Andy Murray - The Modern Day Asterisk

First topic message reminder :

So far, the 3 bigger tournaments that Murray has won have come with a huge asterisk. The US Open was played in extreme winds (you can argue he is a greater wind player than Djokovic, but that doesn't change anything), which crippled Djokovic's attacking game, and allowed Murray's more defensive pusher/counter attack style to win over.  Despite this, Djokovic still got into the match.

The Olympic final defeating an ageing Federer.  Luck of the draw caused Federer to have the much more difficult opponent in Del Potro, who took Federer to the longest 3 sets in history(?) by games (and was it by time too?).  Federer was in absolutely no shape to put up any real fight in the final.

And then Wimbledon 2013. The hype wagon was rolling along as usual, and the only circumstance I could see that would allow for a Murray victory was a supremely easy draw.  He got it.  Even with the easiest draw at a slam that I can remember, he still nearly blew it against Verdasco.  The final would have been one way traffic had Del Potro not intervened once again, this time tiring out Djokovic.  Djokovic played a great 3 sets in the final considering how worn out he was.  Murray played his A game.  Had Murray met Del Potro in the semi final, it's pretty obvious he would have been getting beat. And even if he made it through, he would have been in no shape to play Djokovic.

The truth is, Murray has been extraordinarily lucky in all 3 of the tournaments above, especially Wimbledon 2013. Now there is talk of him winning 6 slams.  The hype wagon just keeps on rolling. Much has been said of Lendl's input.. well, sorry, but I can't see anything has changed all that much in Murray's game.  He still blows big chances, he still whines, snarls and screams when he is behind.  He still has really weak temperament.  

What has changed is that Federer and Nadal are no longer competing at the top level on most surfaces.  And most of us know this is the reason Murray won that slam.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also Wimbledon 2008 the draw opened up very well for Roger Federer as he played one seeded player on his way to the final - Lleyton Hewitt (No.20 seed) in the Fourth Round and in the final he lost to world No.2 Rafa Nadal in the final.

I keep trying to tell people that 2008 Federer was the worst ever and people do silly things like throw at me that he made finals.

Thanks, I'll bear that easy draw in mind,quite right.

God....lets look at it from an unbiased angle.

If Murray's draw ended up easier, then its safe to say, those who didn't make it into the second week were absolute rubbish. And in the end, those who were supposed to make it and didn't, provided Murray with an easier than original route to the final.

That of course does not make it an easy route but an easier route.

We can all admit that his opponents were not top 10 in the second week, but even if he had had to beat the likes of Nadal or Federer would still have played the worlds No1 player in the final.

If you are not fit for purpose, then you're not fit to take part. You can take part but you wont last long. Murray did, all the way to the final and won.

What's there to beef about ? there is no luck involved when 2 top 5 players are not up to the rigours of a slam event, they went out early because both Federer and Nadal were not physically ready or had the stamina to compete with athletes who were ready and able. That's not luck but a physical deficiency and they went as far as they deserved.

Murray had all the requirements to get to the final and beat the worlds No1 player, again, that's not luck, the only luck that can ever be involved in a result are net calls, which are down to the rub of the green.

It will always be a moot point when deciding if any player has had a better than usual time on his way to a final, as we are not in his shoes, playing under the pressures of a slam event, facing such hyped media attention not normally experienced at an event or playing against unforeseeable circumstances like weather or an unknown opponent. You can only play who and what is in front of you and hope that you can play to your abilities.

Murray played well and did not succumb to outside agencies, whether they be mental pressures, physical deficiencies, weather extremes or opponent superiority. He overcame them all, Djokovic couldn't and didn't, he lost - Murray won, it can't be simpler than that really.

So again, what is there to beef about ?

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also Wimbledon 2008 the draw opened up very well for Roger Federer as he played one seeded player on his way to the final - Lleyton Hewitt (No.20 seed) in the Fourth Round and in the final he lost to world No.2 Rafa Nadal in the final.

I keep trying to tell people that 2008 Federer was the worst ever and people do silly things like throw at me that he made finals.

Thanks, I'll bear that easy draw in mind,quite right.

Hey relax BB. I am merely pointing out that draws open up for every player as homo reckons on it being only lucky lucky Murray that gets the breaks. In any case like I said it is not thayt player's fault if his draw opens up for him - if you win seven matches at a slam you are a deserved winner.

Decided to do a bit investigating just to see how it compared. For the purposes of this I gave everyone with a ranking of 100+ a score of 100, so someone is unduly hampered by for instance drawing a local wild card with a rank of 500 or so in the first round. From the 2008 French Open this is what I found.

[*] The draw with the highest total is Roger Federer's win at the 2008 US Open, where the ranking total came to 362. Within this run he played three players outwith the top 100, including Gilles Muller in the Quarter Finals. His 3rd round and Semi-Final went to players he was seeded to face. His final against Murray (6) is against above average as well.
[*] The toughest run so far is Rafael Nadal at the 2013 French Open. He never played a player ranked above 59 in the world. His second round is the highest ranked player any winner has faced in the 2nd round at 35.
[*] Murray's run using this method gives the 5th-"easiest" run. He played no one that wasn't in the top 100 on the run, but also played no-one in the top 10 on the way to the final. This has happened 5 times during the time frame. {2011 Wimbledon, 2010 French, 2009 Wimbledon, 2008 Wimbledon}. Murray has comparatively easy Quarters and Semis, with Federer in 2009 the only one comparable over both rounds.
[*] Twice a winner has played a player outwith the top 100 in the Quarters and the twice a player outwith the top 32 has made the semis.
[*] Wimbledon tends to throw up more oddities.
[*] The most common rank of the player defeated in the final during this time - 1.

Interesting stats, but of course nothing can account for a number 100+ playing like Rosol or Stakhovsky, or a top 10 player playing like Berdych does against Rafa or Djoko.
What you'd really have to do to measure an opponent's difficulty is judge :-
Form coming into the tournament.
How comfortable they are on the surface
If they've played big matches in slams before
How they match up to the player they're playing
Match conditions and how it affects their game
Their form on the day

Even then it doesn't really matter, because no-one really gives a fig except fanboys and haters, and no-one really gives a fig about them.

Of course, the easiest thing to do is find a player you don't like and say they were lucky over and over again, without bothering to do any full analysis or research

I totally agree. 

I said it pre-Wimbledon, but there are some "fans" in all sports who end up becoming obsessed with either trying to promote or deride certain teams or players achievements that it often it feels like they've forgotten to enjoy the sport.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Interesting stats, but of course nothing can account for a number 100+ playing like Rosol or Stakhovsky, or a top 10 player playing like Berdych does against Rafa or Djoko.
What you'd really have to do to measure an opponent's difficulty is judge :-
Form coming into the tournament.
How comfortable they are on the surface
If they've played big matches in slams before
How they match up to the player they're playing
Match conditions and how it affects their game
Their form on the day

Even then it doesn't really matter, because no-one really gives a fig except fanboys and haters, and no-one really gives a fig about them.

Of course, the easiest thing to do is find a player you don't like and say they were lucky over and over again, without bothering to do any full analysis or research

+1

Good analysis though Ryan.

Of course, by agreeing, we're all conforming, when we all should be thinking outside the box to prove out intelligence.
We should all be Fed fans - that's very non-conformist.

I'm still waiting for you to fulfil my requirement.  It seems you can't.  Waffle does not become you.

Are yougoing to admit Murray had a very very easy run to the title?  Or just delude yourselves? Not that I actually need you to admit it. It is after all, a statistical fact.

A closed mind cannot be opened.
Stats always tell the whole story.
Waffle becomes you - you're obviously very practiced at it.
You offer no research or evidence other than a statistic.
You obviously have no desire to research further, just make lazy assumptions based on lack of genuine analysis. Such methods lead to many delusions, which you are quite welcome to. I have no desire to enlighten you - it would take too much time.

Homo you have already been given statistically easier draws but you have chose to either conveniently ignore them or disregard, those being:-

French Open 2008 for Federer
Australian Open 2006 for Federer

Also another poster who has put research into this says he has found four draws statistically easier than Murray. Besides I am puzzled? As you feel Murray is so poor then isn't difficulty of draw/opponents then go out of the window?

JuliusHMarx wrote:A closed mind cannot be opened.
Stats always tell the whole story.
Waffle becomes you - you're obviously very practiced at it.
You offer no research or evidence other than a statistic.
You obviously have no desire to research further, just make lazy assumptions based on lack of genuine analysis. Such methods lead to many delusions, which you are quite welcome to. I have no desire to enlighten you - it would take too much time.

Basically, you couldn't do it. Statistically, Murray's draw was one of the easiest. if you hadn't argued with it in the first place, there would have been no need for me to argue in the first place. At least that's out of the way.

So you are not bothering to address any of the excellent points made by JHM and others then  Homogenised?

Here they are again in case you have forgotten

JuliusHMarx wrote:Interesting stats, but of course nothing can account for a number 100+ playing like Rosol or Stakhovsky, or a top 10 player playing like Berdych does against Rafa or Djoko.
What you'd really have to do to measure an opponent's difficulty is judge :-
Form coming into the tournament.
How comfortable they are on the surface
If they've played big matches in slams before
How they match up to the player they're playing
Match conditions and how it affects their game
Their form on the day

Even then it doesn't really matter, because no-one really gives a fig except fanboys and haters, and no-one really gives a fig about them.

Of course, the easiest thing to do is find a player you don't like and say they were lucky over and over again, without bothering to do any full analysis or research

I look forward to an actual response to these points, unless of course his last couple of sentences are spot on

You don't answer a question with another question. Some of those are valid points, but it isn't what I asked, and it isn't what I debated. I made the point that Murray's draw was one of the easiest in modern history (in terms of who he faced). You either agree, or disagree. And on paper, it's a fact.

Hmm backtracking eh? In your OP you classified it as the easiest draw you could remember now that has changed to one of the easiest. Is that your way of admitting two of Federer's draws were easier and one of those he still never won the tournament. Besides you evidently do not rate Murray as a player so surely an easy draw by your standards should translate into a tough draw for Murray considering how limited you think his talents are. Correct?

JHM and others made the extremely relevant point that you cannot judge a draw on ranking alone. That goes for every draw not just this one.

Others have given several examples of other "easy" draws.

You have ignored all of this which indicates you are either unwilling or unable to form a very solid argument. Which is it?

That's the point though homogenised - what's on paper is meaningless. Giving the ranking of the opponents and saying that that makes it an easy draw is lazy and wrong. Even if I agree, it's still a meaningless point.
On paper this year Fed had an easier draw than Murray in round 2 and got soundly beaten.
You refuse to address what you call valid points and refuse to enter any meaningful debate on the subject, because you don't want a debate, you want to 'win'. I'm quite happy to let you 'win' because a) I think it will make you happier and b) I really just don't care that much.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also Wimbledon 2008 the draw opened up very well for Roger Federer as he played one seeded player on his way to the final - Lleyton Hewitt (No.20 seed) in the Fourth Round and in the final he lost to world No.2 Rafa Nadal in the final.

I keep trying to tell people that 2008 Federer was the worst ever and people do silly things like throw at me that he made finals.

Thanks, I'll bear that easy draw in mind,quite right.

Hey relax BB. I am merely pointing out that draws open up for every player as homo reckons on it being only lucky lucky Murray that gets the breaks. In any case like I said it is not thayt player's fault if his draw opens up for him - if you win seven matches at a slam you are a deserved winner.

No, I agree. Seriously. He got a peach of a draw that year that papered over the cacks.

Papered over the cacks? Freudian Slip? 

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm backtracking eh? In your OP you classified it as the easiest draw you could remember now that has changed to one of the easiest. Is that your way of admitting two of Federer's draws were easier and one of those he still never won the tournament. Besides you evidently do not rate Murray as a player so surely an easy draw by your standards should translate into a tough draw for Murray considering how limited you think his talents are. Correct?

It still is the easiest I can remember (both on paper, and otherwise), and statistically also one of the easiest on record (so far no one has found an easier one since 1990, and not at Wimby, according to the criteria I laid out).  Stop putting words in people's mouths, you do it way too often.  Rather than argue with a fact, that he had an extremely easy championship, how about for once in your life taking off the blinkers and admitting it. Why does your love of Andy cloud you from admitting what is blatantly obvious?

_homogenised_ wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm backtracking eh? In your OP you classified it as the easiest draw you could remember now that has changed to one of the easiest. Is that your way of admitting two of Federer's draws were easier and one of those he still never won the tournament. Besides you evidently do not rate Murray as a player so surely an easy draw by your standards should translate into a tough draw for Murray considering how limited you think his talents are. Correct?

It still is the easiest I can remember (both on paper, and otherwise), and statistically also one of the easiest on record (so far no one has found an easier one since 1990, and not at Wimby, according to the criteria I laid out).  Stop putting words in people's mouths, you do it way too often.  Rather than argue with a fact, that he had an extremely easy championship, how about for once in your life taking off the blinkers and admitting it. Why does your love of Andy cloud you from admitting what is blatantly obvious?

You have not yet presented a fact. Apply all the relevant criteria JHM listed then you may have an argument. Until then all you have is one statistic.

_homogenised_ wrote:Rather than argue with a fact, that he had an extremely easy championship, how about for once in your life taking off the blinkers and admitting it.

On the plus side, homogenised doesn't tell people what to think. I know, because he said so.  

JuliusHMarx wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:Rather than argue with a fact, that he had an extremely easy championship, how about for once in your life taking off the blinkers and admitting it.

On the plus side, homogenised doesn't tell people what to think. I know, because he said so.  

Yeah, that's a relief  

Andy's route to the title includes the final, which if I remember correctly was against the world number 1 and 2011 Wimbledon champion.

I'm sure there's plenty of slams where the winner has won without having to beat the world number 1.

We can argue with opinions, not facts. It is a fact that it is statistically one of the easiest ever draws, and even off paper too. It's as simple as that. Enjoy talking to yourselves.  

_homogenised_ wrote:We can argue with opinions, not facts.  It is a fact that it is statistically one of the easiest ever draws, and even off paper too.  It's as simple as that.  Enjoy talking to yourselves.  

Nope, not a fact. Keep trying or don't bother, couldn't care less either way.

_homogenised_ wrote:We can argue with opinions, not facts. 

I made that offer - you refused. Instead you place huge importance on a largely irrelevant fact. Clearly that makes you happy, and I'm happy for you.

Is this still rumbling on?

Andy's QF was against someone playing well enough to reach the QF of Wimbledon. His SF was against someone playing well enough to reach the SF.

How would it have been made harder? Playing a Rafa who could hardly move? Playing an inconsistent Roger? Playing Tsonga, who he's beaten the last 7 times they've played?

Djokovic's route looked tougher on paper but what did he face in reality? A Haas who played poorly and basically gave him the opening set for free. A Berdych who started well but imploded. It was only Del Potro that really took him to the brink.

Yes Murdoch, somehow it is still rumbling on.

Some people won't be happy until the title is taken back and the tournament started again!

But every forum has its trollers I guess. Plus the bitterness of some I find quite enjoyable. It's great to see how much his victory has agitated some people.

Is it similar when Novak wins a slam? Do you come across people who solely have an agenda to dilute the achievement?

Ha! I don't think anyone has ever won a slam and not had someone be critical!

Nothing to worry about though. It tends to be the successful players that really annoy people (with the possible exception of Granollers and Lydian!).

Sshhhhh! Don't mention the G word, Lydian may be listening...............

Is there anyone on v2 Tennis who has played in W qualifiers? If yes, raise your hand and let _homogenised_ know how tough it is to win a match, leave alone a slam.

_homogenised_ wrote:Tell you what, try this... go play some tennis and have a massive 3 set with one of your friends, keep playing until you are exhausted, then next day come back and play someone else.

Then maybe you will actually understand sport.

@_Homogenised_ ... do you read what you yourself have written?

_homogenised_ wrote:Federer was nowhere near his best in that match due to age and massive fatigue, that's no opinion, bud.

So it is clear that the effort required to win a single match is significant, but somehow player X is the GOAT, while player Y has an asterisked slam.

Subjectivity has no bounds and can even corrupt logic.

The OP's free to make the point, as anyone is free to make MOSTLY any point here as long as it isnt libel, ala Tenez's fate. The issue is that the forum expects people to 1) make points in a structured sensible way and 2) respect other peoples opinions and indeed rights to have a different one from you, without being patronized or marginalized in any way.

Criticism of Murray is by no means banned on this forum, or that of any player. If you wanna debate that Murray doesnt have variety in his game anymore, or that he had a favorable draw that is absolutely fine. I in fact somewhat agree on the first point, I think hes shelved some of his magic spin balls and variation and replaced it with some more attacking base lining to compliment his movement, and it seems to have paid dividends.

What people arent happy with is making a point, and then not listening to anyone else who has a different idea and even shooting them down and ignoring their own points and questions by being overly aggressive and patronising to others who dont agree.

A forum, after all is a place to discuss, not to change peoples minds. It supposed to be friendly. Using the asterisk point to deliberately annoy and acting in the way that the OP is is whats gathering the criticism, even attacking the admins.

For the OP's point... I think Murrays draw did open up, thats for certain, but the players that came through were a former top tenner in form, and a youngster with the game and arrogance (in a good way) to be very dangerous. The way those matches panned out demonstrated that they wernt straightforward as the seeding implied, Murray needed to rely on his grit as opposed to necessarily his game to get through. His final though was very tough on paper, Djokovic looked every bit the winner to me throughout the tourny until Del po broke him back in the 4 th and cracks seemed to appear. Murray also played his best performance in a final to clinch it.

No one respected mine, if you care to go back and watch how this rabid clique set about destroying the thread in the first few posts.

The original post set the tone. If you wanted a civilized debate then you should have written the article in a civilized manner. Simple really.

That's right carrie - first sentence was "So far, the 3 bigger tournaments that Murray has won have come with a huge asterisk." - that's just WUM talk. Everyone spotted it a mile off and it got the answers it deserved.

Not only is this horse dead but the thing's been flogged to the bone.

_homogenised_ wrote:No one respected mine, if you care to go back and watch how this rabid clique set about destroying the thread in the first few posts.

Diatribes against winners are opinions? Devaluation of titles is an opinion?

Rabid clique? There are many opinions, but this is rather tragic to see someone's hard work being called into question, is it not?

Worked hard to play the most debased form of tennis imaginable. I wonder what Stefan Edberg, a man who used skill and guile to win his titles, really thought watching that match. I think this is the bigger asterisk on Murray's slams. With regards to Murray and Dunblane, perhaps I was viewing (incorrectly) his remark in the light of what I had already observed about him so I apologise to him (if he reads this)

laverfan

Check out this wum/troll Andy 11 - joined the same time as homo.

One in the same?  lol

Andy11 wrote:Worked hard to play the most debased form of tennis imaginable. I wonder what Stefan Edberg, a man who used skill and guile to win his titles, really thought watching that match.

"I believe Murray can still win a lot more Slams. He's good enough and young enough," Edberg told BBC Radio 5 live. "He's got a few really good years ahead of him." Murray's 6-4 7-5 6-4 victory at the All England Club gave him his second Grand Slam title following his win in the US Open final, also against current world number one Djokovic, in September 2012.

"He's proved he can play well on grass and there is no question why he can't do it again," added Edberg.

"It could be in his mind to be the number one player in the world. It's going to be tough to get that but that's probably something that can be achieved.
"He needs to produce the results for 12 months, but this could be a great start of it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/23236512

So what do you think about Edberg's opinions?

Andy11 wrote:I think this is the bigger asterisk on Murray's slams. With regards to Murray and Dunblane, perhaps I was viewing (incorrectly) his remark in the light of what I had already observed about him so I apologise to him (if he reads this)

Very brave, Andy11.

Yes I said I wonder what Edberg really thinks, or what he is too polite to say.

Jimmy Connors as well described Andy as playing wonderful tennis in Wimbledon Final on his Twitter Account and Johnnie Mac has tipped Murray for six slams. Hmm shall I believe them (legends of the sport) or the likes of homo, hawkeye and Andy11 all of whom would have sworn blind Murray would never win a slam 12 months ago? Hmmm tough one indeed.    

Andy11 wrote:Yes I said I wonder what Edberg really thinks, or what he is too polite to say.

Why do you wonder that, I wonder?

Been busy on the Cricket section what with the Ashes and all, nice to see this thread is still trundling along.

kingraf wrote:Been busy on the Cricket section what with the Ashes and all, nice to see this thread is still trundling along.

We aim to please

Andy11 wrote:Worked hard to play the most debased form of tennis imaginable

In what way?

Andy11 wrote:Yes I said I wonder what Edberg really thinks, or what he is too polite to say.

Are we now discussing what Edberg says vs what he thinks?

This effort at journalistic excellence should be pursued to denigrate the current W 2013 champion?

Also, the implication that Edberg has different utterances vs thoughts is insinuating, and that he has, negative thoughts for the current W 2013 winner, and you somehow have personal knowledge of such a dichotomy?

What lengths are you willing to go to, to deride the current W 2013 champion, it is utterly incomprehensible.

Why is there a desire to question the statement that I have just provided a link to?

Bit off topic... howd you find the crickers raf?