Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Hawkeye7, Feb 10, 2013.
Don't worry. always_crosscourt is a notorious Murray-hating troll. He's posted here before as tennis_fan 182 and one or two other names which now escape me. You can always tell with him because he constantly posts stuff like "Murray is physically too weak to challenge the other top players" and "everything he wins is only by some lucky fluke". He's now having difficulty explaining away Murray's 2012 US Open win so he's resorting to "it never happened. It's just a figment of our imagination" or " it never happened because it was too windy" etc. etc.
Advise you add him to your Ignore List straightaway until the Mods get round to banning him once more. Hopefully, sooner rather than later!
this thread is super funny until the derail . Bookmarking it and will be bumping everytime he loses in a slam hahahha
He will win more.
This thread will be here for a long, long time.
I doubt he will be a one hit wonder I had my doubts he would win one I admit but since Wimbledon last year he has gone up a level, with Federer still great but on the decline Nadal with injury issues, it is only really Novak right now apart from Murray.
Anyway the OP makes it sounds like being a One slam wonder is a bad thing, its hard to get 1 ATP point!!! forget about one Slam!
The OP was kidding.
The OP is a vile and bitter old woman.
Good to have you back Bob. Always enjoy reading your effective yet simplistic posts.
Murray was tired at Wimbledon.
Murray was tired and injured at AO.
Works both ways matey.
We can also easily make sh1ty excuses.
Fact is if the player doesn't play well enough throughout the whole tournament allowing longer than should have been matches eg Murray vs Federer at AO13 semi then he's not going to be as fresh in the final and doesn't deserve the win.
Murray had the chance to beat Federer in 3 at the AO and would therefore have been in far better shape to challenge Djokovic in the final.
Murray didn't so whose fault was that?
In your head it's Murray's because he wasn't quite good enough, which is true, but if it was Federer instead, it's simply because he was tired.
At the Olympics, the form that Murray was in, he would have beaten Del Potro comfortably in the semi.
How do you think Federer would have fared against Djokovic instead?
Murray was playing at such a high level he dismissed Djokovic in straights and carried that form into the final. No one was stopping him.
Which Wimbledon? Cause it surely ain't 2012.
First sensible thing you have ever said.
I'm about as far from a Murray fan as you can get, and I definitely think his win was a fluke because of the extreme conditions and him having an extra day's rest compared to Nole, but putting an * by his name is stupid, if that's a serious remark and not sarcasm.
in that case its an *asterisk against jocko's AO2013 win..
he had an extra days rest compared to murray and jocko had a cupcake hit n giggle SF..whereas murray had a 4hr exhustathon against mr 17 majors fed
so..*AO2013 jocko w (*due to extra rest day & cupcake SF)
Extreme conditions - there was a sun in the sky?
Because your opponent is old and can't recoup the next day doesn't mean your win should be degraded.
maybe jocko should play his finals inside his big egg..
he could then control the conditions, and he can stop crying and wetting his panties and win.
Djoko played the most finals on the tour in 2012 (11) and he won 6 of them. Murray played 7 finals and won only 3 of them. If one of them is crying, I doubt it's Novak...
u s open sf and final jocko was crying..wake up luv.
No he wasn't. He cried after losing the SF to Nadal in Olympics 2008. That's the only time I can remember.
So if Djokovic had won that match would that too have been a fluke? After all, he was playing in the same extreme conditions. Why should they only favour Murray and not him?
As for the extra day's rest, Murray had a tough match against Berdych in his semi (in which the conditions probably forced HIM to drop the 1st set) while Djokovic had a stroll in the park (as usual) in his semi against Ferrer (after it initially got cancelled because of the weather). And by the way, Murray was the one who was forced to play a 2 day semi-final against Nadal in 2008 because of the weather and then had only a day to rest before playing a 2 day rested Federer in the final. Did that mean Federer's win was a fluke because he had one more day to rest than Murray did?
This is the only part of your post that makes any sense!
According to a Serbian journalist who went to interview him, Djokovic was busy smashing all his racquets to pieces after he lost in the bronze medal play-off against Del Potro at the 2012 Olympics. The journalist said he was tearful and apologetic for not managing to win a medal this time round after winning the bronze in 2008.
Djoko said that wasn't true. Lots of crazy stories going around.
Ahh, but he was. He still felt that Baghdatis match in his bones because he had to stay up two minutes past his curfew. Brits depend on their daily-routine, Scots in particular. His chances of victory were irreparably compromised that day. Pair that with the closing of the roof and you get a horribly tired bloke who can barely stand, playing in conditions he isn't used to. There is no such thing as wind control in Scotland.
