Puzzled

I am puzzled by posters views. We have those that say Andy Murray is poor on clay courts and say his clay court form last season was a freak or lucky according to one poster. However, the predictions for Monte Carlo and almost everyone tips Murray to at least get to the semi-finals and the odd one or two tip him for the final so how can this be the case if he is so useless on clay? Peculiar so which is it? Is he one of the top clay courters in the world or very poor. After all surely if poor on the surface he wouldn't be reaching even the quarters in Monte Carlo considering the quality field assembled.

I think, after last season, he is one of the best now. Probably with Ferrer in the top 5.

I'm a big Murray fan, but I'm also one of those who thought he overachieved on clay a little bit last year, and would be surprised if he repeated it.

He put in a good effort against Djokovic in Rome and Nadal in Monte Carlo (and at RG actually, I think he earned about 17 BP's but only took a couple)...

However, he had a fairly comfortable passage to the semis in Paris, and in spite of a few good performances on the red stuff last year I just don't think he looks totally comfortable on the surface. More than anyone, Murray's game is reliant on his movement. If he moves well, he usually plays well. I just don't think he manoeuvres himself around the court particularly well on clay.

Trust me, nobody would be more happy than me if i'm wrong, and whilst I think he might get to a semi in one of the masters, I'm not predicting he'll reach the last 4 at RG.

CC listen to Ljubo! He knows his tennis. It's not about being good on clay or grass or HC.....nowadays the surface is virtually irrelevant...it's about fitness. You tried to contradict me for years but they all say the same thing.

I have always said that Murray was going to be efficient on clay too. However he is not a natural mover and on clay that is probably where it's going to be most obvious. He should have a good clay season nonetheless.

By the way, not sure if anybody has seen this but I've copied a link to an interesting interview with Murray below. I've read some of the stuff he said in the press, but he talked in more detail than I've ever heard before about all the 'Paraguay shirt' and 'anyone but England' nonsense.

He also explains why he never shows his real personality to the media, all of this is in the last 5 minutes. It's interesting.

http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/drivetime/120410/murray-wimbledon-davis-cup-and-who-hell-support-euro-2012-169382

I have always believed Murray's game and temper's made for clay.
It's just that he's been trying to prove me wrong all this time

Caladonian Craig,

I share your puzzlement! The views of some posters here on 606v2 appear bewildering. Did you know that despite Rafa having 10 slam trophies safely at home on his mantlepiece in Majorca some here think that he doesn't deserve any of that silverware?

By the same token poor Andy's achievements on clay may be equally under appreciated. If it wasn't for that dastardly Rafa and Roger (if only they had taken up boxing instead... sigh) Andy would have at least 7 or 8 slam titles of his own. How many would he have won on the red clay of Paris we can but speculate.

Andy trained on Clay in Spain. Why is it such a surprise that he did well on Clay last year. As Tenez points out, and Lubo (the much maligned weak-era Top 10) clearly states, it is all about fitness.

For example, Isner, with wins over two Top 4, lost to Monaco on clay in Houston today.

Well since Lubo listed the top four can we also presume that it is only about fitness as well that the rest of the top four are where they are then. As in all fitness and not talent? No I don't think so - talent comes into it as well.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am puzzled by posters views. We have those that say Andy Murray is poor on clay courts and say his clay court form last season was a freak or lucky according to one poster.

Are you talking about me as that one poster? If not kindly make that according to 2 posters as I'm another one. Confession time you see. 'll also say his 2010 FO qtrs was also very fortunate. Should have been out in the 1st round. His fitness + Gasquet's mental strenght rescued him.

CaledonianCraig wrote: However, the predictions for Monte Carlo and almost everyone tips Murray to at least get to the semi-finals and the odd one or two tip him for the final so how can this be the case if he is so useless on clay? Peculiar so which is it?

Weak era perhaps. . There is just no one to challenge him at all before the semis.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Is he one of the top clay courters in the world or very poor. After all surely if poor on the surface he wouldn't be reaching even the quarters in Monte Carlo considering the quality field assembled.

Would you call someone who in 7 years of playing career has not even seen a clay final (leave winning a title) of even an ATP 250 as one of the top clay courters in the world? Of course you would.............. only if you are a Murray fan. . Else NO.

Now about prediction, people are playing safe here. But there won't be any bit of surprise or shock if he loses out early.


Now as Tenez brought out about surfaces, they are almost irrelevant now.

And what about his game which was in transition? I asked you some questions about it in another thread. Would you be kind enough to answer those 3 easy questions?

rotla I suggest you get a few facts right first before posting. It was the semi-final of the French Open that Murray reached last year (if it was last year that you were referring to) as Andy has also reached the quarters of the French Open.

As for the weak era theorists lets not start that up AGAIN suffice to say that Sky (often quoted recently about court speeds also did a piece suggestering this era is the strongest).

As for no clay titles - yes a concern agreed. However, remember that the clay tournaments Andy always plays in are where the big guns are ie Rafael Nadal trumpeted as the greatest clay court of all-time. Early in his career Andy struggled on the surface but his time with clay court specialist Alex Corretja helped him a great deal and we saw that last year so I will be hopeful of more of the same this year.

As for Andy's game being in transition - of course it is. He has been bidding to go more attacking and people who have watched his matches (even the experts) all agree on this and in recent times has worked on his forehand AND has a new coach instilling new tweaks etc so yes he is in transition. All players have times of going through transitions in their games.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Are you talking about me as that one poster? If not kindly make that according to 2 posters as I'm another one. Confession time you see. 'll also say his 2010 FO qtrs was also very fortunate. Should have been out in the 1st round. His fitness + Gasquet's mental strenght rescued him.

Fantastic news!! We now have a legitimate excuse for Andy's 'no show' against Roger at US08 and his failure to take some opportunities in Aus10. Apparently even if a player has a lack of "mental strength" and "fitness" - they are still the better player

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Would you call someone who in 7 years of playing career has not even seen a clay final (leave winning a title) of even an ATP 250 as one of the top clay courters in the world? Of course you would.............. only if you are a Murray fan. . Else NO.

A statement that can only be written by either someone ignorant about Tennis or a Murray knocker. For instance, since 2008 how many 250's has Andy played. Are you really telling us that if he'd 'hidden' away from the big 3 and trolled the smaller clay court events he'd not have won at least one and you'd not be scathing about him? Do you remember that he missed virtually all the 2007 clay court season, just as his game was making significant strides. Has he not improved year on year? If so. logically why would last season be seen as 'lucky'?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Now about prediction, people are playing safe here. But there won't be any bit of surprise or shock if he loses out early.

Wow!! How brave of you!! Andy Murray is early round exit shock - never heard or seen that before, have we?? Such exits (which by the way occur way too often - kindly note that this is a Murray fan criticising him, since you think that we're all incapable of balance) do not take away from the fact that he's more or less as good as the Rafa and Roger these days on Hard Courts and in the Top 6 on clay (Ferrer / Berdy - might be better)

Yes. He's vulnerable to say a hot playing Monaco more on clay than on hard courts, but if he plays half decently he still auto-pilots to ever SF in and QF at the FO. This is a big improvement on two to three years ago


Now as Tenez brought out about surfaces, they are almost irrelevant now.

And what about his game which was in transition? I asked you some questions about it in another thread. Would you be kind enough to answer those 3 easy questions?
[/quote]

hawkeye wrote:Caladonian Craig,

I share your puzzlement! The views of some posters here on 606v2 appear bewildering. Did you know that despite Rafa having 10 slam trophies safely at home on his mantlepiece in Majorca some here think that he doesn't deserve any of that silverware?

By the same token poor Andy's achievements on clay may be equally under appreciated. If it wasn't for that dastardly Rafa and Roger (if only they had taken up boxing instead... sigh) Andy would have at least 7 or 8 slam titles of his own. How many would he have won on the red clay of Paris we can but speculate.

None. Nole would have won 08' and 11', Soderling '09 and Berdy '10

Hope this helps

lol - Hey raiders you are not related to hawkeye by any chance or maybe you just share the same keyboard.

CaledonianCraig wrote:rotla I suggest you get a few facts right first before posting. It was the semi-final of the French Open that Murray reached last year (if it was last year that you were referring to) as Andy has also reached the quarters of the French Open.

Or instead can you get your reading right here. When did I mention about his not being in semis last year. I mentioned in "also" for the year 2010 when he lost in qtr. finals. This fact is correct I believe.

CaledonianCraig wrote: As for the weak era theorists lets not start that up AGAIN suffice to say that Sky (often quoted recently about court speeds also did a piece suggestering this era is the strongest).

Well I'm not an "era theorist" but its just strange that this "era" happens to be most predictable. Anyways. Why do you need to keep bring support of what sky or anyone else says to strengthen your point? Can you not use your own logic? Please don't give me what Sky said as a blue print. They are not players or anyone with a first hand experience. Journalists have a job to sell news and they will always say things that will benefit that cause. People like you and me can have much more open view.

CaledonianCraig wrote: As for no clay titles - yes a concern agreed. However, remember that the clay tournaments Andy always plays in are where the big guns are ie Rafael Nadal trumpeted as the greatest clay court of all-time.

So you want to suggest that Andy only loses on clay to top dogs like Nadal? Shall I bring out the 'top dogs" who have beaten Murray on clay? I don't think most of them will be called any great clay courter ( maybe decent but not great ).

CaledonianCraig wrote:Early in his career Andy struggled on the surface but his time with clay court specialist Alex Corretja helped him a great deal and we saw that last year so I will be hopeful of more of the same this year.

