If Murray becomes no.1 in 2013

I can understand the title is kinda confusing and strange, but my funny feeling says Murray will become number 1 sooner or later in 2013.
Murray is slowly getting used to failures and thats actually making him stronger than weaker a bit like his coach Lendl itself. As expected Federer will have one last big run before he retires, its difficult to see him repeat 2012 in 2013 even if he wins few slams here and there, that makes the other 3 fight for the pride again. Rafa for some reason looked knackered to me except for the FO, Djoko looks like a spend force already and Murray is the only one I see as improved his game from 2011.

So the interesting question is, if Murray makes no.1 do you guys think he will hold on to it longer than the other 2 [Nadal/Djoko] did? or will he last the similar amount of time like he lasted in No.2? Slams might be a bit tougher for Murray, but like we saw this year Federer achived no.1 more with success in masters and 500's than too many slam wins, which Murray can certainly do it. Four-Five masters win coupled with 4 semi-finals in slams will give him close to 8k points and wins in 500's and 250's and WTF can help him rack up points close to 10k and if the other 3 battle slams in proportional manner, Murray can easily get to no.1

I think if and when Murray makes the top spot he will cling on to it longer than expected of him, just for the reason he knows how difficult it was to get there and he won't hence goof it up easily. I see Murray handling pressure of expectation better than the other 2 [Rafa/Djoko], I tip Murray to take the no.1 with a Slam title [like Fed did] next year ,USO will be the likely case.

Update

Now Murray himself feels he can target the no.1 and will try hard to achieve it,

atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/09/36/US-Open-Final-Murray-Relieved.aspx

Personally I don't think Murray will ever make number 1. I think he will win slams, but I don't think he'll ever be at the same level as the other 3 (eventually 2) on clay.

Remember, we're talking about a player who despite winning a whole host of masters and big tourmaments, reaching 4 grand slam finals has NEVER even reached a clay tournament final.

Whilst he is inches away from slam success, he is some distance away from clay success. If he ever did reach number 1 - which I doubt - then I imagine it would be short lived as I don't think he'll ever be the same player on the dirt.

I hope you are right though, and that I'm wrong.

Nice Analysis on Murray even though exactly opposite to mine Danny .

I doubt Murray's success on clay as well, be he got two hardcourt slams to focus on and in my view he will always be a big challange to over come on Wimbledon, this Murray would have beaten Djoko on Wimby finals if they two had met.

invisible : Don't wish to sound confrontational just for the sake of it but in all honesty, yes, I do find your title "kinda confusing & strange" to use your own words.

But not just the title. The basic premise of your argument seems to be that Djokovic and Nadal are about to roll over fairly soon and thus conveniently allow Murray to leapfrog them both and do something that he hasn't really threatened to do at any point in the last few years, ie become World Number One. I'm surprised by your view that Rafa was looking knackered "except for the FO" (even though he won 3 good titles this year prior to that) and that "Djoko looks like a spent force already"

A "spent force" ?..... really ? .... having got to the RG Final in the face of some tough challenges (notably Tsonga), and then making Wimbledon SF for loss of just one set throughout the tourney, before falling to the eventual title winner ..??

I'm perplexed also by the fact that you're already wondering just how long Murray might hold on to the top spot ; seems a tad premature to me, given the amount of ground he has yet to make up (combined with a significant drop off each of the other three) just to get there in the first place.

I had a quick look back at the sort of points tally required to make Number One over the last couple of years and the bar has been set pretty high, viz:

(in 000's, rounded to one decimal ; figures in brackets are Murray's own points at the dates given)

Currently 11.1 (7.4)

Feb 2012 13.6 (7.1)

Nov 2011 14.7 (7.1)

Feb 2011 12.3 (5.7)

Sept 2010 12.0 (5.0)

May 2010 10.0 (5.0)


So, true he has been getting (a little) closer but he's still a good way off. I know you're talking about what might happen in 2013 but even on current evidence the gap in this second half of 2012 remains very significant. Quite apart from the main 12 months rankings, Murray has 3800 pts in the "Race to London" table for WTF qualification but this is only just over half of Fed's current 7085 and also well below Djokovic (6840) and Nadal (6795). Plus, let's not forget Ferrer breathing down Andy's neck with 3755.

I strongly feel you are making too much of any comparisons with Federer as regards Murray's potential path to Number One and then how long he might stay there. Any such comparisons don't seem particularly relevant. By Andy's current age Federer had already spent over 120 weeks in the top spot and has of course always shown a level of consistency way beyond anything we have ever seen from Andy. Sure, as regards pure h2h Andy has proven that he is capable of matching/beating him on several occasions BUT when all said & done we're talking about a guy who has won 17 Slams versus 0. That sounds harsh but there's no tactful/delicate way to put it.

My final point relates to your comment Andy "won't goof it up easily" .... Well I don't really think it's ever a case of "goofing it up" as regards conceding a Number One ranking - that's too simplistic surely. Rafa was desperate to hold on to his Number One, but when Djokovic was beating him in one Final after another with inspired play, you could hardly accuse Rafa of goofing it up. Likewise with Djokovic, who has just been deposed himself (perhaps not for long ...?) by Federer. He was beaten by the better player on the day at Wimby but that's not the same as goofing it up. Rarely does a number one "goof it up" - it's far more often a case of either a) being overtaken by someone playing better tennis in one crucial meeting where the points gap happens to be already very narrow or b) simply being less consistent over a period of time than other top players.

I must stress that I've never been a member of the anti-Murray brigade and would be very happy to see him make the sort of leap you're talking about in 2013. But I don't think it will be anything like as straightforward as your article implies .......

Lags neither Rafa nor Djoko seemed a force anywhere close to 2011, I just compared the respective version of the 3 to their past year. Djoko and Rafa might still have the better year over Murray but not to their respective versions of last year.

Rafa in my view didn't have the intimidating factor this year, I guess his year be very similar to the one of 2009.

Lags I do agree with you that Murray will not get to no.1 easy but if and when he gets he will hold on to it like iron fists.

Rafa was desperate to hold on to his Number One, but when Djokovic was beating him in one Final after another with inspired play, you could hardly accuse Rafa of goofing it up.

Rafa always struggled to the pressure of holding no.1, things eased for him when he lost it to Djoko and started beating him back again, if Djoko and Rafa face each other on finals in USO this time around I won't be surprised if Rafa trumps him, its not coz of Djoko not playing same its coz Rafa plays better as hunter than as hunted.

Ha ha! Very funny. If you are being serious you are basing your prediction on wishful thinking or maybe you've been drinking? Federer will retire? Rafa knackered? Djokovic a spent force? Everyone else will disappear? Murray will win X, Y and Z and gain lots of points. Murray will get to number one and stay there for a long time?

If I said that Murray will go into a slump after his defeat at Wimbledon. And this would be based on the evidence of what he has done after previous slam finals. In fact a bigger slump might be predicted if his tears are used as evidence. If I said that you would say at the very least I was a member of the "anti-Murray brigade".

But I don't think you were serious. Were you? If so I could write similar articles about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrer, Tsonga... In fact I could write something similar about almost any player.

Hawkeye. Good article. But for me, if Andy reaches No.1 then he's a different player - so we couldn't use past 'evidence' as to how he would do

Personally, I think that both he and Nole are too 'human' to be No.1 and actually value their rounded lives more. Fed's a god, a machine and has everyone around him knowing that it's all about him, i.e. a Tiger Woods etc who believes he should be No.1. Rafa, similarly

Yeah have to agree with a lot of what lags says. We're talking fractions in terms of hard courts and Grass, but he still hasn't done it yet. And the points reflect that his relative inability to pick up big points on clay has always hindered him, unlike the other 3. that will remain the case even if he makes the breakthrough at one of the other slams.

Bottom line, if the tour was played only on hard and grass then I think he'd have a big chance of being number 1. But I suspect Murray may end his career without a clay title to his name.

I also think the other 3 are far from on a downward slope. Novak will be winning slams for years to come, and I suspect Rafa will recover from his problems and win many more slams too. Not to mention the new world number 1 who looks far from finished.

