Hail Murray back to number 3!

[Nadalator]

So Murray is number 3 again.

He would have never taken the number 2 if Nadal had been healthy but Nadal's injury made him lose so many points that he dropped even behind Murray.

Nadal will be where he belongs after Wimbledon 2010, you will see.

As for Murray I never saw him as the 2nd best player in the world, maybe he will come back to number 2 in the ranking before Wimbledon 2010 because Nadal needs to defend his AO title but once Nadal plays Roland Garros and Wimbledon next year the rankings will put players where they belong.
Nadal and Federer are clearly the best players in majors so I never saw Murray as the 2nd best player in the world.

If Djokovic wins the USO Murray will drop to number 4

 

[varsity8993]

Hopefully he won't be recovering from knee surgery much sooner than that.

 

[BreakPoint]

Let's just face it........there's Federer.......and then there's everyone else.

No one else can touch 21 straight GS semis. Not even close to it.

 

[theroleoftheunderdog]

Let's just face it........there's Federer.......and then there's everyone else.

No one else can touch 21 straight GS semis. Not even close to it.

it is extremely obvious that a 13-7 head to head is more impressive.

/end sarcasm

 

[slicefox]

rofl fed gets 21 straigt semi finals and counting...

nadal couldnt even get a 5th quarter final on his best surface.
Fed made 7 straight finals on grass

 

[Blinkism]

Stop being such a hater, slicefox

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

rofl fed gets 21 straigt semi finals and counting...

nadal couldnt even get a 5th quarter final on his best surface.
Fed made 7 straight finals on grass

... and even 5 straight SF on his worst surface !

 

[sh@de]

... and even 5 straight SF on his worst surface !

4 straight finals imo is even more impressive than saying 5 straight semis

 

[P_Agony]

I think Federer is overall better than Nadal but Nadal is better than Federer when he's facing him. Makes any sense?

 

[Morrissey]

Joker and Murray seem to have maxed out their games and at this moment won't be better than Fed or Nadal period. They occasionally can play better than them but they aren't good enough to sustain that high level over the span of a year, or in Murray's case, the span of any Grand Slam.

 

[Omega_7000]

I think Federer is overall better than Nadal but Nadal is better than Federer when he's facing him. Makes any sense?

Yeah because Nadal is lucky to be such a bad matchup against Fed...

 

[Morrissey]

Yeah because Nadal is lucky to be such a bad matchup against Fed...

And Roddick is unlucky to be such a bad matchup against Fed. So what? That's the point of the game.

 

[joeri888]

Joker and Murray seem to have maxed out their games and at this moment won't be better than Fed or Nadal period. They occasionally can play better than them but they aren't good enough to sustain that high level over the span of a year, or in Murray's case, the span of any Grand Slam.

Quoted for truth

 

[Omega_7000]

And Roddick is unlucky to be such a bad matchup against Fed. So what? That's the point of the game.

Roddick just simply isn't as good a player as Fed is. Now Nadal is an amazing player and closer to the level of Fed than Roddick. Fed is unlucky to have the second best player in the world (his main rival) also be a bad matchup against him. It cuts down his options drastically when Nadal simply keeps hitting high balls after high balls to his backhand.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

So he's definitely going to be #3 on monday? Regardless of how well Nadal does here?

 

[Morrissey]

Roddick just simply isn't as good a player as Fed is. Now Nadal is an amazing player and closer to the level of Fed than Roddick. Fed is unlucky to have the second best player in the world (his main rival) also be a bad matchup against him. It cuts down his options drastically when Nadal simply keeps hitting high balls after high balls to his backhand.

It doesn't matter, tennis is about matchups. Not who's got more game or more talented. If that alone were the case Gasquet, Rios, Safin would all have gotten at least 10 slams combined. Borg played a similar game to Nadal today, but nobody goes around saying he just ran fast and hit with topspin. But then again we didn't have forums in the 70's and 80's. Anybody can just hit with topspin. Nadal brings much more to the game than just that. God forbid he use the ONLY legitimate strategy to beat Federer. Oh Lord! How dare he? If you have the ability to go after an opponent's weakness, then by all means do it.

 

[bizarre_opinion]

murray don't deserve to be no.3 never mind no.2, the guy's a joke.

 

[Morrissey]

Back to the topic on Murray. What disappointed me about Murray was his lack of will to win when down. You know he was at least the #2 contender to win this slam, if not the favorite, same as in Australia.

As is Oz he went out in the 4th round again. But this time he kinda just went away without a fight. This loss to me sort of just gave me the impression that he might not be slam material afterall. It was a disheartening display and result. And all this muscle flexing he did last year, for what? It's only about the slams. Masters are just gravy.

 

[KuanMaster]

djoko have to pass murray

 

[widmerpool]

where does all this venom against Murray come from???

he used to be a brat on the court but he seems to have matured.

we need more players pushing Fed and Nadal. he was doing that.

he crapped the bed for sure but not sure he's a "joke" now.

 

[topher.juan]

Of course it wouldn't last! What was that about having #1 in his sights? He's disconnected to think he's a contender for #1.

 

[rafan]

There was Federer. He was a very fit Federer. Then came along Nadal and Federer was no longer a fit Federer. I guess Nadal had a force to reckon with that the others didn't have. Having said that it's great if they could play each other at the USO - who cares who wins - it would be incredible sport and entertainment

 

[SLD76]

Not who's got more game or more talented.

are you kidding me? So what, all the players outside of the top 70 just have "bad strategies" or are all across the board "bad matchups" to all the top 10, top 5 players?



Reality, top ten players are naturally more talented than say 98.0% of the entire ranked field. Mind you that's not including some underachieving player in the top 100 who can play or maybe some young up and comer who is better than their ranking. But for the most part, a top 10 player( a rightful top 10 player, is just better than someone ranked significantly below them.

Match-ups however do come more into play when the rankings are comparable. Now, in the case of Roddick I do believe he is less talented than roger, employs bad tactics and Roger is a bad matchup for him, hence the record. But to say that Rafa is better than Roger is ludicrous. He competes better, thats for sure. But all things being equal we all know how the H2H is skewed b/c Roger is talented and consistent enough to meet Rafa in finals on Rafa's best surface while Rafa hasnt gotten to the point of returning the favor on fast hardcourts( though he has done well on slower HC for sure).

Imo, I think Roger is more 'talented' in terms of tennis skill than Rafa. but Rafa's ungodly athleticism, speed, lefty spin and mental and testicular fortitude that is comparable to FT. Knox make the players on an even level.
It comes down to then who executes best in any given match between them, who competes better and the who the surface favors.

 

[Ambivalent]

Nadal should take #1 soon. Federer is TWENTY EIGHT years old. He is past his prime.

 

[ronalditop]

I think Federer is overall better than Nadal but Nadal is better than Federer when he's facing him. Makes any sense?

Yeah it makes perfect sense. Nadal is just a bad matchup for Fed.

 

[Omega_7000]

It doesn't matter, tennis is about matchups. Not who's got more game or more talented. If that alone were the case Gasquet, Rios, Safin would all have gotten at least 10 slams combined. Borg played a similar game to Nadal today, but nobody goes around saying he just ran fast and hit with topspin. But then again we didn't have forums in the 70's and 80's. Anybody can just hit with topspin. Nadal brings much more to the game than just that. God forbid he use the ONLY legitimate strategy to beat Federer. Oh Lord! How dare he? If you have the ability to go after an opponent's weakness, then by all means do it.

Your post doesn't make sense...and I never criticized Nadal for using the same winning strategy against Fed...

 

[RFLEGEND]

yes we are alll happy

 

[clayman2000]

Of course it wouldn't last! What was that about having #1 in his sights? He's disconnected to think he's a contender for #1.

Especially when your 2000 rank points behind Fed, and having like 300 more pts to defend in fall. If anything, his goal should have been to stay no 2, unlikely as that was

 

[Don Felder]

Back to the topic on Murray. What disappointed me about Murray was his lack of will to win when down. You know he was at least the #2 contender to win this slam, if not the favorite, same as in Australia.

As is Oz he went out in the 4th round again. But this time he kinda just went away without a fight. This loss to me sort of just gave me the impression that he might not be slam material afterall. It was a disheartening display and result. And all this muscle flexing he did last year, for what? It's only about the slams. Masters are just gravy.

Agree with everything except with the notion that he was ever the top favorite for the tourney other than in the minds of BG and Johnny Mac who have some kinda obsession with the guy for some reason. Have we all forgotten about the wreckage Federer laid on him in Cinci? This US Open court is even faster and Fed owns him here, as proved last year.

 

[NamRanger]

It doesn't matter, tennis is about matchups. Not who's got more game or more talented. If that alone were the case Gasquet, Rios, Safin would all have gotten at least 10 slams combined. Borg played a similar game to Nadal today, but nobody goes around saying he just ran fast and hit with topspin. But then again we didn't have forums in the 70's and 80's. Anybody can just hit with topspin. Nadal brings much more to the game than just that. God forbid he use the ONLY legitimate strategy to beat Federer. Oh Lord! How dare he? If you have the ability to go after an opponent's weakness, then by all means do it.

Borg was much more aggressive on faster surfaces, although Nadal is getting there. Comparatively speaking (in terms of effectiveness during their respective eras), Borg also had a way better first serve, which was sneaky good at Wimbledon.

 

[Purostaff]

Let's just face it........there's Federer.......and then there's everyone else.

No one else can touch 21 straight GS semis. Not even close to it.

this man speaks the truth

 

[Morrissey]

Borg was much more aggressive on faster surfaces, although Nadal is getting there. Comparatively speaking (in terms of effectiveness during their respective eras), Borg also had a way better first serve, which was sneaky good at Wimbledon.

I would say Nadal's first serve is sneaky good too. I see more people have trouble with it than it seems. Lefty spin, slice, placement, whatever. It's hard to connect on it.

 

[Morrissey]

Your post doesn't make sense...and I never criticized Nadal for using the same winning strategy against Fed...

SO what the hell IS your point? That Nadal is only good because he's lefty? Your previous post only downplayed Nadal's results and talent.

 

[NamRanger]

I would say Nadal's first serve is sneaky good too. I see more people have trouble with it than it seems. Lefty spin, slice, placement, whatever. It's hard to connect on it.

It depends on which Nadal we're talking about. Nadal early this year was REALLY good with the serve, but he fell off late in the clay season. Borg's serve during his whole career was extremely underrated.

 

[Morrissey]

It depends on which Nadal we're talking about. Nadal early this year was REALLY good with the serve, but he fell off late in the clay season. Borg's serve during his whole career was extremely underrated.

You could also say that it was harder to return serve than it is today with the new racquets and especially the new strings. Back then people didn't return serve like they do today. Nowadays everybody can rip a return for a winner. If anything Nadal's serve faces more challenges than Borg did in his day. Outside of serving to Jimmy Connors.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Morrisey: off topic.. can you recomend a place to download The Smiths documentaries?

 

[NamRanger]

You could also say that it was harder to return serve than it is today with the new racquets and especially the new strings. Back then people didn't return serve like they do today. Nowadays everybody can rip a return for a winner. If anything Nadal's serve faces more challenges than Borg did in his day. Outside of serving to Jimmy Connors.

Borg also didn't have the advantage of being left handed, nor did he have new technology to buff his serve up.



People could hit plenty of winners off of serves back then.

 

[Morrissey]

Morrisey: off topic.. can you recomend a place to download The Smiths documentaries?

Hmm, good question. Try Soulseek. I use that.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Hmm, good question. Try Soulseek. I use that.

ok.. ill try that...

thanks...

ps: i really want to see that bbc one "the rise and fall" and the "inside the smtihs"...

 

[Morrissey]

Borg also didn't have the advantage of being left handed, nor did he have new technology to buff his serve up.



People could hit plenty of winners off of serves back then.

Not like today. Remember serve and volleying? You sure can't pull that off today with the new technology. A lot of people out there are lefties, but somehow they can't seem to hold as well as Nadal can. Besides, Nadal doesn't exactly use "new" technology on his strings. He has a string that offers no "pop" whatsoever. Also, you know that everyone else has access to this "technology". Alot of Babolat users out there. None of them replicate his results.

 

[Morrissey]

ok.. ill try that...

thanks...

ps: i really want to see that bbc one "the rise and fall" and the "inside the smtihs"...

Yeah, me too. I recently bought a DVD that had Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke being interviewed and their perspective on how the band got together, where they recorded and how they split up. Good stuff. Andy Rourke is a terribly underrated bassist. You should also look for Tony Wilson (RIP) interviews on The Smiths. I loved him for his brutal honesty.

Apparently Tony tried to sign The Smiths for Factory Records but Johnny Marr wasn't pleased with the deal. But Tony says that Marr left The Smiths because Morrissey was becoming increasingly inflexible and difficult to deal with. Morrissey also invited Tony Wilson to his house just as he formed partnership with Marr and he told Tony that he was going to be a star. Tony tried his best to hold his laughter in his bedroom (with a poster of James Dean). Tony recalled thinking that "Morrissey was the last person to be a music star." How ironic huh? Check out on youtube for Tony Wilson. I loved his insight.

 

[luckyboy1300]

quite ironic for murray to go out in the 4th round of his preferred slams on hard courts while he reached QF and SF of the lesser preferred surfaces.