Skyline Drifter

Murray wins the third 6-4!!!!!

It's eleven hours. They are playing at beyond midnight local time.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the guy who played "Geoffrey" the butler in 'The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air' now has a part in EastEnders?

Never got back on court after rain interupted yesterday's match at 2-1 in sets to Davydenko. First on Armstrong Court at 11am this morning (US time) which will be 4pm our time I think. It's been topsy turvey so far with Davydenko dominating the first set, Murray edging him out in the second having earned an early break then given it away when serving for the set but got it straight back again. Murray then led 2-0 in the third before losing five straight games on his way to a 6-3 loss. The break probably came at the right time for him but if he starts like he did yesterday he'll be out before he warms up!

Murray takes the set 7-5 One set all.

He certainly hasn't done it since Gilbert arrived on the scene (which might easily be coincidence given the time span involved). I recall him limping about in one of the summer tourneys though. Not sure which one. On your other points I agree, apart from that for me Henman's best surface was grass, most suited to his serve volley game. The fact that his biggest win was indoors no more indicates differently than the fact that Murray's best major progress before this week was at Wimbledon indicates that his best surface is grass! Henman had a wonderful record on grass through the years.

Obviously he's a far better player at 19 than Henman was. Henman was a relatively late bloomer in top level tennis terms. That wasn't the question though and wasn't what I said. I said he was nowhere near as good as Henman at his peak which, whilst perhaps a little exaggerated, is still the case I feel. It's very easy for people with short memories or Anglophobic attitudes to dismiss Henman (and Rusedski for that matter) in terms of past achievements. But he was number four in the world and reached multiple Grand Slam semi finals, something that Murray is nowhere near at the level of doing yet. And I think we're agreed also that Henman did so when the depth in tennis was somewhat better than it is now. He possibly has a better all round game than Tim ever did, though his serve needs a lot of work if he's to progress much higher up the charts. Henman (and Rusedski) were much more one dimensional players who were both better on grass than anything else, which did them no favours in the overall rankings either. His progress has been superb and I agree he'll be better than Henman sooner or later if he knuckles down, stays clear of serious injury and really wants it enough. I also agree about only Federer and Nadal being significantly better than him already (though of course better is still better in the case of others, how much better is irrelevant). I would however be surprised (but delighted) if he's Top 4 in the world this time next year. Top ten hopefully, but top five is asking a little much. As good as he has been this year, he still hasn't even got HALF the points total he'd need to be a top four player. He'll need to start making last four of majors to even get close to that and I don't think he's overly likely to do well at Roland Garros imminently.

Looks like you and your source are correct. I didn't look it up anywhere to be honest. The ATP website credits Murray with carrying 50 points from his last 64 appearance at the same tournament last year. I presumed the points per round would be unchanged. However, on further checking that would appear not to be the case. Looks like they've devalued a last 64 appearance at a major by 15 points for whatever reason this year.

You mean I can read the ATP Tour website the same as everyone else but I have got the patience to work it out? Others have dealt with it for you anyway. Basically, Murray is currently 19th with 1300 points coming into the tournament. He's defending 50 points for last 64 last season and already guaranteed 150 points for this one. Points for the US Open are as follows:- Last 128 5 points Last 64 50 points Last 32 75 points Last 16 150 points Q-F 250 points S-F 450 points Final 700 points Winner 1000 points Murray will therefore move to 1400 points if he goes out in the next round to Davydenko. No 18 is Ferrero. Murray is already guaranteed to move ahead of him, albeit only just. No 17 is Hewitt, currently on 1515 points but defending 450 points as a semi finalist last year. If he goes out in the last 32 (plays today) or indeed in any round before the semi finals then he'll drop below Murray. No 16 is Tommy Haas on 1525 points. Haas got only 75 points in the US Open last year and is also playing last 32 today so won't rop anything. If he wins he'll move to 1600 points at least so Murray is unlikely to catch him this week and would need to be at least a semi finalist to do so. No 15 is Niemenen on 1610, defending 250 points. He's dropped 200 of those so Murray will go ahead of him if he wins his next game but not otherwise. Haven't got time to look in any depth any higher up but that's probably about it. Unless someone from behind shoots past him he'll be either 18 or 17 even if he loses (depending on Hewitt) and 16 or 17 if he beats Davydenko.

