PDA

View Full Version : Can Murray get to number 1 with no Slam


janipyt05
08-12-2009, 12:13 AM
Just wondering if it is possible and how you guys felt about that? The WTA yes i know no comparision is having that problem however is it important to be number 1 with a slam or not? What does it say about British tennis? What does it say about Murray's REAL ability to be a contender?

i'm interested in your veiws they are som great people with some amazing posts

Commando Tennis Shorts
08-12-2009, 12:16 AM
Unless someone way down in the rankings other than Nadal or Federer goes on a tear and wins a bunch of Grand Slams over the next few years, no.

batz
08-12-2009, 12:28 AM
Yes - Murray could get to number 1 without winning a slam if:

Murray won Montreal and Cincy back to back, Roger had 2 early (R3 or sooner) exits from those tournaments.

And

Murray makes USO final and Roger goes out early.

What does it say about British tennis? Nothing.


For the record - I'd hate to see it happen. Murray gets enough mindless abuse without adding fuel to the fire.

CountryHillbilly
08-12-2009, 12:31 AM
Yes - Murray could get to number 1 without winning a slam if:

Murray won Montreal and Cincy back to back, Roger had 2 early (R3 or sooner) exits from those tournaments.

And

Murray makes USO final and Roger goes out early.

Yeah, it's very unlikely.

For the record - I'd hate to see it happen. Murray gets enough mindless abuse without adding fuel to the fire.

I was just gonna say that. The last thing Murray needs is to be a slamless No.1 on top of everything. :)

Commando Tennis Shorts
08-12-2009, 12:41 AM
Yes - Murray could get to number 1 without winning a slam if:

Murray won Montreal and Cincy back to back, Roger had 2 early (R3 or sooner) exits from those tournaments.

And

Murray makes USO final and Roger goes out early.

What does it say about British tennis? Nothing.


For the record - I'd hate to see it happen. Murray gets enough mindless abuse without adding fuel to the fire.

Is that true?

It's times like these I wish I knew more about the rankings system...

wyutani
08-12-2009, 12:43 AM
if murray get no.1, new rules will be made so that slamless no.1 wont be considered no.1

CountryHillbilly
08-12-2009, 12:45 AM
Is that true?

It's times like these I wish I knew more about the rankings system...

It takes about 5 mins. Just look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings

You can make up a slam with 2 Masters.

Commando Tennis Shorts
08-12-2009, 12:50 AM
It takes about 5 mins. Just look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings

You can make up a slam with 2 Masters.

Thank you sir. Very helpful :)

P_Agony
08-12-2009, 12:55 AM
Murray will win a slam very soon IMO. He's almost there.

maximo
08-12-2009, 01:09 AM
Murray's the best, why bother with the rest?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-12-2009, 01:15 AM
Just wondering if it is possible and how you guys felt about that? The WTA yes i know no comparision is having that problem however is it important to be number 1 with a slam or not? What does it say about British tennis? What does it say about Murray's REAL ability to be a contender?

i'm interested in your veiws they are som great people with some amazing posts
It would be a damn shame for all tennislovers,fans, the sport, well everyone...To me he is absolutely not no 1 material, he is an upsetter, a delayed supernova that will fade away soon when everyone figures out how to play him (of course not!!) I just dont fancy him very much...:?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-12-2009, 01:17 AM
Murray's the best, why bother with the rest?
If Fed plays Murray in Us Open the referee can say "-Fifteen-Love" even before the match starts! How about that??

dragonfire
08-12-2009, 01:17 AM
if it does happen, expect federer to speak his mind

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-12-2009, 01:18 AM
if it does happen, expect federer to speak his mind
Federer speaks with his racket, thats why he has 15 slams

dragonfire
08-12-2009, 01:20 AM
Federer speaks with his racket, thats why he has 15 slams

yes, i know, but remember fed & djoko both slammed murray at the AO - federer would filp if murray got #1 without a slam

tintin
08-12-2009, 03:52 AM
that would be a bigger joke than the wta players getting there without winning jack:shock:
I mean a 4th round in Australia
4th round in Paris and a fluke semifinal in London and you're world #1?:roll:
worse that Safina who made 2 slam finals and choked in both;);)

maximo
08-12-2009, 03:55 AM
4th round in Paris and a fluke semifinal in London and you're world #1?:roll:


He made the QF's in Paris, dodo.

And how was it fluke making the Semis?

