PDA

View Full Version : Murray shouldnt be here


maddogz32
09-15-2009, 02:25 PM
Murray is possibly the biggest hype job in tennis. He is really bad and a pusher. If murray werent in the top six (were he doesnt belong) then everyone in the top six would have at least one slam. nadal just took the number two spot back because murray was eliminated in the round of sixteen

FredMurray
09-15-2009, 02:31 PM
Murray is possibly the biggest hype job in tennis. He is really bad and a pusher. If murray werent in the top six (were he doesnt belong) then everyone in the top six would have at least one slam. nadal just took the number two spot back because murray was eliminated in the round of sixteen

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/facepalming.gif

clayman2000
09-15-2009, 02:34 PM
Its not Murrays fault that he leads the tour in titles this year?

And on the bright side, hes one of only 3 players to make the 2nd week of all 4 slams this year (Verdasco and Federer)

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 02:49 PM
Yeah but only slams count in the OFFICIAL TW SUPER CORRECT RANKINGS remember? :roll:

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-15-2009, 02:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLffajeNitg

DarthFed
09-15-2009, 03:22 PM
OP has a point...DP was under the radar..his win while not surprising, wasn't totally expected..while murray was the favorite for 3/4 of the slams and didn't deliver on any of them.

trix123
09-15-2009, 03:24 PM
I think the OP is being way too harsh on Murray. As a poster has said, Murray has the most titles this year and has been one of the most consistent players on tour. Its just that his game isnt very pleasing on the eye

DarthFed
09-15-2009, 04:03 PM
I think the OP is being way too harsh on Murray. As a poster has said, Murray has the most titles this year and has been one of the most consistent players on tour. Its just that his game isnt very pleasing on the eye

It's not that...if he won a slam with that game he'd be ver respected..

It's because he was hyped up on this forum by a few select posters, the media etc...

Hell Agassi was at one match going on about Nadal and Federer..then goes on to pick Murray to win the whole thing..and then he falls short..and not Semifinals short like Nadal or losing the final i mean losing in the 4th (or was it 3rd) round.

Feņa14
09-15-2009, 04:37 PM
So everyone is on the del Potro bangwagon, yet Murray owns him on hard? I see.

flying24
09-15-2009, 04:39 PM
So everyone is on the del Potro bangwagon, yet Murray owns him on hard? I see.

Nadal owns Federer not only overall but on outdoor hard courts head to head. It is 3-1, with Federer's only win on the verge of a straight sets loss to 18 year old Nadal. Yet in slam titles on hard courts it is 8-1 and all other achievements a rout. Head to head between 2 players is overrated, even moreso in this case than Federer vs Nadal as it isnt even the 2 most successful current players. Murray has also only played the new Del Potro twice. He lost once on clay, and won the other on hard courts when Del Potro after a tournament the weak before and 2 tough matches going into the final ran out of gas towards the end of the 2nd set.

Feņa14
09-15-2009, 04:45 PM
Nadal owns Federer not only overall but on outdoor hard courts head to head. It is 3-1, with Federer's only win on the verge of a straight sets loss to 18 year old Nadal. Yet in slam titles on hard courts it is 8-1 and all other achievements a rout. Head to head between 2 players is overrated, even moreso in this case than Federer vs Nadal as it isnt even the 2 most successful current players. Murray has also only played the new Del Potro twice. He lost once on clay, and won the other on hard courts when Del Potro after a tournament the weak before and 2 tough matches going into the final ran out of gas towards the end of the 2nd set.

So del Potro ran out of gas, when HASN'T he ran out of gas against Murray? Murray knows how to beat him, he's proven it time and time again.

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 04:48 PM
Why do people have to invent this idea that the Del Potro that beat Federer last night was any different to the one that Murray beat a few weeks back?

flying24
09-15-2009, 04:50 PM
So del Potro ran out of gas, when HASN'T he ran out of gas against Murray? Murray knows how to beat him, he's proven it time and time again.

