PDA

View Full Version : Andy wants to break up the Rafa and Roger show


babbette
05-11-2009, 11:33 AM
Andy Murray wants to break up 'Rafa and Roger Show'
Andy Murray on Monday became the first British man in history to be the world No 3 and he now has ambitions of "breaking up" the 'Rafa and Roger Show' in the rankings. He could even do so before Wimbledon starts next month.



The 'Rafa and Roger Show' sometimes feels as though it has been running for as long as Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap in London's West End, since Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer have held the top two ranking positions in the men's game since the summer of 2005.

Federer has a huge number of points to defend before the tour arrives at the wrought-iron gates of the All England Club, and Murray has relatively few, so the Briton could move past the Swiss if he goes deep into the draw of this week's new tournament in Madrid and also at Roland Garros.


It still seems as though Federer is getting used to the fact that he is no longer the world No 1, Nadal having moved above him last summer, so you have to wonder how he would feel if he dropped out of the top two. After all, Federer's run in the top two has been going since November 2003, even longer than the 'Rafa and Roger Show'. It was in July 2005 that Nadal first held the world No 2 ranking, so starting the duopoly.

Nadal has won six grand slam trophies, and Federer has 13 majors, one short of Pete Sampras' record, and Murray believes that the only two men above him in the rankings will possibly be regarded as two of the greatest players in history to have swung a racket.

"I'm proud to be the world No 3, but I'd be prouder if I was between Rafa and Roger, as the world No 2," said Murray, who overtook Novak Djokovic in the rankings. He will play Italy's Simone Bolelli, a winner over Argentina's Juan Ignacio Chela.

"I've been on a very good run for the last eight or nine months and I think that the ranking reflects that. But to get close to those two or to get in between Rafa and Roger, it's a tough thing to do. They've had the top two spots for the last few years. It's an incredible run they've been on and they're probably the two best players ever. It wouldn't surprise me if they went down as that. I'd like to break those two up, to get between them."

Murray will do his best not to think about Federer and the ranking too much. Murray wants to "take care of himself", and whatever happens with the ranking, happens.

Nadal is among those players who are concerned that competing in Madrid, which is some 650 metres above sea-level, could cause dome difficulties ahead of the French Open, which starts in Paris a week on Sunday. The balls fly more here than they do in Paris.

Still, Murray was delighted about nearing the airless summit of the men's game, getting ever closer to Rafa and Roger. Murray is regarded as the defending champion at the newly-built 'La Caja Magica', or the 'Magic Box', a theatrical-sounding name which is presumably meant to make the Spanish public come away thinking that the clay courts have been sprinkled with tennis stardust.

That is despite the fact that Murray has never even played in a clay-court final, let alone won a trophy on this surface, and that is because he won the title at last autumn's indoor hard-court event elsewhere in the city.


......................................

maximo
05-11-2009, 11:42 AM
He's better than Federer, so i don't see anything wrong with that. If he gets far in Madrid and Federer doesn't, then he will be seeded # 2 at RG.

Cup8489
05-11-2009, 11:45 AM
He's better than Federer, so i don't see anything wrong with that. If he gets far in Madrid and Federer doesn't, then he will be seeded # 2 at RG.

not on clay he's not, or grass.

where's your evidence to the contrary?

CCNM
05-11-2009, 11:46 AM
As much as I admire Fed & Nadal, I'd love to see someone else win a major title this year.:)

Serendipitous
05-11-2009, 11:46 AM
I honestly don't think it's the Rafa and Roger show anymore.

It's the Rafa and Andy and Novak show.

That's what Federer is trying to break up.

maximo
05-11-2009, 11:59 AM
not on clay he's not, or grass.

where's your evidence to the contrary?

The last three times they have played Murray won. :roll:

GameSampras
05-11-2009, 12:00 PM
Do ya Murray? Than win a slam for christ sakes!!! Losing to an inferior like Verdasco at the AO or getting squashed by Fed at the USO isnt proving you can. To break up the Nadal and Fed show you need to take them out when it matters most. Not at smaller crap rinky dink tourneys

Nadal_Freak
05-11-2009, 12:01 PM
Murray will beat Fed in Madrid. I believe the conditions are fast enough.

GameSampras
05-11-2009, 12:02 PM
Until Murray can prove he can be a major player at the slams and take off a few from Nadal and Fed its all just words. Its been the Nadal-Fed show for years and nothing has really changed other than Djoker's fluke AO win in 08. He hasnt played tennis like that SINCE. Which is why it was fluke. He lost to the bum Roddick this year to prove it was a fluke

gj011
05-11-2009, 12:04 PM
I honestly don't think it's the Rafa and Roger show anymore.

It's the Rafa and Andy and Novak show.

That's what Federer is trying to break up.

Very well said.

batz
05-11-2009, 12:04 PM
Until Murray can prove he can be a major player at the slams and take off a few from Nadal and Fed its all just words. Its been the Nadal-Fed show for years and nothing has really changed other than Djoker's fluke AO win in 08. He hasnt played tennis like that SINCE. Which is why it was fluke. He lost to the bum Roddick this year to prove it was a fluke

Have you ever considered a career in the diplomatic corps?:shock::)

Richie Rich
05-11-2009, 12:07 PM
good luck to andy

thejoe
05-11-2009, 12:12 PM
The last three times they have played Murray won. :roll:

Right, so when Blake beat Nadal three times in a row, was he better? Your argument is flawed. You have no grounds to argue that Murray is better on grass or clay.

P_Agony
05-11-2009, 12:13 PM
I honestly don't think it's the Rafa and Roger show anymore.

It's the Rafa and Andy and Novak show.

That's what Federer is trying to break up.

Sure, because it were Novak and Murray who won the previous 2 grand slam finals. Oh, wait...

GameSampras
05-11-2009, 12:22 PM
Have you ever considered a career in the diplomatic corps?:shock::)

Why do u say that?

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 12:22 PM
The last three times they have played Murray won. :roll:
On hardcourts its like you ignored his complete post

maximo
05-11-2009, 12:23 PM
Right, so when Blake beat Nadal three times in a row, was he better? Your argument is flawed. You have no grounds to argue that Murray is better on grass or clay.

I did mean HC btw...

thejoe
05-11-2009, 12:24 PM
I did mean HC btw...

Why not say that then? And where is Murray's hardcourt slam?

maximo
05-11-2009, 12:25 PM
On hardcourts its like you ignored his complete post

No, because the fact is he still beat Federer the last three times they have played.

seffina
05-11-2009, 12:25 PM
He's better than Federer, so i don't see anything wrong with that. If he gets far in Madrid and Federer doesn't, then he will be seeded # 2 at RG.He doesn't have to just get far, he has to win the thing to be seeded #2 at RG.

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 12:29 PM
No, because the fact is he still beat Federer the last three times they have played.
yes I am not denying that Murray has beaten him the last three meetings but as cup8489 said Murray hasn't beaten federer on clay or grass

maximo
05-11-2009, 12:30 PM
He doesn't have to just get far, he has to win the thing to be seeded #2 at RG.

No, Murray is expected to play Federer in the SF's, so if he beats him then he will be seeded #2 at RG

maximo
05-11-2009, 12:31 PM
yes I am not denying that Murray has beaten him the last three meetings but as cup8489 said Murray hasn't beaten nadal on clay or grass

Don't you mean Federer? ;)

GameSampras
05-11-2009, 12:32 PM
No, Murray is expected to play Federer in the SF's, so if he beats him then he will be seeded #2 at RG

Murray beat Fed on clay? hell no. Murray stinks on clay

maximo
05-11-2009, 12:34 PM
Murray beat Fed on clay? hell no

Sampras beating Federer on clay? i don't think so.

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 12:35 PM
Murray beat Fed on clay? hell no
Its possible you never know but i think Murray has to win the title to pass federer and you know who he is likely to play if he reached the final

mandy01
05-11-2009, 12:35 PM
Murray, as far as I know needs to win Madrid to be seeded second.
Anway,at this point I just hope Roger can improve upon his performances.About the rest-I dont really care.

GameSampras
05-11-2009, 12:37 PM
Sampras beating Federer on clay? i don't think so.

LOL. Murray is worse than Sampras was on clay. I bet Murray doesnt beat Muster, Bruguera, or courier on clay. Or win Rome or win the Davis Cup

GameSampras
05-11-2009, 12:40 PM
Well thinking about it. OBVIOUSLY Fed is not taking the smaller tourneys too seriously. He is strictly focusing on slams. I mean he lost to Wawrinka on clay this year. So Murray can prolly take a 3 setter from Fed. Murray wont beat Fed at RG if they play each other though

navratilovafan
05-11-2009, 12:42 PM
It isnt the Rafa and Roger show. It is the Rafa and more Rafa show. That is what Murray, Djokovic, and Federer are all trying to break up.

navratilovafan
05-11-2009, 12:43 PM
LOL. Murray is worse than Sampras was on clay. I bet Murray doesnt beat Muster, Bruguera, or courier on clay. Or win Rome or win the Davis Cup

Lots of people could have beaten the 1991 Muster, and 1996 Bruguera and Courier on clay, including tons of journeyman players. I am pretty sure Murray could have also.

seffina
05-11-2009, 12:51 PM
No, Murray is expected to play Federer in the SF's, so if he beats him then he will be seeded #2 at RG

How?

These are the points once last year's Hamburg points are taken out:

2) Roger Federer 9,470
3) Andy Murray 8,830
4) Novak Djokovic 8,470

As you see, Federer has a 640 point lead. If Murray beats him in the semi, he only gets 600 points. (Nevermind that Roger will have gained 360 points.) Murray has to win the tourny to be number two at the French.

----
Until Murray wins a slam, he hasn't broken up the Roger/Rafa show. Djokovic did once already.

GameSampras
05-11-2009, 12:52 PM
Lots of people could have beaten the 1991 Muster, and 1996 Bruguera and Courier on clay, including tons of journeyman players. I am pretty sure Murray could have also.

Wasnt Murray taken out by some nobody at the last clay tourney in the 1st round?

seffina
05-11-2009, 12:56 PM
Wasnt Murray taken out by some nobody at the last clay tourney in the 1st round?

Monaco is turning out to be a fantastic player if you haven't noticed. He has been playing quite well. Not a nobody. But not top tier either yet.