Federer winning RG and Wimbledon is what i call fluke.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-12-2009, 03:57 AM
He made the QF's in Paris, dodo.

And how was it fluke making the Semis?

Federer winning RG and Wimbledon is what i call fluke.
Really? Thats what a call greatness!

batz
08-12-2009, 03:59 AM
that would be a bigger joke than the wta players getting there without winning jack:shock:
I mean a 4th round in Australia4th round in Paris and a fluke semifinal in London and you're world #1?:roll:
worse that Safina who made 2 slam finals and choked in both;);)

See above for an excellent example of what I was alluding to.

Tintin - can I recommend countryhillbilly's link to you; the one that explains the ranking system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings


It's the place where the hard of thinking can find out that a player's ranking is not based on their results in the 3 previous slams - a notion that you seem to be labouring under.

I'm also trying to figure out why Murray's SF appearance was flukey.

Wolland
08-12-2009, 04:00 AM
that would be a bigger joke than the wta players getting there without winning jack:shock:
I mean a 4th round in Australia
4th round in Paris and a fluke semifinal in London and you're world #1?:roll:
worse that Safina who made 2 slam finals and choked in both;);)

Safina actually played 3 finals.

And no, he can't. He would have to do extraordinary well in other tournaments, and Roger, Rafa and Novak would have to lose before the semis, which is highly unlikely. Anyway, I think that Andy has a good chance of getting to that number one spot, but I don't reckon he'll be able to dominate the game like Federer or Nadal.

Tiberius
08-12-2009, 04:03 AM
I hope not...I mean look what Rafa went through to become # 1!

batz
08-12-2009, 04:05 AM
Safina actually played 3 finals.

And no, he can't. He would have to do extraordinary well in other tournaments, and Roger, Rafa and Novak would have to lose before the semis, which is highly unlikely. Anyway, I think that Andy has a good chance of getting to that number one spot, but I don't reckon he'll be able to dominate the game like Federer or Nadal.

And Murray made quarters @ RG, but internet player bashers don't let facts get in the way of anything.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-12-2009, 04:05 AM
I hope not...I mean look what Rafa went through to become # 1!
Very good point, i agree.

maximo
08-12-2009, 04:07 AM
And Murray made quarters @ RG, but internet player bashers don't let facts get in the way of anything.

And then TMOP tells me that Fed fans are the most knowledgeable on these boards. :roll:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-12-2009, 04:09 AM
And then TMOP tells me that Fed fans are the most knowledgeable on these boards. :roll:
Even the Fed-fan can be wrong about facts, and i think the Sampras fans are the most knowledgeable...some, not GameSampras though

Wolland
08-12-2009, 04:09 AM
Though Rios would love to have some company, wouldn't he?:mrgreen:

zagor
08-12-2009, 04:09 AM
Theoretically it's possible but not likely to happen,I do think Murray will reach #1 sometime in the future though.

batz
08-12-2009, 04:19 AM
Though Rios would love to have some company, wouldn't he?:mrgreen:

As someone pointed out a few days ago, Lendl was also number 1 for over a year before winning a slam.

Wolland
08-12-2009, 04:33 AM
As someone pointed out a few days ago, Lendl was also number 1 for over a year before winning a slam.

But he won it and people just forgot all about it. He proved himself worthy, didn't he?

batz
08-12-2009, 04:38 AM
But he won it and people just forgot all about it. He proved himself worthy, didn't he?

Too bloody right he did - more than worthy.

Wolland
08-12-2009, 04:41 AM
Too bloody right he did - more than worthy.

Just not on grass. Grass is for cows. :grin:

deltox
08-12-2009, 04:58 AM
8260 - 1000 for madrid + 2000 for cin and montreal (winning both) + 600 for the uso (if he wins) = 9860 after the uso for andy best case scenario

for roger it looks like this

11060 - 450 (madrid) - 1600 for early round loss in USO = 9010 now this is saying of course that roger gets no points from cinnci or montreal and goes out third round of the uso.

possible scenasrio but HIGHLY unlikely

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 05:06 AM
I don't think that this will happen, but it could.

