Reed writes his best article yet. 'Andy Murray is the true world #1.' [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Reed writes his best article yet. 'Andy Murray is the true world #1.'

Chiakifug
08-21-2009, 04:19 PM
Simon Reed agrees with John McEnroe that Andy Murray is favourite for the US Open - and believes that the Brit is the true world number one.

It was fascinating to read John McEnroe's comments about the two Andys - Murray and Roddick - being his favourites to win the US Open at Flushing Meadows. Mac is spot on, because both have good chances - but one has a much better chance than the other.

And that man is Andy Murray.

Roger Federer might be the bookies' favourite, and the Swiss seems to have become a sort of Grand Slam specialist, just as the Williams sisters are in the women's game. Federer never used to be that way, but there's no doubt he is now only really interested in winning the Majors.

With that in mind, you need to take a few wobbly results in other tournaments with a pinch of salt. That said, you need a hell of a lot of salt to rub away the sort of capitulation he showed against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga last week, where he blew a 5-1 lead in the final set.

Federer just isn't the player he once was. He might still be world number one, and in my eyes he is the greatest player in the history of the game - but he is still losing his powers, despite his wins at Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

I still think he was handed both those titles, and while it's not impossible that he will pull off another win at the US Open, it's hard to see it happening.

As for Andy Roddick? A couple of months ago I would have said that he had no chance at all of winning another Grand Slam title. He had been so overshadowed by the world's top four for so long that it looked like there was no way back.

But he's turned things around incredibly well, finding that combination of belief and aggression that players need to win the biggest tournaments.

It's hard to say whether his belief has helped him to be more aggressive or whether a new aggression has boosted his belief. It's a chicken and egg situation. But for my money, improvements to his forehand and some extra bite in his backhand have been the keys for him.

Those improvements to his ground strokes have made him a more complete player, and with that awesome serve - that's as good as it ever was - he could genuinely challenge for the title in New York.

Roddick certainly has a better chance than Rafael Nadal, who is clearly still not 100 per cent fit - and given how much Nadal's game relies on his astounding physical condition, he is effectively out of the running until he's back to full strength.

Nadal is just not right at the moment, though, and from the way his season has gone it looks horribly like he may never be, which would be a terrible shame for the world of tennis.

But with no Nadal to worry about and Federer looking out of sorts, Andy Murray is the man to beat. His form and confidence at the moment are absolutely sky-high.

Of course Murray has yet to prove he has the bottle to win a five-set final in a Grand Slam, and there is always the danger that he has peaked too soon.

On top of that, there's still a physical question to be answered. Murray is clearly awesomely fit, but going all the way through the draw in these warm-up tournaments in the hot, humid conditions of the North American summer is incredibly demanding.

Still, Murray's fitness is as good as anybody's these days and he is surrounded with people to keep him in top shape.

On August 2009 form, Murray is the favourite for the US Open for no other reason than that he is currently the best player in the world. And whatever happens at Flushing Meadows I believe he will soon become world number one.


An amazing article. Cant argue with him being one of the favourites but true #1?? :spit: :haha:

Goldenoldie
08-21-2009, 04:30 PM
I need to consult my Thesaurus before I can find adequate words to describe Mr Reed and his articles. Perhaps I won't bother, I don't want to wear out my keyboard with all the ********************************

LinkMage
08-21-2009, 04:33 PM
I'm sick of all this Mugray hype.

I can't wait till this disgusting twat is put in his place once again.

Burrow
08-21-2009, 04:35 PM
True number 1 who holds 0 slams as opposed to the actual number 1's 3.

rubbERR
08-21-2009, 04:37 PM
simon reed is murray fanboy so this is not surprising

fast_clay
08-21-2009, 04:41 PM
nadal should have learnt to play some wheelchair tennis while he was out... helped him see the ball... muster would have...

its just the committment level from the top players that disappoints me...

oh yeah... simon reed also disappoints me...

habibko
08-21-2009, 04:44 PM
true #1 needs to beat Verdascos, Gonzalezes, and Roddicks in slams first.

rubbERR
08-21-2009, 04:45 PM
Nadal has been enjoying much better season than Murray so far, its clear that Nadal is real number two.

Chiakifug
08-21-2009, 04:46 PM
Nadal has been enjoying much better season than Murray so far, its clear that Nadal is real number two.

Montreal >>>> Australian Open

Surcouf
08-21-2009, 04:47 PM
Same situation than Australian Open.

Murray being hyped because of his MS success. Nadal being ignored because he is coming back of an injury.

SaFed2005
08-21-2009, 04:50 PM
"I still think he was handed both those titles, and while it's not impossible that he will pull off another win at the US Open, it's hard to see it happening."

:haha: ROFL!!!
I guess if he does somehow pull off a win at the USO, its because that too was just handed over to him.

DrJules
08-21-2009, 04:51 PM
true #1 needs to beat Verdascos, Gonzalezes, and Roddicks in slams first.

And Federer.

You might as well include all 4.

rubbERR
08-21-2009, 04:54 PM
real number one while he is number 3 this year race, simon reed knows alot. :lol:

uNIVERSE mAN
08-21-2009, 04:59 PM
this guy reed needs to be dead.

Beat
08-21-2009, 05:00 PM
murray the real no. 1 + roddick more likely to win the us open than federer = :spit: / :haha: / :retard:

Sunset of Age
08-21-2009, 05:03 PM
"I still think he was handed both those titles, and while it's not impossible that he will pull off another win at the US Open, it's hard to see it happening."

:haha: ROFL!!!
I guess if he does somehow pull off a win at the USO, its because that too was just handed over to him.

Yeah, Roger got those two titles 'handed over to him', the other 127 participants of those tournaments never showed up, did they?

:haha:

What a garbage. Any a 15-year old blogger out there can do better.
Reed = :retard:

scoobs
08-21-2009, 05:07 PM
No, Federer is the true #1

Totally disrespectful and it really pisses me off.

Everyone knows what I think of Murray but this sort of article is deeply patronising to guys like Federer and Nadal, who have accomplished much more in the game than Murray has thus far.

nsidhan
08-21-2009, 05:45 PM
Andy Murray is the true world #1 PUSHER

Machiavelli
08-21-2009, 05:48 PM
If Murray is the real No.1; then Benneteau is the GOAT, how someone can be a fan of such a huge pusher, pathetic tennis

Sapeod
08-21-2009, 05:52 PM
Murray will be the real no.1 after he wins US Open, not right now though. He is only the true no.2 ATM.

Oh and Reed sux. I nominate him for ACC.

Noleta
08-21-2009, 05:53 PM
Murray is the true#1 in AMS this year:shrug:

Sapeod
08-21-2009, 05:56 PM
Murray is the true#1 in AMS this year:shrug:
Yeah. Murray is undeniably the best player in MS tournaments, on hard anyway. Well, he's the best player in the world ATM in best of 3 sets tournaments on hard.

Burrow
08-21-2009, 05:58 PM
"Murray the best player in the world right now" :lol:

neme6
08-21-2009, 05:59 PM
he sure doesn't seem like a no1 today against Benneteau, that df to lose the 1st set was disastrous, it was wide by 5 feet at least!

Noleta
08-21-2009, 06:11 PM
Yeah. Murray is undeniably the best player in MS tournaments, on hard anyway. Well, he's the best player in the world ATM in best of 3 sets tournaments on hard.

Agree:)don't know why some posters are ridiculing the article:confused:I'm not a Murray fan,but facts are facts imo,he's the best player this year.

Sunset of Age
08-21-2009, 06:14 PM
Agree:)don't know why some posters are ridiculing the article:confused:I'm not a Murray fan,but facts are facts imo,he's the best player this year.

Because 1) he's not only not the #1 (yet), 2) he's never even won a slam yet, and 3), like Scoobs said, the article is extremely patronizing towards Federer and Nadal, who Reed kind-of writes off prematurely and who have achieved way, way more than Murray so far. :shrug:

scarecrows
08-21-2009, 06:16 PM
no.1, it's either him or Benneteau at the moment

Burrow
08-21-2009, 06:21 PM
I am laughin' my head off at this match, it's almost like the players are moving and hitting in slow motion. Unreal.

Black Adam
08-21-2009, 06:22 PM
Either Sapeod or Clydey are Reed's alter egos on this forum. That level of fanboyism is sort of familiar to Muzzatards around here.

fsoica
08-21-2009, 06:24 PM
I'd like to say something: Muzza never had to go THROUGH Nadal for any of his Master Series shields.

Djokovic defeated the Spaniard twice and Federer 3 times when they won AMS titles...

For me, beating Nadal is the ultimate test for any atp player during the last 4 years...and not beating Federer, who either is unbeatable , or is handing the game to his opponents.

the Spaniard fights always till the death, and Muzza never had to pass the ultimate test for winning any of his shields !!!

Noleta
08-21-2009, 06:25 PM
Because 1) he's not only not the #1 (yet), 2) he's never even won a slam yet, and 3), like Scoobs said, the article is extremely patronizing towards Federer and Nadal, who Reed kind-of writes off prematurely and who have achieved way, way more than Murray so far. :shrug:

1-I see,both Fed and Rafa reached higher levels before Murray did,his break through year was last summer.
2-Reed is probably being a bit too patriotic:lol:

moonlightdance
08-21-2009, 06:29 PM
if murray's the true no.1 then he's currently the worst no.1 ever. sorry reed, i understand it's difficult to type and jerk off at the same time.

