Could Murray win his first slam this year?

First topic message reminder :

Where? Wimbledon or USO seem the places where it might happen.

I think that is Murray's best chance as well. He is looking much better in my opinion right now than he looked last year. He needs to up the level a bit. But I actually think that wimby is his best chance for grandslam success, and how storybook would it be to break the Fred Perry jinx at wimbeldon?

barrystar wrote:

Veejay wrote:LMFAO!!
I don't think someone who has had the career Roger has had even thinks the way you do..swapping titles..LOL
He would want to win both,no doubt but he isn't desperate to swap anything ...
Having a record and standing alone,setting himself apart from Sampras at the WTF would mean too much to want to swap a title like that for another major when he already has the record for majors...Of course Im not saying he wouldn't like a major but a record is a record,no player would swap a title that takes their record away for another title that wouldn't break a record
If you had a better understanding of tennis you would know that the WTF is considered the 5th slam in tennis and unlike majors a player has to qualify for them.Beating the 8 best players in the world means a lot especially for Roger at his age.
You can try to belittle the WTF as much as you like,no matter how much you try it won't ever take Rogers record away from him and it won't ever change the fact that Murray cant beat these players in majors

For goodness' sake you need to calm down - Craig is not being half as one-eyed as you'd have it on this thread.

I am a firm Federer fan and whilst I cannot get into his mind I would think that winning the Aus Open 2012 would be a damn fine swap for the 2011 WTF. Having the record of 6 WTF's is great, but he already shared it at 5 just like he currently shares the Open Era Aus Open win record at 4; if he had won the Aus Open 2012 he'd have the record for Open Era Aus Opens at 5 and be the only man to have at least 5 wins in 3 slams as well as upping his slam tally to an amazing 17 leaving Nadal and pretty much anyone else an absolutely unsurmountable hurdle. It's also fair to suggest that the rest of the top 4 brought pretty good games to the Aus Open whereas they were not so hot at the WTF 2011 so a win at the Aus Open would have been qualitatively better too.

Thanks barry. How I would have put it.

barrystar wrote:

Veejay wrote:LMFAO!!
I don't think someone who has had the career Roger has had even thinks the way you do..swapping titles..LOL
He would want to win both,no doubt but he isn't desperate to swap anything ...
Having a record and standing alone,setting himself apart from Sampras at the WTF would mean too much to want to swap a title like that for another major when he already has the record for majors...Of course Im not saying he wouldn't like a major but a record is a record,no player would swap a title that takes their record away for another title that wouldn't break a record
If you had a better understanding of tennis you would know that the WTF is considered the 5th slam in tennis and unlike majors a player has to qualify for them.Beating the 8 best players in the world means a lot especially for Roger at his age.
You can try to belittle the WTF as much as you like,no matter how much you try it won't ever take Rogers record away from him and it won't ever change the fact that Murray cant beat these players in majors

For goodness' sake you need to calm down - Craig is not being half as one-eyed as you'd have it on this thread.

I am a firm Federer fan and whilst I cannot get into his mind I would think that winning the Aus Open 2012 would be a damn fine swap for the 2011 WTF. Having the record of 6 WTF's is great, but he already shared it at 5 just like he currently shares the Open Era Aus Open win record at 4; if he had won the Aus Open 2012 he'd have the record for Open Era Aus Opens at 5 and be the only man to have at least 5 wins in 3 slams as well as upping his slam tally to an amazing 17 leaving Nadal and pretty much anyone else an absolutely unsurmountable hurdle. It's also fair to suggest that the rest of the top 4 brought pretty good games to the Aus Open whereas they were not so hot at the WTF 2011 so a win at the Aus Open would have been qualitatively better too.

Don't use big words you don't understand barrystar..
OK prove to me that Roger wants to swap his WTF title for the AO title..I would like you to give me evidence via a link where he has actually said so.Until then its nothing but pure speculation..So I will be waiting for you to prove to me how "half as one eyed" I have been
If the rest of the draw weren't as hot at the WTF as they were a the AO,it cant be used as excuse and doesnt take anything away from winning that title.If the other players cannot manage their schedule better,Roger shouldn't be blamed or penalised for that.I also recall Nadal taking 5 weeks off to prepare himself and Roger still serve him a bagel serves with Philadelphia sour cream cheese
What also makes your argument null and void is that he won it the previous year too,so it can hardly be some fluke as you're suggesting because no one was up to scratch and in shape or too tired
No where did I ever say he wouldn't probably like to win both,but to suggest a player like him is desperate to swap titles is ridiculous.Thats suggesting he doesn't believe he can win the AO title,which I doubt Roger believes.Even if he loses in the 1st round from now till the day he retired,his champions mentality will still believe he can win the title

I thought Miami was considered the 5th Slam, least that is what the pundits have called it.

legendkillar wrote:I thought Miami was considered the 5th Slam, least that is what the pundits have called it.

I heard that a few times too but I also hear many think of the WTF as the 5th slam.
Its not a slam neither is Miami,but I think to have to qualify and then beat the 8 bet players in round robin format probably comes as close to beating quality players outside of a major
But the main pint barrister and CaledonianCriag as missing here is that Murray isn't even in the conversation to win the WTF but yet he is to win a major?
I know Nadal hasn't won the WTF yet,but he has at least made a final there

Miami dreamt of being teh 5th slam years ago....but it's just another TMS....In my view one of teh least interesting.

The real Masters still has something special.

Those who know me know that I hate sitting on fences of an argument. But In that case I see both Barry and Veejay points having some truth.

I can easily imagine Federer swapping Portugal for a slam, but at the same time, I am not sure a player who gave it all would like to get a tournament he lost...unless he thinks a stupid lapse of concentration robbed him the title: USO 10 and 11?

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I thought Miami was considered the 5th Slam, least that is what the pundits have called it.

I heard that a few times too but I also hear many think of the WTF as the 5th slam.
Its not a slam neither is Miami,but I think to have to qualify and then beat the 8 bet players in round robin format probably comes as close to beating quality players outside of a major
But the main pint barrister and CaledonianCriag as missing here is that Murray isn't even in the conversation to win the WTF but yet he is to win a major?
I know Nadal hasn't won the WTF yet,but he has at least made a final there

They can think of it what they will but the prestige is in slams which have been established over a century and is OPEN to all players. The WTF is a mere pup of a competition and excludes world class players if they have the misfortune of being injured and so not being able to tally up points to qualify. Now when Fed was widely taken to have laid claim to the GOAT title it was when he passed Sampras slam titles total. Nobody was interested in counting WTF's into slam totals and my guess is they never will. As for your idea that Murray not being in the conversation to win a WTF? So? Is or was Del Potro and he already has won a slam. The slams are an exclusive little club of titles and I don't ever seeing the WTF becoming a member. A big tournament it is but a slam? Never.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I thought Miami was considered the 5th Slam, least that is what the pundits have called it.

I heard that a few times too but I also hear many think of the WTF as the 5th slam.
Its not a slam neither is Miami,but I think to have to qualify and then beat the 8 bet players in round robin format probably comes as close to beating quality players outside of a major
But the main pint barrister and CaledonianCriag as missing here is that Murray isn't even in the conversation to win the WTF but yet he is to win a major?
I know Nadal hasn't won the WTF yet,but he has at least made a final there

They can think of it what they will but the prestige is in slams which have been established over a century and is OPEN to all players. The WTF is a mere pup of a competition and excludes world class players if they have the misfortune of being injured and so not being able to tally up points to qualify. Now when Fed was widely taken to have laid claim to the GOAT title it was when he passed Sampras slam titles total. Nobody was interested in counting WTF's into slam totals and my guess is they never will. As for your idea that Murray not being in the conversation to win a WTF? So? Is or was Del Potro and he already has won a slam. The slams are an exclusive little club of titles and I don't ever seeing the WTF becoming a member. A big tournament is is but a slam? Never.

Del Potro made the final of the WTF the same year he won the U.S Open beating Federer in the semi finals again.Has Marray ever made the final at the WTF?
While you may have a point about the GOAT and majors,you know I don't believe in it cause I don't think just slams should count.Why else play the other tournaments if no one is going to take them into consideration?
Regardless Roger still has the record at the WTF and winning the WTF is another nail in the coffin for those who wish to trumpet that he benefitted from a weak era
You are the one who keeps wanting to bring Roger into this argument,when the argument was never about Roger,you're the one who wants keep comparing Murray to Roger and then when I do,you want to make a tournament like the WTF as insignificant as possible to help prove to yourself that Murray is in the conversation to win a major
You can spin this as much as you want to,you can claim that Murray has a better shot at wining a major then Federer does till you're blue in the face,the fact remains that Murrays hasn't beaten one of these players in a major in almost 4 years and if Murray really had the game to beat these guys in majors he would.You cant forever hide behind him and his weak mental fortitude,someday you're going to have to man up and admit that he isn't good enough to beat them
Im sorry if I am the one who has to urine on your parade and bring you down to reality,but I don't live in a sugar coated world where fairies gift wrap Santa Claws's presents for well behaved kids..if you want to live in that world,thats fine but don't expect the rest to
I will believe Murray can win a major the day I see it happen

