Reed: True number one Murray will win US Open

Wolland · 08-21-2009, 11:48 AM

Simon Reed is a British sports (i.e.tennis) commentator. You can read the whole article here:

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/21082009/...-win-open.html

So what do you think? I'll tell you what I think about this later on.

Edit: Ooops, sorry, I didn't see that someone had already posted this. Once again, sorry.

veritech · 08-21-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolland

Edit: Ooops, sorry, I didn't see that someone already posted this. Once again, sorry.

it's cool, don't worry about it.

grafselesfan · 08-21-2009, 11:54 AM

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

drwood · 08-21-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

The true #1 is the player who wins the most slams in a year -- with RARE exception. Part of being a great player is playing. That's why Fed is #1 now and Nadal isn't.

THUNDERVOLLEY · 08-23-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drwood

The true #1 is the player who wins the most slams in a year...

Agreed; who would be in such denial to doubt Federer's FO/W slam performances this year already set him far and above Nadal, Djokovic and Murray?

Lotto · 08-21-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

I agree with part of that. However, can we be sure that Federer wouldn't still be no.1 if Nadal wasn't injured?? Who's to say a fully fit Rafa would win Wimbledon???

Murray however.....what the **** is he on about?

luckyboy1300 · 08-21-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

federer DID outperform nadal on both the slams. when you're the champ, you outperformed anyone.

Enigma_87 · 08-21-2009, 02:03 PM

How can Murray be a true #1, when Federer is the current holder of 3 GS?

As for the USO. I expect Djokovic to put a challenge and maybe even win it. Roddick has a shout as well IMO.

thalivest · 08-21-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma_87

How can Murray be a true #1, when Federer is the current holder of 3 GS?

As for the USO. I expect Djokovic to put a challenge and maybe even win it. Roddick has a shout as well IMO.

LOL Djokovic wont win the U.S Open. Unless he gets a gift draw like Cincinnati he will probably go out around the round of 16, maybe the quarters at best.

Wolland · 08-21-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thalivest

LOL Djokovic wont win the U.S Open. Unless he gets a gift draw like Cincinnati he will probably go out around the round of 16, maybe the quarters at best.

I actually think he might reach semis. Or maybe even win, who knows. And yes, there's no such thing as 'gift draw' on ATP tour.

Enigma_87 · 08-22-2009, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thalivest

LOL Djokovic wont win the U.S Open. Unless he gets a gift draw like Cincinnati he will probably go out around the round of 16, maybe the quarters at best.

Well I think he's due a good performance there, he looked motivated and surely wants to prove himself that he's still there at the top.

Maybe we'll get a better indication tonight.

veroniquem · 08-22-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

Great post. I feel the same way for the same reason!

bruce38 · 08-22-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

You mean "injury"

BreakPoint · 08-22-2009, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

Um...you do realize that Nadal never would have been #1 at all if Federer had never gotten mono and injured his back, right? Now that Federer is finally healthy again, Nadal won't be getting back to #1 anytime soon.

yung goon · 08-22-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Um...you do realize that Nadal never would have been #1 at all if Federer had never gotten mono and injured his back, right? Now that Federer is finally healthy again, Nadal won't be getting back to #1 anytime soon.

The guy is right though. Fed would still be 2 if not for nadals knees

BreakPoint · 08-23-2009, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yung goon

The guy is right though. Fed would still be 2 if not for nadals knees

And Nadal would have still been #2 if not for Federer's mono (which caused him not to win anything until the US Open).

And, no, he's not right. If Nadal lost before the Wimbledon semis (which was likely) and Federer won Wimbledon, Federer would have been #1 anyway.

Cesc Fabregas · 08-23-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

And Nadal would have still been #2 if not for Federer's mono (which caused him not to win anything until the US Open).

And, no, he's not right. If Nadal lost before the Wimbledon semis (which was likely) and Federer won Wimbledon, Federer would have been #1 anyway.

If Nadal was healthy at Wimbledon he would have streamrolled through the draw.

DarthMaul · 08-23-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

According to your logic, the true #1 of 2008 was Federer as he lost it through illness rather than Nadal outperforming him to take it.
At least Federer had the guts to show up to those tournaments rather than chickening out and withdraw from them.

cknobman · 08-21-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolland

Simon Reed is a British sports (i.e.tennis) commentator.

Your first sentence pretty much sums it up. What else do you expect him to say?

vndesu · 08-21-2009, 12:42 PM

^^ id have to agree
i think to some extent being #1 with no slams doesnt really stick out as much as compared to federer and nadal winnings..

08-21-2009, 12:42 PM	#20
vndesu Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,700	^^ id have to agree i think to some extent being #1 with no slams doesnt really stick out as much as compared to federer and nadal winnings.. __________________ Head YT Prestige mp and pro Nike Apparel RAH RAH RAH

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode