PDA

View Full Version : Murray will win the USO this year?


Cyan
04-23-2009, 04:05 PM
Murray is the best HC player on tour.

egn
04-23-2009, 04:07 PM
Murray is the best HC player on tour.

This was said about last years US Open and this years Aussie Open...he is 0 for 2.

Serendipitous
04-23-2009, 04:17 PM
Well, I think we can make an exception for last year's US Open because he was very nervous during the final and couldn't find any rhythm against Fed (and it didn't help that he was robbed of a break of serve in the fifth game of the second set at 2-2).

Murray has a very good chance of winning the US Open.......that is, if Nadal is exhausted after playing so many matches.

shawn1122
04-23-2009, 04:31 PM
I think he would have no problem against Nadal there, regardless of if he is tired or not. He is the likely candidate to win it, he was on fire at the us open and got nervous in the final. Then at the aussie he lost to the player that was on fire while not playing near 100%, so he is definitely the most likely candidate to take it this year.

Nadalator
04-23-2009, 04:36 PM
Murray is the best HC player on tour.

Nope, Nadal is.

vtmike
04-23-2009, 04:41 PM
Murray is the best HC player on tour.

I'm sorry?...How many slams has Murray won so far? :oops:

Clydey2times
04-23-2009, 05:02 PM
This was said about last years US Open and this years Aussie Open...he is 0 for 2.

That was not said before last year's US Open. Nothing of the sort was said. In fact, he had just lost to Lu in the Olympics.

And anyone who bothered to follow his progress this years knows exactly why he lost to Verdasco at the Australian Open.

Clydey2times
04-23-2009, 05:03 PM
I'm sorry?...How many slams has Murray won so far? :oops:

You're right.

Federer is still the best hard court player.

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 05:29 PM
You're right.

Federer is still the best hard court player.
Even in 2008, Federer wasn't the best hard court player anymore. Murray won 5 tournaments on hard including 2 masters, Djokovic won 3 including a slam, a master and the master cup. (Fed had only 2: 1 slam and 1 small tournament). In 2009 Nadal joined the party with his best start of the season so far including a slam and a master and Murray has already won 3 hard court tournaments. To me, this is the second year already that Federer has relinquished his spot as best hard court player.

ODYSSEY Mk.4
04-23-2009, 05:30 PM
You're right.

Federer is still the best hard court player.

lol great post
murray may win it we wont know til it happens..

Clydey2times
04-23-2009, 05:39 PM
Even in 2008, Federer wasn't the best hard court player anymore. Murray won 5 tournaments on hard including 2 masters, Djokovic won 3 including a slam, a master and the master cup. (Fed had only 2: 1 slam and 1 small tournament). In 2009 Nadal joined the party with his best start of the season so far including a slam and a master and Murray has already won 3 hard court tournaments. To me, this is the second year already that Federer has relinquished his spot as best hard court player.

If we're being objective and basing it on recent results, regardless of circumstances and what ifs, Nadal is the best hard court player in the world, closely followed by Murray. I'd say that Federer has dropped from 2nd possibly to 4th on hard this year.

vtmike
04-23-2009, 05:55 PM
You're right.

Federer is still the best hard court player.

I never said anything about Federer...you are just assuming things out of thin air.......AGAIN! :roll:

PS: Nadal & Djokovic have also won hard court slams ;)

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 05:59 PM
If we're being objective and basing it on recent results, regardless of circumstances and what ifs, Nadal is the best hard court player in the world, closely followed by Murray. I'd say that Federer has dropped from 2nd possibly to 4th on hard this year.
I agree that's the way things stand right now. I think in 2008 the best hard court players were Murray and Djokovic and so far in 2009 they've been Nadal and Murray. We'll see what the future brings.

Clydey2times
04-23-2009, 06:08 PM
I never said anything about Federer...you are just assuming things out of thin air.......AGAIN! :roll:

PS: Nadal & Djokovic have also won hard court slams ;)

And Nadal is currently the best hard court player in the world.

Actually, I should be more specific. I think Nadal is the best slow hard court player and Murray is the best fast hard court player.

I mean, do you think Djokovic is a better hard court player than Murray because he won the AO over a year ago?

GameSampras
04-23-2009, 06:20 PM
I could see Murray finally doing it this year. I think it will depend on what the rankings look like at the end of the season though.

Murray has first final slam gitters out of the way so he should be ready to go.

flyer
04-23-2009, 06:38 PM
i would pick him right now, a lot can happen between now and the USO though, so no one knows really

rubberduckies
04-23-2009, 06:40 PM
The Nadal-Murray final should be pretty interesting.
World no1 and no2.
Nadal shooting for a calendar slam, having just disposed of Federer in the semis, in record time, 6-0, 6-4, 6-0.
Murray going for his first slam after barely getting by world no7 Gulbis 6-4, 1-6, 7-6(10), 0-6, 7-6(22).

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 06:46 PM
The Nadal-Murray final should be pretty interesting.
World no1 and no2.
Nadal shooting for a calendar slam, having just disposed of Federer in the semis, in record time, 6-0, 6-4, 6-0.
Murray going for his first slam after barely getting by world no7 Gulbis 6-4, 1-6, 7-6(10), 0-6, 7-6(22).
You think Federer will make it to the semis? :shock:
(just joking :))

deltox
04-23-2009, 07:09 PM
Nope, Nadal is.

LOL i assume your being sarcastic or maybe just another mindless fanboi.

VivalaVida
04-23-2009, 07:11 PM
LOL i assume your being sarcastic or maybe just another mindless fanboi.
actually it is not a ridiculous assumption. Nadal has won AO and IW so he is the best HC player this season by far.

deltox
04-23-2009, 07:18 PM
actually it is not a ridiculous assumption. Nadal has won AO and IW so he is the best HC player this season by far.

yeah true, but lets be real, the USO isnt any old hardcourt to be compared to.

Clydey2times
04-23-2009, 07:30 PM
actually it is not a ridiculous assumption. Nadal has won AO and IW so he is the best HC player this season by far.

I wouldn't say by far. I think that's way over the top. In terms of win ratio and win/loss, Murray had a better opening hard court season. They both won a huge MS event and Nadal's AO win obviously tips it for him. I think it's unfair to judge Murray's AO performance, given the circumstances.

nhat8121
04-23-2009, 08:26 PM
I'm sorry?...How many slams has Murray won so far? :oops:

what an idiotic thing to say, really

not even worth explaining the reasoning...it's just too stupid.

Bloodshed
04-23-2009, 09:10 PM
I think Murray has all the tools necessary to win this year USO. However, he has to prove himself and his critics that he can beat the likes of Federer, Djokovic, Nadal (he proved it last year) on numerous occassions to earn it.

IMO he should definately win it this year but it remains to be seen.

Fliparoni
04-24-2009, 02:48 PM
I think Federer, in a best of 5 set match situation is still a force to be reckoned with on a hard court. In a best of 3 set match..... not so much anymore. Remember, Fed would have been kicked out of the AO in the 4th round by Berdych had it been a best of 3. Best of 5's are different beasts all together.

All-rounder
04-24-2009, 02:53 PM
If murray isn't winning US open then i see Federer or novak taking it before nadal does

GameSampras
04-24-2009, 04:31 PM
If murray isn't winning US open then i see Federer or novak taking it before nadal does

But how?? Fed is passed his priime. :confused:

deltox
04-24-2009, 05:02 PM
If murray isn't winning US open then i see Federer or novak taking it before nadal does

i see nadal going deep into the draw.. but this could turn out to be his achilles heel at the end of his career, its definitely not one of his best courts.

federerdomination
04-24-2009, 06:01 PM
But how?? Fed is passed his priime. :confused:

Well regardless of whether or not he is past his prime, he is still the 5 time defending champion and hasn't lost there in a loonng time.

rogerowns
04-24-2009, 07:35 PM
absolutely not. federer's 6th straight for sure

Cyan
04-25-2009, 03:18 PM
Actually, I should be more specific. I think Nadal is the best slow hard court player and Murray is the best fast hard court player.



Yeah, this is what I meant. And USO is fast HCs.

All-rounder
04-25-2009, 03:22 PM
But how?? Fed is passed his priime. :confused:
He was past his prime in US open 2008 after suffering a loss to nadal at wimbledon and losing his no.1 ranking and still won it so don't count him out yet

P_Agony
04-25-2009, 03:29 PM
Even in 2008, Federer wasn't the best hard court player anymore. Murray won 5 tournaments on hard including 2 masters, Djokovic won 3 including a slam, a master and the master cup. (Fed had only 2: 1 slam and 1 small tournament). In 2009 Nadal joined the party with his best start of the season so far including a slam and a master and Murray has already won 3 hard court tournaments. To me, this is the second year already that Federer has relinquished his spot as best hard court player.

I agree. But still, Murray's won 0 HC slams in 2008 while Federer won 1. Simple math. This is why I think even if Fed and Murray meet in the US Open final of 2009, I'd still favor Fed. Not against Nadal though. Fed will probably ask Nadal to choke him before the match so he wouldn't do it himself in it.

GameSampras
04-25-2009, 03:29 PM
He was past his prime in US open 2008 after suffering a loss to nadal at wimbledon and losing his no.1 ranking and still won it so don't count him out yet

I know Im just mocking people who want to say Fed is past his prime yet how he seems to reach every slam final.

All-rounder
04-25-2009, 03:36 PM
I know Im just mocking people who want to say Fed is past his prime yet how he seems to reach every slam final.
Your judging Federer on his results instead of his performance which seems silly that means players like safin roddick nalbandian are still heavy in their prime which is non sense if you watch their tennis nowadays

P_Agony
04-25-2009, 03:44 PM
Your judging Federer on his results instead of his performance which seems silly that means players like safin roddick nalbandian are still heavy in their prime which is non sense if you watch their tennis nowadays

Good post. It won't put any sense into GameSampras. It's hopeless.

CANADIAN763
04-25-2009, 03:53 PM
No. Wrong. False. What ever you want to say, I don't see it happening for a couple years.
One Nadal is too good at slams at the moment and two this is the only place left that Federer has any confidence (besides Basel!!!!!)

Cyan
08-28-2009, 11:40 AM
bump........................

P_Agony
08-28-2009, 11:47 AM
Murray is the best HC player on tour.

Not in slams he isn't. So far he won nothing.

Plus, Fed gave him quite a beating in Cincy. It'll be interesting if they meet in the final.

Peche
08-28-2009, 11:54 AM
Not in slams he isn't. So far he won nothing.

Plus, Fed gave him quite a beating in Cincy. It'll be interesting if they meet in the final.

Murray was not serving and returning nearly as well as he usually does against Federer.

P_Agony
08-28-2009, 12:09 PM
Murray was not serving and returning nearly as well as he usually does against Federer.

Same goes for Federer in their past 4 meetings. It goes both ways.

If they meet at the USO final (like they should), I would put my money on Fed. It won't be a beating like last year, but I doubt Murray can outlast Fed in a best of five.

Feņa14
08-28-2009, 12:10 PM
Murray's played one, arguably two hard court majors since he started to find his game. He lost to Federer in a final after a long match over Nadal in 2 days, and he lost to a red hot Verdasco when he had the flu in Australia.

These are reasons for him to not win a major? lol, ok people.

Peche
08-28-2009, 12:14 PM
Same goes for Federer in their past 4 meetings. It goes both ways.

If they meet at the USO final (like they should), I would put my money on Fed. It won't be a beating like last year, but I doubt Murray can outlast Fed in a best of five.

I thought Federer played his usual self in Madrid and the YEC last year. Was smashing backhands DTL and forehands crosscourt like crazy. Equally, Murray defeated Federer in what most people believed was during his prime (06).

Personally, if Murray plays offensive rather than passive (similar to last year) i would go with Andy.

beernutz
08-28-2009, 12:36 PM
Murray is the best HC player on tour.

What happened in Cincinnati then?

joeri888
08-28-2009, 12:38 PM
Well, I think we can make an exception for last year's US Open because he was very nervous during the final and couldn't find any rhythm against Fed (and it didn't help that he was robbed of a break of serve in the fifth game of the second set at 2-2).

Murray has a very good chance of winning the US Open.......that is, if Nadal is exhausted after playing so many matches.

He wasn't robbed, he should have challenged. That's the whole point of the challenge system, we can now blame the players for everything :)

World Beater
08-28-2009, 12:40 PM
murray is the best form player on tour on HC.

Federer has the credentials and the reputation...he had a nice tournament in cincy but lets not get carried away. He was sub-par earlier in the season.

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 12:41 PM
Not in slams he isn't. So far he won nothing.

Plus, Fed gave him quite a beating in Cincy. It'll be interesting if they meet in the final.

It wasn't a beating. The first set was decisive. The second set could have gone either way. Murray had 2 setpoints in the breaker.

And that's bearing in mind that Murray returned the worst he has in years. That's why I'm encouraged for the USO. Murray played a very poor match against a very good Federer and still, in my opinion, was inches from winning the match. The reason I say that is because Murray has always beaten Federer when it's come down to the final set.

cknobman
08-28-2009, 12:42 PM
Until Murray wins a slam calling him the favorite at any slam is ********.

Murray post Cincinnati with his coach:
"I just cant dooo it captain. I dont... have.. the power!!!!"

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 12:44 PM
He wasn't robbed, he should have challenged. That's the whole point of the challenge system, we can now blame the players for everything :)

Harsh. It was breakpoint. He would've had to stop the point to challenge. That would have been a massive risk and is a decision that has to be made in a split second. The fact is that he broke serve and didn't get awarded it, whether you want to blame him or the linesperson.

joeri888
08-28-2009, 12:49 PM
Harsh. It was breakpoint. He would've had to stop the point to challenge. That would have been a massive risk and is a decision that has to be made in a split second. The fact is that he broke serve and didn't get awarded it, whether you want to blame him or the linesperson.

yeah, well.. in that case.. linescalls still are part of tennis.. it's no robbery, he had faith in his own hands. He could have challenged. It was that close that today we are still very uncertain about whether that ball was in or out. It looked like it might not have made the line, but I wouldn't dare to go against someone watching on the line, ONLY based on that replay we got to see there. They didn't show official review of it. So, although it was bad for Murray, saying he was robbed of a break is both premature and ridiculous imo. Murray had a good reason not to be awesome that day, but on that day Federer just was a LOT better.