Veejay wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Veejay wrote:LMFAO!!
I don't think someone who has had the career Roger has had even thinks the way you do..swapping titles..LOL
He would want to win both,no doubt but he isn't desperate to swap anything ...
Having a record and standing alone,setting himself apart from Sampras at the WTF would mean too much to want to swap a title like that for another major when he already has the record for majors...Of course Im not saying he wouldn't like a major but a record is a record,no player would swap a title that takes their record away for another title that wouldn't break a record
If you had a better understanding of tennis you would know that the WTF is considered the 5th slam in tennis and unlike majors a player has to qualify for them.Beating the 8 best players in the world means a lot especially for Roger at his age.
You can try to belittle the WTF as much as you like,no matter how much you try it won't ever take Rogers record away from him and it won't ever change the fact that Murray cant beat these players in majors

For goodness' sake you need to calm down - Craig is not being half as one-eyed as you'd have it on this thread.

I am a firm Federer fan and whilst I cannot get into his mind I would think that winning the Aus Open 2012 would be a damn fine swap for the 2011 WTF. Having the record of 6 WTF's is great, but he already shared it at 5 just like he currently shares the Open Era Aus Open win record at 4; if he had won the Aus Open 2012 he'd have the record for Open Era Aus Opens at 5 and be the only man to have at least 5 wins in 3 slams as well as upping his slam tally to an amazing 17 leaving Nadal and pretty much anyone else an absolutely unsurmountable hurdle. It's also fair to suggest that the rest of the top 4 brought pretty good games to the Aus Open whereas they were not so hot at the WTF 2011 so a win at the Aus Open would have been qualitatively better too.

Don't use big words you don't understand barrystar..
OK prove to me that Roger wants to swap his WTF title for the AO title..I would like you to give me evidence via a link where he has actually said so.Until then its nothing but pure speculation..So I will be waiting for you to prove to me how "half as one eyed" I have been
If the rest of the draw weren't as hot at the WTF as they were a the AO,it cant be used as excuse and doesnt take anything away from winning that title.If the other players cannot manage their schedule better,Roger shouldn't be blamed or penalised for that.I also recall Nadal taking 5 weeks off to prepare himself and Roger still serve him a bagel serves with Philadelphia sour cream cheese
What also makes your argument null and void is that he won it the previous year too,so it can hardly be some fluke as you're suggesting because no one was up to scratch and in shape or too tired
No where did I ever say he wouldn't probably like to win both,but to suggest a player like him is desperate to swap titles is ridiculous.Thats suggesting he doesn't believe he can win the AO title,which I doubt Roger believes.Even if he loses in the 1st round from now till the day he retired,his champions mentality will still believe he can win the title

I made it clear I was speculating and I did not downplay WTF 2011 one bit, I merely expressed the view that given the choice Roger would probably rather have won the Aus Open 2012 than the WTF 2011; certainly as his fan I would rather that he'd won the Aus Open and would regard it as a greater achievement - but we are all entitled to our opinions. Unlike you I expressed my views mildly. You have behaved like a rude schoolboy with anger management issues and a chip on his shoulder.

Take a chill pill man you really have a lot of hatred bottled up in there don't you. As I said before I'll go on enjoying watching Andy play tennis regardless of what he wins and I'll leave you to froth at the mouth about your fairy tale world.

Murray is the only 1 who can give Djokovic a match on HC lately so let's give him some credit for that atleast. He's still a boring player but credit where it's due no?

barrystar wrote:

Veejay wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Veejay wrote:LMFAO!!
I don't think someone who has had the career Roger has had even thinks the way you do..swapping titles..LOL
He would want to win both,no doubt but he isn't desperate to swap anything ...
Having a record and standing alone,setting himself apart from Sampras at the WTF would mean too much to want to swap a title like that for another major when he already has the record for majors...Of course Im not saying he wouldn't like a major but a record is a record,no player would swap a title that takes their record away for another title that wouldn't break a record
If you had a better understanding of tennis you would know that the WTF is considered the 5th slam in tennis and unlike majors a player has to qualify for them.Beating the 8 best players in the world means a lot especially for Roger at his age.
You can try to belittle the WTF as much as you like,no matter how much you try it won't ever take Rogers record away from him and it won't ever change the fact that Murray cant beat these players in majors

For goodness' sake you need to calm down - Craig is not being half as one-eyed as you'd have it on this thread.

I am a firm Federer fan and whilst I cannot get into his mind I would think that winning the Aus Open 2012 would be a damn fine swap for the 2011 WTF. Having the record of 6 WTF's is great, but he already shared it at 5 just like he currently shares the Open Era Aus Open win record at 4; if he had won the Aus Open 2012 he'd have the record for Open Era Aus Opens at 5 and be the only man to have at least 5 wins in 3 slams as well as upping his slam tally to an amazing 17 leaving Nadal and pretty much anyone else an absolutely unsurmountable hurdle. It's also fair to suggest that the rest of the top 4 brought pretty good games to the Aus Open whereas they were not so hot at the WTF 2011 so a win at the Aus Open would have been qualitatively better too.

Don't use big words you don't understand barrystar..
OK prove to me that Roger wants to swap his WTF title for the AO title..I would like you to give me evidence via a link where he has actually said so.Until then its nothing but pure speculation..So I will be waiting for you to prove to me how "half as one eyed" I have been
If the rest of the draw weren't as hot at the WTF as they were a the AO,it cant be used as excuse and doesnt take anything away from winning that title.If the other players cannot manage their schedule better,Roger shouldn't be blamed or penalised for that.I also recall Nadal taking 5 weeks off to prepare himself and Roger still serve him a bagel serves with Philadelphia sour cream cheese
What also makes your argument null and void is that he won it the previous year too,so it can hardly be some fluke as you're suggesting because no one was up to scratch and in shape or too tired
No where did I ever say he wouldn't probably like to win both,but to suggest a player like him is desperate to swap titles is ridiculous.Thats suggesting he doesn't believe he can win the AO title,which I doubt Roger believes.Even if he loses in the 1st round from now till the day he retired,his champions mentality will still believe he can win the title

I made it clear I was speculating and I did not downplay WTF 2011 one bit, I merely expressed the view that given the choice Roger would probably rather have won the Aus Open 2012 than the WTF 2011; certainly as his fan I would rather that he'd won the Aus Open and would regard it as a greater achievement - but we are all entitled to our opinions. Unlike you I expressed my views mildly. You have behaved like a rude schoolboy with anger management issues and a chip on his shoulder.

Actually no you didn't,calling me half as one eyed..while as the same time saying you cant get into Rogers mind..what the hell is that supposed to mean?
Why have such an opinion when no one least of all Roger has ever given you reason to speculate that? Has he ever even hinted that he is desperate to swap titles..and why didn't you address the part where I said that a player who says such a thing or suggesting a player who does is a player who is indirectly admitting they cant win the title?
Anger management issues? Didn't I tell you to not use big words you don't understand? And then you want to tell me Im acting like a school boy? LOL ok is that the pot calling the kettle the tea pot song?... If anyone here has a chip on their shoulder its you and Craig who is upset that someone here is telling you how it is,rather then painting a wonderful picture of Murray going on to break all the records and using all his winnings to build a tennis academy for the handicapped on the moon

CaledonianCraig wrote:Take a chill pill man you really have a lot of hatred bottled up in there don't you. As I said before I'll go on enjoying watching Andy play tennis regardless of what he wins and I'll leave you to froth at the mouth about your fairy tale world.

You really shouldn't have said that..cause now Im going to remind you of that at every grand slam...
You guys wanted me to paint you a picture..imagine how long life is going to be if I do that from now until the day Murray retires...
P.S whats with all this take a chill pill...cant you keep up?

Take a chill pill means keep the anger out of your posts. Try it sometime and what's with the reminder stuff? Do you really need to be so bitter as to gloat about a player? Pretty sad that. And what are you going to remind me? That I'll go on enjoying watching Andy play well remind away.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Take a chill pill means keep the anger out of your posts. Try it sometime and what's with the reminder stuff? Do you really need to be so bitter as to gloat about a player? Pretty sad that. And what are you going to remind me? That I'll go on enjoying watching Andy play well remind away.

Nah no need to gloat..Murrays previous performances didn't usually need anyone to remind anyone of the fact that he simply isn't good enough to win a major..everyone except you that is...Why would I be bitter about that? Please do enlighten me...
You're the one who is going to end up bitter "enjoying watching Andy play well"

@veejay - the problem is that you don't bother to read other people's posts but prefer to attack your own preconceived ideas of what they are saying.

I wrote this:

Craig is not being half as one-eyed as you'd have it

The meaning is that Craig is not being as blinkered as you think he is - it was an invitation to you to be fairer to Craig and what he is saying. I was not saying that you are one-eyed.

Not only do you prefer to put your own interpretation on what Craig is saying, but you also put it on what I was saying.

I am not a rabid Murray fan, I nearly always support Federer vs. Murray, but as Brit I'd like to see Murray do well and I think he has the ability one day to win a slam - I thought his performance in Australia was encouraging.

I'm quite happy to engage with anyone who bothers to read what I say and responds temperately - you don't manage either.

Veejay wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Take a chill pill means keep the anger out of your posts. Try it sometime and what's with the reminder stuff? Do you really need to be so bitter as to gloat about a player? Pretty sad that. And what are you going to remind me? That I'll go on enjoying watching Andy play well remind away.

Nah no need to gloat..Murrays previous performances didn't usually need anyone to remind anyone of the fact that he simply isn't good enough to win a major..everyone except you that is...Why would I be bitter about that? Please do enlighten me...
You're the one who is going to end up bitter "enjoying watching Andy play well"

Na sorry but I don't do bitter. Unlike some.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Veejay wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Take a chill pill means keep the anger out of your posts. Try it sometime and what's with the reminder stuff? Do you really need to be so bitter as to gloat about a player? Pretty sad that. And what are you going to remind me? That I'll go on enjoying watching Andy play well remind away.

Nah no need to gloat..Murrays previous performances didn't usually need anyone to remind anyone of the fact that he simply isn't good enough to win a major..everyone except you that is...Why would I be bitter about that? Please do enlighten me...
You're the one who is going to end up bitter "enjoying watching Andy play well"

Na sorry but I don't do bitter. Unlike some.

You still havent explained to me why I would be bitter? I mean its not like Murray is proving me wrong...so far I have been 100% correct..so why would I be bitter??..please do enlighten me

barrystar wrote:@veejay - the problem is that you don't bother to read other people's posts but prefer to attack your own preconceived ideas of what they are saying.

I wrote this:

Craig is not being half as one-eyed as you'd have it

The meaning is that Craig is not being as blinkered as you think he is - it was an invitation to you to be fairer to Craig and what he is saying. I was not saying that you are one-eyed.

Not only do you prefer to put your own interpretation on what Craig is saying, but you also put it on what I was saying.

I am not a rabid Murray fan, I nearly always support Federer vs. Murray, but as Brit I'd like to see Murray do well and I think he has the ability one day to win a slam - I thought his performance in Australia was encouraging.

I'm quite happy to engage with anyone who bothers to read what I say and responds temperately - you don't manage either.

Well didn't you a great job of that when you accuse me of not doing that
Perhaps ou shouldn't say things publicly when you obviously cannot abide by yourself..just a thought really Mr Star..not making ourself look good here...
Craig is being a typical fan and you're being a typical Brit,youre both blinded by your hope of Murray winning major and ending the drought and you obviously won't ever admit to that because you're too blind to realise it
Murrays performance may have been encouraging,but the truth is he STILL couldnt get passed one of the 3 ahead of him,explain to me if he cant make it past one,how on earth with me make it past 2 of them back to back,which is what its going to take.
And then you conveniently forget that by going by his previous performances which have been showing his best form to get to the final,he fails to even take a set off anyone in at the final and looks completely out off depth

Im still waiting for you to explain to me where/how you came up with the idea that Roger would be wiling to swap his WTf for the AO.What do you base that on apart from what we have already established to be your blind opinion?

Err Australian Open = Slam with 128 players and a hundred years of history

WTF = End of season tournament with 8 players and around two decades of history

Go figure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItlmLSb5Vxc&feature=related

Ha ha!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Err Australian Open = Slam with 128 players and a hundred years of history

WTF = End of season tournament with 8 players and around two decades of history

Go figure.

LMFAO!!
Wow you're smart...
AO 128...all but 8 possible players able to compete in the WTF,some wild cards and half if the players won't make it past the first round
WTF the worlds best 8 players competing to prove who the best of the best is

Veejay wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Err Australian Open = Slam with 128 players and a hundred years of history

WTF = End of season tournament with 8 players and around two decades of history

Go figure.

LMFAO!!
Wow you're smart...
AO 128...all but 8 possible players able to compete in the WTF,some wild cards and half if the players won't make it past the first round
WTF the worlds best 8 players competing to prove who the best of the best is

Sorry but your credibility here is diminishing if you are attempting to put the WTF 's on an equal footing with Slams. It is akin to trying to claim the UK Championship in snooker is just as big and as sought after as the World title or in tennis that a challenger title is just as big and sought after as a Masters Cup. Sorry but I've wasted my time enough here.

This is like an everlasting sword fight.

Went from swapping titles to the prestige of titles. Where will it end?

Let's agree to disagree.

All I am saying is that in the world of tennis the slam is the daddy title of them all whilst WTF is not on the same level or else why are they never ever included in GOAT debates. Lets all be honest here - if Murray ever won the WTF would it be be recognised by posters as having the same importance of a slam win. Of course not. We would just have posters like veejay saying: 'Ah but it isn't a slam win is it? '

Have gone for a "not this year" response. The key here could be not Murray, but Fed. Rog cannot go on for ever and taking a, still, major player out of a GS line-up can only help Andy.
I'd be prepared to say "yes, this year" if I thought - and it's a possibility - that Rafa and Nole would exhaust themselves. But surely these top two will plan their schedules carefully to peak for the slams.
I know we say this every year, but Andy just has to keep plugging away. "Failure" is only relative. This guy has ALREADY had an outstanding career, with 22 titles (twice as many as Herman before Andy is even 25 years old) three GS finals, and a, seemingly, permanent top four place.
Feel sure the link up with Lendl, whether long or short, is a good thing.

Look I can't be bothered to read back through the whole thread, but are the Fed fans now saying WTF is as important than slams

amritia3ee wrote:Look I can't be bothered to read back through the whole thread, but are the Fed fans now saying WTF is as important than slams

I'm a Fed fan and I am saying I'd rather he had won the Aus Open 2012 than the WTF 2011 and speculating that Fed might think the same.

otherwise the story of this thread is veejay = pond life

barrystar wrote:

I'm a Fed fan and I am saying I'd rather he had won the Aus Open 2012 than the WTF 2011 and speculating that Fed might think the same.

Excellent post!

This is however where things get political.

Murray performed better at the Slams than Federer in 2011. While that remains true, Roger Federer won more matches in 2011 and had a better winning % than Murray.

So you see there are 'facts' to support whoever's cause you want to champion.

Murray winning more titles in 2011 and performing more consistent at the Slams does not make Murray a better player than Federer.

This is where as a Murray fan myself I don't want use 'sugar coated' stats to elevate his status. Let's hope he gets that Slam under his belt and move on from there.

Well done barrystar you have restored my faith in fed fans.

Veejay wrote:
AO 128...all but 8 possible players able to compete in the WTF,some wild cards and half if the players won't make it past the first round
WTF the worlds best 8 players competing to prove who the best of the best is
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK prove to me that Roger wants to swap his WTF title for the AO title..I would like you to give me evidence via a link where he has actually said so.Until then its nothing but pure speculation.

And this is the same guy who also harps on about how any player to have even beaten Roger Federer must be on steriods/PEDs.

Isn't it funny Craig how when Roger cried in '09 everyone has a go at him now when Murray cried in '10 final noone mentions a thing. CONSPIRACY!!!

Mind you - I'm chuffed to bits for Fed that he won the WTF 2011, a substantial achievement on any basis and one that any top player would want in his locker to accompany whatever other achievements he has, but you've always got to remember that the holy of holies these days is a slam win.

Veejay can you stop going on about the WTF you are giving proper Fed fans a bad name of course the AO is a higher goal than WTF.

I'd prefer winning 1 WTF than 2 Olympics though.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Veejay can you stop going on about the WTF you are giving proper Fed fans a bad name of course the AO is a higher goal than WTF.

I'd prefer winning 1 WTF than 2 Olympics though.

Aye - and there is the question of "quality" of a win - I thought Fed's WTF 2010 win was absolutely superb beating every other member of the top 5 on the way, something you don't get a chance to do in a slam so it was super-dooper extra-special in that respect. Even so, as his fan I'd rather have seen him pick up the USO 2010 (which would have preserved his status as the only current player with a career slam). One of the many things about Fed that veejay seems to fail to appreciate is that some sort of record or another turns on pretty much every truly big match Fed plays these days.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Veejay can you stop going on about the WTF you are giving proper Fed fans a bad name of course the AO is a higher goal than WTF.

To be fair he already did that earlier with his 'every player to have beaten Federer is on steroids and I am 100% sure even though I have no substantial evidence whatsoever' line.'
Tomorrow he'll probably be saying Basel Open is more important than USO.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Veejay can you stop going on about the WTF you are giving proper Fed fans a bad name of course the AO is a higher goal than WTF.

I believe VJ knows that. However Fed might just not be keen to swap it for an AO. He fought and lost one, he fought and won one. He might not be in the spirit of swapping something he hasn't earnt with something he did.

I also think Fed is sincere when he says he cares about Basle. He has won enough slams to get a bit of perspective.

Tenez wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Veejay can you stop going on about the WTF you are giving proper Fed fans a bad name of course the AO is a higher goal than WTF.

I believe VJ knows that. However Fed might just not be keen to swap it for an AO. He fought and lost one, he fought and won one. He might not be in the spirit of swapping something he hasn't earnt with something he did.

I also think Fed is sincere when he says he cares about Basle. He has won enough slams to get a bit of perspective.

If you are getting involved in hypothetical exercises, i.e. swapping titles, you obviously need to get 100% into the hypothetical world and I think the first part of your post is being a bit obtuse there.

Nobody is saying that Fed would want now to swap the WTF trophy on his mantlepiece which he won for the Aus Open trophy which Djoko won; we are saying something like that if Fed were told, say last November, that he had a 'win credit' which he could cash in during 2011 at Basle or the WTF or in 2012 at the Aus Open he'd most likely go for the Aus Open on the not unreasonable ground that it is more prestigious.

I am also saying that the WTF 2011 win was not as demanding as, for example, WTF 2010 because his main rivals were not in great form. They were also in better form for the Aus Open 2012.

I do agree that by now Fed can be more relaxed about what he wins if he was truly concerned about records and that Basle is likely to be of real sentimental importance, but a slam is a slam and Fed is likely to have pretty big memories of all the slams too (Aus Open 2006 was particularly important for him and he relishes his relationship with the crowd there).

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Veejay can you stop going on about the WTF you are giving proper Fed fans a bad name of course the AO is a higher goal than WTF.

I believe VJ knows that. However Fed might just not be keen to swap it for an AO. He fought and lost one, he fought and won one. He might not be in the spirit of swapping something he hasn't earnt with something he did.

I also think Fed is sincere when he says he cares about Basle. He has won enough slams to get a bit of perspective.

If you are getting involved in hypothetical exercises, i.e. swapping titles, you obviously need to get 100% into the hypothetical world and I think the first part of your post is being a bit obtuse there.

Nobody is saying that Fed would want now to swap the WTF trophy on his mantlepiece which he won for the Aus Open trophy which Djoko won; we are saying something like that if Fed were told, say last November, that he had a 'win credit' which he could cash in during 2011 at Basle or the WTF or in 2012 at the Aus Open he'd most likely go for the Aus Open on the not unreasonable ground that it is more prestigious.

Being entirely hypothetical, I cannot see why winning a 5th AO woudl be, for Federer, more important than wining a 6th Masters putting him above the Masters' masters (Ivan and Pete)! Not so long ago, champs were all playing the Masters...few of them played the AO.

But there is another reason. As Becker said even before Fed won teh Masters 2010 in a brillant fashon, The Masters is about quality tennis, the slams are more a physical one".

I woudl have preferred Fed to wn the AO more than the Masters only for one reason: to prove a point to this new generation, not because I find a 5th AO or a 17 slam is more mportant. In that respect I do think a 6th Masters is more important.

Otherwise it's a close call from me.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Veejay can you stop going on about the WTF you are giving proper Fed fans a bad name of course the AO is a higher goal than WTF.

I'd prefer winning 1 WTF than 2 Olympics though.

No one ever said the AO wasn't a more prestigious tournament and winning a major wasn't a greater achievement,I was putting things perspective after Craig tried to take some of the prestige away form it..geese if you cant read,don't get involved !

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:
AO 128...all but 8 possible players able to compete in the WTF,some wild cards and half if the players won't make it past the first round
WTF the worlds best 8 players competing to prove who the best of the best is
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK prove to me that Roger wants to swap his WTF title for the AO title..I would like you to give me evidence via a link where he has actually said so.Until then its nothing but pure speculation.

And this is the same guy who also harps on about how any player to have even beaten Roger Federer must be on steriods/PEDs.

Maybe barrystar should be addressing his childish accusations here..I wonder why he hasn't...
I don't know how many times I have told you I suspect Sam Stouser and Serena Williams ( just to name a few)..must be because they beat Federer..makes it quite obvious how you twist peoples comments to suit your arguments and agenda..
I assume the French media are p-off and they must be jealous of Nadal with their latest skits
Maybe Federer was behind that eh? I mean he can afford to spend all his money on smearing innocent Nadal
Or maybe it must have been me.....
If you still cannot understand the point I was trying to make,which was Craig trying to make the WTF seem insignificant because Murray cant and hasn't won it,then you never will..
Laugh all you want..if you could actually debate something you would...instead you end making a fool of yourself like Simple analyst

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Veejay wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Err Australian Open = Slam with 128 players and a hundred years of history

WTF = End of season tournament with 8 players and around two decades of history

Go figure.

LMFAO!!
Wow you're smart...
AO 128...all but 8 possible players able to compete in the WTF,some wild cards and half if the players won't make it past the first round
WTF the worlds best 8 players competing to prove who the best of the best is

Sorry but your credibility here is diminishing if you are attempting to put the WTF 's on an equal footing with Slams. It is akin to trying to claim the UK Championship in snooker is just as big and as sought after as the World title or in tennis that a challenger title is just as big and sought after as a Masters Cup. Sorry but I've wasted my time enough here.

When did I ever do that...
I believe my comment to lengendkiller was "I heard that a few times too but I also hear many think of the WTF as the 5th slam.
Its not a slam neither is Miami"
Does that not make it obvious that I don't think the WTF is on par with a major?
You are the one trying to make the tournament seem insignificant because Murray cant win it.I was trying to put perspective in and prove the caliber it takes to winning such a tournament
If Murrant cannot even win a tournament like the WTF which is best of 3 sets against the best of the draw how the hell is he ever going to win a major against these guys in a best of 5 sets match back to back??
Can you not understand that point or did I really have to spell it out for you...
I would also like to know that if the WTF is as insignificant and "easy" to win as your suggesting,why hasn't Murray won the title yet? Why hasn't he even made a final there if he is so capable f winning a major?

Yeah I bet you'll be saying that when Murray retires slam less..what a waste of time its been

barrystar wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Veejay can you stop going on about the WTF you are giving proper Fed fans a bad name of course the AO is a higher goal than WTF.

I'd prefer winning 1 WTF than 2 Olympics though.

Aye - and there is the question of "quality" of a win - I thought Fed's WTF 2010 win was absolutely superb beating every other member of the top 5 on the way, something you don't get a chance to do in a slam so it was super-dooper extra-special in that respect. Even so, as his fan I'd rather have seen him pick up the USO 2010 (which would have preserved his status as the only current player with a career slam). One of the many things about Fed that veejay seems to fail to appreciate is that some sort of record or another turns on pretty much every truly big match Fed plays these days.

So why don't you go back and question every win or loss based on what you call "quality wins"
A win is a win,one slam doesn't count more then another because of who you faced.Youre skating on this ice here joining here likes of those who want trumpet the weak era theory,by admitting to the fact that you believe in quality wins,makes one question why you wouldnt believe in the weak era theory.Or would that be because you're a bias Federer fan?
I would also like to know how you can say it wasn't a quality when when he beat his biggest rival in straight sets serving him a bagel on top of that too along the way to the final? Was Tsonga not the hottest player on tour for the last couple of weeks of the season?

If the top players were burnt out by the end of the season,Roger cant be penalised for the fact that they cannot manage their schedule better.Those players were all in the draw playing,the fact that they were struggling doesn't take anything away from the title
Of course we would all like to see Roger win more majors,I would love to have seen him win AO or the U.S open,but to suggest he would want to swap titles or rather have one over another is ridiculous because youre basically saying he doesn't believe he cant win the title,therefore he needs to swap it to have it.I seriously doubt a player like Roger would ever think that way,his champions mentality would be to believe he can win every tournament he enters.He would want to win both not swap one for another,or chose to have one over another
I am still waiting for you to explain to me what gave you the idea he would want to swap a title other then your blind opinion

I don't think any Fed fan needs to even be made aware of the fact that Roger adds to his legacy every time he walks on court..that in itself is a contradiction to claiming he wants to swap titles..but then again as I said youd be too blind to realise that

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Veejay can you stop going on about the WTF you are giving proper Fed fans a bad name of course the AO is a higher goal than WTF.

I believe VJ knows that. However Fed might just not be keen to swap it for an AO. He fought and lost one, he fought and won one. He might not be in the spirit of swapping something he hasn't earnt with something he did.

I also think Fed is sincere when he says he cares about Basle. He has won enough slams to get a bit of perspective.

If you are getting involved in hypothetical exercises, i.e. swapping titles, you obviously need to get 100% into the hypothetical world and I think the first part of your post is being a bit obtuse there.

Nobody is saying that Fed would want now to swap the WTF trophy on his mantlepiece which he won for the Aus Open trophy which Djoko won; we are saying something like that if Fed were told, say last November, that he had a 'win credit' which he could cash in during 2011 at Basle or the WTF or in 2012 at the Aus Open he'd most likely go for the Aus Open on the not unreasonable ground that it is more prestigious.

Being entirely hypothetical, I cannot see why winning a 5th AO woudl be, for Federer, more important than wining a 6th Masters putting him above the Masters' masters (Ivan and Pete)! Not so long ago, champs were all playing the Masters...few of them played the AO.

But there is another reason. As Becker said even before Fed won teh Masters 2010 in a brillant fashon, The Masters is about quality tennis, the slams are more a physical one".

I woudl have preferred Fed to wn the AO more than the Masters only for one reason: to prove a point to this new generation, not because I find a 5th AO or a 17 slam is more mportant. In that respect I do think a 6th Masters is more important.

Otherwise it's a close call from me.

Fair points Tenez..
My argument was never about which tournament is more prestigious sand which one Fedeerer would want to win more,it was the fact that muppet Craig thinks Roger would want to track that title in for another slam.
A champion like Roger values every title he has won,and because he has won everything,he's not desperate to swap titles.Player who are desperate to swap titles are players who cant win the title they want to swap think for,like Lendl who apparently admitted to wanting to swap titles for a single Wimbledon
Craig wants to believe Murray can win a major when I have questioned how he can win a major if he cant even be a dominant player at the WTF in a best of 3 sets match
And when I point out that Murray cant even dominate a tournament like the WTF,he tried to make the tournament insignificant because he cant deal with the reality
All falls on the blind and deaf....let them believe Murray will win a major.I just wonder if barystar will come out with this "quality win" theory if it so happened to be against Solderling or Berdych..