Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by babbette, May 11, 2009.
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?
As much as I admire Fed & Nadal, I'd love to see someone else win a major title this year.
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.
The last three times they have played Murray won. :roll:
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
Murray will beat Fed in Madrid. I believe the conditions are fast enough.
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
Very well said.
Have you ever considered a career in the diplomatic corps?:shock:
good luck to andy
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.
Sure, because it were Novak and Murray who won the previous 2 grand slam finals. Oh, wait...
Why do u say that?
On hardcourts its like you ignored his complete post
I did mean HC btw...
Why not say that then? And where is Murray's hardcourt slam?
No, because the fact is he still beat Federer the last three times they have played.
He doesn't have to just get far, he has to win the thing to be seeded #2 at RG.
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
No, Murray is expected to play Federer in the SF's, so if he beats him then he will be seeded #2 at RG
Don't you mean Federer?
Murray beat Fed on clay? hell no. Murray stinks on clay
Sampras beating Federer on clay? i don't think so.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then Murray still needs to take those baby steps before he can chase the top 4
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Stock prices can go up as well as down.
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.
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
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.
Separate names with a comma.