Murray magic knows' no bounds

But of course it does....


So now the calls of

Slamless Wonder
One Slam wonder
Two flukely Slam Wonder

has been silenced - I thought to ask the question of how many slams do you think Murray will end up with when he retires

I personally realise he is not as good overall as Novak, Nadal or Feb, but still think he has a chance to pick up a couple more in his career

My prediction is

5

with a chance (outside) of 7

Riskysports wrote:... I personally realise he is not as good overall as Novak, Nadal or Fed, but still think he has a chance to pick up a couple more in his career ...

At the moment, in terms of results and being present at slams, Murray is better than Nadal and Federer. I would like to see him play a fit again Nadal and Federer to see whether he can beat them. Both Nadal and Federer are old in terms of career length, Nadal is significantly less physically potent than in his prime, while Federer is turning 35 in August and his body is definitely creaking - but two five setters in the QF and SF at Wimbledon suggests he can keep going.

Overall Djokovic is the main hurdle for Murray, yet it was a little surprising that "he wasn't 100% fit" at Wimbledon, despite Murray having an equally tough if not tougher 2016 season to date.

Clearly both Djokovic and Murray need to be hoovering up the oncoming titles in the next two to three years as they are both at an age (29 and onwards) where physical recovery takes longer, absolute intensity begins to decline, and niggly injuries start to accumulate.

I think given the current horizon another two slams for Murray Mk Lendl would be a reasonable expectation. It is about time Murray won himself an Australian Open title: Five finals and no wins. It is his record at the Australian Open that negatively skews his win percentage in slam finals.

My point at being better, takes into account to overall ability of their career - not just at this particular moment :-)

I think he'll get to 6 or 7. Only really Djokovic stopping him for the foreseeable future. He beat Tsonga, Berdych and Raonic to win Wimbledon...more draws like that and he'll win a few more.

Think Djokovic was always likely to have a dip after winning RG. Wonder if he will carry on dominating, with Wimbledon just a blip, or maybe he will slip a bit.

Three GS for Murray somehow sounds many more than two, putting him ahead of the recent two-slam guys - Hewitt, Safin and Stan the Man.
I always thought another Wimbledon was possible for Andy and that's now come to pass. He's about the fittest chap out there. More slam titles are certainly possible.

Given his # Masters titles which is right up there you would think he should be up in the 7-8 category really...arguably been underachieving...so yes he has more to come yet...and a weakened field to do it in also.

lydian wrote:Given his # Masters titles which is right up there you would think he should be up in the 7-8 category really...arguably been underachieving...so yes he has more to come yet...and a weakened field to do it in also.

How has Murray underachieved, Fat Dave and Safin underachieved being consistently in the top 5 is just not underachieving. The reason that Murray's final numbers and Master's haul is equivalent to 7-8 slam winner is because he probably would be if he didn't play Fed and Novak in every final before the last one, its not his fault he was born in the greatest vintage year for tennis stars we may have ever had. Underachieving is the last word I think when I discuss Murray's career, the word that comes to my mind is just bad timing. Its not like the guy hasn't worked at and dedicated himself.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:Given his # Masters titles which is right up there you would think he should be up in the 7-8 category really...arguably been underachieving...so yes he has more to come yet...and a weakened field to do it in also.

How has Murray underachieved, Fat Dave and Safin underachieved being consistently in the top 5 is just not underachieving. The reason that Murray's final numbers and Master's haul is equivalent to 7-8 slam winner is because he probably would be if he didn't play Fed and Novak in every final before the last one, its not his fault he was born in the greatest vintage year for tennis stars we may have ever had. Underachieving is the last word I think when I discuss Murray's career, the word that comes to my mind is just bad timing. Its not like the guy hasn't worked at and dedicated himself.

Spot On

I expect there are a number of players out there who would like to have underachieved and still had the career Murray has. His record since coming on tour is only beaten by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic doesn't say much for all of the other players if Murray has underachieved.

In answer to the original question I think he may win another couple. I feel that Lendl has maybe been brought in for around a 2 year window where Murray will go all out to add to his total. That would take him up to being 31.  After that I can see him declining and being overtaken by some of the 19-22 year olds coming up. He has already said that he can't see himself playing at Federer's age.

Even if he wins no more he has achieved  to a high level in tennis terms and should have no regrets. The records reflect this.

lol...calm down guys...it was a RELATIVE statement, i.e. when you compare two aspects together.

It wasnt a comparison against other players as Calder and Socal are replying about but against himself.