If Murray goes far in Flushing Meadows and in Melbourne he'll have a lot of points, as he alwasy does well in the hardcourt masters that could be enough to overtake Federer.

dragonfire
08-12-2009, 05:22 AM
i would actually like it if murray got to #1 without a slam. it would prove that even in the era of the 2 greatest players, anything is possible.

drwood
08-12-2009, 05:29 AM
Just wondering if it is possible and how you guys felt about that? The WTA yes i know no comparision is having that problem however is it important to be number 1 with a slam or not? What does it say about British tennis? What does it say about Murray's REAL ability to be a contender?

i'm interested in your veiws they are som great people with some amazing posts

Its possible if for example:
1. He wins Montreal and/or Cinci
2. He loses to Roddick in the US Open final (meaning Fed loses about 1100 of the 2000 points he has to defend from last years's title)
3. He defends his points from last year's carpet season
4. He wins the year-end championship

Then yes, its possible.

However, I expect him to have a very good shot at winning the US Open...I still think Roddick will do it -- only Fed, Nadal, Murray or Roddick have a realistic chance to win US Open IMO.

And if Fed played as sparingly in non-Slams as Serena, Murray would have a shot much sooner.

dragonfire
08-12-2009, 05:31 AM
Its possible if for example:
1. He wins Montreal and/or Cinci
2. He loses to Roddick in the US Open final (meaning Fed loses about 1100 of the 2000 points he has to defend from last years's title)
3. He defends his points from last year's carpet season
4. He wins the year-end championship

Then yes, its possible.

However, I expect him to have a very good shot at winning the US Open...I still think Roddick will do it -- only Fed, Nadal, Murray or Roddick have a realistic chance to win US Open IMO.

And if Fed played as sparingly in non-Slams as Serena, Murray would have a shot much sooner.

agree

10 chars

drwood
08-12-2009, 05:32 AM
As someone pointed out a few days ago, Lendl was also number 1 for over a year before winning a slam.

He first became #1 in 83, but he wasn't year-end #1 in 83 (first slam was 84 French, and he wasn't year-end #1 then either, b/c of McEnroe's 82-3 yr)

janipyt05
08-12-2009, 06:08 AM
Its possible if for example:
1. He wins Montreal and/or Cinci
2. He loses to Roddick in the US Open final (meaning Fed loses about 1100 of the 2000 points he has to defend from last years's title)
3. He defends his points from last year's carpet season
4. He wins the year-end championship

Then yes, its possible.

However, I expect him to have a very good shot at winning the US Open...I still think Roddick will do it -- only Fed, Nadal, Murray or Roddick have a realistic chance to win US Open IMO.

And if Fed played as sparingly in non-Slams as Serena, Murray would have a shot much sooner.

Thank you so much :-)

Cyan
08-12-2009, 08:15 AM
Just wondering if it is possible and how you guys felt about that? The WTA yes i know no comparision is having that problem however is it important to be number 1 with a slam or not? What does it say about British tennis? What does it say about Murray's REAL ability to be a contender?

i'm interested in your veiws they are som great people with some amazing posts

I hope Murray wins a slam. I don't want him to be the new Rios.... He deserves better than that :oops:

tintin
08-12-2009, 08:34 AM
He made the QF's in Paris, dodo.

And how was it fluke making the Semis?

Federer winning RG and Wimbledon is what i call fluke.

no buddy Murray making the finals last year in NY was a fluke and you can't duplicate it?:roll:
when you make annual finals in Paris for years it ain't no fluke; but nice try bozo:roll::roll:;)

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 08:36 AM
If Murray makes it to world #1 and doesn't win a slam in his career than it would be hard to defend that he isn't overrated.



However, I don't expect either to happen.

dragonfire
08-12-2009, 08:39 AM
If Murray makes it to world #1 and doesn't win a slam in his career than it would be hard to defend that he isn't overrated.



However, I don't expect either to happen.

you can't defend that he's not overrated right now, according to die hard murray fans like maximo, he's the best in the world

FedFan_2009
08-12-2009, 08:56 AM
Murray says NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/tools/med/2009/08/ipt/1250000388.jpg

batz
08-12-2009, 09:27 AM
you can't defend that he's not overrated right now, according to die hard murray fans like maximo, he's the best in the world

A couple of questions if I may.

Who 'over-rates' Murray (Max excepted) on here, or in the tennis media in general?

What form does this 'over-rating' take and why can we call this over-rating, rather than just being rated as the world number 3 should be?

Thanks.

maximo
08-12-2009, 09:31 AM
you can't defend that he's not overrated right now, according to die hard murray fans like maximo, he's the best in the world

I don't overrate Murray. I simply speak the truth based on his abilities.

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 09:34 AM
What would people actually say about this era now? If Murray actually reaches Number 1in the world without winning a slam..