Noleta
08-21-2009, 06:33 PM
if murray's the true no.1 then he's currently the worst no.1 ever. sorry reed, i understand it's difficult to type and jerk off at the same time.

Would that change if he wins Us open?;)

elessar
08-21-2009, 06:35 PM
Fav part:
the Swiss seems to have become a sort of Grand Slam specialist
"yeah I heard from some people that the guy did pretty well in GS lately, won a couple titles here and there, no biggie you know"
No, Federer is the true #1

Totally disrespectful and it really pisses me off.

Everyone knows what I think of Murray but this sort of article is deeply patronising to guys like Federer and Nadal, who have accomplished much more in the game than Murray has thus far.
We both know it's only a matter of time :hug:

fsoica
08-21-2009, 06:38 PM
until muzza reaches 6 slams and 15 shields, reed and his friends need to shut their freakin' mouths

moonlightdance
08-21-2009, 06:41 PM
Would that change if he wins Us open?;)

of course, which is why i said 'currently.' i'm not ragging on murray, i'm annoyed with reed. :)

Corey Feldman
08-21-2009, 06:43 PM
:o

i'm just glad this guys English and not British

Dini
08-21-2009, 06:44 PM
Noleta, are you serious about Muzza being the best player this year? Do you consider Wimbledon, FO = Miami, Toronto??

Dini
08-21-2009, 06:46 PM
Agree:)don't know why some posters are ridiculing the article:confused:I'm not a Murray fan,but facts are facts imo,he's the best player this year.

No that is simply your opinion. The facts state that Fed is number 1 and is the current holder of 3 slams on 3 different surfaces to Murray's zero GS.

Now if you're talking about AMS number 1 this year, then it's Nadal as he won 3 and was in the final of another. But there is no AMS ranking system on the ATP.

Sapeod
08-21-2009, 06:48 PM
"Murray the best player in the world right now" :lol:
In best of 3 sets on hardcourt. Even you can't deny that.

Burrow
08-21-2009, 06:50 PM
In best of 3 sets on hardcourt. Even you can't deny that.

Did Reed say that?

Corey Feldman
08-21-2009, 06:52 PM
listen damnit, we know TMS >>>>> GS's, because you need to beat top50 in every round

Sapeod
08-21-2009, 06:52 PM
I'd like to say something: Muzza never had to go THROUGH Nadal for any of his Master Series shields.

Djokovic defeated the Spaniard twice and Federer 3 times when they won AMS titles...

For me, beating Nadal is the ultimate test for any atp player during the last 4 years...and not beating Federer, who either is unbeatable , or is handing the game to his opponents.

the Spaniard fights always till the death, and Muzza never had to pass the ultimate test for winning any of his shields !!!
That's not Murray's fault. Just because Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are too crap to reach the semis or final to play him isn't his fault. Oh and he beat Djokovic in Miami and Federer in Madrid.

Dini
08-21-2009, 06:53 PM
listen damnit, we know TMS >>>>> GS's, because you need to beat top50 in every round

Mike are you being sarcastic? :lol: 5 best of 3 matches = 7 best of 5 matches?

anon57
08-21-2009, 06:56 PM
Agree:)don't know why some posters are ridiculing the article:confused:I'm not a Murray fan,but facts are facts imo,he's the best player this year.:shrug:Reed writes that Murray is currently the best player in the world, if he means that Murray is the most inform player at the moment he may have a point. But stating that Murray is the true world #1 is pretty ludicrious at the moment.

Burrow
08-21-2009, 07:06 PM
Agree:)don't know why some posters are ridiculing the article:confused:I'm not a Murray fan,but facts are facts imo,he's the best player this year.

Well that means it isn't fact then, doesn't it.

He's the best player this year? Nadal:AO Federer RG and W...

Hmmm...

BlueSwan
08-21-2009, 07:09 PM
IMO Federer and Nadal both deserve to be higher ranked than Murray. Federer wins the titles that matters and it's so obvious that his motivation isn't really there for other tournaments. Nadal was cruising until his knee gave out.

I WILL however concede that Murray might be the SLIGHT favourite for the US Open, but that is largely based on the fact that Nadal isn't fully fit yet and that we really don't know whether Federer can be arsed anymore after he broke the record.

Roddick winning is pretty ridiculous. He couldn't win the final at Wimbledon where he played just about the match of his life and Federer was completely ordinary. Roddick is not getting past either Federer or Nadal and I doubt that he can repeat the Wimbledon victory over Murray.

My favourites for the Open:

Murray: 23%
Federer: 22%
Nadal: 18%
Del Potro: 17%
Djokovic: 15%

Someone else: 5%

Voo de Mar
08-21-2009, 07:11 PM
Is Reed a guy from Murray's surrouding and this article has to keep him in shape :confused:

Noleta
08-21-2009, 07:27 PM
Noleta, are you serious about Muzza being the best player this year? Do you consider Wimbledon, FO = Miami, Toronto??

He's bee, very dominating at the MS from last summer:shrug:If you take away the points from clay tournaments,he'll be #1 or close to:shrug:

No that is simply your opinion. The facts state that Fed is number 1 and is the current holder of 3 slams on 3 different surfaces to Murray's zero GS.

Now if you're talking about AMS number 1 this year, then it's Nadal as he won 3 and was in the final of another. But there is no AMS ranking system on the ATP.

Fed only won 2 slams so far this year;)

:shrug:Reed writes that Murray is currently the best player in the world, if he means that Murray is the most inform player at the moment he may have a point. But stating that Murray is the true world #1 is pretty ludicrious at the moment.

That's what i thought tbh:shrug:

Clydey
08-21-2009, 07:29 PM
Either Sapeod or Clydey are Reed's alter egos on this forum. That level of fanboyism is sort of familiar to Muzzatards around here.

So after good repping me, you're back to randomly slagging me off?

I haven't even commented on the article. If I had, I would have called Reed a fucking lunatic. He always has been. In no way do I agree with him.

Noleta
08-21-2009, 07:29 PM
Well that means it isn't fact then, doesn't it.

He's the best player this year? Nadal:AO Federer RG and W...

Hmmm...

But if you take away the GS:shrug:

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-21-2009, 07:32 PM
I propose a motion-

this Reed chap is covered in tar and beaten with a rubber hose

If Murray was no.1 he wouldn't be the worst ever (Rios,Rafter,Moya)

however Murray is the worst top 10 player in the world right now

not because he sucks, he doesn't

its because he has all the talent and ability in the world

-great serve
-best 2 hander in the business
-great slice
-excellent tennis brain- knows when to play the right shot
-amazing speed
-best return in the game
- very underrated forehand

and with all that talent he stands a few miles behind the baseline and pushes ON ALL THE MAJOR POINTS

he has NO BACKBONE AT ALL

he deserves NO SLAMS

Dini
08-21-2009, 07:32 PM
He's bee, very dominating at the MS from last summer:shrug:If you take away the points from clay tournaments,he'll be #1 or close to:shrug:

What about the times he lost to Verdasco and roddick in the slams?

If Djokovic had not lost early and won the 3 GS's so far he would be number 1. If, but, would, should... = nonsense.



Fed only won 2 slams so far this year;)

Only? :speakles:

Chiakifug
08-21-2009, 07:33 PM
But if you take away the GS:shrug:


If you're talking like that, take away the US hardcourt season. Then Federer and Nadal would be miles ahead of him. What you're using cant just be used in this context and it doesnt add anything that could be justified for saying Murray is the real #1. :shrug: You can say that about any tournaments or any period of play during the year for any player.

angry1
08-21-2009, 07:33 PM
I've defended some of his previous articles,but somebody needs to shut him up.Wishful thinking+attention seeking hype still doesn't get this level of rubbish.

Murray wouldn't want extra ammunition given to those who knock him for failing to live up to expectations.

Dougie
08-21-2009, 07:36 PM
There are no real or unreal no 1īs, thereīs just the actual no 1, and thatīs Federer. Federerīs only goal is to win the Slams, and heīs doing a good job with it. Murray is no favorite against Federer at the US Open. Murray will beat Roger at Cincy, and Fed will take his revenge at the Open. And Iīm not even a Federer fan, but thatīs how mentally tough he is. He can afford to focus only on slams. The only time this season Iīve seen him give his all in a non-Slam event was at Madrid, and thatīs because he saw his chance to get a mental edge over Nadal. And he took it. People have talked about Murray having the edge over Federer for over a year now, and look whoīs holding the slams?

Burrow
08-21-2009, 07:38 PM
But if you take away the GS:shrug:

Hilarious post.

"If you take away the GS"....

Grand Slams are the most prestigious and important events in the sport, you tool.

2 Slams + 1 MS >>>>>>> 2 MS.

Noleta
08-21-2009, 07:39 PM
What about the times he lost to Verdasco and roddick in the slams?

He still have to prove himself in slams.

habibko
08-21-2009, 07:41 PM
There are no real or unreal no 1īs, thereīs just the actual no 1, and thatīs Federer. Federerīs only goal is to win the Slams, and heīs doing a good job with it. Murray is no favorite against Federer at the US Open. Murray will beat Roger at Cincy, and Fed will take his revenge at the Open. And Iīm not even a Federer fan, but thatīs how mentally tough he is. He can afford to focus only on slams. The only time this season Iīve seen him give his all in a non-Slam event was at Madrid, and thatīs because he saw his chance to get a mental edge over Nadal. And he took it. People have talked about Murray having the edge over Federer for over a year now, and look whoīs holding the slams?

/thread.

Noleta
08-21-2009, 07:42 PM
Hilarious post.

"If you take away the GS"....

Grand Slams are the most prestigious and important events in the sport, you tool.

2 Slams + 1 MS >>>>>>> 2 MS.

That's what MTF is all about:)

Dini
08-21-2009, 07:42 PM
He still have to prove himself in slams.

So how can a guy that still has to prove himself in slams be the "real number 1" as opposed to the guy who's won 3 in less than a year?

Stephie Cesc
08-21-2009, 07:43 PM
Simon Reed :spit: Murray the true world no.1, seriously? :lol::rolleyes:

angry1
08-21-2009, 07:43 PM
There are no real or unreal no 1īs, thereīs just the actual no 1, and thatīs Federer. Federerīs only goal is to win the Slams, and heīs doing a good job with it. Murray is no favorite against Federer at the US Open. Murray will beat Roger at Cincy, and Fed will take his revenge at the Open. And Iīm not even a Federer fan, but thatīs how mentally tough he is. He can afford to focus only on slams. The only time this season Iīve seen him give his all in a non-Slam event was at Madrid, and thatīs because he saw his chance to get a mental edge over Nadal. And he took it. People have talked about Murray having the edge over Federer for over a year now, and look whoīs holding the slams?

Why having beaten Murray heavily in New York,and earlier that week hammered Tsonga and easily beaten Del Potro, didn't Federer want to send a message against Murray in Madrid last year?Injury and form excuses make no sense,neither IMO does lack of motivation.

Other matches vs. Murray some of the vast catalogue of excuses work,but for that one I don't buy any of them.

Voo de Mar
08-21-2009, 07:44 PM
But if you take away the GS:shrug:

Grand Slams tournaments are definitely the most important in this sport. If someone who does interest in sports wants to know something about tennis, will find firstly finals of Grand Slam tournaments. In historical perspective of this sport the surname "Murray" doesn't mean too much, it's just a surname like "Gottfried", "Solomon" etc.

lamnathalie
08-21-2009, 07:48 PM
:rolleyes:Reed :smash:

:eek::silly::cuckoo:

Serenidad
08-21-2009, 07:49 PM
So how can a guy that still has to prove himself in slams be the "real number 1" as opposed to the guy who's won 3 in less than a year?

James Franco. :inlove:

Oh just now reading your actual post, I agree. Murray needs to do more in slams and then he will be the #1 in rankings and in all other senses.

Noleta
08-21-2009, 07:50 PM
So how can a guy that still has to prove himself in slams be the "real number 1" as opposed to the guy who's won 3 in less than a year?

But you can't disagree about Murray being the in form player,even though he had an average slam history so far:shrug:

Dini
08-21-2009, 07:51 PM
But you can't disagree about Murray being the in form player,even though he had an average slam history so far:shrug:

That's not the title of his article.

Burrow
08-21-2009, 07:51 PM
That's what MTF is all about:)

But you're basically saying that IS and MS mean more than slams which is ridiculous.

And you're being serious about it, too.

Dini
08-21-2009, 07:51 PM
James Franco. :inlove:


+1

Dougie
08-21-2009, 07:53 PM
Why having beaten Murray heavily in New York,and earlier that week hammered Tsonga and easily beaten Del Potro, didn't Federer want to send a message against Murray in Madrid last year?Injury and form excuses make no sense,neither IMO does lack of motivation.

Other matches vs. Murray some of the vast catalogue of excuses work,but for that one I don't buy any of them.

Itīs not like Federer has an excuse for reason for every loss, sometimes he just gets outplayed. But he delivers when it matters, in Slams. He doesnīt need to send a message to Murray, both he and Murray know Federer holds a huge mental edge against Murray in Slams, just look at last years US Open. Murray is just no threat to Federer at the big stage. Desite occasional losses to other players, Nadal is the only one whoīs ever held a real mental edge over Federer, and Federer has turned even that around (with a little help from Nadalīs injuries, admittedly).

With his confidence level so high at the moment, and lack of pressure due to RG win, weīll probably see a more relaxed and dominant Federer at US Open then weīve seen in the last three years.

delpiero7
08-21-2009, 07:53 PM
Hilarious post.

"If you take away the GS"....

Grand Slams are the most prestigious and important events in the sport, you tool.

2 Slams + 1 MS >>>>>>> 2 MS.

More like 1 MS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 GS. We all know this to be true, so let's not argue about it.

It is fact that careers are judged by the number of MS shields won. It's the reason why Rod Laver is remembered as one of the biggest mugs ever to have graced the sport.

Andi-M
08-21-2009, 07:54 PM
Reed is a huge clown and needs to stfu.

If Murray is true no 1 he will prove it, right now he hasnt.

Serenidad
08-21-2009, 07:55 PM
+1

I know. Its too bad you're a Frauderror fan. :sobbing:

Dini
08-21-2009, 07:56 PM
I know. Its too bad you're a Frauderror fan. :sobbing:

:awww: :hug:

Clydey
08-21-2009, 07:58 PM
Itīs not like Federer has an excuse for reason for every loss, sometimes he just gets outplayed. But he delivers when it matters, in Slams. He doesnīt need to send a message to Murray, both he and Murray know Federer holds a huge mental edge against Murray in Slams, just look at last years US Open. Murray is just no threat to Federer at the big stage. Desite occasional losses to other players, Nadal is the only one whoīs ever held a real mental edge over Federer, and Federer has turned even that around (with a little help from Nadalīs injuries, admittedly).

With his confidence level so high at the moment, and lack of pressure due to RG win, weīll probably see a more relaxed and dominant Federer at US Open then weīve seen in the last three years.

Massive exaggeration. Bookmarking this post.

Noleta
08-21-2009, 08:00 PM
That's not the title of his article.

Really?:)

But you're basically saying that IS and MS mean more than slams which is ridiculous.

And you're being serious about it, too.

Hummmm...Me serious:confused:

Serenidad
08-21-2009, 08:03 PM
:awww: :hug:

Amaze though. You need to be an Murray fan. :(

kinski76
08-21-2009, 08:04 PM
Simon Reed employs his own fantastic brand of logic again.:worship: After all, it's worked like a charm before, Federer standing "no chance" compared to Mr True Numero Uno in regards to this year's Wimbledon and all. The man gets paid to spout this nonsense? There is no hope for humanity.

Burrow
08-21-2009, 08:06 PM
More like 1 MS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000 GS. We all know this to be true, so let's not argue about it.

It is fact that careers are judged by the number of MS shields won. It's the reason why Rod Laver is remembered as one of the biggest mugs ever to have graced the sport.

:bs:

Burrow
08-21-2009, 08:07 PM
Really?:)



Hummmm...Me serious:confused:

Yes, you are being serious. "If you take away the GS's" shows this. Pathetic. :rolleyes:

Bolton'sBastard
08-21-2009, 08:07 PM
Massive exaggeration. Bookmarking this post.

How was that an exaggeration? Murray has not shown that he can challenge Federer in Grand Slams.

6-2 7-5 6-2

Dougie
08-21-2009, 08:08 PM
Massive exaggeration. Bookmarking this post.

If Murray can beat Fed at the US Open, Iīll be the first to admit I was wrong. I just canīt see it happening.

Clydey
08-21-2009, 08:12 PM
How was that an exaggeration? Murray has not shown that he can challenge Federer in Grand Slams.

6-2 7-5 6-2

Saying Murray is "no threat" to Federer at majors is comically over the top. And you certainly can't base something like that on one match, when their H2H was nothing like it is now. You might favour Federer over Murray, or even say that Federer is a heavy favourite. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't take issue with something like that. To say that he's "no threat" is absurd, though.

angry1
08-21-2009, 08:13 PM
Itīs not like Federer has an excuse for reason for every loss, sometimes he just gets outplayed. But he delivers when it matters, in Slams. He doesnīt need to send a message to Murray, both he and Murray know Federer holds a huge mental edge against Murray in Slams, just look at last years US Open. Murray is just no threat to Federer at the big stage. Desite occasional losses to other players, Nadal is the only one whoīs ever held a real mental edge over Federer, and Federer has turned even that around (with a little help from Nadalīs injuries, admittedly).

With his confidence level so high at the moment, and lack of pressure due to RG win, weīll probably see a more relaxed and dominant Federer at US Open then weīve seen in the last three years.

You're making a huge amount from one disastrous match.To suggest that 1 match however one sided conclusively proves anything when their other meetings are 6-1 to Murray shows bias,anti-Murray or pro-Federer I don't know or care which.