I agree. When Sampras was number one the depth was better I think. Henman's efforts in making it to number 4 were excellent but his problem was that his best surface (grass) was one rarely used competitively away from Wimbledon. Murray's advantage is his best surface is hard courts as used in this period of the year. I don't think Murray is anywhere near Henman at his peak. And I'm not sure he's any better than Rusedski at his peak either. Also fair points. I'm no tennis expert but I think from what I saw the depth was a little better 6 or 7 years ago than it is now. Agreed.

I don't follow enough tennis to be sure about that. I do however know how the rankings work. tennis is ranked on a rolling annual basis. Points are awarded for progress in tournaments and differing strengths of tournaments are worth more points than others. The four majors are worth most. Then the 'Masters Series' Events and then all the rest. In any given week you lose the points you got in the same week a year earlier and get what you get in that week. So in effect you could finish runner up in a tournament and still go down because you won it the year before. For instance if Roddick loses to Murray he could easily drop below someone who went out in the last 16 because last year he was runner up and the other guy may have gotten bugger all. Did Murray win Junior Wimbledon? I don't think he did. He won the Junior US Open. Is that what you're thinking of? I would think your top ten bet has ever chance of succeeding since he's not far away now and clearly is working well with Brad Gilbert. However, he is now on his best surface. He won't do so well on clay and probably not on grass. Top 3? Long way away from that yet and ranking points wise that's a different plane. The top two are miles clear of everyone else too. I doubt he'll make number one anytime soon unless Nadal suffers injury or something. He's only a couple of years older. How much older is Federer? You can find all the info you need on the atptour website.

You could always read the previous bloody page! The only way he can hope to get above 18th (which he already is) is to reach the final. I've just worked it all out. Given that Haas is now out (he lose in the last 16 yesterday) if Andy reached the final but lost it he would be tied on points with Haas. No idea whether he would therefore be ranked above or below him (not sure what tiebreaking procedures are). If he were to win obviously he'd climb above Haas. 16th is David Ferrer who started the tournament 445 points ahead of Andy. He is also through to the last eight so cannot be caught by Andy no matter what. He'll be at least a couple of hundred points clear still. 15th is Jarkko Nieminen who started 470 ahead and didn't play Cincinnati last year so is defending nothing. He went out in the first round here so gained five points only. Andy can get above him if he wins the tournament only. 14th is Thomas Berdych who started 480 ahead and is defending 35 points for a second round last year. He lost 30 points this time as he too went out first round. Again, were Andy to win he'd get above him. 13th is Fernando Gonzalez who started 490 ahead and is defending 75 points for a last 16 appearance last year. He too is through to the last eight so isn't going to be caught this week. 12th is Roddick who started 530 ahead of Andy but was runner up last year so defends 350 points. If he lost to Andy he'd collect 75 points so drop 275. Andy can actually get above him simply by reaching the final. 11th is Lleyton Hewitt who also started 530 ahead and was a semi final loser last year (225 points). He doesn't appear to be playing here so again Andy can go above him by reaching the final. 10th is Bhagdhatis who started 642 points above Andy. He didn't play last year so his last 16 appearance this time takes him way out of reach. You can forget about anyone higher. Basically, Murray is already guaranteed to climb above Acasuso, Kiefer and Ginepri into 18th. He can't get any higher without reaching the final. If he finishes runner up he'd move above Roddick, Hewitt and possibly Haas into 15th. If he were to win he'd also climb above Nieminen and Berdych into 13th.

He's already gotten above Acasuso. Coming into the tournament Murray had 1210 points and Acasuso 1225. Murray has gained 40 points even if he loses next round to Ginepri. Acasuso, who was defending 125 points, has gone backwards. 19th is Nicolas Kiefer who is 100 points ahead (1310). So far as I can see, Kiefer isn't playing in the tournament so will drop the 35 points he got last year. If Murray beats Ginepri he'll move above him too but not if he loses. 18th is Ginepri himself. He is 145 points ahead but defending 225 points for reching the semis last year. If Murray could beat him he'd lose 150 points and drop behind Murray. 17th is Tommy Haas, 245 points ahead. Given that he's still in the tournament, Murray can't realistically get that high this time. Basically he's up to 20th already and if he beats Ginepri he'll go to 18th.

Saw 'Miami Vice' at the cinema today. Reasonably good I thought if somewhat unbelievable. It defies belief that an international contraband running outfit with a turnover in the billions would 'outsource' delivery and do so to people they've just met, never mind one of the head players falling into bed with a new guy. It was remarkably easy and quick to infiltrat e a major crime syndicate at a very high level. Without wanting to spoil it much, given the clue "trailer trash with B.O. and noise", locating exactly the correct trailer in a park in the whole of Miami inside half an hour was ridiculous! Still, lots of shoot 'em up action and the bad guys lose in the end. If you're not expecting an epic it's enjoyable in a light entertainment kind of way.

Last week I read 'Next To You' which is the story of Caron Keating's life and death written by her mother Gloria Hunniford. It's moving account of her fight against cancer and her family's struggles. As a book I found it a brilliant read. I failed to realise just how 'off the wall' Caron Keating actually was before reading it. It's not your typical cancer sufferer's story since they clearly had the money to buy the best treatment known to man and move to Cornwall and Australia at the drop of a hat. It's also not typical given the bizarre alternative healing methods she tried. Rivetting read none the less. I'd say 8/10 as a biography.

His only meeting with either Roddick or Hewitt prior to yesterday were at San Jose. He has a perfect record against both. However, having beaten either on a hard court has little relevance to doing so on grass. That said, I'd say Roddick was the more difficult prospect in theory.

Er, yes. What part of that don't you follow? It's pretty straight forward.

Oh dear, he's off again. I predict another 4 or 5 pages! Twynholm, if you want to be patriotic that's fine. But there's nothing patriotic about "hating" anyone. That's just bigotry. It's not the same thing.

Absolutely spot on. Agree with every word of that, especially the last sentence.

He's not had much luck with the draw this year. Getting a seed in the first round was unfortunate but given that he was a clay specialist not a problem. But getting into the same quarter of the draw as Roddick and Hewitt, probably the best two grass players other than Federer was damned unfortunate and both are better players on the surface than Nadal and Nalbandian whose quarters would have been an easier chance to reach last four. To have beaten Roddick on grass is remarkable. To have done so in the manner he did and without Roddick playing at all badly was incredible. Easily the best I've seen Murray play. It would be a shame if he then blew it against Bhagdatis.

Ironically, he'll read this thread and think he's been really on form. Twynholm mate, you really are a complete fanny at times.

He's doing remarkably and playing ever so well but he's been a wee bit fortunate too. Roddick is puting far more pressure on Murray's serve than the other way about yet Murray has held his to date and Roddick lost one under pressure at the end of the second set. 2-0 certainly gives a false impression of the match but who cares? Gaun yersel Andy!

He also said later in an interview (after criticism of those comments) that he said it for a joke after Tim Henman had been winding him up about wearing an England shirt for the games and Scotland not being there. He didn't realise that people wouldn't "get" his dry wit. Whether you believe that or think it's backtracking to tone down the first comment (I tend to believe him) doesn't matter much. He certainly never said he hates the English.

Fantastic Four - 8/10 Dukes of Hazzard - 7/10 (would have been 6 but Jessica and those outfits is worht a least an extra full point! )

Used the Bank Holiday yesterday to take in two movies in Carlisle. First went to "Fantastic Four". Really enjoyed it despite what the critics said but then I love that kind of film and I was a big fan of the comic and cartoon series as a wee boy. Like all of these superhero type films it suffers from a slow start because of the need to explain how their powers developed. I'd imagine a Fantastic Four 2 would, like Spidermen 2, be much better than the first due to the ability to get started quicker. Then went to the Dukes of Hazzard, mainly because we wanted to take in another film and it was the one that's timing fitted best. Also I did enjoy the series on the telly years ago. Didn't enjoy it as much as the Fantastic Four although the wife preferred it so that's a matter of personal taste. Plot is wafer thin but good car chases, saloon brawls and wise cracks. It's pretty funny and, mmmmmmmmmm, Jessica Simpson............... Just like a long version of a tv episode really. Harmless entertainment without having to think about it. Not bad.