Don't forget that Murray has won 12 Masters events, the 5th highest.

Let me also remind that for 5 of those wins he beat Djokovic in the final, for 2 of them he beat Federer and Nadal in another. That's 8 out of 12 titles vs the big 3 in finals.

Additionally, Murray beat Federer 4 times and Nadal 3 times in other Masters before the final.

Therefore, he's had the calibre to win slams for quite some time as there is a general correlation between level of Masters won and slams...so in my book he actually underachieved at slam level. Sure he may turn the slam numbers around, esp with Nadal and Federer on the wane but there has definitely been a glaring omission between his Masters and Slam performances.. It cant be fitness given his tank-like status ;-)

In general I agree he may win 1-2 more...a lot depends on Djokovic and the younger crew flourishing.

I think I've said before that my view is that Andy should be around the 7 slam level to properly reflect his place in tennis history. I think it's highly unlikely he will get there but would hope he can somehow reach 5 and push him out of the 3-4 slam group. The absolute ideal would be for him to finally win Oz 17 and then somehow follow it up at RG!

I think the slam he has underachieved at is the US. Things just seem to have gone wrong there. He is much better on that surface than the slower Oz Open yet his record is a lot worse (bar 2012!). He's only made 3 SF which is worse than at RG! He should have a much better shot at Novak there than at Oz.

Murray hasn't underachieved he has failed to win more slams and be the 7 or 8 slam winner we think he should be simply because he has three first tier goat candidates within striking range. If he switched birthdates with Federer he probably would have 10 slams now after feasting on 4 years of the rollover generation. I think he has pretty much maximized his potential and has simply been unlucky in timing to come up right in the heart of the golden generation.

I can support Lydian's statement - and many Murray supporters agree with it when they say it is down to mental frailty that explains his differing performances against the top three in the slams and in masters and other non slam tournaments. Murray Lendl version always showed fight when facing them in the slams, while Murray (mothers boy version) seemed to lack fight in the slams in general.

I on the other hand have been shot down by suggesting Murray's loses were due to lack of technique rather than mental issues per se.

See what you are saying Lydian but think that  5 matches best of 3 sets in a Masters  is quite different from 7 matches best of 5 sets in a slam. Top players peak for the slams. Murray himself admits that in the past (I would say in the previous Lendl period) he focused so much on the slams that his masters performances dropped away. Haven't looked back at the records but think they will show that.

According to the media his latest slam win was the first time he went into a slam final as the higher ranked player. I've watched most of them and to be honest when he has lost it has been to the better player. I thought he could have done better at Wimbledon 2012 (early Lendl) where he seemed to be in control until losing the second set and never picking up again after it went indoors. So I don't see it as underachievement as he has made these finals but a higher ranked player has been better on the day.

If I were setting achievable targets for Andy for the rest of his career it would be:

- 50 total tour titles (12th Open era)
- 16 Masters (5th overall)
- 5 slams (13th= Open era)
- 750 tour wins (12th Open era)

lydian wrote:Given his # Masters titles which is right up there you would think he should be up in the 7-8 category really...arguably been underachieving...so yes he has more to come yet...and a weakened field to do it in also.

I agree here (don't faint )

You would be expecting slams to represent at least a third, if not half, of the number of Masters, i.e. he really 'deserves' to have had six for now

lydian wrote:lol...calm down guys...it was a RELATIVE statement, i.e. when you compare two aspects together.

It wasnt a comparison against other players as Calder and Socal are replying about but against himself.

Don't forget that Murray has won 12 Masters events, the 5th highest.

Let me also remind that for 5 of those wins he beat Djokovic in the final, for 2 of them he beat Federer and Nadal in another. That's 8 out of 12 titles vs the big 3 in finals.

Additionally, Murray beat Federer 4 times and Nadal 3 times in other Masters before the final.

Therefore, he's had the calibre to win slams for quite some time as there is a general correlation between level of Masters won and slams...so in my book he actually underachieved at slam level. Sure he may turn the slam numbers around, esp with Nadal and Federer on the wane but there has definitely been a glaring omission between his Masters and Slam performances.. It cant be fitness given his tank-like status ;-)

In general I agree he may win 1-2 more...a lot depends on Djokovic and the younger crew flourishing.

For me your point about difference between Masters and Slam success hits the nail on the head. Masters events are best of three sets so conceivably can be won in two sets which lessens timescale for mental lapses. I do think I have said it before that Murray's mental application (ie pure focus and calm mind) is not as sustained as Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. He allows lapses to creep in and those three always take advantage. It is much more likely to strike in longer mstches hence (in my opinion) the difference in success at Slam and Masters level. If Murray had the same mental strength/concentration of those I mentioned I am pretty sure Murray's slam count would be perhaps more thsn dounle whatbit is now.

Sorry. But I think this mental thing is a stick to excuse the defeats. For some reason it can never be that the other player was simply better, there has to be something else

But let's go through the slams he's lost

US Open 2008 - Physically knackered in comparison to Roger.

Australia 2010 - The one where it could be argued that Andy 'bottled' key moments

Australia 2011 - A defeat due to the new improved and forthcoming record breaking Novak, who simply performed at a level never seen before (by him)

Wimbledon 2012 - Honourable defeat. Could be argued (even though Roger had broken him) that the roof changed everything.

Australia 2013 - Good match. I remember thinking that Andy through everything at him. Novak played better

Australia 2015 - The one where I think criticism of Andy is the most unreasonable. He should be applauded for merely getting there, as three months earlier he was No.12 in the world - due to the greater recovery time needed from the back surgery. The one that actually convinced me he could win more - if he could get to a slam final still rusty, what on earth did it say about the rest

Australia 2016 - Another poor start, from someone who if Tennis was, say the best of 8 matches, would be No. 202 in the world might have been OK throughout all the early part of this year (including the early part of the French) but was no good against Novak. Mental fragility? Nah! His game is the type that often needs a few points to get going, to gain that 'feel'. It's a weakness, but more due to his type of play (see Connors and Agassi as well) than been flaky

French 2016 - Actually started well, but then had no mental reserves left when Novak started playing well. Going to the well too many times in early rounds had it's toll


This mental weakness accusation also doesn't hold water, when you consider his five set comeback record and general five set record. Nor is he known for ever blowing dominant leads. His winning record after taking the first set is up there with the very best. This time last year he was the leader in this stat ( http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/fedex-zone-2015-52-week-after-winning-first-set )

And before anyone points to his chuntering - remember he had his biggest moan on Sunday when he was two sets up

There's a reason why he's lost all the slam's. He was actually ranked lower every time

Sometimes the simplest answers are the best

For Murray, Masters or Slams - there is no difference. He is a far better long player than short

In nearly five years, he's only won four Masters and in this time he's won three majors. If this was a stand alone stat - there would be no mention of the difference between the two

In the early days, i.e. pre-2011, then yes against Rafa and Roger it was a factor. But it's now the case, where he would have a better chance against them over five sets than three

I have sat through many slam finals and saw Murray mentally flag concentrations wise - to say it doesn't happen is just not true. Look at the Australian Open Finals with 'Feathergate' when things were going well then a feather floated down distracting him and his game fell away. Again in the Australian Open Final when Novak appeared injued and Murray lost focus and allowed Novak back into the match. There was then Wimbledon semi when he missed a sitter of a volley V Nadal when he was on top and thereafter he fell apart. Also at Wimbledon when he led Federer then the roof closed and Murray fell away. Those are just the ones that
spring immediately to mind.

You just do not see that from Novak, Roger and Rafa (in their prime) hence the big difference in slam wins.

Fine CC. But then that's no different to any other player. What about Novak at Wimbledon 2013, for instance?

My point is that it's not the main issue - yet it gets talked about as if it is

I mean I sat through many finals of all the greats, who also could be accused of mental frailty - given the wide description it's deemed necessary to use for Andy. A classic example of this is that Mac's tantrums used to help him, but Murray's never does. Absolute rubbish!! Lazy analysis, which doesn't pass any casual examination of the facts

Also his last five years Slam v Masters record is pretty respectable. If any other player had these conversion rates, for that spell - we wouldn't be naval gazing at momentum shifts

Wasn't 'feathergate' 2015? Andy deserves praise for getting to the final, but instead gets condemned. Ironically if he'd reached his seeded position of even the QF, everyone would have said he's done well.

It just doesn't fit. If he's this flaky, then it would be the case for at least some of the other tournies - but his record here is remarkable. I don't believe, that he's suddenly cowed by the finals. What happens is he faces someone who always bring their 'Sunday Tiger' game to the park and their's is simply better than Andy's under those conditions at that time. Make the conditions more favourable for Andy, i.e. the hotter and hence faster Wimby 2013 and he's more of a chance

And why the 'prime' caveat for the other three? Again, we get this rose-tinted view of all their matches because it fits with what we perceive is needed. But there's very little mention of Roger's French 2009 performance or his US09' one - when for one of these he was the firm favourite, something Andy never was

Don't agree that his mental frailty is any more prononced than Mac, Lendl, Edberg, Willander, Edberg etc

I do agree that Murray lost at the slams (SF and F) mostly because his then opponents played better than him -

1) lights out tennis in fact, at AO2011 F, FO 2014 SF; Wimbledon 2015 SF; AO 2016 F

2) his opponents played better than him despite he also playing well in some matches - FO2011 SF, Wimbledon 2010 SF; USO2011 SF, Wimbledon 2012F.

I dont think its simply because of his mental lapses in BO5, but I do believe they (Fed, Nadal, Djoko) played better tennis to beat him most of the time.

We are talking the whole package here and that must include the whole kit and caboodle including tennis skills and mental strength and concentration. To me it is clear Murray is less consistent in the mental department compared to Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. I have listed times when he has mentally gone away and in that time it hands initiative to his opponents and you just cannot do that against Novak, Roger and Rafa.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I do agree that Murray lost at the slams (SF and F) mostly because his then opponents played better than him -

1) lights out tennis in fact, at AO2011 F, FO 2014 SF; Wimbledon 2015 SF; AO 2016 F

2) his opponents played better than him  despite he also playing well in some matches - FO2011 SF, Wimbledon 2010 SF; USO2011 SF,  Wimbledon 2012F.

I dont think its simply because of his mental lapses in BO5, but I do believe they (Fed, Nadal, Djoko) played better tennis to beat him most of the time.

Yep. It's a bit frustrating that neither Rafa or Roger are getting to these finals right now as I'm convinced the tables would have been turned

Rafa in particularly has to be the best ever, along with Borg, at bringing his 'A' game to the table at more or less every slam. Mentally, he was a giant

On the other hand, Roger is someone who could be said to be no more mentally tougher than Andy. He's simply more talented. His ten losses had frequent bouts of wrong decision making

CaledonianCraig wrote:We are talking the whole package here and that must include the whole kit and caboodle including tennis skills and mental strength and concentration. To me it is clear Murray is less consistent in the mental department compared to Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. I have listed times when he has mentally gone away and in that time it hands initiative to his opponents and you just cannot do that against Novak, Roger and Rafa.

Agree about Rafa, less convinced about Novak, not convinced that Roger is. I suggest you watch Roger's ten slam final losses - several could be put down to this new definition of mental weakness

If you remember, after the French 14', Novak's fans on these boards were convinced that he'd never win another slam after he'd lost his fifth in six slams. The likes of you and I were needed to calm them down and that Novak was fine and wasn't some mental lightweight

I personally think we are too quick in all sports to forget the mental strength needed to keep going all the time, every time. Tennis, in particular is simply brutal. A solo sport where play every other day for an average of 3hrs and if have a mental lapse in any of the matches, it's highly likely going to cost you a defeat (either then or later).

We see now, with Roger and Rafa (who admits to mental issues) how tough it is. We saw it with Mac (I mean did anyone really think at the time, that his last slam would be that wonderful performance at US84'?). Jim Courier admits to finding it all too much after the early success

So the reason I rant against these descriptions is I think that all four of the players have remarkable mental strength. And of course it will occasionally lapse - usually at the crucial moments when they play each other

Murray is a mental giant in matches he knows or feels he can win - hence his record against the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Raonic and Gasquet at slams. It is against players he is not so confident against that the mental lapses strike and you just cannot give those guys a second invitation. Why is this not so in Masters to such a degree? Well it is a shorter format so less time for lapses to play on his mind or sometimes he wins through in two sets before hit by lapses.

My opinion is that Murray at his very best tennis-wise and mentally can beat anyone on his day as he has shown many times but that day (in slams) doesn't come around often enough.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Murray is a mental giant in matches he knows or feels he can win - hence his record against the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Raonic and Gasquet at slams. It is against players he is not so confident against that the mental lapses strike and you just cannot give those guys a second invitation. Why is this not so in Masters to such a degree? Well it is a shorter format so less time for lapses to play on his mind or sometimes he wins through in two sets before hit by lapses.

My opinion is that Murray at his very best tennis-wise and mentally can beat anyone on his day as he has shown many times but that day (in slams) doesn't come around often enough.