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 12:57 PM
Monaco is turning out to be a fantastic player if you haven't noticed. He has been playing quite well. Not a nobody. But not top tier either yet.
Then Murray still needs to take those baby steps before he can chase the top 4

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 01:14 PM
Until Murray can prove he can be a major player at the slams and take off a few from Nadal and Fed its all just words. Its been the Nadal-Fed show for years and nothing has really changed other than Djoker's fluke AO win in 08. He hasnt played tennis like that SINCE. Which is why it was fluke. He lost to the bum Roddick this year to prove it was a fluke

So the USO win over Nadal means nothing?

Also, MS events are huge. I wish people would stop going on as though the majors are the be all and end all.

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 01:17 PM
Well thinking about it. OBVIOUSLY Fed is not taking the smaller tourneys too seriously. He is strictly focusing on slams. I mean he lost to Wawrinka on clay this year. So Murray can prolly take a 3 setter from Fed. Murray wont beat Fed at RG if they play each other though

Nonsense. Yeah, Fed sure looked like he was taking the "smaller" tournaments lightly when he flipped out against Djokovic. And please don't call the MS events "small". That's one of the most clueless statements someone on here has made.

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 01:21 PM
So the USO win over Nadal means nothing?

Also, MS events are huge. I wish people would stop going on as though the majors are the be all and end all.
Well the majors are what make players into legends and are remembered forever

Players that win master series are remembered for what they could have accomplished

e.g coria rios naldandian

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 01:23 PM
Nonsense. Yeah, Fed sure looked like he was taking the "smaller" tournaments lightly when he flipped out against Djokovic. And please don't call the MS events "small". That's one of the most clueless statements someone on here has made.
Federer did plan on skipping that Monte carlo event it was last minute when he dceided to enter with a wildcard he said himself he knew he wasn't going to win

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 01:25 PM
Well the majors are what make players into legends and are remembered forever

Players that win master series are remembered for what they could have accomplished

e.g coria rios naldandian

Of course they are. However, that does not mean that MS events are not important. They are huge, in fact. Particularly in the present. Murray's major record can be scrutinised once he has retired. While he's still playing, the MS events mean a hell of a lot. And it's nonsense for people to say that Federer is only trying in the majors. There is clear evidence to the contrary.

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 01:27 PM
Federer did plan on skipping that Monte carlo event it was last minute when he dceided to enter with a wildcard he said himself he knew he wasn't going to win

I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. MC isn't a mandatory event. It isn't as important as the others, as it can be replaced with another tournament that he might even get more points from, as he was never going to win MC no matter what.

You don't throw a tantrum in the middle of a match if you don't care.

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 01:28 PM
Of course they are. However, that does not mean that MS events are not important. They are huge, in fact. Particularly in the present. Murray's major record can be scrutinised once he has retired. While he's still playing, the MS events mean a hell of a lot. And it's nonsense for people to say that Federer is only trying in the majors. There is clear evidence to the contrary.
Well if you compare the way he plays in best of 3 compared to best of 5 its a completely different federer. Time after time he has proven that during the slams he can raise his game during crucial points where he can't normally in 3 set matches

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 01:31 PM
I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. MC isn't a mandatory event. It isn't as important as the others, as it can be replaced with another tournament that he might even get more points from, as he was never going to win MC no matter what.

You don't throw a tantrum in the middle of a match if you don't care.
Federer was not in his rhythm after taking a first set lead and see it vanish and then to lose it in 3 then break a winning streak against djokovic and turn into a losing streak would make any player angry especially if Federer can't even beat the top 4

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 01:31 PM
Well if you compare the way he plays in best of 3 compared to best of 5 its a completely different federer. Time after time he has proven that during the slams he can raise his game during crucial points where he can't normally in 3 set matches

I completely disagree. It's a myth that Federer raises his game in the slams. I don't recall him raising his game when Andreev took him to 5 sets or when Berdych nearly knocked him out. He seemed as vulnerable in the slams as he has everywhere else recently. He simply had a cupcake draw at the AO.

batz
05-11-2009, 01:31 PM
Well if you compare the way he plays in best of 3 compared to best of 5 its a completely different federer. Time after time he has proven that during the slams he can raise his game during crucial points where he can't normally in 3 set matches


Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Stock prices can go up as well as down.

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 01:33 PM
Federer was not in his rhythm after taking a first set lead and see it vanish and then to lose it in 3 then break a winning streak against djokovic and turn into a losing streak would make any player angry especially if Federer can't even beat the top 4

So he obviously cares. If he didn't give a toss, he wouldn't have lost his temper like that. The whole "Federer only concentrates on the slams" line is just an excuse people use for all his losses outside of the majors.

You don't total your racquet like that if you only care about 4 tournaments per year.

icedevil0289
05-11-2009, 01:35 PM
So he obviously cares. If he didn't give a toss, he wouldn't have lost his temper like that. The whole "Federer only concentrates on the slams" line is just an excuse people use for all his losses outside of the majors.

You don't total your racquet like that if you only care about 4 tournaments per year.

I actually have to agree with you on this one. I don't believe that fed is playing poorly at the MS because he is saving himself at the slams. However, I also do believe that fed does raise his game at the slams and it is hard to beat him in the best of 5. I also have to disagree with you about the cupcake draw, but that's another story.