Like I said before, I hope I'm wrong but I'd be staggered if he gets to number 1.

Cheers BanBro

Hawkeye, Murray can reach no.1 without winning slams and thats the reason I used stats. In Masters Murray has proved equal with the top3 in last few years.

I never assured Murray will win slams or become no.1 for sure in 2013, i am no Jersey u see , my thinking is if and when Murray gets to no.1 he will cling onto it like Iron fists, but whether he will get it or not is another thing altogether.

Well hawkeye - I certainly share your deep scepticism (along with many others, I'm sure) that the top 3 are somehow all about to go into some sort of cataclysmic meltdown and that will they do so - helpfully for Murray - ALL at the same time.

But equally, I think you're over-egging it somewhat in saying that you "could write something similar about almost any player."

Murray is different from most other players in that he has been a consistent feature within the top four since around mid 2008 (IIRC). For that I believe he deserves a lot of respect and credit in the world of tennis - which on all available evidence is precisely what he gets from the vast majority of guys on the tour.

However, all that said .....the broad thrust of ic's tenuous argument is that Murray has been knocking on the door marked 'Number One' for some time, and is allegedly now getting closer than ever, primed & ready to take possession in 2013. But in truth the knocks have never really been forceful or loud enough to trouble any of the recent occupants

The cold reality is that since early 2004 the ever-present gate-keeper has been a certain R. Federer and the only two party crashers to make it past him - each for limited spells - have been Nadal and Djokovic. Both of whom will be as determined as each other to evict the current owner and regain possession asap.....

Agree again lags. Knocking on the door to win a slam? Certainly!

Knocking on the door to be world number 1? No.

Nothing wrong with an optimistic article though.

lags72 wrote:

However, all that said .....the broad thrust of ic's tenuous argument is that Murray has been knocking on the door marked 'Number One' for some time, and is allegedly now getting closer than ever, primed & ready to take possession in 2013. But in truth the knocks have never really been forceful or loud enough to trouble any of the recent occupants

Lags can't argue with your points that Murray has not made much noise on court to post a claim on no.1, I never denied it, but if and when he gets it he will make more noise on court and hold on to it longer than expected of him, coz he knows how difficult its to get there.

Also I never felt Murray is knocking the door of no.1 so far but will in the future, between I am no Pseudo id of Prof. Simon Reed

Cheers Danny

I am an optimistic guy and loved to be that way all my life.

Yes Danny - he is definitely closer as far as a Slam win goes ; and if he had taken that 2nd set at Wimbledon I believe there's every possibility he would have one today.

But the 'come-back' by Fed was no accident. "I didn't get where I am today" without the ability to pull out something very special at pivotal / pressurised moments ......

(apologies 'CJ' on behalf of anyone who might recall your mantra .... )

I just dont see Murray doing it. He needs the top 3 to fall behind him and I cant see that at all. And dont forget he's as likely to fall away as them. Djokovic is the same age, Nadal is only a year older...and Federer may have another good 18 months in him yet making Murray nearly 28...and other players beneath may yet surprise us. But above all I dont he has the consistency or strength of mind to get there or sustain a great run across the tennis year.

lydian wrote:I just dont see Murray doing it. He needs the top 3 to fall behind him and I cant see that at all. And dont forget he's as likely to fall away as them. Djokovic is the same age, Nadal is only a year older...and Federer may have another good 18 months in him yet making Murray nearly 28...and other players beneath may yet surprise us. But above all I dont he has the consistency or strength of mind to get there or sustain a great run across the tennis year.

Exactly opposite views Lyd, but you might be right that's how it looks so far, but lets see.

Indeed.
For me #1 is about being a dominant leader...Murray simply isnt that.

lags72 wrote:Yes Danny - he is definitely closer as far as a Slam win goes ; and if he had taken that 2nd set at Wimbledon I believe there's every possibility he would have one today.

Well, he should have won that second set... But I'm not entirely convinced he'd have won it in any circumstances once the match moved indoors. Federer is obviously difficult in any conditions, but he's on another planet indoors. I was still quite optimistic at a set each, but my heart sank when that roof closed.

