This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

TSR Tennis Society III

Could've Would've Should've

We can't eliminate the factor of luck and a home supporting crowd in sports. The best player even on the day often never always wins.

Even Tim Henman agree's somewhat in different words.

Reply 5141

TheMagicRat

15

Original post by 419

If so, why was he never ahead at any point in the final set or in any danger on been ahead.

Pointless debating with you, it's obvious you've got something against Murray.

Haterz' gon hate

I think there was a very real danger of him going 5-3 (I think) up when it was 0-30 on Murray's serve.

Reply 5142

baggsy87

2

murray vs the pole in next round will be good, never heard of him before watched a match of him in the earlier rounds vs almagro he was unbelievable firing down aces and winner's from everywhere. Djokovic will win the slam, he was my choice at the start alebit he is ranked number 1.

Reply 5143

Slumpy

16

Original post by scapepower

We can't eliminate the factor of luck and a home supporting crowd in sports. The best player even on the day often never always wins.

Even Tim Henman agree's somewhat in different words.

Can't argue with that...

Reply 5144

Jack93o

15

Original post by Sirocco11

I would hardly say Murray was playing the 'more rounded game'. Look at the final set - he was just pushing the ball back into court against Verdasco with little pace. He wasn't forcing errors, he was waiting for them., He let Verdasco beat himself at the important moments.

When Verdasco dictated, Murray was at his mercy, that's the truth; when his game dropped off Murray outlasted him in the final set. Murray spent the match about 20 feet behind the baseline and he wasn't even counterpunching to force errors. Overall was Murray good enough to win? Yes. Was he the better player on the day? No. It's a moot point we can argue over all day but that's how I saw it, and obviously a lot of other people in this thread agree with me.

yup, totally agree :congrats:

Reply 5145

Jack93o

15

Original post by Chief Wiggum

I would guess that Murray's match will be on second, so that more people can watch it. (But obviously I don't know for certain.)

I think the match orders go by seeds anyway, the match involving the top seed (djokovic) goes first just like it was last year

Reply 5146

Sirocco11

3

Original post by 419

If so, why was he never ahead at any point in the final set or in any danger on been ahead.

Pointless debating with you, it's obvious you've got something against Murray.

Haterz' gon hate

So it's come to this.You don't come around here much do you? The regular posters around here will tell you I don't have anything against Murray, in fact that I actually like the guy. Go find the posts I made in this thread about Murray around when he played Queens this year for proof of this. I rooted for him last year in the final against Federer and also in the US Open final when he won his first major.

Even if Murray won, I didn't like the way he won the match and that's why I thought Verdasco was the better player - it was a very negative style of play which relied on Verdy dropping his level, which he did. Making a judgement about who was the better player in a match has nothing to do with whether you like a player or not.

Reply 5147

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by Jack93o

I think the match orders go by seeds anyway, the match involving the top seed (djokovic) goes first just like it was last year

I didn't think that was the case. I think the committee just choose the order, although admittedly I'm not sure.

Reply 5148

Slumpy

16

Original post by Chief Wiggum

I didn't think that was the case. I think the committee just choose the order, although admittedly I'm not sure.

I was under this impression too. Although it probably doesn't much matter since they'll want Murray playing second for telly.

Reply 5149

Rakas21

21

For those saying that Murray was the better player and deserved to win i wonder if you'd be saying the same were the situation reversed, i rather suspect that like often happens there would be excuses made for the performance from Murray in this case.

Imagine for a second that Murray plays well in sets 1, 2, 4 and 5 but very poorly in set 3. Now imagine that Verdasco was poor in set 1 and 2 but decent in 3, 4 and 5. Now imagine that Murray is 2-0 up and tanks in the third allowing Verdasco in going on to win the match in 5.

Can you honestly tell me in this instance that you would not be saying "Murray tanked" ect...

Reply 5150

ubi1

14

Can somebody post French open semi finals Rafa vs Nole 2013.

Reply 5151

Bronco2012

11

Original post by Jack93o

I think the match orders go by seeds anyway, the match involving the top seed (djokovic) goes first just like it was last year

The top half of the draw plays first I think, so in a way that means the top seed plays first, as the top seed is position #1 in the draw. So in a roundabout way, you're spot on.

Reply 5152

Sirocco11

3

Original post by ubi1

Can somebody post French open semi finals Rafa vs Nole 2013.

Are you not capable of typing it into Youtube?

Reply 5153

Xotol

14

Past his prime Federer has probably been the best opponent to Djokovic since 2011. What makes people think that Djokovic is on par - or better - than prime Federer?

IMO, in their primes, Djokovic > Nadal on grass and hard. Nadal > everyone on clay. Federer > Djokovic on grass and >= on hard and clay. Federer > Nadal on grass and hard.

All in all, I give Federer the edge, and Djokovic and Nadal pretty much tied second (because of Nadal's clay dominance).

BUT, bear in mind that we are currently in Djokovic's reign of dominance - he's won half the slams since the beginning of 2011. His achievements will rise the most out of the three for the rest of their careers (Nadal can only win on clay IMO, maybe one or two somewhere else).

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 5154

Slumpy

16

Original post by Rakas21

For those saying that Murray was the better player and deserved to win i wonder if you'd be saying the same were the situation reversed, i rather suspect that like often happens there would be excuses made for the performance from Murray in this case.

Imagine for a second that Murray plays well in sets 1, 2, 4 and 5 but very poorly in set 3. Now imagine that Verdasco was poor in set 1 and 2 but decent in 3, 4 and 5. Now imagine that Murray is 2-0 up and tanks in the third allowing Verdasco in going on to win the match in 5.

Can you honestly tell me in this instance that you would not be saying "Murray tanked" ect...

In that situation (as this), I would say the player who began well did indeed tank, but the winner probably played better over the whole match. Verdasco might've played the best tennis in the match, but presumably made too many UEs to be classed as playing the better tennis. You could easily say he was unlucky to lose though.

Reply 5155

Badshah

So excited that Federer is playing Hamburg and Gstaad. I thought after his shocking 2nd round defeat, that my summer is ruined in tennis terms, but Roger has salvaged it by adding these two tournaments that he is the favourite for.

Reply 5156

michael clayton

15

On the basis that Murray won more points overall I find it hard to justify how people are saying he wasn't the better player. Having said that, Verdasco played the more attacking brand of tennis and Murray will have to adopt a similar mindset if he is to progress any further. Djokovic is in a different league at the moment; it will take some performance to take him out.

Reply 5157

ThatPerson

18

Original post by kbountra

On the basis that Murray won more points overall I find it hard to justify how people are saying he wasn't the better player. Having said that, Verdasco played the more attacking brand of tennis and Murray will have to adopt a similar mindset if he is to progress any further. Djokovic is in a different league at the moment; it will take some performance to take him out.

Unless he makes the same mistakes that he did in the opening of the second set against Berdych :colone:

Reply 5158

michael clayton

15

Original post by Roger1

So excited that Federer is playing Hamburg and Gstaad. I thought after his shocking 2nd round defeat, that my summer is ruined in tennis terms, but Roger has salvaged it by adding these two tournaments that he is the favourite for.

Can understand Federer wanting to add to his calendar but I find it bizarre that he's chosen to enter clay court events :s-smilie:

Atlanta and Washington are hosting hard court tournaments in the period prior to the masters 1000s. These would be far better preparation for the rest of the season imo.