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 01:35 PM
I completely disagree. It's a myth that Federer raises his game in the slams. I don't recall him raising his game when Andreev took him to 5 sets or when Berdych nearly knocked him out. He seemed as vulnerable in the slams as he has everywhere else recently. He simply had a cupcake draw at the AO.
Yes but after those matches didn't federer practically steam roll his way into the finals in both tournaments that showed he had that next gear to raise his game especially after the berdych match where he played del potro and beat him 6-3 6-0 6-0 if your telling me a player doesn't have to raise their game to beat an opponent ranked in the top 10 in a grand slams then I am really confused :confused:

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 01:38 PM
Yes but after those matches didn't federer practically steam roll his way into the finals in both tournaments that showed he had that next gear to raise his game especially after the berdych match where he played del potro and beat him 6-3 6-0 6-0 if your telling me a player doesn't have to raise their game to beat an opponent ranked in the top 10 in a grand slams then I am really confused :confused:

Del Potro is a perfect matchup for Federer. Besides, it's not like DP was giving his all for the entire match. He gave up after the first set, quite blatantly. Did you actually see the match?

Sorry, but when you're playing guys like Del Potro and Roddick in the latter stages of a slam, you've got off lightly.

icedevil0289
05-11-2009, 01:39 PM
Del Potro is a perfect matchup for Federer. Besides, it's not like DP was giving his all for the entire match. He gave up after the first set, quite blatantly. Did you actually see the match?
Sorry, but when you're playing guys like Del Potro and Roddick in the latter stages of a slam, you've got off lightly.

Completely agree. Which is why when people were going on and on about how roger federer is back to his best, I had to laugh.

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 01:40 PM
So he obviously cares. If he didn't give a toss, he wouldn't have lost his temper like that. The whole "Federer only concentrates on the slams" line is just an excuse people use for all his losses outside of the majors.

You don't total your racquet like that if you only care about 4 tournaments per year.
Federer is at the stage in his career where master shield mean nothing he is chasing history if federer was to get 10 more shield and no slams that would be pointless if he dint have the majors to back it up

I'm not saying Federer doesn't care about 3 set matches I'm saying that its not his main focus its the 5 setters that matter most and will judge whether he gets the stamp approval on G.O.A.T position

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 01:42 PM
Federer is at the stage in his career where master shield mean nothing he is chasing history if federer was to get 10 more shield and no slams that would be pointless if he dint have the majors to back it up

I'm not saying Federer doesn't care about 3 set matches I'm saying that its not his main focus its the 5 setters that matter most and will judge whether he gets the stamp approval on G.O.A.T position

You're not basing that on anything. You are just blindly asserting it. It's a lame excuse. Federer showed clearly how much the MS events mean to him when he lost the plot against Nole in Miami.

icedevil0289
05-11-2009, 01:43 PM
Federer is at the stage in his career where master shield mean nothing he is chasing history if federer was to get 10 more shield and no slams that would be pointless if he dint have the majors to back it up

I'm not saying Federer doesn't care about 3 set matches I'm saying that its not his main focus its the 5 setters that matter most and will judge whether he gets the stamp approval on G.O.A.T position

I wouldn't say they mean nothing. Like clydey mentioned, fed would not have smashed his racket if he did not care. Do the slams mean much more to him? Probably, but that doesn't mean the other tournaments mean nothing.

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 01:46 PM
You're not basing that on anything. You are just blindly asserting it. It's a lame excuse. Federer showed clearly how much the MS events mean to him when he lost the plot against Nole in Miami.
Okay one match so that's suppose to decide his career outcome??? Don't think so we can debate whether or not Federer cares or cares less on MS events but i still believe that he has another level when it comes to majors and until RG federer still has proven so

vmosrafa08
05-11-2009, 01:53 PM
I completely agree with all of you.

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 01:56 PM
Yes, Andy Murray is no. 3. Does he deserve to be the no. 3? No. First of all I want to discuss how many points he has. He has 8990 points and Djokovic has 8920. 70 points. Big deal. That's like clearing the high jump by a millimeter. So far, he hasn't won a grand slam, and when he got to the finals of the us open, he looked like a junior player. He doesn't have the potential or skill to climb the rankings, or win any slams. The only way that he can win a slam is if Federer Nadal and Djokovic all retire simultaneously. I'm just saying wait a couple of weeks and he'll go back to number 4. Just look at the 2009 Australian Open. He lost badly to Verdasco, who eventually lost to Nadal. Us Open - bad loss in the final. I don't think that he'll get far in the French Open, either. Yes, he has beaten Federer a couple of times, but Federer is slipping right now. He hasn't managed to win anything in months. Since all of the tournaments are on clay now, he has no chance of beating Nadal. Murray, just get out the fourth place trophy again. You're going to look at it for a long time.

He lost badly to Verdasco? It was a 5 set match and Murray actually won 1 more point than Verdasco in the match. I'd hardly call that a beating. Guess what? Nadal also beat Verdasco in 5 sets. And guess what else? Nadal won 1 more point than Verdasco, the same as Murray. The margins are pretty small, so state the facts rather than invent fairytales.

Gugafan
05-11-2009, 02:02 PM
He hasn't managed to win anything in months. Since all of the tournaments are on clay now, he has no chance of beating Nadal. Murray, just get out the fourth place trophy again. You're going to look at it for a long time.

I think you have some short term memory problems. Murray won Miami towards the end of March.

batz
05-11-2009, 02:04 PM
Yes, Andy Murray is no. 3. Does he deserve to be the no. 3? No. First of all I want to discuss how many points he has. He has 8990 points and Djokovic has 8920. 70 points. Big deal. That's like clearing the high jump by a millimeter. So far, he hasn't won a grand slam, and when he got to the finals of the us open, he looked like a junior player. He doesn't have the potential or skill to climb the rankings, or win any slams. The only way that he can win a slam is if Federer Nadal and Djokovic all retire simultaneously. I'm just saying wait a couple of weeks and he'll go back to number 4. Just look at the 2009 Australian Open. He lost badly to Verdasco, who eventually lost to Nadal. Us Open - bad loss in the final. I don't think that he'll get far in the French Open, either. Yes, he has beaten Federer a couple of times, but Federer is slipping right now. He hasn't managed to win anything in months. Since all of the tournaments are on clay now, he has no chance of beating Nadal. Murray, just get out the fourth place trophy again. You're going to look at it for a long time.

This is just funny:):)

Please enlighten us, how many points more than Novak does Murray need to get before he deserves to be ahead of him? 100? 500? 1000?

It doesn't matter if Murray is one point ahead - if he has more points than Novak then that's where he deserves to be.

imalil2gangsta4u
05-11-2009, 02:07 PM
nicely said. now lets see some results on the court.

Serendipitous
05-11-2009, 02:15 PM
Sure, because it were Novak and Murray who won the previous 2 grand slam finals. Oh, wait...


Well, this year Federer has lost to Nadal once, Murray twice, and Djokovic twice.

He has not beaten one of them yet this year.

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 02:18 PM
He lost badly to Verdasco? It was a 5 set match and Murray actually won 1 more point than Verdasco in the match. I'd hardly call that a beating. Guess what? Nadal also beat Verdasco in 5 sets. And guess what else? Nadal won 1 more point than Verdasco, the same as Murray. The margins are pretty small, so state the facts rather than invent fairytales.
True it doesnt matter about 'ifs and buts' its too late to change the outcome

But still That was a match that everybody assumed would be straight forward for Murray. After all he was dubbed the favourite to win the title ahead of djokovic the defending champion federer 3 time champion and nadal the #1

GameSampras
05-11-2009, 02:18 PM
Yea but Fed certainly isnt losing to Djoker and Murray at the slams is he? These smaller tournaments are more or less meaningless at this point in his career. Hes not looking for the Number 1 record anymore or week in week out consistency. Fed has been there done that. . Hes looking for the slam record and the French Open and then he will retire. Now if he accomplishes either is still up in the air. But i doubt he is losing any sleep over not winning Madrid, Queens etc

All-rounder
05-11-2009, 02:20 PM
Yea but Fed certainly isnt losing to Djoker and Murray at the slams is he? These smaller tournaments are more or less meaningless at this point in his career. Hes not looking for the Number 1 record anymore or week in week out consistency. Fed has been there done that. . Hes looking for the slam record and the French Open and then he will retire. Now if he accomplishes either is still up in the air. But i doubt he is losing any sleep over not winning Madrid, Queens etc
A lot of people think that these 3 setters will affect the way federer plays in 5 setters but that has been disproven at the US and AO open's

vmosrafa08
05-11-2009, 02:21 PM
This is just funny:):)

Please enlighten us, how many points more than Novak does Murray need to get before he deserves to be ahead of him? 100? 500? 1000?

It doesn't matter if Murray is one point ahead - if he has more points than Novak then that's where he deserves to be.

Batz, I completely agree with your points.

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 02:26 PM
Ok let's be serious here. One point doesn't mean anything, and 70 points barely mean anything. They are evenly matched, and one small tournament separates them. He deserves to be at no.3 when he is comfortably ahead. And to the other person, Verdasco won three sets, and the scores were: 6-1, 6-3, and 6-4 in the last set. I watched the match and I think that Verdasco was clearly superior. Before you start to eat your crumpets and defend Murray, please respond when he wins a grand slam.

So what? Murray still won more points than Verdasco in the match. It's ridiculous to suggest that he was beaten badly when it was a tight 5 set match in which he won more points.

Here are the match statistics.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day13/1403ms.html

vmosrafa08
05-11-2009, 03:03 PM
Here are the match statistics.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day13/1403ms.html[/QUOTE]

First Serve %:
Verdasco: 74%
Murray:61%

Aces:
Verdasco: 10
Murray:7

Winning % on 1st Serve:
Verdasco: 69%
Murray: 62%

Fastest Serve:
Verdasco: 216 kmh
Murray: 212kmh

Clydey2times
05-11-2009, 03:08 PM
First Serve %:
Verdasco: 74%
Murray:61%

Aces:
Verdasco: 10
Murray:7

Winning % on 1st Serve:
Verdasco: 69%
Murray: 62%

Fastest Serve:
Verdasco: 216 kmh
Murray: 212kmh

When Murray wins a grand slam, then respond to this thread.

Dude, what exactly are those stats supposed to prove? Verdasco won the match. It's your assertion that he beat Murray badly that is idiotic. You're clearly as thick as two short planks.

vmosrafa08
05-11-2009, 05:46 PM
Dude, what exactly are those stats supposed to prove? Verdasco won the match. It's your assertion that he beat Murray badly that is idiotic. You're clearly as thick as two short planks.
Murray is definitely a great player.

shawn1122
05-11-2009, 07:47 PM
"I was sick the last two days so I've spent a lot of time in bed after beating Marcel Granollers on Thursday. I was on a lot of medication and stuff.

"I didn't really do a whole lot on Friday, but I was always going to play regardless of how I was feeling," Murray said. "I didn't feel terrible but I knew that I was going to have to make sure that I didn't do a whole lot and take all the medication I could."

Murray said this before his match with Verdasco. Combine this with the fact that Verdasco was having an amazing two weeks. I am personally shocked the match was even as close as it was. I am not sure why you choose to ignore the fact that Murray was bedridden....

imalil2gangsta4u
05-11-2009, 07:49 PM
Dude, what exactly are those stats supposed to prove? Verdasco won the match. It's your assertion that he beat Murray badly that is idiotic. You're clearly as thick as two short planks.

Yeah showing stats of a match someone won means nothing. No duh his stats are better in that match. Also, verdasco has been quiet ever seen the AO.

Chopin
05-11-2009, 07:54 PM
The rankings at this point the year aren't that significant. Look--Djokovic is playing a lot better than Murray or Federer--but even if Murray becomes #2 and doesn't win a slam, and say, Federer or Djokovic wins the French or Wimbledon--Murray's ranking won't be significant.

Sentinel
05-11-2009, 08:03 PM
It's just the Rafa show now.

Or the Uncle and Nephew show ;-)

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-11-2009, 10:36 PM
I completely disagree. It's a myth that Federer raises his game in the slams. I don't recall him raising his game when Andreev took him to 5 sets or when Berdych nearly knocked him out. He seemed as vulnerable in the slams as he has everywhere else recently. He simply had a cupcake draw at the AO. You realise you just proved yourself wrong? Fed raised his level to comeback in those matches lol. Also you clearly don't watch Fed because if you did you would know that he doesn't play the same as he does in Masters events as he does in Grand Slams. Ever wondered why he has won almost the same amount of GS events as Masters despite there being more then double Masters events?

COPEY
05-11-2009, 10:56 PM
Some interesting comments here on the importance/lack of importance with respect to Federer's performance at MS events. Personally, I think they do matter, more than people like to think. Federer's "will to win" at GSs is probably more intense when compared to MS events, but that's probably true of every player given the relative importance of GS when compared to MS events. Moreover, how you perform in the tourneys leading up to a GS can either bolster or erode your confidence. I don't see how Federer could be brimming with confidence given the the kind of year he's had to date. The upcoming slams (French and Wimbledon...especially Wimbledon in my opin) raise questions about his head...his confidence, how he's playing, adapting to tough situations, etc. His best chance of the two slams is obviously Wimbledon, but if he fails to capitalize there he'll be under tremendous pressure (again) to win the Open. Yep, he pulled it off last year, but it seems to me the pressure to repeat there this year would be quite a task


It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the pressure of drawing equal with Sampras' GS total is starting to eat at him. Mind you, 2 years ago the consensus was by the time Federer was done he'd own a minimum of 17/18 GS. Now there's speculation if he'll ever supplant Sampras as the GS king. Having said all of that, the guy is a heck of a player - no one can take away what he's already accomplished.

I'd like to see Murray win a slam this year--love his game. Which one is of little importance, but for now I think his chances at the French are limited (for obvious reasons lol).

I'm a "tennis" fan, and in the end regardless of how it all shakes out this year will prove to be pretty interesting to say the least.

BorisBeckerFan
05-11-2009, 11:16 PM
You realise you just proved yourself wrong? Fed raised his level to comeback in those matches lol. Also you clearly don't watch Fed because if you did you would know that he doesn't play the same as he does in Masters events as he does in Grand Slams. Ever wondered why he has won almost the same amount of GS events as Masters despite there being more then double Masters events?

I think one of the reason's players like Federer or Sampras have won so many slams is because in a 5 set match it is hard for the lesser player stay hot. In 3 sets it's easier to get hot or lucky. If you are the better player it is easier to have an off set or two than to have 3 bad sets. A tennis match is like a playoff series that happens in one day instead of several days. In an NBA 7 game series you really can't say the better team didn't win. In single game elimination events like the NFL playoffs it's easier to have a cinderella story. The more sets you have the more the averages have a chance to kick in and have the better player win. Just like a head to head record where 10 or more matches have been played is more telling than when only 1 or 2 matches have been played.

Cesc Fabregas
05-11-2009, 11:26 PM
Dream on the people who think Murray can beat Federer on clay, Murray is so average on clay its not even funny and Federer is very good on clay.

COPEY
05-11-2009, 11:29 PM
Good point, BBF.

Incidentally (and off-topic momentarily) I loved watching Boris in his prime. In fact, I recently watched the last Masters at Madison Square Garden in '89 where he beat Edberg during round robin play but lost to him in the final. Great stuff!

BorisBeckerFan
05-12-2009, 12:13 AM
I really enjoyed watching Becker and Edberg squaring off. I know Becker has a nice record against Edberg, just wish more of those wins had come at Wimbledon.

batz
05-12-2009, 12:26 AM
Wow, what is that even supposed to mean? Is it some english expression? Maybe you should run it by Murray and see if he likes it. Oh, you can't he's getting owned by Verdasco and everyone else on the ATP. Seriously, go have your cup of tea somewhere else.