Oooorrrrr

Every player has dips and ups and down in every match - every single one

Against players hi is better than, it has less affect

Against players better than him, it has more affect


The same for every player - at every level

the difference is - Fed, Nadal and Nole - there are very few - or no players better than them

There needs to be no complex explanation, the difference or paradox in Murray's numbers is due to not playing Baggy, Phillipoussis, and Gonzo in slam finals and playing Djokovic and Fed almost exclusively. There is no rocket science involved.

Now why does he have more masters than slams. Well because the three guys better than him really focus their training, mind, and rest up for those slams. Plus a slim advantage in ability multiplied over 5 sets is more daunting than over 3. And lastly, Nadal and Fed physically have not been able to challenge for many masters for some time now competitively. Therefore in recent years Murray gets a lot of masters that Novak doesn't get because he is younger than Fed and healthier than Nadal.

I don't think its underachieving, in fact he has fought tooth and nail to not have that word put to him and has accomplished enough otherwise. The factors I discussed above are not in Murray's control, I don't think he is a mental or physical weakling.

Riskysports wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Murray is a mental giant in matches he knows or feels he can win - hence his record against the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Raonic and Gasquet at slams. It is against players he is not so confident against that the mental lapses strike and you just cannot give those guys a second invitation. Why is this not so in Masters to such a degree? Well it is a shorter format so less time for lapses to play on his mind or sometimes he wins through in two sets before hit by lapses.

My opinion is that Murray at his very best tennis-wise and mentally can beat anyone on his day as he has shown many times but that day (in slams) doesn't come around often enough.

Oooorrrrr

Every player has dips and ups and down in every match - every single one

Against players hi is better than, it has less affect

Against players better than him, it has more affect


The same for every player - at every level

the difference is - Fed, Nadal and Nole - there are very few - or no players better than them

Of course they do but some have more pronounced dips - dips that impact all facets of their game. Murrsy unravels when dips in his game come round whilst Federer, Nadsl and Djokovic hold it together much better.

Born Slippy wrote:The absolute ideal would be for him to finally win Oz 17 and then somehow follow it up at RG!

...and all that after having won 2016 USO.

socal1976 wrote:There needs to be no complex explanation, the difference or paradox in Murray's numbers is due to not playing Baggy, Phillipoussis, and Gonzo in slam finals and playing Djokovic and Fed almost exclusively. There is no rocket science involved.

Now why does he have more masters than slams. Well because the three guys better than him really focus their training, mind, and rest up for those slams. Plus a slim advantage in ability multiplied over 5 sets is more daunting than over 3. And lastly, Nadal and Fed physically have not been able to challenge for many masters for some time now competitively. Therefore in recent years Murray gets a lot of masters that Novak doesn't get because he is younger than Fed and healthier than Nadal.

I don't think its underachieving, in fact he has fought tooth and nail to not have that word put to him and has accomplished enough otherwise. The factors I discussed above are not in Murray's control, I don't think he is a mental or physical weakling.

Agree. In the past, Roger and Novak simply have had less brittle game play. Murray's more creative, but that brings it's own problems as it's arguably more mentally taxing, particularly when it's neutered by them

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:There needs to be no complex explanation, the difference or paradox in Murray's numbers is due to not playing Baggy, Phillipoussis, and Gonzo in slam finals and playing Djokovic and Fed almost exclusively. There is no rocket science involved.

Now why does he have more masters than slams. Well because the three guys better than him really focus their training, mind, and rest up for those slams. Plus a slim advantage in ability multiplied over 5 sets is more daunting than over 3. And lastly, Nadal and Fed physically have not been able to challenge for many masters for some time now competitively. Therefore in recent years Murray gets a lot of masters that Novak doesn't get because he is younger than Fed and healthier than Nadal.

I don't think its underachieving, in fact he has fought tooth and nail to not have that word put to him and has accomplished enough otherwise. The factors I discussed above are not in Murray's control, I don't think he is a mental or physical weakling.

Agree. In the past, Roger and Novak simply have had less brittle game play. Murray's more creative, but that brings it's own problems as it's arguably more mentally taxing, particularly when it's neutered by them

Its really quite simple when one looks at the various slam opponents faced by Murray in comparison to all other greats. Up until this last slam where he made quick work of Milos, Murray's slam final opponent has averaged 14.5 slam wins and his name was either Novak or Roger. And there is a guy named Nadal who knocked Andy out a bunch of times earlier in slams, he wasn't bad either. Now we can't all be so fortunate to be faced by the world's most talented and skillful fatman since Pavarotti or a guy who did 20 shots of vodka and bedded two models before pretending to practice. (who can blame him Marat is just too sexy for his own good.) People create all these silly explanations to avoid taking into consideration his slam opponents, why is that? Well because if we acknowledge that Murray is stunted for playing Rog and Novak in finals; well then the converse of playing gonzo, the Cypriot Nalbandian, and Phillipoussis in slam finals might be the basis of some deficiency in competition and an inflation of records? And of course we can't have that now can we banbro?

