Linesmen have been making some strange calls at the start of the match on which Novak didn't react. When his light bulb came on, he started asking challenges on perfectly legitamate shots wasting all of them a bit too late.
That Murray has more tournament titles is a relevant argument, but this factor, together with H2H, is not enough for Murray to be recognized as a better grass player than Djoker, because in Wimbledon the difference between them is considerable! And it's nothing against Murray, more grass titles than Djoker have also Connors or Hewitt, who are also not close to Djoker's success in Wimbledon. And if you want to demur again that Djoker never beat Murray on the grass, then I say in advance that Sampras never beat Krajicek on the grass. Don't overestimate H2H.
Prime/peak/shmeepists don't seem to understand that if a player has a weak phase - barring injury it is not an excuse. Whose fault is it Rafa was **** in 2015? Rafa's fault.
So Mandy IS in fact WEAKER on grass than Novak. 2 is less than 5.
Trying to re-write history, are we?
Who's "we"? Your local Murrayfanclub?
By that logic, it's Djok's fault that he was not good enough to reach and stop fedal in 2017-18half.
That's what I thought this thread might be about from the title. Murray has never lost to Djokovic on grass. Amazing he has five Wimbledon titles given Murray's amazing grass statistics and consistent Wimbledon results. Did not like Roddick's win in 2009 one bit and wished Murray had made that final instead of the sickening one where Fed almost let Roddick win before waking up.
Scary thing is young players save maybe Mad Lad are little threat at Wimbledon. Djoko is the 2020 favorite, so six seems very likely before the end of his career.
Facts:
Lol....poor Novak, fittest player on tour, started cramping, boo hoo hoo, wait while I bring out the world's smallest violin. I'm surprised you didn't mention the hurricane that was blowing only on poor Novak's side of the court!. And that Wimby final when everybody knows that poor Novak does not like to play in hot sunshine either. They really should only schedule him to play indoors!
I'll say this for you, you're always good for a laugh round here (if not much else).
True.In 2002 he lost in the 1st round at Wimbledon.
Well he was good, he took his chances at those times.
That would be padding stats since he won in 2003 for the first time. If you just do peak years when player wins event then Fed loses.
Every tennis player has some hard match-up. Even also Pistol Pete. Sampras on the grass won no set against Krajicek.
You can believe what you wish but that's just speculation. I'm simply going with the current facts (like I always do) (funny thing is that's exactly what emotional people are saying). And you're obviously very emotional and desperate to somehow put Murray in front. Is Vilas more successful on clay than Borg to you? And don't you think that 2 matches are too big of a sample? Let's go even further and say that Delbonis owns Murray. Or even better Coric on clay, against whom Andy has yet to win a set.
That would be padding stats since he won in 2003 for the first time. If you just do peak years when player wins event then Fed loses.
That would be padding stats since he won in 2003 for the first time. If you just do peak years when player wins event then Fed loses.
No, I already explained "barring injury".
These narrow %s mean nothing. It's what you win against the best, not while beating journeymen in the 1st rounds of Queens...
Their point is this: when fed wins he is the goat. When fed loses he sucks.
It adds up. The gap between Djoko and Murray is a small one. The first two rounds of slam are generally easy and pad your stats compared to 1000. Queens has a strong field for the number of rounds so really you should say beating up journeymen in the first two rounds of Wimbledon.
It adds up. The gap between Djoko and Murray is a small one. The first two rounds of slam are generally easy and pad your stats compared to 1000. Queens has a strong field for the number of rounds so really you should say beating up journeymen in the first two rounds of Wimbledon.
And that he's been quite lucky not to play Murray.
And that he's been quite lucky not to play Murray.
I would have liked him to at least even the score with him at Wimbledon, but that's one thing it looks like Murray will have as bragging rights over him.
You need to understand that RF is a god from another dimension.
I repeat: tiny % differences prove nothing at all. Statistics only help when they show significant differences.It adds up. The gap between Djoko and Murray is a small one. The first two rounds of slam are generally easy and pad your stats compared to 1000. Queens has a strong field for the number of rounds so really you should say beating up journeymen in the first two rounds of Wimbledon.
Well in two of the wins Murray in the other half of SFs. Murray basically injured (or not near his best after injury in 2014) for the other three.
1% of points won is a pretty massive difference over that many events/matches. Federe's 1/2% lead also sizable. It does not predict who would win match between players as some kind of gambling tool, but for example Nadal's points winning percentage is quite poor for the event for a slam champion. You can win with under 54% at the event, but generally a weak winner. Nadal's 2012-2017 Wimbledon runs pretty much show that was his weakest surface by far. So, not a tiny difference if you were betting on Nadal to win before the event from 2012 onward.
It was just the perfect storm. Epic semi against delpo followed by the crowd driving murray
In tennis it's not how many points you win, otherwise a match would be played until whoever wins 100 points first. I.e. 100-91 could be a typical score. It's about the sets.1% of points won is a pretty massive difference over that many events/matches. Federe's 1/2% lead also sizable. It does not predict who would win match between players as some kind of gambling tool, but for example Nadal's points winning percentage is quite poor for the event for a slam champion. You can win with under 54% at the event, but generally a weak winner. Nadal's 2012-2017 Wimbledon runs pretty much show that was his weakest surface by far. So, not a tiny difference if you were betting on Nadal to win before the event from 2012 onward.
Those clutch points and breakpoints aren’t always consistent. The best measure in the long run is points. Points are by far the best barometer of a players general capability in The areas measured. Nadal was extremely clutch during 2015 2016 and look what that got him.
Breakpoint performance shows something but in the end the players usually come back to the mean or very close for their career. So you are basically chasing your tail concerning yourself only with clutch points.
Get ready, even more bizarre things are coming
Get ready, even more bizarre things are coming
