Give Your Opponant A Win?

Little of interest regarding the tennis in the Cincinnati final but lots of talk about Djokovic retiring.

Djokovic had a problem with his shoulder in Montreal and appeared to be struggling in the semi final against Monfils. He may well have retired in that match if Monfils hadn't beaten him to it! From the clips I saw of the final he could hardly lift his arm so the surprising thing is that he played at all not that he retired. Its always a big problem in an individual sport when a player gets injured particularly before a final.

Djokovic was unable to give what everyone wanted - a match. He couldn't give his fans a win. He couldn't please his detractors with a loss. He has been criticized for not playing on so that he could give Murray a "win". Djokovic couldn't "give" Murray a win even if he'd pretended to play tennis for another 3 games. The only way to get a win is to earn it and Djokovic was unable to give Murray the opportunity to do that. Djokovic was unable to give us a proper result. Murray got the trophy by default.

lol vmp - It really hurts with some of you when he wins.

You'll be suggesting next that he should give back the $Half million prize money.

That's what I love about these tennis forums which are always good for a laugh.

We have you, some dork called JM & a new edition called raiders of the lost ark.

Keep it up guys.

Andy

Hawkeye,

This has been done to death. Yes it was a poor event and yes it is a shame that Djokovic had to retire.

Many players have won finals by default. I can remember Henin defaulting the AO title in the final.

Maybe you could shed some new light instead of doing this event to death with you opinion about how crap it was.

sportslover wrote:
We have you, some dork called JM & a new edition called raiders of the lost ark.

I am going to say straight away that I don't believe that Murray (or any player in that situation) wins by default. It is best on the day, and that has to include match fitness.

Having said that SL - I read raiders post on the other thread and thought it was a well considered post that was critical of one aspect of Murray's game, namely that he waits for his opponent to lose sometimes - maybe that was the sensible course yesterday to ensure the win. Having not seen the match, I find it really interesting to read differing accounts that are well balanced.

It amazes me continually that on a public forum, fans of certain players are so intolerant of other's opinions - ok argue the the point heatedly if you want, but don't expect a general forum to behave like a fan site.

time please wrote:

sportslover wrote:
We have you, some dork called JM & a new edition called raiders of the lost ark.

I am going to say straight away that I don't believe that Murray (or any player in that situation) wins by default. It is best on the day, and that has to include match fitness.

Having said that SL - I read raiders post on the other thread and thought it was a well considered post that was critical of one aspect of Murray's game, namely that he waits for his opponent to lose sometimes - maybe that was the sensible course yesterday to ensure the win. Having not seen the match, I find it really interesting to read differing accounts that are well balanced.

It amazes me continually that on a public forum, fans of certain players are so intolerant of other's opinions - ok argue the the point heatedly if you want, but don't expect a general forum to behave like a fan site.

Well also read JM's (Josiah Maiestas) anti - Murray posts and tell me that is what a sensible tennis forum wants and if so then you are welcome to it.

These posters including the author of this article continually put up the same old rubbish, as they did previously on 606 - OK maybe its a wind up but to be treated with the contempt it deserves.

As I have said before I treat these forums as a bit of a joke simply because of this - sadly if you take ALL that is posted as serious then you really do have a problem.

Nole had 7 wins and 20 unforced in the first set, clearly tells us it wasn't a proper final by any stretch of the imagination.

sportslover answer me this:
From how Murray played in Cincinnati do you really think it's going to help him when it matters in a slam?

Well JM if the rest of the field played like they did, can you see them beating Murray? No.

It was a poor tournament for all. Murray came out on top because he played the better tennis. Fish collapsed. Djokovic barring fatigue may have given Murray a sterner test.

Just drop it. Murray is always spoken as a contender at Slams. If he wasn't regarded good enough, he wouldn't be given such consideration.

All this anti-player crap is getting old already.

So post something worthy of the forum. That is to all posters!

I'm not anti-murray, if you look back on older comments I praised his cross court backhand as 1 of the best in the game (if his forehand was nearly as good he would be a scary player unavoidable player!) I even criticised the other top 3 players from time to time (Nole is poor at maintaining himself, should have lost in Cincy earlier or not entered it at all.)

Shamefully though sportslover does not believe in free speech!

I Don't hate any player! That is all..

It is not just you JM. Other posters make comments as digs at players, so there is no point proclaiming innocence. You may have praised Murray before, but some of your comments have been negative and un-called for. No-one is saying you hate Murray, the nature of this forum should be for players to be 'respected' and for the posters to respect the posters who may have a favourite player. For example Murray and Nadal fans have always posted respectfully to other posters despite results may not favouring their player.

Constructive criticism is not out of bounds, but if people dislike players, that is fine, but less of the 'digs' at players. I don't like Bernard Tomic, but I am not going to call him names or anything like that because they has earned my respect by playing the professional game.

sportslover wrote:Well also read JM's (Josiah Maiestas) anti - Murray posts and tell me that is what a sensible tennis forum wants and if so then you are welcome to it.

Actually Boo I have re-read some of the comments and I don't agree with the sentiments expressed about Murray - but I don't think I have seen anything so offensive at all that I would want to silence anybody - okay, I'll give you provocative but then I think that (within reason, and this seems to be) is exactly what any forum wants to stimulate debate. For those who really don't like the rough and tumble, maybe some of the fan sites are better? At least the latter have consensus on the players they want to dislike and wish ill upon

sportslover wrote:These posters including the author of this article continually put up the same old rubbish, as they did previously on 606 - OK maybe its a wind up but to be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Listen, as a Fed fan, I have read my fair share of 'shanky' posts and 'asterixed slam posts' - but it never really got to me, because it was clearly derisable - though some of it, when well written was funny. I don't think there is anything wrong with treating posts with 'the contempt' you feel it 'deserves' but maybe not posters themselves, like below?

sportslover wrote:As I have said before I treat these forums as a bit of a joke simply because of this - sadly if you take ALL that is posted as serious then you really do have a problem.

You see that is the bit that I have a problem with - you object to someone being a bit tart about your favourite player, yet you are okay with what you have just said to me?

Bit sad to see some of the negative-ism in this part of the forum. We should all be enjoying the fact that Murray won after arguably having the worst possible start to this stage of the season. Instead we have threads starting like worst ever masters etc. I can only think it's because some feel that a tournament isn't a proper tournament without Nadal or Federer in the final.

We should all be enjoying the fact that Murray won

I don't like his antics on the court, he should be more mature and grown up but he likes to be seen as "new McEnroe"... but yes he does play well from the baseline admittedly.

I don't mind construcive debates like most posters here. The thing is if you dislike a player and then try to be critical about their play without the facts or logic to back it up, it will cause a lot of friction.

When people label Federer 'shanky' or Nadal 'moonballer' or Murray 'bottler' it does annoy me because debating 'name calling' is pointless to say the least. I thought name-calling was left in the playground.

Posters want to be respected, so why not post something respectful and bear in mind other posters. I hear posters wanting to debate and express opinion and I am down with that. But name-calling, let's leave that in the playground 15 years ago eh?

This wasn't meant to be about name-calling or liking or disliking a particular player.

Imagine the same situation with tha names swapped or different players altogether.

An injured player is not able to compete. Why should they get critised for retiring? What is the point of staying on and pretending they are playing a competative match to give another player a "win". Who are they fooling? Everyone who was there will have seen what happened.

Maybe this can never be acknowledge as it would be more tempting in certain situations to feign injury. Proffesional sport is perhaps built on such shaky soil we are often left with no choice but to pretend that no player is ever injured...

Trouble is that most of the criticisms have a basis in truth;

* Nadal DOES hit the ball miles over the net and has it bouncing really high. OK, it's not moonballing as you may see it down the tennis club from the "mature" ladies, but it accomplishes the same thing, so why not use the term?
* Federer DOES mistime the ball especially when he's off. Again, he's not a shanker per se, but he shanks, so what's wrong with saying it?
* Djokovic DOES take loads of MTOs, affects an air of exhaustion (when he isn't) and retires too often, so why not call it?
* Murray DOES have scruffy hair. We must face up to that.

People are too sensitive; the issue is not the person making the observation but the thin-skinned fan who can't handle a word said against their hero.

bogbrush wrote:Trouble is that most of the criticisms have a basis in truth;

* Nadal DOES hit the ball miles over the net and has it bouncing really high. OK, it's not moonballing as you may see it down the tennis club from the "mature" ladies, but it accomplishes the same thing, so why not use the term?
* Federer DOES mistime the ball especially when he's off. Again, he's not a shanker per se, but he shanks, so what's wrong with saying it?
* Djokovic DOES take loads of MTOs, affects an air of exhaustion (when he isn't) and retires too often, so why not call it?
* Murray DOES have scruffy hair. We must face up to that.

People are too sensitive; the issue is not the person making the observation but the thin-skinned fan who can't handle a word said against their hero.

Watch it bogbrush - Andys Hairdresser may sue you for libel.

sportslover wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Trouble is that most of the criticisms have a basis in truth;

* Nadal DOES hit the ball miles over the net and has it bouncing really high. OK, it's not moonballing as you may see it down the tennis club from the "mature" ladies, but it accomplishes the same thing, so why not use the term?
* Federer DOES mistime the ball especially when he's off. Again, he's not a shanker per se, but he shanks, so what's wrong with saying it?
* Djokovic DOES take loads of MTOs, affects an air of exhaustion (when he isn't) and retires too often, so why not call it?
* Murray DOES have scruffy hair. We must face up to that.

People are too sensitive; the issue is not the person making the observation but the thin-skinned fan who can't handle a word said against their hero.

Watch it bogbrush - Andys Hairdresser may sue you for libel.

- absolutely bb

SL - I am sorry if I seemed a little short with you earlier - it's just that I sometimes think that some of the more provocative posts do actually get people talking and the sad thing is that without them, it is very quiet on here. To address this issue, I don't understand why eloquent posters like you don't write some topical and positive articles that people would respond to rather than just waiting sometimes to 'monitor' other's behaviour on threads with titles that irritate you, or why you don't, respond to, and therefore support, some of the topical and postive articles that others have started - that's all I would really welcome reading an article about Murray from someone like you who observes his game, and has done so for a few years, closely.

A forum is only as good as we all make it imvho

Not everyone agrees with me...

"Sometimes u just gotta stand up and take it like a man."

Jamie Murray on twitter

http://twitter.com/#!/jamie_murray

time please wrote:

sportslover wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Trouble is that most of the criticisms have a basis in truth;

* Nadal DOES hit the ball miles over the net and has it bouncing really high. OK, it's not moonballing as you may see it down the tennis club from the "mature" ladies, but it accomplishes the same thing, so why not use the term?
* Federer DOES mistime the ball especially when he's off. Again, he's not a shanker per se, but he shanks, so what's wrong with saying it?
* Djokovic DOES take loads of MTOs, affects an air of exhaustion (when he isn't) and retires too often, so why not call it?
* Murray DOES have scruffy hair. We must face up to that.

People are too sensitive; the issue is not the person making the observation but the thin-skinned fan who can't handle a word said against their hero.

Watch it bogbrush - Andys Hairdresser may sue you for libel.

- absolutely bb

SL - I am sorry if I seemed a little short with you earlier - it's just that I sometimes think that some of the more provocative posts do actually get people talking and the sad thing is that without them, it is very quiet on here. To address this issue, I don't understand why eloquent posters like you don't write some topical and positive articles that people would respond to rather than just waiting sometimes to 'monitor' other's behaviour on threads with titles that irritate you, or why you don't, respond to, and therefore support, some of the topical and postive articles that others have started - that's all I would really welcome reading an article about Murray from someone like you who observes his game, and has done so for a few years, closely.

A forum is only as good as we all make it imvho

Articles - I wouldn't mind but it would probably look biased to a lot on here and attract unwanted comments which I really don't have the time to engauge with.

socal does a good job on behalf of Novak and because he is at the very top of his game doesn't attract many adverse comments because a lot of the "so called tennis fans" that post on here like to be associated with success.

Talking of which where have all the Federer fans disappeared too? bogbrush is still around but where are the others

There have been some interesting retirements in the Masters series and it's precursors, if anyone is interested.

Last retirement in a TMS 1000 final was Coria against Roddick in Miami, 2004.

Others are

Rios against Kuerten in 1999 @MC.
Corretja against Costa in 1998 @Hamburg.
Ivanisevic against Agassi in 1996 @ Miami.
Mancini against Sanchez in 1991 @ Rome.
Becker against Edberg in 1990 @ Paris.

sportslover wrote:Talking of which where have all the Federer fans disappeared too? bogbrush is still around but where are the others

TP (Time Please) is here, I am here. Lydian also appreciates Feddybear. WoW is here occasionally. MTL also has a fair share of Federer fans.

sportslover wrote:
Talking of which where have all the Federer fans disappeared too? bogbrush is still around but where are the others

Talking about Fed fans: anybody knows where Tenez has gone? I suspect the invisible hand of the moderators may be behind some of them missing.......

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

sportslover wrote:
Talking of which where have all the Federer fans disappeared too? bogbrush is still around but where are the others

Talking about Fed fans: anybody knows where Tenez has gone? I suspect the invisible hand of the moderators may be behind some of them missing.......

Heard Rafa had put out a "Contract" on him - guess it must have succeeded

sportslover wrote:
Articles - I wouldn't mind but it would probably look biased to a lot on here and attract unwanted comments which I really don't have the time to engauge with.

Well who cares if it looks biased? We are all allowed a certain amount of bias towards a favourite player. You are going to attract some 'unwanted comments' on a public forum, but you can choose just to engage with the people whose contributions interest you.

Socal does a brilliant job of keeping the board lively and opinionated, and I for one have enjoyed disagreeing and agreeing with him

sportslover wrote:a lot of the "so called tennis fans" that post on here like to be associated with success.

There you go with the judgemental stuff again. Of course the successful players are going to attract the most attention - they are the stars of the game, and Murray is amongst their number! What is a 'so called tennis fan' when they are at home?

sportslover wrote: Talking of which where have all the Federer fans disappeared too? bogbrush is still around but where are the others

Not a very subtle a way of expressing your opinion that Federer fans like to be associated with success more than most. Along with a lot of other Federer fans, I have many players I love to watch and support - and post about - but you just continue to generalise away, why doncha if it keeps you

Not sure where Tenez is.

I am for debate like I have previously said. Just don't want to see such dislike of players manifest itself on the boards in such ways when matches are being played.

time please wrote:

sportslover wrote:
Articles - I wouldn't mind but it would probably look biased to a lot on here and attract unwanted comments which I really don't have the time to engauge with.

Well who cares if it looks biased? We are all allowed a certain amount of bias towards a favourite player. You are going to attract some 'unwanted comments' on a public forum, but you can choose just to engage with the people whose contributions interest you.

Socal does a brilliant job of keeping the board lively and opinionated, and I for one have enjoyed disagreeing and agreeing with him

sportslover wrote:a lot of the "so called tennis fans" that post on here like to be associated with success.

There you go with the judgemental stuff again. Of course the successful players are going to attract the most attention - they are the stars of the game, and Murray is amongst their number! What is a 'so called tennis fan' when they are at home?

sportslover wrote: Talking of which where have all the Federer fans disappeared too? bogbrush is still around but where are the others

Not a very subtle a way of expressing your opinion that Federer fans like to be associated with success more than most. Along with a lot of other Federer fans, I have many players I love to watch and support - and post about - but you just continue to generalise away, why doncha if it keeps you

BOO:

time please wrote:

sportslover wrote:
Articles - I wouldn't mind but it would probably look biased to a lot on here and attract unwanted comments which I really don't have the time to engauge with.

Well who cares if it looks biased? We are all allowed a certain amount of bias towards a favourite player. You are going to attract some 'unwanted comments' on a public forum, but you can choose just to engage with the people whose contributions interest you.

Socal does a brilliant job of keeping the board lively and opinionated, and I for one have enjoyed disagreeing and agreeing with him

sportslover wrote:a lot of the "so called tennis fans" that post on here like to be associated with success.

There you go with the judgemental stuff again. Of course the successful players are going to attract the most attention - they are the stars of the game, and Murray is amongst their number! What is a 'so called tennis fan' when they are at home?

sportslover wrote: Talking of which where have all the Federer fans disappeared too? bogbrush is still around but where are the others

Not a very subtle a way of expressing your opinion that Federer fans like to be associated with success more than most. Along with a lot of other Federer fans, I have many players I love to watch and support - and post about - but you just continue to generalise away, why doncha if it keeps you

lol - Love how you ladies dissect comments - you dont happen to work in a Pathology Lab by any chance!- Wrong again on the third part 2 +2 = 4 not 5
How about an article on Roger then

Hope you dont give Mr time please such a hard time!

sportslover wrote:lol Love how you ladies dissect comments - you dont happen to work in a Pathology Lab by any chance!- Wrong again on the third part 2 +2 = 4 not 5

oh I love a good bit of misogyny in the afternoons! Methinks I am not wrong on the third part and you are now 'copping out'. PS That is so typical of a man not to be creative enough to realise that 2 + 2 so very often = 5

sportslover wrote:ow about an article on Roger then

Hope you dont give Mr time please such a hard time!

a) written reams and reams about Roger - but in 'era' threads etc - think exhausted subject for the mo until agonising and cursing over his US Open form

b) Always!

laverfan wrote:There have been some interesting retirements in the Masters series and it's precursors, if anyone is interested.

Last retirement in a TMS 1000 final was Coria against Roddick in Miami, 2004.

Others are

Rios against Kuerten in 1999 @MC.
Corretja against Costa in 1998 @Hamburg.
Ivanisevic against Agassi in 1996 @ Miami.
Mancini against Sanchez in 1991 @ Rome.
Becker against Edberg in 1990 @ Paris.

According to BB, all of those players are heartless quitters who should have tried to play when their bodies gave out on them.

And it all boils down to the vital fact that Andy won ! - whether

by default or not - HE WWOONN !







£500,000 isn't bad going for an hours work - Thank you Nole

yummymummy wrote:£500,000 isn't bad going for an hours work - Thank you Nole

Well it's actually for a week's work! But yes, very nice indeed.

Good to see you back yummy, thought you had jumped ship!

yummymummy wrote:And it all boils down to the vital fact that Andy won ! - whether

by default or not - HE WWOONN !







£500,000 isn't bad going for an hours work - Thank you Nole

He did indeed and may he win at Flushing Meadows

socal

Having watched Andy v Novak again on my recorder I am now convinced that the shoulder problem was not the main cause for his retirement but with the heat and his amazing run to date his " tank" just ran to empty.

Now if that is the case then there should not be too much concern for next weeks USO because he will have time to recover.

Could be wrong but he just looked exhausted!

time please wrote:

yummymummy wrote:£500,000 isn't bad going for an hours work - Thank you Nole

Well it's actually for a week's work! But yes, very nice indeed.

Good to see you back yummy, thought you had jumped ship!

No - Not jumped ship but my Depression reared its ugly head again !

Thought I'd better shut up before I was banned for life - everyone

sportslover wrote:socal

Having watched Andy v Novak again on my recorder I am now convinced that the shoulder problem was not the main cause for his retirement but with the heat and his amazing run to date his " tank" just ran to empty.

Now if that is the case then there should not be too much concern for next weeks USO because he will have time to recover.

Could be wrong but he just looked exhausted!

Agree. Don't think he serves the ball nearly hard enough to warrant a shoulder injury. 59 matches in 7 months says it all for a player who loves to rally and chase down everything (he wasn't chasing down many balls and he was often hitting into the net.)

Murray just needs to work on his forehand and he will be able to atleast get the semi's.

Sportslover, he could barely break 105 on the serve and he is has been stretching and moving that shoulder around in between serves since the monfils match. He mentioned the shoulder soreness after that match and it clearly impacted him the rest of the tournament.

I don't think it takes any thing away from Andy he had to get to the final to benefit from a withdrawal. It was poor tournament from start to finish and Andy won it by playing well enough to get the result he needed. It was good practice for USO.

yummymummy wrote:

time please wrote:

yummymummy wrote:£500,000 isn't bad going for an hours work - Thank you Nole

Well it's actually for a week's work! But yes, very nice indeed.

Good to see you back yummy, thought you had jumped ship!

No - Not jumped ship but my Depression reared its ugly head again !

Thought I'd better shut up before I was banned for life - everyone

Are you okay?

Sincerely doubt you could ever do anything to warrant being banned and don't think you have anything to be sorry about. Take care of yourself - let's hope Mr Murray gives us all something to really cheer about and banish all 'black dogs' in just over two weeks time

So socal - the question BEGS to be asked - WHY DID HE PLAY

if he was Sooo debilitated ?



I watched the match and it was obvious that Nole couldn't cope

with either the Heat or the Himidity. The sponsors did Andy a great

favour (YET AGAIN) of scheduling ALL his matches early.



Me thinks their strategy FAILED !!!

time please wrote:

yummymummy wrote:

time please wrote:

yummymummy wrote:£500,000 isn't bad going for an hours work - Thank you Nole

Well it's actually for a week's work! But yes, very nice indeed.

Good to see you back yummy, thought you had jumped ship!

No - Not jumped ship but my Depression reared its ugly head again !

Thought I'd better shut up before I was banned for life - everyone

Are you okay?

Sincerely doubt you could ever do anything to warrant being banned and don't think you have anything to be sorry about. Take care of yourself - let's hope Mr Murray gives us all something to really cheer about and banish all 'black dogs' in just over two weeks time

My black cloud has lifted now TM (at LONG LAST) Thanks for your concern

IF it returns I shall go *off air* again

Yummy, he has played numerous times this season in heat and humidity and not had an issue. For example, the humidity of the miami final it was a very hot spring day then against Nadal and he was the fresher of the two at the end of the match. Before the match with Murray, before it he told the media that his shoulder was bothering him and he lost about 10 miles of velocity on his serve, during the final with murray it was even worse than that. Maybe he played because he felt like he could give it a go and instead of loosening up his shoulder got worse.

Socal - I would rather Djoko had retired (as in a walk-over)

before the match rather than deny Andy the chance of winning

out right !



And don't soft soap the fact that. until yesterday, Nole had

not played ONE MATCH in the heat of the day - GUESS who played

ALL of them





Nole was obviously finding the Hot/Humid conditions too much !

Hence - The Retirement from *INJURY*

Well then why has Andy withdrawn 3 times from matches himself, why didn't he give his opponent an outright win? Novak played a set and half of tennis and at least gave the fans and broadcasters some action. It was obvious to anyone who has watched him play that his shoulder is bothering him, there is no point in questioning the injury. He couldn't break 110 with his first serve by the end of the match usually he is around the 120s. Or do you think he started arming in first serves as an act as well.

Have you really looked at Murrays' *injury* stats socal?



Try Google - its a mine of infromation AND its unbiased,

Is Andy or Novak making an issue out of it.

No.

So c'mon you guys drop it and get back onto the positive e.g USO

Suitably chastised Boo !!!!!



MURRAY will WIN the USO (pleeeeeze)

Murray lost early in Montreal and was able to prepare properly for the next tournament, a luxury which Fish and Djokovic didn;t have (when he coincidentally ended up defeating both.) Had Fish and Novak had the same rest time as Andy, would have been different scorelines altogether, obviously.

Might be a point JM but you can't blame Murray for the fact that two Masters events are scheduled back to back two week with a weeks break to USO. Likewise would you have said the same last year when Murray played some great tennis in Canada to win but then lost to Fish in the QF's of Cincinnati and Wawrinka in last 32 of USO. Did he peak too early, has he learnt his lesson and is building to peak at USO. I'm sure Nadal, Federer are.

I know it's not his fault, the ATP are just ridiculous having back to back weeks of Masters. In no other sport would this be allowed to happen!

I agree. Not fair on the players. They need to schedule these events better.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray lost early in Montreal and was able to prepare properly for the next tournament, a luxury which Fish and Djokovic didn;t have (when he coincidentally ended up defeating both.) Had Fish and Novak had the same rest time as Andy, would have been different scorelines altogether, obviously.

JM... Andy had more rest, but he did play doubles with Jamie.

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

Edit:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I know it's not his fault, the ATP are just ridiculous having back to back weeks of Masters. In no other sport would this be allowed to happen!

Also, notice, that Djokovic played doubles with Tipsarevic, knowing full well about the back-to-back MS 1000s. Many other singles players were also in the mix, Berdych, Nadal, Gasquet, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Simon and many others.