He means you are hard of thinking; that you are thicker than a whale omelette. The statement in bold above would seem to provide evidence for his contention.

The guy with the second best record on tour this year is getting owned by Verdasco and everyone else on tour? Murray has lost to 3 people this year - now that may constitute 'everyone' on the planet you inhabit, but back here on earth, we take a different view.

batz
05-12-2009, 12:29 AM
Dream on the people who think Murray can beat Federer on clay, Murray is so average on clay its not even funny and Federer is very good on clay.

It didn't take you long before slipping into the old ways did it Cesc. Haven't you made a bit of a fool of yourself before by making proclamations like this?

Leublu tennis
05-12-2009, 12:30 AM
Have you ever considered a career in the diplomatic corps?:shock::)Very good. That guy is a character, isn't he? Always trying to set up fights.

Cesc Fabregas
05-12-2009, 12:31 AM
It didn't take you long before slipping into the old ways did it Cesc. Haven't you made a bit of a fool of yourself before by making proclamations like this?

What makes up think Murray can beat Federer on clay?

batz
05-12-2009, 01:04 AM
What makes up think Murray can beat Federer on clay?

The fact Murray has won their last four matches and is improving on clay. What makes you think he has no chance to beat Federer?

Safinator_1
05-12-2009, 01:06 AM
I don't think Murray can beat Rog on Clay. Otherwise there is gonna be alot of sad Fed Fans out there :(

Leublu tennis
05-12-2009, 01:32 AM
I think one of the reason's players like Federer or Sampras have won so many slams is because in a 5 set match it is hard for the lesser player stay hot. In 3 sets it's easier to get hot or lucky. If you are the better player it is easier to have an off set or two than to have 3 bad sets. A tennis match is like a playoff series that happens in one day instead of several days. In an NBA 7 game series you really can't say the better team didn't win. In single game elimination events like the NFL playoffs it's easier to have a cinderella story. The more sets you have the more the averages have a chance to kick in and have the better player win. Just like a head to head record where 10 or more matches have been played is more telling than when only 1 or 2 matches have been played.Very good observation. 5 setter is a whole lot different than 3.

Clydey2times
05-12-2009, 02:50 AM
"I was sick the last two days so I've spent a lot of time in bed after beating Marcel Granollers on Thursday. I was on a lot of medication and stuff.

"I didn't really do a whole lot on Friday, but I was always going to play regardless of how I was feeling," Murray said. "I didn't feel terrible but I knew that I was going to have to make sure that I didn't do a whole lot and take all the medication I could."

Murray said this before his match with Verdasco. Combine this with the fact that Verdasco was having an amazing two weeks. I am personally shocked the match was even as close as it was. I am not sure why you choose to ignore the fact that Murray was bedridden....

Thank you for saying it instead of me. I'm tired of telling people that he was sick.

Clydey2times
05-12-2009, 02:54 AM
You realise you just proved yourself wrong? Fed raised his level to comeback in those matches lol. Also you clearly don't watch Fed because if you did you would know that he doesn't play the same as he does in Masters events as he does in Grand Slams. Ever wondered why he has won almost the same amount of GS events as Masters despite there being more then double Masters events?

No, I didn't prove myself wrong. Only a Berdych choke prevented Federer from going home early. If you really think that was all about Federer raising his level, you need your head checked. The point is that if Federer raises his level in the slams, he would dispatch those guys easily. Did you see anything different in the AO final when Federer mentally collapsed, as he has everywhere else recently? It was the same Federer that we see in every other event.

The reason Federer has won only 14 MS event is because there are a bunch on clay, which Nadal dominates. Also, there isn't one on grass. He hasn't had the chance to dominate an MS event on his favourite surface.

vmosrafa08
05-12-2009, 05:52 AM
He means you are hard of thinking; that you are thicker than a whale omelette. The statement in bold above would seem to provide evidence for his contention.

The guy with the second best record on tour this year is getting owned by Verdasco and everyone else on tour? Murray has lost to 3 people this year - now that may constitute 'everyone' on the planet you inhabit, but back here on earth, we take a different view.

Murray can definitely beat Federer and Nadal.

batz
05-12-2009, 07:17 AM
Ok, let's clear up a few things. First of all, a player's ranking does not mean a lot. Jankovic was number one, yet she only got to the finals of the us open. Venus Williams won several grand slams when she was not number 1. The fact that Andy Murray moved to number 3, by 70 pts (which is nothing!) does not mean anything. He hasn't won a grand slam yet. Those 70 points can be earned in a few weeks. He lost to Juan Monaco in the first round of the Rome masters. Before that, he lost to nadal in Monte Carlo. He only got to the quarter finals in Dubai, and withdrew from a Davis cup match later on. And then he lost again to Nadal in Indian Wells. Do I need to say anything more?? And you aren't very good as clydey's lawyer. Your main argument is that I am a whale omelette. What in the world does that even mean? I presented the facts, while you come up with irrelevant terms that don't mean anything.



In the UK, 'thickness' means degree of stupidity. The more stupid the subject is, the thicker they are said to be. You would seem to be extremely thick - as evidenced by your contention that Murray is being beaten by everyone on the ATP Tour.

I won't drop to your infantile level by responding to the garbage above - I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

vmosrafa08
05-12-2009, 07:30 AM
In the UK, 'thickness' means degree of stupidity. The more stupid the subject is, the thicker they are said to be. You would seem to be extremely thick - as evidenced by your contention that Murray is being beaten by everyone on the ATP Tour.

I won't drop to your infantile level by responding to the garbage above - I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Murray beat Nadal in Dubai, in a really great match.

_maxi
05-12-2009, 08:19 AM
When it comes to grand slams.. it's rafa and roger.. at least till now.. and if you want to exclude roger.. mm, you are wrong, he has been in the last four grand slam finals, winning one.
We will see what happens in the future.

The-Champ
05-12-2009, 08:24 AM
If Fed wants to beat Murray, clay is the best option for him right now. Murray can't move on the red stuff. Federer is the superior player on clay IMO

batz
05-12-2009, 08:57 AM
Okay, if we're talking about thickness, then you might be as thick as the earth's core. If you read my response to your pathetic attempt to defend Murray, then you would see that he has lost several times in the past few months. The garbage? You probably live in your mom's basement and... I don't have time for losers like you. Just go crawl back into the hole that you live in.


OK brainianc, Murray has lost several times in the last few months - that I accept. Rafael Nadal has also lost several times in the last few months - in fact he's lost only 1 match less than Murray.

Do you see why your argument is infantile yet?

Cyan
05-12-2009, 09:05 AM
I don't think Murray can beat Rog on Clay. Otherwise there is gonna be alot of sad Fed Fans out there :(

Yeah. Imagine if Murray beat Fed on clay. That would be awesome.

rafan
05-12-2009, 09:16 AM
I think Murray is one of these players whom Djokovic meant when he said that anyone in the top 100 could beat the number one if he is having a bad day. The times he has beaten Rafa is when Rafa was having an off time. Murray, I feel, is capable of a lot more but he never seems to deliver when it comes to the slams.

batz
05-12-2009, 09:19 AM
I think Murray is one of these players whom Djokovic meant when he said that anyone in the top 100 could beat the number one if he is having a bad day. The times he has beaten Rafa is when Rafa was having an off time. Murray, I feel, is capable of a lot more but he never seems to deliver when it comes to the slams.

He's played 1 slam since entering the top 4 and he won't be 22 until Friday. I appreciate that Rafa was winning slams at an early age and that Novak already has one in the bag, but isn't it a bit early to make statements like the one above?

If he's still slamless 3 years from now then I think it would be fair comment.

Lotto
05-12-2009, 09:25 AM
He won't be seeded no.2 at RG because Roger will do enough and Andy wont make the final methinks. He mightn't even make the semis....

I don't see him breaking it up anytime soon.

vmosrafa08
05-12-2009, 11:29 AM
OK brainianc, Murray has lost several times in the last few months - that I accept. Rafael Nadal has also lost several times in the last few months - in fact he's lost only 1 match less than Murray.

Do you see why your argument is infantile yet?

Nadal is the world no. 1 and the best player on clay.

maximo
05-12-2009, 11:55 AM
What makes up think Murray can beat Federer on clay?

You will see, You will all see!

btw,

http://i40.tinypic.com/29ebfc.jpg

Cesc Fabregas
05-12-2009, 12:52 PM
Murray lucky to get through today he remains unconvincing on the clay.

Cesc Fabregas
05-12-2009, 12:53 PM
You will see, You will all see!

btw,

http://i40.tinypic.com/29ebfc.jpg

Cesc is a legend.

maximo
05-12-2009, 10:42 PM
More like a tramp...

vmosrafa08
05-16-2009, 09:22 AM
He's played 1 slam since entering the top 4 and he won't be 22 until Friday. I appreciate that Rafa was winning slams at an early age and that Novak already has one in the bag, but isn't it a bit early to make statements like the one above?

If he's still slamless 3 years from now then I think it would be fair comment.

The Murray-Del Potro match was intense!

slicekick95
05-16-2009, 11:14 AM
Wow, Murray's loss to Del Potro sure backs up your argument.

You lose to a top 5 player, and all of a sudden you are losing to everyone on the ATP Tour:confused: YOu are an idiot.

TheTruth
05-16-2009, 11:19 AM
Andy needs to do it on court, not in pressers and in the media. He still has a lot to prove and is adding undue pressure on himself.

markmurray
05-16-2009, 11:33 AM
You realise you just proved yourself wrong? Fed raised his level to comeback in those matches lol. Also you clearly don't watch Fed because if you did you would know that he doesn't play the same as he does in Masters events as he does in Grand Slams. Ever wondered why he has won almost the same amount of GS events as Masters despite there being more then double Masters events?
I can give two good reasons why this can happen without a lack of enthusiasm on Federer's part.

1) Variance. Put simply, the longer the format of a match, the more likely it is that the best player will win it. It's how the scoring works in tennis. (I tried to explain this better but couldn't do it right... perhaps somebody can make a better shot of it than me).

2) Experience. Nobody plays as many 5 set matches as Fed because you need to get far in slams to do that. Everybody plays 3 set matches all the time.