Well Done Andy

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.

legendkillar wrote:NS I have a question. When does defeat constitute effort applied? ...

I don't think they are particularly well correlated. I think it is generally accepted that the top players don't like losing. I think the 5% lower percentage wins for Djokovic, Nadal and Murray in Masters compared to a Grand Slam is just a reflection of the fact they are more likely to lose over a best of three set match than over a best of five set match. The same applies to Federer but a little more so. In addition, in a Masters you are essentially playing every day, and you also tend to encounter a larger variation in court types. In addition as JuliusHMarx mentions you can only "peak" so many times a year.

legendkillar wrote:
For me yes it is easier to defeat Federer over 3 sets like it is with Nadal too.

It's an interesting question but the answer is not as straightfoorward. I think that for now, it's easier for Murray, Nadal and Djoko to beat Federer in best of 5 than in 3 whereas it still might be harder to do so for the rest of the field.

Likewise, it is harder NOW for Djoko to beat Nadal in 3 than in 5. whereas of course it's the opposite for everybody else.

The question is between Murray and Nadal...there I think it has recently shift, or coudl shift anytime. Murray with his more economical game and improving fitness might find it easier to beat Nadal in 5 than in 3 as shown by their last result in Shanghai.

Nadal's huge success in 5 setters was down to his opponents losing their sharpness as the match went on but luckily, was rarely challenged physically over the distance. If you can last the distance without the need to execute sharp shots a la Federer but more like Murray and Djokovic, then Nadal is in big trouble as his game is actually more physically demanding.

That subject deserves a new topic...imo...

I agree in principle what you are saying Tenez. For me it is easier for say Murray, Djokovic and even Tsonga apply themselves in a 3 setter because I think their games are more intense to compact into a match with shorter time frames. Nadal is a stamina machine and is built for a marathon. Federer with his brilliance requires consistent 4 hours of someone being able to soak up his shots. Tsonga's lack of success in 3 setters has always surprised me given how well he can play in 2 sets in a 5 setter.

Federer's defeats to Tsonga and Djokovic was down to his sharpness being blunted and the other 2 stepping in for the kill.

Super D Boon wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, there's a lot of writing since I last looked and I can't completely discern the intention, but has there been some massive analysis to prove that 16 of something you get 4 goes of a year and 17 of another that you get 9 goes of are the same proportion?

Not really, someone presented a bunch of figures earlier which apparently seemed to prove that the big three try just as hard or are at their maximum in the masters the same as slams but Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have a 11%, 5% and 5% (respectively) better success rate at the slams whilst Murray interestingly also has a 5% better slam to masters ratio. To me it doesn't really prove anything. However, it would be nice to see Murray win a slam one day and despite the suspicions of two posters I'm not a football wum that wants Murray to lose because of what he said about the England football team!

How on earth does Murray get a better success rate at Slams when he hasn't won any?

Oh I know - it's counting in the easy wins against duff players isn't it? Considering this debate is supposed to be about how he does against the top boys at Masters and at Slams, that's bad analysis at best or misleading at worst.

The most useful analysis is the % wins of a Slam event over those entered against the same for Masters. This will show Federer has a drastically worse ratio at Masters while Andy has one emphatically the other way, which I think is interesting. Nadal will be closer in ratio but still Slam baised whereas Djokovic may be balanced. Any Statto out there up to doing this?

bogbrush wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, there's a lot of writing since I last looked and I can't completely discern the intention, but has there been some massive analysis to prove that 16 of something you get 4 goes of a year and 17 of another that you get 9 goes of are the same proportion?

Not really, someone presented a bunch of figures earlier which apparently seemed to prove that the big three try just as hard or are at their maximum in the masters the same as slams but Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have a 11%, 5% and 5% (respectively) better success rate at the slams whilst Murray interestingly also has a 5% better slam to masters ratio. To me it doesn't really prove anything. However, it would be nice to see Murray win a slam one day and despite the suspicions of two posters I'm not a football wum that wants Murray to lose because of what he said about the England football team!

