Simon Reed's curse strikes again!

[Fedex]

He's ranked just right, it's not his fault that the rest of the tour with minor exceptions sucks big time.

Doesn't mean that he should be a top 4 favorite...well maybe the 4th favorite but at 50/1 with the top 3 valued at 5/1 or better

Don't kid yourself.

 

[Mainad]

He's ranked just right, it's not his fault that the rest of the tour with minor exceptions sucks big time.

Doesn't mean that he should be a top 4 favorite...well maybe the 4th favorite but at 50/1 with the top 3 valued at 5/1 or better

But who then would you say deserves to be 4th favourite more than Murray and why?

 

[tennis_pro]

Don't kid yourself.

Anyway, not higher than Federer or Nadal, not even comparable

 

[batz]

You're missing the point.

Djokovic made a huge improvement in results in 2007 compared to the previous years so he deserved all the hype. Then went on to win the 2008 Australian Open which wasn't a surprise at all. We all knew it would come sooner or later. Obviously, has been a top 4 favorite for just about (if not every) major since and now he's as close to a lock for a slam tournament since peak Federer.

Del Potro didn't even get the chance to be the favorite for the 2009 US Open, maybe 5th or 6th given his ranking and a final in Canada Masters a month prior. His win over Federer in the US Open final was a BIG surprise.

Murray has been in the top 4 since 2008, he deserved to be one of the favorites for maybe 1,5 - 2 years. Not now. Not when he failed every single time, often mentally which means he doesn't have the right mindset to win majors. And in most cases you can't improve that. As I said, it either comes quickly, or you're gonna need a miracle later on like Ivanisevic to actually win one.

Woah there - you're now getting into all sorts of subjective pish. ( Leaving aside the fact that Murray last season became only the 7th man in history to make semis or better at all four slams so might also be said to have raised his results considerably). You said that Murray can't be considered in the top 4 favourites because he hadn't won a slam - no qualifications - just that he hadn't won a slam.

Now you're trying to say that making slam finals is a predictor of future slam failure. Every man in the open era who has made 3 slam finals has finished his career as a slam champion. Every single one of them. Every man who has made semis or better at all 4 slams in a season has fnished his career as a slam champion. Every single one of them.

Now that doesn't mean he will definitely win one - but the empirical evidence to suggest that it's distinctly possible is pretty strong.

So if Murray isn't 4th favourite for the AO - then who is?

 

[tennis_pro]

But who then would you say deserves to be 4th favourite more than Murray and why?

Murray is the 4th favorite to win, that's correct. But the bookies never learn and put him on par with Nadal and Federer at around 5/1, gimme a break...

 

[tennis_pro]

Woah there - you're now getting into all sorts of subjective pish. ( Leaving aside the fact that Murray last season became only the 7th man in history to make semis or better at all four slams so might also be said to have raised his results considerably). You said that Murray can't be considered in the top 4 favourites because he hadn't won a slam - no qualifications - just that he hadn't won a slam.

Now you're trying to say that making slam finals is a predictor of future slam failure. Every man in the open era who has made 3 slam finals has finished his career as a slam champion. Every single one of them. Every man who has made semis or better at all 4 slams in a season has fnished his career as a slam champion. Every single one of them.

Now that doesn't mean he will definitely win one - but the empirical evidence to suggest that it's distinctly possible is pretty strong.

So if Murray isn't 4th favourite for the AO - then who is?

Maybe I got misunderstood. Murray is the 4th favorite to win, without a doubt, but definately not on par with either Federer or Nadal, not even close.

Every man who has made semis or better at all 4 slams in a season has fnished his career as a slam champion. Every single one of them.

This is not true btw, on top of my head Nalbandian reached the semis of all 4 majors and failed to win 1 in the end. Didn't Mecier reach all 4 as well and retired early without winning a GS tournament?

 

[Fedex]

He's ranked just right, it's not his fault that the rest of the tour with minor exceptions sucks big time.

Doesn't mean that he should be a top 4 favorite...well maybe the 4th favorite but at 50/1 with the top 3 valued at 5/1 or better

You can't seriously say a player who reached a Slam final and 3 Slam semis and won 2 Masters in the year has a 50/1 chance.

 

[batz]

Maybe I got misunderstood. Murray is the 4th favorite to win, without a doubt, but definately not on par with either Federer or Nadal, not even close.



This is not true btw, on top of my head Nalbandian reached the semis of all 4 majors and failed to win 1 in the end. Didn't Mecier reach all 4 as well?

In the same season.

Laver
Roche
Lendl
Federer (3 times)
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray

No Pete, no Borg, no Johnnie Mac, no Andre - just those guys.

 

[Fedex]

Murray is the 4th favorite to win, that's correct. But the bookies never learn and put him on par with Nadal and Federer at around 5/1, gimme a break...

SEE POST BELOW

You can't seriously say a player who reached a Slam final and 3 Slam semis and won 2 Masters in the year has a 50/1 chance.

 

[tennis_pro]

In the same season.

Yea, sorry. But anyway, Murray is the first to reach all 4 major semis in a calendar year and failed to win 1 one of them. In fact, every time a player reached all 4 major semis (except Federer in 2008), won at least 2 majors that year.

 

[tennis_pro]

You can't seriously say a player who reached a Slam final and 3 Slam semis and won 2 Masters in the year has a 50/1 chance.

obviously, it's exaggeration...

8/1 or 10/1 would be more accurate

 

[batz]

Yea, sorry. But anyway, Murray is the first to reach all 4 major semis in a calendar year and failed to win 1 one of them. In fact, every time a player reached all 4 major semis (except Federer in 2008), won at least 2 majors that year.

Nope - Roche didn't win one the year he did it.

You're not very good at this, are you mate.

 

[Fedex]

obviously, it's exaggeration...

8/1 or 10/1 would be more accurate

Ok fair enough. I'll try not to take you literally.

 

[tennis_pro]

In the same season.

Laver
Roche
Lendl
Federer (3 times)
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray

No Pete, no Borg, no Johnnie Mac, no Andre - just those guys.

Come to think of it, 14 out of 16 semi spots in major have been occupied by the top 4 and the remaining 2 by Tsonga and Ferrer who finished the year ranked 5th and 6th + both times someone from the top 4 failed to reach the semis of a major lost in the quarters...(Federer to Tsonga, Nadal to Ferrer).

The competition outside the top 4 is nothing compared to what it was in Borg's or Sampras' times.

 

[Crazy man]

You can't seriously say a player who reached a Slam final and 3 Slam semis and won 2 Masters in the year has a 50/1 chance.

You can actually and he did. Murray might have a high percentage to make a slam final. Winning is completely different. Murray has shown absolutely no promise in slam finals (not even improving his results).


With Murray, it's a different toilet, same ****. I can think of about 5 guys more likely to win a slam this month than Murray.





By the way, I am actually a fan of Murray. He could humiliate this post by winning a few slams this year but I wouldn't count on it.



PS: Going with Raonic!

 

[tennis_pro]

Nope - Roche didn't win one the year he did it.

You're not very good at this, are you mate.

That was before the open era. If you want to include stats before 1969 you might as well call William Renshaw the greatest Wimbledon champion ever, better than Sampras or Federer.

 

[Fedex]

You can actually and he did. Murray might have a high percentage to make a slam final. Winning is completely different. Murray has shown absolutely no promise in slam finals (not even improving his results).

With Murray, it's a different toilet, same ****. I can think of about 5 guys more likely to win a slam this month than Murray.

By the way, I am actually a fan of Murray. He could humiliate this post by winning a few slams this year but I wouldn't count on it.

PS: Going with Raonic!

I personally don't think Murray will do it but I certainly wouldn't rule him out.
Not because of past results. I think he'll put up a good show maybe better than ever but the competition is so strong.
Ranoic for AO - that's a bold one.

 

[batz]

That was before the open era.

PMSL - no it wasn't - he did it in 1969

Seriously mate, when you can't see out of the hole; stop digging.

 

[tennis_pro]

You can actually and he did. Murray might have a high percentage to make a slam final. Winning is completely different. Murray has shown absolutely no promise in slam finals (not even improving his results).

With Murray, it's a different toilet, same ****. I can think of about 5 guys more likely to win a slam this month than Murray.


By the way, I am actually a fan of Murray. He could humiliate this post by winning a few slams this year but I wouldn't count on it.


PS: Going with Raonic!

Bingo, Murray could be at 3/1 to reach the final or even 2/1 if he's drawn in Nadal's half. Winning is a completely different story no matter who he faced in the final and I damn bet it's one of the top 3 who like to take their chances.

 

[Fedex]

PMSL - no it wasn't - he did it in 1969

Seriously mate, when you can't see out of the hole; stop digging.

He might end up in Australia!

 

[tennis_pro]

PMSL - no it wasn't - he did it in 1969

Seriously mate, when you can't see out of the hole; stop digging.

When did Rochy win his only major? 1966 wasn't open era, unless again you want to dig out something from the archives just to prove me wrong.

Anyway, if Murray is ever going to win a major, it's either when the top 3 retire or he has some fluke miracle draw without any top 20 players 5 years from now.

 

[tennis_pro]

He might end up in Australia!

Yea whatever, using Tony Roche as a proof that Murray is going to be a slam winner could get you there even faster.

 

[Fedex]

Anyway, if Murray is ever going to win a major, it's either when the top 3 retire or he has some fluke miracle draw without any top 20 players 5 years from now.

DON'T YOU THINK BELOW IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH?

I personally don't think Murray will do it but I certainly wouldn't rule him out.
Not because of past results. I think he'll put up a good show maybe better than ever but the competition is so strong.

 

[Crazy man]

When did Rochy win his only major? 1966 wasn't open era, unless again you want to dig out something from the archives just to prove me wrong.

Anyway, if Murray is ever going to win a major, it's either when the top 3 retire or he has some fluke miracle draw without any top 20 players 5 years from now.

Or Murray could win a major by manning up and playing aggressive, he'd be capable of beating anyone. However his default gamestyle is to put up a tent, create a fire and camp 10 feet behind the baseline and let the opponent miss. Sometimes he does take the p!ss a little bit when he blows guys like Nadal off the court. His fans must get frustrated, and I know what it's like rooting for someone who plays passive with huge groundstrokes.

 

[tennis_pro]

DON'T YOU THINK BELOW IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH?

Obviously he has chances. But slim.

 

[batz]

When did Rochy win his only major? 1966 wasn't open era, unless again you want to dig out something from the archives just to prove me wrong.

Anyway, if Murray is ever going to win a major, it's either when the top 3 retire or he has some fluke miracle draw without any top 20 players 5 years from now.

ROFPMSL - the sound of toys being thrown and a dummy being spat out.

Dry your eyes mate - we've all been wrong before (but you have been very wrong tonight)

 

[tennis_pro]

Or Murray could win a major by manning up and playing aggressive, he'd be capable of beating anyone. However his default gamestyle is to put up a tent, create a fire and camp 10 feet behind the baseline and let the opponent miss. Sometimes he does take the p!ss a little bit when he blows guys like Nadal off the court. His fans must get frustrated, and I know what it's like rooting for someone who plays passive with huge groundstrokes.

it would be a nice surprise, just don't see it coming

 

[Fedex]

Yea whatever, using Tony Roche as a proof that Murray is going to be a slam winner could get you there even faster.

And using the fact that he is no4 in the world as proof that he won't win, we'll be digging like beavers.
And it was you that brought up the reaching a calendar year semi Slam is proof that you'll never win one.
Come on let's dig together.

 

[tennis_pro]

And using the fact that he is no4 in the world as proof that he won't win, we'll be digging like beavers.
And it was you that brought up the reaching a calendar year semi Slam is proof that you will never win one.
Come on let's dig together.

No, using the fact that he is 0-9 in sets in slam finals, using the fact that all his recent losses in majors have been mental (especially 2011 AO final and 2011 Wimbledon semi), using the fact that he plays total defence and doesn't improve his weakest links like his forehand or 2nd serve.

And it was you that brought up the reaching a calendar year semi Slam is proof that you will never win one.

when did I say that? I said that every player in the open era....*****.....after 1969 who reached 4 major semis in a calendar year actually won one of the major tournaments that season

 

[Fedex]

No, using the fact that he is 0-9 in sets in slam finals, using the fact that all his recent losses in majors have been mental (especially 2011 AO final and 2011 Wimbledon semi), using the fact that he plays total defence and doesn't improve his weakest links like his forehand or 2nd serve.

Past is no indication of what will be.
He was good enough to get to 3 Slam finals. Cup half empty or full?
Murray is mentally tougher.
Murray is more aggressive now. Wrist injury set him back years.
Forehand see above.
Second serve - think that's improved a bit too?

 

[tennis_pro]

ROFPMSL - the sound of toys being thrown and a dummy being spat out.

Dry your eyes mate - we've all been wrong before (but you have been very wrong tonight)

Hey, I'm not a freak who needs to recheck everything 10 times, every single stat to post anything on the internetz. At least I'm not nit-picking like some do for fun.

 

[Crazy man]

Past is no indication of what will be.
He was good enough to get to 3 Slam finals. Cup half empty or full?
Murray is mentally tougher.
Murray is more aggressive now. Wrist injury set him back years.
Forehand see above.
Second serve - think that's improved a bit too?

Get real. Murray has had pretty much an injury free career except 2007 (when he wasn't really a contender). Can't play the injury card excuse for Murray's lack of slam titles.

 

[tennis_pro]

Past is no indication of what will be.
He was good enough to get to 3 Slam finals. Cup half empty or full?
Murray is mentally tougher.
Murray is more aggressive now. Wrist injury set him back years.
Forehand see above.
Second serve - think that's improved a bit too?

Even if he did improve, it's still not good enough. Murray is not mentally tougher btw, if anything he's weaker.

 

[Fedex]

And it was you that brought up the reaching a calendar year semi Slam is proof that you'll never win one.
Come on let's dig together.

when did I say that? I said that every player in the open era....*****.....after 1969 who reached 4 major semis in a calendar year actually won one of the major tournaments that season

You implied that anyone who does the calendar year semi Slam without winning one will never win one in the future.

 

[batz]

Hey, I'm not a freak who needs to recheck everything 10 times, every single stat to post anything on the internetz. Facts remain, Murray without major improvement is not winning a slam tournament, period.

I'm surprised you've still got toys to throw - keep em coming kid.

PS I apologise for pointing out where you have been spouting arsegravy. Those fact things can be a beeatch.

 

[tennis_pro]

You implied that anyone who does the calendar year semi Slam without winning one will never win one in the future.

hasn't happened yet, Roche won his only major 3 years before achieving that feat

Well unless batz comes up with some players who did it in the pre-pre-ATP in the 17th century and proves me wrong for the lolz

 

[Crazy man]

hasn't happened yet, Roche won his only major 3 years before achieving that feat

Well unless batz comes up with some players who did it in the pre-pre-ATP in the 17th century and proves me wrong for the lolz

Nah, Batz is quite a sound poster (although biased to Murray) , I think Mustard is that idiot who likes to dig up old stats from the stone age directly from Wikipedia.

 

[Fedex]

he plays total defence and doesn't improve his weakest links like his forehand

Care to tell me what flaws you see in this slow mo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlJeBkwX7sw

Quote from Drakulie

"Jeez, Murray's FH is awesome, and he hits with as much pace as anyone on tour. Does he choose to spin it in more frequently?? Sure. So does Nadal. But make no mistake, he could outright hit the ball.

In a match against Soderling??? earlier this year, the pace of his FH surpassed, on average, that of Soderlings.

His FH is perfect mechanically. All of you armchair quarterbacks need to go take some lessons."

 

[Fedex]

hasn't happened yet, Roche won his only major 3 years before achieving that feat

Well unless batz comes up with some players who did it in the pre-pre-ATP in the 17th century and proves me wrong for the lolz

I think Hamish McTavish achieved that feat in the Scottish Open 1690 but it was peat courts.

 

[Mainad]

With Murray, it's a different toilet, same ****. I can think of about 5 guys more likely to win a slam this month than Murray.

Other than the top 3, who are the other 2 and based on what exactly?

By the way, I am actually a fan of Murray.

Oh stop trolling!

He could humiliate this post by winning a few slams this year but I wouldn't count on it.

Well I wouldn't count on it either. Nevertheless he remains the 4th most likely guy to win one IMO.

 

[Crazy man]

Other than the top 3, who are the other 2 and based on what exactly?

Raonic and JMDP. Raonic because he's got more imposing weapons and a stronger belief and JMDP because he could very well play his best tennis this AO.

Oh stop trolling!

Oh stop being a cry baby. I've already said in a few threads I rate Murray and am a fan of his aggressive game. Can you not read, at all?

Well I wouldn't count on it either. Nevertheless he remains the 4th most likely guy to win one IMO.

In your opinion. My opinion is that there are five players with a better chance of winning the tournament than Murray.

 

[Mainad]

Raonic and JMDP. Raonic because he's got more imposing weapons and a stronger belief and JMDP because he could very well play his best tennis this AO.

Raonic? Lol. A guy who has 2 x 250 titles to his name! You think he is suddenly going to surge to the top of a Slam and beat players like Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray..guys he's never beaten or even played before?? Well...best of luck with that one!!

JMDP is not yet fit enough IMO. Moreover his only victories against the top players in a Slam was at the 2009 USO which is nearly 2 and a half years ago now. The jury is still out on whether that Slam win will be a fluke one off or not.

Oh stop being a cry baby. I've already said in a few threads I rate Murray and am a fan of his aggressive game. Can you not read, at all?

I read very well and sometimes I can even read between the lines. If you're such a fan of Murray and his game, how come you're so dismissive of his chances at the AO that you'd rate the likes of Raonic ahead of him? In fact how come you're so dismissive of him full stop? True fans don't over-hype his abilities but we do respect his potential. There are enough Murray-hating trolls and clowns on here who have no respect for him whatsoever without 'fans' like you coming to their aid!

In your opinion. My opinion is that there are five players with a better chance of winning the tournament than Murray.

That's fine. We'll stick to our respective opinions then.

 

[cc0509]

Mainad;6221390]Raonic? Lol. A guy who has 2 x 250 titles to his name! You think he is suddenly going to surge to the top of a Slam and beat players like Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray..guys he's never beaten or even played before?? Well...best of luck with that one!!

JMDP is not yet fit enough IMO. Moreover his only victories against the top players in a Slam was at the 2009 USO which is nearly 2 and a half years ago now. The jury is still out on whether that Slam win will be a fluke one off or not.

How can you listen to that nonsense from that poster? I am a Raonic fan but pigs will fly before he wins the AO this year. Same with Del Potro. Murray is definitely favored over both of those two.

 

[cc0509]

Adjusted with recent performances, my top 4 favorites are:

1 - Novak

Needless to comment.

2 - Murray

Showed great form at Brisbane, has new motivation with Lendll on his team and has been in 2 straight finals in the Ozz in the last events.

3 - Federer

The back pain hurdle makes me think that his favoritism diminished, he can still do really well by reaching semis or even finals like he did in 2009 but winning will be a tough ask for Federer now I think.

4 - Nadal

His current worst Slam, he is coming from two straight quarter final losses and looked vulnerable in Doha against a competent top Gun on his game.

5 - Tsonga

Is in very good form as well as his wins in Doha indicate.

Edit: Included Tsonga. Don't see anyone apart from these 5 winning the Aussie this year, really.

I pretty much agree with all of this.

 

[cc0509]

Nadal must be loving this. When is the last time Nadal was this bigger underdog? This despite making 6 of the last 7 slam finals! Nadal can't believe his luck....absolutely zero pressure on him this time. Last year's AO, he was going for THE RAFA SLAM.

Last year was last year, this year is a new ball game, and Nadal ain't the favorite for the AO no matter what you say.

 

[cc0509]

I dont know about Federer (I dont think he will win) but with the recent injures to Serena and Clijsters, the home pressure of Stosur, the major slump of Na, and that Sharapova has barely won a match since August, Kvitova pretty much has to win it.

I will be really surprised if Kvitova does not win it but I guess with the WTA currently you never know for sure. Clijsters or Serena or Li Na or whomever else could step up and win it too.

 

[Lsmkenpo]

I would rate the favorites for the AO as followed right now:

1.Djokovic
2.Murray
3.Federer
4.Tsonga
5.Del Potro
6.Baghdatis
7.Berdych
8.Hanescu
9.Soderling
10.Nadal

 

[Crazy man]

Raonic? Lol. A guy who has 2 x 250 titles to his name! You think he is suddenly going to surge to the top of a Slam and beat players like Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray..guys he's never beaten or even played before?? Well...best of luck with that one!! .

This post means nothing. I could say Roddick has a better shot than Murray because he's had a better slam resume than Roddick. As of right now Raonic is a beast.

JMDP is not yet fit enough IMO. Moreover his only victories against the top players in a Slam was at the 2009 USO which is nearly 2 and a half years ago now. The jury is still out on whether that Slam win will be a fluke one off or not.

Jury still out? I don't know anyone who thinks that slam was a fluke. Beating Nadal 2-2-2 and Federer in 5 was no fluke; He had nearly beaten Federer at the FO previously that year and had multipule wins over Nadal outside the US Open. The only people who bash JMDP's slam in 2009 are Murray fans, like you!


By the way you have a nice double standard; In your opinion Murray is ahead of Raonic because of career achievements yet you dismiss JMDP who has a better slam record than Murray. Seriously???

I read very well and sometimes I can even read between the lines. If you're such a fan of Murray and his game, how come you're so dismissive of his chances at the AO that you'd rate the likes of Raonic ahead of him? In fact how come you're so dismissive of him full stop? True fans don't over-hype his abilities but we do respect his potential. There are enough Murray-hating trolls and clowns on here who have no respect for him whatsoever without 'fans' like you coming to their aid!

You deserve it!

 

[Crazy man]

How can you listen to that nonsense from that poster? I am a Raonic fan but pigs will fly before he wins the AO this year. Same with Del Potro. Murray is definitely favored over both of those two.

The probability of Raonic or JMDP winning a slam is greater than pigs flying. What a silly thing to say.

 

[Mainad]

This post means nothing. I could say Roddick has a better shot than Murray because he's had a better slam resume than Roddick. As of right now Raonic is a beast.

Well, by all means put Roddick ahead of Murray for this year's AO if it makes you happy. I'm sure he's probably got at least as good a chance as Raonic!

Jury still out? I don't know anyone who thinks that slam was a fluke. Beating Nadal 2-2-2 and Federer in 5 was no fluke; He had nearly beaten Federer at the FO previously that year and had multipule wins over Nadal outside the US Open. The only people who bash JMDP's slam in 2009 are Murray fans, like you!

Well, JMDP never played as well before or since as at the 2009 AO so his consistency is a little suspect and was even before his injuries kicked in. Don't get me wrong, his USO win was and is a fine achievement that no-one can ever take away from him but he's got a hell a lot of mileage out of it for you and other JMDP groupies. He's never won any other title as remotely as big. In any event, we'll soon see. And lol at your reference to 'Murray fans like me'. Just now you were trying to tell me you were one as well!

By the way you have a nice double standard; In your opinion Murray is ahead of Raonic because of career achievements yet you dismiss JMDP who has a better slam record than Murray. Seriously???

I've just commented about JMDP and his slam win, great achievement as it is. But it WAS back in 2009. As I say, what has he done since? But if all slam winners have a greater chance of winning the AO than Murray, then I guess you will have to put Roddick, Hewitt and Ferraro ahead of Murray as well along with the 'beast' Raonic (who by the way just got slaughtered by Fish at Kooyong winning only 3 games!).