US Open Qualifiers and Draw

First topic message reminder :

Qualifying rounds taking place today and the following 3 days in New York. Vicky Duval won her first match on her return from treatment for cancer, and 16 year old CiCi Bellis beat 44 year old Kimiko Date Krumm.

The main draws are on Thursday. Seeding for the men follows the rankings as no withdrawals so:
1 Djokovic, Novak SRB
2 Federer, Roger SUI
3 Murray, Andy GBR
4 Nishikori, Kei JPN
------
5 Wawrinka, Stan SUI
6 Berdych, Tomas CZE
7 Ferrer, David ESP
8 Nadal, Rafael ESP
------
9 Cilic, Marin CRO
10 Raonic, Milos CAN
11 Simon, Gilles FRA
12 Gasquet, Richard FRA

13 Isner, John USA
14 Goffin, David BEL
15 Anderson, Kevin RSA
16 Monfils, Gael FRA
------
17 Dimitrov, Grigor BUL
18 Lopez, Feliciano ESP
19 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried FRA
20 Thiem, Dominic AUT
21 Karlovic, Ivo CRO
22 Troicki, Viktor SRB
23 Bautista Agut, Roberto ESP
24 Tomic, Bernard AUS

25 Seppi, Andreas ITA
26 Robredo, Tommy ESP
27 Chardy, Jeremy FRA
28 Sock, Jack USA
29 Kohlschreiber, Philipp GER
30 Bellucci, Thomaz BRA
31 Garcia-Lopez, Guillermo ESP
32 Fognini, Fabio ITA

Top 4 draw 25-32 in R3, 13-16 in R4, 5-8  in QF. What draw would you like to see or like to avoid for any of the top contenders?

Easiest route for any of 1-4 looks like R3 Belluci, R4 Goffin, QF Ferrer
Toughest maybe R3 Chardy, R4 Monfils, QF Wawrinka

Lurking unseeded are Dolgopolov, Kyrgios along with big servers such as Muller, Querrey, Groth. Any others to avoid?

Would agree with most that. The thing about Stan at present is that he seems to be targeting the slams rather than the Masters events. Andy was doing the same for a bit. Therefore if they meet Andy has got to be more aggressive to try negate Stan's power.

banbrotam wrote:


As usual to me Murray's bad days are picked over way too much in comparison his good ones. He and Novak come into Cincy severely jiggered, but still they both (well Murray) get judged on that performance rather than Montreal. Murray certainly didn't look "undercooked" when sending Nishikori back to injury prone mode - which got about two complements recently. So he beats the player with the most hard court wins this year, but isn't quite on form

I also wish that people could see the Wimby defeat for what it was. The best ever player in hot fast conditions getting those, to such a degree that Roger would probably agree to earning not another penny if he could move those Friday court speeds to every event he enters, beating one his rivals by three tight sets.

Sorry. But I don't get the big deal. Roger is simply unplayable if he's on it and the conditions are fast or his opponent doesn't play at their best

I really don't understand what you can find "strange and disappointing" about a player who was in danger of tumbling down the rankings after serious surgery, just a year ago - but now finds himself with a realistic chance of getting to No.2

It's noticeable that you choose Wimby this year and the Aus Open of 2010 - but strangely omit his big wins against Roger, i.e. Canada 2010, Olympics 2012 or Aus 13'.

I'm saying it's disappointing that Murray never has (and lets face it, never will) consistently employed a game plan which takes advantage of his skills and variety, i.e. making his DTL backhand a feared weapon, volleying more, killing opponents with his dropshots.

It's never happened on a consistent basis. Murray should not be a boring player to watch but unfortunately most of the time he is, because his favoured game style is retrieval. That's really hurt him when he's played in big matches against the top players. Say what you like about Fed's performance, Murray clearly thought he could beat Rog by playing it safe and grinding it out. I think Murray could have won 3 more slams if not more if he had embraced a higher risk game.

That's a good post goblin; there's no point criticising Murray for being too passive in this or that match when that's actually his game plan. It's not an aberration.

Its a little horses for courses. Not everyone has just one game plan they can use that will beat anyone as long as they do it well enough.
Murray is a counterpuncher, its an active effort to play like an aggressive baseliner, implementing different styles for different guys is probably what he does best, and should keep doing so, I expect a lot of balls in court for Nicky.

bogbrush wrote:That's a good post goblin; there's no point criticising Murray for being too passive in this or that match when that's actually his game plan. It's not an aberration.

Not entirely it isn't. He has employed more aggressive gameplan as in painting the base and tramlines with his groundstrokes and that gameplan wasn't there at Wimbledon in the semi and he lost. Novak employed far more aggressive gameplan in the final V Federer and he won because of it. Granted it is not seen often but he does have it there and we saw it used to good effect in Montreal.

Think GG has it spot on.

Murray has the tools and ability to adopt a high risk game, but chooses not to. Eventually you will get caught out.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Think GG has it spot on.

Murray has the tools and ability to adopt a high risk game, but chooses not to. Eventually you will get caught out.

He is what he is. You could not change Frank Sinatra into a punk rock singer or turn Sid Vicious into a folk singer just like you cannot transform Murray into something he is not. Aggression comes out in his play but not enough and he has paid for that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Think GG has it spot on.

Murray has the tools and ability to adopt a high risk game, but chooses not to. Eventually you will get caught out.

He is what he is. You could not change Frank Sinatra into a punk rock singer or turn Sid Vicious into a folk singer just like you cannot transform Murray into something he is not. Aggression comes out in his play but not enough and he has paid for that.

Did Sinatra have the ability to be a punk singer?

I think not.

We talking about someone not using the full extent of ones ability. A better comparison CC would be Buttler in the cricket scene where in the test arena he isn't been playing the way he can.

Exactly, this is a choice. He could easily play a more attacking, more varied game. We identified him last week as a guy who could have a go at emulating Federers half-volley returns.

Easily? When one has been brought up to play a certain style of tennis for say 15 years changing totally your gamestyle is certainly not easy. Murray's problem is that his tactics have been so successful against every player barring the very best that he has stuck with it perhaps believing it is the only way to go for him. It is also in his psyche to be a counter-puncher. Leopards and spots is what I say. Look at others as well who have stuck to their own style such as Ferrer....it happens.

This quite probably has stopped him from winning more slams but c'est la vie. Ask him when he started out that he would end up winning what he has and he certainly would have taken it.

If you believe that then it's no good saying he's too passive in this or that match. I don't say Federer needed to play double-handed backhands at crucial times.

He wasn't designed to play ultra defensive CC. That is a style he adopted as he felt that's where the better chance of success lay. This Murray isn't the same guy who broke on the scene. 

What you say CC completely devalues him as a player.

bogbrush wrote:If you believe that then it's no good saying he's too passive in this or that match. I don't say Federer needed to play double-handed backhands at crucial times.

I did say he can play aggressive stuff for spells as was seen at Montral but his default style is as a counter-puncher. Sadly, that aggressive side gets suppressed too often for my liking.

legendkillarV2 wrote:He wasn't designed to play ultra defensive CC. That is a style he adopted as he felt that's where the better chance of success lay. This Murray isn't the same guy who broke on the scene. 

What you say CC completely devalues him as a player.

He learnt his trade generally on clay courts in Spain which is a surface that lends itself more to counter-punch tennis. True he has flirted with aggressive stuff but evidently goes back to default counter-puncher. It is what he perhaps feels most comfortable playing. I don't think it devalues him as a player though I'd prefer more aggression.

Hmm.

I wouldn't be too quick to say that Murray would have had more slams had he gone down a more attacking aggressive route. It's very possible he wouldn't have won the slams or reached the slam finals if he had done that.

He gave an interview I think in Miami where he talked about "errors to be had" from his opponent. His mindset sees an error as a waste.  He attacks at his best when he's FORCED to against the best.  Then there's ni doubt about what to do. It's the problem he needs to solve against the Swiss. He thinks he can put balls in play and make it hard, but he needs the Olympic final mindset, to just look and blast him off court and put some pressure on the net play. 

Sinatra could have sung anything, but would never have felt comfortable, he would be wasting a perfect swing voice. Same for muzz

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:He wasn't designed to play ultra defensive CC. That is a style he adopted as he felt that's where the better chance of success lay. This Murray isn't the same guy who broke on the scene. 

What you say CC completely devalues him as a player.

He learnt his trade generally on clay courts in Spain which  is a surface that lends itself more to counter-punch tennis. True he has flirted with aggressive stuff but evidently goes back to default counter-puncher. It is what he perhaps feels most comfortable playing. I don't think it devalues him as a player though I'd prefer more aggression.

I wouldn't say clay lends itself to counter punching, if anything encourages the mastering of rallying which is so crucial nowadays. Just look when he played the DC against Israel (IIRC). He was swinging for everything which was the exuberance of youth. However, it was something in time that could've been refined. 

You're implying his mindset and approach is limited and that in turn for me does an injustice to him.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Murray's problem is that his tactics have been so successful against every player barring the very best that he has stuck with it perhaps believing it is the only way to go for him.

This quite probably has stopped him from winning more slams but c'est la vie. Ask him when he started out that he would end up winning what he has and he certainly would have taken it.

Agree with this

temporary21 wrote:He gave an interview I think in Miami where he talked about "errors to be had" from his opponent. His mindset sees an error as a waste.  He attacks at his best when he's FORCED to against the best.  Then there's ni doubt about what to do. It's the problem he needs to solve against the Swiss. He thinks he can put balls in play and make it hard, but he needs the Olympic final mindset, to just look and blast him off court and put some pressure on the net play. 

Sinatra could have sung anything, but would never have felt comfortable, he would be wasting a perfect swing voice. Same for muzz

I will tell you now Sinatra would not be able to sing anything to the same effect. Sinatra/Punk. Think about that.

Now think the most ludicrous attempt at straying into virgin territory in the singing world. Think Robbie Williams. Had success at ballads, dabbled in some modern pop, did a crooning album and to some extent enjoyed success with it. Then Rudebox happened. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone that has success in all genre of singing. 

Singing and sport is hard paradox to create.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:He wasn't designed to play ultra defensive CC. That is a style he adopted as he felt that's where the better chance of success lay. This Murray isn't the same guy who broke on the scene. 

What you say CC completely devalues him as a player.

He learnt his trade generally on clay courts in Spain which  is a surface that lends itself more to counter-punch tennis. True he has flirted with aggressive stuff but evidently goes back to default counter-puncher. It is what he perhaps feels most comfortable playing. I don't think it devalues him as a player though I'd prefer more aggression.

You're implying his mindset and approach is limited and that in turn for me does an injustice to him.

No I am saying he plays to a style he feels most comfortable with and feels suits him best - counter-punching. He can do aggressive and rolls it out from time to time but just not enough for most people's likings. He has achieved a heck of a lot in the sport playing his way and would probably feel he is vindicated playing the way he does. He is a stubborn sod as well and once he is set in his ways he is not one for being moved. It can hinder him as in he'll stick with counter-punching instead of getting aggressive like he should but also the stubborn side helps him in times when he has his back-to-the-wall and that stubborn streak tells him he can still win and often he has from precarious positions.

So I repeat, it shouldn't be a factor in assessing a defeat to complain that he was too passive.

I think if Murray had tried to play more aggressively (with a similar attacking approach to players such as pre-Edberg, Berdych, Tsonga) he would not have won any slams.
Also I think if we analyse Murray's faults in his defeats, I'd guess it's around 50% of matches that he has been too passive, and 50% of the time because he he's not had enough consistency and crucial errors.

Murray's biggest victory was his Wimbledon final in 2013.
If you watch that again, you can observe it's Djokovic who's trying to play really aggressively and also brought in kamikaze net approaches. It's Murray who is patient, solid, and waiting for the right moments to attack.

Another example people should think back to is Djokovic. He was probably more aggressive between 2007-2010, certainly used to go for more high risk flashy shots. But from 2011 to 2015, in his best years, he actually began to prioritise control and sensational consistency; moving his opponent around with medium risk shots without ever having to go for broke.

I don't object to Murray playing his way, it's probably won him stuff, but a really good attacker will generally beat the guy who cedes the initiative.

If they meet in the semi Andy won't change, and the match will consequently be on Federers racquet. He plays well, he wins, he doesn't, he loses. Murrays form will only affect how clearerly the score goes either way, but not the result.

Another slam coming up, time for some slam stats.  I look at the dominance of the "Big 4" in terms of them losing to anyone else.  2011 is the year when Nole and Andy joined Rafa and (declining) Roger in terms of consistency at the top.  In the table below, I list all of their slam losses since then, highlighting in yellow those to players outside top 4:

		Federer	Nadal	Djokovic	Murray
2011	AO	Djokovic	Ferrer	title	Djokovic
	RG	Nadal	title	Federer	Nadal
	W	Tsonga	Djokovic	title	Nadal
	USO	Djokovic	Djokovic	title	Nadal
2012	AO	Nadal	Djokovic	title	Djokovic
	RG	Djokovic	title	Nadal	Ferrer
	W	title	Rosol	Federer	Federer
	USO	Berdych	na	Murray	title
2013	AO	Murray	na	title	Djokovic
	RG	Tsonga	title	Nadal	na
	W	Stakhovsky	Darcis	Murray	title
	USO	Robredo	title	Nadal	Wawrinka
2014	AO	Nadal	Wawrinka	Wawrinka	Federer
	RG	Gulbis	title	Nadal	Nadal
	W	Djokovic	Kyrgios	title	Dimitrov
	USO	Cilic	na	Nishikori	Djokovic
2015	AO	Seppi	Berdych	title	Djokovic
	RG	Wawrinka	Djokovic	Wawrinka	Djokovic
	W	Djokovic	Brown	title	Federer
	USO
	titles	1	5	8	2
	losses outside Big 4	9	7	3	3

A couple of observations:  Nole and Andy have been most consistent in this metric - over the last 19 slams, each of them only lost three times to players outside Big 4.  Roger and Rafa lost 9 and 7 times respectively, with both of them getting worse with advancing age.  In terms of all losses for the big four - counts are:

2011 - 2 losses to outside big 4
2012 - 3 losses
2013 - 5 losses
2014 - 7 losses
2015 - 5 losses (so far)

So their overall dominance seems to be on the wane somewhat.  Mostly on account of Roger and Rafa, but also Nole has been losing more than in the 2011-2013 stretch.

So hopefully we are starting to see glimmers of the light at the end of the tunnel and these losses will become more and more frequent.

In terms of the guys who were able to beat the "Big 4" in the 2011-now period, only 4 players did it more than once:

Stan - 5 times
Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga - twice each.

So Stan is the clear standaout obviously.  In fact, his slam record over this period against the big 4 is quite respectable: 5W-8L:

vs Federer: 1-3
vs Rafa: 1-1
vs Nole: 2-4
vs Andy: 1-0

It is even more respectable starting from 2013 (i.e. the year when he first showed intent with his AO 5-setter against Nole):

2013-now, he is positive 5W-4L against the group.

He is really the only guy who, when firing on all cylinders, can consistently hold his own against them.  His main problem is much lesser consistency against the rest of the field.

[quote="It Must Be Love"]Murray's biggest victory was his Wimbledon final in 2013.
If you watch that again, you can observe it's Djokovic who's trying to play really aggressively and also brought in kamikaze net approaches. It's Murray who is patient, solid, and waiting for the right moments to attack.

Another example people should think back to is Djokovic. He was probably more aggressive between 2007-2010, certainly used to go for more high risk flashy shots. But from 2011 to 2015, in his best years, he actually began to prioritise control and sensational consistency; moving his opponent around with medium risk shots without ever having to go for broke. [/quote]

Please don't ask anyone to watch that match again! That should be used for punishment purposes only. For all it's historic importance, it was a terrible advertisement for tennis as entertainment.

Djokovic did used to be an aggressive player and he won a grand slam off the back of it in 08. From that point until the us open 2010, he had serve issues, retiring all the time etc.

He was also aggressive in 2011 and he didn't do too badly then. It is actually Novak's passivity that has cost him quite a few slams.

It Must Be Love wrote:Murray's biggest victory was his Wimbledon final in 2013.
If you watch that again, you can observe it's Djokovic who's trying to play really aggressively and also brought in kamikaze net approaches. It's Murray who is patient, solid, and waiting for the right moments to attack.

Another example people should think back to is Djokovic. He was probably more aggressive between 2007-2010, certainly used to go for more high risk flashy shots. But from 2011 to 2015, in his best years, he actually began to prioritise control and sensational consistency; moving his opponent around with medium risk shots without ever having to go for broke.

Please don't ask anyone to watch that match again! That should be used for punishment purposes only. For all it's historic importance, it was a terrible advertisement for tennis as entertainment.

Djokovic did used to be an aggressive player and he won a grand slam off the back of it in 08. From that point until the us open 2010, he had serve issues, retiring all the time etc.

He was also aggressive in 2011 and he didn't do too badly then. It is actually Novak's passivity that has cost him  quite a few slams.[/quote]

greengoblin wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Murray's biggest victory was his Wimbledon final in 2013.
If you watch that again, you can observe it's Djokovic who's trying to play really aggressively and also brought in kamikaze net approaches. It's Murray who is patient, solid, and waiting for the right moments to attack.

Another example people should think back to is Djokovic. He was probably more aggressive between 2007-2010, certainly used to go for more high risk flashy shots. But from 2011 to 2015, in his best years, he actually began to prioritise control and sensational consistency; moving his opponent around with medium risk shots without ever having to go for broke.

Please don't ask anyone to watch that match again!

Oh I could watch that match over and over again thanks. Fedal match though - no thanks. You see it is all about opinion.

I think he has a point CC. The match wasn't the highest quality. Again though like you I would certainly watch it again for historical value alone.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think he has a point CC. The match wasn't the highest quality. Again though like you I would certainly watch it again for historical value alone.

No he doesn't have a point. Do you know why? Use of the phrase: 'Don't ask anyone to watch that match again.' Sorry but that is just wrong as it is taking it upon himself to speak for everyone on this planet as to what they want to watch. Very odd as if you go around tennis pundits around the globe (incognito if you so wish so they are not inclined to give British bias as is always levied that any pro-Murray stuff is by people only with British bias) you will not hear many levying greengoblin's opinion about that match.

CC he wasn't attempting to speak for the forum. It was a play on words to give his opinion some weight. Nothing harmful in that

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC he wasn't attempting to speak for the forum. It was a play on words to give his opinion some weight. Nothing harmful in that

Yes so all needs be done is for him to add three simple words and erase the word anyone. Then it will be more accurate.

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC he wasn't attempting to speak for the forum. It was a play on words to give his opinion some weight. Nothing harmful in that

Than you LK. If everyone's speech was completely literal I think the world would be a dull place indeed.

greengoblin wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Murray's biggest victory was his Wimbledon final in 2013.
If you watch that again, you can observe it's Djokovic who's trying to play really aggressively and also brought in kamikaze net approaches. It's Murray who is patient, solid, and waiting for the right moments to attack.

Another example people should think back to is Djokovic. He was probably more aggressive between 2007-2010, certainly used to go for more high risk flashy shots. But from 2011 to 2015, in his best years, he actually began to prioritise control and sensational consistency; moving his opponent around with medium risk shots without ever having to go for broke.

Please don't ask anyone to watch that match again! That should be used for punishment purposes only. For all it's historic importance, it was a terrible advertisement for tennis as entertainment.

Djokovic did used to be an aggressive player and he won a grand slam off the back of it in 08. From that point until the us open 2010, he had serve issues, retiring all the time etc.

He was also aggressive in 2011 and he didn't do too badly then. It is actually Novak's passivity that has cost him  quite a few slams.

There are some matches Djokovic has lost because he was too inconsistent and perhaps going for too much (making crucial errors), and some matches he has lost because he was too passive. But in general, from 2011-2015, Djokovic has been more patient and less high risk in his build up play than pre-2011.
Every player will have a perfect balance unique to him, the balance between high risk shots and consistency, that will mean he loses the least amount of matches.
People on forums always tend to overemphasise the matches lost due to being more passive, but don't give as much importance to matches lost due to aggression that was not needed. I still stand by my comment that Murray would probably not have won any Slams if he had tried to play with the same game style as Tsonga etc. His patience and consistency from the baseline has been a huge asset, which some seem to miss.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think he has a point CC. The match wasn't the highest quality. Again though like you I would certainly watch it again for historical value alone.

No he doesn't have a point. Do you know why? Use of the phrase: 'Don't ask anyone to watch that match again.' Sorry but that is just wrong as it is taking it upon himself to speak for everyone on this planet as to what they want to watch. Very odd as if you go around tennis pundits around the globe (incognito if you so wish so they are not inclined to give British bias as is always levied that any pro-Murray stuff is by people only with British bias) you will not hear many levying greengoblin's opinion about that match.

On began of the forum, thank you for carrying out this extensive and time consuming research. When willl you be publishing the full data?

From CBS:-

What made watching the Wimbledon men's final this year so gripping wasn't just the excellence of the tennis or the fact that Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic were so well matched.

I watch that final all the time. If you wanna see a match full of tension and overcoming nerves and pressure, its one of the best. It was the coming of age of Andy.
Of course if you hate Andy, then you wont like it, if you hate Novak its even worse but that doesnt mean noone will like it.

Oh come on he didn't mean it literally.

It Must Be Love wrote:Oh come on he didn't mean it literally.

Well there has been no retraction. Three sentences damning it doesn't seem like he didn't mean it to me or not even returning to say 'in my opinion'.

Anyways enjoy the US Open everyone. Not sure how often will be here as have a busy few days ahead. Enjoy.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Oh come on he didn't mean it literally.

Well there has been no retraction. Three sentences damning it doesn't seem like he didn't mean it to me or not even returning to say 'in my opinion'.

I said 'please don't ask anyone to watch that match again'. How can the meaning be interpreted as anything other than in my opinion it is a bad match?

Maybe now we should preface all posts with a caveat  that this is the author's opinion only.

Also, why are you quoting CBS as though they're likely to provide an honest assessment of the match?

And are you anymore likely to provide an honest assessment?

I quoted CBS as a non-British outlet given that whenever I quote ex-pros/pundits/coaches/celebs/one man and his dog on here saying one iota positive about Murray I get the retort that is is only because they are British and have that opinion purely under duress. Cameramen can't only be holding a camera but a sawn-off shotgun as well ready to pull the trigger if the person isn't complimentary about Murray I take it.

I see my point about every negative thing about Murray is raked over, with forensic detail with no positives to balance the argument is well and truly correct, judging by the last page or so of this article

A valiant effort CC, I can see that you're getting more and more frustrated as we thought that surely after his comeback, he'd now get the respect he deserves!!

Kindly note that we fans of Andy, are critical, on lots of occasions, it's just it's preposterous to pick out the Wimby 13 final as a "terrible advertisement for tennis as entertainment" - unless of course you want to prove a point about how passive Murray is that is or moan on about his need to be more aggressive

My annoyance here is that I can think of countless other 'so called' boring finals (this years Wimby for instance) numerous terrible matches involving two hard hitters and plenty of great matches involving Murray

I've no issue with Murray's style not been to everyone's taste, one of the funniest posts ever was LK's after Andy limped out of the US Open in 2011 to Rafa

The issue I have is that we have a highly successful player, who even after getting back to his best after surgery, still does not get the full respect for his skills.

May I remind you all that these skills, that some think are wrong, have decimated all but two of the current players in the past year to such a degree that they have taken him from trailing them by about a 1000 points to leading them by nearly 3000 points

But of course he'd have been far better off he played like Berdych, Isner or Tsonga

greengoblin wrote:I said 'please don't ask anyone to watch that match again'. How can the meaning be interpreted as anything other than in my opinion it is a bad match?

Can you go through the last five years of slam finals and advise which others we shouldn't be watching. I can think of at least five that were worst and barely that number that was better

Ironically, the US12 one was one of those (worst matches) an opportunity you seemed have missed, you could have then wrote ('please don't ask anyone to watch those matches again' )

banbrotam wrote:I see my point about every negative thing about Murray is raked over, with forensic detail with no positives to balance the argument is well and truly correct, judging by the last page or so of this article

A valiant effort CC, I can see that you're getting more and more frustrated as we thought that surely after his comeback, he'd now get the respect he deserves!!

Kindly note that we fans of Andy, are critical, on lots of occasions, it's just it's preposterous to pick out the Wimby 13 final as a "terrible advertisement for tennis as entertainment" - unless of course you want to prove a point about how passive Murray is that is or moan on about his need to be more aggressive

My annoyance here is that I can think of countless other 'so called' boring finals (this years Wimby for instance) numerous terrible matches involving two hard hitters and plenty of great matches involving Murray

I've no issue with Murray's style not been to everyone's taste, one of the funniest posts ever was LK's after Andy limped out of the US Open in 2011 to Rafa

The issue I have is that we have a highly successful player, who even after getting back to his best after surgery, still does not get the full respect for his skills.

May I remind you all that these skills, that some think are wrong, have decimated all but two of the current players in the past year to such a degree that they have taken him from trailing them by about a 1000 points to leading them by nearly 3000 points

But of course he'd have been far better off he played like Berdych, Isner or Tsonga

oh dear, if you go back to my original post with the offending quote, you will see that the main part of my post was about Djokovic, and the bit about Murray was actually a joke and not intended particularly as a point of discussion.

All too predictably however, certain people's sensitivities regarding Murray have overridden their sense of humour. Assuming they had one to begin with of course.

greengoblin wrote:

Please don't ask anyone to watch that match again! That should be used for punishment purposes only. For all it's historic importance, it was a terrible advertisement for tennis as entertainment.

Can you explain the joke here please and how we are meant to get a giggle out of that pray tell.

And one thing is sure - Murray fans are more critical of their player than Federer fans are of their player without a doubt, Djoko fans critize their man and in recent times Rafa fans have been critical of their man as well. Have a gander at my posts and I frequently have words of criticism or rants on Murray's form. Heck about a year ago on here I wrote his epitaph so I can handle fair and concise criticism and hand it out myself. It is the unfair stuff that gets my back up.

CaledonianCraig wrote:if you go around tennis pundits around the globe (incognito if you so wish so they are not inclined to give British bias as is always levied that any pro-Murray stuff is by people only with British bias) you will not hear many levying greengoblin's opinion about that match.

Surely you forgot to preface this with "in my opinion"?

Well played sir

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Can you explain the joke here please and how we are meant to get a giggle out of that pray tell.

And one thing is sure - Murray fans are more critical of their player than Federer fans are of their player without a doubt, Djoko fans critize their man and in recent times Rafa fans have been critical of their man as well. Have a gander at my posts and I frequently have words of criticism or rants on Murray's form. Heck about a year ago on here I wrote his epitaph so I can handle fair and concise criticism and hand it out myself. It is the unfair stuff that gets my back up.

I never claimed it to be side splitting. Someone suggested to watch the match for analysis. All I did was give my opinion on that in a slightly tongue in cheek fashion . What is the issue here??