PDA

View Full Version : Wilander: " Murray has zero chance"


Federafa
06-22-2009, 02:07 AM
Read in the french newspaper "l'Equipe": " Roger will easily win Wimbledon, the only threat he may have to struggle against is Tsonga. On Centre Court, in five sets, Andy has zero chance. He's not aggressive enough, there is nothing he can do to bother Roger on grass."

Ok maybe Murray is a little bit overrated for the Wimbledon title this year but imo he's still a huge threat to any player, including Fedex.

zagor
06-22-2009, 02:09 AM
Disagree with Mats.Murray can play agressive tennis on grass,has a big serve,good hands,great athlete etc. he certainly has a shot.I also think that Fed's days of winning "easily" are gone,he'll always drop more sets now in slams which is normal as he ages.

I would love to see Tsonga win Wimbledon but match-up wise Murray is much tougher for Fed to handle regardless of the surface.

malakas
06-22-2009, 02:10 AM
Of course he is.I disagree with Wilander.Noone has zero chance.Even against Fed in Wimby on centre court.

And one other "journalist" said that Fed stands no chance against Murray.

Who hires these guys to get paid to write?

mandy01
06-22-2009, 02:13 AM
Its Mats Wilander again :lol:
Murray def.has a great chance...

TENNISSLAVE
06-22-2009, 02:14 AM
Read in the french newspaper "l'Equipe": " Roger will easily win Wimbledon, the only threat he may have to struggle against is Tsonga. On Centre Court, in five sets, Andy has zero chance. He's not aggressive enough, there is nothing he can do to bother Roger on grass."

Ok maybe Murray is a little bit overrated for the Wimbledon title this year but imo he's still a huge threat to any player, including Fedex.

IMO Mats is right .. unless Murray plays much much braver and aggressive and risks a lot more than he tends too he will not be able to win it.

jelle v
06-22-2009, 02:15 AM
Murray played prety well at Queens. He impressed me quite a bit so I disagree with Mats on this one.

P_Agony
06-22-2009, 02:17 AM
Disagree with Mats.Murray can play agressive tennis on grass,has a big serve,good hands,great athlete etc. he certainly has a shot.I also think that Fed's days of winning "easily" are gone,he'll always drop more sets now in slams which is normal as he ages.

I would love to see Tsonga win Wimbledon but match-up wise Murray is much tougher for Fed to handle regardless of the surface.

Can Murray play aggressive tennis for more than a set? I doubt it - it's just not in his nature. His serve would help him sure, and I disagree with Mats Fed will win easily, but Fed at least plays on grass like how grass is meant to be played - aggressive tennis.

joeri888
06-22-2009, 02:18 AM
Almost as dumb a comment as Simon Reed's. How does ANYONE stand no chance, EVER? Even Lu has a chance! These so-called experts don't have a clue. They're no better than TW-ers, making bold statements and saying they are 100% sure.
I like Mats on eurosport a lot, and he's a great tennis legend, but this is a dumb comment

mandy01
06-22-2009, 02:19 AM
Can Murray play aggressive tennis for more than a set? I doubt it - it's just not in his nature. His serve would help him sure, and I disagree with Mats Fed will win easily, but Fed at least plays on grass like how grass is meant to be played - aggressive tennis. I agree that Murray is a backboarder but he has a lot of variety..that works in his favour.

TENNISSLAVE
06-22-2009, 02:19 AM
Typical press stuff .. 'sports -experts '..They are probably well aware of the hype / emotions that these kinds of statements bring .

joeri888
06-22-2009, 02:21 AM
Can Murray play aggressive tennis for more than a set? I doubt it - it's just not in his nature. His serve would help him sure, and I disagree with Mats Fed will win easily, but Fed at least plays on grass like how grass is meant to be played - aggressive tennis.

Against Federer on any surface, you still stand a better chance playing passive defensive tennis with of course if you have the chance making agressive moves, than by going all out, hitting big and trying to out-hit him. Simon, Nadal and Murray on the one hand and Blake, Soderling, Del Potro, Gonzales etc. on the other hand are the living proof of that.

jelle v
06-22-2009, 02:27 AM
Against Federer on any surface, you still stand a better chance playing passive defensive tennis with of course if you have the chance making agressive moves, than by going all out, hitting big and trying to out-hit him. Simon, Nadal and Murray on the one hand and Blake, Soderling, Del Potro, Gonzales etc. on the other hand are the living proof of that.

Sadly enough you are right.. add to that: Canas :cry:

Clydey2times
06-22-2009, 02:46 AM
Can Murray play aggressive tennis for more than a set? I doubt it - it's just not in his nature. His serve would help him sure, and I disagree with Mats Fed will win easily, but Fed at least plays on grass like how grass is meant to be played - aggressive tennis.

Yes. See his match vs. Nadal at last year's US Open or his match with Wawrinka at the same event. There are plenty of examples. You do not hit 60 winners against Nadal if you're only aggressive for one set.

canuckfan
06-22-2009, 02:53 AM
Murray has the firepower. Whether he can execute on grass is still a question mark for me. Yes, he won queens. But I still feel like murray loses critical traction on natural surfaces, and that small difference might be enough to prevent him from changing direction aggresively which is necessary for his favorite counterpuching style. He is not at his best when he is 100% attacking, although that part of his game is improving.

jaykay
06-22-2009, 03:27 AM
i don't think much of wilander's comments. that said, i watched the queen's club final closely and i do believe that blake was able to expose murray's lack of aggression on grass.

a retriever-type game on hard courts has been effective against Federer (see murray, nadal, simon and canas),. but on grass, Roger's serve, slice, volleying skills and ability to pull the trigger aggressively and at will, give him a definitive edge over murray.

i don't endorse wilander's hyperbole. murray defly has a chance; he is a fantastic player and has the potential to be a future #1. but the court surface, Roger's game style and stats spk of greater probability of success for Roger.

jaykay
06-22-2009, 03:30 AM
Murray has the firepower. Whether he can execute on grass is still a question mark for me. Yes, he won queens. But I still feel like murray loses critical traction on natural surfaces, and that small difference might be enough to prevent him from changing direction aggresively which is necessary for his favorite counterpuching style. He is not at his best when he is 100% attacking, although that part of his game is improving.

excellent point re: murray's court movement...

skip1969
06-22-2009, 03:33 AM
wilander has zero chance.

(and you can quote me on that)

sihatch19
06-22-2009, 04:00 AM
Murray=Quarters or better

pmerk34
06-22-2009, 04:29 AM
Of course he is.I disagree with Wilander.Noone has zero chance.Even against Fed in Wimby on centre court.

And one other "journalist" said that Fed stands no chance against Murray.

Who hires these guys to get paid to write?

They get paid to have an opinion. Nice work if you can get it.

PimpMyGame
06-22-2009, 04:34 AM
I think Wilander either has huge stocks of shares or a sponsorship with at least 1 multinational gambling website. He really does spout some *****.

malakas
06-22-2009, 04:35 AM
They get paid to have an opinion. Nice work if you can get it.

no.They get paid to have an educated opinion,with arguments and to analyse the game better and deeper than the average tennis fan.

But even that poor uneducated and ignorant average tennis fan will tell you,that expressions such as: "he has no chance " have no place in tennis.Especially if it is a slam final.

Frankauc
06-22-2009, 05:18 AM
i agree whit Mats, there's no way Murray would win against Fed in a WB final. Fed has too much experience, game and mental to lose against him. It took 3 years to Rafa to win a 5 setter against Fed on grass......

coloskier
06-22-2009, 05:36 AM
Doesn't matter what journalist said what. I highly doubt Murray will make it to the final. Too much pressure. Murray does not like pressure. If he gets behind, he rarely comes back.

egn
06-22-2009, 06:20 AM
lets have both make it to the final first..

raven5288
06-22-2009, 06:25 AM
why does Wilander have to be a negative nancy all the time?

Guru
06-22-2009, 06:30 AM
I wouldn't be suprised to see Wilander on the BBC talking Murray up.

Federer's favorite but Murray has a chance
so does Djokovic and Roddick.

nikdom
06-22-2009, 06:30 AM
Wilander is an attention monger. McEnroe commentating and doling out his opinions on everything (Roger is the GOAT, Nadal is clay court GOAT etc) has got all these old fools coming out of their closets spewing their stupid opinions.

batz
06-22-2009, 06:55 AM
[QUOTE=coloskier;3587237]Doesn't matter what journalist said what. I highly doubt Murray will make it to the final. Too much pressure. Murray does not like pressure. If he gets behind, he rarely comes back.[/QUOTE

Apart from when he's playing Roger maybe? I know he's only come from behind to beat Roger on FOUR occasions, but it's just a thought.

Your posts and reality are rarely bedfellows are they mate.

zagor
06-22-2009, 07:02 AM
Watch Wilander say Fed has no balls if he loses in a final against Murray :) j/k

zagor
06-22-2009, 07:04 AM
no.They get paid to have an educated opinion,with arguments and to analyse the game better and deeper than the average tennis fan.

But even that poor uneducated and ignorant average tennis fan will tell you,that expressions such as: "he has no chance " have no place in tennis.Especially if it is a slam final.

That's definitely true,phrases like that always get on my nerves.Each player has a chance,matches aren't won on paper but on court.I bet he would have said Soderling had zero chance of ever reaching a FO final beating Nadal in the process,actually most of us would and yet look what happened.

tudwell
06-22-2009, 07:12 AM
I wouldn't say no chance...but I wouldn't be surprised to see Federer win this tourney without dropping a set.

nikdom
06-22-2009, 07:13 AM
I'm no Murray fan, but Wilander takes the cake for his stupid predictions. I see it for what it is - generating controversy so the TV channels get more eyeballs and the tabloids get more attention.

mental midget
06-22-2009, 07:16 AM
no.They get paid to have an educated opinion,with arguments and to analyse the game better and deeper than the average tennis fan.

