Mainad
Bionic Poster
Thank you.
No, I'm sorry, but I do not. It seems like a contradiction in terms and I just don't get these special/unique circumstances you keep insisting on. First off, it's by no means a proven factor that Murray benefits more from windy conditions than any other player. He lost heavily in a very windy final to Nadal at 2009 IW and struggled in the first set in his semi with Berdych (which he might well have won if the wind hadn't blown his cap off when he had just secured a break point but then was forced to replay it and lost it). The 2012 USO final is, as far as I'm aware, the ONLY instance where Murray won a final in windy conditions. His record in such conditions actually indicated it was much more likely he would lose. The conditions were therefore quite neutral as far as I'm concerned.
As for Djokovic getting less rest than Murray...again, I do not see that as unique or special. It happens all the time. It's just the way things pan out and, as you have agreed, it has often gone against Murray where HE was the one playing with less rest. Swings and roundabouts. It's all part and parcel of tennis and every player accepts it knowing he will sometimes be the beneficiary and sometimes not.
But I also want to take issue with your contention that in 'ideal' conditions ie. perfect weather and equal rest for both players, you think Murray would have been less likely to win his first Slam final than either Del Potro or Wawrinka because of his prior record at the US Open! This I don't understand at all. Murray had already been a finalist and a semi-finalist at the US Open prior to winning it and had already recorded wins in hardcourt tournament finals against Djokovic. This is a much more impressive record than Del Potro's who had never even made a semi at the USO prior to 2009 and hasn't since nor ever faced Federer, the 5 times unbeaten champion, in a final before nor Wawrinka's at the AO where he was playing in his first ever Slam final there or anywhere against a guy he had never even managed to win a set off before! Yet you are trying to tell me that they were more likely winners than Murray would have been? I'm afraid I don't understand that at all and will continue to remain puzzled.
But, there you have it, we continue to go round in circles on this point. You know very well my views about 'flukes' by now. I just don't accept there are any unless a player gets through a tournament on byes and withdrawals and then gets handed the trophy without doing anything to win it. As I have already said, feel free to think differently but make sure you apply that reasoning to ALL the players and not just to one in particular.
Last edited:
