Djokovic is unbeatable in Australia

[Xenakis]

Originally Posted by Fedex

You could argue this back and forth.
Djokovic avoided a tough match in the sun when Troicki retired after one set.
Take it that doesn't count in your winning by default logic?
Your hatred of Murray is really clouding your view.
I see you're from little England.

Come on now, careful not to tar all of us Englanders with ark-**** brush

[batz]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

He played the world #48 who beat Stepanek, Agassi, and Grosjean on his way to the final.


He also played Roddick who was the 5 seed. Schalken who was the 8 seed. Both who were/are absurdly good players on grass. He also played Mardy Fish and Felciano Lopez, both who are also really good on grass. Just remember, do your homework before trying to compare this slam to Murray's current potential slam, which has been filled with hacks other than Melzer, who flat out didn't even play anywhere close to his potential, and Dolgopolov, who is a rookie, and although potentially dangerous, really shouldn't be a threat to Murray if Murray is as good as you and others say he is.


Roddick was ranked 6th and Shengen was ranked 12. They were the only 2 seeds he faced. Those are the facts. The rest of your post is opinion dressed as fact - in other words your usual guff.





.


.

And if Murray were to make final and win he'd have beaten the world number 3 and the guys who beat Roger Federer.

Roddick was ranked 6th and Shengen was ranked 12. They were the only 2 seeds he faced. Those are the facts. The rest of your post is opinion dressed as fact.

[rovex]

A Roddick fan can simply not complain of someone else having a cake walk draw after that 2003 route roddick had.

But a djoko-Murray final is gonna be a cracker.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by batz

And if Murray were to make final and win he'd have beaten the world number 3 and the guys who beat Roger Federer.

Roddick was ranked 6th and Shengen was ranked 12. They were the only 2 seeds he faced. Those are the facts. The rest of your post is opinion dressed as fact.

Except both Roddick and Schalken are better players on grass then their rankings show evidenced by their seeding. Just because Davydenko was ranked 4th at some point did not mean he was the 4th best player on grass now does it?



Until Murray shows up and beats Federer / Nadal in a slam, he still hasn't shown that he's gotten anywhere. He did it ONCE where he played very aggressive, and that was a very good match. I give credit where credit is due. However, he has not done that yet in recent times, and continues to fall short despite massive hype behind him.

[batz]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Except both Roddick and Schalken are better players on grass then their rankings show evidenced by their seeding. Just because Davydenko was ranked 4th at some point did not mean he was the 4th best player on grass now does it?



Until Murray shows up and beats Federer / Nadal in a slam, he still hasn't shown that he's gotten anywhere. He did it ONCE where he played very aggressive, and that was a very good match. I give credit where credit is due. However, he has not done that yet in recent times, and continues to fall short despite massive hype behind him.

Murray has beaten Nadal twice in slams. There has been no Murray hype this year. You are talking out of your arse if you are seriously arguing that Murray winning the AO would somehow be a lesser achievement because he didn't beat Nadal or Roger. You're not really arguing that are you?

Look Nam, I am in no way trying to diminish Roger's first slam - quite the contrary. Nor am I saying that Murray winning the AO would be a mirror image of Roger winning Wimby 2003 - it wouldn't.

All I'm saying is that Murray winning the AO would be no more a 'default win' than Roger winning Wimby in 2003 - nor would it be any less of an achievement. You will be taking Murray hate to new heights if you think otherwise.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by batz

Murray has beaten Nadal twice in slams. There has been no Murray hype this year. You are talking out of your arse if you are seriously arguing that Murray winning the AO would somehow be a lesser achievement because he didn't beat Nadal. You're not really arguing that are you?

Look Nam, I am in no way trying to diminish Roger's first slam - quite the contrary. Nor am I saying that Murray winning the AO would be a mirror image of Roger winning Wimby 2003 - it wouldn't.

All I'm saying is that Murray winning the AO would be no more a 'default win' than Roger winning Wimby in 2005 - nor would it be any less of an achievement. You will be taking Murray hate to new heights if you think otherwise.

No, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished, he would just have won it under favorable circumstances rather than being a truly elite player and actually "winning" it. Some players are simply not good enough to win slams, and need favorable circumstances to win a slam. It doesn't make their slam any less then any other player who has won one, but it would be ludicrous to say that Murray's "potential" slam didn't have some fortunate luck behind it.



It's like saying Kafelnikov didn't have some luck in winning his slams (probably the luckiest and most fortunate player of recent times, despite the fact that I freaking love Kafelnikov); certain players need a little more fortune than others. You would be blind to think that in a time like this where Federer and Nadal have a total stranglehold on tennis, that Murray isn't somewhat fortunate.

[Raoul_Duke]

Originally Posted by Spider

Here's an interesting fact -- Murray has beaten Djokovic the last three times they played.

So did Federer ... 'till very recently

[rovex]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Some players are simply not good enough to win slams, and need favorable circumstances to win a slam.

So you would have absolutely no problems with accepting this for Roddick?

[TBrady]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

No, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished, he would just have won it under favorable circumstances rather than being a truly elite player and actually "winning" it. Some players are simply not good enough to win slams, and need favorable circumstances to win a slam. It doesn't make their slam any less then any other player who has won one, but it would be ludicrous to say that Murray's "potential" slam didn't have some fortunate luck behind it.



It's like saying Kafelnikov didn't have some luck in winning his slams (probably the luckiest and most fortunate player of recent times, despite the fact that I freaking love Kafelnikov); certain players need a little more fortune than others. You would be blind to think that in a time like this where Federer and Nadal have a total stranglehold on tennis, that Murray isn't somewhat fortunate.

And Federer wasn't fortunate for having Nadal eliminated from 09 French Open semi only to have to face Soderling in the final? You have fan boy rose tinted glasses on.

[Speranza]

Originally Posted by TBrady

And Federer wasn't fortunate for having Nadal eliminated from 09 French Open semi only to have to face Soderling in the final? You have fan boy rose tinted glasses on.

Holmes: Ooh! Ooh! Can I play? What about Ralph's win at the US Open last year? Talk about- ah, forget it.....

This type of argument could go on and on, as could most over the last 48 hours. Whoever wins it on Sunday, will no doubt deserve it!

[batz]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

No, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished, he would just have won it under favorable circumstances rather than being a truly elite player and actually "winning" it. Some players are simply not good enough to win slams, and need favorable circumstances to win a slam. It doesn't make their slam any less then any other player who has won one, but it would be ludicrous to say that Murray's "potential" slam didn't have some fortunate luck behind it.

PMSL. You are taking Murray hate to new levels - brilliant. So if he wins, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished - but he wouldn't be an 'elite' player who 'won' his slam. OK - there's nothing remotely incoherent about that statement.

I often wondered what kind of bitter pish you'd come out with if Murray ever won a slam - now I guess we can all see.

If Murray wins he'll have beaten two top ten players - unlike Roger in his first slam, who only faced one top ten player. I guess Roger wasn't an 'elite'player until he 'won' some subsequent slams - as the criteria you seem to want to apply to Murray this year would surely have also applied to Roger in 2003.

[YodaKnowsBest]

Originally Posted by Destro

Finally we agree on something.

And finally we can settle your petty shadowing of me on this forum, with a 3 set beat down from Andrew Murray.

Hey I missed you. I wouldn't mind Murray winning a slam and I'm sure he will someday, but not this year in Australia. I think if he improves his serve more especialy his 2nd serve he might win Wimbledon. He got big support over there.

[YodaKnowsBest]

If Murray wins this by any chance under fair conditions then I'll give him credit.

Roddick is nothing more than a clown who filled up the last missing holes in the ATP. His task was to keep the rankings warm for the upcoming generation.

Nadal was incedibly lucky at the last years USO. He had his own puppet in the quarters who just came off from a 5-setter. Youznhy in the semis who also played a tough 5-setter in the previous round. And then the finals where you would think his lucky streak will finaly come to an end, but no he gets another dead-tired opponent who suprisingly took a set from him.

But having said that I also must mention Federer's FO. He had some easy opponents and still had troubles making the finals. He avoided the top 5 like in many other slams and that's the reason for his success.

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by Xenakis

Come on now, careful not to tar all of us Englanders with ark-**** brush

I said little England as in small minded people as in little Britain.
You certainly don't fall into that category.

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

No, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished, he would just have won it under favorable circumstances rather than being a truly elite player and actually "winning" it. Some players are simply not good enough to win slams, and need favorable circumstances to win a slam. It doesn't make their slam any less then any other player who has won one, but it would be ludicrous to say that Murray's "potential" slam didn't have some fortunate luck behind it.

It's like saying Kafelnikov didn't have some luck in winning his slams (probably the luckiest and most fortunate player of recent times, despite the fact that I freaking love Kafelnikov); certain players need a little more fortune than others. You would be blind to think that in a time like this where Federer and Nadal have a total stranglehold on tennis, that Murray isn't somewhat fortunate.

And you could argue that Murray has been unfortunate in other slams eg scheduling and draws and still made it to two slam finals and gone far in most other slams.
I don't think you could say Murray would be a weak Slam winner.
It's not like he's some sort of fluke.
Let's see if he wins it first. I think beating someone as good as Djokovic would be proof enough.

[Polvorin]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

No, Murray's slam wouldn't be diminished, he would just have won it under favorable circumstances rather than being a truly elite player and actually "winning" it. Some players are simply not good enough to win slams, and need favorable circumstances to win a slam. It doesn't make their slam any less then any other player who has won one, but it would be ludicrous to say that Murray's "potential" slam didn't have some fortunate luck behind it.



It's like saying Kafelnikov didn't have some luck in winning his slams (probably the luckiest and most fortunate player of recent times, despite the fact that I freaking love Kafelnikov); certain players need a little more fortune than others. You would be blind to think that in a time like this where Federer and Nadal have a total stranglehold on tennis, that Murray isn't somewhat fortunate.

Of course Gaudio is the ultimate example, and I freaking love Gaudio.

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by Polvorin

Of course Gaudio is the ultimate example, and I freaking love Gaudio.

Exactly. Kafelnikov made plenty of consistently good appearances at all 4 slams (ESPECIALLY the French where a clay all time great had to fight for his life some 3 times to beat him late in the tournament, and went on to win), and yet idiots say he "got lucky" to win the French.
He put himself in a position to win many times at both the French and the AO. That's not luck, that's odds and good f*cking play.
Gaudio is the perfect example for "lucky" as he never EVER! made any good to great run in a slam except for his fluke win.
Cedric Pioline is a much more worthy player of winning a slam than Gaudio ever was...and yet he is "slamless".
People who bring up Kafelnikov's major wins as the "prime examples of lucky wins" are :
a) biased
b) lack tennis knowledge
c) ********

While Kafelnikov was often a reasonably solid performer at the French outside of his FO title there were many guys in his own era considered better clay courters. Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Rios, and Kuerten all by a huge margin. Then also Moya, Corretja, Costa, Agassi. Even guys like Mantilla, Medvedev, and Chang you could argue. Yet even guys like Rios and Corretja never won the French. Add to that the year he won the French he wasnt one of the favorites and ALL the favorites this year crashed out before the quarters, and that he spanked badly later that year in his clay court meeting with then clay court king Muster. Can anyone say he would have had even a tiny hope of winning that French if Stich didnt pull the upset of his career by beating Muster on clay. Add all that together and it is easy to see why many have surmised he was lucky to win a French.

[hawk eye]

Fed never had the game to beat a Djokovic in this form.
This guy is just too good for him, as simple as that.
Backhand no contest, Djokovic upgraded his forehand to a level above Fed's.

[0d1n]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

While Kafelnikov was often a reasonably solid performer at the French outside of his FO title there were many guys in his own era considered better clay courters. Muster, Bruguera, Courier, Rios, and Kuerten all by a huge margin. Then also Moya, Corretja, Costa, Agassi. Even guys like Mantilla, Medvedev, and Chang you could argue. Yet even guys like Rios and Corretja never won the French. Add to that the year he won the French he wasnt one of the favorites and ALL the favorites this year crashed out before the quarters, and that he spanked badly later that year in his clay court meeting with then clay court king Muster. Can anyone say he would have had even a tiny hope of winning that French if Stich didnt pull the upset of his career by beating Muster on clay. Add all that together and it is easy to see why many have surmised he was lucky to win a French.

"Were considered" based on what?? Your subjective impressions ?? Let's take them all into discussion one by one, and in more detail than "your general impressions".
Ah, let me just start with the fact that "reasonably solid performer at the French" with regards to Kafelnikov's performances is the understatement of the decade.

Yes, Muster was one and he beat a young K once at the French quite convincingly (semi-final) and went on to win, and Kuerten is the "clay all time great" I was talking about so they are obvious. Kuerten, like Muster also beat him on his way to winning in advanced stages (quarters??) and twice in 5 and once in 4 tight sets.
But they also won their respective French Championships, and their victories over Kafelnikov are actually taken into account in the final results/numbers. Muster's 95 semi final, and Kuerten's 3 victories in his 3 runs to the title. So ... those 2 are "accounted for".
One could actually argue that AT LEAST in 97 Kafelnikov was defending champion and actually heavy favourite to win the whole thing (from the guys left in the quarters), and if not for Guga coming out of nowhere with his huge groundstrokes and being inspired by some divine interventions and surviving tough 5 setters against Muster, Medvedev, Kafelnikov and then proceeding to blow Dewulf and Bruguera off the court, K had a more than reasonable chance that year.

