Well Done Andy

by CaledonianCraig Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:29 am

First topic message reminder :

Andy Murray, on sealing the Shanghai Masters and winning his third ATP title in as many weeks. That win means that, for the first time in his career, he moves above the legendary Roger Federer in the rankings moving to No.3 in the world and well-deserved it is too. Well deserved I hear some ask? Well rankings are judged on the here and now form not what has gone before from a year or two ago etc. Now on this season alone Andy has a better slam record than admittedly a Federer in decline and a better record in all other tournaments having won five titles to Federer's one so no contest there.

What difference will being No.3 make to Andy's game/mindset? Not a lot in the grand scheme of things but obviously it is a nice feather in his cap and can only boost his own confidence that he is heading in the right direction. I often hear people say that Murray should not be included in the big top four that is often mentioned perhaps solely because he has yet to win a slam which I can understand but equally it is unfair to try to paint him as being in the chasing pack as he has long been ahead of that chasing pack of players such as Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga etc since breaking into the top four in 2008.

What does the future hold for Andy Murray in terms of grand slams? Well he may win one or he may not and that will depend a lot on what happens with those around him such as Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Now Federer is on the wain so he is much in Murray's boat where he may have to depend on others slipping up to benefit unless like Murray he can raise his slam game to another level that he isn't at at the moment. Nadal is going through something of a crisis of confidence himself of late so he isn't as bullet-proof as say a year or two ago. Djokovic has been imperious this season and the question will be:- Can he maintain that level and consistency? If not others will pounce.

Again well done Andy on winning your 21st title and 8th Masters title taking him up to joint 6th on the all-time list of most successful players Masters Series in history.

by break_in_the_fifth Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:46 pm

So anyone with a different opinion is wumming? I'd say it's less logical to assume that the players value all the tournaments equally in their own minds however much they make out that's the case.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:47 pm

Also on another note here. This thread was about congratulating Andy Murray on a hat-trick of titles and becoming world No.3 so please stick to the topic. Murray bashers please exit and start your own topic as this was designed specifically to applaud Andy for his results of late.

by legendkillar Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:48 pm

So the fact that the poster in question hasn't posted on any other thread in the tennis section makes that poster credible?

Flip me where is the logic??

by noleisthebest Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:55 pm

I don't know why you bother and worry. the "guy" just said what he/she thought, no big deal.
You need to develop thicker skin and not fret too much over what others say; everyone's entitled to their opinion provided they are civil.

by break_in_the_fifth Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:57 pm

Perhaps he only wants to express his opinions about Murray and is relatively indifferent to the other stuff. I'm pretty sure I've seen him talking about Federer and Nadal.

As for the thread well played Murray, nice to see him get something for himself in a year that's largely been about other players. Maybe he just needs to bring his masters game to slams and not much more. I'd just like to see him reach a slam final and play well.

by legendkillar Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:57 pm

This is horse-Poopie!!!

Flip this forum.

I ain't going to post in such a place that tolerates stupidity!

by CaledonianCraig Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:03 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

As for the thread well played Murray, nice to see him get something for himself in a year that's largely been about other players. Maybe he just needs to bring his masters game to slams and not much more. I'd just like to see him reach a slam final and play well.

Get something? A Hat-trick of titles (or four titles out of five if we count Cincinatti) is more than just getting something. Only Djokovic can boast a better run than that this season. Well break in the fifth your final statement just shows how good he is that he can reach a slam final and not play well (in your words) yet lose very close sets (tie-break V Federer, 5-7 V Federer , 4-6 V Djokovic etc etc) so you see evidently room for plenty of hope.

by sportslover Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:08 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also on another note here. This thread was about congratulating Andy Murray on a hat-trick of titles and becoming world No.3 so please stick to the topic. Murray bashers please exit and start your own topic as this was designed specifically to applaud Andy for his results of late.

Yes CaledonianCraig Andy has had a great run in the Asian Swing and having made the semis or better in all the salms it's something most players would have loved to have achieved.

I am sure his turn will come for winning a slam, hopefully next year.

On a sadder not it's a shame that he alone is having to carry the weight of the men's singles for GB on the ATP tour but being in the top 3/4 he is keeping us on the map thumbsup

by break_in_the_fifth Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:12 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
break_in_the_fifth wrote:

As for the thread well played Murray, nice to see him get something for himself in a year that's largely been about other players. Maybe he just needs to bring his masters game to slams and not much more. I'd just like to see him reach a slam final and play well.

Get something? A Hat-trick of titles (or four titles out of five if we count Cincinatti) is more than just getting something. Only Djokovic can boast a better run than that this season. Well break in the fifth your final statement just shows how good he is that he can reach a slam final and not play well (in your words) yet lose very close sets (tie-break V Federer, 5-7 V Federer , 4-6 V Djokovic etc etc) so you see evidently room for plenty of hope.

While I was trying to defend Super D's point of view as I thought it was reasonable and he put it across in a civilised way, I never shared it. I on the other hand thought Murray could have been the best after what I saw of him in 2008 (I think I've mentioned this before). I still expect him to win almost any GS match if he plays 'properly' but who knows he's also led me to believe that desire and focus might be rarer than talent.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:25 pm

He may win a slam or e may not. If not he'll go down as one of the greatest players never to have won a slam and still have stats/titles/achievements in the sport that would surpass a fair few slam winners.

by carrieg4 Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:30 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:So anyone with a different opinion is wumming? I'd say it's less logical to assume that the players value all the tournaments equally in their own minds however much they make out that's the case.

I didn't criticise SDB for having an opinion, I just pointed out that his/her statements had no merit in the face of the facts - this was shown very clearly by the links LF provided. It is up to him/her to back up statements with evidence - they have not done so.

As for players not valuing all tournament - there are only four slams. Three of these are held by one person so that means that all the others are mainly fighting for the masters series and - maybe to a lesser extent - the ATP 500s.

by **laverfan** Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:53 pm

Super D Boon wrote:What are you talking about you weirdo?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:While I was trying to defend Super D's point of view as I thought it was reasonable and he put it across in a civilised way

Civility is a bi-directional concept, not just a uni-directional one! Wink

Murray's lack of a slam is a valid discussion point, but the 'bigger' picture of a good player is somehow being missed.

For example, Berdych (#6) has been to a W final and his last and only Masters win was in 2005.

Ferrer (#5) is a very nice player, but look at his Masters record.

Soderling has one MS in Paris (2010), so does Tsonga (2008), a slam finalist.

Since 2005, Masters winners are

2005 - Federer (4), Nadal (4), Berdych (1)
2006 - Federer (4), Nadal (2), Robredo (1), Roddick (1), Davydenko (1)
2007 - Nadal (3), Federer (2), Nalbandian (2), Djokovic (2)
2008 - Nadal (3), Djokovic (2), Murray (2), Davydenko (1), Tsonga (1)
2009 - Nadal (3), Federer (2), Murray (2), Davydenko (1), Djokovic (1)
2010 - Nadal (3), Murray (2), Federer (1), Ljubicic(1), Roddick (1), Soderling (1)
2011 - Djokovic (5), Murray (2), Nadal (1)

Notice the consistency of 2 MS titles in 2008-2010.

by yummymummy Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:55 pm

That's blinding them with science laver !

Well Done Andy - Page 3 769663

by **laverfan** Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:00 pm

yummymummy wrote:That's blinding them with science laver !

Lest I be accused of being un-civil and uncouth to fellow Tennis lovers, just putting facts to paint a bigger picture of a good player. As CC says, to live under the shadow of Fedalovic is tough. Wink

by carrieg4 Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:02 pm

laver

Let's see them argue their way out of that one

And as for yummy and legend - don't leave us. There's cake

and

in it for you if you stay Smile

by break_in_the_fifth Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:05 pm

LF that was after things had gone bad and had little to do with the point he was trying to make anyhow I don't want to discuss that anymore.

Fair enough as far as tennis outside slams has gone Murray's been one of the best. Anyhow it seems as if some posters have this paranoia over people 'attacking' Murray and think that people who don't think he's up to job should be pigeonholed in with those irrational people who hang on a tabloid's every word.

yummymummy wrote:
legendkillar wrote:This is horse-Poopie!!!

Flip this forum.

I ain't going to post in such a place that tolerates stupidity!

post removed

Spare me.

by carrieg4 Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:16 pm

I think you are giving SDB too much credit BITF. Right from the start he/she was confusing opinion with fact. He/she holds an opinion that F, D and N do not put in 100% outside the slams but this is not a fact as he/she stated. If he/she had tempered their statements they would have received more measured response - simple transactional analysis - and that is a fact Cool

.

by **laverfan** Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:17 pm

carrieg4 wrote:Let's see them argue their way out of that one

As I have stated earlier, the glass is 'half 'full'. It is a work in progress to try and fill the remaining, empty, parts. Wink

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Anyhow it seems as if some posters have this paranoia over people 'attacking' Murray and think that people who don't think he's up to job should be pigeonholed in with those irrational people who hang on a tabloid's every word.

Without any references to the previous 'dip', let us continue.

Murray should be discussed, as desired. There is a bit of 'clan' and 'tribal' loyalty, that does come in, which I understand, is what you are conveying. Hopefully, all of us can count till 10, and exhibit our love of tennis and our understanding of this glorious sport, and learn to appreciate players, who may not be to our liking, but nevertheless are part of the current Tennis tableau.

Hope people do not leave forums, due to a bit of raised voices.

SDB.. let us continue our Murray discussion. Hug

by Calder106 Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:37 pm

"Anyhow it seems as if some posters have this paranoia over people 'attacking' Murray and think that people who don't think he's up to job should be pigeonholed in with those irrational people who hang on a tabloid's every word."

break_in_the_fifth If you read through the threads on this forum you will see that most Murray fans accept that he has been well beaten in the semis and finals that he has lost and make no excuses for these losses.

Where they start getting defensive is that it is perceived he is not good enough when he loses to Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer but when he beats any of them its because they are not really trying or injured. To me that's a pretty blinkered view from the posters promoting that point of view.

by carrieg4 Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:50 pm

Returning to the original point of the thread - I liked this article

http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/44963009/ns/sports-tennis/

by **laverfan** Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:20 pm

One thing i would add to the article is that Murray is bouncing back from slam losses much quicker than his 2010 AO loss, for example.

As Djokovic says, maturity of attitude does add to self-confidence.

by carrieg4 Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:55 am

Very true LF.

by legendkillar Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:31 am

I will just point out a few things before departing this section of the forum.

There is a massive difference between 'opinion' and 'fact' if people can't distinguish the difference between the two in this day and age, then they really need shooting, because I know 5 year olds that know the difference.

The poster in question posted a 'fact' about player performance and integrity. When asked to provide this fact, went on the defensive and used the whole '0 Slams' which shows a limited view and lack of knowledge about tennis in general. So why can't someone provide a fact when they 'claim' they know this? Isn't this a place for debate?

I see things such as 'paranoia' and 'fanboys' labelled at Murray fans. I was Henman fan and for years I had to put up with labels such as loser and choker. I never disputed this because his career never reflected titles. He was a nearly man at Slams. For some it wasn't enough to justify the following he had. Now it seems to plague Murray as this is a player that can win titles and yet detractors use a stick to beat him with.

fanboys? Have I seen posters such as CC or yummymummy say he is the greatest because he is a nice bloke? Or because he is British? Not at all. If following a player is 'fanboyish' then this really is a retarded society we live in, given we are 'grown' ups.

I hear people say 'open' forum 'freedom of speech' which is un-true because I think some of the posters are bumhole$ and yet I couldn't say that as it would be deleted.

For me when a poster comes on trying to discredit a players achievements which has taken years of hardship and sacrifice to achieve, then no I am not going to sit back. When great players to have played the game have their integrity called into question, I am not going to sit back.

When Federer has been accused of being 'arrogant' and an 'unpleasant' person by Nadal fans, what do we have?? Federer fans on the attack. Are they paranoid?

The proof is in the pudding as they say.

by sportslover Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:35 am

carrieg4 wrote:Returning to the original point of the thread - I liked this article

http://www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/44963009/ns/sports-tennis/

The end says it all - "The majors only covers eight weeks of the year. Those of us who love the sport watch it the other 40-some weeks as well.

Most of the tournament players will never win a slam far less get to the final of one, as it stands for 2011 one player has three out of the four so that how difficult it is.

by bogbrush Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:43 am

I think he couldn't have done any better in these recent events but some of them were sparsely attended so I can't see all of them the same as I did some of his great achievements in the past - winning Masters Series events while beating the big boys.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:40 am

Isn't it just great. This thread is about Andy's recent complete domination of the tournaments in the Far East and becoming world No. 3 and yet it still gets side-tracked by detractors. Since it is my thread please stick to the original topic in hand or if you can't do that start a fresh topic.

It is on days like this I miss 606 where you were in complete control of your topic and you could delete posts from those that went off topic.

by bogbrush Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:47 am

You miss being able to censor debate do you? Rolling Eyes

Look, if what you want is a quickie to congratulate Andy then, great, send him a letter. If you want debate then start a thread.

FFS, I'm not even a detractor of him - he's my next fav after Fed to win events. You set the bar high indeed to avoid being a "detractor".

by CaledonianCraig Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:53 am

Detractor remark wasn't aimed at you more at others who claim Murray wins when the big three don't try. As for this topic is a non-bashing thread no longer acceptable. Forums aren't just here for heated debate you know but also to congratulate players and marvel at achievements. I mean lets face it we had posts on here harping on about Djokovic unbeaten run without gripes or digs so why not one about Andy Murray after a hat-trick of titles and one defeat in about 25 matches.

by sportslover Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:56 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Isn't it just great. This thread is about Andy's recent complete domination of the tournaments in the Far East and becoming world No. 3 and yet it still gets side-tracked by detractors. Since it is my thread please stick to the original topic in hand or if you can't do that start a fresh topic.

It is on days like this I miss 606 where you were in complete control of your topic and you could delete posts from those that went off topic.

This is as I previously said is one important ingredient missing from this forum and consequently stops a lot of posters from writing articles.

So you really need to have your own "bogbrush" to keep the article clean and on track without letting it develop into what we now have!

by **laverfan** Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:23 am

As a 'wise man' once said, Slams are about winners and losers.

In the current draws, there are 127 losers and 1 winner. To acknowledge only the winners, is a disservice to anyone who has chosen to pursue a professional career in a sport, be it Tennis or Football. For a winner to exist, there must be competition, first.

Andy is a joy to watch, no matter what his detractors say, and he will be, till he decides to retire. If he is not someone you like, there are many choices at the top echelons, please choose one, and enjoy the sport of Tennis. Bubbly

by Super D Boon Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:20 am

Dare we not say Manchester United don't try as hard in the Carling Cup as they do in the Champions League or you'd have Legendkiler saying that he'd need a written testimony signed by Sir Alex Ferguson admitting to this. Laugh

Also, debate is based around opinions which are formed from interpretation of evidence. For this fool to say I won't engage in debate without FACTS is ridiculous. If they were hard, cold facts there would be no debate! zen

by CaledonianCraig Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:32 am

Fair enough as facts are that United haven't won Carling CUp that much I'd agree with you there.

However, as has been pointed out to you countless times here Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are all ultra-successful at Masters level which blows your theory out of the water especially considering the WTF tournament is almost seen as a fifth slam and to qualify for that you have to be successful at the Masters events and to be successful you have to try.

by legendkillar Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:33 am

Super D Boon wrote:Dare we not say Manchester United don't try as hard in the Carling Cup as they do in the Champions League or you'd have Legendkiler saying that he'd need a written testimony signed by Sir Alex Ferguson admitting to this.

Also, debate is based around opinions which are formed from interpretation of evidence. For this fool to say I won't engage in debate without FACTS is ridiculous. If they were hard, cold facts there would be no debate!

Provide the facts SDB as you claimed!! Laugh

BTW this is a tennis forum not a football one!

by legendkillar Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:40 am

Like I said, lack of effort in a match can and is penalised by the umpire.

Point me to a match where Murray won due to a player being warned for lack of effort.

Let me guess....Can't find one??

This is a COLD Fact!!

Why not try presenting them instead of making half-arsed comments with no substance you fool!

To answer your question about Manchester Utd and the Carling Cup. When you have a team and squad game managers picks players based on 'quality' so really and truthfully where does 'effort' fit in??

Let me guess, you can tell because you see things that others don't?

Specsavers perhaps?

by bogbrush Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:21 am

Well tbh legendkiller that's not a reliable indicator. You may as well point to the low level of penalties for time abuse and conclude that certain players are consistently within the rules.

I'm not a fan of the "not trying" excuse but I don't think your analysis holds water there.

I did ask Craig about whether pointing to Andys success against the other top boys at masters level versus his lack of success against the same guys at Slam level was relevant but he disappeared. Probably my post constituted hatred or bashing or something so unworthy of response.

And thread editing is appalling. It's what fantasticbingting used to do all the time on 606 and I think on that point I can rest my case.

by noleisthebest Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:32 am

I am pretty sure I posted a comment, or rather a smiley as a comment to a comment here this morning, and now it's vanished. Why?

by Guest Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:34 am

noleisthebest wrote:I am pretty sure I posted a comment, or rather a smiley as a comment to a comment here this morning, and now it's vanished. Why?

https://www.606v2.com/t17264-general-chat#633656

by Adam D Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:40 am

Super D Boon wrote:Dare we not say Manchester United don't try as hard in the Carling Cup as they do in the Champions League or you'd have Legendkiler saying that he'd need a written testimony signed by Sir Alex Ferguson admitting to this.

I think you will find that is not true either!

This is my reasoning.

I have no doubt that the big teams rest their best players for the premiership, however, the players who take to the field are trying as hard as they can to win. They have to try and get into the first team, and they do that by putting in a shift in these lesser games.

As for tennis players not trying, its not exactly true is it. Why would they not try - is that going to win them new sponsorship deals or prize money? If they are on the court and have entered a tournament, they are going to be trying their hardest.

They might feel deflated and negative if getting trounced but that has more to do with a weakened spirit during the game, rather than some premeditated ideology to throw a game.

Sportsmen/ ladies want to win. Winning brings money and fame.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:41 am

Nope I was working at the time bogbrush. I have posted a message already showing why it is clear the big three try at slam events. But I'll go over it again:-

Rafael Nadal - Masters Titles 19 (most in history)

Roger Federer - Masters Titles 17 (joint 2nd on all-time list)

Novak Djokovic - Masters Titles 10 (5th on all-time list)

Andy Murray - Masters Titles 8 (joint 6th on all-time list)

That list displays clearly to me that they've been trying a heck of a lot to have won those amount of titles. PLUS the WTF are now looked upon as a sort of unofficial 5th slam and to qualify for that you must do well in the Masters (another incentive to try). PLUS The Masters events do mean ranking points and any lack of effort would see their ranking slip and it just hasn't happened. Also is it fair to question the integrity of these great players? I think not.

As for why Andy has not won a slam that is purely down to the sheer excellence he has to beat to win them and coupled with the fact that he has never really produced his best or been aggressive enough come the slam finals in my opinion. Perhaps the fact that three setters are matches which he needs his aggressive game early doors helps him whereas in slams it is five sets and he plays a more tactical game in the early rounds that is nearly always good enough to get him to the semis but then to ask him to switch into aggressive mode come the semis is just not possible.

by bogbrush Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:43 am

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:
Super D Boon wrote:Dare we not say Manchester United don't try as hard in the Carling Cup as they do in the Champions League or you'd have Legendkiler saying that he'd need a written testimony signed by Sir Alex Ferguson admitting to this.

I think you will find that is not true either!

This is my reasoning.

I have no doubt that the big teams rest their best players for the premiership, however, the players who take to the field are trying as hard as they can to win. They have to try and get into the first team, and they do that by putting in a shift in these lesser games.

As for tennis players not trying, its not exactly true is it. Why would they not try - is that going to win them new sponsorship deals or prize money? If they are on the court and have entered a tournament, they are going to be trying their hardest.

They might feel deflated and negative if getting trounced but that has more to do with a weakened spirit during the game, rather than some premeditated ideology to throw a game.

Sportsmen/ ladies want to win. Winning brings money and fame.

What they have to gain is getting out an event early that they are obliged to play in but don't really want to. Of course, if they make the final this suggests they are trying and the benefit of losing in terms of fitness or energy conservation is very minimal, although even then there is a difference between the commitment some guys might bring to a Masters or 500 final, and what they may bring to a Slam. That's just about what's at stake.

by legendkillar Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:45 am

bogbrush wrote:Well tbh legendkiller that's not a reliable indicator. You may as well point to the low level of penalties for time abuse and conclude that certain players are consistently within the rules.

I'm not a fan of the "not trying" excuse but I don't think your analysis holds water there.

I did ask Craig about whether pointing to Andys success against the other top boys at masters level versus his lack of success against the same guys at Slam level was relevant but he disappeared. Probably my post constituted hatred or bashing or something so unworthy of response.

And thread editing is appalling. It's what fantasticbingting used to do all the time on 606 and I think on that point I can rest my case.

I think it is reliable because 'non effort' can be penalised which is my point.

I think someone coming out saying 'fact' is players not performing is ludicrous.

Like I stated Davydenko has been warned in the past.

I think Andy's successes have come when he has played well within himself.

It is difficult to summarise as to why he has failed to capture that elusive Slam.

When assessing the GS finals he has appeared in, US Open 2008 was his best chance.

His 2 Australian Open Finals have been where the opponent has produced that 'special' performance.

Also I think tactically Andy has been found wanting in his Finals too.

by bogbrush Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:45 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nope I was working at the time bogbrush. I have posted a message already showing why it is clear the big three try at slam events. But I'll go over it again:-

Rafael Nadal - Masters Titles 19 (most in history)

Roger Federer - Masters Titles 17 (joint 2nd on all-time list)

Novak Djokovic - Masters Titles 10 (5th on all-time list)

Andy Murray - Masters Titles 8 (joint 6th on all-time list)

That list displays clearly to me that they've been trying a heck of a lot to have won those amount of titles. PLUS the WTF are now looked upon as a sort of unofficial 5th slam and to qualify for that you must do well in the Masters (another incentive to try). PLUS The Masters events do mean ranking points and any lack of effort would see their ranking slip and it just hasn't happened. Also is it fair to question the integrity of these great players? I think not.

As for why Andy has not won a slam that is purely down to the sheer excellence he has to beat to win them and coupled with the fact that he has never really produced his best or been aggressive enough come the slam finals in my opinion. Perhaps the fact that three setters are matches which he needs his aggressive game early doors helps him whereas in slams it is five sets and he plays a more tactical game in the early rounds that is nearly always good enough to get him to the semis but then to ask him to switch into aggressive mode come the semis is just not possible.

Disagree, they can make the WTF by doing well in Slams alone.

Your last paragraph is a sensible response to the contrast of success versus the same players. Not saying I entirely agree but it's debate, which is what this is all supposed to be about.

by bogbrush Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:47 am

legendkillar wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Well tbh legendkiller that's not a reliable indicator. You may as well point to the low level of penalties for time abuse and conclude that certain players are consistently within the rules.

I'm not a fan of the "not trying" excuse but I don't think your analysis holds water there.

I did ask Craig about whether pointing to Andys success against the other top boys at masters level versus his lack of success against the same guys at Slam level was relevant but he disappeared. Probably my post constituted hatred or bashing or something so unworthy of response.

And thread editing is appalling. It's what fantasticbingting used to do all the time on 606 and I think on that point I can rest my case.

I think it is reliable because 'non effort' can be penalised which is my point.

I think someone coming out saying 'fact' is players not performing is ludicrous.

Like I stated Davydenko has been warned in the past.

I think Andy's successes have come when he has played well within himself.

It is difficult to summarise as to why he has failed to capture that elusive Slam.

When assessing the GS finals he has appeared in, US Open 2008 was his best chance.

His 2 Australian Open Finals have been where the opponent has produced that 'special' performance.

Also I think tactically Andy has been found wanting in his Finals too.

So Nadal and Djokovic are continuously playing inside the time limit? I don't believe that so I can't agree with your logic here.

Let me repeat: I don't go along with not trying arguments (except in very specific examples I can recall when the player blatently tanked). But the big boys don't throw it against each other.

by legendkillar Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:51 am

bogbrush wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Well tbh legendkiller that's not a reliable indicator. You may as well point to the low level of penalties for time abuse and conclude that certain players are consistently within the rules.

I'm not a fan of the "not trying" excuse but I don't think your analysis holds water there.

I did ask Craig about whether pointing to Andys success against the other top boys at masters level versus his lack of success against the same guys at Slam level was relevant but he disappeared. Probably my post constituted hatred or bashing or something so unworthy of response.

And thread editing is appalling. It's what fantasticbingting used to do all the time on 606 and I think on that point I can rest my case.

I think it is reliable because 'non effort' can be penalised which is my point.

I think someone coming out saying 'fact' is players not performing is ludicrous.

Like I stated Davydenko has been warned in the past.

I think Andy's successes have come when he has played well within himself.

It is difficult to summarise as to why he has failed to capture that elusive Slam.

When assessing the GS finals he has appeared in, US Open 2008 was his best chance.

His 2 Australian Open Finals have been where the opponent has produced that 'special' performance.

Also I think tactically Andy has been found wanting in his Finals too.

So Nadal and Djokovic are continuously playing inside the time limit? I don't believe that so I can't agree with your logic here.

Let me repeat: I don't go along with not trying arguments (except in very specific examples I can recall when the player blatently tanked). But the big boys don't throw it against each other.

'Non Effort and Time Limit' are separate issues, so not sure what logic you clenching at here.

Like I said, the whole trying argument is a load of cack given that no-one can point to specific examples. Yes there are differences between Slams and Masters, but saying some players don't play their best pays a dis-service to them and their oponents.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:56 am

Perhaps its less to do with not trying, than with peaking. The aim of the top players is to peak, i.e. play their best tennis, at Slams.
Of course, they can play their best tennis at Masters events as well, at times, and I'm sure they are trying as hard as they can on the day, but the focus will be to be at their very best for the GS.

by legendkillar Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:57 am

I like peeking at Slams too

by CaledonianCraig Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:59 am

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Nope I was working at the time bogbrush. I have posted a message already showing why it is clear the big three try at slam events. But I'll go over it again:-

Rafael Nadal - Masters Titles 19 (most in history)

Roger Federer - Masters Titles 17 (joint 2nd on all-time list)

Novak Djokovic - Masters Titles 10 (5th on all-time list)

Andy Murray - Masters Titles 8 (joint 6th on all-time list)

That list displays clearly to me that they've been trying a heck of a lot to have won those amount of titles. PLUS the WTF are now looked upon as a sort of unofficial 5th slam and to qualify for that you must do well in the Masters (another incentive to try). PLUS The Masters events do mean ranking points and any lack of effort would see their ranking slip and it just hasn't happened. Also is it fair to question the integrity of these great players? I think not.

As for why Andy has not won a slam that is purely down to the sheer excellence he has to beat to win them and coupled with the fact that he has never really produced his best or been aggressive enough come the slam finals in my opinion. Perhaps the fact that three setters are matches which he needs his aggressive game early doors helps him whereas in slams it is five sets and he plays a more tactical game in the early rounds that is nearly always good enough to get him to the semis but then to ask him to switch into aggressive mode come the semis is just not possible.

Disagree, they can make the WTF by doing well in Slams alone.

Your last paragraph is a sensible response to the contrast of success versus the same players. Not saying I entirely agree but it's debate, which is what this is all supposed to be about.

Yes but that doesn't explain away the ranking points they have to defend as well on a year-to-year basis. Also doesn't explain why Nadal, Federer and Djokovic and Murray are so successful at Masters Events. The SDB poster felt they weren't trying hard to win the Masters events yet the players he claims weren't trying are the most successful in Masters Series history. How pecuiliar.

by noleisthebest Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:04 am

Y I Man wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I am pretty sure I posted a comment, or rather a smiley as a comment to a comment here this morning, and now it's vanished. Why?
https://www.606v2.com/t17264-general-chat#633656

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:05 am

legendkillar wrote:I like peeking at Slams too

Ah, but do you like peeking at Beijing?

by legendkillar Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:09 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
legendkillar wrote:I like peeking at Slams too

Ah, but do you like peeking at Beijing?

Only if it is shredded

by Sponsored content