However, Murray played pretty well and did himself justice. As a Murray fan that's all I can ask of him, and I believe if he continues to do that - and lets be honest, it's the first time he has in a slam final - then I think he'll win 2 or 3 slams.

My reservation about Djokovic is that, apart from 9 glorious months, he's never looked like he 'owned' the sport. That just goes triple for Murray.

bogbrush wrote:My reservation about Djokovic is that, apart from 9 glorious months, he's never looked like he 'owned' the sport. That just goes triple for Murray.

Well similar view here as well BB .

I always thought Djoko doing good only gonna help Fed and thats what we seeing in 2012, Fed got back to no.1 curtosy a bit of help from Djoko in beating the confidence out of Rafa last year as well winning him in AO.

To make it more controversial, I even felt Roger purposefully tanked two of his match against Tsonga last Wimbledon and against Djoko last USO, coz in both situations if Fed would have made the finals Rafa might have walked with the trophy and the invincible Rafa theorem would have continued, so I see as a calculated move by Fed to lose those two matches.

I dont think there is any real evidence that Murray is on the cusp of domination. If he were to win a slam then that might give him the self-belief to kick on and do so but he might also stop working so hard feeling his job is done. He has the talent to be a dominant number 1 but, through a combination of a bit of poor luck and his own failings at the very highest level, he is probably past the point now when that might have happened.

There is a difference between domination and holding it like Iron Fists, People think Murray can become no.1 just by luck when several factors go his way and it won't last longer, I don't see that way, I see Murray will eventually get to No.1 and hold it longer than expected from him.

He will be a different animal altogether when he makes to that point.

And exactly how long would you say is "longer than expected from him" invisible ....??

You and Andy might yet prove all us doubters wrong, and I'm not trying to be difficult here. Just interested to know what you had in mind for him as regards his potential longevity at the summit .........

couldn't agree more that clay holds him back in the rankings, you only have to look how often he has even played the other big 3 on clay to tell you he doesn't reach the latter stages very often. Its of course possible he can one day get number 1, but I agree he is much more likely to nick a slam or 2.

I think he will win the Aussie next year, just have a feeling. If he does that, he will relax I think and have a great year

lags72 wrote:And exactly how long would you say is "longer than expected from him" invisible ....??

You and Andy might yet prove all us doubters wrong, and I'm not trying to be difficult here. Just interested to know what you had in mind for him as regards his potential longevity at the summit .........

People like you dont even exepct him to be numero uno , so its obivious you don't expect him to hold it for more than few months, but I think he will hold it for more than few months like close 8-15 mnths.

This is just a thread where I am asking an opinion from everybody just take it easy and relax.

invisiblecoolers wrote:To make it more controversial, I even felt Roger purposefully tanked two of his match against Tsonga last Wimbledon and against Djoko last USO, coz in both situations if Fed would have made the finals Rafa might have walked with the trophy and the invincible Rafa theorem would have continued, so I see as a calculated move by Fed to lose those two matches

I seriously doubt that IC. It may be that many of Fed's fans were happy for him not to face Nadal in another Wimbledon final, or at the US, but I don't think top class sportsmen think like anxious fans - well, not a champion of Fed's calibre anyway.

If he dreaded the thought of meeting Nadal in bo5 at a slam again, he could walk away tomorrow with a great legacy.

On the OP - I hope very much Murray does net a slam very quickly and certainly feel much more optimistic about his chances after Wimbledon. But the gap between his points and those of the top three in the singles race show he has quite a hill to climb to get to number 1.

time please wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:To make it more controversial, I even felt Roger purposefully tanked two of his match against Tsonga last Wimbledon and against Djoko last USO, coz in both situations if Fed would have made the finals Rafa might have walked with the trophy and the invincible Rafa theorem would have continued, so I see as a calculated move by Fed to lose those two matches

I seriously doubt that IC. It may be that many of Fed's fans were happy for him not to face Nadal in another Wimbledon final, or at the US, but I don't think top class sportsmen think like anxious fans - well, not a champion of Fed's calibre anyway.

I Respect your views TP but thats what I and many of our friends felt, coz more Nadal lose to Djoko he will lose his confidence which would be good for Fed, one of the main reason Nadal beats Fed is the confidence in his game and the belief that he will beat Fed, this is one thing Fed could never overcome in Nadal, Fed knew he has the game to beat Nadal but he still he couldn't on big moments, so who knows it could be a calculated move or just a belief by us.

True or not Federer tanking matches for reason has been discussed several times in 606, so I am not the only one to think here.

We may have to wait for his biography after 15-20 years to see whether any controversy come out like Agassi did

Federer tanked matches because he was scared of Nadal? Pfft!

Re: If Murray becomes No 1 in 2013? If Murray becomes number one in 2013 maybe pigs will fly! Ha ha!

(Lags72 Sometimes I think puddings need a few more eggs...)

banbrotam wrote:

Personally, I think that both he and Nole are too 'human' to be No.1 and actually value their rounded lives more. Fed's a god, a machine and has everyone around him knowing that it's all about him, i.e. a Tiger Woods etc who believes he should be No.1. Rafa, similarly

banbrotam. I wouldn't have thought that you would have almost the exact same view of the top 4 as me. Murray and Djokovic both being "good" or "great" players but of the type that are always around in professional tennis. I have to point out though that despite being only human Djokovic not only made it to number 1 but did it in style so full credit to him.

Federer and Nadal are outstanding and extraordinary not just amongst todays players but in history. How lucky we are to have not one such player to watch but two. This means we are as spectators very fortunate because we get to watch two such players compete against each other. We can also "indulge" in the most important debate of tennis today. Who is the best Nadal or Federer? They are of course not gods (maybe tennis gods?) as they can both be very human especially regarding injuries and not quite believing they can lose. Both know how good they are. Federer with his "Pseudo Fed" like humbleness. Nadal doesn't always talk the talk but watching him strut about at the back of a court particularly a clay court it's obvious he knows it too. I like the fact that they acknowledge each other as the best too. How could they not? Djokovic gets a bit irritated at not being included.

hawkeye wrote: ............
.............................
(Lags72 Sometimes I think puddings need a few more eggs...)

Haven't come across this one before hawkeye, but it sounds a fun little proverb

Is it me who's the pudding here ...? If so, no worries ... I've been called far worse in my time ! (Maybe I'm just being thick, but if you could spell this one out for me then at least I'll know for next time. And might be able to use it myself one day...)

lags72 wrote:

hawkeye wrote: ............
.............................
(Lags72 Sometimes I think puddings need a few more eggs...)

Haven't come across this one before hawkeye, but it sounds a fun little proverb

Is it me who's the pudding here ...? If so, no worries ... I've been called far worse in my time ! (Maybe I'm just being thick, but if you could spell this one out for me then at least I'll know for next time. And might be able to use it myself one day...)

lags you are getting this all wrong, I'm sure hawkeye won't mind me helping her with her English here.

Murray is the pudding, we are the eggs. Therefore what hawkeye is very wittily saying is that if a few more forum members support Andy Murray, his success is assured.

Can't see any possible angle for Murray to become world number one, to be honest, barring a long-term injury for one of either Nadal or Djokovic as well as a steep decline over the next twelve months or so from Federer. At 25, Murray is an elder statesman of tennis, as crazy as that sounds - it's unlikely that he'll be playing any better at the age of 27 or 28, for instance.

The idea of Murray becomming number one rests upon the theory that he's a player of comparable ability, talent, mental strength and consistency to the 'big three', but to claim that he is would be delusional, I'm afraid. He's been (injuries and slight abberitions aside) behind them in the world rankings and collecting runner-up cheques behind their winner ones for a reason. That's not to say that Murray isn't a brilliant player in his own right, because he is.

Although history suggests that it's looking unlikely, I do feel he'll eventually win a Slam or two though, which would far outweight the number one ranking in terms of importance and legacy. I can envisage a scenario whereby Murray becomes known as the greatest player never to become world number one - but I'd much rather he hve that distinction instead of 'greatest player never to win a Slam'!!

bogbrush wrote:My reservation about Djokovic is that, apart from 9 glorious months, he's never looked like he 'owned' the sport. That just goes triple for Murray.

BB, I don't disagree with the comment but has anyone looked they owned the sport recently? If we count spells of less than a year as a hot streak rather than 'ownership', we probably have to go back to Fed in 2007.

why should Murray become number 1 in first instance, when it is apparent he doesn't possess the charisma, nor the technique, nor the ability, nor the attitude, nor the personality, nor the class of a world number 1 and furthermore is ginger head?

Ah ok, think I've got it now reckoner, thanks for that clarification (that puddings & eggs stuff went right over my head .... )

Back to the article itself by invisible : as already stated I've personally never been one of the many Murray bashers on 606 (whether original or v2) and am not about to become one. BUT, quite apart from long-standing preconceived opinions held by various members, the reason why most (all?) posters on this thread have found it hard/impossible to support invisible's expectations for Murray in 2013 rankings-wise is that there are few signs that he really is closing the gap on the 3 currently above him.

Murray had a fine Wimbledon, no doubt, and all credit for that. BUT invisible says in the main article that "Murray is only one I see has improved his game from 2011." This is in addition to Djokovic apparently being a 'spent force' ; Nadal "knackered except for the FO" ; and Federer seemingly not a threat once he's had "one last big run".

But just how do these assessments by invisible compare to the facts ...?

- In 2012 to date : Nadal has 4 titles (inc a Slam) ; at same stage 2011 he had 3 titles (inc one Slam)

- In 2012 to date : Federer has 5 titles (inc. one Slam) ; at same stage 2011 he had 1 title (no Slams)

- In 2012 to date : Djokovic has 2 titles (inc. one Slam) ; at same stage 2011 he had 8 titles (inc 2 Slams)

So clearly Djokovic is the only one whose performance has declined from 2011 to 2012 (something which has come as little surprise for most observers)

And what of Murray himself ..... to what extent has he improved versus the others ...??

In 2012 to date he has made SF at the AO, QF at RG, and Final at Wimbledon ; and one tour title

His 2011 equivalents were : Final at AO, SF at RG, and SF at Wimbledon, and one tour title.

Just worth adding that in 2011, both Murray and Federer had strong finishes to the season, so that might (or might not ..!) have a significant effect points-wise on the gap between these two by the end of this year. But of course there are still Djokovic and Nadal for Murray to worry about .....

88Chris05 wrote:Can't see any possible angle for Murray to become world number one, to be honest, barring a long-term injury for one of either Nadal or Djokovic as well as a steep decline over the next twelve months or so from Federer. At 25, Murray is an elder statesman of tennis, as crazy as that sounds - it's unlikely that he'll be playing any better at the age of 27 or 28, for instance.

The idea of Murray becomming number one rests upon the theory that he's a player of comparable ability, talent, mental strength and consistency to the 'big three', but to claim that he is would be delusional, I'm afraid. He's been (injuries and slight abberitions aside) behind them in the world rankings and collecting runner-up cheques behind their winner ones for a reason. That's not to say that Murray isn't a brilliant player in his own right, because he is.

Although history suggests that it's looking unlikely, I do feel he'll eventually win a Slam or two though, which would far outweight the number one ranking in terms of importance and legacy. I can envisage a scenario whereby Murray becomes known as the greatest player never to become world number one - but I'd much rather he hve that distinction instead of 'greatest player never to win a Slam'!!

I'd agree with the elder statesman comment except for the fact that, in current times, it doesn't apply so much. He is the 11th youngest in the top 50 and only a handful of those are significantly younger. He also has a complicated game and I can see him finally starting to make full use of his skills and/or get his mental issues under control age 27/28, in a way that he has not yet fully managed. It might not happen but I think it is more likely a player like Murray would play his best at that age than someone like Del Potro who has a simple game-plan and should be at his very best aged 23-24.

If you look at Federer and Nadal they do have early round exits, but these are rare and happen predominately when you can appreciate why they might not be up for it (i.e. Fed at Miami this year or Nadal at Madrid or Halle this year). It is very rare for them to go out early in a tournament you'd expect them to be playing to win; when they do it usually has ranking consequences (i.e. Nadal at Wimbledon).

Murray has not yet mastered the art of going deep in pretty much every tournament he ought to be trying to win. He experiences many more genuinely mystifying losses than Federer or Nadal (Djoko has gotten way better on that score). Examples include Indian Wells and Queens this year - what were they all about, how come he didn't at least make the SF or QF in those tournaments?

I think Murray will win a slam or two, but that won't get him to No. 1 other than very fleetingly if he can't address his tendency to suffer shock defeats and, probably also improve a bit on clay.

reckoner wrote:

Murray is the pudding, we are the eggs. Therefore what hawkeye is very wittily saying is that if a few more forum members support Andy Murray, his success is assured.

reckoner. That wasn't what I meant so unfortunately I can't take credit for it. My meaning must have gone way over the heads of other 606v2 members. Sometimes I'm way too clever for my own good (cough...). But never mind you may have hit on the only way Andy can get to number 1. If everyone who supports him closes their eyes, blocks their ears (so they don't hear anything that may shake their belief or upset them) and wishes really hard then he will get to number 1... He really will...




Wait a minute though. Hasn't that been tried before?

hawkeye wrote:

reckoner wrote:

Murray is the pudding, we are the eggs. Therefore what hawkeye is very wittily saying is that if a few more forum members support Andy Murray, his success is assured.

reckoner. That wasn't what I meant so unfortunately I can't take credit for it. My meaning must have gone way over the heads of other 606v2 members. Sometimes I'm way too clever for my own good (cough...). But never mind you may have hit on the only way Andy can get to number 1. If everyone who supports him closes their eyes, blocks their ears (so they don't hear anything that may shake their belief or upset them) and wishes really hard then he will get to number 1... He really will...




Wait a minute though. Hasn't that been tried before?

Oh dear, nasty cough you've got there hawkeye... Best get to a doc, maybe they can remove some of that bile you're bringing up!

Can't say I'm familiar with this saying then, could you run it by us one more time?

TC!

Bile? You mean you don't believe?

Seriously I hope I'm not upsetting any sensitive Andy fans with my realistic assessment of his chances of getting to number one in 2013 and staying there for a long long time.

Yes yes ok but how did that saying about puddings go?

Sigh! Seriously I've got better things to do bit if you insist

I said

Ha ha! Very funny. If you are being serious you are basing your prediction on wishful thinking or maybe you've been drinking? Federer will retire? Rafa knackered? Djokovic a spent force? Everyone else will disappear? Murray will win X, Y and Z and gain lots of points. Murray will get to number one and stay there for a long time?

If I said that Murray will go into a slump after his defeat at Wimbledon. And this would be based on the evidence of what he has done after previous slam finals. In fact a bigger slump might be predicted if his tears are used as evidence. If I said that you would say at the very least I was a member of the "anti-Murray brigade".

But I don't think you were serious. Were you? If so I could write similar articles about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrer, Tsonga... In fact I could write something similar about almost any player.

Then Lags72 said

Well hawkeye - I certainly share your deep scepticism (along with many others, I'm sure) that the top 3 are somehow all about to go into some sort of cataclysmic meltdown and that will they do so - helpfully for Murray - ALL at the same time.

But equally, I think you're over-egging it somewhat in saying that you "could write something similar about almost any player."


Did you see what he said about "over-egging it"? I presumed that was a reference to the famous "over-egging the pudding" proverb

I then said

Re: If Murray becomes No 1 in 2013? If Murray becomes number one in 2013 maybe pigs will fly! Ha ha!

(Lags72 Sometimes I think puddings need a few more eggs...)

I was (way too cleverly I admit) saying that sometimes it is worth going way over the exaggerating in order to make a point.

hawkeye wrote:

Did you see what he said about "over-egging it"? I presumed that was a reference to the famous "over-egging the pudding" proverb

Yes that's where the trouble is, you see... there is no such proverb!

I should really charge you for these impromptu English lessons...

f you over-egg the pudding, you spoil something by trying to improve it excessively. It is also used nowadays with the meaning of making something look bigger or more important than it really is. ('Over-egg' alone is often used in this sense.)

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/over-egg+the+pudding.html

Had you really never heard of this? Or were you just trying to distract everyone from Andy's miniscule chances of getting to number one in 2013 and staying there for a very very long time? Whether intentional or not I think you have succeeded. I will have to think very carefully now before attempting to add interest to my comments...

hawkeye wrote:f you over-egg the pudding, you spoil something by trying to improve it excessively. It is also used nowadays with the meaning of making something look bigger or more important than it really is. ('Over-egg' alone is often used in this sense.)

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/over-egg+the+pudding.html

Had you really never heard of this? Or were you just trying to distract everyone from Andy's miniscule chances of getting to number one in 2013 and staying there for a very very long time? Whether intentional or not I think you have succeeded. I will have to think very carefully now before attempting to add interest to my comments...

Well, it may well say that in some outdated learning resource - but it's never used. If you over-egg anything, it's an omelette.

When they teach French in schools they include expressions like "zut alors" and "sacre bleue" - try saying that in France and see how long it takes people to stop laughing!

Hawkeye, I am no Murray fan either, and neither a Murray basher.

I like his hardwork and work ethics atleast recent years, there is a saying "Try hard and hard until you succeed" and failure is the first step to success" , Murray has failed enough and taken all those failures he has started taking it positively now.

Learn to understand this statement " If and when Murray reach no.1 he will hold it longer than expected of him".

I myself not sure Murray will reach no.1, but if he reaches he will not let it go that easy.

Now rather than going on Murray bashing all the time post your arguments in an appreciable manner.

There are several persons here don't believe Murray will ever get to no.1 but they all have posted in a very civil manner of discussion.

Excellent post ic! May I add it'd be nice, hawkeye, if you used English properly if you're going to pat yourself on the back for being "clever".

invisiblecoolers wrote:Hawkeye, I am no Murray fan either, and neither a Murray basher.

I like his hardwork and work ethics atleast recent years, there is a saying "Try hard and hard until you succeed" and failure is the first step to success" , Murray has failed enough and taken all those failures he has started taking it positively now.

Learn to understand this statement " If and when Murray reach no.1 he will hold it longer than expected of him".

I myself not sure Murray will reach no.1, but if he reaches he will not let it go that easy.

Now rather than going on Murray bashing all the time post your arguments in an appreciable manner.

There are several persons here don't believe Murray will ever get to no.1 but they all have posted in a very civil manner of discussion.

IC. Excellent points

Hawkeye. Perhaps you now understand the issues the likes of myself and CC have with you. It is not that you don't like Andy's play - it's basically because you make it plain you don't like Andy!! Which makes you arguments sound snide and cheap, in comparison to those like IC, Lydian etc who appreciate his talent if not his game. That is all us Murray fans ask

reckoner wrote:

hawkeye wrote:f you over-egg the pudding, you spoil something by trying to improve it excessively. It is also used nowadays with the meaning of making something look bigger or more important than it really is. ('Over-egg' alone is often used in this sense.)

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/over-egg+the+pudding.html

Had you really never heard of this? Or were you just trying to distract everyone from Andy's miniscule chances of getting to number one in 2013 and staying there for a very very long time? Whether intentional or not I think you have succeeded. I will have to think very carefully now before attempting to add interest to my comments...

Well, it may well say that in some outdated learning resource - but it's never used. If you over-egg anything, it's an omelette.

When they teach French in schools they include expressions like "zut alors" and "sacre bleue" - try saying that in France and see how long it takes people to stop laughing!

Down my way the expression "over-egg" is used daily. Over-egg the pudding, or just 'over-egg' on its own. Similar to gild the lily

invisiblecoolers. It will be really sad for Murray and all of his fans if Murray doesn't get to number 1 and stay there for a long time. It will of course also be very sad for him and his fans if he doesn't win a slam. Is that OK? I won't be surprised. I suppose that isn't OK?

banbrotam. I do try and be considerate but I have to admit I don't like some of Murray's on court behaviour. I think he gets away with a lot of things that other players would be called out for. Murray is very popular here though so you shouldn't get upset if not everyone has the same view as you. Maybe invisiblecoolers is right and I am wrong?