How on earth does Murray get a better success rate at Slams when he hasn't won any?

Oh I know - it's counting in the easy wins against duff players isn't it? Considering this debate is supposed to be about how he does against the top boys at Masters and at Slams, that's bad analysis at best or misleading at worst.

The most useful analysis is the % wins of a Slam event over those entered against the same for Masters. This will show Federer has a drastically worse ratio at Masters while Andy has one emphatically the other way, which I think is interesting. Nadal will be closer in ratio but still Slam baised whereas Djokovic may be balanced. Any Statto out there up to doing this?

Err actually no. This thread was to be to congratulate Andy Murray but it got hijacked and went off-topic. I wonder why?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Do you mean "....of expression"? including SDB's?

Tenez wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Do you mean "....of expression"? including SDB's?

I hope so. or are you making a bid for MFC?

PS Being really thick probably, but what are SDBs? is the B for Basher? Can't figure out the rest

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, there's a lot of writing since I last looked and I can't completely discern the intention, but has there been some massive analysis to prove that 16 of something you get 4 goes of a year and 17 of another that you get 9 goes of are the same proportion?

Not really, someone presented a bunch of figures earlier which apparently seemed to prove that the big three try just as hard or are at their maximum in the masters the same as slams but Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have a 11%, 5% and 5% (respectively) better success rate at the slams whilst Murray interestingly also has a 5% better slam to masters ratio. To me it doesn't really prove anything. However, it would be nice to see Murray win a slam one day and despite the suspicions of two posters I'm not a football wum that wants Murray to lose because of what he said about the England football team!

How on earth does Murray get a better success rate at Slams when he hasn't won any?

Oh I know - it's counting in the easy wins against duff players isn't it? Considering this debate is supposed to be about how he does against the top boys at Masters and at Slams, that's bad analysis at best or misleading at worst.

The most useful analysis is the % wins of a Slam event over those entered against the same for Masters. This will show Federer has a drastically worse ratio at Masters while Andy has one emphatically the other way, which I think is interesting. Nadal will be closer in ratio but still Slam baised whereas Djokovic may be balanced. Any Statto out there up to doing this?

Err actually no. This thread was to be to congratulate Andy Murray but it got hijacked and went off-topic. I wonder why?

I didn't say thread, I said debate,

I assumed you'd written your letter to Andy congratulating him and we could get on with a discussion.

A debate on a topic that wasn't intended for it. Take your debates elsewhere on to another thread if you wish and leave this one to people wishing to congratulate Andy Murray for his recent domination in the Far East and becoming world No.3. I mean come on bogbrush there is no harm in a thread purely to congratulate a player is there not or does every positive Andy Murray thread here have to be sabotaged and turned into a negative topic?

Not aimed specifically at you bogbrush. Just that this is a big, big forum and where there are countless threads dedicated to gushing praise of Federer that weren't hijacked why should this one be?

bogbrush wrote:The most useful analysis is the % wins of a Slam event over those entered against the same for Masters. This will show Federer has a drastically worse ratio at Masters while Andy has one emphatically the other way, which I think is interesting. Nadal will be closer in ratio but still Slam baised whereas Djokovic may be balanced. Any Statto out there up to doing this?

Remember Masters and Slams are mandatory. The 16, 10, 4 and 0 numbers already show that without any statistical analysis.

If you want a ratio of slams entered to matches won in the slams vs. masters entered to matches won in masters, that I can do.

His 3 wins are indeed a great achievment and it will no doubt be a psychological boost winning titles regardless of their significance. He even came back from a bit of adversity in the Tokyo final against Nadal to finish in style. Maybe this is the kind of lift say federer wishes he had at the moment. Ultimately though he's just proving to himself what he should already know.