Murray has lost his 1st attempt against Federer and Nadal at both bof3 and bof5 but is 8-5 after that.He has a clear pattern of improving against opponents after dodgy starts(e.g.Djokovic,Davydenko,Federer in 3 setters) You'll look extremely foolish if Murray wins the USO.

Federer is overwhelming favourite at the USO,but his worshippers suggesting he never loses when he's fit and cares is out of order.

Clydey
08-21-2009, 08:14 PM
If Murray can beat Fed at the US Open, Iīll be the first to admit I was wrong. I just canīt see it happening.

Of course he can beat him. Whether he will is another matter. I'm not bookmarking the post because you think Federer will beat Murray. I'm bookmarking it because calling Murray "no threat" is a bit silly.

Dini
08-21-2009, 08:17 PM
Amaze though. You need to be an Murray fan. :(

I'm pretty sure Muzza is flattered to have a fan like you already anyway. He doesn't need me. :p

green25814
08-21-2009, 08:19 PM
Reed still on crack

First he jinxes up dasco and now he's doing the same to Muzz, wtf

Noleta
08-21-2009, 08:22 PM
Yes, you are being serious. "If you take away the GS's" shows this. Pathetic. :rolleyes:

:confused:

Are you talking about yourself:angel:

Smasher
08-21-2009, 08:24 PM
Reed is an idiot and a fanboy, nothing new here

scarecrows
08-21-2009, 08:27 PM
Reed writes articles just to see how many bashing comments will he get from eurosport website readers

Dougie
08-21-2009, 08:33 PM
You're making a huge amount from one disastrous match.To suggest that 1 match however one sided conclusively proves anything when their other meetings are 6-1 to Murray shows bias,anti-Murray or pro-Federer I don't know or care which.

Murray has lost his 1st attempt against Federer and Nadal at both bof3 and bof5 but is 8-5 after that.He has a clear pattern of improving against opponents after dodgy starts(e.g.Djokovic,Davydenko,Federer in 3 setters) You'll look extremely foolish if Murray wins the USO.

Federer is overwhelming favourite at the USO,but his worshippers suggesting he never loses when he's fit and cares is out of order.

That one match is the only match we have to indicate these two players h2h at GS`s. And why is there only 1 match between them? Federer currently has 3/4 GS`s, Iīd say heīs done his part, itīs Murray who hasnīt even advanced far enough to play against him.

Clydey
08-21-2009, 08:36 PM
That one match is the only match we have to indicate these two players h2h at GS`s. And why is there only 1 match between them? Federer currently has 3/4 GS`s, Iīd say heīs done his part, itīs Murray who hasnīt even advanced far enough to play against him.

It's dumb to suggest that Murray poses no threat to Federer.

There has only been one HC major since they met. Murray was ill at that one. If he fucks up this time, people may have a point. However, no right-minded individual would ever look at a Federer-Murray match at the USO and think "I'll put my house on Federer".

Dream on.

Bolton'sBastard
08-21-2009, 08:39 PM
It's dumb to suggest that Murray poses no threat to Federer.

There has only been one HC major since they met. Murray was ill at that one. If he fucks up this time, people may have a point. However, no right-minded individual would ever look at a Federer-Murray match at the USO and think "I'll put my house on Federer".

Dream on.

"Right-minded" huh?

Because it is not right-minded to look at the only Grand Slam they've met at to make predictions on the same Grand Slam event.

Good point.

/end sarcasm.

Burrow
08-21-2009, 08:39 PM
:confused:

Are you talking about yourself:angel:

You were being serious and got owned, poor you. :o

Noleta
08-21-2009, 08:42 PM
You were being serious and got owned, poor you. :o

By whom?:rolls:

Clydey
08-21-2009, 08:47 PM
"Right-minded" huh?

Because it is not right-minded to look at the only Grand Slam they've met at to make predictions on the same Grand Slam event.

Good point.

/end sarcasm.

Learn. To. Read.

Fucking hell, this isn't difficult. It's one thing to make predictions and to call Federer the favourite. I think he's the favourite. However, it's another thing to say that Murray poses no threat to Federer at the USO.

See the difference? One suggests that you think Federer will beat Murray. The other suggests that Murray has a snowball's chance in hell.

Bolton'sBastard
08-21-2009, 08:51 PM
Learn. To. Read.

Fucking hell, this isn't difficult. It's one thing to make predictions and to call Federer the favourite. I think he's the favourite. However, it's another thing to say that Murray poses no threat to Federer at the USO.

See the difference? One suggests that you think Federer will beat Murray. The other suggests that Murray has a snowball's chance in hell.

You need to learn to read. I was referring to making predictions about the U.S Open, and Dougie referred to Murray being no threat to Federer at the big stages(U.S open????????). Guess what? That's a prediction(I believe you even bookmarked this just for that reason). Please take your own advice.

angry1
08-21-2009, 08:52 PM
"Right-minded" huh?

Because it is not right-minded to look at the only Grand Slam they've met at to make predictions on the same Grand Slam event.

Good point.

/end sarcasm.

That one match is the only match we have to indicate these two players h2h at GS`s. And why is there only 1 match between them? Federer currently has 3/4 GS`s, Iīd say heīs done his part, itīs Murray who hasnīt even advanced far enough to play against him.

So assuming Roger makes it, Murray can't possibly lose tomorrow?

He's won every HC MS match they've played including 1 here,is the defending champion and has never failed to win the same tournament when defending on the same surface.

Same logic,I still don't endorse it.

Bolton'sBastard
08-21-2009, 08:54 PM
So assuming Roger makes it, Murray can't possibly lose tomorrow?

He's won every HC MS match they've played including 1 here,is the defending champion and has never failed to win the same tournament when defending on the same surface.

Same logic,I still don't endorse it.

When did I say that he "had no chance of winning"? I definitely would put Murray as the big favorite for a hard court match in a Master Series so I don't see your point.

Clydey
08-21-2009, 08:55 PM
You need to learn to read. I was referring to making predictions about the U.S Open, and Dougie referred to Murray being no threat to Federer at the big stages(U.S open????????). Guess what? That's a prediction(I believe you even bookmarked this just for that reason). Please take your own advice.

No, a prediction is saying that you think one player will win. It's another thing entirely to suggest that one player has zero chance. I'm not even saying Murray will beat Federer at the USO. I'm saying that it's flatout idiotic to say that he poses no threat.

bokehlicious
08-21-2009, 08:56 PM
This guy is really a tennis journalist? No wonder Brits suck at this sport for centuries if that guy is considered an expert of the game... :angel: :D

angry1
08-21-2009, 08:58 PM
When did I say that he "had no chance of winning"? I definitely would put Murray as the big favorite for a hard court match in a Master Series so I don't see your point.

I'm saying you should say Federer has no chance tomorrow on the same logic Murray has none at the USO.

That's the view of Dougie you were defending.

FiBeR
08-21-2009, 08:58 PM
the gooch will show them all

Bolton'sBastard
08-21-2009, 09:01 PM
No, a prediction is saying that you think one player will win. It's another thing entirely to suggest that one player has zero chance. I'm not even saying Murray will beat Federer at the USO. I'm saying that it's flatout idiotic to say that he poses no threat.

Wait saying someone poses no threat is not a prediction? Since when? You even bookmarked just so you could come back here in case Murray wins to brag about it. If his prediction of Murray "being no threat" is wrong, you will pounce on it. It certainly could be an idiotic prediction(and is pretty close), but it is still a prediction simply because it takes into account things that have not happened yet.

pre⋅dict
  /prɪˈdɪkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pri-dikt] Show IPA
Use predicting in a Sentence
–verb (used with object)
1. to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
–verb (used without object)
2. to foretell the future; make a prediction.

This whole conversation is pointless though, I don't think his prediction of Murray continuing to be "no threat" in Grand Slams is an "idiotic" one because Murray hasn't proven that he can beat Federer at that stage. Sure there is only a small sampling size(which is why making such a bold statement is close to idiotic), but that's all we have to work with.

roberthenman
08-21-2009, 09:06 PM
reed totally agrre with you :yeah:

Clydey
08-21-2009, 09:08 PM
Wait saying someone poses no threat is not a prediction? Since when? You even bookmarked just so you could come back here in case Murray wins to brag about it. If his prediction of Murray "being no threat" is wrong, you will pounce on it. It certainly could be an idiotic prediction(and is pretty close), but it is still a prediction simply because it takes into account things that have not happened yet.



It implies a prediction. It in itself is not a prediction. I wasn't taking issue with anyone saying that they think Federer will beat Murray. Asserting that someone poses no threat is saying that there are no ifs, and, or buts. It is presented as a fact that Murray cannot beat Federer. It's not the same as predicting that he will not beat Federer.

Do you really want to argue over semantics in order to evade the fact that you've backed a clearly idiotic opinion? Murray might not beat Federer. That's different from him not being capable of beating Federer at the USO.

federersforehand
08-21-2009, 09:17 PM
This thread is populated with some of the biggest retards i have ever seen. On current form, Murray is the best player in the world, and is a strong favourite to win the US open, thus he is the theoretical 'no1' player AT THE MOMENT. Cant any of you fuckwits think outside of the box for a second. Feds been playing crap, Nadals injured, Djokovic, del potro and Roddick have no real chance, so whats so hard to get about Murray being the true no1 at this moment in time?? Come US open time, if Fed wins again, then he will be the best in the world, but right now it is murray.

Bolton'sBastard
08-21-2009, 09:19 PM
It implies a prediction. It in itself is not a prediction. I wasn't taking issue with anyone saying that they think Federer will beat Murray. Asserting that someone poses no threat is saying that there are no ifs, and, or buts. It is presented as a fact that Murray cannot beat Federer. It's not the same as predicting that he will not beat Federer.

Do you really want to argue over semantics in order to evade the fact that you've backed a clearly idiotic opinion? Murray might not beat Federer. That's different from him not being capable of beating Federer at the USO.

But that's the point, he hasn't been capable of beating him so far in Grand Slams(with a small sampling). That's why I don't think the predictions idiotic, because if Federer wins the U.S Open and then next year maybe gets knocked out by someone else, that prediction would still hold ground. That's not to say it can't be wrong, just that it isn't idiotic.

And don't pull the semantics card on me after pulling out the "learn to read" crap. He was clearly making a prediction. Either way, I'll let you believe what you want to because I honestly don't care whether he is wrong or right. We shall see what the U.S Open brings us.

bokehlicious
08-21-2009, 09:22 PM
The Clydeys of MTF were the first to predict that Fed would never beat Nadal at the French Open. Same kind of situation here, I'm surpised Clydey's nitpicking here :scratch: :o

Clydey
08-21-2009, 09:23 PM
But that's the point, he hasn't been capable of beating him so far in Grand Slams(with a small sampling). That's why I don't think the predictions idiotic, because if Federer wins the U.S Open and then next year maybe gets knocked out by someone else, that prediction would still hold ground. That's not to say it can't be wrong, just that it isn't idiotic.

And don't pull the semantics card on me after pulling out the "learn to read" crap. He was clearly making a prediction.

Stating that someone is incapable of beating someone is not a prediction. It's a statement presented as a fact.

You don't get it and you're evading because you know his position is idiotic. Federer had never won a GS until he won Wimledon 2003. Did that prompt you to state uneqivocally that Federer was incapable of winning a major?

Clydey
08-21-2009, 09:26 PM
The Clydeys of MTF were the first to predict that Fed would never beat Nadal at the French Open. Same kind of situation here, I'm surpised Clydey's nitpicking here :scratch: :o

I didn't predict that Federer would never beat Nadal at the French. Why are you just making shit up again?

Then again, if I did make that prediction, it's not like I'd hide from it. Has Federer beaten Nadal at the French?

bokehlicious
08-21-2009, 09:28 PM
Has Federer beaten Nadal at the French?

No less than Murray did hurt Fed at USO :shrug:

Clydey
08-21-2009, 09:30 PM
No less than Murray did hurt Fed at USO :shrug:

Yeah, but I didn't say that Federer couldn't beat Nadal at the French. I made no such statement. And I certainly didn't say that Federer poses no threat to Nadal at the French.

bokehlicious
08-21-2009, 09:31 PM
Yeah, but I didn't say that Federer couldn't beat Nadal at the French. I made no such statement.

Haters said (and still say) that all the time. You're a hater, my bad if you didn't write it down, but many others did :p

Bolton'sBastard
08-21-2009, 09:33 PM
Yeah, but I didn't say that Federer couldn't beat Nadal at the French. I made no such statement. And I certainly didn't say that Federer poses no threat to Nadal at the French.

You and I seem to be taking different meanings out of his "no threat". I thought he meant no threat to beat him, while you seem to think he means no threat to even be in the match. Your "maybe" prediction on Federer never beating Nadal is very close to my interpretation of Dougie's prediction.

Clydey
08-21-2009, 09:35 PM
Haters said (and still say) that all the time. You're a hater, my bad if you didn't write it down, but many others did :p

I don't like Federer's attitude, but I'm not a hater. I don't go around calling him a "mug", nor do I use any other MTF buzz words to describe his tennis game.

andylovesaustin
08-21-2009, 09:39 PM
I don't think Roger looks out of sorts!:confused: Give the guy a break already. I just think Roger paces himself. I don't think he goes all out to win these "lesser" tournaments anymore. I mean, if he can win by playing A- or B+ game, he does. But I don't think he necessarily expends a lot of energy on these tournaments. I think they are more like practice for him! Now, if he has the chance to beat Rafa or Andy Murray he might expend a little bit more energy.

But Roger has already won the French and Wimby, plus was in the AO finals lest we forget. So he's the true #1 over the long term regardless of how he is playing at the moment. And to me, he doesn't look that bad since had a little bit of a break. :shrug:

Andy Roddick looks horrible to me. So right now, I'm not so sure of his chances.

Rafa did OK last night but.. still... he's not playing great.

Andy Murray, I think he deserves the number 2 ranking, but I do not think for a moment he's the "true" #1 regardless of how he is playing at the moment. Andy was the favorite at Wimby.. and well.. hey.. the guy didn't even make it into the final. I can't remember the buzz on him at the AO?

To me, Andy Murray might have a shot at the true #1 if he wins the U.S. Open. But then again, Roger's accomplishments are pretty difficult to beat this year--even if Roger were only to make it to the U.S. Open semis or the final.

Why are people so quick to always write-off Roger? His accomplishments don't mean anything or what?

Hey.. sure... I'd like somebody to step-up and beat Roger at a slam, and that person might very well be Andy Murray (except I would prefer Pony-boy out of the younger players.) But to not respect Roger?

Get out of here..

Roger Federer is the well-deserved #1 in the world--the true #1. End of story.

mark73
08-21-2009, 09:41 PM
Is it just me or does Reed write at a great nine level. He repeats himself a few times and frequently starts sentences in the same manner. His arguments are very simple, no deep analysis.

HattonWBA
08-21-2009, 09:42 PM
This guy makes outrageous comments for attention, its pathetic he cant even back up his remarks. Who supplies this Reed with his drugs, my dealer bailed out on me, anyone got Simon Reed's contact details?.

spencercarlos
08-21-2009, 09:52 PM
"I still think he was handed both those titles, and while it's not impossible that he will pull off another win at the US Open, it's hard to see it happening."

:haha: ROFL!!!
I guess if he does somehow pull off a win at the USO, its because that too was just handed over to him.
First Federer sucks 2008 early 2009 because he just won 1 slam in 5 events, now that he was won the last 2, then these titles are being handed to him :rolleyes:

Federer won those slams despite not being at his brilliant/dominant best, but he earned each of those two titles.

Now to say that Murray deserves the top spot more than Federer who owns 3 slams ATM, its ridiculous. Maybe the writer must be praising Safina for her number one ranking with 0 slam titles :eek:.

ballbasher101
08-21-2009, 10:03 PM
Simon Reed should lay off whatever he is smoking and this is coming from a Murray fan. Simon Reed makes Burrow sound like a genius :devil:, that is how bad he is.

Arkulari
08-21-2009, 11:47 PM
gosh, this guy is SO epic :rolls: :rolls: :rolls: :rolls:

leng jai
08-22-2009, 12:36 AM
Simon Reed must be Sapeod's mum pretending that a "professional" source is backing up her son's incessant fanboying.

Tutu
08-22-2009, 01:54 AM
Federer needs to do a Serena on Andy: "I think Andy has done a great job and is the true number one - he won Miami and toronto"

http://i28.tinypic.com/2yy3uzc.jpg

:bowdown: What a joke. I wouldn't be surprised if this pusher never wins a slam. :lol: The ATP doesn't deserve that.

Har-Tru
08-22-2009, 02:24 AM
Is this guy real? I mean has anyone ever seen him? Did he breathe?

propi
08-22-2009, 02:27 AM
Wow, and this reaching the ashtonish number of 1 grand slam final during the last whole year... truly GOAT numbers behind Murray :worship:
Don't get me wrong; I like his game but hype surrounding him is bigger than Gasquet's used to have :p

tangerine_dream
08-22-2009, 03:40 AM
Simon Reed makes his living deliberately writing outrageous things in order to rile people up and get them talking about his favorite subject, Murray. Sensible posts do not generate much discussion or interest. I wonder how many replies he got for that article? There are over 100 here.

orangehat
08-22-2009, 04:08 AM
:spit: That's WORSE than saying Safina is the true WTA number 1. At least Safina's reached number 1. :lol:

ForehandWinner
08-22-2009, 04:29 AM
This article is a book of bad jokes. Is the title of this thread irony or true shit? Bunch of dream hunters

scarecrows
08-22-2009, 09:27 AM
Simon Reed makes his living deliberately writing outrageous things in order to rile people up and get them talking about his favorite subject, Murray. Sensible posts do not generate much discussion or interest. I wonder how many replies he got for that article? There are over 100 here.

235 so far

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/21082009/58/open-reed-true-number-murray-win-open.html

Julio
08-22-2009, 10:08 AM
Easy to recap : Simon Reed and John McEnroe = mugs.

Dougie
08-22-2009, 11:26 AM
No, a prediction is saying that you think one player will win. It's another thing entirely to suggest that one player has zero chance. I'm not even saying Murray will beat Federer at the USO. I'm saying that it's flatout idiotic to say that he poses no threat.


After getting a good nights sleep, I think I must comment a bit further. My PREDICTION was that considering the form Federer is in, and considering the way these two have performed at GS`s during the last year, and considering their only GS meeting was 3-0 my PREDICTION is that I canīt see Murray being a threat to Roger at US Open. Iīm not saying he has zero chance. Iīm not putting my house on Federerīs win, and Iīm not slicing my balls if Murray wins. Like I said earlier, if Iīm wrong, Iīll be the first to admit it. But the Murray-hype has being going on for over a year now, and heīs done nothing at GSīs to back it up. Eventually he probably will, but at the moment I donīt see him as a threat to Federer. And thatīs a PREDICTION!

Matt01
08-22-2009, 11:28 AM
Murray: True Number One :worship:

Clydey
08-22-2009, 11:59 AM
After getting a good nights sleep, I think I must comment a bit further. My PREDICTION was that considering the form Federer is in, and considering the way these two have performed at GS`s during the last year, and considering their only GS meeting was 3-0 my PREDICTION is that I canīt see Murray being a threat to Roger at US Open. Iīm not saying he has zero chance. Iīm not putting my house on Federerīs win, and Iīm not slicing my balls if Murray wins. Like I said earlier, if Iīm wrong, Iīll be the first to admit it. But the Murray-hype has being going on for over a year now, and heīs done nothing at GSīs to back it up. Eventually he probably will, but at the moment I donīt see him as a threat to Federer. And thatīs a PREDICTION!

Actually, he's done plenty. A final and a semi-final is nothing? You can disregard the French, since no one expects anything of him there. You can put the 4th round at the AO down to bad luck, given that he came down with a virus during it and pretty much couldn't do anything between matches.

Also, if you don't think Murray is a threat, who the hell do you think is?

Sham Kay
08-22-2009, 12:07 PM
As much as Im a huge fan and love his game and what he's achieved so far, as it stands, Murray is no where near the Fed and Rafa. Someday this guy may be proved right (I sincerely hope so), but for now he's off his peanut.

NicolasKiefer44
08-22-2009, 12:13 PM
Murray is all HYPE until he wins a slam AND backs it up with dominance. Otherwise it is a case of 'shut up and sit down'.

Fed being handed 2 slams this year? Is it Fed's fault that MURRAY and NOLE and NADAL could not reach it to a round to play Fed? No. Federer had 14 guys placed in front of him and he defeated 14 guys to win both slams.

Murray is currently #2 because Nadal couldn't/wouldn't play. Otherwise Murray would still be #3.

Clydey
08-22-2009, 12:21 PM
Murray is all HYPE until he wins a slam AND backs it up with dominance. Otherwise it is a case of 'shut up and sit down'.

Fed being handed 2 slams this year? Is it Fed's fault that MURRAY and NOLE and NADAL could not reach it to a round to play Fed? No. Federer had 14 guys placed in front of him and he defeated 14 guys to win both slams.

Murray is currently #2 because Nadal couldn't/wouldn't play. Otherwise Murray would still be #3.

That's the same reason why Federer's number 1. You can't have it both ways.

Dougie
08-22-2009, 12:29 PM
Actually, he's done plenty. A final and a semi-final is nothing? You can disregard the French, since no one expects anything of him there. You can put the 4th round at the AO down to bad luck, given that he came down with a virus during it and pretty much couldn't do anything between matches.

Also, if you don't think Murray is a threat, who the hell do you think is?

A final in which he got owned by Federer 3-0? Hardly makes him a threat to Fed. SF loss to Roddick? Iīd hardly call that plenty from world no 2, anything less would have been a disaster. AO bad luck? Federerīs mono got nothing but laughs at MTF, but Murrayīs illness is apparently a totally valid reason. And nobody expects anything from him at FO? That really sounds like a true no 1, doesnīt it?

As for whoīs a threat in my opinion? No one at the moment. Not against Federer at the US Open. Heīs way ahead of pretty much everyone, and heīs as confident as ever. Iīd be truly surprised if he didnīt win the title easily. Other tournaments are a different matter, but right now he has no serious contenders at the US Open.

Certinfy
08-22-2009, 12:38 PM
Murray is all HYPE until he wins a slam AND backs it up with dominance. Otherwise it is a case of 'shut up and sit down'.

Fed being handed 2 slams this year? Is it Fed's fault that MURRAY and NOLE and NADAL could not reach it to a round to play Fed? No. Federer had 14 guys placed in front of him and he defeated 14 guys to win both slams.

Murray is currently #2 because Nadal couldn't/wouldn't play. Otherwise Murray would still be #3.13 guys he played Soderling twice. :bolt:

NicolasKiefer44
08-22-2009, 12:44 PM
That's the same reason why Federer's number 1. You can't have it both ways.

I don't see it both ways. Fed won the 2 slams in front of him while Nadal didn't play so Fed lived up to his hype to win. Did Murray even make a grand slam final while Nadal was out? No. Did Murray take that open door at the French that Nadal left open? No. Fed took both opportunities, so, Fed lived up to the hype placed on him once Nadal was out of the picture, and Fed deserved #1 again. Murray didn't live up to any hype poured on him.

Clydey
08-22-2009, 12:49 PM
A final in which he got owned by Federer 3-0? Hardly makes him a threat to Fed. SF loss to Roddick? Iīd hardly call that plenty from world no 2, anything less would have been a disaster. AO bad luck? Federerīs mono got nothing but laughs at MTF, but Murrayīs illness is apparently a totally valid reason. And nobody expects anything from him at FO? That really sounds like a true no 1, doesnīt it?

As for whoīs a threat in my opinion? No one at the moment. Not against Federer at the US Open. Heīs way ahead of pretty much everyone, and heīs as confident as ever. Iīd be truly surprised if he didnīt win the title easily. Other tournaments are a different matter, but right now he has no serious contenders at the US Open.

Oh, a final in which he got owned by Federer. So all of this is based on one match? There have been bigger beatdowns in major finals than the one Fed dished out last year. Indeed, two slams prior to that, Federer had been on the receiving end of one of the most one-sided major final losses in history. That didn't stop him winning the French a year later, did it? That's one idiotic argument dealt with.

A loss to Roddick in the semis of Wimbledon? Is this the same Roddick whom Federer failed to break once until 14-15 in the 5th set of the final that took place two days later? The same Roddick who likely would have beaten Federer had he not choked in the 2nd set tiebreak? Your arguments are becoming more and more desperate.

Also, you do realise that the US Open is a tennis tournament, just like Montreal, Cinci, Miami, etc? It's more prestigious and is over 5 sets, but it's still a tennis tournament. They do not implement different rules and play an entirely different sport at Flushing Meadows. It's a tennis tournament. If Federer can be beaten by Murray on 4 different hardcourts since the USO final, he can be beaten this year at the USO.

And people bring up Federer's mono from 2008 constantly. Are you kidding me? No one is allowed to forget it. What people don't realise is that Federer didn't have mono during the Australian Open. He had it before the Australian Open. Lack of practice was his excuse, due to being sidelined with mono. He was not competing with mono. Murray was competing with a virus during this year's Australian Open.

Clydey
08-22-2009, 12:59 PM
I don't see it both ways. Fed won the 2 slams in front of him while Nadal didn't play so Fed lived up to his hype to win. Did Murray even make a grand slam final while Nadal was out? No. Did Murray take that open door at the French that Nadal left open? No. Fed took both opportunities, so, Fed lived up to the hype placed on him once Nadal was out of the picture, and Fed deserved #1 again. Murray didn't live up to any hype poured on him.

Irrelevant. Federer is number 1 because of Nadal's injury. He even said so himself. It doesn't matter whether or not he took full advantage. He is there because Rafa was injured, just as Murray is at number 2 because Rafa was injured. Nadal lost a shitload of points through injury. Both Murray and Federer gained enough points to take advantage of the points Nadal dropped. Like I said, you can't have it both ways. Stop pretending as though Federer has earned that spot, while Murray is the sole benefit of Nadal's injury. It's completely false and anyone with an ounce of sense knows it is. They "both took advantage", to quote Federer.

n8
08-22-2009, 01:07 PM
13 guys he played Soderling twice.

Nice pick up!

Sofonda Cox
08-22-2009, 01:11 PM
Simon Reed = several of the Murray fanatic accounts on MTF

NicolasKiefer44
08-22-2009, 01:24 PM
Irrelevant. Federer is number 1 because of Nadal's injury. He even said so himself. It doesn't matter whether or not he took full advantage. He is there because Rafa was injured, just as Murray is at number 2 because Rafa was injured. Nadal lost a shitload of points through injury. Both Murray and Federer gained enough points to take advantage of the points Nadal dropped. Like I said, you can't have it both ways. Stop pretending as though Federer has earned that spot, while Murray is the sole benefit of Nadal's injury. It's completely false and anyone with an ounce of sense knows it is. They "both took advantage", to quote Federer.

Goodness you are quite pent up. Maybe if you accept that Fed WON in Nadal's absence, and Murray LOST, you could see clearly.

Winning and inheriting vs. LOSING and inheriting.

andylovesaustin
08-22-2009, 01:30 PM
Irrelevant. Federer is number 1 because of Nadal's injury. He even said so himself. It doesn't matter whether or not he took full advantage. He is there because Rafa was injured, just as Murray is at number 2 because Rafa was injured. Nadal lost a shitload of points through injury. Both Murray and Federer gained enough points to take advantage of the points Nadal dropped. Like I said, you can't have it both ways. Stop pretending as though Federer has earned that spot, while Murray is the sole benefit of Nadal's injury. It's completely false and anyone with an ounce of sense knows it is. They "both took advantage", to quote Federer.


Man, I don't even believe I am defending Roger.

I like Rafa and everything. And it's really nice both Roger and Andy Murray defer to Rafa's injury. That's really polite of them, but unnecessary, I think.

I just don't agree Rafa's injury had anything to do with Roger's success and does not take away from Federer's accomplishment. Roger made it to the finals of the AO, and barely lost. It's not like Rafa blew him off the court. And then sure Soderling took Rafa out at the French. But Soderling went on to make it to the finals. Soderling was playing very well, but didn't have enough to really challenge Roger when it counted. Soderling may have even beaten Rafa with or without "injury." Rafa pulled-out of Wimby, but Roger still had to make it to the final. As far as Wimby, Federer won in 5 sets against Andy Roddick. Roger created his own destiny in spite of Rafa's injury. "What if" doesn't really account for much, in my opinion.

Regarding the article, I cannot believe this writer would even be saying this bs. I mean.. c'mon if this were one of Williams' sisters or Pete Sampras, I don't think he'd be writing this kind of nonsense. I mean, if one of the Williams' sisters had Roger's success but didn't win another tournament, he'd be saying one them would be the true #1! How can any writer--regardless of the circumstances.. regardless of Rafa's injury dismiss Roger's accomplishments as being just a matter of luck, not giving him any credit for coming through when others couldn't. I mean, Roger won the French and Wimby this year: how many players have managed to do that? My goodness, for Roger to even make it to finals of all of these grand slams is an accomplishment enough. But then for him to win 2 out of three, barely losing the AO in the fifth, and not considered the true #1 in the world after taking some time off for the birth of his kids? Look at him now: he's in the semis.

My goodness, Roger nearly always comes through even in lesser tournaments. He's pretty much of a sure thing even when he's not feeling well. You can't say that for a lot of players--most of the players.

Roger is the "true" #1. Why would anybody even suggest Andy Murray to be the "true" #1? just based on his play for the last couple of months. Apparently, Andy does pretty well in best 2 out of 3 sets. But when it comes to 5 sets in grand slam matches, it's another story.

In his defense though, Andy Murray is #2 in spite of Rafa's injury. Rafa's injury is his reality. So it is what it is.
All credit to Andy Murray for getting the points. If Rafa could have stayed #1 or #2, he would have, but he couldn't do it for whatever reason.

NicolasKiefer44
08-22-2009, 01:33 PM
AndylovesAustin, thanks. Good reply!

Saya-nee-sama
08-22-2009, 01:38 PM
OMFG! this is just the best article EVER. This guy is a pure genius! of course A.M is the true number one!! Nadal and federer are irrelevant because ummmm Montréal> Australian open or (wimby + RG). this is ooooobvious! I like this guy very much. (L)

Dougie
08-22-2009, 01:39 PM
Oh, a final in which he got owned by Federer. So all of this is based on one match? There have been bigger beatdowns in major finals than the one Fed dished out last year. Indeed, two slams prior to that, Federer had been on the receiving end of one of the most one-sided major final losses in history. That didn't stop him winning the French a year later, did it? That's one idiotic argument dealt with.

A loss to Roddick in the semis of Wimbledon? Is this the same Roddick whom Federer failed to break once until 14-15 in the 5th set of the final that took place two days later? The same Roddick who likely would have beaten Federer had he not choked in the 2nd set tiebreak? Your arguments are becoming more and more desperate.

Also, you do realise that the US Open is a tennis tournament, just like Montreal, Cinci, Miami, etc? It's more prestigious and is over 5 sets, but it's still a tennis tournament. They do not implement different rules and play an entirely different sport at Flushing Meadows. It's a tennis tournament. If Federer can be beaten by Murray on 4 different hardcourts since the USO final, he can be beaten this year at the USO.

And people bring up Federer's mono from 2008 constantly. Are you kidding me? No one is allowed to forget it. What people don't realise is that Federer didn't have mono during the Australian Open. He had it before the Australian Open. Lack of practice was his excuse, due to being sidelined with mono. He was not competing with mono. Murray was competing with a virus during this year's Australian Open.


Itīs not based on one match. The fact is that thatīs the only match between the two at GSīs because Murray constantly fails to make it far enough to play Federer. Federerīs FO finals against Nadal are a different matter. Itīs not likely he would have beaten Nadal at RG these year either had he played against him. Just like itīs not likely for Murray to beat Fed at US OPen. Weīre talking about match-ups here.

I do realise US OPen is just a tournament, but some players play their best tennis at the biggest tournaments, some not. Federer is one of the former ones, Murray, until now, hasnīt proven that he is. Mentally, there is a difference between tournaments.

As for mono, if youīve ever had one, you know it takes a long time to heal properly, lack of practice wasnīt Federerīs only result from having mono, he was still weak. Anyway, my point was that itīs ridiciolous that someone illnesses are a proper reason and someone elseīs not.

peribsen
08-22-2009, 01:56 PM
Being nr 1-2-3... is not the same as being overall best, second-best, third-best, etc. Ranking is only about form in the last 12 months. In that sense, Murray could be a candidate for nr1, though Federer has achieved more and therefore deserves it more. But if we talk of global quality, Murray is nowhere close to Roger and has still not proven he can really equal Rafa. Murray may have potential, but he hasnīt really achieved much out of it. If Rafa makes the Cinci finals, it will be his 6th final out of 10 senior tournaments played in 2009 so far (3 GS and 7 MS1000), of which he has already won 4, compared to Murray's 2.

andylovesaustin
08-22-2009, 02:04 PM
Being nr 1-2-3... is not the same as being overall best, second-best, third-best, etc. Ranking is only about form in the last 12 months. In that sense, Murray could be a candidate for nr1, though Federer has achieved more and therefore deserves it more. But if we talk of global quality, Murray is nowhere close to Roger and has still not proven he can really equal Rafa. Murray may have potential, but he hasnīt really achieved much out of it. If Rafa makes the Cinci finals, it will be his 6th final out of 10 senior tournaments played in 2009 so far (3 GS and 7 MS1000), of which he has already won 4, compared to Murray's 2.

Ok wait... Roger has "achieved" more. But Andy Murray is still a good candidate for #1? I think Andy's ranking is just where it should be, reflecting his play and his success.

What is going-on? Why are people all hyped about Andy Murray right now just based on a few tournaments? Where was he at the AO? Where was he at the French? Where was he at Wimby?

He may have had a virus at the AO. Ok fine. But what happened at the French and Wimby? Where was he: watching the finals from the sidelines. In fact, all of the top players were watching lesser ranked players "contend" for the championship. Only Roger made it through. People should give the guy credit for a little something.

peribsen
08-22-2009, 02:39 PM
Ok wait... Roger has "achieved" more. But Andy Murray is still a good candidate for #1? I think Andy's ranking is just where it should be, reflecting his play and his success.

You've missread me (or I have failed to make myself clear), since I agree with you. What I was trying to say is that, although Murray's form in the past 12 months has been outstanding, so that he deserves being nr2 and his hopes of reaching nr1 is perfectly reasonable, that has little to do with his over-all quality. There is plenty of hype around Murray, who may some day prove himself worthy of it (I hope he does, for the good of the sport and because I feel friendly towards him), but who has still never really made it. As for who is presently nr 1, it is obviously Fed, because he has achieved more (much, much more) the past 12 months.

andylovesaustin
08-22-2009, 02:54 PM
You've missread me (or I have failed to make myself clear), since I agree with you. What I was trying to say is that, although Murray's form in the past 12 months has been outstanding, so that he deserves being nr2 and his hopes of reaching nr1 is perfectly reasonable, that has little to do with his over-all quality. There is plenty of hype around Murray, who may some day prove himself worthy of it (I hope he does, for the good of the sport and because I feel friendly towards him), but who has still never really made it. As for who is presently nr 1, it is obviously Fed, because he has achieved more (much, much more) the past 12 months.

Oh.. thanks for the clarification! I just misunderstood your original post.

Andy Murray has a lot of which to be proud. And I definitely think he's a contender for #1 along with Rafa. But yeah, I agree with you Roger is the "true" #1!

These writers make me so mad sometimes. I mean.. like with the Williams sisters. In the past (I'm not sure about now) writers have said Serena is the true #1, for example, based upon her grand slam success even though she might be ranked lower because she doesn't necessarily do well in "lesser" tournaments. I LOVE the Williams sisters, so yeah maybe I can see the point. It seems that the Williams sisters can do well in grand slams events.. somehow rising to the occasion, but not always in lesser events--or not even playing lesser events. So what's up with the rest of the field not rising to the occasion when it matters most?

