PDA

View Full Version : Murray's theory on No.1.


Paul Murphy
03-06-2012, 08:06 PM
From Tennis.com: Andy Murray says that what has separated the rest of the Big 4 (Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer) from him is that they haven't fallen into prolonged slumps.

"There's an understanding now that if you want to get to No. 1 in the world you can't have a month where you're not winning matches," Murray told the Telegraph. "I did a good job last year when I got to the clay, and since then I've had a lot of good tournaments and got to the last stage of a lot of events. But that month in February-March time hurt me and also the end of the year [when he withdrew from the ATP Tour Finals and Basel because of injuries]. That's the thing that Novak did last year and Roger a few years ago and also Rafa a couple of years ago. They showed that it is possible to win every single event. You need to go in with that mindset and just try and get through matches when you're not playing that well. That's really the goal for this year, to not have those quiet months."

I think it's a bit more than that - like winning a major or two.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-06-2012, 08:16 PM
When did Nadal ever show it was possible to win every single match?

Sentinel
03-06-2012, 08:20 PM
Righto Muurya.

You win everything in sight, and you'll be numero uno. As simple as that.

pvaudio
03-06-2012, 08:30 PM
Difference between Nadal and Federer showing that it's possible to win every title is that Federer can do it more than once. Nadal isn't exactly a master at defending non-clay titles. In fact, he never has.

Evan77
03-06-2012, 08:44 PM
nothing wrong with what Murray said... fair enough

I really think he has grown up as a player

Joehax
03-06-2012, 08:49 PM
He definitely needs to win a couple of slams, otherwise he'll be a male version of Wozniacki

zapvor
03-06-2012, 09:29 PM
He definitely needs to win a couple of slams, otherwise he'll be a male version of Wozniacki

um.......he isnt even no1

jokinla
03-06-2012, 11:30 PM
He kind of left out the main reason, THEY WIN MAJORS!!!

The Bawss
03-07-2012, 03:02 AM
He kind of left out the main reason, THEY WIN MAJORS!!!

It really is as simple as that. There are 800 ranking points between being in the finals of a major and winning it. If you have won at least 2 majors in a year like the rest of the top 4 have (they all did 3 actually) then you are sitting on 4000 points. That means that if you play an average year (for a top 4) outside of those 2 majors, you will almost certainly be #1 at the end of the year.

It's all about the majors.

joeri888
03-07-2012, 03:14 AM
It really is as simple as that. There are 800 ranking points between being in the finals of a major and winning it. If you have won at least 2 majors in a year like the rest of the top 4 have (they all did 3 actually) then you are sitting on 4000 points. That means that if you play an average year (for a top 4) outside of those 2 majors, you will almost certainly be #1 at the end of the year.

It's all about the majors.

Tell that to Marcelo Rios.

You can be no. 1 without a major, but just not in this era.

ZeroSkid
03-07-2012, 05:52 AM
Pretty much agree with Murray

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-07-2012, 06:08 AM
Just make sure you win at least ONE slam per year. That will give you a chance at the top ranking. TWO slams will almost seal it.

I don't agree with Murray. Djokovic was useless after the US Open last year. Didn't hurt him. Actually if you win EVERYTHING, then it make it very hard to keep the number one ranking the next year. Even if you win most events, very hard, as Djokovic will find out.

merlinpinpin
03-07-2012, 06:12 AM
Just make sure you win at least ONE slam per year. That will give you a chance at the top ranking. TWO slams will almost seal it.

I don't agree with Murray. Djokovic was useless after the US Open last year. Didn't hurt him. Actually if you win EVERYTHING, then it make it very hard to keep the number one ranking the next year. Even if you win most events, very hard, as Djokovic will find out.

Nope. That's just a serious misunderstanding of how the rankings work. Winning has never been a drawback to keeping the #1 spot, losing is.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-07-2012, 06:18 AM
If it were a 2 year ranking system, Nadal would still have had the number one ranking at the end of 2011. His brilliant 2010 would not have doomed him in 2011. Inability to repeat that year in 2011, would not have cost him the top ranking, if we had a 2 year ranking system. Likewise, Djokovic will be doomed this year if he doesn't repeat his 2011 results.

merlinpinpin
03-07-2012, 06:22 AM
If it were a 2 year ranking system, Nadal would still have had the number one ranking at the end of 2011. His brilliant 2010 would not have doomed him in 2011. Inability to repeat that year in 2011, would not have cost him the top ranking, if we had a 2 year ranking system. Likewise, Djokovic will be doomed this year if he doesn't repeat his 2011 results.

I stand by what I wrote. You obviously don't understand how rankings work if you think Nadal was "doomed" in 2011 by his 2010 season.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-07-2012, 06:29 AM
I stand by what I wrote. You obviously don't understand how rankings work if you think Nadal was "doomed" in 2011 by his 2010 season.

No problem there.

pug
03-07-2012, 06:35 AM
When did Nadal ever show it was possible to win every single match?

Yes, we know that you hate Rafa, but can you quit trolling every thread looking for a chance to bash him. We're talkin' Murry here.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-07-2012, 06:52 AM
Yes, we know that you hate Rafa, but can you quit trolling every thread looking for a chance to bash him. We're talkin' Murry here.

Huh??? Murray was talking about Fed, Nadal and Djoker. It was very relevant my post.

Laurie
03-07-2012, 10:11 AM
Everything goes hand in hand, you usually can't achieve one thing without having other elements in place. So as far as I'm concerned, Murray's total inner belief is tempered by the fact that deep down he knows he has some technical deficiencies. Guys who win big a lot often do that because they have belief in their game, total belief.

I would wonder whether Murray has total belief in his forehand to do damage, and in his 2nd serve not to be slow and short in crucial moments making him vulnerable to attack. With Murray it is not just about having quiet months, he has those issues to work on as well. He's basically playing catch up all the time from that perspective.

TopFH
03-07-2012, 10:41 AM
If it were a 2 year ranking system, Nadal would still have had the number one ranking at the end of 2011. His brilliant 2010 would not have doomed him in 2011. Inability to repeat that year in 2011, would not have cost him the top ranking, if we had a 2 year ranking system. Likewise, Djokovic will be doomed this year if he doesn't repeat his 2011 results.

If we had a two year ranking system, Nadal would have No.1 until 2010, not 2008.

Povl Carstensen
03-07-2012, 02:05 PM
Actually if you win EVERYTHING, then it make it very hard to keep the number one ranking the next year. Even if you win most events, very hard, as Djokovic will find out.Djokovic will be doomed this year if he doesn't repeat his 2011 results.Totally, utterly wrong. The only thing that matters is how many points you score compared to the competition.

laughingbuddha
03-07-2012, 02:11 PM
Nadal now proposes the three-year system, the even year system, and the grass/clay only system.

SLD76
03-07-2012, 02:14 PM
Nadal now proposes the three-year system, the even year system, and the grass/clay only system.

ROFL! slain dead@even year system!

I lol'd.

Homeboy Hotel
03-07-2012, 02:26 PM
All you need to do is reach one slam final and you'll permanently be in the top 10 for life...

Berdych, Wimbledon 2010...anyone?