Would this era be regarded in the same vain of the Rios era where he spent some time at number 1 without winning a slam?


Nope... People around here will still try and convince how strong the era is.. Regardless if the #1 player in the world is slamless

All-rounder
08-12-2009, 09:34 AM
I don't overrate Murray. I simply speak the truth based on his abilities.
I know you don't overrate him but the expectations you give him make it out to be

nadalfan4life
08-12-2009, 09:36 AM
He made the QF's in Paris, dodo.

And how was it fluke making the Semis?

Federer winning RG and Wimbledon is what i call fluke.

Did you really just call him a dodo? Besides we all know Murray will never get to number one until he can win a couple grand slams which does not look likely for a while.

maximo
08-12-2009, 09:37 AM
I know you don't overrate him but the expectations you give him make it out to be

Saying he can win Wimbledon and the USO is overrating him? Don't be silly.

batz
08-12-2009, 09:45 AM
What would people actually say about this era now? If Murray actually reaches Number 1in the world without winning a slam..

Would this era be regarded in the same vain of the Rios era where he spent some time at number 1 without winning a slam?


Nope... People around here will still try and convince how strong the era is.. Regardless if the #1 player in the world is slamless

Chill - he won't. It would involve the occurence of a highly unlikely combination of events.

Tiberius
08-12-2009, 09:48 AM
Saying he can win Wimbledon and the USO is overrating him? Don't be silly.

No but saying he will win Wimbledon in every damn thread is!

nadalfan4life
08-12-2009, 10:01 AM
I reckon you're just another one of them Fednatics who hate Murray...

The only people who likes Murray are British people who have no other good athletes to like.

nadalfan4life
08-12-2009, 10:06 AM
Hmmmmmm. This is getting a little interesting.

Blinkism
08-12-2009, 10:17 AM
Murray barely deserves his #3 spot.

Stupid Djokovic... wake up!

batz
08-12-2009, 10:20 AM
Murray barely deserves his #3 spot.

Stupid Djokovic... wake up!

Don't worry Blink - you'll be able to stop crying about Murray being number 3 soon - when he moves to number 2:twisted: ;)

Tiberius
08-12-2009, 10:23 AM
2. i was kidding most of the time since *******s bashed Murray's chances.



I noticed you changed your story from "I never said that" to "I was kidding most of the time" after being pwned... :roll:

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 10:29 AM
I'm sure you wouldn't be averse to a bit of rubbing it in yourself Blink, given the chance.

Hey - I'm not not saying it will happen. That guy from Majorca is a pretty tough nut to crack. He won't give an inch without fighting tooth and nail.



Actually we're not even accounting for the fact that it is possible for Murray to be upset in the early rounds of a tournament when he is not at his best.

batz
08-12-2009, 10:34 AM
Actually we're not even accounting for the fact that it is possible for Murray to be upset in the early rounds of a tournament when he is not at his best.

Murray has only lost before the QFs in 2 3 set tournaments in the last 12 months (OG and Rome). That makes him pretty much the least likely guy to go out early in a 3 set tourny.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 10:35 AM
Murray has only lost before the QFs in 2 3 set tournaments in the last 12 months (OG and Rome). That makes him pretty much the least likely guy to go out early in a 3 set tourny.



I think that if he's going to lose it's going to be early IMO.

TheFifthSet
08-12-2009, 10:38 AM
Look at my previous post. Either you're conveniently ignoring it to avoid admitting that you were wrong, or you've grown so attached to NamRanger that admitting he's a liar somehow distresses you.

And please, stop pointing out grammatical errors. Unless you want me to draw attention to every comma you misplace?

I did it because he made a huge scene yesterday when I used the idiom "go to the trouble", rather than "go through the trouble" (huh??) He called me an idiot and a muppet for this, and when I proved that it was a commonly used idiom, he refused to apologize for his behaviour.

I don't care whether or not NR was lying, I was merely warning him of Maximo's antics---but yes, I agree that it was wrong of him to decieve in order to bait another poster, even if he felt the poster deserved it.

batz
08-12-2009, 10:41 AM
I think that if he's going to lose it's going to be early IMO.

I actually agree with you - but I think the same about Roger/Rafa/Novak - I don't think Murray is more susceptible than anyone else.

diredesire
08-12-2009, 12:44 PM
Stay on topic guys, I can guarantee if this keeps up everybody is going to lose.