Oh... but with Roger.. the guy is contending most always making it to the quarters, semis of finals in lesser events AND also does very well in grand slams obviously, but he's not the true #1? Oh please, get the heck out of here, ya know?

I mean.. these writers can't have it both ways, ya know? I do not understand how somebody can criticize Roger like that. What more can the guy do? He might not win every. single. tournament. he enters, but at least he participates AND HE'S A CONTENDER IN MOST ALL OF THEM. And when it counts in grand slams, he's there in the final winning more often than not when other top players can't even seem to make it. If that isn't a true #1 player, I don't know what is.

Ruxii
08-22-2009, 03:02 PM
If Murray is the true no.1, then tennis is going down.:rolleyes:

angry1
08-22-2009, 04:20 PM
If Murray is the true no.1, then tennis is going down.:rolleyes:

He isn't and it isn't.

Clydey
08-22-2009, 04:42 PM
Oh.. thanks for the clarification! I just misunderstood your original post.

Andy Murray has a lot of which to be proud. And I definitely think he's a contender for #1 along with Rafa. But yeah, I agree with you Roger is the "true" #1!

These writers make me so mad sometimes. I mean.. like with the Williams sisters. In the past (I'm not sure about now) writers have said Serena is the true #1, for example, based upon her grand slam success even though she might be ranked lower because she doesn't necessarily do well in "lesser" tournaments. I LOVE the Williams sisters, so yeah maybe I can see the point. It seems that the Williams sisters can do well in grand slams events.. somehow rising to the occasion, but not always in lesser events--or not even playing lesser events. So what's up with the rest of the field not rising to the occasion when it matters most?

Oh... but with Roger.. the guy is contending most always making it to the quarters, semis of finals in lesser events AND also does very well in grand slams obviously, but he's not the true #1? Oh please, get the heck out of here, ya know?

I mean.. these writers can't have it both ways, ya know? I do not understand how somebody can criticize Roger like that. What more can the guy do? He might not win every. single. tournament. he enters, but at least he participates AND HE'S A CONTENDER IN MOST ALL OF THEM. And when it counts in grand slams, he's there in the final winning more often than not when other top players can't even seem to make it. If that isn't a true #1 player, I don't know what is.

You misundertood me, too. You replied to me as though I was defeng the author of the article. In fact, I was having a separate argument with someone, regarding how Roger and Murray are at 1 and 2 because Nadal was out injured.

Burrow
08-22-2009, 04:43 PM
Uh...tennis has been going down for years now.

andylovesaustin
08-22-2009, 04:52 PM
You misundertood me, too. You replied to me as though I was defeng the author of the article. In fact, I was having a separate argument with someone, regarding how Roger and Murray are at 1 and 2 because Nadal was out injured.

No, I just didn't agree with you, and I didn't agree with this Reed person! :lol:

I'm a huge fan of Rafa's, but his "injury" is his reality. As I said, Rafa playing or not, Roger had to get to the finals and go on to win!

Being injured is part of the game. It does impact whether or not a player can live up to his potential. Nobody cut Guga any slack because his hip injury effectively ended his career, for example. In fact, it was amazing he could win a few matches in spite of his injury, but he was never the same, ya know? Bad luck for Guga, but that doesn't mean other players didn't have to create their own success. :shrug:

So like I said, it's just part of Rafa's reality. I sure hope he comes back. But still Roger had to do his part to win, so I can't take anything away from Roger.

P.S. I'll edit my original response to you to make it clearer because I can see how it's confusing.

Corey Feldman
08-22-2009, 06:55 PM
If Murray is the true no.1, then tennis is going down.:rolleyes:

Uh...tennis has been going down for years now.funny how tennis sucks when your faves are not good enough to win anymore

:lol:

Chiseller
08-22-2009, 06:57 PM
It's shocking that he actually gets paid for that.

Clydey
08-22-2009, 07:05 PM
No, I just didn't agree with you, and I didn't agree with this Reed person! :lol:

I'm a huge fan of Rafa's, but his "injury" is his reality. As I said, Rafa playing or not, Roger had to get to the finals and go on to win!

Being injured is part of the game. It does impact whether or not a player can live up to his potential. Nobody cut Guga any slack because his hip injury effectively ended his career, for example. In fact, it was amazing he could win a few matches in spite of his injury, but he was never the same, ya know? Bad luck for Guga, but that doesn't mean other players didn't have to create their own success. :shrug:

So like I said, it's just part of Rafa's reality. I sure hope he comes back. But still Roger had to do his part to win, so I can't take anything away from Roger.

P.S. I'll edit my original response to you to make it clearer because I can see how it's confusing.

Yes, but you can't say that Murray benefited from Nadal's injury, while Federer didn't. They both benefited.

Chiakifug
08-22-2009, 08:43 PM
World #1 def Real #1 6-2 7-6

angry1
08-22-2009, 08:51 PM
World #1 def Real #1 6-2 7-6

Nice when every ATP player in your sig has a losing record against Murray that someone else steps up for you.

Chiakifug
08-22-2009, 09:18 PM
Nice when every ATP player in your sig has a losing record against Murray that someone else steps up for you.

Its great isnt it! Almost as nice as Murray losing again. :p But i dont have to change to subject to try and annoy you, ill keep it to that nice result. :D

tennis2tennis
08-22-2009, 09:25 PM
Ok wait... Roger has "achieved" more. But Andy Murray is still a good candidate for #1? I think Andy's ranking is just where it should be, reflecting his play and his success.

What is going-on? Why are people all hyped about Andy Murray right now just based on a few tournaments? Where was he at the AO? Where was he at the French? Where was he at Wimby?

He may have had a virus at the AO. Ok fine. But what happened at the French and Wimby? Where was he: watching the finals from the sidelines. In fact, all of the top players were watching lesser ranked players "contend" for the championship. Only Roger made it through. People should give the guy credit for a little something.
:worship::worship::worship::worship:


thank you....

people always forget about the concept of being in it to win it...and roger's done that time and again

danieln1
08-22-2009, 10:21 PM
Yeah, the "true world number 1" showed his real ranking... now this article became even more ridiculous! :haha: :haha:

It was only a matter of time that Roger would play decent against Andy, he just need to attack whatever Andy throws at him, usually pushing...

mikkemus23
08-22-2009, 10:26 PM
lol
you need to see AA simon

andylovesaustin
08-22-2009, 11:13 PM
Yes, but you can't say that Murray benefited from Nadal's injury, while Federer didn't. They both benefited.

I didn't say Murray benefitted from Nadal's injury, did I? :confused:

I just think Rafa's injury is what it is--or was what it was.

Murray was able to surpass Rafa, so there it is. It's not like Murray didn't work-off his behind to surpass Rafa. Murray deserves his ranking, don't ya think?

I mean.. like with Guga.. Guga was a great clay courter.. talented.. But his hip gave out. Did other players take advantage of that? I guess. I remember seeing Robredo(sp??) drop-shoting Guga all over the place in one match! :lol: Did it bug me.. yeah, but Robredo(sp??) wanted to win. What was he supposed to do? Allow Guga to get into the match? No, Robredo won on his own terms. That's just the way it is. Does that mean Guga is less talented? No, but his body did not allow him to succeed--or fulfill his potential. But does that mean the other players should thank their lucky stars? Well... they have to step up to the plate either way.

At Wimby, Roger could have easily lost to Andy Roddick due to nerves or something because we all know Roger is the more talented of the two. But Roger did not allow his nerves to get the better of him. Roger could have fallen apart due to the expectations of him, ya know? But he rose to the occasion and won.

So.. I just think one cannot change the reality of a situation. I mean, Rafa well if his body cannot allow him to fulfill his potential, having the talent.. is better than nothing because he's going to beat most players! :lol: But.. then again..it's just one of those things.

I think Andy Murray and Roger deserve credit for their rankings. Of course, if Rafa wins tonight.. well.. then..he might be back!

Yippy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:yippee:

FedFan_2007
08-22-2009, 11:19 PM
andylovesaustin - I can see you just won't quit it with your drop shot nonsense. Federer only hit like 3-4 in the match.

andylovesaustin
08-22-2009, 11:26 PM
andylovesaustin - I can see you just won't quit it with your drop shot nonsense. Federer only hit like 3-4 in the match.

:confused:

And I see you still can't take a joke! :) (Did I say "dropshot" in this thread? You're such a transparent baiter. Is that your "job" on this forum?)

Anyway, my CURRENT nickname for him is El Maestro. Dropshot is a thing of the past!

Besides, who cares what I call Roger? Do you really care as long as he wins? Roger=WINNER=FAVORITE=undisputed heavy-weight champion= undisputed #1 in the world=GOAT. What more do you want?

GayBury
08-23-2009, 12:40 AM
Glad to see that Federer made Reed land ass-crack first on top of his real world-number 1.

Tutu
08-23-2009, 01:01 AM
:lol: Toronto and Miami. :inlove: Real no.1

Chiakifug
09-08-2009, 10:23 PM
:spit:

Jaz
09-08-2009, 10:28 PM
Oh dear.... Foolish article, the guy should be sacked.

robinhood
09-08-2009, 11:30 PM
:lol:

habibko
09-09-2009, 12:52 AM
:rolls: