Waldo Ponce Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Andy Murray is shit. I wish I were as shit as Andy Murray is at tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWeb Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Decent effort from Murray at the French. Losing a long match to Nadal is no disgrace. Think people need to accept Murray is the fourth best player in the world and as such getting to the last four of a GS is good result. Too many arseholes seem to think Murray should win every tournament he plays in and not to do so is a slight to the memory of real legends such as Tim Henman and Jeremy Bates. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Think people need to accept Murray is the fourth best player in the world and as such getting to the last four of a GS is good result. Too many arseholes seem to think Murray should win every tournament he plays in Been beating this particular drum for a while now. Although I do think that the majority of people who think he's better than he is don't really follow tennis all year round. There's only been one GS event out of the last 25 that have been won by someone outside the big three of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, which was the US Open that Del Potro won in 2009. In the previous 25 GS events, there were 10 different winners. There's your answer. Had Murray been five years older, he'd probably have won two or three by now. But that's all conjecture. And in any event, he isn't! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Been beating this particular drum for a while now. Although I do think that the majority of people who think he's better than he is don't really follow tennis all year round. i do follow tennis all year round and i've seen him beat the top 3 often enough to think it is perfectly feasible for him to win a grand slam. it wasn't that long ago that he had clearly surpassed djokovic and looked what has happened since. nothing is set in stone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) it wasn't that long ago that he had clearly surpassed djokovic Feel free to correct me, but I think Murray's been ahead of Djokovic in the rankings for about 4 or 5 weeks in total. Since they both reached the top four anyway. I'm not sure when you think he 'clearly' surpassed him. Edited June 4, 2011 by StewartyMac 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) Feel free to correct me, but I think Murray's been ahead of Djokovic in the rankings for about 4 or 5 weeks in total. Since they both reached the top four anyway. I'm not sure when you think he 'clearly' surpassed him. Nah, Djokovic was 4th for at least 6 months. Murray took 3rd in May 09, and held it (including a brief stint in 2nd for a while, ahead of Nadal) until at least the US Open in 2009. The US Open is in September, so Djokovic was definitely 4th from May through September, and a while beyond that as well. Edited June 4, 2011 by Nightmare 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Feel free to correct me, but I think Murray's been ahead of Djokovic in the rankings for about 4 or 5 weeks in total. Since they both reached the top four anyway. I'm not sure when you think he 'clearly' surpassed him. when murray was 2 and djokovic was 4. djokovic had a quite a lean period when he was struggling with fitness and some dubious injuries as well having some terrible troubles with his eyesight where he seemed to be going blind every time he was struggling in a match. he's left all the that behind and has been electric this season. i believe it is possible for murray to click in the same way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKee Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 There's only been one GS event out of the last 25 that have been won by someone outside the big three of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, which was the US Open that Del Potro won in 2009. Safin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Safin was 26 GS's ago, so what he said is right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKee Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 No it wasn't. This French Open hasn't been won by anyone yet. This time tomorrow it will be correct. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 That's the most pedantic post I've ever seen. And anyway, it's still technically correct seeing as it can't be someone different who wins tomorrow anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 No it wasn't. This French Open hasn't been won by anyone yet. This time tomorrow it will be correct. It's correct just now, as I'm counting this year's French Open on account of the fact that it'll either be Federer or Nadal who wins it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue4578 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Surely if you have a spare £20,000 that you can afford to bet with, it's somewhat pointless to actually bet? Unless of course you're one greedy fucker. Why is it pointless? What's wrong with earning money? I certainly don't have enough to retire and buy everything I want so I want to earn more. Even people who have hundreds of millions continue to work as they'd probably get bored otherwise. I think it is his job, so to speak. Indeed it is. Decent effort from Murray at the French. Losing a long match to Nadal is no disgrace. Think people need to accept Murray is the fourth best player in the world and as such getting to the last four of a GS is good result. Too many arseholes seem to think Murray should win every tournament he plays in and not to do so is a slight to the memory of real legends such as Tim Henman and Jeremy Bates. Being the fourth best in the world at anything is quite an achievement, but in individual sports it leaves people wanting more. If you look at golf, even though Donald and Westwood have got to number one, everyone then questions them having not won a major. Yet in football if you're the fourth best in the world (I believe Wesley Sneijder came fourth in the FIFA Ballon d'Or) you get widely praised. I would take issue with comparing Tim Henman and Jeremy Bates though. Henman was the best British male player since Fred Perry until Andy Murray came along, and also suffered from being very good but not quite good enough to win the big one. Henman: highest singles ranking of 4, fives times ranked in the year end top 10, six grand slam semi finals, 11 ATP titles (including one what would now be called a Masters 1000 event) plus 17 times runner-up, 496-274 career ATP record. Bates: highest singles ranking of 54, 1 (very minor) ATP title with no other final appearances, two Wimbledon fourth rounds, a 132-196 losing career record on the ATP Tour. Had Murray been five years older, he'd probably have won two or three by now. But that's all conjecture. And in any event, he isn't! Maybe eight to ten years older and he'd possibly have won one. Five years older and he'd have been nine months younger than Federer and would've had to contend with Federer when he was dominant. i do follow tennis all year round and i've seen him beat the top 3 often enough to think it is perfectly feasible for him to win a grand slam. it wasn't that long ago that he had clearly surpassed djokovic and looked what has happened since. nothing is set in stone. Djokovic had a spell where he struggled, but that was due to fitness and unspecified personal problems. When Murray and Djokovic both emerged (they were born a week apart), Djokovic won their first four meetings, including three crushing wins in 2007 and 2008 with some 6-0 sets thrown in. As I said somewhere else on this thread (or the Australian Open one) if both Murray and Djokovic are fit and well and playing near their best level, I think Djokovic is comfortably the better player. Nah, Djokovic was 4th for at least 6 months. Murray took 3rd in May 09, and held it (including a brief stint in 2nd for a while, ahead of Nadal) until at least the US Open in 2009. The US Open is in September, so Djokovic was definitely 4th from May through September, and a while beyond that as well. Djokovic first hit the top three in the world in June 2007. He fell to fourth for a week a couple of months later, but other than that he was fourth for 20 weeks in the summer of 2009. I know it's slightly splitting hairs, but to say he was fourth for at least six months is incorrect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Djokovic first hit the top three in the world in June 2007. He fell to fourth for a week a couple of months later, but other than that he was fourth for 20 weeks in the summer of 2009. I know it's slightly splitting hairs, but to say he was fourth for at least six months is incorrect. Closer to 6 months than 4 weeks, anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue4578 Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Indeed, you were pretty much spot on, but unfortunately I am extremely pedantic. I know I shouldn't be, but I can't help myself sometimes, just ask my girlfriend. Anyone watching the final? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Indeed, you were pretty much spot on, but unfortunately I am extremely pedantic. I know I shouldn't be, but I can't help myself sometimes, just ask my girlfriend. Anyone watching the final? Yes. Federer has been outstanding the last few games, looked a straight setter at 2-4 down in the third, but he's right in it again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widge Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Nadal will still win, but at least federer has given himself a chance. Should have broken in the first game though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Terrific final. Nadal showing once again that even among great champions he has something a bit extra. The guy's made of steel - physically and mentally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKee Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Shanks can only keep landing on the lines for so long. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David W Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Terrific final. Nadal showing once again that even among great champions he has something a bit extra. The guy's made of steel - physically and mentally. Sums it up. I thought Federer was outstanding (did make a few daft mistakes but he had an offensive gameplan) but I didn't ever think Nadal wouldn't win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.