But even that poor uneducated and ignorant average tennis fan will tell you,that expressions such as: "he has no chance " have no place in tennis.Especially if it is a slam final.

what i get from wilander is that he is a fan first, journalist second. he speaks in absolutes, he gets carried away, and imo that's fine, i'm not waiting on press clippings to help me formulate my opinion one way or the other. if you can battle through your righteous outrage, his tennis insight is usually pretty interesting.

i'd much rather sit courtside and watch a match with mats, than share the experience with whoever we're holding up as the ******* of objective sports journalism these days.

sureshs
06-22-2009, 07:23 AM
Mats is just upset he cannot insult Federer any more about not winning the French. Mats time has come and gone and he should realize he is simply not important any more.

GameSampras
06-22-2009, 07:33 AM
I wouldnt say Murray has NO CHANCE. But he has yet to prove to get it done at the slams. So I dunno... I give Murray a 50/50 chance. That is if he doesnt underperform and lose to players he should beat en route to the final.

Murray is still most effective at the USO, which is where I think his first slam will come from. if in fact, he does win a slam. He hasnt proven to be a championship calibor player thus far

coloskier
06-22-2009, 07:34 AM
[QUOTE=coloskier;3587237]Doesn't matter what journalist said what. I highly doubt Murray will make it to the final. Too much pressure. Murray does not like pressure. If he gets behind, he rarely comes back.[/QUOTE

Apart from when he's playing Roger maybe? I know he's only come from behind to beat Roger on FOUR occasions, but it's just a thought.

Your posts and reality are rarely bedfellows are they mate.

That is true when he plays Roger, but not true when he is playing everyone else. When is the last time he has come back on Gonzalez, DelPotro, Monaco? All of these matches were tied going into the 3rd set and he lost the match this year. So that is why i say he probably won't even make the finals, unless he gets a 2-0 set lead.

zagor
06-22-2009, 07:35 AM
I wouldnt say Murray has NO CHANCE. But he has yet to prove to get it done at the slams. So I dunno... I give Murray a 50/50 chance. That is if he doesnt underperform and lose to players he should beat en route to the final

Hey look who's back! Even though we had some heated discussions,it's good to see you back.

galactico
06-22-2009, 07:50 AM
wilander critises everyone, it's just a rule of life.

having said that i don't think you can predict these things, i thought he would have learnt that at the french open

tahiti
06-22-2009, 07:52 AM
Murray definitely has a chance at doing well but he'll probably get pipped at the post.

Guru
06-22-2009, 08:00 AM
The bookies say Murray has a big chance
Federer is favorite and for good reason
but Andy can win this title.

He won at Queens and his record against Federer is very good.

Clydey2times
06-22-2009, 08:04 AM
Doesn't matter what journalist said what. I highly doubt Murray will make it to the final. Too much pressure. Murray does not like pressure. If he gets behind, he rarely comes back.

How about those 4 times he's beaten Federer from a set down? How about beating Gasquet from sets down? Beating Melzer from 2 sets down?

Aabye
06-22-2009, 08:04 AM
Thank you so much, Mats! Here I was doubting Murray's chances, and then you came along and bolstered them simply by telling us that he ain't got a snowball's chance. :lol:

batz
06-22-2009, 08:08 AM
[QUOTE=batz;3587476]

That is true when he plays Roger, but not true when he is playing everyone else. When is the last time he has come back on Gonzalez, DelPotro, Monaco? All of these matches were tied going into the 3rd set and he lost the match this year. So that is why i say he probably won't even make the finals, unless he gets a 2-0 set lead.

The last time he came back to beat Monaco was in IW this year. The last time he came back to beat gonzo was USO 2006 and the last time he came back to beat Del Potro was Rome 2008.

I tell you what - you keep making the false allegations, I'll keep making you look daft.

tahiti
06-22-2009, 08:24 AM
[quote=coloskier;3587602]

The last time he came back to beat Monaco was in IW this year. The last time he came back to beat gonzo was USO 2006 and the last time he came back to beat Del Potro was Rome 2008.

I tell you what - you keep making the false allegations, I'll keep making you look daft.

This comment is not direct towards me, but it's comments like that make me lthink this forum is worthless. Such a negative, agressive stance you have. People who like to push other people down are normally the ones with the inferiority complexes. Says more about you than anything else.

Vamos Murray, prove your critics wrong :twisted:

batz
06-22-2009, 09:10 AM
[quote=coloskier;3587602]

The last time he came back to beat Monaco was in IW this year. The last time he came back to beat gonzo was USO 2006 and the last time he came back to beat Del Potro was Rome 2008.

I tell you what - you keep making the false allegations, I'll keep making you look daft.

This comment is not direct towards me, but it's comments like that make me lthink this forum is worthless. Such a negative, agressive stance you have. People who like to push other people down are normally the ones with the inferiority complexes. Says more about you than anything else.

Vamos Murray, prove your critics wrong :twisted:

You're right. I should just've ignored the factually incorrect stuff he was posting or said 'look old chap, are you quite sure about that?' and left it at that shouldn't I.

The board would be a much better place if only I'd done that.

Cesc Fabregas
06-22-2009, 09:14 AM
I wouldnt say Murray has NO CHANCE. But he has yet to prove to get it done at the slams. So I dunno... I give Murray a 50/50 chance. That is if he doesnt underperform and lose to players he should beat en route to the final.

Murray is still most effective at the USO, which is where I think his first slam will come from. if in fact, he does win a slam. He hasnt proven to be a championship calibor player thus far

Hey welcome back.

BHud
06-22-2009, 09:20 AM
Hey, if Hewitt won it then Murray certainly has a chance! What has Mats been smoking?

BigServer1
06-22-2009, 09:38 AM
I wouldnt say Murray has NO CHANCE. But he has yet to prove to get it done at the slams. So I dunno... I give Murray a 50/50 chance. That is if he doesnt underperform and lose to players he should beat en route to the final.

Murray is still most effective at the USO, which is where I think his first slam will come from. if in fact, he does win a slam. He hasnt proven to be a championship calibor player thus far

I agree 100%.

Welcome back.

CyBorg
06-22-2009, 09:45 AM
What a Federer hater, this Mats. ;)

I think if Murray plays up to his potential he'll win this.

illuminati
06-22-2009, 10:20 AM
mats wilander is a little swedish ratface gimp. whoever gave that rat a job with a mic should be shot

EtePras
06-22-2009, 10:26 AM
The only one who has zero chance is Sampras.

ChanceEncounter
06-22-2009, 10:32 AM
If Murray has zero chance, how come he has a winning record against Federer? The only other player who can say that is Nadal, and he's in Mallorca fishing right now.
Simon can say that too.

GameSampras
06-22-2009, 11:48 AM
I agree 100%.

Welcome back.

Thank you

10 char

maximo
06-22-2009, 11:53 AM
Pfft, dumb individual chatting breeze...

Danstevens
06-22-2009, 12:04 PM
I wouldnt say Murray has NO CHANCE. But he has yet to prove to get it done at the slams. So I dunno... I give Murray a 50/50 chance. That is if he doesnt underperform and lose to players he should beat en route to the final.

Murray is still most effective at the USO, which is where I think his first slam will come from. if in fact, he does win a slam. He hasnt proven to be a championship calibor player thus far

Good post and welcome back.

Everyone who's still in the draw has a chance. Murray is probably second favourite but I somehow just can't see him winning Wimbledon this year. As you say, it isn't his best surface (although not his worst) and if he makes the final, one must think he's likely to play a reformed Roger Federer who seemed to be playing quite well today.

Anyway, I wish Murray luck and hope he can pull it off but part of me thinks that he's just not quite ready and Wimby isn't likely to be his first slam (although I think he could win it at some point in his career).

CHOcobo
06-22-2009, 12:46 PM
Murray still has a good chance, but not zero chance.

dwhiteside
06-22-2009, 12:54 PM
Right, and who could predict Nadal would be downed by Soderling and Soderling would make the final? Upsets happen all the time, even major ones. Murray is far more a contender than Soderling was. Since it's the media such an extravagant claim is obviously acceptable and strategic for whatever publication it's coming out of, and Wilander is known for his big mouth. Doesn't make a difference, he's just some guy who was good at tennis years ago; doesn't really mean much. I think Roger will win and that's a fair and equitable bet but there's no way in hell I will completely write off Murray who seems to be Roger's main competition.

(K)evin
06-22-2009, 07:22 PM
I agree 100 percent with his statement.

PimpMyGame
06-25-2009, 05:59 AM
Murray has more chance of winning Wimbledon than Mats does of being invited to my house for dinner anytime soon.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 06:02 AM
I totally disagree. Tsonga would get owned by Federer. Murray has the best shot of beating Fed. Hitting flat against Fed is not that good of a strategy imo.

pmerk34
06-25-2009, 06:38 AM
I totally disagree. Tsonga would get owned by Federer. Murray has the best shot of beating Fed. Hitting flat against Fed is not that good of a strategy imo.

Tsonga does not hit flat. And you should know this from when he blew Nadal off the court at the Australian in '08. He used plenty of spin on his forehand especially.

FedFan_2009
06-25-2009, 06:41 AM
Remember this is the same guy who said "Federer has no balls".

yellowoctopus
06-25-2009, 07:26 AM
I totally disagree. Tsonga would get owned by Federer. Murray has the best shot of beating Fed. Hitting flat against Fed is not that good of a strategy imo.

I agree with you about the first part, Tsonga getting 'owned' by Federer. This is because Federer loves to play people with big shots, and he has very good results against them.

Murray is not a big shot player. Additionally he, similar to Nadal, has the ability to withstand Federer's offensive game and extend the point out enough to annoy Federer and force errors. Nadal and Murray also know how to serve to Federer. So, yes, I also agree that Murray has a better chance to challenging Federer.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 10:17 AM
Tsonga does not hit flat. And you should know this from when he blew Nadal off the court at the Australian in '08. He used plenty of spin on his forehand especially.
If Tsonga wasn't a flat ball hitter, he would have more success on clay. Almost everyone on the tour hits with some spin on the forehand. But relatively speaking, Tsonga is a flat ball hitter.

pmerk34
06-25-2009, 12:20 PM
If Tsonga wasn't a flat ball hitter, he would have more success on clay. Almost everyone on the tour hits with some spin on the forehand. But relatively speaking, Tsonga is a flat ball hitter.

I can buy that. he definitely flattens out on the high balls.

oy vey
06-25-2009, 04:43 PM
Murray does not like pressure.

That's what Alex Correja said about him too.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 05:00 PM
That's what Alex Correja said about him too.

Uh, when? Corretja works with Murray. I sort of doubt he randomly called him a bottler.

Guru
06-26-2009, 08:08 AM
Read in the french newspaper "l'Equipe": " Roger will easily win Wimbledon, the only threat he may have to struggle against is Tsonga. On Centre Court, in five sets.


Wilander is an idiot. He should of learned his lesson at the French :lol:

Cross Court
06-26-2009, 08:09 AM
Wilander is an idiot. He should of learned his lesson at the French :lol:

Yeah, pretty much. Tsonga just lost.

FedFan_2009
06-26-2009, 08:11 AM
As usual Mats is an idiot. He forgot his Wilanders.

Perseverance
06-26-2009, 12:09 PM
Whilst playing achievements do not translate into an ability to be a commentator or even analyst, I have always been surprised by how comparatively weak Mats is with his commentary to his achievements in the game. You would expect a higher competence, but I often listen to Mat's commentary and wonder where he is coming from. I found it funny how they class him as the Eurosport expert. I think Mcmillian, Bowers, and even Goodall come up with better analysis than Mats does.

Regarding the point, that is the best way to play against Federer. His backhand can break down when is he required to attack, and his forehand has also been increasingly shaky over the past years. Players like Mantilla, Canas, showed that being a solid retriever of the ball can make Fed beat himself. Simon and Murray also showed the plan still has effect with a more mature Federer. Fast, defensive players who retrieve a lot of balls will always give him a workout, and can beat him.

FedFan_2009
06-26-2009, 12:11 PM
Don't forget ATP Masters Series TV's Robby Koenig. He always has something witty to say like "THat's X playing at HIS ABSOLUTE BEST"

oy vey
06-27-2009, 12:18 PM
Uh, when? Corretja works with Murray. I sort of doubt he randomly called him a bottler.

Uh, May 29 2009.

Alex Corretja
My main goal for Andy is to be calm, positive and accept the situation. He needs to relax. This is not his best surface - he mustn't put pressure on himself. You can't do miracles in one day.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/2008/05/28/coach-warns-andy-murray-he-must-set-the-pace-or-fail-in-french-open-bid-86908-20431923/

Clydey2times
06-27-2009, 12:56 PM
Uh, May 29 2009.

Alex Corretja
My main goal for Andy is to be calm, positive and accept the situation. He needs to relax. This is not his best surface - he mustn't put pressure on himself. You can't do miracles in one day.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/2008/05/28/coach-warns-andy-murray-he-must-set-the-pace-or-fail-in-french-open-bid-86908-20431923/

That isn't even remotely the same as calling Murray a choker.

dh003i
06-27-2009, 01:26 PM
Whilst playing achievements do not translate into an ability to be a commentator or even analyst, I have always been surprised by how comparatively weak Mats is with his commentary to his achievements in the game. You would expect a higher competence, but I often listen to Mat's commentary and wonder where he is coming from. I found it funny how they class him as the Eurosport expert. I think Mcmillian, Bowers, and even Goodall come up with better analysis than Mats does.

Regarding the point, that is the best way to play against Federer. His backhand can break down when is he required to attack, and his forehand has also been increasingly shaky over the past years. Players like Mantilla, Canas, showed that being a solid retriever of the ball can make Fed beat himself. Simon and Murray also showed the plan still has effect with a more mature Federer. Fast, defensive players who retrieve a lot of balls will always give him a workout, and can beat him.

Sort of like the USO, where Murray's ball-retrieving skills caused Federer to beat himself...oh, err, wait...

batz
06-27-2009, 03:20 PM
Sort of like the USO, where Murray's ball-retrieving skills caused Federer to beat himself...oh, err, wait...

I would ignore the four matches that came after that as well. They don't count.

3 sets/not finals/sore back/roger not bovvered etc.

Clydey2times
06-27-2009, 03:29 PM
I would ignore the four matches that came after that as well. They don't count.

3 sets/not finals/sore back/roger not bovvered etc.

Pretty sure Federer went into one of the matches with a broken fingernail, too. He was basically playing with one arm.

Breaker
06-27-2009, 05:16 PM
Pretty sure Federer went into one of the matches with a broken fingernail, too. He was basically playing with one arm.

Wondered why his ball toss was so off in that match.

FedFan_2009
06-27-2009, 05:18 PM
Roger tanks best of 3 events these days. He saves it all up for the slams like Sampras taught him to back in 2007. When Andy learns this, he'll become a serial slam champ.

IvanAndreevich
06-27-2009, 05:22 PM
Roger tanks best of 3 events these days. He saves it all up for the slams like Sampras taught him to back in 2007. When Andy learns this, he'll become a serial slam champ.

BS. Watch the MC 2008 match and tell me that Federer tanked. He gave it his all, even with his malfunctioning serve.

Breaker
06-27-2009, 05:22 PM
Roger tanks best of 3 events these days. He saves it all up for the slams like Sampras taught him to back in 2007. When Andy learns this, he'll become a serial slam champ.

Of course he does, definitely made a convincing tank job against Djokovic in Miami with the racquet smash.

Also pretty nice tank job in Madrid he truly is GOAT.

FedFan_2009
06-27-2009, 05:25 PM
BS. Watch the MC 2008 match and tell me that Federer tanked. He gave it his all, even with his malfunctioning serve.

There was no slam coming right around the corner so he felt he should go all out for that one. YEC is like a mini-slam and really wants to win 6 of those to pass Lendl & Sampras who have 5.

emerckx53
06-27-2009, 05:29 PM
Read in the french newspaper "l'Equipe": " Roger will easily win Wimbledon, the only threat he may have to struggle against is Tsonga. On Centre Court, in five sets, Andy has zero chance. He's not aggressive enough, there is nothing he can do to bother Roger on grass."

Ok maybe Murray is a little bit overrated for the Wimbledon title this year but imo he's still a huge threat to any player, including Fedex.

Right on the money...no ***** yet

OTMPut
06-27-2009, 05:36 PM
Also pretty nice tank job in Madrid he truly is GOAT.

Madrid is something special. Whipping the collective a*ses of the madrid crowd and Nadal ...haah nothing tastes better!

Fedace
06-27-2009, 05:38 PM
Read in the french newspaper "l'Equipe": " Roger will easily win Wimbledon, the only threat he may have to struggle against is Tsonga. On Centre Court, in five sets, Andy has zero chance. He's not aggressive enough, there is nothing he can do to bother Roger on grass."

Ok maybe Murray is a little bit overrated for the Wimbledon title this year but imo he's still a huge threat to any player, including Fedex.

LOL,,,,, Andy Murray OWNS Roger now. Roger almost has a mental block against Murray and he becomes very confused by all the junk balls. Roger has ZERO chance against Murray.

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-27-2009, 05:48 PM
Roger doesn't tank 3 setters he just isn't as mentally good as he is in 5 setters.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 05:48 PM
Madrid is something special. Whipping the collective a*ses of the madrid crowd and Nadal ...haah nothing tastes better!
Must enjoy seeing a wounded player lose. How classy of you.

King_Grass
06-27-2009, 05:50 PM
Must enjoy seeing a wounded player lose. How classy of you.

Who do you think would win on grass between Andy O. Murray & Rafa?

Chelsea_Kiwi
06-27-2009, 06:00 PM
Must enjoy seeing a wounded player lose. How classy of you. Yes we know Nadal can never lose unless his knee is broken/almost dying of exhaustion and that is not his fault but Roger's. You don't need to keep on telling us.

FedFan_2009
06-27-2009, 06:03 PM
Federer was simply struggling back in 2008 Madrid to 2009 Indian Wells. Isn't he allowed a slump? Murray simply took advantage - nothing wrong with that. Now we'll see if Murray can beat Federer straight up - no fatigue, no injuries.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 06:10 PM
Yes we know Nadal can never lose unless his knee is broken/almost dying of exhaustion and that is not his fault but Roger's. You don't need to keep on telling us.
You don't need to keep bringing up Madrid then.

TsongaEatingAPineappleLol
06-27-2009, 06:12 PM
Murray isn't going to win. He's going to the finals with Federer and losing, but yes, Wilander is a freaking idiot if he said he has zero chance.

oy vey
06-27-2009, 07:08 PM
That isn't even remotely the same as calling Murray a choker.

Colo said Murray doesn't like pressure. I quoted what Corretja said..Murray must not have pressure.

No one called him a choker.

zagor
06-27-2009, 07:38 PM
Must enjoy seeing a wounded player lose. How classy of you.

Yes,he was so "wounded" that he played RG later and crushed everyone until he run into Soderling.The fact is that the whole Madrid Nadal was playing far below his best for his clay standards,it's just that Fed took advantage of that while Verdasco and Djokovic couldn't.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 07:41 PM
Yes,he was so "wounded" that he played RG later and crushed everyone until he run into Soderling.The fact is that the whole Madrid Nadal was playing far below his best for his clay standards,it's just that Fed took advantage of that while Verdasco and Djokovic couldn't.
Nadal hurt his knee in the Djokovic match. He found out that the tape would not help his knee soon after. He was hurting against Fed and the whole French Open.

zagor
06-27-2009, 07:43 PM
Nadal hurt his knee in the Djokovic match. He found out that the tape would not help his knee soon after. He was hurting against Fed and the whole French Open.

At what point of the Djokovic match did he hurt himself? Because he was running down every ball until the very end and played excellent tennis on big points in tiebreak.

Nadal_Freak
06-27-2009, 07:47 PM
At what point of the Djokovic match did he hurt himself? Because he was running down every ball until the very end and played excellent tennis on big points in tiebreak.
He hurt his knee before he called the trainer. Obvious there. It was early in the match. And anti-inflammatories can really help for the short term.

zagor
06-27-2009, 07:57 PM
He hurt his knee before he called the trainer. Obvious there. It was early in the match. And anti-inflammatories can really help for the short term.

So even though he hurt his knee seriously(became wounded)early in the match he still went on to outgrind Djokovic who was playing very well? Nadal must be superhuman then.

TheTruth
06-27-2009, 11:03 PM
Murray has a very good chance imo.

IvanAndreevich
06-27-2009, 11:08 PM
Nadal hurt his knee in the Djokovic match. He found out that the tape would not help his knee soon after. He was hurting against Fed and the whole French Open.

Really? Well if he was hurt that badly, why didn't he play more aggressively but instead was running around and wasting time between points for 4 hours?

Sentinel
06-27-2009, 11:18 PM
Aah, here we go again. N_F turning yet another thread into a Nadal thread.

I think Murray stands a very good chance of winning, if he reaches the final, which seems v likely.

I suspect Murray would have taken out a healthy untired uninjured defending champion too, altho that would have been a fairly interesting match (unless both pushed all day long).

FedFan_2009
06-27-2009, 11:20 PM
Aah, here we go again. N_F turning yet another thread into a Nadal thread.

I think Murray stands a very good chance of winning, if he reaches the final, which seems v likely.

I suspect Murray would have taken out a healthy untired uninjured defending champion too, altho that would have been a fairly interesting match (unless both pushed all day long).

Murray stands a good chance to make the final, but not necessarily to beat Federer? First of all there is immediate history, Federer crushed him at the US Open final 9 months ago. Second, Federer has not lost to anyone not named Nadal in a slam final EVER. So Andy has a lot of bad history going against him.

IvanAndreevich
06-27-2009, 11:20 PM
Aah, here we go again. N_F turning yet another thread into a Nadal thread.

I think Murray stands a very good chance of winning, if he reaches the final, which seems v likely.

I suspect Murray would have taken out a healthy untired uninjured defending champion too, altho that would have been a fairly interesting match (unless both pushed all day long).

Pushing against Nadal is usually a sure way to be ran around like a rag doll until your legs give in.

FedFan_2009
06-27-2009, 11:22 PM
Pushing against Nadal is usually a sure way to be ran around like a rag doll until your legs give in.

That's when Nadal actually plays in a tournament. Since he isn't here, it's a non-issue.

Sentinel
06-27-2009, 11:28 PM
Murray stands a good chance to make the final, but not necessarily to beat Federer? First of all there is immediate history, Federer crushed him at the US Open final 9 months ago. Second, Federer has not lost to anyone not named Nadal in a slam final EVER. So Andy has a lot of bad history going against him.

I don't rely too much on the past in that sense. Andy is serving great. Very very accurate. Federer's serve can be on one day, off another.
Take the difference between the TB in the Haas FO match and the FO final.

Second, tbh, i am sh1tting bricks wondering whether Fed will make it to the finals, with Ivo serving bombs, and maybe Robin taking adv of the grass (??).


Pushing against Nadal is usually a sure way to be ran around like a rag doll until your legs give in.

I once heard that Gilles Simon did so with considerable success. "outpushed Nadal" were the words, iirc

Tshooter
06-28-2009, 12:58 AM
Well this certainly bodes well for Murray as Wilander is one of the more clueless "analysts." If I had not seen him play myself I'd swear the guy had never seen a tennis court in his life.

maximo
06-28-2009, 01:06 AM
Murray stands a good chance to make the final, but not necessarily to beat Federer? First of all there is immediate history, Federer crushed him at the US Open final 9 months ago. Second, Federer has not lost to anyone not named Nadal in a slam final EVER. So Andy has a lot of bad history going against him.

History?

Ok, Murray has defeated Federer the last 4 times.

Murray owns their H2H.

Murray > Federer

FD3S
06-28-2009, 01:13 AM
History?

Ok, Murray has defeated Federer the last 4 times.

Murray owns their H2H.

Murray > Federer

For smaller events, this is true. With that said, Federer in a Slam is a totally different animal than Federer in say, an MS. Thinking Murray has the upper hand solely because of his last 4 wins - all in smaller tournaments - is severely underrating Federer, and how much he raises his game in majors.

maximo
06-28-2009, 01:23 AM
For smaller events, this is true. With that said, Federer in a Slam is a totally different animal than Federer in say, an MS. Thinking Murray has the upper hand solely because of his last 4 wins - all in smaller tournaments - is severely underrating Federer, and how much he raises his game in majors.

HAHA, since when was Master events small?

Its just a typical ******* excuse, 'different animal in slams' blah, blah, blah.

You make me chuckle child...

FD3S
06-28-2009, 01:27 AM
HAHA, since when was Master events small?

You make me chuckle child...

Your condescension amuses me, but you'll want to stop laughing from your pedestal for a second to see that I wrote "smallER", not "small". An MS, while prestigious, still falls under the banner of "tournaments smaller then a GS." Didn't mean to discredit Murray's victories, because they do matter, but my point still stands; Federer's performances in majors always exceeds his performances in non-majors.

batz
06-28-2009, 01:32 AM
Yep - we get it. The Murray Excuses

"3 sets/sore back/not a final/Roger not bovvered/tired"

Use as required - all 5 in extremis. ;)

maximo
06-28-2009, 01:32 AM
Your condescension amuses me, but you'll want to stop laughing from your pedestal for a second to see that I wrote "smallER", not "small". An MS, while prestigious, still falls under the banner of "tournaments smaller then a GS." Didn't mean to discredit Murray's victories, because they do matter, but my point still stands; Federer's performances in majors always exceeds his performances in non-majors.

If you feel that way, then thats fine.

Fedfans always want to believe things which arn't true...

vndesu
06-28-2009, 01:39 AM
For smaller events, this is true. With that said, Federer in a Slam is a totally different animal than Federer in say, an MS. Thinking Murray has the upper hand solely because of his last 4 wins - all in smaller tournaments - is severely underrating Federer, and how much he raises his game in majors.

perfect example.
murray vs fed us open.
after murray beat nadal many ppl thought that murray was gonna win, some say he was tired from match with nadal, some says fed just raised his game

FD3S
06-28-2009, 01:40 AM
If you feel that way, then thats fine.

Fedfans always want to believe things which arn't true...

This piques my curiosity; what isn't true? Fed's been to the finals of all the Slams for the last few years consecutively - that's gotta say something about his elevation of play in majors.

Look, I actually like Murray. I think his game is dull as hell, but it's unbelievably effective and shows that he understands court tactics inside and out. Murray's (hopefully) going to have a great career, but thinking he's already got Federer beaten and the final sown up seems premature.

maximo
06-28-2009, 01:50 AM
This piques my curiosity; what isn't true? Fed's been to the finals of all the Slams for the last few years consecutively - that's gotta say something about his elevation of play in majors.

Look, I actually like Murray. I think his game is dull as hell, but it's unbelievably effective and shows that he understands court tactics inside and out. Murray's (hopefully) going to have a great career, but thinking he's already got Federer beaten and the final sown up seems premature.

It seems premature to you beacause your a *******. Simple as that really.

You just can't bare when Murray beats your beloved hero. Its as simple as that.

Cesc Fabregas
06-28-2009, 01:52 AM
It seems premature to you beacause your a *******. Simple as that really.

You just can't bear when Murray beats your beloved hero. Its as simple as that.

You have no right to call anyone a ****.

maximo
06-28-2009, 01:53 AM
You have no right to call anyone a ****.

You have no right to get involved.

AllDownTheLine
06-28-2009, 01:56 AM
For smaller events, this is true. With that said, Federer in a Slam is a totally different animal than Federer in say, an MS. Thinking Murray has the upper hand solely because of his last 4 wins - all in smaller tournaments - is severely underrating Federer, and how much he raises his game in majors.

I sincerely hope you're right.
It's funny that while Fed had his run when he won slams without losing a set I wasn't a fan.
Now that I'be seen him cry, smash a racket, and look beatable (he is beatable) I really wan't him to beat Murray if it comes to a H2H final.
Last years US Open I was actually pu;;ing for Murray.

FD3S
06-28-2009, 09:13 AM
It seems premature to you beacause your a *******. Simple as that really.

You just can't bare when Murray beats your beloved hero. Its as simple as that.

I'm a fan of Federer's, no doubt. My hero? Come on. But, if you insist on thinking that I'm just another ******* who does nothing but worship the ground he walks on, then I'll switch to another example to illustrate my 'premature point'.

In any sport, you never count any team or any player out until the competition is over and done with. Never. Yet somehow, Federer beating Murray at Wimbledon is the remotest of remote possibilities to you, despite his level of talent and skill and the pressure Murray will face. That goes beyond being stubborn, that's putting mental blinders on.

Or I suppose you could just hate Federer. I honestly don't know if you do - I'm sensing serious hostility toward him - but it would make this conversation a whole lot more sensible in my eyes.

President
06-28-2009, 09:28 AM
Murray will probably make the final unless Roddick can put something together, but I don't see him beating Federer. His game (besides the serve) is not well suited to grass. It's far too defensive and waits for the other player to make mistakes; on a grass court Federer will rip him apart. If Murray had to face players on the caliber of Soderling and Verdasco/Karlovic (the guy is in the zone), his chances of even making the final would be in doubt.

FD3S
06-28-2009, 09:58 AM
Murray will probably make the final unless Roddick can put something together, but I don't see him beating Federer. His game (besides the serve) is not well suited to grass. It's far too defensive and waits for the other player to make mistakes; on a grass court Federer will rip him apart. If Murray had to face players on the caliber of Soderling and Verdasco/Karlovic (the guy is in the zone), his chances of even making the final would be in doubt.

Murray's defense has improved immensely, so that'll make the potential Roddick match interesting if A-Rod comes out firing ala 2004.

Perseverance
06-28-2009, 10:57 AM
Murray will probably make the final unless Roddick can put something together, but I don't see him beating Federer. His game (besides the serve) is not well suited to grass. It's far too defensive and waits for the other player to make mistakes; on a grass court Federer will rip him apart. If Murray had to face players on the caliber of Soderling and Verdasco/Karlovic (the guy is in the zone), his chances of even making the final would be in doubt.

I can't see Roddick beating him, I don't think there is a chance. Along with Ferrer, Murray is the best returner in the game. Against good servers he is more aggressive than a player like Federer who just blocks the ball back, but Murray against a Karlovic or Roddick will find a way to return enough to break and win. Whether it be aggressive or getting the ball into play, I would always pick Murray over a big server. From the baseline, net, and anywhere apart from the serve, Murray is superior too.