Serendipitous
08-28-2009, 12:54 PM
yeah, well.. in that case.. linescalls still are part of tennis.. it's no robbery, he had faith in his own hands. He could have challenged. It was that close that today we are still very uncertain about whether that ball was in or out. It looked like it might not have made the line, but I wouldn't dare to go against someone watching on the line, ONLY based on that replay we got to see there. They didn't show official review of it. So, although it was bad for Murray, saying he was robbed of a break is both premature and ridiculous imo. Murray had a good reason not to be awesome that day, but on that day Federer just was a LOT better.

The replay was accurate. The ball also looked out. Even Murray said it was out in his post-match interview. If the lines person called it out it would have changed the match.......

I agree, though. It's somewhat Murray's fault.

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 12:58 PM
yeah, well.. in that case.. linescalls still are part of tennis.. it's no robbery, he had faith in his own hands. He could have challenged. It was that close that today we are still very uncertain about whether that ball was in or out. It looked like it might not have made the line, but I wouldn't dare to go against someone watching on the line, ONLY based on that replay we got to see there. They didn't show official review of it. So, although it was bad for Murray, saying he was robbed of a break is both premature and ridiculous imo. Murray had a good reason not to be awesome that day, but on that day Federer just was a LOT better.

The commentators saw the official review. They said that they saw hawkeye and the ball was out. It was definitely out. I wouldn't even mention it, unless it was confirmed as being out.

That was a massive moment in the match. Murray would have been up a break and would have been a strong favourite to make it 1-set all. Instead, he went down 2 sets and there was no coming back from that.

Serendipitous
08-28-2009, 01:13 PM
yeah, well.. in that case.. linescalls still are part of tennis.. it's no robbery, he had faith in his own hands. He could have challenged. It was that close that today we are still very uncertain about whether that ball was in or out. It looked like it might not have made the line, but I wouldn't dare to go against someone watching on the line, ONLY based on that replay we got to see there. They didn't show official review of it. So, although it was bad for Murray, saying he was robbed of a break is both premature and ridiculous imo. Murray had a good reason not to be awesome that day, but on that day Federer just was a LOT better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nftvRN2Ms6w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3 Fq%3Dfederer%2Bmurray%2Bus%2Bopen%2B2008%26emb%3D1 %26aq%3Df&feature=player_embedded

Go to 5:30

It was clearly out.

Peche
08-28-2009, 01:14 PM
It wasn't a beating. The first set was decisive. The second set could have gone either way. Murray had 2 setpoints in the breaker.

And that's bearing in mind that Murray returned the worst he has in years. That's why I'm encouraged for the USO. Murray played a very poor match against a very good Federer and still, in my opinion, was inches from winning the match. The reason I say that is because Murray has always beaten Federer when it's come down to the final set.

Well said.

Also, Murray has the hardest draw out of the top 4 by far. Although last year's was not much easier.

JoshDragon
08-28-2009, 01:15 PM
Well said.

Also, Murray has the hardest draw out of the top 4 by far. Although last year's was not much easier.

Not even close. Nadal's draw is much much harder than Murray's.

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 01:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nftvRN2Ms6w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3 Fq%3Dfederer%2Bmurray%2Bus%2Bopen%2B2008%26emb%3D1 %26aq%3Df&feature=player_embedded

Go to 5:30

It was clearly out.

The commentators saw it on Hawkeye anyway. I remember McEnroe was ****ed off about the call for a little while.

Serendipitous
08-28-2009, 01:18 PM
The commentators saw it on Hawkeye anyway. I remember McEnroe was ****ed off about the call for a little while.

Yeah, I know. It was at least 2 inches out.

batz
08-28-2009, 01:18 PM
Not even close. Nadal's draw is much much harder than Murray's.

It's only you and the voices who think this.

Peche
08-28-2009, 01:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nftvRN2Ms6w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3 Fq%3Dfederer%2Bmurray%2Bus%2Bopen%2B2008%26emb%3D1 %26aq%3Df&feature=player_embedded

Go to 5:30

It was clearly out.

lol.

That's just out of order.

flyinghippos101
08-28-2009, 01:34 PM
bump........................

sheesh whats with all these ancient threads

Fedex
08-28-2009, 02:16 PM
Murray is the best HC player on tour.

Not with that nightmare of a draw.

Omega_7000
08-28-2009, 02:24 PM
It wasn't a beating. The first set was decisive. The second set could have gone either way. Murray had 2 setpoints in the breaker.

And that's bearing in mind that Murray returned the worst he has in years. That's why I'm encouraged for the USO. Murray played a very poor match against a very good Federer and still, in my opinion, was inches from winning the match. The reason I say that is because Murray has always beaten Federer when it's come down to the final set.

Murray's return always seems to go down the crapper when he faces inform and top players in GS's...Maybe he should just exit early in Slams so that he can maintain a higher return percentage than the rest of the field...

Murray did not play a poor match. It was Federer that made him look bad just like he did in the USO finals last year...

Oh and your post is just a big bag of excuses!

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 02:51 PM
Murray's return always seems to go down the crapper when he faces inform and top players in GS's...Maybe he should just exit early in Slams so that he can maintain a higher return percentage than the rest of the field...

Murray did not play a poor match. It was Federer that made him look bad just like he did in the USO finals last year...

Oh and your post is just a big bag of excuses!

Yeah, Murray played great last week. The previous match, against Bennetteau, was a real high point as well.

JoshDragon
08-28-2009, 04:09 PM
It's only you and the voices who think this.

Ok, I'll be fair, let's go over this.

Round 1: Nadal has Gasquet and Murray has Gulbis

More difficult opponent: Nadal's.

Round 2: Nadal will probably have Kiefer and Murray has a journeyman.

More difficult opponent: Nadal's.

Round 3: Murray could have Karlovic or Dent, Nadal probably has Almagaro or Ginepri.

More difficult opponent: Murray.

Round 4: Murray will probably have Wawrinka and Nadal could have Ferrer.

More difficult opponent: Nadal's. (Ferrer has had better results than Wawrinka.)

Quarter-finals: Murray will have Del Potro and Nadal will have Tsonga.

More difficult opponent: Nadal's. It's close but I give the edge to Tsonga because he beat Roger on hard courts and made the finals at a hard court major. Something Del Potro still has yet to do.

4 out of 5 of Nadal's opponents are more difficult than Murray's.

Omega_7000
08-28-2009, 05:27 PM
Yeah, Murray played great last week. The previous match, against Bennetteau, was a real high point as well.

Why? because the match went to three sets? Is it at all possible that Bennetteau played better for one set or is that too difficult to comprehend in Murrayland? Federer also had a three setter against Ferrer and lost to Tsonga the week before...Does that indicate Fed was in the form of his life? or does that logic only apply to Murray?

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 05:30 PM
Why? because the match went to three sets? Is it at all possible that Bennetteau played better for one set or is that too difficult to comprehend in Murrayland? Federer also had a three setter against Ferrer and lost to Tsonga the week before...Does that indicate Fed was in the form of his life? or does that logic only apply to Murray?

The Federer-Ferrer match was in awful conditions. That contributed to the poor standard of tennis. Murray-Bennetteau was simply awful, period.

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 05:35 PM
Ok, I'll be fair, let's go over this.

Round 1: Nadal has Gasquet and Murray has Gulbis

More difficult opponent: Nadal's.

Round 2: Nadal will probably have Kiefer and Murray has a journeyman.

More difficult opponent: Nadal's.

Round 3: Murray could have Karlovic or Dent, Nadal probably has Almagaro or Ginepri.

More difficult opponent: Murray.

Round 4: Murray will probably have Wawrinka and Nadal could have Ferrer.

More difficult opponent: Nadal's. (Ferrer has had better results than Wawrinka.)

Quarter-finals: Murray will have Del Potro and Nadal will have Tsonga.

More difficult opponent: Nadal's. It's close but I give the edge to Tsonga because he beat Roger on hard courts and made the finals at a hard court major. Something Del Potro still has yet to do.

4 out of 5 of Nadal's opponents are more difficult than Murray's.

Gasquet has barely played a match in months. I'd rather have Gasquet as my first round opponent, all things considered. He'll be operating at about 20%. Gulbis is a dangerous opponent, since he can just go for broke.

And Tsonga more difficult than Del Potro? Give me a break. No one in their right mind would want Del Potro instead of Tsonga on current form. I like how you're basing this on the fact that Federer essentially choked away a 5-1 lead in the 3rd set.

And I'd take Ferrer over Wawrinka, too. Wawa can actually hurt you when he plays well. Ferrer just scampers around, trying to get every single ball onto his forehand, no matter how much court he has to give up, or how little time he has to run around his backhand.

Omega_7000
08-28-2009, 05:59 PM
The Federer-Ferrer match was in awful conditions. That contributed to the poor standard of tennis. Murray-Bennetteau was simply awful, period.

Whatever helps you go sleep at night... ;)

JoshDragon
08-28-2009, 06:01 PM
Gasquet has barely played a match in months. I'd rather have Gasquet as my first round opponent, all things considered. He'll be operating at about 20%. Gulbis is a dangerous opponent, since he can just go for broke.

And Tsonga more difficult than Del Potro? Give me a break. No one in their right mind would want Del Potro instead of Tsonga on current form. I like how you're basing this on the fact that Federer essentially choked away a 5-1 lead in the 3rd set.

And I'd take Ferrer over Wawrinka, too. Wawa can actually hurt you when he plays well. Ferrer just scampers around, trying to get every single ball onto his forehand, no matter how much court he has to give up, or how little time he has to run around his backhand.

That's not the only win Tsonga has had over the big four he beat Nadal at the AO last year and he has a winning h2h over Djokovic. Tsonga, is a qualified dangerous threat. Oh and Del Potro's never been past the quarters before.

Ferrer has had better results than Wawrinka.

imalil2gangsta4u
08-28-2009, 06:03 PM
Federer is the best hard court player because he has the results to back it up. Murray is still the 2nd favorite.

Bloodshed
08-28-2009, 06:10 PM
Murray is the 2nd favorite to win the US Open. Now will I think he will win? Not this year. He will have his hand fulls of tough opponents.

As much as I hate to say this but I see Murray winning a Grandslam next year(possibly US 2010).

TheFifthSet
08-28-2009, 06:18 PM
Harsh. It was breakpoint. He would've had to stop the point to challenge. That would have been a massive risk and is a decision that has to be made in a split second. The fact is that he broke serve and didn't get awarded it, whether you want to blame him or the linesperson.

It was out 3-4 inches. Massive risk? Sorry, Murray flinched and there's nothing you can do about it.

Serendipitous
08-28-2009, 06:21 PM
It was out 3-4 inches. Massive risk? Sorry, Murray flinched and there's nothing you can do about it.

We can go back in time. :)

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 06:25 PM
It was out 3-4 inches. Massive risk? Sorry, Murray flinched and there's nothing you can do about it.

I don't recall saying that there was something I could do about it. It was a big decision that had to be made in a split second. Whether he got awarded the break is irrelevant. He did break serve. He just got unlucky with the call.

oy vey
08-28-2009, 06:48 PM
What happened in Cincinnati then?

He couldn't even defend his title.

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 06:54 PM
He couldn't even defend his title.

I think that's the first time Murray has failed in an attempt to defend a title.

shaysrebelII
08-28-2009, 07:05 PM
Murray was not serving and returning nearly as well as he usually does against Federer.

and therein lies the problem. he corrects those flaws and he'll start beating fed again. but until then, we should expect cincy-like results.

Gugafan
08-28-2009, 08:28 PM
Gasquet has barely played a match in months. I'd rather have Gasquet as my first round opponent, all things considered. He'll be operating at about 20%. Gulbis is a dangerous opponent, since he can just go for broke.

And Tsonga more difficult than Del Potro? Give me a break. No one in their right mind would want Del Potro instead of Tsonga on current form. I like how you're basing this on the fact that Federer essentially choked away a 5-1 lead in the 3rd set.

And I'd take Ferrer over Wawrinka, too. Wawa can actually hurt you when he plays well. Ferrer just scampers around, trying to get every single ball onto his forehand, no matter how much court he has to give up, or how little time he has to run around his backhand.

Certainly agree with the above points Clydey. Murrays draw from the Qf onwards is as tough as they come. He would need to beat Del Potro, Nadal or Tsonga and Federer...This is without taking any of the dangerous floaters in the earlier rds for granted.

Clydey2times
08-28-2009, 08:48 PM
Certainly agree with the above points Clydey. Murrays draw from the Qf onwards is as tough as they come. He would need to beat Del Potro, Nadal or Tsonga and Federer...This is without taking any of the dangerous floaters in the earlier rds for granted.

If he does win his first slam here (which I seriously doubt), no one can say he didn't earn it. Tough as nails draw.

Del Potro is the biggest concern. Even more so than a potential Nadal semi, in my opinion.

Andy G
08-28-2009, 10:01 PM
Murray is the best HC player on tour.

He is absolutly the best HC player this year. Did you see the way he whooped Fed at Cincy. Oh, hold on, umm, never mind.

Ripster
08-28-2009, 10:16 PM
I think Murray will win the US Open this year. That is all.

JoshDragon
08-28-2009, 10:18 PM
If he does win his first slam here (which I seriously doubt), no one can say he didn't earn it. Tough as nails draw.

Del Potro is the biggest concern. Even more so than a potential Nadal semi, in my opinion.

How many major hard court semis has del potro been to? How many major semis has Nadal been to? Three and that's just on hard courts.

It's no wonder this thread only has a one star rating.

Cup8489
08-28-2009, 10:21 PM
How many major hard court semis has del potro been to? How many major semis has Nadal been to? Three and that's just on hard courts.

It's no wonder this thread only has a one star rating.

past form is hardly applicable here. nadal got rocked by djokovic last week, and by del potro the week before. delpo keeps getting better and better, and has only just recently come into his form. in contrast, nadal is slipping from his semifinal days, and probably won't be as big of a threat as you seem to think.

of course, i hope nadal is able to return to that level, otherwise fed will just start winning every major in sight once again. God knows that Djokovic and Murray don't appear up to the task at the moment..

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 03:20 AM
How many major hard court semis has del potro been to? How many major semis has Nadal been to? Three and that's just on hard courts.

It's no wonder this thread only has a one star rating.

Nadal still isn't at his best, or do you think he's on top form already? Think about what you're saying before posting.

Under normal circumstances, Nadal would obviously be a more difficult match. That's obvious.

Peche
08-29-2009, 03:20 AM
Clydey, don't forget that Del Potro struggled with a 3 set match with Murray. How will he fare when playing a 5 set match of grueling long rallies?

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 03:22 AM
Clydey, don't forget that Del Potro struggled with a 3 set match with Murray. How will he fare when playing a 5 set match of grueling long rallies?

He'll be fine. He's had a 2 week break. He didn't play Cinci. Del Potro is one of the form players, while Nadal is still finding his best form. He's not firing on all cylinders quite yet.

Peche
08-29-2009, 03:26 AM
He'll be fine. He's had a 2 week break. He didn't play Cinci. Del Potro is one of the form players, while Nadal is still finding his best form. He's not firing on all cylinders quite yet.

What are your thoughts on Murray's US Open chances this year?

I believe the draw has really hindered his hope. :S

Hopefully i'm wrong! :D

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 03:47 AM
What are your thoughts on Murray's US Open chances this year?

I believe the draw has really hindered his hope. :S

Hopefully i'm wrong! :D

I think the draw has really dented his chances, too. I'm not optimistic, to be honest. I mean, he'll probably have to beat Del Potro, Nadal, and Federer back to back. :(

Spider
08-29-2009, 03:58 AM
I think the draw has really dented his chances, too. I'm not optimistic, to be honest. I mean, he'll probably have to beat Del Potro, Nadal, and Federer back to back. :(

Del Potro - Murray would rip him apart 9 out of the 10 times

Nadal - would be schooled by Murray on hardcourts each time they play.

Federer - could be a slight problem but other then Federer no one else is beating Murray.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 04:00 AM
Del Potro - Murray would rip him apart 9 out of the 10 times

Nadal - would be schooled by Murray on hardcourts each time they play.

Federer - could be a slight problem but other then Federer no one else is beating Murray.

It's beating them back to back that concerns me. It's a lot to ask. Not that he can't do it, but it's a very tough task.

The-Champ
08-29-2009, 04:00 AM
Del Potro - Murray would rip him apart 9 out of the 10 times

Nadal - would be schooled by Murray on hardcourts each time they play.


Federer - could be a slight problem but other then Federer no one else is beating Murray.


Like he schooled Nadal at IW earlier this year?

Spider
08-29-2009, 04:04 AM
It's beating them back to back that concerns me. It's a lot to ask. Not that he can't do it, but it's a very tough task.

Thats true, however Murray on hardcourts won't have problems dispatching both Del Potro and Nadal back to back (he did it last year when he wasn't as consistent as he is now). Beating Federer (and that too in slam final), now that I agree is a very tall order.

Like he schooled Nadal at IW earlier this year?

No, it was windy that day, it wasn't fit enough to play tennis. I was talking about schooling like US semi final last year. :)

The-Champ
08-29-2009, 04:16 AM
No, it was windy that day, it wasn't fit enough to play tennis. I was talking about schooling like US semi final last year. :)




Late season...Rafa is always tired by that time...having won the olympics where Murray disappeared in the 1st round. :)


Still he couldn't beat Federer in the finals. What's the use of being in the final if you can't beat a GOAT pretender?

Spider
08-29-2009, 04:22 AM
Late season...Rafa is always tired by that time...having won the olympics where Murray disappeared in the 1st round. :)


Still he couldn't beat Federer in the finals. What's the use of being in the final if you can't beat a GOAT pretender?

Hahaha Olympics is not something that Murray was concentrating on, it's the slam that matters. Still hurts Nadal has been dispatched as the second best player? Murray has performed better than Nadal in the last two slams.

As far as US open this year is concerned, Murray has more chances to win it than Nadal, lets see if he does it. :)

Omega_7000
08-29-2009, 04:25 AM
^^^ I wonder how you will react if DelPo eliminates both Murray & Nadal... :)

Spider
08-29-2009, 04:30 AM
^^^ I wonder how you will react if DelPo eliminates both Murray & Nadal... :)

If Del Potro was in Nadal's quarter of the draw, he would have ripped him apart (in current form). Murray is a different type of player.

The-Champ
08-29-2009, 04:31 AM
Hahaha Olympics is not something that Murray was concentrating on, it's the slam that matters. Still hurts Nadal has been dispatched as the second best player? Murray has performed better than Nadal in the last two slams.

As far as US open this year is concerned, Murray has more chances to win it than Nadal, lets see if he does it. :)



It's the slam that matters for Murray? How many slams has he won? You make it sound as if Murray has already won 10 slams that he doesn't care about olympics or IW. :)

Rafa has been number 2 for 4 years with 6 slams, he's done that. Murray is no.2 with nothing!

All-rounder
08-29-2009, 04:34 AM
loool feels good to sit back and see Murray and nadal fans argue

Peche
08-29-2009, 04:36 AM
I think the draw has really dented his chances, too. I'm not optimistic, to be honest. I mean, he'll probably have to beat Del Potro, Nadal, and Federer back to back. :(

As you said before, if he does win, it really just shows how great a player he is. :)

Spider
08-29-2009, 04:37 AM
It's the slam that matters for Murray? How many slams has he won? You make it sound as if Murray has already won 10 slams that he doesn't care about olympics or IW. :)

Rafa has been number 2 for 4 years with 6 slams, he's done that. Murray is no.2 with nothing!

Murray has been the most dominating player in the best of three brand of tennis for the past one year, performed better than Nadal in three of the last four slams, the current second best player and he has done nothing?

Winning slams, that's something he should start doing. I didn't mean he doesn't care about Olympics, what I meant was knowing US open was a week later (and considering his previous fitness issues), it would have been foolish on his part to go all out for the Olympics. Tanking it was a wise option.

The-Champ
08-29-2009, 04:39 AM
loool feels good to sit back and see Murray and nadal fans argue


LOL, honestly I don't want to argue with Murray fans...they are a cool bunch.


It's more rewarding arguing with *******s.

The-Champ
08-29-2009, 04:45 AM
Murray has been the most dominating player in the best of three brand of tennis for the past one year, performed better than Nadal in three of the last four slams, the current second best player and he has done nothing?

Winning slams, that's something he should start doing. I didn't mean he doesn't care about Olympics, what I meant was knowing US open was a week later (and considering his previous fitness issues), it would have been foolish on his part to go all out for the Olympics. Tanking it was a wise option.



best of 3?...well congratulations...that would certainly put him in the record books!

performing better than Nadal doesn't make you great unless you WIN the title. I can't believe how much people appreciate mediocrity around here :) j/k

RobA2345
08-29-2009, 04:46 AM
Del Potro - Murray would rip him apart 9 out of the 10 times

snip


No, Murray will keep ***ging the ball back into play and wait for Del Boy to make mistakes.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 05:54 AM
It wasn't a beating. The first set was decisive. The second set could have gone either way. Murray had 2 setpoints in the breaker.

And that's bearing in mind that Murray returned the worst he has in years. That's why I'm encouraged for the USO. Murray played a very poor match against a very good Federer and still, in my opinion, was inches from winning the match. The reason I say that is because Murray has always beaten Federer when it's come down to the final set.

Was inches from winning the match? How biased are you? He didn't even get a break point, despite Federer serving low %.

Federer was much better in the 1st set and just a tad better in the tight 2nd set, but it was Federer who won the crucial points and was also the better player in the TB, despite serving badly for his own standards.

Peche
08-29-2009, 05:56 AM
Was inches from winning the match? How biased are you? He didn't even get a break point, despite Federer serving low %.

Federer was much better in the 1st set and just a tad better in the tight 2nd set, but it was Federer who won the crucial points and was also the better player in the TB, despite serving badly for his own standards.

That goes both ways...

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 05:58 AM
Was inches from winning the match? How biased are you? He didn't even get a break point, despite Federer serving low %.

Federer was much better in the 1st set and just a tad better in the tight 2nd set, but it was Federer who won the crucial points and was also the better player in the TB, despite serving badly for his own standards.

Did you even read what I wrote? I wasn't being biased. I explained what I meant. I said that, in my opinion, Murray was inches from winning the match. The reason I said that is because he was inches from levelling the match and has never lost a final set to Federer, so if it went to a 3rd I thought Murray would have won.

I wasn't being biased. I said Federer deserved his win. Talk about overreacting.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 06:01 AM
Did you even read what I wrote? I wasn't being biased. I explained what I meant. I said that, in my opinion, Murray was inches from winning the match. The reason I said that is because he was inches from levelling the match and has never lost a final set to Federer, so if it went to a 3rd I thought Murray would have won.

I wasn't being biased. I said Federer deserved his win. Talk about overreacting.

So because Murray always won the 3rd set against Fed it's a given he'd have won that one as well? How come?

Federer was playing a lot differently than he did in his IW and Doha matches with Murray - he was being aggressive and didn't let go, and he never lost focus like he usually does in 2nd sets.

Fact is, until you even win a set, or earn a BP for that matter, you are never "inches" from winning a match. Ever.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 06:07 AM
So because Murray always won the 3rd set against Fed it's a given he'd have won that one as well? How come?

Federer was playing a lot differently than he did in his IW and Doha matches with Murray - he was being aggressive and didn't let go, and he never lost focus like he usually does in 2nd sets.

Fact is, until you even win a set, or earn a BP for that matter, you are never "inches" from winning a match. Ever.

I didn't say it was a given. Why do people insist on just putting words in my mouth? No, it wasn't a given. However, Murray would have had the momentum and the psychological advantage. Had he taken one of his setpoints, I think he would have gone on to win the match.

Is that alright with you? Have I made myself clear enough?

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 06:08 AM
I didn't say it was a given. Why do people insist on just putting words in my mouth? No, it wasn't a given. However, Murray would have had the momentum and the psychological advantage. Had he taken one of his setpoints, I think he would have gone on to win the match.

Is that alright with you? Have I made myself clear enough?

Saying he was inches from winning the match is just like saying it was a given he would win the 3rd set.

Murray was inches from winning the 2nd set, but Federer had his match points too. Both failed to convert their SPs and MPs until Murray DFd.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 06:11 AM
Late season...Rafa is always tired by that time...having won the olympics where Murray disappeared in the 1st round. :)


Still he couldn't beat Federer in the finals. What's the use of being in the final if you can't beat a GOAT pretender?

It's amazing how you turned from one of the most respectable posters to one of the worst.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 06:13 AM
Saying he was inches from winning the match is just like saying it was a given he would win the 3rd set.

Murray was inches from winning the 2nd set, but Federer had his match points too. Both failed to convert their SPs and MPs until Murray DFd.

No, it's not. I said that in my opinion he was inches from winning the match. I didn't think anything was a given. I'm not sure what it is you are failing to grasp here. I'm giving my opinion, not telling you what would have happened, without a shadow of doubt. My opinion is that Murray would have won the 3rd set had he taken one of his setpoints. He didn't take one of them, so the point is moot.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 06:17 AM
No, it's not. I said that in my opinion he was inches from winning the match. I didn't think anything was a given. I'm not sure what it is you are failing to grasp here. I'm giving my opinion, not telling you what would have happened, without a shadow of doubt. My opinion is that Murray would have won the 3rd set had he taken one of his setpoints. He didn't take one of them, so the point is moot.

But how is someone is inches from winning a match without even winning a set? You are inches from winning a match when you are two points away in your service game or have a match point, not when you didn't even win one set.

It's not an opnion, it is a FACT Murray was NOT inches from winning a match he didn't even have one break point in. Give me a break!

Peche
08-29-2009, 06:21 AM
But how is someone is inches from winning a match without even winning a set? You are inches from winning a match when you are two points away in your service game or have a match point, not when you didn't even win one set.

It's not an opnion, it is a FACT Murray was NOT inches from winning a match he didn't even have one break point in. Give me a break!

May i ask why you are soo passionate in proving something which was made from nothing?

I mean, give us a break.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 06:21 AM
But how is someone is inches from winning a match without even winning a set? You are inches from winning a match when you are two points away in your service game or have a match point, not when you didn't even win one set.

It's not an opnion, it is a FACT Murray was NOT inches from winning a match he didn't even have one break point in. Give me a break!

I have explained this. Federer didn't have any BPs in the second set either, so that point is irrelevant. I think Murray would have won the deciding set, so that's why I said that I thought he was inches from winning the match. The fact that he didn't create a BP doesn't mean he wouldn't have created some in the 3rd set.

Jesus, let it go.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 06:28 AM
May i ask why you are soo passionate in proving something which was made from nothing?

I mean, give us a break.

Give us a break? Who is us exactly? I don't recall talking to you, unless you and Clydey are the same person.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 06:30 AM
Give us a break? Who is us exactly? I don't recall talking to you, unless you and Clydey are the same person.

You're going on and on about it, becoming progressively more angry, as though I stole something from you.

Simmer down, mate. It's just an opinion. I've explained it. You don't agree? Fine.

Peche
08-29-2009, 06:30 AM
Give us a break? Who is us exactly? I don't recall talking to you, unless you and Clydey are the same person.

I was simply taking the p!ss mate. Since what you're blabbing on about is needless.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 06:32 AM
You're going on and on about it, becoming progressively more angry, as though I stole something from you.

Simmer down, mate. It's just an opinion. I've explained it. You don't agree? Fine.

Not angry, I just think you opinion is incerdibley biased in that topic.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 06:34 AM
I was simply taking the p!ss mate. Since what you're blabbing on about is needless.

This has nothing to do with you. I was speaking to Clydey, not you. So when you say "give US a break", it sounds stupid, because I wasn't even talking to you in the first place.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 06:34 AM
Not angry, I just think you opinion is incerdibley biased in that topic.

I'm not being biased here. It's logical to think that Murray would beat Federer in a final set, since he has never lost one to Federer. That doesn't mean that he definitely would have won it, but it makes him the favourite in a final set.

Omega_7000
08-29-2009, 06:38 AM
I agree it makes him the favorite, but it hardly, HARDLY makes him "inches" from winning the match. Hardly.

I agree...A more appropriate use of that would be,

"Roddick was inches away from winning Wimbledon 2009."

OR

"Federer was inches away from winning Wimbledon 2008."

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 06:39 AM
I agree it makes him the favorite, but it hardly, HARDLY makes him "inches" from winning the match. Hardly.

You misunderstood. All that meant is that I think Murray would have won the match if he took one of those setpoints. That's all it meant. You're taking it far too literally. I didn't mean it in the sense that the match was 50/50 and could have gone either way in those two sets. All I meant was that I think Murray would have won the final set.

joeri888
08-29-2009, 06:42 AM
The Murray-Federer match was closer than the score suggests. But still, the fact that Federer DID close it out, AND played a great match against Djokovic as well makes it a very very good week for Federer. For me it will not make Murray feel any worse when facing Federer and it shouldn't. What it might do is make Federer feel a little better, which predicts good things from the tennis legend.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 06:44 AM
You misunderstood. All that meant is that I think Murray would have won the match if he took one of those setpoints. That's all it meant. You're taking it far too literally. I didn't mean it in the sense that the match was 50/50 and could have gone either way in those two sets. All I meant was that I think Murray would have won the final set.

I think so too, Federer had his mental collapses against the top players in final sets, god knows why. But I still think your way of speech was way wrong.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 06:44 AM
Even if what I'm doing is wrong (which it isn't), it is not your place to interfere in stuff that has nothing to do with you. You told me "give us a break", where I have't even spoken to you, so how could I give you a break. You are the one who talked to me, not the opposite.

I think he was venting his own frustration at the fact that you wouldn't just accept that I was giving an opinion. You kept going on and on, even after I explained myself. You didn't seem to get it.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 06:47 AM
The Murray-Federer match was closer than the score suggests. But still, the fact that Federer DID close it out, AND played a great match against Djokovic as well makes it a very very good week for Federer. For me it will not make Murray feel any worse when facing Federer and it shouldn't. What it might do is make Federer feel a little better, which predicts good things from the tennis legend.

I'm sort of glad Murray didn't win that match, the more I think about it. It was a nice reality check for him. Over the course of Montreal and Cinci, I thought he only played two good matches (against Ferrero and Stepanek). It's a confidence booster that he kept it close while playing pretty poorly against Federer.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 06:55 AM
I got it fine, but I still think the way you presnted it was way off, and I think most people will agree with me.

Saying Murray would have won the 3rd set had he won the 2nd is legitimate based on his pas matches with Roger. Saying he was "inches" away from winning the match is absurd.

I know what I said and I know what I meant. I'm not a novice when it comes to language. You misinterpreted what I said to mean that it was a given that Murray would win the match if he took one of those setpoints.

Now, I've explained what I meant and why I phrased it the way I did. If you're still not satisfied, I don't know what else to tell you.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 07:06 AM
Nah, I didn't misinterpreted anything. You said Murray was inches from winning a match, which is clearly false, and it's a fact. Even if Murray was a huge favorite in the possible 3rd set, there is still a set to be played and Murray is not inches from winning until he's serving for the match.

There is a huge difference between being a favorite to win something than being inches away from it. It's like I would say Federer is inches away from winning the US Open where he haven't even played one point.

No, you did misinterpret it. I'm telling you that you did. I can do that because I know what I meant. I can also do that because I earned a living through my writing. I know how to communicate and I know when a word is used in the wrong context.

You took "inches" far too literally. You interpreted it to mean that Murray was close to winning in terms of distance, in the most literal sense of the word. That was not what I meant. There are various ways to interpret the phrase I used and you chose the wrong one. That would have been fine, except you continue to inisist that you chose the correct interpretation.

Omega_7000
08-29-2009, 07:10 AM
No, you did misinterpret it. I'm telling you that you did. I can do that because I know what I meant. I can also do that because I earned a living through my writing. I know how to communicate and I know when a word is used in the wrong context.

You took "inches" far too literally. You interpreted it to mean that Murray was close to winning in terms of distance, in the most literal sense of the word. That was not what I meant. There are various ways to interpret the phrase I used and you chose the wrong one. That would have been fine, except you continue to inisist that you chose the correct interpretation.

I don't make my living through writing, but inches from winning would normally imply something like Murray losing 9-7 in the third set tiebreak...Not earning a single breakpoint does not imply he was inches from winning.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 07:12 AM
I don't make my living through writing, but inches from winning would normally imply something like Murray losing 9-7 in the third set tiebreak...Not earning a single breakpoint does not imply he was inches from winning.

Exactly! :)

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 07:14 AM
Funny, at least two posters "chose" to interpert it the very same way I did. Maybe you are the one who is now trying to find a way out of your odd comments, and you find the language explanation as the best one?

I don't mind people misinterpreting what I say. What bothers me is when I explain myself and then they still insist that they are right. The fact is that English is your second language. It got you into trouble during an argument with NamRanger a few weeks ago.

I explained to you what I meant and why I phrased it the way that I did. You seem set on proving that you know what I meant better than I do, though.

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 07:16 AM
I don't mind people misinterpreting what I say. What bothers me is when I explain myself and then they still insist that they are right. The fact is that English is your second language. It got you into trouble during an argument with NamRanger a few weeks ago.

I explained to you what I meant and why I phrased it the way that I did. You seem set on proving that you know what I meant better than I do, though.

My English is good enough to write and understand others. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to post in here. Whatever you say, just keep in mind some other posters interpreted it the very same way I did.

When a class full of students fails in one test, maybe something is wrong with the teacher?

Serendipitous
08-29-2009, 07:16 AM
Good enough for Gulbis? ;-)

Yes, unfortunately.


Gulbis will get owned.


He just got a new coach, so hopefully he'll learn something soon........:(:(

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 07:18 AM
Yes, unfortunately.


Gulbis will get owned.


He just got a new coach, so hopefully he'll learn something soon........:(:(

He's still young and he can still pick things up. Never give up hope.

Serendipitous
08-29-2009, 07:20 AM
He's still young and he can still pick things up. Never give up hope.

Thanks for your support. I can always count on my little brother. ;)

P_Agony
08-29-2009, 07:24 AM
Thanks for your support. I can always count on my little brother. ;)

Wait, aren't I your big brother ? :confused::shock:

Cyan
08-29-2009, 08:00 AM
What are your thoughts on Murray's US Open chances this year?

I believe the draw has really hindered his hope. :S

Hopefully i'm wrong! :D

Well, I suppose that was the purpose of ITF/USTA? To hinder the Scott? Since Murray was the finalist last year and has been so very consistent on HC for the past year he looks to be a threat to Fed.... I have a gut feeling the final will be Roddick vs Murray. We will see...

zagor
08-29-2009, 08:26 AM
Well, I suppose that was the purpose of ITF/USTA? To hinder the Scott? Since Murray was the finalist last year and has been so very consistent on HC for the past year he looks to be a threat to Fed.... I have a gut feeling the final will be Roddick vs Murray. We will see...