I see you did not even address my main point that singular head to heads really mean very little unless it is 2 players so dominant they meet in nearly every event (which wasnt even the case for this eras 2 most dominant players Federer and Nadal ever). Overall the head to head will not neccessarily determine who accomplishes more or who will be the better player overall on a particular surface.

As for even the head to head aspect I think most would agree that Del Potro is a totally different player from this spring onwards to what he was before that so it is early for me to draw a firm conclusion how they stack up now when they have played only 2 matches and each won 1. If you feel differently that is your perrogative.

GasquetGOAT
09-15-2009, 04:56 PM
Yeah but only slams count in the OFFICIAL TW SUPER CORRECT RANKINGS remember? :roll:

I thought H2H records was the offical TW rankings, no?

Antonio Puente
09-15-2009, 04:57 PM
Why do people have to invent this idea that the Del Potro that beat Federer last night was any different to the one that Murray beat a few weeks back?

Oh no, we get it. Andy could beat Pete Sampas' and Rod Laver's love child in a three set tournament. But, no one cares. Murray could beat Del Potro in the next 8 three-setters, but if he chokes in the slams while Del Potro mans up and takes home more hardware, it doesn't matter.

fsuDPfan
09-15-2009, 05:00 PM
Why do people have to invent this idea that the Del Potro that beat Federer last night was any different to the one that Murray beat a few weeks back?

Anyone that actually pays attention to tennis knows that the Del Potro that lost to Murray was not the same. His weakness is the playing 2 weeks straight almost every day (2 times against Roddick and one against Nadal).

Also if the USO was only a 3 set tournament like the Rogers Cup, Del Potro would have lost 2-1 to Federer, if you are making the argument (which im not) that Del Potro was the same you can not look past him winning sets 4 and 5 against Murray in a similar situation.

Murray lost in SS to a guy Del Potro took out in the next round so I don't think there is much argument who performs better in GS this year.

flying24
09-15-2009, 05:01 PM
Why do people have to invent this idea that the Del Potro that beat Federer last night was any different to the one that Murray beat a few weeks back?

Since the Del Potro in the U.S Open final was fully of energy and not fatigued in the least after a relative cruise to the U.S Open final and a very easy semifinal win. The Del Potro in the Canada final was already running on fumes after a tough tournament win the week before and a tough road to the final in Canada including a very long and tough semifinal win. There is a reason he wisely took Cincinnati off to make sure he had two full weeks of rest for the U.S Open. It is hardly a secret his fitness is still a liability and factors like how much he has played and tough matches leading into a match affect how he will perform and if he will have enough energy to even finish a match somewhat normally.

Feņa14
09-15-2009, 05:02 PM
I see you did not even address my main point that singular head to heads really mean very little unless it is 2 players so dominant they meet in nearly every event (which wasnt even the case for this eras 2 most dominant players Federer and Nadal ever). Overall the head to head will not neccessarily determine who accomplishes more or who will be the better player overall on a particular surface.

As for even the head to head aspect I think most would agree that Del Potro is a totally different player from this spring onwards to what he was before that so it is early for me to draw a firm conclusion how they stack up now when they have played only 2 matches and each won 1. If you feel differently that is your perrogative.

lol ok fella, if that's how you choose to see it.

Antonio Puente
09-15-2009, 05:02 PM
I thought H2H records was the offical TW rankings, no?

No, head-to-head doesn't matter when you compare a slamless wonder like Murray to Federer, but it absolutely matters when you compare Nadal and Fed.

flying24
09-15-2009, 05:06 PM
lol ok fella, if that's how you choose to see it.

Time will tell I guess. :) If it is any consolation I fully expect both Del Potro and Murray to have better careers than the overrated Djokovic.

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 05:09 PM
You seem awfully insecure when it comes to people talking about players who haven't won slams, Antonio Queynte.

CanadianChic
09-15-2009, 05:11 PM
Murray is possibly the biggest hype job in tennis. He is really bad and a pusher. If murray werent in the top six (were he doesnt belong) then everyone in the top six would have at least one slam. nadal just took the number two spot back because murray was eliminated in the round of sixteen

Get a grip. You may not like him personally (which is your right) but posting troll threads like this is irritating. He is in the top five so he is pretty darn amazing in my opinion.

grafselesfan
09-15-2009, 05:12 PM
You seem awfully insecure when it comes to people talking about players who haven't won slams, Antonio Queynte.

Actually it is the Murray fans who seem sensitive about the talk of him being the only one of the top 6 now to not have won a major. Of course it doesnt mean he doesnt have potential to do so someday. However it is silly to dismiss that very meaningful fact as meaningless and something that people cant start wondering about him based upon.

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 05:12 PM
Get a grip. You may not like him personally (which is your right) but posting troll threads like this is irritating. He is in the top five so he is pretty darn amazing in my opinion.

Yes, but apparently being a pusher renders his ranking nul and void. :roll:

flyinghippos101
09-15-2009, 05:12 PM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/facepalming.gif

that's a fantastic facepalm compilation

Antonio Puente
09-15-2009, 05:29 PM
You seem awfully insecure when it comes to people talking about players who haven't won slams, Antonio Queynte.

Why would I be insecure? My player has won six.

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 05:37 PM
Would entertain the thought of calling them 'your' player if he didn't have those six?

Antonio Puente
09-15-2009, 05:43 PM
Would entertain the thought of calling them 'your' player if he didn't have those six?

Hypothetically, would I cheer for Andy Murray? No.

Tennis_Monk
09-15-2009, 05:46 PM
Andy Murray is a pusher?. So what if he is....He is still beating many players and is top 5.

Who is to say he wont win a slam?. he has plenty of years ahead of him and all he needs is two weeks of hot streak.

Kemitak
09-15-2009, 05:47 PM
During Murray's match against Tsonga in Montreal, one of the commentators said that Murray had hired a PR firm to work on his image.
That makes him a turd.

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 05:47 PM
Hypothetically, would I cheer for Andy Murray? No.

Diddums, go have a group wank with some of your friends.

fsuDPfan
09-15-2009, 08:00 PM
I don't even see how this is a real discussion.

Player A
Rogers Cup Win
4th Roun Loss in USO
Earning number 2 ranking

Player B
Rogers Cup Final Loss
USO Win

I think Player B is the one just about everyone on tour rather be. Winning 3 setters is nice for your ranking but its better to prove to them that you deserve it with some GS wins. Murray is comparable to Safina in that reguard. Earning the tour points but not getting any significant big victories....non tennis fans dont even know who he is.

They now know who the big man is that took out Federer and Nadal in back to back days though.

batz
09-16-2009, 12:45 AM
OP has a point...DP was under the radar..his win while not surprising, wasn't totally expected..while murray was the favorite for 3/4 of the slams and didn't deliver on any of them.

Only in the minds of the TW anti-Murray torch and pitchfork brigade was he favourite for 3/4 slams.

'Favourite' is a defined term meaning 'the runner that bookmakers rate as the shortest odds'.

At Oz Murray was co-favourite with Roger for a couple of days, but Fed was still favourite by the start.

Roger was clear bookies' favourite @ Wimby and USO.

Is there any chance we could at least keep the bashing rooted in reality rather than just make stuff up?

Ironwood
09-17-2009, 04:40 AM
Here's Murray giving us a new take on tennis without a racket!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8257692.stm

li0scc0
09-17-2009, 05:20 AM
OP has a point...DP was under the radar..his win while not surprising, wasn't totally expected..while murray was the favorite for 3/4 of the slams and didn't deliver on any of them.


THE FAVORITE? I don't think Murray was THE favorite in any of the slams. Maybe one of the top 4 favorites. But never 'the' guy.

li0scc0
09-17-2009, 05:21 AM
During Murray's match against Tsonga in Montreal, one of the commentators said that Murray had hired a PR firm to work on his image.
That makes him a turd.

Why? Your logic makes the majority of professional athlete's 'turds', by the way.