Where is the Murray bandwagon?

[Cesc Fabregas]

So your saying that Roddick is better than Murray?

What a joke.

03/04 or current Roddick would have beaten Murray in 06.

 

[Clydey2times]

I'm sorry, but it's indecent to play that card. That particular card is not one that should be played in a silly debate on a message forum. And if that incident truly affected you, I could see it creating a stoic determinism, yes. Aloofness? Yes. Turning you into a spoiled baby? No. I'm having a difficult time following that logic on that one.[/QUOTE]

Sorry - can I just be clear here? You've no problem with people calling a guy an ass, whiner, thell him to GTFO etc. but it is indecent to point something out that might give a bit of context to the undesirable behaviours that he exhibits ?

As for your words in bold - are you a child psychologist who specialises in violent trauma - if you are then thanks for your professional opionion. If you're not, then who are you to say how a kid should react to that?

For clarity, I'm not saying that Murray should be excused for his behaviours because of his past, or even that his past is definitely the root cause of those behaviours - such an event must surely effect different people in different ways - Murray's brother for example is the polar opposite and he went through the same thing. All I'm saying is that it might, just might, have a bearing - that's all.

Just to be clear, what behaviours are people condemning here? Shouting "come on" a lot? He doesn't smash racquets or anything. Am I missing something? Is it swearing? Lots of other players do that, and Murray doesn't do it nearly as often as people make out. Hell, even Federer swears on court.

Maybe people are berating him for his charity work or never turning down an autograph? Do they have a problem with him never making excuses for a loss? How about being extremely humble after a defeat, like when he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon last year ("He played too well for me") or during the US Open last year when he said "I'm not good enough to blow any player off the court"?

I don't get the impression that he's an arrogant, cocky brat. People on here are simply incapable of understanding that players are not the same on the court as they are off the court.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Just to be clear, what behaviours are people condemning here? Shouting "come on" a lot? He doesn't smash racquets or anything. Am I missing something? Is it swearing? Lots of other players do that, and Murray doesn't do it nearly as often as people make out. Hell, even Federer swears on court.

Maybe people are berating him for his charity work or never turning down an autograph? Do they have a problem with him never making excuses for a loss? How about being extremely humble after a defeat, like when he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon last year ("He played too well for me") or during the US Open last year when he said "I'm not good enough to blow any player off the court"?

I don't get the impression that he's an arrogant, cocky brat. People on here are simply incapable of understanding that players are not the same on the court as they are off the court.

People get annoyed when he shouts "come on" after an UE from his opponent on a unimportant point.

 

[Clydey2times]

Roddick was playing crap that Wimbledon worst tennis of his career.

So was Murray. I'm actually watching the match right now. Murray was 16-15 for the year when he faced Roddick. He had been having a horrible year since he split with Petchey.

People always make excuses when Murray beats a player. It was the same when Murray beat Federer at Cinci in 06. They said Federer was tired. What they don't realise is that Murray had actually played more matches than Federer in the run up to their match in Cinci.

 

[thejoe]

So was Murray. I'm actually watching the match right now. Murray was 16-15 for the year when he faced Roddick. He had been having a horrible year since he split with Petchey.

People always make excuses when Murray beats a player. It was the same when Murray beat Federer at Cinci in 06. They said Federer was tired. What they don't realise is that Murray had actually played more matches than Federer in the run up to their match in Cinci.

Didn't he break an insane streak of titles for Federer, or am I thinking of another period?

 

[Clydey2times]

People get annoyed when he shouts "come on" after an UE from his opponent on a unimportant point.

That's subjective. The weird thing is, I can understand why he shouts "come on" after points that some people view as unimportant, simply because I am emotionally invested in the match. For example, when you're serving to stay in a set and it's 15-15, if you serve an ace and shout "come on", I see that as justified. A break needn't hinge a point for it to be considered "big".

Also, lots of other players celebrate after errors. Rafa shouts "Vamos" and fist pumps after errors just as often as Murray.

 

[Clydey2times]

Didn't he break an insane streak of titles for Federer, or am I thinking of another period?

I think it was a winning streak, yeah. He hadn't lost since before Wimbledon. However, he took a break after Wimbledon to recharge the batteries, as he always does. Murray actually played more tennis than Federer during the period post Wimbledon in the run up to Cinci.

 

[thejoe]

I think it was a winning streak, yeah. He hadn't lost since before Wimbledon. However, he took a break after Wimbledon to recharge the batteries, as he always does. Murray actually played more tennis than Federer during the period post Wimbledon in the run up to Cinci.

I think in a best of 3 set match, Federer could have been rested for three months, and Murray could have played another match on the same day and Andy would still win.

 

[Clydey2times]

I think in a best of 3 set match, Federer could have been rested for three months, and Murray could have played another match on the same day and Andy would still win.

Be that as it may, Federer was at the peak of his powers then. Murray wasn't. We're talking 2006. Basically, it proves that Murray's dominance over Federer has little to do with any physical decline.

 

[slicefox]

You murray fanboys come talk to me when your pretty boy murray wins a career slam, over even 1 single dam GS in his life.

 

[TheTruth]

My goodness, what has Murray done? I must have missed something.

 

[slicefox]

I think I know what you missed: a couple of his matches.

 

[TheTruth]

I think I know what you missed: a couple of his matches.

I've seen his matches, but I don't see what he's done. He competes. People don't like the way he expresses himself? Most of the time he just seems all business to me except when he takes his little walkabouts behind the baseline talking to himself, but I don't find that offensive.

Anyway, I love his interviews. He seems to be humble, gives his opponents credit, and has a funny, dry sense of humor.

 

[Cup8489]

Be that as it may, Federer was at the peak of his powers then. Murray wasn't. We're talking 2006. Basically, it proves that Murray's dominance over Federer has little to do with any physical decline.

dominance? him winning a single match against federer in 2006 means he was dominating then?

WHAT?

 

[tahiti]

You murray fanboys come talk to me when your pretty boy murray wins a career slam, over even 1 single dam GS in his life.

Why should he need to have a slam? He's no. 3 in the world and very young. I'm on Murray's bandwagon. I don't like his big mouth though he has tamed it....only comes out when he's losing....But his tennis is great.

 

[maximo]

I find it soo hilarious how its only the Fed fans who hate Murray...

 

[abmk]

People always make excuses when Murray beats a player. It was the same when Murray beat Federer at Cinci in 06. They said Federer was tired. What they don't realise is that Murray had actually played more matches than Federer in the run up to their match in Cinci.

Its the most recent things that count more ; murray lost in toronto in the SF , federer went on to win that playing 4 3-setters along the way , lot of difference.

And yes, murray's wins over federer have a LOT to do with federer's decline

 

[imjimmy]

""I find it soo hilarious how its only the Fed fans who hate Murray...""

Word!

 

[maximo]

And yes, murray's wins over federer have a LOT to do with federer's decline

No, Murray's just better than Federer.

 

[abmk]

No, Murray's just better than Federer.

keep on telling that if you think you saying will make it true

 

[Clydey2times]

dominance? him winning a single match against federer in 2006 means he was dominating then?

WHAT?

No, I obviously mean the wins that followed later on. In other words, Murray beat him at his peak in straight sets, so his wins later on had little to do with Federer being in decline.

 

[Clydey2times]

Its the most recent things that count more ; murray lost in toronto in the SF , federer went on to win that playing 4 3-setters along the way , lot of difference.

And yes, murray's wins over federer have a LOT to do with federer's decline

Murray had played 11 matches in the last 13 days when he met Federer. You seem to forget that Murray didn't get any byes at that time. He played the first round of every tournament, unlike Federer.

Federer didn't play Washington. He played 5 matches in Toronto, got a bye in the first round of Cinci and then lost to Murray. Murray, on the other hand, played 5 matches in Washington, 5 matches in Toronto, and 1 match in Cinci before he played Fed. That's 11 matches in 13 days. Add to that Murray's well documented physical problems at that time and it's clear who was the more tired player going into that match.

So you're obviously talking utter nonsense.

 

[maximo]

Murray had played 11 matches in the last 13 days when he met Federer. You seem to forget that Murray didn't get any byes at that time. He played the first round of every tournament, unlike Federer.

Federer didn't play Washington. He played 5 matches in Toronto, got a bye in the first round of Cinci and then lost to Murray. Murray, on the other hand, played 5 matches in Washington, 5 matches in Toronto, and 1 match in Cinci before he played Fed. That's 11 matches in 13 days.

So you're obviously talking utter nonsense.

Don't listen to these Murray haters...

 

[abmk]

Murray had played 11 matches in the last 13 days when he met Federer. You seem to forget that Murray didn't get any byes at that time. He played the first round of every tournament, unlike Federer.

Federer didn't play Washington. He played 5 matches in Toronto, got a bye in the first round of Cinci and then lost to Murray. Murray, on the other hand, played 5 matches in Washington, 5 matches in Toronto, and 1 match in Cinci before he played Fed. That's 11 matches in 13 days. Add to that Murray's well documented physical problems at that time and it's clear who was the more tired player going into that match.

