Virginia Wade Calls An Asterisk An Asterisk

Draws opening up, unique opportunities, late development, breaths of fresh air and dawning of new era's. Lots of talk about what Nadal's absence from this years Australian Open means to the tournament. Federer hinted at a word that so far everyone has shied away from when he said that Rafa's absence would create opportunities for other lower ranked players. Davydenko did too when he said Rafa would be missed by the fans but not the players (Ha ha!). But it takes a brave women to actually say the word. Virginia Wade calls an asterisk an asterisk.

You’re perfectly happy to win no matter who the opposition is but it’s more satisfying when everybody is there. It leaves a bit of an asterisk if someone like Nadal isn’t there or he’s lost early. You want to win beating the best players.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2258895/Virginia-Wade-previews-tennis-2013-saying-Andy-Murray-carry-winning.html

Hence why the 1977 Wimbledon Ladies title has massive Asterik by it Virginia

legendkillarV2 wrote:Hence why the 1977 Wimbledon Ladies title has massive Asterik by it Virginia

Virginia Wade was the number 3 seed, she beat the defending champion and number 1 seed Chris Evert in the semi final on the way to the Wimbledon title in 1977. The number two seed Navratalova went out in the quarter finals. Although Navratalova went on to become a great player on grass in 1977 she hadn't yet won Wimbledon. Not much of an asterisk there.

hawkeye wrote:Virginia Wade was the number 3 seed, she beat the defending champion and number 1 seed Chris Evert in the semi final on the way to the Wimbledon title in 1977.

Err, Murray beat the defending champion and...oh, why bother.

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Hence why the 1977 Wimbledon Ladies title has massive Asterik by it Virginia

Virginia Wade was the number 3 seed, she beat the defending champion and number 1 seed Chris Evert in the semi final on the way to the Wimbledon title in 1977. The number two seed Navratalova went out in the quarter finals. Although Navratalova went on to become a great player on grass in 1977 she hadn't yet won Wimbledon. Not much of an asterisk there.

So is Nadal AO defending champion?

am I allowed to call an idiot an idiot?

I don't see why not

Mmm... You can see from some of the comments here why some might shy away from the * word. It certainly appears to cause upset and aggression against those that dare to speak its name.

JuliusHMarx. The * Wade was referring to was the one attached to the AO not the US Open. But you are correct there is the hint of one there also.

Thinking about Andy Murray’s rise to grand slam champion the other day, it struck me that the Scot owes a thank you to Rafael Nadal for the part he played. Or rather the part he didn’t play, due to his absence through injury.

Now of course Murray already had Nadal to thank for convincing him he needed to move abroad when he was a teenager. Seeing the young Spaniard hitting with Carlos Moya, a grand slam winner and former world No 1 made Murray think that he was hard done-by having to hit with just his brother Jamie in Scotland. So Murray moved to Barcelona and so the transformation began. But more than that, perhaps Murray owes Nadal an extra thank you, for not being around to spoil his chances of winning that, until New York, elusive first grand slam title.

Now I am not for one minute suggesting that Murray did not deserve his victory in New York. Of course he did, and having also won the Olympics, he was a rightful and worthy champion. But if they are truthful, then many people might just have been asking themselves; would Murray have won if Rafa had been around?

http://www.thetennisspace.com/would-murray-have-won-a-slam-if-nadal-had-been-fit/

hawkeye wrote:would Murray have won if Rafa had been around?

He's beaten him at Slams before, no reason to believe that he wouldn't do so at some point again. Federer is the one he really struggles against in the Slams.

i think murray may have beaten feds in a slam if it wasnt in the final 2bh.

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:would Murray have won if Rafa had been around?

He's beaten him at Slams before, no reason to believe that he wouldn't do so at some point again. Federer is the one he really struggles against in the Slams.

carriege4. Would like to point out the words you've put in my mouth here came from the author of the linked article Simon Cambers. He then went on to anticipate your response (ie that Murray has beaten Nadal at slams). This is what he has to say about that. (again from the linked article in my previous post)

The question might be irrelevant but it is not frivolous, not when you look at what’s happened between the two in grand slam events. While Murray beat Nadal in the semi-finals of the US Open in 2008 and again in the quarter-finals of the Australian Open in 2010, there were mitigating factors in both those results. Murray played fantastically well in New York but by that time, on his most troublesome surface, Nadal had played himself into the ground after his French Open, Wimbledon and Olympic triumphs and was physically and mentally spent. In Australia in 2010, though Murray was again playing superbly, the Spaniard’s knees gave out and he had to quit, a rare sight.

Since then, Nadal has won four grand slam semi-final meetings in a row against Murray, twice denying him a place in the Wimbledon final and once each in Paris and New York. He also beat him in the semi-finals of the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in 2010. Murray has improved since then, and a lot in the past 12 months, but who knows, perhaps even the mere fact that Nadal was not around at the Olympics or in New York may have made Murray slightly more confident, one less great player to beat to achieve his dreams.

hawkeye wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:would Murray have won if Rafa had been around?

He's beaten him at Slams before, no reason to believe that he wouldn't do so at some point again. Federer is the one he really struggles against in the Slams.

carriege4. Would like to point out the words you've put in my mouth here came from the author of the linked article Simon Cambers. He then went on to anticipate your response (ie that Murray has beaten Nadal at slams). This is what he has to say about that. (again from the linked article in my previous post)

The question might be irrelevant but it is not frivolous, not when you look at what’s happened between the two in grand slam events. While Murray beat Nadal in the semi-finals of the US Open in 2008 and again in the quarter-finals of the Australian Open in 2010, there were mitigating factors in both those results. Murray played fantastically well in New York but by that time, on his most troublesome surface, Nadal had played himself into the ground after his French Open, Wimbledon and Olympic triumphs and was physically and mentally spent. In Australia in 2010, though Murray was again playing superbly, the Spaniard’s knees gave out and he had to quit, a rare sight.

Since then, Nadal has won four grand slam semi-final meetings in a row against Murray, twice denying him a place in the Wimbledon final and once each in Paris and New York. He also beat him in the semi-finals of the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in 2010. Murray has improved since then, and a lot in the past 12 months, but who knows, perhaps even the mere fact that Nadal was not around at the Olympics or in New York may have made Murray slightly more confident, one less great player to beat to achieve his dreams.

He is misguided. Tired in '08 - not an acceptable excuse. He made it as far as SF.

Injury in Melbourne - according to Nadal sustained during 2nd set tie break whilst trailing a set. He may have made a great comeback without the injury but nobody knows.

Nadal has won more than he has lost against Murray but, with the exception of Rotterdam, Murray fully earned his wins.

The whole concept of asterisked slams is totally flawed and has no place in sport. You beat who is in front of you and earn your trophy.

Hmm can we asterisk all slams Nadal has won but avoided Lukasz Rosol?

The thing is that at both the Olympics and USO Murray could not have faced Nadal until the final as Rafa had dropped to No3 after Wimbledon. Therefore to get to the final Rafa would have had to beat the reigning Wimbledon champion Federer at the Olympics and the reigning USO champion Djokovic in NY before he could face up to Murray. Are you just awarding him these wins. I think that would be a bit optimistic given that he hadn't won a tournament off clay for some time.

HE is getting her knickers in a knot as another slam is upon us. Seeing her satan Andy Murray as one of the favourites to win she starts up a thread trying to negate the value of the slam. Hmm the sign that she is greatly worried me thinks. Boy she must have been mightily impressed by Andy retaining the Brisbane International title. Right I am leaving this nonsensical thread to wollow in its own BS.

Haha, this is nonsense.

Murray beat the worlds top 2 players to win the Olympics, and beat the defending champion and the man unbeaten on hard court slams for 2 years to take the US open. He beat THE man to beat in both finals (Federer on grass, Novak on hard).

There is no diluting of these achievements. Much as HE may try.

And no slam has an * next to it. That's just fanboy nonsense.

I'm getting confused here. Sure a slam title is a slam title is a slam title. Period. The fact that Rafa ain't fit is irrelevant as last time I looked there were 128 places in the draw and the world doesn't stop revolving just because he's got dodgy knees.

Maybe the OP better get used to the idea. Heaven forbid that he doesn't need to skip the French as well or maybe it would be better to cancel the event to stop it from obviously being totally devalued.

They still play the French Open? I thought it was abandoned when Connors starting boycotting it.

Boycott? I thought he was banned ( see fascinating bio from APT website :
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Co/J/Jimmy-Connors.aspx )

I think he was banned in '74 then boycotted it after that.

Hawkeye, it's these sort of ridiculous articles that give people ammunition to attack Nadal.

It Must Be Love wrote:Hawkeye, it's these sort of ridiculous articles that give people ammunition to attack Nadal.

No they don't, they give people ammunition to attack Hawkeye. Nadal had nothing to do with writing the article.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Hawkeye, it's these sort of ridiculous articles that give people ammunition to attack Nadal.

No they don't, they give people ammunition to attack Hawkeye. Nadal had nothing to do with writing the article.

No.
People see HE saying this stuff, and then attack Nadal to retaliate.
Someone even inboxed me that they would write an anti-Nadal article everytime HE writes an anti-Murray one.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Hawkeye, it's these sort of ridiculous articles that give people ammunition to attack Nadal.

No they don't, they give people ammunition to attack Hawkeye. Nadal had nothing to do with writing the article.

And guess what, judging by the number of articles she writes likes this one the poor woman obviously has masochistic tendencies lol

IMBL - yeah some people do that, and such is HE's venom against Andy you can't really blame them.

I try not to do that, because as stated above its not Rafa writing them. Plus I like Rafa and think he's good for the game.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Hawkeye, it's these sort of ridiculous articles that give people ammunition to attack Nadal.

No they don't, they give people ammunition to attack Hawkeye. Nadal had nothing to do with writing the article.

No.
People see HE saying this stuff, and then attack Nadal to retaliate.
Someone even inboxed me that they would write an anti-Nadal article everytime HE writes an anti-Murray one.

I would suggest that such people, and that one in particular can fairly easily be ignored or shrugged off.

hawkeye wrote:The question might be irrelevant but it is not frivolous, not when you look at what’s happened between the two in grand slam events. While Murray beat Nadal in the semi-finals of the US Open in 2008 and again in the quarter-finals of the Australian Open in 2010, there were mitigating factors in both those results. Murray played fantastically well in New York but by that time, on his most troublesome surface, Nadal had played himself into the ground after his French Open, Wimbledon and Olympic triumphs and was physically and mentally spent. In Australia in 2010, though Murray was again playing superbly, the Spaniard’s knees gave out and he had to quit, a rare sight.

Since then, Nadal has won four grand slam semi-final meetings in a row against Murray, twice denying him a place in the Wimbledon final and once each in Paris and New York. He also beat him in the semi-finals of the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in 2010. Murray has improved since then, and a lot in the past 12 months, but who knows, perhaps even the mere fact that Nadal was not around at the Olympics or in New York may have made Murray slightly more confident, one less great player to beat to achieve his dreams.

More holes in than a broken colender. I can't see much mention of Andy's Masters SF 2010 victory at Cincy - but never mind. I also like the way Hawkeye talks about four slam wins on the trot and forgets that three of them weren't on hard courts

Andy's only 'poor' defeat to Rafa, remains the 2011 US Open, which made him alter his ways as their next meeting showed.

Incidentally, Andy lost because he got out-thought and out battled not because he was injured, tired, had a row with Kim or was still annoyed about his birthday present off his Mum

It's time you grew up Hawkeye. On hard courts he gives Rafa a run for his money as their (I think) 3-3 scoreline suggests since 2008 - which also has Andy 2-1 up on the Slams

For me there is no asterix with Rafa missing, simply because we don't know if he's ever going to get back to his best. Did we have this with Roger when Pete and Andre, finally quit

Peter Andre has quit?!

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Hawkeye, it's these sort of ridiculous articles that give people ammunition to attack Nadal.

No they don't, they give people ammunition to attack Hawkeye. Nadal had nothing to do with writing the article.

No.
People see HE saying this stuff, and then attack Nadal to retaliate.
Someone even inboxed me that they would write an anti-Nadal article everytime HE writes an anti-Murray one.

Good grief! retaliation, ammunition, attacks! For saying what everyone else is thinking and even saying but just not using the * word. And some namely Virginia Wade are brave enough to use the * word. Also why does everyone think the * necessarily applies to Murray. Why did Davydenko say that all the players don't miss Nadal and why did Federer say his absence opens up opportunities for other players?

It Must Be Love

Seriously someone has threatened you that they will write an "anti-Nadal" article if I write "anti-Murray" article? If this someone is reading this "Nadal just got lucky when he beat Murray in the past it will never happen again". That should fix it. I don't want anyone attacking anyone on my behalf...

I think frankly the idea of an asterisk is foolish.

A valid poit may be that some slam victories may be more impressive than others; for example I am sure most will agree if Murray beat Federer/ Djokovic in the finals and semis of the AO that would be more impressive than if he beat Amagro and Tipsarevic in the latter stages.

However asterisking titles seems a bit childish and bitter.

banbrotam wrote:

hawkeye wrote:The question might be irrelevant but it is not frivolous, not when you look at what’s happened between the two in grand slam events. While Murray beat Nadal in the semi-finals of the US Open in 2008 and again in the quarter-finals of the Australian Open in 2010, there were mitigating factors in both those results. Murray played fantastically well in New York but by that time, on his most troublesome surface, Nadal had played himself into the ground after his French Open, Wimbledon and Olympic triumphs and was physically and mentally spent. In Australia in 2010, though Murray was again playing superbly, the Spaniard’s knees gave out and he had to quit, a rare sight.

Since then, Nadal has won four grand slam semi-final meetings in a row against Murray, twice denying him a place in the Wimbledon final and once each in Paris and New York. He also beat him in the semi-finals of the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in 2010. Murray has improved since then, and a lot in the past 12 months, but who knows, perhaps even the mere fact that Nadal was not around at the Olympics or in New York may have made Murray slightly more confident, one less great player to beat to achieve his dreams.

More holes in than a broken colender. I can't see much mention of Andy's Masters SF 2010 victory at Cincy - but never mind. I also like the way Hawkeye talks about four slam wins on the trot and forgets that three of them weren't on hard courts

Andy's only 'poor' defeat to Rafa, remains the 2011 US Open, which made him alter his ways as their next meeting showed.

Incidentally, Andy lost because he got out-thought and out battled not because he was injured, tired, had a row with Kim or was still annoyed about his birthday present off his Mum

It's time you grew up Hawkeye. On hard courts he gives Rafa a run for his money as their (I think) 3-3 scoreline suggests since 2008 - which also has Andy 2-1 up on the Slams

For me there is no asterix with Rafa missing, simply because we don't know if he's ever going to get back to his best. Did we have this with Roger when Pete and Andre, finally quit

banbrotam. You have quoted me as saying these things. I didn't say them it was a quote from an article by Simon Cambers.

JuliusHMarx. If you've got your official hat on? It's far too easy here on 606v2 to put words in posters mouths that they didn't say. It's happened to me twice on this thread.

It Must Be Love wrote:I think frankly the idea of an asterisk is foolish.

A valid poit may be that some slam victories may be more impressive than others; for example I am sure most will agree if Murray beat Federer/ Djokovic in the finals and semis of the AO that would be more impressive than if he beat Amagro and Tipsarevic in the latter stages.

However asterisking titles seems a bit childish and bitter.

I agree some slam victories are more impressive than others. So how do we describe them in order to differentiate them in terms of impressiveness? I don't think Virginia Wade is childish or bitter. She strikes me as mature and maybe a little smug (smug in a nice way)

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I think frankly the idea of an asterisk is foolish.

A valid poit may be that some slam victories may be more impressive than others; for example I am sure most will agree if Murray beat Federer/ Djokovic in the finals and semis of the AO that would be more impressive than if he beat Amagro and Tipsarevic in the latter stages.

However asterisking titles seems a bit childish and bitter.

I agree some slam victories are more impressive than others. So how do we describe them in order to differentiate them in terms of impressiveness?

We can just say they are more impressive...

Using an 'asterisk' is simply immature.

Can I point out, with my official hat on, that some of what HE posted was a quote from a link i.e. not written by HE, merely quoted.

Have to admit, I hadn't realised that myself as the bits that were quoted weren't actually in quote marks, merely referenced as such.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Hawkeye, it's these sort of ridiculous articles that give people ammunition to attack Nadal.

No they don't, they give people ammunition to attack Hawkeye. Nadal had nothing to do with writing the article.

No.
People see HE saying this stuff, and then attack Nadal to retaliate.
Someone even inboxed me that they would write an anti-Nadal article everytime HE writes an anti-Murray one.

IMBL

Dont worry - most sensible posters wouldn't attack the Rafa fans on the strenght of what hawkeye posts.

Most of them know her and they should really be more sympathetic and understanding.

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I think frankly the idea of an asterisk is foolish.

A valid poit may be that some slam victories may be more impressive than others; for example I am sure most will agree if Murray beat Federer/ Djokovic in the finals and semis of the AO that would be more impressive than if he beat Amagro and Tipsarevic in the latter stages.

However asterisking titles seems a bit childish and bitter.

I agree some slam victories are more impressive than others. So how do we describe them in order to differentiate them in terms of impressiveness? I don't think Virginia Wade is childish or bitter. She strikes me as mature and maybe a little smug (smug in a nice way)

Maybe not, but I think it to be not a very well thought out comment. Nadal (who I have nothing against and hope he is fully fit soon) lost early at Wimbledon so according to her logic there is an asterisk against Federer's win. I think not. He beat both Djokovic and Murray to win it.

Murray won USO beating Djokovic is the final but of course Rafa wasn't there and Roger had lost in the QF's. Therefore is there a double asterisk on that one. Again I think not.

Doesn't matter who wins the AO looks like Virginia has already put an asterisk against it as Nadal is not going to be there. Bit silly really.

HE Wade may well be "mature" and maybe a little "smug" (although I'm not sure what you mean by "in a nice way"). You seem to skip the bits where she talks about how much his (Andy's) game has improved or maybe you just think that's all down to wonderful Rafa's influence no doubt.

Andy won his first slam because he beat the best hard court player of recent slams to do so. Nadal had become pretty clueless about how to do that so how about Rafa getting some advice from his protege this time round for when his knees are up to the challenge?

She says Fed's too old to win on hard courts these days - he can't keep up with the physical aspect of the game.

HE I will use a term you quote earlier.

You're an imbecile.

I peed on your logic and yet the verbal diarrhoea still continues. At this rate there won't be enough trees to provide the toilet paper to wipe your mouth with.

I am afraid you will be remembered as the * of this forum.

The lady doth protest (needle) too much I think - there has usually been studied politeness about Murray in the past from the most rabid of Nadal's fanatics (as opposed to the more balanced N fans) while their dislike of messrs Fed and Djoker was expressed - presumably because AM was considered less of a threat in either matches or in records. Guess you are one Nadal fan to really give him his due respect hawkeye?

Which Nadal fanatics are you talking about TP? (That have expressed their dislike for Federer and Djokovic?)

Definitely don't agree. Federer's '09 Wimbledon would also have an asterisk against it if this logic was applied, amongst others already noted.

I think she's just trying to (very clunkily) express what many feel, which is that the tournament is going to be lacking something without Nadal. But you can only beat what's placed in front of you, nothing more or less. Quite what that has to do with Murray is anyone's guess, since he's the only one who can't draw Ferrer in the SF!

Fo without Rafa is asterisked, but not any of the other slams.

Henman Bill wrote:Fo without Rafa is asterisked, but not any of the other slams.

Bad news for Kuerten.

Henman Bill wrote:Fo without Rafa is asterisked, but not any of the other slams.

What about when he loses in the fourth round?

emancipator wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Fo without Rafa is asterisked, but not any of the other slams.

What about when he loses in the fourth round?

What about all those years before 2004? the ex-champs never faced a real quality champ like Rafa and hence everything should be asterisk.

I would love the people that 'asterik' any slam to try and really imagine what it takes to come through and win a 250 let alone a major.

Couldn't agree more.

Every single day at tennis camps and training centres around the world there are thousands of youngsters hitting tennis balls for hours on end and following rigorous fitness regimes, all with a dream of one day winning an official tournament on the pro circuit.

Such is the depth of intense competition that the vast majority will never even come close .......

I see the asterisk as a fanboy/girl tool used in an attempt to either denigrate others achievements or elevate the achievements of their favourite. No place for it in sport.