Bruguera and Courier were probably more dominant in their respective primes (although Bruguera was more of an "up and down" kind of guy than Courier was), but they were "done" by the time Kafelnikov was a consistent threat at the French.

AA - was a great player but he had nothing on Kafelnikov on clay. He was comfortably dismissed in straight sets by that exact player (K) while being the world number one and current AO champion in 95, while at the top of his game (in what I consider one of the best if not his best year). It took an unbeatable (on clay) Muster to get rid of Kafelnikov that year at the French in the freakin' semis. Also, AA's overall results at the French don't justify your "opinion" that he was a better player than K on clay. His "Medvedev win" was Medvedev choking not AA blowing him off the court or performing some "dazzling recovery" like the American media probably made it look (yes, I saw the match). Albeit a consistently good performer at the French one might argue that HIS FO win was much more of a "fluke" than Kafelnikov's.

Rios, albeit an extremely talented ball striker and tennis player, and a great clay courter, is again, not a better player than Kafelnikov (no, not even on clay). He had great results in best of 3 sets tournaments on clay, but he was never better than Kafelnikov at the french or in any Slam (best of 5 format). His problems in 5 sets matches were both physical and mental. He was one of the guys I absolutely LOVED watching when in form but, a bit like Korda (another supremely talented player) was extremely frustrating to watch when things didn't go his way.
Where's that huge margin he has over Kafelnikov when he never even made a FO final ?? He was a consistent 4th round/quarters kind of guy and nothing more.

I won't even address Mantilla because bringing him into this discussion is an absolute JOKE. He had reasonably good performances on clay, and was a consistent performer on clay while also winning lots of b rated titles/matches on the red stuff. His best performance at the French was a semi, and it wasn't like he was doing that every year. He was always a "guest starring" in this movie, not even a "supporting actor" let alone a "leading one". You are seriously reaching by mentioning him.

You added Moya, Alex C, and Costa to the list only because they are part of the "Spanish armada" so they must have been better players on clay.
I'll challenge you to bring their comparative results on clay up and we can discuss them.
I'm talking about results in important tournaments, please don't come up with "titles in Marbella, Umag and Buenos Aires" as arguments as I'll just dismiss them as irrelevant.
Kafelnikov being the much more complete/all surface player than all 3 guys, never avoided hard court/grass/whatever surface tournaments to go and play small clay tournaments in order to win points and money like ALL the Spanish players did in that period.

Moya was a great player and he won his French. He was never a more consistently brilliant player than Kafelnikov, but he WAS the guy with the highest "peak/talent" from the 3 you mentioned. Not higher than Kafelnikov though ...
Costa and Corretja were two extremely consistent and sometimes great players on clay. Albeit I liked them both, and I used to absolutely drool over Costa's 1 hander, their peak was not high enough to beat "anyone on ANY surface" even on their best day. Nope, not even on clay.
Guys like Bruguera, Kafelnikov and even Moya, could compete and maybe even beat in-form "Kuertens" (he's just an example, don't come up with head to heads...I'm just making a point here) and on their day they could reach the clouds and be unplayable for anybody.
Guys like Costa or Corretja...never could achieve such heights, they simply didn't have the game for it, didn't have enough weapons. They were grinders, and that was it.
Not the "grinder with weapons" kind that Nadal is, they were not even close to his attacking powers.
Corretja actually deserved better, he (IMO) actually deserved a freaking French title more than Costa (although I preferred watching Costa play) and certainly more than a guy like Gaudio. Unfortunately his "undoing" was that lack of "peak play" when it really mattered. The truth was that when maxing out ones potential, there were just too many players who were better than him "on the day". He could never blow people off the court like Kuerten did, and grinding them off the court for 7 straight best of 5 set matches @ Roland Garros was unfortunately beyond his will and power.

Medvedev albeit a hugely talented player, didn't show the consistent results. He SHOULD HAVE beaten AA to be a French Open champion, but he chocked. Such is life, I'm already bored of providing serious arguments so I'll just stop.

In other words, other than Kuerten (doh) and Muster the only other player that is comparable is Chang. You could argue Chang was right there with K in terms of results at the French.
Corretja would be better if he would have got a title. He didn't...so he isn't.

Anyway, this post is way too long, and I'm bored of taking it seriously. Peace.