Originally Posted by Mainad
I never cease to be amazed by the number of people on here who put Murray's USO win down to mere luck, as if he basically played no part in it at all! Djokovic's schedule? He played about 5 hours less at the USO than Murray did! Murray had to struggle through several very difficult matches along the way. Djokovic just cruised through. His only hitch being the gale that forced his semi with Ferrer to be postponed. And if you want to dismiss Murray's win because of his opponent's schedule, does that same criteria apply to Federer's 2008 win? After all, Murray's semi with Nadal carried over 2 days because of yet another gale and then he had to play the final the following day after Fed had had a nice 2 days rest! Yet Murray always gets mocked and laughed at because of his poor performance in that first Slam final! Sauce for the goose etc.
It is not MERE luck, I didn't mean to imply that. I said "a bit" lucky. I didn't mean to say he didn't deserve the win. But it is a fact that getting Berd instead of Fed and having one day off before the final helped him. Maybe he would have won USO anyway. It's not Murray's fault of course that they insist on this super Saturday nonsense or that Berd came up with the big upset. I would never mock somebody for winning a slam. A bit of luck is part of the game. It doesn't mean the title is worthless. And yes, Fed's 2008 title was every bit as lucky if not more as that year Murray got shafted by the draw and the schedule even more.
ETA: I'm a bit ****ed at him today but all things considered, evidently there is no shame in losing to Fed at WTF even in straights given how much Fed owns the event in general.