I think I've said this earlier too and hence my agreement that Last year Murray got lucky to reach semis. Murray should been out much before Semis last year. Only poor Troicki couldn't keep his nerves. Troicki losing from winning positions is a common thing. Murray reached semis but wasn't any convincing performance. He struggled to beat lower ranked players, only his superior stamina saved him. Game wise he was at RG 2011 just as where he was at RG 2010 and before. Only got a better fortune this than he did in 2010 and far better than previous years.

CaledonianCraig wrote: As for Andy's game being in transition - of course it is. He has been bidding to go more attacking and people who have watched his matches (even the experts) all agree on this and in recent times has worked on his forehand AND has a new coach instilling new tweaks etc so yes he is in transition. All players have times of going through transitions in their games.

Okay there were 3 questions. you answered one. Can you answer the other 2?


1. What will Murray or his game turn into after the completion of this transition?
2. When do you think will this transition be complete?

Thank you.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
1. What will Murray or his game turn into after the completion of this transition?
2. When do you think will this transition be complete?

1) A game with a better second serve and more consistent forehand. Note, that both these have improved demonstrably over the past year
2) End of this year

I think CC doesn't bother answering because of the 'smart alec' tone of your posts. I mean I find you hard to fathorm - one minute you're acting like a Tennis novice (I mean it's clear to see that Andy has improved year on year on The Dirt) then suddenly come across all Jeremy Paxman!!

So you feel he was fortunate to reach quarters in 2010 and even more fortunate to reach the semis last year? Now I'd support your theory of luck if he had not achieved any other decent showing on clay last year but unless I need to remind you rotla he reached (three semis on clay last year). One semi I'd agree could be deemed lucky, two much less so but three semis (one of which he pushed all-time great clay courter Rafael Nadal to three sets despite being injured) is certainly not lucky. Unless you are claiming by some freak chance he was lucky in all tournaments which I wouldn't put past you.

As for your last two questions:-

1. Only time will tell.
2. Who knows? Maybe never or maybe next week. It depends if he can package everything up he has been working on and take them on from this point consistently in every game. His showing in Miami Final shows he is still in transition as he reverted to a more passive game.

banbrotam wrote:Fantastic news!! We now have a legitimate excuse for Andy's 'no show' against Roger at US08 and his failure to take some opportunities in Aus10. Apparently even if a player has a lack of "mental strength" and "fitness" - they are still the better player

Who said anything about being a better player? Its not always necessary that the better player would win. Its more than just great shots to win matches. Andy's 'no show' didn't alter the result in Fed's favor. You can keep that up with you. "show" or "no show" wouldn't have anyway mattered the way Fed played in those 2 finals.

banbrotam wrote: A statement that can only be written by either someone ignorant about Tennis or a Murray knocker. For instance, since 2008 how many 250's has Andy played. Are you really telling us that if he'd 'hidden' away from the big 3 and trolled the smaller clay court events he'd not have won at least one and you'd not be scathing about him? Do you remember that he missed virtually all the 2007 clay court season, just as his game was making significant strides. Has he not improved year on year? If so. logically why would last season be seen as 'lucky'?

You are just saying what CC said. Its like Murray hasn't seen a clay finals as he only enters the tournaments that the top dogs enter and they beat Murray. Now what is Murray's fault here. Now you too look at the list of great 'top dogs" who have beaten Murray on clay. You can make your assumptions that if Andy he had entered a smaller ATP 250 tournament he surely would have won and even I can make assumption that If I get a wildcard this RG I'll win it surely. Its a fact that he hasn't won, its a fact that he hasn't been even in a final in 7 years and this is nothing more than fantasy assumption to think that if he enters he will win it. Assumptions of "someone ignorant about Tennis or a Murray lover".

banbrotam wrote:Wow!! How brave of you!! Andy Murray is early round exit shock - never heard or seen that before, have we?? Such exits (which by the way occur way too often - kindly note that this is a Murray fan criticising him, since you think that we're all incapable of balance) do not take away from the fact that he's more or less as good as the Rafa and Roger these days on Hard Courts and in the Top 6 on clay (Ferrer / Berdy - might be better)

Is the same logic used here which was used to draw those conclusions that he is already ahead of Federer because of his 5 set loss to #1 vs Fed's 4 set lass to #2?

banbrotam wrote: Yes. He's vulnerable to say a hot playing Monaco more on clay than on hard courts, but if he plays half decently he still auto-pilots to ever SF in and QF at the FO. This is a big improvement on two to three years ago

Yes. right. As I always say remember what you have said. I'll bring it up later on.

Hey banbro maybe he should trade in his 8 No. Master titles for 32 No. 250's lol

sportslover wrote:Hey banbro maybe he should trade in his 8 No. Master titles for 32 No. 250's lol

ROTLA is still trying to do the maths

lol...doing the maths the other way I'm certainly sure if he could convert 8 Masters to 4 majors he sure would!
I find it quite an amazing stat that a player with 8 TMS has 0 majors...

