reasons ie injuries and form. Roger Federer came into this tournament with his fans buoyant with some saying that he was playing better than back when he was winning slams so hopes were high. Andy Murray also came into the tournament with form and hope for another strong slam showing. All four reached the semis and so lets analyse how they went.

Don't assume things. No one said Fed was playing better than when he was winning slams. The way tennis has moved on, for a aggressive shotmaker like Federer, its all about the form on the day and nothing else.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Federer took the first set against Nadal but succumbed in a Murrayesque collapse (as that is what it would have been labelled if Murray had been playing that match. A damp squib of an end to the match with Fed on a downer. In the other semi, Djokovic powered into an early lead going a set and a break up and Murray came back to lead 2-1 before his lapse so Djokovic stormed through to the brink of victory and despite another Murray fight back at the end Djokovic won through in a very tight match. A disappointing end to the match but Murray and his fans can take far more from it than Feds fans in my opinion as he was far more competitive in a slam semi match.

You really talk something totally strange and its really looks foolish fan-boyism. What has Federer's performance against Nadal has anything to do with what Murray performed against Djo? You are suggesting as if playing against Nadal and Djo are one and the same thing. You assume just because both Fed and Murray reached semis, they both have performed equal and since Murray took Djo to 5 sets, he become a better player than Federer who played a totally different opponent and took him to 4 sets. Like I said before you trying to bring math in tennis and this is ridiculously stupid. I told you to stop pursuing this strange conclusion, but you are persistent. Clearly your love for Murray has taken over your brains.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Now of course this was one match so let us all not get in front of ourselves. However, from Murray's point of view it was a match that gave him an injection of self-belief (lacking in the past) and that comes through in his post-match comments and with Lendl now in his corner I am sure they will analyse and work on what went wrong.

No one other than Murray fan like banbro and you are getting ahead of yourselves. How?? Just read your own comments about how far better he is than Federer right now, how in just 3 weeks Lendl with No coaching experience has already improved Murray, how Murray has already closed the gaps to the top-3 above him etc, etc. Who is yapping too much about Murray's improved just based on one match?? You and your fellow Murray fans and NO ONE ELSE.

Self belief?? You want to think like that but its hardly true. Self belief was the only thing that got Djo the win and Murray remained empty handed. Djo was playing as bad he ever did, yet he found a way to win. What happened to Murray, he too played poor and despite being in a position of winning lost the match. If he had the self belief, he would have won it. This was Andy best chance to beat Djo,but he still didn't.

legendkillar wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:NITB

Who hit the most FH winners today?

Legend who hit more errors off the forehand side. Murray hit more winners and way more errors off that wing as well. In no way does that make Murray's forehand quote "pi$$" on Djokovic. A lot of guys hit more winners off the forehand side than Nadal or djokovic but hitting winners alone is not the sole analysis of strokes effectiveness. If someone hits 10 winners and 20 errors, is his forehand better than a guy that hits 8 winners with 5 errors? James Blake hit a lot of winners with his forehand as well I wouldn't take his forehand over Djoko or Nadal's. But I do agree until the 4th or 5th set Novak was not hitting his forehand well at all. But when they went cross court to cross court with the forehands I think Novak's forehand was clearly better and for most of the points that was the shot that dictated the play.

socal,

Djokovic was dreadful on the FH side yesterday. Andy looked and was much more dangerous on the FH side. Whether Djokovic has the better FH was irrelevent because he lacked execution yesterday and Andy was hitting the money with his. Yes Djokovic has the better FH, but the ease Andy was hitting his yesterday and depth he got was brutal!

Have to disagree here legend. Andy hit his forehand much better than he has in the past last night. But in general I don't think even last night that his forehand performed better than Djokovic, who was under his usual level off that wing. Murray hit way more errors off that wing for the 4 or 5 extra winners he got would justify. And in most of the rallies Novak was still dictating play with the forehand, Murray was at times redlining it a bit more while Novak was trying to use angles and open it up. If you just say Murray hit more winners off that wing and ignore his less impressive winners to errors ratio than Djoko then in my mind that isn't the complete picture or particularly telling. Novak had about as many winners, a few less, with significantly less errors off the forehand side.

rofl.

If you can find me a post of mine where I have said that now (after yesterday) Murray will definitely win a slam then I am out of here to never post again. Likewise find me a post where I said he was far better than Federer. All I said was going by slams over the last year his record is better than Federer's.

I really don't see what you are getting your knickers in a knot for. It is certainly no crime for Murray fans to take a lot from yesterday's match and Andy himself. Why it should really bother you so much I have no idea. I don't berate or irk Federer fans if they feel their man has got a chance of winning slams this year, or fans of any other players so I really cannot see your problem.

We have three slams left in this calendar year and not just bookmakers but pundits and ex-tennis pros will have Murray amongst the favourites and some will tip him for success. It just sort of puzzles me that you reappear to post here once Murray has exited. Rather convenient that I think.