Seriously put a sock in it Socal - it's beyond boring. You're not funny or original.

You're managing to drive everyone away - I know I've just about had enough.

If you want a platform to bash just one player then why don't you create your own forum.

emancipator wrote:Seriously put a sock in it Socal - it's beyond boring. You're not funny or original.

You're managing to drive everyone away - I know I've just about had enough.

If you want a platform to bash just one player then why don't you create your own forum.

Don't hold back do you em????

How I see this is that it all evens out at the end of the day. Federer may have benefitted from his main contenders being Nalbandian, Philipoussis et al but now Novak is benefitting with Murray being his chief opponents. Federer had tough spells of competition when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray came on the scene as did Djokovic have his tough spells. Like I say it all evens out at the end of each player's career.

emancipator wrote:Seriously put a sock in it Socal - it's beyond boring. You're not funny or original.

You're managing to drive everyone away - I know I've just about had enough.

If you want a platform to bash just one player then why don't you create your own forum.

You do get really bent out of shape about this. I am happy to let it die, but I wasn't the one who reinvigorated weak eras it was a guy with a few famous screech posts. I don't cry like baby when you call Novak screech or knock him.

emancipator wrote:Seriously put a sock in it Socal - it's beyond boring. You're not funny or original.

You're managing to drive everyone away - I know I've just about had enough.

If you want a platform to bash just one player then why don't you create your own forum.

I don't get why Socal always gets it in the neck for daring to suggest Fed had it easy in the early days. After all, unlike some of the scribers on these boars when discussing the Top 2, at least he respects Rogers game

It's simply rank hypocrisy

jeeze like he of all people aint capable of taking care of himself..
What is this place coming to.. he has had enough people banned or left..without having others fight his battles for him...get lost bb

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:Seriously put a sock in it Socal - it's beyond boring. You're not funny or original.

You're managing to drive everyone away - I know I've just about had enough.

If you want a platform to bash just one player then why don't you create your own forum.

I don't get why Socal always gets it in the neck for daring to suggest Fed had it easy in the early days. After all, unlike some of the scribers on these boars when discussing the Top 2, at least he respects Rogers game

It's simply rank hypocrisy

Its especially bizarre when you hear the commentary about how awful the tennis is, how bored they are, how inferior Murray and Djokovic are, etc. And then the very people who railed against weak eras/strong eras now claim we are in a weak era. They revived the weak era and GOAT talk long after it died. Thank you, I have at least always been able to rely on your fairness. When people hear things they don't like they get upset, they get even more upset when those things they hear happen to be true.

Haddie-nuff wrote:jeeze like he of all people aint capable of taking care of himself..
What is this place coming to.. he has had enough people banned or left..without having others fight his battles for him...get lost bb

Very uncalled for

So you find Socal insulting and respond by insulting another poster   

This forum, which is dying a slow death, would be far better if articles and posts were debated for what they say, as opposed to who writes them

This forum is dying a slow death ??? No bb its being murdered.by suffocation.... its being self moderated because of one poster who has either driven the others away or got them banned. It has become the forum for a self opinionated poster who is the epitome of hypocrisy a forum of his undisputed "facts" none other than the obsessed Djokovic fan boy.. the only moderation is .. agree or go. Ive said my piece on here and to the founder who might as well pack his bags because 606 does not need him anymore. 606 is under new management !!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You think it is uncalled for I think someone needs to speak out.

I had a pm from temporary he was fired for "no reason" but as soon as he was the  fan boy returned.... it takes little imagination.
So BB you are welcome to him you obviously deserve one another He has managed to achieve what even Tenez could not...

Certainly since the events of 5-6 weeks ago this place hasn't recovered. There's hardly any posts and people are drifting (or were banned) away and not returning. Personally I felt Temp was far too hands on and at times banning people for little reason, so I'm not surprised that hasn't worked out (I have nothing to do with his removal). We have all agreed to zero-moderation so as long as it's not personal, if Socal wants to say 2003-2007 was a weak era (and as long as it isn't constantly repetitive) then fair enough, it's for others to disagree. However, my problem is the forum is too rear-view looking...not enough about the future. People don't like their idols getting towards retiring or losing to people they didn't used to...but it's the lifecycle of tennis and someone better (albeit via different styles) usually comes along in the end. It's been that way since tennis began. I feel a lot of the issue with the forum concerns the aging of some players vs others players being in their peak and amassing new numbers...and discord often arises when new starts to threaten the old. It was like this on old 606 when Federer was threatening Sampras legacy. I'm a Nadal fan and he's clearly declining now...it makes me want to post less and less excited about the current crop as they're not the same. So there are a number of factors making this place quiet or one-dimensional at the moment. It's probably a phase that will pass in time...as new blood rears its head so will new fans and new rivalries. It's a transition period and the forum is reflecting that IMO.

That is your take on it Lydian.. however the way I see it as this forum has given way to the most Narcissistic person I have ever come across. This forum was designed to discuss people's views on tennis not to read screeds of one persons opinions of himself.
What your problems were with temporary I neither know or want to .. I just know who played a very very big part in posters being banned or leaving. Now Ive finished Ill be off this time for the last and final occasion., The self moderation has done more harm than temporary or any other moderator could have done. Soon you will be able to talk to yourself

Haddie-nuff wrote:That is your take on it Lydian.. however the way I see it as this forum has given way to the most Narcissistic person I have ever come across. This forum was designed to discuss people's views on tennis not to read screeds of one persons opinions of himself.
What your problems were with temporary I neither know or want to .. I just know who played a very very big part in posters being banned or leaving. Now Ive finished Ill be off this time for the last and final occasion., The self moderation has done more harm than temporary or any other moderator could have done. Soon you will be able to talk to yourself

Hurray, addition by subtraction goodbye.

lydian wrote:Certainly since the events of 5-6 weeks ago this place hasn't recovered. There's hardly any posts and people are drifting (or were banned) away and not returning. Personally I felt Temp was far too hands on and at times banning people for little reason, so I'm not surprised that hasn't worked out (I have nothing to do with his removal). We have all agreed to zero-moderation so as long as it's not personal, if Socal wants to say 2003-2007 was a weak era (and as long as it isn't constantly repetitive) then fair enough, it's for others to disagree. However, my problem is the forum is too rear-view looking...not enough about the future. People don't like their idols getting towards retiring or losing to people they didn't used to...but it's the lifecycle of tennis and someone better (albeit via different styles) usually comes along in the end. It's been that way since tennis began. I feel a lot of the issue with the forum concerns the aging of some players vs others players being in their peak and amassing new numbers...and discord often arises when new starts to threaten the old. It was like this on old 606 when Federer was threatening Sampras legacy. I'm a Nadal fan and he's clearly declining now...it makes me want to post less and less excited about the current crop as they're not the same. So there are a number of factors making this place quiet or one-dimensional at the moment. It's probably a phase that will pass in time...as new blood rears its head so will new fans and new rivalries. It's a transition period and the forum is reflecting that IMO.

Good post I agree certainly Nadal's trouble has made many Nadal fans like you and Amritia less likely to participate. I will take your suggestion and let Fed's pathetic competition in 2003-07, but it was dead for along time before it was resurrected by people who denied it could ever happen. Either way, it is also partly the time of the season post slams there is always a dull once we get the hardcourt swing and Olympics rolling it will change and certainly the forum will be better when we have more action. I actually really like the group of guys 18-23 in particular Kyrgios. There is bound to some consequences to Fed and Nadal dropping in form, I know BB has also said that he just doesn't find the tennis exciting and really only enjoyed Fed of the modern guys so if Fed is hurt and not playing he might not want to participate.

banbrotam wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:jeeze like he of all people aint capable of taking care of himself..
What is this place coming to.. he has had enough people banned or left..without having others fight his battles for him...get lost bb

Very uncalled for

So you find Socal insulting and respond by insulting another poster   

This forum, which is dying a slow death, would be far better if articles and posts were debated for what they say, as opposed to who writes them

The funny thing is that there isn't a single person that I have ever supported getting banned I opposed even Tenez, Raider, and Veejay the guy who can sniff people's urine test from TV being banned. Its funny, how its ok for Haddie to jump in and cheerlead anytime someone opposes me. Well I knew she was vindictive and acid tongue, but to make a bold faced lie that I get people banned when I never have been a moderator is just dishonest and delusional. And in fact, I have always supported an open door policy even to people who are annoying trolls.