Clay court expertise is slowly losing its flab. A good player is performing well on all surfaces. They used to call Nadal a clay court wonder in the beginning. Soderling was no clay court specialist when he reached two consecutive finals at RG. Djokovic was considered more a hard court player until he won Wimbledon and lifted two clay court titles from the Clay King. Isner has never been accredited with any clay court expertise, but he took 2-1 lead over Nadal last year at RG and has defeated better players in Davis cup this year on clay. And the so called specialists from Spain and Latin America. Have they reached RG finals in recent years. It could have been an appropriate term 15 years ago when serve and volley was the in thing. These S&V champions fared poorly at RG and one thought of surface requiring good ground strokes. Such things have ceased to exist. All surfaces are having baseline champions.
Murray has the same strokes that Djokovic possesses, only a bit lower. He can stay in any rally for twenty shots. If he did well last year, it was because he is a good player. He reached the semi-finals of all the majors. Why? Because he has a good overall game. If he did not succeed at RG, he did not succeed on any other surface too. To attribute his failure to lack of clay game will be a misnomer. Reasons might lie elsewhere.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Who said anything about being a better player? Its not always necessary that the better player would win. Its more than just great shots to win matches. Andy's 'no show' didn't alter the result in Fed's favor. You can keep that up with you. "show" or "no show" wouldn't have anyway mattered the way Fed played in those 2 finals.

So we're agreed that Murray is simply a better player than Gasguet and wasn't "lucky" last year? i.e. Andy's a decent clay courter and rightly beat Gasguet?? If we're going to use the same logic, which actually is the only logic, to such matches - why do you put such great emphasis on "luck" when Murray wins.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:You are just saying what CC said. Its like Murray hasn't seen a clay finals as he only enters the tournaments that the top dogs enter and they beat Murray. Now what is Murray's fault here. Now you too look at the list of great 'top dogs" who have beaten Murray on clay. You can make your assumptions that if Andy he had entered a smaller ATP 250 tournament he surely would have won and even I can make assumption that If I get a wildcard this RG I'll win it surely. Its a fact that he hasn't won, its a fact that he hasn't been even in a final in 7 years and this is nothing more than fantasy assumption to think that if he enters he will win it. Assumptions of "someone ignorant about Tennis or a Murray lover".

You're something else, Raiders. Actually are you Hawkeye in disguise? I'd wager that in the past three years, every time Andy has played a clay court tournament at least one of the two (arguably) greatest clay courters of all time have been there and half of the Top 10

I mean are you seriously telling us that it wouldn't have been a shock if Andy hadn't won the memorable VTR Open in March(http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Tournaments/Vina-del-Mar.aspx) if he had entered? If Andy enters an event where peak (and just use your imagination for a minute) Borg, Muster, Lendl, Federer and Nadal are present and doesn't win are you really telling us that this means he has no chance against a bunch of players struggling to get into the Top 30

Actually I think Andy should have trolled some of the smaller clay court events, got a few wins - but I greatly admire him for constantly wanting to beat the best, knowing full well that any other victories are meaningless

As you and Hawkeye, would be gleefully pointing out

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Is the same logic used here which was used to draw those conclusions that he is already ahead of Federer because of his 5 set loss to #1 vs Fed's 4 set lass to #2?

Actually neither me of CC has ever stated that he's a head of Federer. Apart from Autumn last year, when Andy was briefly ahead in the points race - before the tail of the old Swiss dog started to wag again. I'm sure you've got proof where we've said this, though

banbrotam wrote: Yes. He's vulnerable to say a hot playing Monaco more on clay than on hard courts, but if he plays half decently he still auto-pilots to ever SF in and QF at the FO. This is a big improvement on two to three years ago

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Yes. right. As I always say remember what you have said. I'll bring it up later on.

I'd don't know what I've said which can come back to bite me. If Andy is musing around and meets a "hot" player - he can lose. If he plays half decently, he meets one of the Top 6 in the SF's or QF's. Not certain what's remarkable about this - but you do love to shove it up us Murray fans, so I'm sure you'll find something

Eskay wrote:Clay court expertise is slowly losing its flab. A good player is performing well on all surfaces. They used to call Nadal a clay court wonder in the beginning. Soderling was no clay court specialist when he reached two consecutive finals at RG. Djokovic was considered more a hard court player until he won Wimbledon and lifted two clay court titles from the Clay King. Isner has never been accredited with any clay court expertise, but he took 2-1 lead over Nadal last year at RG and has defeated better players in Davis cup this year on clay. And the so called specialists from Spain and Latin America. Have they reached RG finals in recent years. It could have been an appropriate term 15 years ago when serve and volley was the in thing. These S&V champions fared poorly at RG and one thought of surface requiring good ground strokes. Such things have ceased to exist. All surfaces are having baseline champions.
Murray has the same strokes that Djokovic possesses, only a bit lower. He can stay in any rally for twenty shots. If he did well last year, it was because he is a good player. He reached the semi-finals of all the majors. Why? Because he has a good overall game. If he did not succeed at RG, he did not succeed on any other surface too. To attribute his failure to lack of clay game will be a misnomer. Reasons might lie elsewhere.

Excellent point and ultimately is part of the reason why Andy is now comfortable on clay. Let's face is half of the hard court events are virtually as slow as, say, Madrid

banbrotam wrote:
Actually neither me of CC has ever stated that he's a head of Federer. Apart from Autumn last year, when Andy was briefly ahead in the points race - before the tail of the old Swiss dog started to wag again. I'm sure you've got proof where we've said this, though

Poor memory never helps you nor CC.
Start from page -2 and keep going on. And this was not from last year Autumn.

https://www.606v2.com/t22723p50-andy-murray-i-have-no-more-faith

Why the confusion?

Look at Andy's draw and he has been fortunate to miss some 'Clay' courters in his draw. Granollers probably would be a tricky opponent should he make the 3rd round. It is kind draw and one that Andy should be expected to make the Semi's at least.

Last season on the Clay Andy avoided players like Almagro and Ferrer that would've proved a stern test for Andy. Look at when Andy faced Bellucci, he was blown off the court. Same with the FO last year when the draw was kind.

Posters are not stating that it was 'freakish' but what the majority say like I would is to see how Andy would fair against a Ferrer, Almagro, Del Potro or even a Lopez. For Andy to actually be considered an all surface player, let's see how he fairs against 'clay courters' and a I feel a better judgment can be made. Yes he played well against Nadal and Djokovic, but Andy folded too easily when the pressure was applied.

Andy for me had his best season on Clay last year, can he actually play the attacking stuff he displayed last year.

lydian wrote:lol...doing the maths the other way I'm certainly sure if he could convert 8 Masters to 4 majors he sure would!
I find it quite an amazing stat that a player with 8 TMS has 0 majors...

lydian - that IS an interesting stat, no doubt.

I seem to remember once working out that in past history only one player - Brian Gottfried - has won more official ATP titles than Murray whilst not actually winning a Slam. Gottfried ended his career with 25 titles ; Murray currently has 22 to his name. It has to be said that the quality/status of the tournaments won by Murray is far better than those of Gottfried.

I haven't come on to denigrate Murray's lack of Slams, he's an outstanding tennis player and I'd like to think that he can manage to capture at least one, some time within the next couple of years (after which I fear it could be too late.....). A Slam trophy always elevates a player to a different category - and for life. It changes not just the way a player is perceived by his fellow pros, but by all of us in the wider world of tennis, indeed sport generally.

But it's no easy thing. Out of the last 25 Slams played, only one guy has managed to break (and just once) the strangehold of the current top three who make up the exclusive coterie of multiple Slam-winners.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Actually neither me of CC has ever stated that he's a head of Federer. Apart from Autumn last year, when Andy was briefly ahead in the points race - before the tail of the old Swiss dog started to wag again. I'm sure you've got proof where we've said this, though

Poor memory never helps you nor CC.
Start from page -2 and keep going on. And this was not from last year Autumn.

https://www.606v2.com/t22723p50-andy-murray-i-have-no-more-faith

Oh dear you've caught me!! I forgot how pedantic you are. For me there was no evidence in the 18 months to the Aus open that suggested that Fed (that version of him) was better than Andy - given that their Slam record was similar and Andy had beaten him in two Masters finals

However, Fed's given some good performances since and so I've revised my opinion - as I stated at the time, i.e. there was a spell when I thought Andy was better. However, I still don't think that there is much between them, but get Roger on a very fast court (as I said at the time) and he's actually best in the world

Not certain that this is partiuclarly shocking - it's certainly not bigging Murray up as you seem to think

I apoloigise that us Tennis fans watch the game and then form an opinion of who is better / or worse on their actual play, rather than whether they like someone or not

banbrotam wrote:
I apoloigise that us Tennis fans watch the game and then form an opinion of who is better / or worse on their actual play, rather than whether they like someone or not

Trust me banbrotam, I watch far more tennis than a lot of posters here on 606v2. You are always entitled to your opinion which is fine. Only try to remember what you say, changing stance will make your point meaningless in a debate.

banbrotam - looks like the heavy irony in your closing sentence 'apology' was wasted there .... (bet you feel suitably chastised ..... !)

I am still waiting for how luck can quantify three semis on clay in one season from raiders as he seems to claim. It is pointless trying to reason with people who have a distinct dislike or should I say hatred of Murray as you evidently have raiders. Noted your post saying Murray hasnt got the guts to beat Nadal whereas you'd never say that was the case for Federer who has long been Nadal's bunny in slams. Shows up the hatred and in other terminology you use. A pity but it is you that has to live with it.

Take the French Open.

The highest ranked player Murray faced before Nadal was Troicki at 15.

This was his route:

Prodon, Bolelli, Berrer, Troicki, Chela, Nadal

Without doubt the easiest route to a Slam semi I have seen.

Monte Carlo 2011.

Stepanek, Simon, Gil, Nadal

Again not the most challenging progression.

Rome 2011

Malisse, Starace, Mayer, Djokovic. Again the seeds in Murray's half were taken out by lower ranked players.

You can see why people feel that Murray's achievements on clay was largely circumstantial by the 'luck' of the draws.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am still waiting for how luck can quantify three semis on clay in one season from raiders as he seems to claim. It is pointless trying to reason with people who have a distinct dislike or should I say hatred of Murray as you evidently have raiders. Noted your post saying Murray hasnt got the guts to beat Nadal whereas you'd never say that was the case for Federer who has long been Nadal's bunny in slams. Shows up the hatred and in other terminology you use. A pity but it is you that has to live with it.

CC Rise above it - Judging by previous posts he is obviously a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal!

CC you are not alone in being puzzled but in my case for different reasons.

It's clear that you seem to think that anyone who knocks Andy has some pathological dislike or hatred for the guy. Now I'm no big fan of Andy's but would be the first to admit that his tennis deserves at least one slam. Is that likely to be on clay? Well the truth is it has to be considered his least favourite surface given his track record so far. Can he improve on it? Of course he can but it stands to reason that if loses more often than not at the SF stage on hard or grass in the majors then an exit at the same stage on clay is pretty much on the cards.

Does that mean he's rubbish on clay? Of course not but he hasn't had the armoury on clay so far. Over the last four years he's gone out to Almagro (3R), Gonzalez (QF), Berdych (4R) and Nadal (SF) so whilst the signs of an improvement in his clay court game are there you'd have to be rather optimistic to say the least to believe he is make the final this time round, never mind win the whole thing.

The notion that any of the top players are going to enter ATP 250 events also to get a win on their least favoured surface is a strange one. Yep they may well win there - Almagro for one seems to sometimes enter smaller events even on the clay. It gets you some brownie points but little else. The reality is you're only going to beat the top players in the bigger events so why spend time and effort in the smaller ones?

One thing though to bear in mind that might possibly suggest Andy's in with a shout. This time last year someone entered the Fench Open with no clay court title to their name and was viewed as a relative outsider. Did pretty well though against all expectations and beat the reigning champion for a first slam title.

Their name? Li Na. Well it was the ladies but who knows? Lightning might just strike twice in the same place and Andy might just break his slam duck. Wouldn't bet on it if I were you though...

legendkillarV2 wrote:Take the French Open.

The highest ranked player Murray faced before Nadal was Troicki at 15.

This was his route:

Prodon, Bolelli, Berrer, Troicki, Chela, Nadal

Without doubt the easiest route to a Slam semi I have seen.

Monte Carlo 2011.

Stepanek, Simon, Gil, Nadal

Again not the most challenging progression.

Rome 2011

Malisse, Starace, Mayer, Djokovic. Again the seeds in Murray's half were taken out by lower ranked players.

You can see why people feel that Murray's achievements on clay was largely circumstantial by the 'luck' of the draws.

Why do I get the feeling that if I had said exactly this you would have got all upset?

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Take the French Open.

The highest ranked player Murray faced before Nadal was Troicki at 15.

This was his route:

Prodon, Bolelli, Berrer, Troicki, Chela, Nadal

Without doubt the easiest route to a Slam semi I have seen.

Monte Carlo 2011.

Stepanek, Simon, Gil, Nadal

Again not the most challenging progression.

Rome 2011

Malisse, Starace, Mayer, Djokovic. Again the seeds in Murray's half were taken out by lower ranked players.

You can see why people feel that Murray's achievements on clay was largely circumstantial by the 'luck' of the draws.

Why do I get the feeling that if I had said exactly this you would have got all upset?

Because no-one on this forum writes the amount of negative Andy threads as you Hawky

legendkillarV2 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Take the French Open.

The highest ranked player Murray faced before Nadal was Troicki at 15.

This was his route:

Prodon, Bolelli, Berrer, Troicki, Chela, Nadal

Without doubt the easiest route to a Slam semi I have seen.

Monte Carlo 2011.

Stepanek, Simon, Gil, Nadal

Again not the most challenging progression.

Rome 2011

Malisse, Starace, Mayer, Djokovic. Again the seeds in Murray's half were taken out by lower ranked players.

You can see why people feel that Murray's achievements on clay was largely circumstantial by the 'luck' of the draws.

Why do I get the feeling that if I had said exactly this you would have got all upset?

Because no-one on this forum writes the amount of negative Andy threads as you Hawky

Ha ha! Just like the draws Andy gets it easy if its only moi as his "fiercest" critic. If poor Rafa was to look in here he would leave in floods of tears and his ego would probably never recover...