Ferrer took the sting out of Murray in the semi final but that was Murray's fault for allowing it as it was Federer's fault for allowing Del Potro to drag him into a long Olympic semi final match.
Murray on the other hand dispatched Djokovic in straight sets.
Funny how you never mention Murray's USO 2008 semi final when he beat Nadal then had to play Federer the very next day in the final.
You'd never say Murray was tired there.
If that was Federer on the otherhand, sure as hell it would be Federer was tired.
Stop being a hypocrite!
*cough* Murray/Ferrer was the QF. *cough*
Sure but it meant he was tired for the semi which had a spin off effect on the final.
Doesn't it sound pathetic when you make excuses?
Doesn't it Tennis Pro?
The day of semi finals, against Bird Bytche, NYC had TWO tornadoes, and the winds effectively made his serve, which had been a big weapon, a non factor. If you don't consider that extreme conditions, well, I don't what to tell you. The conditions were not THAT bad for the final, but they were bad enough-and Nole was at a severe disadvantage in having one day's less rest. To be fair, Murray adapted to the conditions better than his opponents, and Nole having less rest was just bad luck, but to pretend that those two factors were a) normal and b) didn't impact the results is just plain silly.
Speaking of silly, referring to Nole as being old and unable to "recoup" definitely qualifies.
I think he was traumatized in general by all that drama surrounding him last year (losing balls, losing points, footfaults, late nights). I mean with all he had to worry about, it was really no surprise that he couldn't sustain the level he showed in the first set of the final. And when the roof closed he was at an even further disadvantage.
Well, if you want to play it that way, fine. But the same goes for Berdych and Djokovic too. If they had won those matches, then you must be prepared to acknowledge that those same factors would have had to impact their results because they would have been the ones to have adapted better and not Murray!
Players have to adapt their games to all kinds of different surfaces and conditions. The best players succeed in doing so. The lesser players don't or can't. It's that simple!
[I]<<Gee, I'll be able to sleep much better tonight knowing that you approve.>> [/I]
Yes, and Murray has such an outstanding track record in adapting, right? ROTFLMAO!!!!! Sometimes players or teams react strangely to unusual situations, probably the dumbest match Jimmy Connors ever played was against Orantes(ANOTHER one slam fluke winner) in the 1975 US Open final-in those days, it was, men's semifinal, women's final, men's semifinal, and Connors won easily in playing first. Orantes played into late in the night, coming from 5-0 40 love down against Vilas while being down 2-1 in sets, saving something like 5 match points to win(and, unbeknownst to Connors, had hotel room problems and got to bed well after 1am). The next day, Connors acted like HE was the one who might be effected by a long match, and tried to blast Orantes off the court-playing on dirt, no less, instead of getting into rallies. That strategy proved to be ineffective, and Connors was straight setted. You wanna hang you hat on Murray coming through when it matters in a Slam Final, you go RIGHT ahead. Notice how, in normal conditions, order was restored last month, Murray won the first set and his camp looked all happy, then, reality set in. What's that make him, 1-4 in Slam Finals and about 5-17 in sets played?
Right! He's one of the most adaptable players out there. You just admitted it yourself when you said he adapted better than Djokovic to the blustery conditions at the 2012 USO!
Well good for Orantes. Despite coming through a tough semi against Vilas and getting to bed late, he went out there and beat Connors in the final the very next day. Nothing flukey about it at all. He was the better player on the day just as Murray was the better player on the day in the 2012 USO final!
Well, as he's already come through when it matters in a Slam final (and just when DOESN'T it matter in a Slam final?), I think I'll go right ahead!
The only thing that was different was that Djokovic won the stamina battle at the AO whereas Murray won it at the USO. But then, at the AO, Djokovic had a p1ss easy semi against his pigeon, Ferrer versus Murray's tough 5 setter against the #2 seed, Federer and then enjoyed an extra day of rest before the AO final, didn't he? So does that mean we must put an asterisk against Djokovic's win just like you want to put one against Murray's? Sauce for the goose etc. As with Orantes' win against Connors and Murray's at the recent USO, the better player won on the day and each of them thoroughly deserved their victories.
It seems to me that you're one of a depressingly large number of posters on here who just cannot be truly objective about players and only applaud the wins of the ones you like as justifiably earned while trying to dismiss the wins of those you dislike as 'flukes'! Well sorry, that's not how it works in the real world!