lydian wrote:Certainly since the events of 5-6 weeks ago this place hasn't recovered. There's hardly any posts and people are drifting (or were banned) away and not returning. Personally I felt Temp was far too hands on and at times banning people for little reason, so I'm not surprised that hasn't worked out (I have nothing to do with his removal). We have all agreed to zero-moderation so as long as it's not personal, if Socal wants to say 2003-2007 was a weak era (and as long as it isn't constantly repetitive) then fair enough, it's for others to disagree. However, my problem is the forum is too rear-view looking...not enough about the future. People don't like their idols getting towards retiring or losing to people they didn't used to...but it's the lifecycle of tennis and someone better (albeit via different styles) usually comes along in the end. It's been that way since tennis began. I feel a lot of the issue with the forum concerns the aging of some players vs others players being in their peak and amassing new numbers...and discord often arises when new starts to threaten the old. It was like this on old 606 when Federer was threatening Sampras legacy. I'm a Nadal fan and he's clearly declining now...it makes me want to post less and less excited about the current crop as they're not the same. So there are a number of factors making this place quiet or one-dimensional at the moment. It's probably a phase that will pass in time...as new blood rears its head so will new fans and new rivalries. It's a transition period and the forum is reflecting that IMO.

Exactly what I think

Lots of those who have went who are posters like Bogbrush, who freely admits to not having the same interest these days - probably due to the 'decline' of Roger (relatively speaking of course)

Haddie-nuff wrote:That is your take on it Lydian.. however the way I see it as this forum has given way to the most Narcissistic person I have ever come across. This forum was designed to discuss people's views on tennis not to read screeds of one persons opinions of himself.
What your problems were with temporary I neither know or want to .. I just know who played a very very big part in posters being banned or leaving. Now Ive finished Ill be off this time for the last and final occasion., The self moderation has done more harm than temporary or any other moderator could have done. Soon you will be able to talk to yourself

Haddie. I've had loads of disagreements with Socal, with no issue

To be honest I like his style as you know where you stand with him

It's also true to say that us Novray fans appreciate each others player as we remember the rubbish they had to take (i.e. take any post around 2010) to get some respect

So I don't mind Socal suggesting that maybe we need to realise that Roger had it relatively easy, in comparison to 2009 onwards, because there is some merit in the argument. Fact is Roddick was playing better stuff in 2009 than when he won his slam, but still couldn't get a Top 5 ranking. Even if we say he was slightly worse - you'd expect him to still be a comfortable Top 3 player if 2001 was as good as 2009

Of course, others can argue about this and I don't mind, my point is I think it's a valid debate

banbrotam wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:That is your take on it Lydian.. however the way I see it as this forum has given way to the most Narcissistic person I have ever come across. This forum was designed to discuss people's views on tennis not to read screeds of one persons opinions of himself.
What your problems were with temporary I neither know or want to .. I just know who played a very very big part in posters being banned or leaving. Now Ive finished Ill be off this time for the last and final occasion., The self moderation has done more harm than temporary or any other moderator could have done. Soon you will be able to talk to yourself

Haddie. I've had loads of disagreements with Socal, with no issue

To be honest I like his style as you know where you stand with him

It's also true to say that us Novray fans appreciate each others player as we remember the rubbish they had to take (i.e. take any post around 2010) to get some respect

So I don't mind Socal suggesting that maybe we need to realise that Roger had it relatively easy, in comparison to 2009 onwards, because there is some merit in the argument. Fact is Roddick was playing better stuff in 2009 than when he won his slam, but still couldn't get a Top 5 ranking. Even if we say he was slightly worse - you'd expect him to still be a comfortable Top 3 player if 2001 was as good as 2009

Of course, others can argue about this and I don't mind, my point is I think it's a valid debate

Best Roddick ever was the Roddick that should have beat Fed in 09 wimby but choked a routine backhand volley from 2 feet away on break point late in the fifth set when he was literally untouchable at that stage of the match on serve, one Roddick hold on grass away. I felt for him that match. Also he went in 2010 and won Miami and reached the finals of IW going one match short of winning the IW and Miami double. But as you and I have mentioned he couldn't crack the top 4 despite being about double the player that won the 03 USO and reached number 1. I actually gained a lot of respect for Roddick in that period because he improved his BH, fitness, movement, and volleys. He was the only rollover guy who really fought tooth and nail and maintained at least relevance in the top 10. Hewitt also have respect for him as injuries did him in. At least those two guys put up a fight, don't know if I can say the same about Marat and the world's most talented chunky guy Dave Nalbandian.