Worst Masters Ever?

by hawkeye Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:05 pm

I vote for Cinci 2011. Poor play. Boring matches. Not to mention retirements. Has there been a worse Masters?

by socal1976 Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:45 pm

It has been a bad week, certainly is the worst masters of any of the events I remember recently.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:22 am

hawkeye wrote:I vote for Cinci 2011. Poor play. Boring matches. Not to mention retirements. Has there been a worse Masters?

Perhaps because we have been spoilt the last six or seven years.

by sportslover Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:02 am

It's got to be - especially if you are a Federer or Nadal fan.

Which one are you hawkeye?

by hawkeye Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:00 am

CaledonianCraig

Agree the last few years have been great. Hope Cinci is a "blip" rather than a sign of things to come.

sportslover

Am a fan of both as know what they are capable of. Also of Djokovic. But many of Djokovics wins this year havn't been fun to watch. I don't even think he's playing his best tennis. Certainly not as well as US Open last year. Its just that everyone else is playing so poorly. Cinci 2011 has been the worst...

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:46 am

Ever: I can't say> I honestly do not remember the last 20 years of tennis which multiplied by 9 make if I am not wrong 180 masters. I believed that for sure a couple of Hamburg master have been by far worst than this. Regarding this one: it's obvious that the quality of the semi-finalists is somewhat inferior than the last few years. Before that elitist period there are probably many more masters where outsiders like Fish have been able to make their mark.

by Josiah Maiestas Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:50 am

It';s been a poor tournament but the final cuold make up for it... predict a 3 setter with both players serving at 65% and more winners than UE and more rallies than a Borg-Lendl clay court special zen

by socal1976 Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:30 pm

Thank god that tournament is over.

by Josiah Maiestas Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:34 pm

Terrible schedule really 1 day after Montreal final. Berdych or Fish deserved it more.

by time please Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:02 pm

Not too sorry I missed today's match after reading the reports here. Let's hope Nole is fully recovered by Open and that Murray can take huge positives from victory even if it wasn't a great triumph in the end - perhaps this year, he will peak at the right time in the USO final thumbsup

by hawkeye Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:32 pm

I've decided to try and forget it ever happened...

by Calder106 Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:30 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Terrible schedule really 1 day after Montreal final. Berdych or Fish deserved it more.

Why ? Murray beat Fish in two sets, didn't lose a set in 5 matches, won around 50% of his opponents service games. Give some credit where it is due.

by Positively 4th Street Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:43 pm

Calder106 wrote:
Josiah Maiestas wrote:Terrible schedule really 1 day after Montreal final. Berdych or Fish deserved it more.

Why ? Murray beat Fish in two sets, didn't lose a set in 5 matches, won around 50% of his opponents service games. Give some credit where it is due.

I wholeheartedly agree Calder. Murray won it, and deserved too - as the guy who wins invariably does. Fish has played well lately, and it's good to see, but he was well-beaten in the semi-final. Sentiment doesn't come in to it.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:30 am

This was always going to be this way. The match was always going to be how Djokovic plays. He was carrying a shoulder injury, could hardly serve and was missing most of the forehands. Murray just stayed and watched how Djokovic played. He hardly did anything, while Djo was an unforced error spree.

Fish was too overwhelmed with his first win over Nadal. Against Murray it was expected, played erratic and lost. Murray by default won. Simon and Murray have similar game, play safe and wait-for-errors. Only Murray is a better version. And this is what happened at Queens against Tsonga. Tsonga was winning, till he decided to lose. Murray just held his ground.

This is not unusual for Murray. A large percentage of his matches are always on the opponent's racket. Its up to them to win or lose. If they decide to win, even players like Donald Young, Alex Bogomolov jr. (28 years old and hardly seen the top-100) can beat him in straight sets.

Murray won Cincy-2011 Masters 1000, fine for the records but was hardly a performance worth mentioning. He won because someone had to.

by socal1976 Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:44 am

Raider, this was almost a case of who wanted to lose this tournament least. But Andy still deserves credit he did what he had to do and survived some poor play at times himself during this tournament. He executed well enough to take advantage of his opponents poor play or poor physical condition. Sometimes late in the year this happens in tournaments. This isn't the first tournament where the top guys have laid an egg and the level of play hasn't been a thing of beauty.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:46 am

Yes socal, Murray did what he had to. Thats why he won his 7th Masters title. So congratulations to the Murray camp and his fans. But as per level of play is considered, Gulbis played better to win Los Angeles the ATP250 event.