<<Why do keep making the stupid comparison of extra rest for a heavy favorite vs the same for a heavy underdog and how a resultant win is viewed? If you're going to not read what I said, then don't bother to address my points, it's a waste of time for each of us. Also, learn how to read: I already said that putting an * next to Murray's win was NOT correct. That doesn't mean I don't think his win was a fluke. You seem to be unable to discern the difference between the two.>>
Ferrer took the sting out of Murray? Like how? You mean to say Federer was walking in the park with Djokovic in another SF? So you mean to say that Ferrer was a tougher opponent than Djokovic? Actually Federer had a tougher opponent in Wimbledon SF compared to Murray, so that sting excuse won't work out mate. Federer played a tougher opponent and still beat Murray.
I do agree with your point in a way. If Roger was tired after Tsonga match, then that's his fault and not Murray's fault to an extend. If you are to be bit honest, you would see that it's not far off the mark. Murray had the luck of the draw here. You certainly don't think Chardy and Tsonga are equal threats to Murray and Federer, don't you? Just as Djokovic was lucky to have Ferrer in SF, while Murray and Federer were destined to meet in SF. If you think for a moment, instead of cribbing about these things you would know that it will eventually even out in a career. Some times you would be lucky, some times you have hard draws. At the end of your career, all will balance out
I don't agree with the other posters statement that Federer was tired, that's why he lost. It's a silly talk. Murray played better in AO SF, so he deserved to win. Period. Decent Murray fans like Batz had no problem in giving credit to Federer after he won Wimbledon and few Federer fans also praised Murray after he beat Roger at AO 2013. Heck I even posted that Murray is the true number two instead of Roger Federer!
Before calling someone hypocrite, clear your hypocrisy first. Then talk. Roger was better at Wimbledon, just as Murray was better at Olympics Final and AO 2013 SF. Cure your Fed hate. Murray has moved on from his Wimbledon loss, he won slam also. Why can't you? Try it, it's not that tough unless you are obsessed with your nationality feelings about Roger beating Murray in UK's, your own, prestigious major
Feather I'm being sarcastic in response to TP's excuses for Federer being tired when he loses to Murray. Do you really believe the pathetic excuses I made for Murray at Wimbledon?
You take me out of context by not reading or understanding my other posts because I actually agree with what you say.
Federer fully deserved his Wimbledon win. I was as vocal as anyone about that so you got me totally wrong.
I'm just reacting to some people making excuses for Federer by making up some of my own but more ridiculous for sarcastic effect.
oh guilty as charged! This is internet and I didn't get the sarcasm, blame me for my lack of understanding
I am sorry, really sorry about my post. Please don't mind my rant
Well I'm sorry too because I'm obviously not very good at sarcasm.
A guy who made 6 slam finals, winning one of them is not a fluke, like it or not. It was inevitable that he would eventually end up winning one and if he keeps putting himself in these positions, he will win more. But apparently you are too thick and butthurt to get that into your head. And just for the record, if you want to insult someone, at least get your numbers straight. He's 1-5 in slam finals.
I'm pretty sure Mainad got that your first line was sarcasm, it still doesn't make any sense though. Murray is known for always having a plan B and adapting his tactics etc, when his original approach isn't working.
I think Mainad, myself, Hawkeye and most of us here don't know how to read you.
Please explain in clear simple English what you're point of view is because I haven't a clue what you're on about.
Are you saying a 6 times slam finalist is lucky?!!
dafinch has a very biased view when it comes to players he doesn't like. He often makes up nicknames for said players that a 10 year old would find funny, but anyone with a brain (while they may instinctively laugh at it at first, especially if like me, you're a fan of another player) would find stupid. With that said, luckily for me he seems to like Federer, but he hates Murray and Nadal, and probably Djokovic too. If he ever says "Ratboy" he's referring to Murray, and if he ever says BP he's not referring to the poster BreakPoint, he's referring to Nadal (i.e buttpicker).
He is apparently the luckiest sportsman ever.
Kind of hilarious that the 'heavy underdog' has a positive record against Federer. So lucky.
That's YOUR opinion, nothing more. And all of this is opinion, and not even "after a player's career is over" opinion, much of it has yet to be determined. But you carefully avoided addressing that the other poster stupidly said that I was claiming that an * should be by Murray's win, when clearly I did not, and I've noticed a lack of logic in your comments in the past, so I'll give your post the consideration that it deserves, which is to say, none.
Yeah, I can see that you don't know how to read well: I did NOT say a single sentence, word, or a syllable, about a 6 time finalist being lucky, I SAID a guy who gets to finals, always loses(and doesn't just lose, but loses in horrible fashion), then wins a match, that goes the distance, in unusual conditions, is lucky. See the difference there? And, btw, what is it about "there should NOT be an * by Murray's win" do you not understand?
Yeah the lack of logic is quite evident, because you don't agree. You were somewhat outraged because I said Murray thinks Nadal is the GOAT. Your sarcasm detector might also be in need for a slight check up.
You are the one stating opinions as fact here. Your opinion isn't any more valid than mine, even if you clearly disagree with that. Your arguments are lacking and illogical, so maybe you should focus on yourself for a change.
Murray won a slam by adapting to the conditions better, which were the same for both players. Federer won an outdoor tournament indoors, because he adapted better at Wimbledon. The better player on the day won both times. Time to stop crying, it's been awhile.
According to your logic (I'm using the term loosely) every player who only won one slam is a fluke. The fact that you stated the 'heavy favourite' is more deserving of luck than the underdog, is also hilariously biased.
Just give up now. It's futile to have an argument with dafinch about a player he hates. He's ridiculously biased.
Why don't you pull a quote where I stated an opinion as fact? And why do you keep failing to address that the other poster stated something that was clearly a lie? Not hard to guess. Once again, you show you don't know how to read. "...every player who only one slam is a fluke" is NOT the same as " I SAID a guy who gets to finals, always loses(and doesn't just lose, but loses in horrible fashion), then wins a match, that goes the distance, in unusual conditions, is lucky." If you can't tell the difference between those two, then I don't see the point in continuing this little "chat."
But not all his Slam losses were "in horrible fashion" as you put it, were they? In the 2010 AO final against Federer, the first 2 sets were decided by just one break and the 3rd went to tie-break and was decided at 13-11! At 2012 Wimbledon he went a set up and almost had a break in the 2nd before the roof closed. At 2013 AO, he against almost went a set and a break up. What's 'horrible' about that? There have been many many players who suffered far worse scorelines than those when losing in a Slam final!
At 2013 USO he was better prepared. He took the first 2 sets and then Djokovic came back and won the next 2. Djokovic had plenty of chances to win that match. In the 5th set, Murray said he told himself that he was determined not to let this one slip and promptly raised his level again. He won it by 6 games to 2 and there was hardly any wind blowing at that stage!
Just because you dislike Murray, you fall into the trap of thinking he can never do anything except by luck or what you are pleased to call a "fluke". Doubtless you were probably quite sure he would never win a Slam and then, when he did so, you try to esplain it away as if it couldn't have happened or because we all somehow imagined it or because there were some strange and unique things happening on the court that had never ever happened before! You and the other Murray-haters on here are all the same. You simply cannot be objective about him and therefore it's a waste of time trying to discuss anything about him with you that makes sense or is completely impartial.
You don't have to like a player to give them credit where credit is due. True tennis fans understand the difference. Hopefully, you may one day too!
This thread is a guaranteed epic fail. I am not even a Murray fan, but other than of course Djokovic and maybe Nadal (who is a huge question mark at the moment) who else is there who can even win slams right now. Maybe Federer has 1 more in him the remainder of his career if he is lucky, and maybe Del Potro has 1 more in him if he is really lucky, and beyond that for the foreseeable future. Murray has to and will win more slams. He will end up with 3 minimum total, but probably more than that.
It's horrible fashion. Especially when you are in prime and you couldn't challenge a post prime Federer on your favourite surfaces. His Djokovic match in 2011 was just as bad.
Wimbledon 2012 was basically about the conditions; As soon as they closed the roof, it was pretty much game over.
Djokovic didn't play very well in the final. Conditions favoured Murray this time. Nothing really to argue about as Wimbledon 2012 was working against Murray so to speak. No doubt the wind screwed Djokovic though. Sets 3 and 4 were completely dominant.
I think it's because he was over-hyped for so long, being put ahead of Djokovic for quite a few years in the minds of others and being put into that elite status without winning a slam is the main reason people aren't really fans of Murray. His game isn't really that great to watch for someone who, let's face it, was/is/will be raved about for many years. I understand how some people feel when we hear 'Murray is one of the best players ever - fourth to the other three in front of him crap' and hypothetical nonsensical statements surround him like 'in other eras he is arguably the best' crap.
Anyway I like Murray, I don't like his tennis. But I hope he wins. Let's not count chickens. It's taken him a while to win his first slam title since he got big in 2008.
That Depends on Nole, Nole may win all 4 this year
Separate names with a comma.