Yes,because Fed is American,LOL!

diredesire
08-29-2009, 08:27 AM
seriously, guys? Just give up the dumb argument(s). Clydey essentially said: Murray was inches away from having the momentum to win the match. Who cares about the syntax, if he explained himself afterward, give him the benefit of the doubt. People are fickle on the internet, don't give yourself a reason to get attacked in a later thread.

Be nice, and it'll get returned to you down the road. Letting trivial nonsense boil your blood is just a waste of energy.

A) People in general suck at communicating online. Correcting someone is one thing, but basing an entire argument off of a miscommunication is a little ridiculous.
B) There is a lot of nuance and subtlety in the english language, especially if it isn't your first language. Edit: This should read as: slang, or unconventional (commonly accepted) structuring of words/phrases aren't easily decipherable, because from a literal sense, they don't MAKE sense.
C) Let it go, the ego trips only get you noticed by the admin staff, trust me on this. When I/they have to go through and read a several-page-long thread just to clean up an ego battle between two people, it is easier most times just to close or delete the thread. Don't ruin it for others.. please :)

(If you think I'm being a d-wad, think about it from my point of view. Sure, you're just defending yourself when someone else is calling you out, questioning your honor, whatever. I have to thoroughly read, check quoting, look for language, carefully think about if a post is contributing to a thread, or not, even if they are logical and do not have language violations (the off topic rule). It is a real annoyance to me when I have to babysit for two people who can't treat one another with respect and benefit of the doubt. I'm not really singling you two out, but this is a growing annoyance of mine. Just let it go, you'll be happier, i swear.)

Peche
08-29-2009, 08:28 AM
seriously, guys? Just give up the dumb argument(s). Clydey essentially said: Murray was inches away from having the momentum to win the match. Who cares about the syntax, if he explained himself afterward, give him the benefit of the doubt. People are fickle on the internet, don't give yourself a reason to get attacked in a later thread.

Be nice, and it'll get returned to you down the road. Letting trivial nonsense boil your blood is just a waste of energy.

A) People in general suck at communicating online. Correcting someone is one thing, but basing an entire argument off of a miscommunication is a little ridiculous.
B) There is a lot of nuance and subtlety in the english language, especially if it isn't your first language.
C) Let it go, the ego trips only get you noticed by the admin staff, trust me on this. When I/they have to go through and read a several-page-long thread just to clean up an ego battle between two people, it is easier most times just to close or delete the thread. Don't ruin it for others.. please :)

(If you think I'm being a d-wad, think about it from my point of view. Sure, you're just defending yourself when someone else is calling you out, questioning your honor, whatever. I have to thoroughly read, check quoting, look for language, carefully think about if a post is contributing to a thread, or not, even if they are logical and do not have language violations (the off topic rule). It is a real annoyance to me when I have to babysit for two people who can't treat one another with respect and benefit of the doubt. I'm not really singling you two out, but this is a growing annoyance of mine. Just let it go, you'll be happier, i swear.)

You've pretty much nailed it.

Clydey2times
08-29-2009, 08:30 AM
seriously, guys? Just give up the dumb argument(s). Clydey essentially said: Murray was inches away from having the momentum to win the match. Who cares about the syntax, if he explained himself afterward, give him the benefit of the doubt. People are fickle on the internet, don't give yourself a reason to get attacked in a later thread.

Be nice, and it'll get returned to you down the road. Letting trivial nonsense boil your blood is just a waste of energy.

A) People in general suck at communicating online. Correcting someone is one thing, but basing an entire argument off of a miscommunication is a little ridiculous.
B) There is a lot of nuance and subtlety in the english language, especially if it isn't your first language.
C) Let it go, the ego trips only get you noticed by the admin staff, trust me on this. When I/they have to go through and read a several-page-long thread just to clean up an ego battle between two people, it is easier most times just to close or delete the thread. Don't ruin it for others.. please :)

(If you think I'm being a d-wad, think about it from my point of view. Sure, you're just defending yourself when someone else is calling you out, questioning your honor, whatever. I have to thoroughly read, check quoting, look for language, carefully think about if a post is contributing to a thread, or not, even if they are logical and do not have language violations (the off topic rule). It is a real annoyance to me when I have to babysit for two people who can't treat one another with respect and benefit of the doubt. I'm not really singling you two out, but this is a growing annoyance of mine. Just let it go, you'll be happier, i swear.)

Sounds fair. I'm just argumentative by nature. The arguments tend to go on and on, evolving until they veer way off-topic. I'm not great at extricating myself from arguments.

Fedex
08-29-2009, 09:39 AM
Ok, I'll be fair, ha ha ha let's go over this.

Round 1: Nadal has Gasquet and Murray has Gulbis

More difficult opponent: Nadal's. maybe

Round 2: Nadal will probably have Kiefer and Murray has a journeyman.

More difficult opponent: Nadal's.

Round 3: Murray could have Karlovic or Dent, Nadal probably has Almagaro or Ginepri.

More difficult opponent: Murray.

Round 4: Murray will probably have Wawrinka and Nadal could have Ferrer.

More difficult opponent: Nadal's. no no no no no no no (Ferrer has had better results than Wawrinka.) Ferrer is a lightweight. Wawrinka is a tough middleweight.

Quarter-finals: Murray will have Del Potro and Nadal will have Tsonga.

More difficult opponent: Nadal's. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha It's close but I give the edge to Tsonga because he beat Roger on hard courts and made the finals at a hard court major. Something Del Potro still has yet to do.

4 out of 5 of Nadal's opponents are more difficult than Murray's.

Hope you never do jury duty

The tennis guy
08-29-2009, 09:46 AM
Murray is the best HC player on tour.

Murray was going to win Australia Open 09, was going to win Wimbledon 09, is going to win US Open 09.

Keep predicting, sooner or later it is going to come true.

Murray is going to win Australia Open 10, Wimbledon 10, US Open 10, maybe should add French Open 10 on the list as well......

JoshDragon
08-29-2009, 12:50 PM
Nadal still isn't at his best, or do you think he's on top form already? Think about what you're saying before posting.

Under normal circumstances, Nadal would obviously be a more difficult match. That's obvious.

I realize that Nadal is not at his best right now. But he is still the bigger threat IMO. Del Potro, does not have the results at the majors to put him over as a bigger threat than Nadal.

JoshDragon
08-29-2009, 12:58 PM
Hope you never do jury duty

It's easy to say that you don't agree with me but can you prove that my assessment is wrong? Ferrer has had better results than Stan and if Stan is really that great then why hasn't he ever been past the fourth round at a major? Ferrer is a bit older and has been struggling with an injury recently but he's still has had better results in the majors, he took a set off Roger in Cincinatti and he's over-all done better than Stan.

As for Tsonga, I think he is a bigger threat because he has a huge hard court game as does Del Potro but he's still has better results. Until Del Potro can make the semis at a hard court major I'm going to pick Tsonga as the favorite.

Fedex
08-29-2009, 03:13 PM
Damn. Did you have to answer back.
Now I'm going to have to think of a reply.