Murray enters Basel?

[nadalwon2012]

Streaky is not making the finals for months and then suddenly winning 3 events in a row. Nadal whereas doesn't go long without making the finals of an event.

[Tcbtennis]

In the past I found Murray's style of play so boring. I rarely watched him unless he was playing against the other "Big 3". Eventhough he could beat them, the way he did it... slice, slice, slice, roll the forehand, slice, roll the backhand, dropshot, occasionally bang the backhand down the line... for me is aesthetically unappealing. He is definitely skillful and has all the shots but sporadically used them. During this hardcourt season I have seen a more aggressive Murray that highlights all of his talents including his defensive skills. Only this Murray, playing this way for an entire match as opposed to glimpses and spurts will be in a position to actually win a slam title.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by nadalwon2012

Streaky is not making the finals for months and then suddenly winning 3 events in a row. Nadal whereas doesn't go long without making the finals of an event.

Murray has made 4 finals since August (Cincinnati, Bangkok, Tokyo and Shanghai) and won all 4. He certainly lost form for a while following his AO final defeat but has been on a roll since the summer. His only blip was in Montreal but Nadal and Federer both suffered blips there too!

[batz]

Originally Posted by nadalwon2012

Streaky is not making the finals for months and then suddenly winning 3 events in a row. Nadal whereas doesn't go long without making the finals of an event.

Erm, maybe you missed Murray winning Queen's in June and Cincinatti in August? Or maybe you meant 'in September' when you said 'for months'?

Anyhoo - I think most people define 'streaky' as meaning playing at different levels week in, week out, month in, month out and getting very different results month in, month out. Winning one week, out in R1 the next 3 tournaments kind of thing. I don't think that most people would say that a player who regularly makes semis and finals is streaky. Streaky players aren't often challenging for number 2 in the world.

[Semi-Pro]

Originally Posted by nadalwon2012

Indian Wells Nadal has a splendid record at, so the odds are a final or title there. And obviously Nadal doesn't lose before the final of clay events. So that would only leave Miami as an issue for Nadal. But again, the Australian Open could be his big profit to make everything else rather comfortable. It really all depends on whether or not Nadal is injured at the Australian Open, because he obviously is extremely good on that surface, not even dropping a set this year until the injury.

Hey man, what happened to:

Originally Posted by nadalwon2012

The past/present is no guide for the future

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...&postcount=271

[Homeboy Hotel]

nadalwon2012
Join Date: Oct 2011

Fresh troll? Are you in before the "Oh I told you 2011 was a fluke for Nadal" arguments (...you hope*) start arising next year?

I think you will be greatly, greatly disappointed.

[nadalwon2012]

Originally Posted by Semi-Pro

Hey man, what happened to:




http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...&postcount=271

You aren't smart enough to understand that the statement "The past/present is no guide for the future" was made in reference to each year, as in the dominant player of 2007 was not repeated in 2008, and the dominant player of 2008 was not repeated in 2009, and the dominant player of 2009 was not repeated in 2010, and the dominant player of 2010 was not repeated in 2011. It is a reference to a player's inability to dominate the tour for 2 years in a row, which only happened when Federer had no rival from 2004-2007.

Whereas the statement regarding Nadal's record at Indian Wells was in reference to Nadal's ENTIRE career at Indian Wells (he's won it twice and made the final last year, and his best result ever over Murray was conceding only 3 games to Murray at Indian Wells).

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by nadalwon2012

You aren't smart enough to understand that the statement "The past/present is no guide for the future" was made in reference to each year, as in the dominant player of 2007 was not repeated in 2008, and the dominant player of 2008 was not repeated in 2009, and the dominant player of 2009 was not repeated in 2010, and the dominant player of 2010 was not repeated in 2011. It is a reference to a player's inability to dominate the tour for 2 years in a row, which only happened when Federer had no rival from 2004-2007.

Whereas the statement regarding Nadal's record at Indian Wells was in reference to Nadal's ENTIRE career at Indian Wells (he's won it twice and made the final last year, and his best result ever over Murray was conceding only 3 games to Murray at Indian Wells).

Nadal was the #2 ranked player from 2005-2007 and played five matches against Federer at the majors, more than Agassi and Sampras did from 1993-1998.

Not sure whether it has been mentioned yet but...lol.

Murray has withdrawn from the tourney because of injury :P

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/1...swiss-indoors/