Newballs no there are many people on this forum whose favourite player isnt Murray and make stinging attacks on him but don't accuse them of hatred but with raiders the signd are there and can be read from his terminology it doesnt take a psychologist to work it out.

Three semis on clay last year is NOT luck but it is in raiders eyes because it is Andy Murray.

Elsewhere on Monte Carlo thread he pisted something like Murray hasn't got the guts to beat Nafal. Sorry? Can we therefore call Federer gutless for his recent slam defeats against Nadal. No of course not but you see that is the hatred coming out again.

As for Andy's clay prospects I haven't said anywhere that Murray is going to win the French Open but that doesnt disqualify him from being a talented clay courter if lsst year is anything to go by.

Murray had a lucky draw last year, Troicki and then Chela.
He won't be getting the same favours this time though.

It's better tennis wise if Murray loses his Quarter final, should he
get there, so we can see a player capable of taking at least a set off Nad/Djo.

JM could see Andy taking a set off Djokovic if that helps.

Has to be a Djokovic/Nadal or Djokovic/Federer final though doesn't it?

Murray will never win a slam.

He's a bottler in slam finals.

jersey wrote:Murray will never win a slam.

He's a bottler in slam finals.

He may or may not win a slam but with the £50 Million he has made so far he could certainly buy a lot of "jerseys" and for all you keyboard junkies how many new keyboards what that buy lol

Bottler in slam finals?

It is more of a surprise when he reaches a slam final than when he gets
a hammering in the final.

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Take the French Open.

The highest ranked player Murray faced before Nadal was Troicki at 15.

This was his route:

Prodon, Bolelli, Berrer, Troicki, Chela, Nadal

Without doubt the easiest route to a Slam semi I have seen.

Monte Carlo 2011.

Stepanek, Simon, Gil, Nadal

Again not the most challenging progression.

Rome 2011

Malisse, Starace, Mayer, Djokovic. Again the seeds in Murray's half were taken out by lower ranked players.

You can see why people feel that Murray's achievements on clay was largely circumstantial by the 'luck' of the draws.

Why do I get the feeling that if I had said exactly this you would have got all upset?

Because no-one on this forum writes the amount of negative Andy threads as you Hawky

Ha ha! Just like the draws Andy gets it easy if its only moi as his "fiercest" critic. If poor Rafa was to look in here he would leave in floods of tears and his ego would probably never recover...

Haha. It would be water off a ducks back.

When draws are made Andy will have seeds in his section. Now if they fail to make it through the competition, it is out of Andy's control and for me is harsh criticise him for the calibre of opponents he faces.

'Luck of the Draw' is true on so many levels, not just tennis. Andy had a favourable draw in his 3 semi final appearances on Clay and what I want to see is him have a stickler of a draw just so he can prove to his critics he can perform against higher ranked seeds than Troicki.

Yeah and its not just Murray getting "lucky" draws - dont forget that Nadal also is pulling the strings at MC for the draw too (according to others on here)

CC, for the "lucky to be in the semis", I wanted to post it, but I see LK has already posted it. I'll like to only add the at Rome he struggled to beat Malisse and Mayer. He suffered many beaks of serves and faced numerous break points. He reched semis, but his performance was not convincing at all and was fortunate to make it up to the semis.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Newballs no there are many people on this forum whose favourite player isnt Murray and make stinging attacks on him but don't accuse them of hatred but with raiders the signd are there and can be read from his terminology it doesnt take a psychologist to work it out.

Why would hate Murray? I have never met him nor know him anything more than what is said in news and his tennis. what do you mean by "stinging attacks on him"? Ahh.. since I've not said he is a great clay courter, this will be taken as an attack on him? Ad why are you being a kid crying about attacks? Answer the points and be cool about it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Three semis on clay last year is NOT luck but it is in raiders eyes because it is Andy Murray.

Okay its already shown why do some people think Murray's semis last year was due to luck. Points were brought about how his draw opened up and how he struggled to beat opponents and even his wins were nothing convincing. This is a valid point to base an opinion on.

Now bring out your vaild point to show that how Murray's semis last year was NOT due to luck. If you can't bring it, then shut this foul cry crap forever. I'm getting sick of debating with 40+ year old babies.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Elsewhere on Monte Carlo thread he pisted something like Murray hasn't got the guts to beat Nafal. Sorry? Can we therefore call Federer gutless for his recent slam defeats against Nadal. No of course not but you see that is the hatred coming out again.

Bring out the quote, then we can talk about it. Else its all useless tripe.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for Andy's clay prospects I haven't said anywhere that Murray is going to win the French Open but that doesnt disqualify him from being a talented clay courter if lsst year is anything to go by.

If Murray with 0 clay finals is a talented clay courter, Montaneas with 5 clay titles and 5 finals is GOAT on clay.