So you're obviously talking utter nonsense.

wrong >> fed didn't get a bye in toronto/cinci , he played PHM in R64 in toronto and srichapan in R64 in cinci . Now who's talking non-sense ????

federer came off 4 3-setters from toronto after winning there -> virtually no gap b/w toronto and cinci -> played srichapan in the 1st round and then lost to murray ...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=2006&player=F324&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

murray atleast had some time b/w toronto and cinci

 

[abmk]

No, I obviously mean the wins that followed later on. In other words, Murray beat him at his peak in straight sets, so his wins later on had little to do with Federer being in decline.

and that was the only time he beat fed in straights ...

I didn't see the match, but from what I heard , fed played terrible, murray didn't play great ...

 

[Clydey2times]

wrong >> fed didn't get a bye in toronto/cinci , he played PHM in R64 in toronto and srichapan in R64 in cinci . Now who's talking non-sense ????

federer came off 4 3-setters from toronto after winning there -> virtually no gap b/w toronto and cinci -> played srichapan in the 1st round and then lost to murray ...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=2006&player=F324&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

murray atleast had some time b/w toronto and cinci

So you're really saying that Federer was more tired, even though Murray played 11 matches in 13 days (might have been 14 days)? You're disregarding all of Murray's matches in Washington because Murray had one extra day of rest before Cinci? Get a clue.

Murray had played more matches and was more tired than Federer.

I have the match on my PC. The match followed the same pattern as their other matches. Murray pounded the Fed backhand and extracted errors.

 

[abmk]

So you're really saying that Federer was more tired, even though Murray played 11 matches in 13 days (might have been 14 days)? You're disregarding all of Murray's matches in Washington because Murray had one extra day of rest before Cinci? Get a clue.

Murray had played more matches and was more tired than Federer.

I have the match on my PC. The match followed the same pattern as their other matches. Murray pounded the Fed backhand and extracted errors.

very little rest and 4 3-setters in a row for fed , that makes a lot of difference .. that to me makes more of a difference than playing 11 matches in 13/14 days with 2(?) 3-setters in them with more rest in b/w the tourneys

 

[jelle v]

I know the bandwagon took a pit-stop after the AO then a few weeks ago when murray lost at the FO, but is the murray bandwagon gassed up and ready for wimbledon?

I know before every slam, the murraywagon cruises at about 130MPH. So where is it this time? Wimby is starting in less than 2 weeks, where's the wagon?

Or should we give it a few more days and it'll come?

IMO there never was and never will be a big Murray bandwagon.. not even in England..

 

[Clydey2times]

very little rest and 4 3-setters in a row for fed , that makes a lot of difference .. that to me makes more of a difference than playing 11 matches in 13/14 days with 2(?) 3-setters in them with more rest in b/w the tourneys

You are the one who needs to get a clue >> hope you got one with regard to the byes one

Arithmetic isn't your strong point, is it?

Murray played 24 sets of tennis without any real time to recuperate before the match with Federer. Federer, on the other hand, played 16 sets. How can you be so dense? Murray was clearly more tired.

Federer hadn't even stepped on court since Wimbledon until Toronto. Are you really trying to tell me that he was physically spent after one tournament? Murray had played 16 matches since Wimbledon, at 4 different venues, in 3 different ATP events (one match was in Davis Cup and it went to 5 sets).

You not only have to take into account Murray's inferior fitness, but the jetlag from all the travelling. Federer had played 7 matches. We're talking about a guy who does that week in and week out, winning tournaments back to back. And you're saying he was spent after one tournament? Get a grip. All you are doing is making yourself look stupid by trying to rationalise such a ridiculous point of view. Murray had played much, much more tennis than Federer.

And don't even start with the "more rest in between tournies" nonsense. Murray had ONE extra day after Toronto. That does not make up for all of the matches Murray had played in weeks previous.

 

[Clydey2times]

IMO there never was and never will be a big Murray bandwagon.. not even in England..

You mean Britain.

 

[rommil]

people seem to forget swiftly the on court antics of Federer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJVvnIpX1-Y

Murray has never done something that, yet *******s still stick up for this guy.

Btw, right after that game, he started throwing water bottles on the floor to the ball boys. Demonstates perfectly his unwanted personality.

Now if only Federer would get Nadals water bottles and throw it to the ball boys then that would really complete the picture of a bad ass. Come to think of it, it would be awesome drama.

 

[rommil]

Oh btw I'm definitely on the Murray bandwagon. He will win Wimby, playing the finals, wearing a friggin kilt......

 

[jelle v]

You mean Britain.

I mean that whole stupid island..

 

[batz]

I mean that whole stupid island..

Oh, the irony.

 

[Muzzafan]

I mean that whole stupid island..

Go back to your stupid windmill.:twisted:

 

[Muzzafan]

Just lock this thread.

It is very much pointless arguing with people who have made up their minds and won't have it any other way.

 

[abmk]

Arithmetic isn't your strong point, is it?

Murray played 24 sets of tennis without any real time to recuperate before the match with Federer. Federer, on the other hand, played 16 sets. How can you be so dense? Murray was clearly more tired.

Federer hadn't even stepped on court since Wimbledon until Toronto. Are you really trying to tell me that he was physically spent after one tournament? Murray had played 16 matches since Wimbledon, at 4 different venues, in 3 different ATP events (one match was in Davis Cup and it went to 5 sets).

You not only have to take into account Murray's inferior fitness, but the jetlag from all the travelling. Federer had played 7 matches. We're talking about a guy who does that week in and week out, winning tournaments back to back. And you're saying he was spent after one tournament? Get a grip. All you are doing is making yourself look stupid by trying to rationalise such a ridiculous point of view. Murray had played much, much more tennis than Federer.

And don't even start with the "more rest in between tournies" nonsense. Murray had ONE extra day after Toronto. That does not make up for all of the matches Murray had played in weeks previous.

you were proven wrong with regard to the byes, right, so now that is me being dense

next , it isn't just the one tournament factor, its that he played 4 3-setters in that and with very little rest played the next tourney , no byes in both tournaments , that makes a difference

Its not simple arithmetic , the most recent things have more of a bearing on tiredness/fatigue . I am not saying murray would've been very fresh here , just that fed would be more tired than him looking at the circumstances .

BTW according to you murray was more tired than federer >> yet he 'pounded' his BH and extracted errors and beat him in straights , something which he hasn't done even when fresh , sounds brilliant , I must say

 

[jelle v]

Go back to your stupid windmill.:twisted:

I will kick you with my wooden shoes.. nowadays we already have wooden shoes air max..

Actually, I am not too proud to admit that I made a mistake. I meant Britain, but that whole island is so confusing, with Scotland, Wales, England and Ireland. Then you have Britain and then you have the United Kingdom. Britain comprises England, Wales and Scotland or so? Don't even know if those kingdoms (?) still exist separately. United Kingdom is with all the colonies or something like that?

The point was, i don't think there will ever be a Murray bandwagon. The guy just doesn't attract a lot of fans I think. Don't think he can be bothered though. Even on BBC i don't get the impression that the tv-show hosts at Queens were big fans of Murray. They seemed to be bothered more with Nadal. Of course at Wimbledon, the crowd will be rooting for Murray, but I don't think there will be a bandwagon to the like of Federer or Nadal.

 

[thejoe]

Arithmetic isn't your strong point, is it?

Murray played 24 sets of tennis without any real time to recuperate before the match with Federer. Federer, on the other hand, played 16 sets. How can you be so dense? Murray was clearly more tired.

Federer hadn't even stepped on court since Wimbledon until Toronto. Are you really trying to tell me that he was physically spent after one tournament? Murray had played 16 matches since Wimbledon, at 4 different venues, in 3 different ATP events (one match was in Davis Cup and it went to 5 sets).

You not only have to take into account Murray's inferior fitness, but the jetlag from all the travelling. Federer had played 7 matches. We're talking about a guy who does that week in and week out, winning tournaments back to back. And you're saying he was spent after one tournament? Get a grip. All you are doing is making yourself look stupid by trying to rationalise such a ridiculous point of view. Murray had played much, much more tennis than Federer.

And don't even start with the "more rest in between tournies" nonsense. Murray had ONE extra day after Toronto. That does not make up for all of the matches Murray had played in weeks previous.

Not just that, Murray's physical conditioning back then was pitiful compared to how it is today.

 

[Clydey2times]

you were proven wrong with regard to the byes, right, so now that is me being dense

next , it isn't just the one tournament factor, its that he played 4 3-setters in that and with very little rest played the next tourney , no byes in both tournaments , that makes a difference

Its not simple arithmetic , the most recent things have more of a bearing on tiredness/fatigue . I am not saying murray would've been very fresh here , just that fed would be more tired than him looking at the circumstances .

BTW according to you murray was more tired than federer >> yet he 'pounded' his BH and extracted errors and beat him in straights , something which he hasn't done even when fresh , sounds brilliant , I must say

I wasn't "proved wrong" with regard to the byes. It's not as if I strongly argued that Federer got a bye. I forgot that byes weren't implemented in those events at that point. You simply pointed out that there were no byes and my reaction was basically "fair enough". I'm not sure why you keep going on about as if I haven't accepted that Federer didn't get a bye.

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Neither got a bye. Murray played many more matches than Federer. You seem to think that only the most recent week counts, even though Murray played 5 matches the week before and then flew to Toronto from Washing to to play another 5 matches.

Only an insufferable moron like you would think that Federer's week in Toronto was more taxing than Murray playing 11 matches in 14 days. That's not even getting into all of Murray's tennis before those 2 weeks, while Federer was resting up for a month.

Since when does Federer play one tournament and then burn out? I'm sure even the rational Federer fans on here would tell you that Murray's schedule was more demanding. Hopefully they speak up, since you are just making a fool of yourself.

 

[Clydey2times]

Not just that, Murray's physical conditioning back then was pitiful compared to how it is today.

Exactly. I mentioned that somewhere, I think. This guy seems to think that only the most recent week counts towards fatigue. It doesn't matter if you played 7 matches the week before. That doesn't factor into fatigue, apparently.

 

[thejoe]

Exactly. I mentioned that somewhere, I think. This guy seems to think that only the most recent week counts towards fatigue. It doesn't matter if you played 7 matches the week before. That doesn't factor into fatigue, apparently.

Look, you know you're right, I know you're right, and I'm a huge Fed fan, so why not just go and enjoy Andy's match?

 

[Clydey2times]

Look, you know you're right, I know you're right, and I'm a huge Fed fan, so why not just go and enjoy Andy's match?

I'm about to. Warmup's just about to start.

 

[thejoe]

I'm about to. Warmup's just about to start.

It's going to be a walk in the park. I hope he goes into exhibition mode again. Great stuff.

 

[Clydey2times]

It's going to be a walk in the park. I hope he goes into exhibition mode again. Great stuff.

Few exhibition shots already. :lol:

 

[abmk]

I wasn't "proved wrong" with regard to the byes. It's not as if I strongly argued that Federer got a bye. I forgot that byes weren't implemented in those events at that point. You simply pointed out that there were no byes and my reaction was basically "fair enough". I'm not sure why you keep going on about as if I haven't accepted that Federer didn't get a bye.

Ok, fine, we'll move on , but get your facts correct before calling posts of others non-sense . That was my whole point .

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Neither got a bye. Murray played many more matches than Federer. You seem to think that only the most recent week counts, even though Murray played 5 matches the week before and then flew to Toronto from Washing to to play another 5 matches.

Only an insufferable moron like you would think that Federer's week in Toronto was more taxing than Murray playing 11 matches in 14 days. That's not even getting into all of Murray's tennis before those 2 weeks, while Federer was resting up for a month.

Since when does Federer play one tournament and then burn out? I'm sure even the rational Federer fans on here would tell you that Murray's schedule was more demanding. Hopefully they speak up, since you are just making a fool of yourself.

You say murray was more tired than federer , ok if we accept that momentarily , then how did he 'pound' fed's BH and defeat him in straights , when he hasn't done that even when fully fresh ????

Oh and yeah let the other fed fans speak up about this match..

 

[abmk]

Exactly. I mentioned that somewhere, I think. This guy seems to think that only the most recent week counts towards fatigue. It doesn't matter if you played 7 matches the week before. That doesn't factor into fatigue, apparently.

I already said that's not the case , all I said was that the most recent week counts that most , I am not saying that murray was fully fresh , just that looking at the circumstances, I'd say federer would've been the more tired one .

 

[Clydey2times]

Ok, fine, we'll move on , but get your facts correct before calling posts of others non-sense . That was my whole point .



You say murray was more tired than federer , ok if we accept that momentarily , then how did he 'pound' fed's BH and defeat him in straights , when he hasn't done that even when fully fresh ????

Oh and yeah let the other fed fans speak up about this match..

"Pound" just means concentrate his attack on his backhand consistently. I'm not sure what you took it to mean.

 

[abmk]

"Pound" just means concentrate his attack on his backhand consistently. I'm not sure what you took it to mean.

yes, I took it to mean the same . That still doesn't answer my question .

 

[Clydey2times]

yes, I took it to mean the same . That still doesn't answer my question .

Um, what question? How does fatigue factor into where you focus your attack?