My final word on this whole trying/not trying madness is that basically as professionals they always (almost) give everything they have on the day but how good they ware on the day mostly comes back to this idea of peaking at different times. They don't all hit their peaks for the same masters, that's not so much down to not caring as it is to not being possible. For example Murray wasn't in peak form when beaten in those masters after the Australian open. Also turning it around I don't think Murray was anywhere near his best most of the times he was beaten by the other 3 slams or otherwise and many times he was the result could and should have been different similar to fed djoko us open this year but no one really holds that against fed so why should it be different for Murray.
One could say the only reason the other 3 can even beat Murray is because he's not playing to his potential/ not trying

What IS IT about Andy that gets everyone so vocal ?



He is the BEST player that Britain has had in the past 70 years!

Think about it!



Stuff the foreign lot - we have Andy. I'm sure that Spain,

Serbia and Switzerland pay more homage to their players.



But. OF COURSE, Andy is only one man - It makes we want to vomit!

yummymummy wrote:What IS IT about Andy that gets everyone so vocal ?



He is the BEST player that Britain has had in the past 70 years!

Think about it!



Stuff the foreign lot - we have Andy. I'm sure that Spain,

Serbia and Switzerland pay more homage to their players.



But. OF COURSE, Andy is only one man - It makes we want to vomit!

So now you don't want us talking about him?

yummymummy wrote: stuff the foreign lot

Well, there's a solution

Break_in_the_fifth

I think most here agree about the peaking side of things and the players that win the titles are those that peak at the right time. That is the same for ALL players so the number of titles (whatever the level) the players have won is relevant. Therefore that list of Masters titles of Nadal (19), Federer (17), Djokovic (10) and Murray (8) does put Andy amongst the big boys. He deserves credit for that when you consider where Federer and Nadal stand in the tennis all-time greats standings and Djokovic may force himself into that group as well in the next few years.

All interesting enough for a seperate topic as it is veering away from the original subject matter.

DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ NY POST PROPERLY *BReak in the

fifth* ?

I read it but I had some trouble understanding, sorry.

All I was saying *break* was that Andy is a superb tennis player

who unfortunately made an ill advised *joke* comment to Tiger

Tim years ago for which the*footy* fraternity have never

forgiven him

CaledonianCraig wrote:Spot on Mad For Chelsea.

And also it seems that threads discussing Andy Murray (and largely he alone) brings Super D Boon out with his dissing. A 'rubbish excuse for a sportsman' does not sound at all like someone who wants Murray to win a slam at all - quite the opposite actually.

As for having a right to comment on Murray's conduct you have as long as it is not fabricated nonsense. As for only wanting lovely things said about Andy - well on this thread perhaps as that was the general intention of it for a player to have won a hat-trick of back-to-back titles (a pretty rare accomplishment) yet for all you say you want Murray to do well you hijack the thread and (despite the thread's topic) choose to discredit Andy Murray and Murray alone. I didn't see you devalue Nadal, Djokovic or Federer's masters titles wins in any way you specifically rounded on Murray's achievements. Not fair don't you think?

As for the first paragraph well yes I was appalled! To think that Murray , a multi millionaire sportsman is thinking or taking industrial action when we have hundreds of thousands unemployed, no hope of a bright future for some of these poor kids coming out of university with massive debt and people whose pensions are being eroded by a government hell bent on trying to recover the debt from innocent workers who are blameless for the economic mess we find ourselves in. Then yes, I feel Murray was a rubbish excuse for a sportsman on that occassion. I suppose his tight schedule is as big a cause for strike action, the same as some poor sap who's job and livelihood is under threat?! The timing of it could not have been worse! Anyway, as we are talking FACTS (legendkiller territory!), there is nothing in the above statement that proves that I hate Murray and nothing in that statement that says I don't want him to win a slam.

As for the next paragraph that is just defensive nonsense. I said he seems to win these smaller tournaments when the bigger players are either off their peak or not as focussed, an interpretation based on evidence. You can dispute my interpretation all you like and you are entitled to do so as I am equally entitled to have my opinion.

Last time I checked this was a forum for sports debate? If we all agreed it would be awfully boring wouldn't it?

Super D Boon wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Spot on Mad For Chelsea.

And also it seems that threads discussing Andy Murray (and largely he alone) brings Super D Boon out with his dissing. A 'rubbish excuse for a sportsman' does not sound at all like someone who wants Murray to win a slam at all - quite the opposite actually.

As for having a right to comment on Murray's conduct you have as long as it is not fabricated nonsense. As for only wanting lovely things said about Andy - well on this thread perhaps as that was the general intention of it for a player to have won a hat-trick of back-to-back titles (a pretty rare accomplishment) yet for all you say you want Murray to do well you hijack the thread and (despite the thread's topic) choose to discredit Andy Murray and Murray alone. I didn't see you devalue Nadal, Djokovic or Federer's masters titles wins in any way you specifically rounded on Murray's achievements. Not fair don't you think?

As for the first paragraph well yes I was appalled! To think that Murray , a multi millionaire sportsman is thinking or taking industrial action when we have hundreds of thousands unemployed, no hope of a bright future for some of these poor kids coming out of university with massive debt and people whose pensions are being eroded by a government hell bent on trying to recover the debt from innocent workers who are blameless for the economic mess we find ourselves in. Then yes, I feel Murray was a rubbish excuse for a sportsman on that occassion. I suppose his tight schedule is as big a cause for strike action, the same as some poor sap who's job and livelihood is under threat?! The timing of it could not have been worse! Anyway, as we are talking FACTS (legendkiller territory!), there is nothing in the above statement that proves that I hate Murray and nothing in that statement that says I don't want him to win a slam.

As for the next paragraph that is just defensive nonsense. I said he seems to win these smaller tournaments when the bigger players are either off their peak or not as focussed, an interpretation based on evidence. You can dispute my interpretation all you like and you are entitled to do so as I am equally entitled to have my opinion.

Last time I checked this was a forum for sports debate? If we all agreed it would be awfully boring wouldn't it?

So by that logic does that make student protesters and the 99% protesters (who in both cases were active in education and employment) how should I put it 'Rubbish Excuses for People'?

Why don't you just give up Super Boon and admit that you

have no other Agenda apart from dissing Murray. You're*arguments*

hold no water and you are just exposing yourself as a biased

individual ! Poor You !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Super D Boon wrote:If we all agreed it would be awfully boring wouldn't it?

I agree. Er, no, hang on....

So by that logic does that make student protesters and the 99% protesters (who in both cases were active in education and employment) how should I put it 'Rubbish Excuses for People'?

--------

Nope, people who's livelihoods are at stake use industrial action as a last resort. They don't want their pension contributions to rise, their pay freezed for years while the cost of living keeps rising and rising and they actually want to keep a job to put food on the table,....funny that!

How on earth does that compare to a multi-millionaire who plays in a heavy style (his own fault) gets paid enormous amounts of money for tournament winnings, sponsorship deals, even doesn't have to hit a ball and gets £100000s in appearnace money be the same thing?! The fact I even have to explain that means debating with you is pointless. Some people are clearly not that bright I guess.

Anyway yummymummy. Why don't you just admit you are a hopeless Murray obsessive who scrams people's eyes out everytime they say something a little unkind about Murray? And don't say you don't because I remember you on the old 606 and you were always the first to stick up for Murray and rip into the football lot!

I hope no-one insults my member

JuliusHMarx wrote:I hope no-one insults my member

You're not about to tell the story of the masseur and the tennis raquet again are you JHM?

SDB - that issue was debated ages ago and it has been firmly established that Murray was not advocating industrial action but merely admitting, in response to a direct question, that it may come to that at some point but definitely not imminently.

time please wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I hope no-one insults my member

You're not about to tell the story of the masseur and the tennis raquet again are you JHM?

The comment made me laugh out loud - not sure I want to hear the story though

time please wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I hope no-one insults my member

You're not about to tell the story of the masseur and the tennis raquet again are you JHM?

Nah, it's all those junk e-mails I reply to - turns out the effect is cumulative. I've added about 450 inches!!

SDB,

Your negative thoughts on Murray are noted and quite frankly are pretty pathetic really. In your eyes you feel Murray has won eight Masters titles purely because the other main contenders Federer, Nadal and Djokovic don't try as hard in these events so I presume you are saying Andy bursts a gut to win Masters events whilst the others don't try as hard. Pretty pathetic really.

The other more general opinion held by a fair few on here is that the top players DO try at all of these events but depending on who peaks at the highest level ends up winning them. That being the case the wins remain relevent ie Nadal won 19 when he peaked, Federer won 17 when he peakes, Djokovic has won 10 when he peaked and Murray has won 8 when he has peaked. Not a bad total at all and equal 6th in the all-time list of most successful at Masters level and he hasn't finished yet. Now you can harp back to your slam thing again but at the end of the day remember who Andy has standing in his way:- Roger Federer (seen by many as GOAT), Rafael Nadal (tipped by some to surpass Fed's slam titles haul and one of the best players of all-time) and Novak Djokovic (virtually unbeatable this year and could conceivably end up winning 10+ slams). In this era Andy has a tremendous consistency now in slams and even though he hasn't won one he can boast a slam record that is better than many slam winners in terms of slam semi and final appearances he has made. You may/may not like it but Andy is one of the very best players in the world at the moment and has been for the last two or three years. A fact to be proud of in itself and his career isn't over yet.

Super D Boon wrote:So by that logic does that make student protesters and the 99% protesters (who in both cases were active in education and employment) how should I put it 'Rubbish Excuses for People'?

--------

Nope, people who's livelihoods are at stake use industrial action as a last resort. They don't want their pension contributions to rise, their pay freezed for years while the cost of living keeps rising and rising and they actually want to keep a job to put food on the table,....funny that!

How on earth does that compare to a multi-millionaire who plays in a heavy style (his own fault) gets paid enormous amounts of money for tournament winnings, sponsorship deals, even doesn't have to hit a ball and gets £100000s in appearnace money be the same thing?! The fact I even have to explain that means debating with you is pointless. Some people are clearly not that bright I guess.

Anyway yummymummy. Why don't you just admit you are a hopeless Murray obsessive who scrams people's eyes out everytime they say something a little unkind about Murray? And don't say you don't because I remember you on the old 606 and you were always the first to stick up for Murray and rip into the football lot!

Considering that tennis is a livelyhood for so many players. Talking of bright, I am sure you don't fall into that category. You are talking of people who worked hard from ages 5-upwards to get where they are. Andy Murray 'The Rubbish Excuse' was playing tournaments when he was 8 years old. I wonder what you were doing when you were 8? Potty training perhaps? Murray like other players had to sacrifice to get where they are. A 14 year old living in Barcelona on his own for 2 years away from his family. What were you doing at 14? Beating one off to the Spice Girls?

So don't bad mouth athletes such as Murray that have worked relentlessly hard to get where they are. I can't begin to imagine the sacrifice players have made.

So again because Murray earns lots of money means that it is not a livelyhood?

This was a guy who was offering Junior players to practice with him in the close season and guess what they turned him down and then vanished off the radar and lost LTA funding. Now where are they?

So don't come here and trying to state differences between the working person and a professional athlete. I would love to see you put a quarter of the effort in that they put in.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

time please wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I hope no-one insults my member

You're not about to tell the story of the masseur and the tennis raquet again are you JHM?

Nah, it's all those junk e-mails I reply to - turns out the effect is cumulative. I've added about 450 inches!!

I'm happy for you

No carrie - I don't think any of us need to hear the story - def too much information

time please wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

time please wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I hope no-one insults my member

You're not about to tell the story of the masseur and the tennis raquet again are you JHM?

Nah, it's all those junk e-mails I reply to - turns out the effect is cumulative. I've added about 450 inches!!

I'm happy for you

No carrie - I don't think any of us need to hear the story - def too much information

Agreed

Back to the original thread - AM on court at Basel tomorrow, here's hoping he can carry on the momentum

Junior players turned down the chance to practice with him? That's crazy! I guess he really is britain's last hope.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Junior players turned down the chance to practice with him? That's crazy! I guess he really is britain's last hope.

They did. I read a piece back in 2008 and he offered some juniors the opportunity to train with him in December out in Miami, open invite and they declined and some didn't even respond!! That for me in a nutshell was the bad state of the juniors and that was at the height of when some juniors were caught out partying and non-attending matches and even daily training sessions. It is amazing really how it has been turned around now that there are some promising juniors on the British side with Golding/Broady/Morgan and Robson/Watson, but yes I was staggered to see the response Andy had got from that open invite.

Poor guy (Murray), people can be so hard to help.

It is those type of things that go un-noticed. I am sure other players have done the same thing. Murray was trying to use what he had learnt from Spain. Their players ranked outside the top 100 help out with the developing of juniors by having regular hitting sessions with them. It showed the lacking of structure in the LTA at the time. Not so sure of how it is being structured at the moment. Sums up why we can't produce 3-4 top male players at the same time.

Andy M appears to have pulled out of Basel with Haase now playing a Swiss lucky loser.

More on this story..."Andy Murray has pulled out of the ATP Swiss Indoor after straining his right gluteal muscle shortly before his scheduled first round match with Robin Haase.

The British number one, who had requested a wildcard into the event featuring rivals Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer, was vying for a fourth successive title after a triumphant tour of Asia.

The world number three has been replaced in the draw by local player Marco Chiudinelli.

Hmmm. Maybe no bad idea, avoiding a morale-sapping seismic shock in the semi-final.

bogbrush wrote:Hmmm. Maybe no bad idea, avoiding a morale-sapping seismic shock in the semi-final.

Wum!

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Hmmm. Maybe no bad idea, avoiding a morale-sapping seismic shock in the semi-final.

Wum!

Was it. Wouldn't have guessed. No problem with a bit of humour or is it fantasy.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Hmmm. Maybe no bad idea, avoiding a morale-sapping seismic shock in the semi-final.

Wum!

Moi?

legendkillar wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Junior players turned down the chance to practice with him? That's crazy! I guess he really is britain's last hope.

They did. I read a piece back in 2008 and he offered some juniors the opportunity to train with him in December out in Miami, open invite and they declined and some didn't even respond!! That for me in a nutshell was the bad state of the juniors and that was at the height of when some juniors were caught out partying and non-attending matches and even daily training sessions. It is amazing really how it has been turned around now that there are some promising juniors on the British side with Golding/Broady/Morgan and Robson/Watson, but yes I was staggered to see the response Andy had got from that open invite.

It depends whether they had the money to go over there, money for accommodation etc, and no prior commitments (school, college etc). At the end of the season there is also time needed for recuperation and rest etc. I am sure there is more to the story than a simple decline/ignoring of the opportunity, but I could be wrong.

sirfredperry wrote:More on this story..."Andy Murray has pulled out of the ATP Swiss Indoor after straining his right gluteal muscle shortly before his scheduled first round match with Robin Haase.

The British number one, who had requested a wildcard into the event featuring rivals Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer, was vying for a fourth successive title after a triumphant tour of Asia.

The world number three has been replaced in the draw by local player Marco Chiudinelli.

In the past there has been concerns regarding the time Andy takes to acclimatise to the conditions etc. Straining a muscle in the warm-up is something amateurs do ... but maybe Andy was carrying the injury from his previous tournaments (quite an intense few weeks he has had) and he just didn't recover fully in time.