The issue at hand is despite the stats suggesting Murray played well can be misleading. The struggle against Troicki and Berrer at the FO. The point being that for a world no.4 to struggle so badily given that lower ranked clay courters may not have had the struggles Murray himself did. It so so easy to put it down to a bad day at the office than actually Andy not being so convincing on clay.

Here is the post right here:-

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:tough draw for Nole. Relatively straightforward first match against Seppi or a qualifier, but then it gets a lot tougher. Dolgopolov isn't in great form but the clay could spark a change in his fortunes, and he's the sort of player who can give anyone problems, then Ferrer, who has an excellent record bs Novak on clay - toughest QF opponent possible. And Murray in the semis, much tougher than Tsonga.

Nadal's draw looks very easy at first glance, though you never know, Almagro might do something in a big tournament for a change.

Murray's somewhere in between, with a potentially troicki opener (sorry )

Seppi is no mug. Win or loss he doesn't give up before the match starts like a lot of other lower ranked players when facing a top dog. I have to like that attitude. Dolgo may not reach to meat Djo, he lost in the opening round in Casablanca and is running severely short in confidence. Tomic is more likely opponent in 3rd round. Bellucci will need great play to get past Ferrer, not likely atm. Monaco won't be able to stop Ferrer. So Djo-Ferrer in qtr finals. Djo will take it, though it might turn into a tough fight.


Nadal's draw is easy. Almugro may look threatening for a small time, but I know he won't have the guts to beat Nadal. No Spaniard bar Ferrero has it ( But Ferrero is too old now even to get to face him ). Tsonga is better than a dodo on clay, but nothing threatening.

Final spot is about fixed for Nadal. Actually its about fixed for Djo as well, only his path to get there may be a little tougher.


Personally I want Berdych or Ferrer to win the tournament. Just to make things a lot more interesting.

As for the luck thing - don't make me laugh please. Lets say by some massive fluke he was lucky in all three tournaments then please explain how he managed to put up fights in those semis against clay court masters Nadal and Djokovic in those matches. If he got there by luck I am sure they would have brushed him away in double quick time but they never. Anyway as I said pointless trying to discuss it when you let hatred blind you. It is akin to listening to a Rangers fan talking about Celtic and vice versa with you and Murray.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Here is the post right here:-

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:tough draw for Nole. Relatively straightforward first match against Seppi or a qualifier, but then it gets a lot tougher. Dolgopolov isn't in great form but the clay could spark a change in his fortunes, and he's the sort of player who can give anyone problems, then Ferrer, who has an excellent record bs Novak on clay - toughest QF opponent possible. And Murray in the semis, much tougher than Tsonga.

Nadal's draw looks very easy at first glance, though you never know, Almagro might do something in a big tournament for a change.

Murray's somewhere in between, with a potentially troicki opener (sorry )

Seppi is no mug. Win or loss he doesn't give up before the match starts like a lot of other lower ranked players when facing a top dog. I have to like that attitude. Dolgo may not reach to meat Djo, he lost in the opening round in Casablanca and is running severely short in confidence. Tomic is more likely opponent in 3rd round. Bellucci will need great play to get past Ferrer, not likely atm. Monaco won't be able to stop Ferrer. So Djo-Ferrer in qtr finals. Djo will take it, though it might turn into a tough fight.


Nadal's draw is easy. Almugro may look threatening for a small time, but I know he won't have the guts to beat Nadal. No Spaniard bar Ferrero has it ( But Ferrero is too old now even to get to face him ). Tsonga is better than a dodo on clay, but nothing threatening.

Final spot is about fixed for Nadal. Actually its about fixed for Djo as well, only his path to get there may be a little tougher.


Personally I want Berdych or Ferrer to win the tournament. Just to make things a lot more interesting.

As for the luck thing - don't make me laugh please. Lets say by some massive fluke he was lucky in all three tournaments then please explain how he managed to put up fights in those semis against clay court masters Nadal and Djokovic in those matches. If he got there by luck I am sure they would have brushed him away in double quick time but they never. Anyway as I said pointless trying to discuss it when you let hatred blind you. It is akin to listening to a Rangers fan talking about Celtic and vice versa with you and Murray.

CC,

He meant Almagro hasn't the guts to beat Nadal.

Think you got wrong end of stick my friend.

Oh right I see unreserved apologies to you then raiders on that front.

End of thew day we shall see how things pan out in the clay court season but to suggest luck sees a player reaching three semis on clay AND plays a part on him being competitive in those semis is a flawed way of thinking. Top clay courters such as Nadal and Djokovic would have blown Murray off the court if he was just a run of the mill clay courter but they didn't. How would it be treated if I were to suggest Fed got lucky winning French Open? Only happened once and not three times. But of course that is a big no no. It also emphasises what I have said for ages on here and old 606. It doesn't matter in the context of these forums if Murray wins a slam or not or even multiple slams as those that hate him will continue to rubbish him as he will have been lucky......again.