Lets hope for some good play at the US Open this year. Last year a guy had a virtual bye to the finals.

by Danny_1982 Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:21 am

The players were all saying the heat was worse than ever, which combined with it being back to back with the last event probably explains the lower than usual quality.

That said, I don't think there is any substance in the suggestion that Nadal and Federer tanked it. They were both outplayed. Well played Murray, he was solid and the W will lift his confidence nicely before New York.

The other 3 guys have a bit to think about. Poor form and injury / fatigue. Novak is the favourite for New York and rightly so.

by Calder106 Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:19 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:This was always going to be this way. The match was always going to be how Djokovic plays. He was carrying a shoulder injury, could hardly serve and was missing most of the forehands. Murray just stayed and watched how Djokovic played. He hardly did anything, while Djo was an unforced error spree.

Fish was too overwhelmed with his first win over Nadal. Against Murray it was expected, played erratic and lost. Murray by default won. Simon and Murray have similar game, play safe and wait-for-errors. Only Murray is a better version. And this is what happened at Queens against Tsonga. Tsonga was winning, till he decided to lose. Murray just held his ground.

This is not unusual for Murray. A large percentage of his matches are always on the opponent's racket. Its up to them to win or lose. If they decide to win, even players like Donald Young, Alex Bogomolov jr. (28 years old and hardly seen the top-100) can beat him in straight sets.

Murray won Cincy-2011 Masters 1000, fine for the records but was hardly a performance worth mentioning. He won because someone had to.

by Calder106 Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:23 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:This was always going to be this way. The match was always going to be how Djokovic plays. He was carrying a shoulder injury, could hardly serve and was missing most of the forehands. Murray just stayed and watched how Djokovic played. He hardly did anything, while Djo was an unforced error spree.

Fish was too overwhelmed with his first win over Nadal. Against Murray it was expected, played erratic and lost. Murray by default won. Simon and Murray have similar game, play safe and wait-for-errors. Only Murray is a better version. And this is what happened at Queens against Tsonga. Tsonga was winning, till he decided to lose. Murray just held his ground.

This is not unusual for Murray. A large percentage of his matches are always on the opponent's racket. Its up to them to win or lose. If they decide to win, even players like Donald Young, Alex Bogomolov jr. (28 years old and hardly seen the top-100) can beat him in straight sets.

Murray won Cincy-2011 Masters 1000, fine for the records but was hardly a performance worth mentioning. He won because someone had to.

Murray must be really grateful to all these superior players for allowing him to win so many matches/tournaments and allowing him him to be world number 4 for most of the last 4 years. Whistle

by **laverfan** Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:51 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Alex Bogomolov jr. (28 years old and hardly seen the top-100)

Currently ATP #45. First hit the Top 100 in 2003.

Has been around the ATP since 2000, was injured in 2008 and had ligament surgery. Some good recent matches. Very nice shots, takes the ball early (reminds me of Davydenko a bit).

by legendkillar Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:57 am

LF yet again showing the lack of and poor research by clueless posters.

Just amazes me why people continue to post such empty and wide off remarks to a sport that deserves much more respect.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:41 am

laverfan agreed Alex bogo jr. reached top-100 in 2003 , it was 97 and only for 3 weeks. The 2011 has been his best year and only managed a top-100 just about 3-4 months back. So what was so wrong when I said he has hardly seen top-100. I don't know about you but in 11 years of playing career if a player can only manage a handful of weeks within top-100, I won't call him even a decent player. And we shall see what he does next year when he will be defending those points. I guess he will be back to his original place i.e. outside 100. Injured or not is not my concern. Anyway he wasn't even doing great before he was injured. So a straight sets loss of current 4th Ranked player playing on of his(4th ranked player's) best surface isn't a great performance by the great world #4, is it? So please don't try to glorify a mediocre player ( Bogo is even below that) as an excuse for a dismal performance in the opening match. Bogo played well in that match, wanted to win and hence won. Therefore Andy lost. This was a against a very simple opponent. Against better players, a high percentage of times, its they who decide what they want, a win or loss. Andy just stays and watches how they go about it and takes the default result.

Legendkiller I have great respect for the sport and all the great players. But I don't have lot of respect of players who lacks the ability to win hence play safe and wait-for-errors game. Not much respect for the players who are ranked high because there isn't anyone else. They may be good at some aspects, but they need circumstantial help to win big. This is just what Andy got this Cincy. He won because no one else could and there had to be a winner.

by legendkillar Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:52 am

Murray lacks abillity?

Hmmmmm, maybe I should pick up my racket and break into the top 10 as it seems players without abillity can do this.

Agassi used to draw errors from his opponents and as does Nadal and Wilander before. Infact most players can wait for the other players to make errors.

I would like for someone to provide me with a match that saw no UE's ever made?

UE's are part of the game. Always have been and always will be.

by Super D Boon Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:28 pm

With Federer and Nadal playing poorly and Djokovich being injured the US Open could be Murray's for the taking.......................

by sportslover Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:40 pm

"He won because no one else could and there had to be a winner"

Good logic r-o-t-l-a - You should be writing for some of the tennis publications?

by **laverfan** Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:11 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:laverfan agreed Alex bogo jr. reached top-100 in 2003 , it was 97 and only for 3 weeks. The 2011 has been his best year and only managed a top-100 just about 3-4 months back. So what was so wrong when I said he has hardly seen top-100. I don't know about you but in 11 years of playing career if a player can only manage a handful of weeks within top-100, I won't call him even a decent player.

He has played very well in 2011 as you point out. Glad to see you agree. He played a good match against Gulbis in LA.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:And we shall see what he does next year when he will be defending those points. I guess he will be back to his original place i.e. outside 100. Injured or not is not my concern. Anyway he wasn't even doing great before he was injured. So a straight sets loss of current 4th Ranked player playing on of his(4th ranked player's) best surface isn't a great performance by the great world #4, is it?

Regarding Murray, he had MPs against Djokovic in Rome, most recently. He has played a much better Cincy MS than Montreal MS and has a decent collection of titles.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=tf

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:So please don't try to glorify a mediocre player ( Bogo is even below that) as an excuse for a dismal performance in the opening match. Bogo played well in that match, wanted to win and hence won. Therefore Andy lost. This was a against a very simple opponent. Against better players, a high percentage of times, its they who decide what they want, a win or loss. Andy just stays and watches how they go about it and takes the default result.

Again, Murray beat Federer in Shanghai MS 2010. Beat both Nadal and Federer in Canada 2010.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I have great respect for the sport and all the great players. But I don't have lot of respect of players who lacks the ability to win hence play safe and wait-for-errors game.

Greatness is very subjective and lies in the eyes of the beholder. Wink

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Not much respect for the players who are ranked high because there isn't anyone else. They may be good at some aspects, but they need circumstantial help to win big. This is just what Andy got this Cincy. He won because no one else could and there had to be a winner.

The 2008 USO was not luck that Murray got to the final. AO 2010 is the same way. He deserves credit where it is due. Did you watch WTF 2010 SF against Nadal? IMVHO, it was a very good match.

by time please Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:51 pm

laverfan wrote:Did you watch WTF 2010 SF against Nadal? IMVHO, it was a very good match.

It was a brilliant, edge of seat, fingernail chewing match - and an absolute heartbreaker that someone had to lose.

by sportslover Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:26 pm

time please wrote:
laverfan wrote:Did you watch WTF 2010 SF against Nadal? IMVHO, it was a very good match.

It was a brilliant, edge of seat, fingernail chewing match - and an absolute heartbreaker that someone had to lose.

Best match of 2010 voted by the ATP

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2010/12/Other/Best-Matches-Of-The-Year.aspx

But don't tell the Murray detractors - because they won't believe it Laugh

by legendkillar Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:52 pm

It is funny when a poster uses generalisation such as 'ability' and player bashing someone who has 'hardly' seen the top 100. How about players such as Mardy Fish and Jurgen Melzer who reached the top 10 at latter stages in their careers? Again generalisation about 'when' a player reaches his/her peak is dismissed because they didn't achieve it so early in their careers. Smacks of total arrogance of someone who doesn't understand the game and just has nothing constructive to add or say.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:41 pm

laverfan wrote:

Regarding Murray, he had MPs against Djokovic in Rome, most recently. He has played a much better Cincy MS than Montreal MS and has a decent collection of titles.

laverfan Murray never had any match points in the Rome semis. He was serving at 5-4 and within 2 points from winning it, but never had any match points. So prior posting, maybe doing a reality check is important.

laverfan wrote: The 2008 USO was not luck that Murray got to the final. AO 2010 is the same way. He deserves credit where it is due. Did you watch WTF 2010 SF against Nadal? IMVHO, it was a very good match.

Oh yes, the 2008 US open finals. Why do Murray fans have to keep bringing that one match again and again. It was some 3 years back and guys and it wasn't even like Murray produced any bit of great performance against Federer in the finals, matching him shot per shot. AO 2010 was his best performance in a slam, though he had a somewhat easy semis against a completely exhausted firstimer semis opponent in Cilic. And again in the finals he lost because Federer played great and Murray kept waiting for Federer to make errors that came too rarely. What about AO 2011 finals? Did he even play great then? What chance did he have in that final?

His match against Nadal in the 2010 WTF was awesome. But did you see his match against Nadal in FO and wimbledon 2011? FO he should have lost in the 4th round to Troicki ( but Troicki decided to lose and defaulted the win to Murray). Murray played a great 1st set against nadal in wimby, but what happened after that? He lost meekly the next 3 sets. This is the thing people. That awesome level of play is NOT Murray's normal level. He lacks in the ability to keep doing it for a longer time. He might have some good wins against top players. But he also has some absolutely tame losses to players whom a #4 ranked player is never expected to. If there are examples of great performances from him, there are far more examples of poor performances from him. He has a lot of ugly wins as well. So what do you have to say about that.

He is basically a pusher who plays safe and waits for errors. He has developed great agility and stamina to keep running and retrieving all balls. Also very good tactically. But such players need circumstantial help as well to win big because they lack ability to do it all on their skill. Why hasn't he won a slam till now or a WTF? He had a great chance in the 2009 WTF, but he lost. Because every time he comes up against a player who just won't give him free points and lose. Why hasn't Murray played a single Clay final in his entire career till now, when almost all the time he claims that clay is his favorite surface. He has 7 masters but all of them were 3 setters finals. Winning a 3 setter is always easier compared to 5. Federer's Nadal's have many masters when it was 5 setter finals. Murray is good, but not great.

I have no biased opinion for Murray nor do I hate him. But I certainly don't enjoy the wait for errors game which is his natural playing style.

by Calder106 Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:28 pm

Raider you say you have no biased opinion but you obviously do as virtually every comment on this thread has been to diss him. It seems that nearly every time he wins in your opinion is because his opponent is injured, tired or gives him the match through unforced errors. Every time he loses it shows how bad he is.

I think most Murray fans realise that although he is currently clearly the 4th best player in the world that until now his level has not matched that of the top three. Whether or not he can get there is something that I'm not sure he can achieve. You obviously don't like his style of play which I admit can sometimes be frustrating. However singles tennis is a head to head sport where both talent and strategy are needed to win games. So against the lower ranked players when he wins most games why change it. Yes he has lost three or four times this year to opponents whom he should normally have beaten. Three of these defeats were after his AO defeat when his focus just wasn't there. That's not an excuse though he was deservedly beaten, but regrouped and pushed on to his best clay court season.
His defensive style can stand against him when he plays the tops guys as he knows that it will not win him the matches so he has to be more agressive and therefore more likely to make mistakes.

by Guest Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:35 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark: There seems to some solid lines of reasoning and some robust opinions in your comments which I found interesting to read. thumbsup

Do you think Gulbis will take things more seriously and save tennis? It must be difficult being one of his fans.

by yummymummy Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:41 pm

I think someone rattled Hawkeye's cage !

Sour grapes perhaps ?

by CaledonianCraig Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:06 pm

Seems to be a lot of pent up bitterness here because Andy won whilst Rafa and Roger failed to perform. Fair enough but that doesn't negate Andy's achievement. How many tournaments have Fed and Nadal won when Andy has been off form or Novak but nobody bothered and just took it as their right to win.

by Josiah Maiestas Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:18 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Seems to be a lot of pent up bitterness here because Andy won whilst Rafa and Roger failed to perform. Fair enough but that doesn't negate Andy's achievement. How many tournaments have Fed and Nadal won when Andy has been off form or Novak but nobody bothered and just took it as their right to win.

not really. A lot of tennis fans just felt that Murray didn't really play great tennis to win the tournament, doing his normal stuff which is make the rallies be endless and hope for a mistake. The fact that Murray got broken in the first by an injured/tired Novak doesn't really make his performance look that good does it?

by CaledonianCraig Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:26 pm

Well put it this way he played the best tennis in Cincinnati and won and that is all that matters. Federer was woeful and NadaL pretty much the same and got what they deserved - NOTHING. Now please tell me who, in the tournament played better than Andy consistently and deserved to win? Boy Andy must be some player JM to play so god damn awful and win a tournament without dropping a set.

PS I suggest you watch the final point of the seventh game of the first set - epic rally of I'd say 35+ shots that Andy won with great shots from both players in it and was most likely the rally of the tournament.

by Calder106 Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:31 pm

Bottom line 5 games played, no sets lost, only once taken to tie break, trophy in hand, cheque in pocket, not too much energy expended, some good match practice. All in all mission accomplished.

by **laverfan** Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:38 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:He was serving at 5-4 and within 2 points from winning it, but never had any match points.

My bad.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Oh yes, the 2008 US open finals.
laverfan wrote:The 2008 USO was not luck that Murray got to the final.

You missed my point. He beat a fully-fit Nadal to get to the final, not how he played in the final.

In the AO 2010 QF, Nadal retired after being down two sets and a break.

The SF against Cilic was a tough match, Cilic had won the first set against Murray @6-3, if you recall.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
He is basically a pusher who plays safe and waits for errors.

Quoting from the attached link....

"In a thrilling deciding set, Djokovic broke Murray's serve in the fifth game but the gutsy Scot refused to give up and broke back for 3-3 with a blistering backhand followed by a forehand as the momentum swung back his way."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/14/us-tennis-men-rome-djokovic-idUSTRE74D20220110514

This is not a how typical pusher plays.

Watch some of the CC FHs in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxV8GG4DF3c

by legendkillar Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:58 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Seems to be a lot of pent up bitterness here because Andy won whilst Rafa and Roger failed to perform. Fair enough but that doesn't negate Andy's achievement. How many tournaments have Fed and Nadal won when Andy has been off form or Novak but nobody bothered and just took it as their right to win.

not really. A lot of tennis fans just felt that Murray didn't really play great tennis to win the tournament, doing his normal stuff which is make the rallies be endless and hope for a mistake. The fact that Murray got broken in the first by an injured/tired Novak doesn't really make his performance look that good does it?

Like when Davydenko won the WTF 2009? Or when a fit Troicki couldn't beat Murray at the FO??

Coming from a proclaimed 'I don't hate Murray' poster?? You don't do yourself any favours do you?

by Josiah Maiestas Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:01 pm

Calder106 wrote:Bottom line 5 games played, no sets lost, only once taken to tie break, trophy in hand, cheque in pocket, not too much energy expended, some good match practice. All in all mission accomplished.

Good for you to be positive but I am looking at the full picture, this was practise for the US, a lucrative 1 admittedly. But who will remember Cincinnatti if Murray falls before the semi's of the big 1? Just saying.

by Josiah Maiestas Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:03 pm

PS I suggest you watch the final point of the seventh game of the first set - epic rally of I'd say 35+ shots that Andy won with great shots from both players in it and was most likely the rally of the tournament.

I saw that rally and it was a nice point by Murray. I still think he should play more positive when the chance is waiting for him thouugh.

by Calder106 Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:20 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
Calder106 wrote:Bottom line 5 games played, no sets lost, only once taken to tie break, trophy in hand, cheque in pocket, not too much energy expended, some good match practice. All in all mission accomplished.

Good for you to be positive but I am looking at the full picture, this was practise for the US, a lucrative 1 admittedly. But who will remember Cincinnatti if Murray falls before the semi's of the big 1? Just saying.

Fair comment I fully expect Nadal and Federer to be much more tuned up for USO and Djokovic to be back to fitness. I know that Murray has been knocked out early the last two years in NY but as I have said somewhere else I wonder if he peaked too early by winning Canada both of these years playing really good tennis. This year losing early in Montreal plus a relatively easy run through Cincinatti he should be in a better position. Doesn't mean he will make it through to SF at least in NY. He will still need to play well and keep his concentration to do that.

by **laverfan** Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:41 pm

As I pointed out here, wonder why these singles players choose to play doubles as well? Erm

https://www.606v2.com/t12129-give-your-opponant-a-win

Look at the Montreal Doubles draw...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=421&y=2011&t=d

.... and Cincinnati....

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?e=422&y=2011&t=d

and then there are cries of too much tennis.

I can understand wanting more match practice, but it leads to injuries - like Berdych, Djokovic, and others.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:56 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:How many tournaments have Fed and Nadal won when Andy has been off form or Novak but nobody bothered and just took it as their right to win.

Are you kidding me? You mention Andy and Djokovic in the same league as Federer and Nadal that their being off from greatly helped wins of Federer and Nadal? This is so funny. A guy who never won a set in the 3 GS finals and has losses to very average players and a one that has only recently started picking up as a true great is in decline due to age, were actually huge threats to Federer and Nadal. Laugh

Andy I won't even talk about because his achievements are not even worth mentioning in place where the likes of Safin, Hewitt, Nalbadian, get their names. So let him get there first, then we will talk. Djo has a great year, but he still needs to get where Courier, Guga are mentioned. Then maybe Agassi, Courier, Lendl, laver. If that happens, then Nadal, Borg... if still further Pete... then comes Federer. So you see it now CC . So don't start talking about how many tournaments Federer and Nadal have won when Andy and Djo are off form because their presence has only a few iota of affect on Federer and Nadal's achievements.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:18 am

r o t l a Took your time to get here from 606 didn't it?

Anyway what utter nonsense you spout. We get the picture you hate Andy (bad trait to have is hatred). Reaching three Grand Slam Finals in itself is a massive achievement and in an era where Federer and Nadal have been at their peak as well makes it even more impressive. Losses to very average players? Yes all players have had them - even Federer and Nadal lets not forget that.

You say his achievements aren't worth mentioning or perhaps you don't want to mention them as it blows your theory out of the water that he 'is a pusher'. Achievements such as:-

Three Grand Slam Final appearances.

Seven Masters titles (seventh most successful player of all-time in the Masters Series).

One of a few players in history to have reached the semi-finals at all four slam events.

Statistically, one of, if not the best returners of serve in the world (yes above Fed and Nadal).

Of course I will carry on pointing out how many tournaments Federer, Nadal or anyone has won whilst others have been off their game as long as ignoramasuses who feel the need to point this out to try to devalue Andy's title wins.

Anyway I am loving watching Britain's greatest and most successful tennis player in 70+ years winning tennis titles. I wonder if Britain will ever see his like again.

by legendkillar Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:23 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:How many tournaments have Fed and Nadal won when Andy has been off form or Novak but nobody bothered and just took it as their right to win.

Are you kidding me? You mention Andy and Djokovic in the same league as Federer and Nadal that their being off from greatly helped wins of Federer and Nadal? This is so funny. A guy who never won a set in the 3 GS finals and has losses to very average players and a one that has only recently started picking up as a true great is in decline due to age, were actually huge threats to Federer and Nadal.

Andy I won't even talk about because his achievements are not even worth mentioning in place where the likes of Safin, Hewitt, Nalbadian, get their names. So let him get there first, then we will talk. Djo has a great year, but he still needs to get where Courier, Guga are mentioned. Then maybe Agassi, Courier, Lendl, laver. If that happens, then Nadal, Borg... if still further Pete... then comes Federer. So you see it now CC . So don't start talking about how many tournaments Federer and Nadal have won when Andy and Djo are off form because their presence has only a few iota of affect on Federer and Nadal's achievements.

Nalbandian to Murray??

Hmmmmm 3 Grand Slam finals compared to 1 and 7 Masters titles to 2

You talk crap!!

Try actually researching before spouting crap!

by sportslover Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:28 am

"I won't even talk about because his achievements are not even worth mentioning in place where the likes of Safin, Hewitt, Nalbadian, get their names "

lol Indiana - get their names - you obviously didn't - Its Nalbandian by the way and Murray has beaten him the last three times they have played.

If all you want to do is a diss Murray at least get the spelling right otherwise you look even more stupid.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:57 am

laverfan wrote:
You missed my point. He beat a fully-fit Nadal to get to the final, not how he played in the final.

For how many years Murray fans will keep bringing that one match where Andy played great and defeated a fully fit Nadal in 4 sets at US open 2008 . What happened after that? Where has Nadal gone from that point on wards and what has Andy done. Compare kindly. Does Andy still keep winning against Nadal? After that US Open semis they have played 10 times and Nadal has won 7 of those and on ALL surfaces. Murray has 3 wins all on hard courts. This year all the 3 meetings have been won by Nadal. If you still chose to bring that one match again and again, then you are not doing anything to add to Murray claim to greatness. In fact reducing it. Mentioning a performance so far back only suggest that was one day when everything went right for him, because from then on wards he has never been able to produce it again.

laverfan wrote:

Quoting from the attached link....

"In a thrilling deciding set, Djokovic broke Murray's serve in the fifth game but the gutsy Scot refused to give up and broke back for 3-3 with a blistering backhand followed by a forehand as the momentum swung back his way."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/14/us-tennis-men-rome-djokovic-idUSTRE74D20220110514

This is not a how typical pusher plays.

Watch some of the CC FHs in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxV8GG4DF3c

This is a snippet from a reporter's view point whose words don't count anything more that someone whose only job is reporting. He is not to be taken as a tennis analyst. If Andy is not a pusher why is his name mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusher_(tennis) . In fact it was a detailed ( before getting edited) case of professional pushers and quotes from Murray himself that "this style is where he is comfortable playing and he doesn't care what others think". The video link you mentioned is fine. But you forgot what I said earlier. This is not his natural game nor his normal level of play. Thats why he is unable to keep it for a long time. He is naturally a pusher. Defense from 5m behind the baseline is his normal play. Maybe on odd occasions he can come up and play aggressive, but that only happens very rarely. And at times when he tries it, like it happened in Wimbledon 2011 against Nadal, it back fired with too many unforced errors from Andy.

I can post 100s of links where he only played safe and waiting for errors from the opponent (win or loss we aren't talking here, but the playing style). I don't even have to go far behind. Watch his matches against Fish, Djo in cincy 2011. Andy just stayed his ground on most points while Djo or Fish were in self destruct mode. The match against Simon(a poor man's Murray) was such a borefest. Even commentators were saying "Points are going to be longer than some of Federer's games" and it wasn't due to spectacular play, but just put the ball back safely on court.

by legendkillar Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:17 am

I don't recall anyone claiming Murray was great.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:54 am

legendkillar wrote:
Nalbandian to Murray??

Hmmmmm 3 Grand Slam finals compared to 1 and 7 Masters titles to 2

You talk crap!!

Try actually researching before spouting crap!

Nalbandian defeated a prime Federer at the WTF 2005 to WIN it. WTF where all top 8 players play, is a no less tough to win than a GS and A prime Federer is so far ahead of anyone that no could even get close. And Nalbandian did it. Has Andy ever been able to take a set of Federer in 2008 US Open. AO 2010 Federer was already in decline, still Andy failed in st. sets. And against Djokovic in AO 2011. Prior to this final Murray had 3 consecutive hard court wins against him. He had an easier opponent in semis ( Ferrer was overwhelmed with his win on Nadal) and looked fit mentally and physically. But what happened in the final? A meek loss. The day when Andy is able to play like Nalbandian, I'll become his fan. But that days hasn't come yet.

by Sponsored content