~Murray merely the #6 player of 09..[Fed, Rafa, Delpo, Nole, Koyla]? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

~Murray merely the #6 player of 09..[Fed, Rafa, Delpo, Nole, Koyla]?

CmonAussie
10-11-2009, 12:01 PM
<<<<<<((()))>>>>>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aside from the rankings, which are mostly accurate, just looking at who performed the best in 2009-- here`s my Top-10:

1. Fed [2 slams, 2 slam finals, 2 MS]
2. Rafa [1 slam, 3 MS, 2 other finals]
3. Delpo [1 slam, 2 other titles]
4. Nole [5 titles, 4 MS finals, 1 other final]
5. Koyla [5 titles, 1 WTF, 1 MS]
6. Muzza [5 titles (2 MS), 1 other final]
7. Tsonga [3 titles]
8. Roddick [1 title, Wimby final, 1 other final]
9. Soderling [1 title, FO final]
10. Verdasco [1 title, 2 other final, AO SF]
....
=====
So after all the hype about Murray potentially being the next #1, and favorite to win AO & Wimby, it seems he`ll finish the year as only the #5 player..!! Do you agree??

Clydey
10-11-2009, 12:04 PM
<<<<<<((()))>>>>>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aside from the rankings, which are mostly accurate, just looking at who performed the best in 2009-- here`s my Top-10:

1. Fed [2 slams, 2 slam finals, 2 MS]
2. Rafa [1 slam, 3 MS, 2 other finals]
3. Delpo [1 slam, 2 other titles]
4. Nole [3 titles, 4 MS finals, 1 other final]
5. Muzza [5 titles (2 MS), 2 other final]
6. Tsonga [3 titles]
7. PMK [3 titles]
8. Roddick [1 title, Wimby final, 1 other final]
9. Soderling [1 title, FO final]
10. Verdasco [1 title, 2 other final, AO SF]
....
=====
So after all the hype about Murray potentially being the next #1, and favorite to win AO & Wimby, it seems he`ll finish the year as only the #5 player..!! Do you agree:confused:

So Murray is behind Nole, despite winning more titles (two of which were Masters Series titles)?

CmonAussie
10-11-2009, 12:07 PM
So Murray is behind Nole, despite winning more titles (two of which were Masters Series titles)?
...
close call between Muzza & Nole, but Djoko performed better at the slams, reached more finals, and reclaimed the #3 ranking ahead of Muzza [also Beijing & Dubai are almost as big as MS events];)

Goldenoldie
10-11-2009, 12:09 PM
If Murray does nothing the rest of the season, then yes. If he does well in Paris and WTF then he is #4 or possibly #3 depending how Del Potro's slam is regarded.

I am happy to follow the ATP rankings whatever they show.

Cloudygirl
10-11-2009, 12:10 PM
...
close call between Muzza & Nole, but Djoko performed better at the slams, reached more finals, and reclaimed the #3 ranking ahead of Muzza [also Beijing & Dubai are almost as big as MS events];)


since when

jonathancrane
10-11-2009, 12:11 PM
...
close call between Muzza & Nole, but Djoko performed better at the slams, reached more finals, and reclaimed the #3 ranking ahead of Muzza [also Beijing & Dubai are almost as big as MS events];)

Get ready for the storm :D

Dini
10-11-2009, 12:13 PM
I'm no Muzza fan but that list is flawed big time.

Har-Tru
10-11-2009, 12:14 PM
Murray above Nole.

CmonAussie
10-11-2009, 12:18 PM
If Murray does nothing the rest of the season, then yes. If he does well in Paris and WTF then he is #4 or possibly #3 depending how Del Potro's slam is regarded.

I am happy to follow the ATP rankings whatever they show.

:wavey:
OK i think we agree.. if Murray wins either Paris or London then he`ll be ahead of Nole for sure:cool:
Just at the moment, considering Nole`s superior play in the slams, more finals and good record on all 3 surfaces, #3 ranking, plus he`s the reigning Masters Cup champ>> then he`s still ahead of Muzza;)

Cloudygirl
10-11-2009, 12:20 PM
:wavey:
OK i think we agree.. if Murray wins either Paris or London then he`ll be ahead of Nole for sure:cool:
Just at the moment, considering Nole`s superior play in the slams, more finals and good record on all 3 surfaces, #3 ranking, plus he`s the reigning Masters Cup champ>> then he`s still ahead of Muzza;)

that was 2008. This thread asks who performed best in 09.

KaiserT
10-11-2009, 12:22 PM
:retard:

anon57
10-11-2009, 12:28 PM
:wavey:
OK i think we agree.. if Murray wins either Paris or London then he`ll be ahead of Nole for sure:cool:
Just at the moment, considering Nole`s superior play in the slams, more finals and good record on all 3 surfaces, #3 ranking, plus he`s the reigning Masters Cup champ>> then he`s still ahead of Muzza;)

Don't think Nole play was that much better that Murray's Djokovic has 1SF, 2QF and a 3R in the GS while Murray has 1SF, 1QF and 2 4R. Murray's performance may seem worse because more was expected of him at the GS but Djokovic GS weren't really great either this year. I don't think there's much separating them so far this year and it'll depend on what they do for the remainder of the season.

CmonAussie
10-11-2009, 12:32 PM
Don't think Nole play was that much better that Murray's Djokovic has 1SF, 2QF and a 3R in the GS while Murray has 1SF, 1QF and 2 4R. Murray's performance may seem worse because more was expected of him at the GS but Djokovic GS weren't really great either this year. I don't think there's much separating them so far this year and it'll depend on what they do for the remainder of the season.


:wavey:
Yes its true, the last few events of 2009 will help sort out #3, #4 & #5.. Though considering Delpo won a slam he`ll be considered the pseudo #3 anyway.
>>Djoko is just ahead of Muzza on the Entry Rankings, and Muzza is just ahead of Djoko on the Race Points. But with Murray out of Shanghai its a big opportunity for Djokovic to pass him in the race points too [he just needs to reach the QF]..!!

out_here_grindin
10-11-2009, 02:22 PM
Djokovic better at slams? Losing to Kohlschrieber at the French as the 2nd favorite?

born_on_clay
10-11-2009, 02:26 PM
Some more tournaments to go, so too early to judge right now

Clydey
10-11-2009, 02:36 PM
...
close call between Muzza & Nole, but Djoko performed better at the slams, reached more finals, and reclaimed the #3 ranking ahead of Muzza [also Beijing & Dubai are almost as big as MS events];)

Actually, they both performed about the same at the slams. Murray outperformed Djokovic at the French and Wimbledon, while Djokovic outperformed Murray at the US and the AO.

And no, those tournaments are not almost as big as MS events. That's nonsense. The field isn't as strong, for a start. There's a reason Nole won those events, yet has struggle to win another Masters crown. You're kidding yourself on if you think they are even remotely comparable as achievements.

Lurking
10-11-2009, 03:03 PM
1. Fed [2 slams, 2 slam finals, 2 MS]
2. Rafa [1 slam, 3 MS, 2 other finals]
3. Delpo [1 slam, 2 other titles]
4. Nole [3 titles, 4 MS finals, 1 other final]
5. Muzza [5 titles (2 MS), 2 other finals]
6. Tsonga [3 titles]
7. PMK [3 titles]
8. Roddick [1 title, Wimby final, 1 other final]
9. Soderling [1 title, FO final]
10. Verdasco [1 title, 2 other final, AO SF]
....


When you've finished debating whether Murray's justifiably ahead of Djokovic let's get to the most outrageous call on that list.

Roddick's won one title this year, the Memphis 500 event, which is equal to Davydenko's 500 win in Hamburg and Tsonga's 500 win in Japan. That means, he's claiming that a Wimbledon final and an AO SF is worth less than either a RG or Wimbledon QF and 2 250 titles.

I can kind of understand the line of thought, even if I'd disagree, but for someone who later on goes onto cite having one GS QF more than another player is significant it's preposterous.

Burrow
10-11-2009, 03:10 PM
Murray has reached 1 other final, not 2.

CmonAussie
10-11-2009, 03:33 PM
When you've finished debating whether Murray's justifiably ahead of Djokovic let's get to the most outrageous call on that list.

Roddick's won one title this year, the Memphis 500 event, which is equal to Davydenko's 500 win in Hamburg and Tsonga's 500 win in Japan. That means, he's claiming that a Wimbledon final and an AO SF is worth less than either a RG or Wimbledon QF and 2 250 titles.

I can kind of understand the line of thought, even if I'd disagree, but for someone who later on goes onto cite having one GS QF more than another player is significant it's preposterous.


:wavey:
Right you are Lurking:cool:, "preposterous" I am:devil:
~~~
However, i expect Nole is going to win one of the remaining big tourneys [maybe next week in Shanghai], while Murray won`t.. Then many people & the YE rankings will agree with me that Djoko had a better 09 than Muzza [but we have to wait a few weeks]..;)

Regarding the ranking of Roddick, its hard to place him.. We know with his experience & monster serve he`s always going to be a threat at Wimby, and he played maybe the match of his life in this years final. If he had won it he`d be in the running for #3 player of the year.. alas he lost that epic 16-14 final set. I think the standard we expect from Roddick, esp at Wimby, is higher than someoene like Davydenko. PMK`s short stature alone means that its much harder for him to give himself chances to win slams.. So coming back from injury to win 3 titles this year was an amazing effort from Davy.. Whereas Roddick has has some really bad losses, esp since Wimby.. So I put PMK above him. Still I don`t expect everyone to agree with me;)

Sapeod
10-11-2009, 04:02 PM
Stupid.

Murray is third, Delpoo and Fakervic are behind him, just.

Slams aren't everything...

delpiero7
10-11-2009, 04:43 PM
Stupid.

Murray is third, Delpoo and Fakervic are behind him, just.

Slams aren't everything...


1 slam (fluke or otherwise) + 1 250MM + 1 500MM > 2 AMS + 2 250MMs + 1 500MM

:wavey:

rocketassist
10-11-2009, 04:47 PM
Two days off MTF and the clowns still run amok.

Sapeod
10-11-2009, 04:49 PM
1 slam (fluke or otherwise) + 1 250MM + 1 500MM > 2 AMS + 2 250MMs + 1 500MM

:wavey:
And what you are saying in this post is really 2750 pts > 3000 pts :retard: and 3 titles > 5 titles :cuckoo:

Look at the rankings you clown :wavey:

Murray is almost 2000 points above Delo Potro (that's a GS above him), hence he has been the better player over 52 weeks (a year) :wavey:

More points in the race as well :wavey:

delpiero7
10-11-2009, 05:05 PM
And what you are saying in this post is really 2750 pts > 3000 pts :retard: and 3 titles > 5 titles :cuckoo:

Look at the rankings you clown :wavey:

Murray is almost 2000 points above Delo Potro (that's a GS above him), hence he has been the better player over 52 weeks (a year) :wavey:

More points in the race as well :wavey:

OK, so if Murray were asked if he preferred a year where he could win 2 AMS, 2 250s and 1 500 over a year where he could win 1 GS, 1 250 and 1 500, you think he'd go with the former? Strange decision if so.

I see that Murray is 240 points or so above DP in 2009 (which is what this thread is about, not the previous 52 weeks), so you're correct in that respect.

If Del Potro puts in a decent showing in Shanghai then he will overtake Murray in the race, with both players having missed a Masters event.

Oh, forgot to add a :wavey: ;)

DJ Soup
10-11-2009, 05:08 PM
And what you are saying in this post is really 2750 pts > 3000 pts :retard: and 3 titles > 5 titles :cuckoo:

Look at the rankings you clown :wavey:

Murray is almost 2000 points above Delo Potro (that's a GS above him), hence he has been the better player over 52 weeks (a year) :wavey:

More points in the race as well :wavey:

and there was a time you said he was the "real number 1"

shut up dude

Sapeod
10-11-2009, 05:17 PM
OK, so if Murray were asked if he preferred a year where he could win 2 AMS, 2 250s and 1 500 over a year where he could win 1 GS, 1 250 and 1 500, you think he'd go with the former? Strange decision if so.

I see that Murray is 240 points or so above DP in 2009 (which is what this thread is about, not the previous 52 weeks), so you're correct in that respect.

If Del Potro puts in a decent showing in Shanghai then he will overtake Murray in the race, with both players having missed a Masters event.

Oh, forgot to add a :wavey: ;)
Delpoo will indeed go ahead of Murray in the race, as well as Djokovic, but if Murray makes a good showing in Valencia, Paris and YEC, then he could get his no.4 ranking back at least...

Sapeod
10-11-2009, 05:18 PM
and there was a time you said he was the "real number 1"

shut up dude
I never said that. I said he could be no.1 someday.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Arkulari
10-11-2009, 05:23 PM
I think Juan is ahead of Muzza simply because winning a Slam is more important than countless other tournaments :shrug:
Muzza should be ahead of Nole, because he has more titles and more important ones (2MS)

1. Roger
2. Rafa
3. Juan
4. Muzza
5. Nole

:)

betowiec
10-11-2009, 05:35 PM
my mistake, seems you are right

I think Juan is ahead of Muzza simply because winning a Slam is more important than countless other tournaments :shrug:
Muzza should be ahead of Nole, because he has more titles and more important ones (2MS)

1. Roger
2. Rafa
3. Juan
4. Muzza
5. Nole

:)

you are contradicting yourself

okay for delpo to be ahead of muzza
but not okay for nole to be ahead of muzza????

delpiero7
10-11-2009, 05:39 PM
you are contradicting yourself

okay for delpo to be ahead of muzza
but not okay for nole to be ahead of muzza????

Delpo's best win has been a slam
Murray's best win has been an AMS (x2)
Djokovic's best win has been a 500 (x2)

I don't see where he/she has contradicted themselves.

CmonAussie
10-11-2009, 06:50 PM
...
Well clearly we have to wait a few weeks to find out who should be #3, #4, #5... but i have a feeling that many more people will agree with me [that Nole is ahead of Muzza] by years end! Expecting Djoko to finish 2009 in style~ winning Shanghai next week would be good(-:

Mechlan
10-11-2009, 07:29 PM
Delpo's best win has been a slam
Murray's best win has been an AMS (x2)
Djokovic's best win has been a 500 (x2)

I don't see where he/she has contradicted themselves.

Yep. The rankings are accurate. That said, titles always preferred over runner-ups. Del Potro's slam makes his season better than Murray and Djokovic's. Murray next because of his MS titles. Djokovic has rarely come up with a big prize this year. Still enough time left for Djokovic to overtake Murray though.

betowiec
10-11-2009, 08:53 PM
Delpo's best win has been a slam
Murray's best win has been an AMS (x2)
Djokovic's best win has been a 500 (x2)

I don't see where he/she has contradicted themselves.

my fault(2009 only)

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-11-2009, 09:32 PM
Is Murray the only loser in the top 5 without a GS :confused:

So logically Murray the girl is the worst of the top 5 :wavey:

Aaric
10-11-2009, 09:35 PM
I´ll try to explain it
Nole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray :p
Seriously guys, no comparison between that pusher and Novak :o

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-11-2009, 09:37 PM
I´ll try to explain it
Nole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray :p
Seriously guys, no comparison between that pusher and Novak :o

Every sane mature (ie not a child) person knows this

Andi-M
10-11-2009, 09:38 PM
It is not fair to say Murray is the 5th best player this year, but he is certainly no more than 3rd best player this year i'd persoally say he's 4th. he showed tons of promise early doors, but since Wimbledon he has been losing points.
Why?

1. His level of play has dropped. 1st serve not as consitant as it was early season, lack of power on the FH, and poor tactics in some matches.

2.He has had tendonitits in left wrist for i dunno how long, he was having problems before and during USO for sure.

3. he's not played any tournies in last few weeks whereas his closest rivals have.

rocketassist
10-11-2009, 09:39 PM
Real tennis fans don't support only GS winners, most on here need to fuck off to footie and support Man U, Liverpool or RM.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-11-2009, 09:41 PM
Real tennis fans don't support only GS winners, most on here need to fuck off to footie and support Man U, Liverpool or RM.

I am a fan of Monfils as well. I know he wont win a GS but I am not crazy enough to say he is a better player than Roddick.

1>0 no matter what your personal opinions.

leng jai
10-11-2009, 09:47 PM
I love DCM spewing this "slams aren't everything" bullshit even though he was 100% sure Murray would be the Wimbledon/US Open champ by now.

out_here_grindin
10-11-2009, 10:11 PM
I am a fan of Monfils as well. I know he wont win a GS but I am not crazy enough to say he is a better player than Roddick.

1>0 no matter what your personal opinions.

You would never know you are a Monfils fan because you hide that fact because he dosen't win slams.

rocketassist
10-11-2009, 11:00 PM
I am a fan of Monfils as well. I know he wont win a GS but I am not crazy enough to say he is a better player than Roddick.

1>0 no matter what your personal opinions.

Fakervic is greater than Murray career-wise yes, what's the deal?

paseo
10-12-2009, 02:00 AM
I am a fan of Monfils as well. I know he wont win a GS but I am not crazy enough to say he is a better player than Roddick.

1>0 no matter what your personal opinions.

And yet you always say that Nadal>Fed, despite the fact that Fed won more than twice the amount of Nadal GSs. :devil:

Sapeod
10-12-2009, 09:43 AM
I love DCM spewing this "slams aren't everything" bullshit even though he was 100% sure Murray would be the Wimbledon/US Open champ by now.
don't you some haasi buttlicking to attend to?

zcess81
10-12-2009, 10:14 AM
since when

Well, they are not as big as MS, but they are certainly higher end of 500 tournaments because most of the top players go there (due to prize money probably) so they are harder to win.

zcess81
10-12-2009, 10:20 AM
And what you are saying in this post is really 2750 pts > 3000 pts :retard: and 3 titles > 5 titles :cuckoo:

Look at the rankings you clown :wavey:

Murray is almost 2000 points above Delo Potro (that's a GS above him), hence he has been the better player over 52 weeks (a year) :wavey:

More points in the race as well :wavey:

Well, points aren't everything...for example, I'm sure if you ask most pros on tour what would they rather have 2-3 MS titles or 1 GS title, most would take 1 GS title. I'm sure Murray would take 1 gs title over 3 or even all his 4 MS titles imo.

Ace2008
10-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Shut the fuck up bitch
Andy has had a better year than the djoke. It's not even close. Miami is one of the most important tournament after the slams (if not the most). So keep your bullshits to yourself. Vole won a tournament (that nobody cares about) and sudenly you act like he did something amazing. Roddick had a better year than this moron (Wimbly final). Enough said

Sapeod
10-12-2009, 10:28 AM
Murray this year >>>>>>>>> Djokovic this year. No doubt about it.

zcess81
10-12-2009, 10:28 AM
Shut the fuck up bitch
Andy has had a better year than the djoke. It's not even close. Miami is one of the most important tournament after the slams (if not the most). So keep your bullshits to yourself. Vole won a tournament (that nobody cares about) and sudenly you act like he did something amazing. Roddick had a better year than this moron (Wimbly final). Enough said

Matter of opinion...all MS count the same, just like all GS count the same.

CmonAussie
10-12-2009, 10:50 AM
^^
Shut the fuck up bitch
Andy has had a better year than the djoke. It's not even close. Miami is one of the most important tournament after the slams (if not the most). So keep your bullshits to yourself. Vole won a tournament (that nobody cares about) and sudenly you act like he did something amazing. Roddick had a better year than this moron (Wimbly final). Enough said

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
~~~
Well when you put it so eloquently how can we disagree with you:p
Thanks for putting me in my place:devil:

BTW, are you Murray`s mum per chance:confused::p
[certainly i could understand your sentiments then:o]

Lurking
10-12-2009, 11:01 AM
Well, they are not as big as MS, but they are certainly higher end of 500 tournaments because most of the top players go there (due to prize money probably) so they are harder to win.

Dubai 08 with the 7 top players in the world at the time was as tough to win as an MS, so Roddick's win would definietly justify such comparisons.

Neither of Djokovic's wins have the same sort of luster, particularly the Dubai win this year where the field was just as strong as Rotterdam's and you could even make a case for the Doha field being as strong.

CmonAussie
10-15-2009, 05:22 PM
...
I see Djokovic has now passed Murray in the 2009 Race Points [as well as the Entry Ranking]. If Nole can win the tourney this week in Shanghai his case for the being the #4 best player [behind Fed, Rafa, Delpo] will improve!

rocketassist
10-15-2009, 05:24 PM
...
I see Djokovic has now passed Murray in the 2009 Race Points [as well as the Entry Ranking]. If Nole can win the tourney this week in Shanghai his case for the being the #4 best player [behind Fed, Rafa, Delp] will improve!

Big deal when Murray can't play any tennis, like.

CmonAussie
10-15-2009, 05:30 PM
Big deal when Murray can't play any tennis, like.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
mmm
Well Nadal couldn`t play Wimbledon, but he`s still #2:p
My point was just that all the Murray hype wasn`t justified since he`ll prob end the year as the #5 player;)

jcempire
10-15-2009, 06:19 PM
<<<<<<((()))>>>>>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aside from the rankings, which are mostly accurate, just looking at who performed the best in 2009-- here`s my Top-10:

1. Fed [2 slams, 2 slam finals, 2 MS]
2. Rafa [1 slam, 3 MS, 2 other finals]
3. Delpo [1 slam, 2 other titles]
4. Nole [3 titles, 4 MS finals, 1 other final]
5. Muzza [5 titles (2 MS), 1 other final]
6. Tsonga [3 titles]
7. PMK [3 titles]
8. Roddick [1 title, Wimby final, 1 other final]
9. Soderling [1 title, FO final]
10. Verdasco [1 title, 2 other final, AO SF]
....
=====
So after all the hype about Murray potentially being the next #1, and favorite to win AO & Wimby, it seems he`ll finish the year as only the #5 player..!! Do you agree??

IF Nadal plays Wim that could be different case

jcempire
10-15-2009, 06:20 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
mmm
Well Nadal couldn`t play Wimbledon, but he`s still #2:p
My point was just that all the Murray hype wasn`t justified since he`ll prob end the year as the #5 player;)

And He was only 75% in FO

Midnight Ninja
10-15-2009, 06:28 PM
While I do agree that Murray has had a better year than Djokovic, people really need to stop blaming injuries for decline.

Murray benefited in the same way Djokovic did now; he got to number 2 because Nadal was out. The same thing applied to Federer.

BUT as has been repeated time and again, injuries are a part of the game. If your body is weak or your playing style is stressful, that is what the result will reflect. There may be someone out there in the world who is better than all of them combined but that doesn't exactly help if they don't have the opportunity to play or are physically unwell. Hypotheticals mean diddly squat so even if Murray would have played there was no guarantee that he would proceed far or vice versa.

DrJules
10-15-2009, 06:48 PM
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3,4,5) Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro - little between them and happily go with the year end computer.

CmonAussie
11-15-2009, 06:09 AM
...
Nole`s great Fall continues: wins Beijing & Basel, SFs Shanghai, now Paris final..!!
#3

Mechlan
11-15-2009, 06:58 AM
Yep. The rankings are accurate. That said, titles always preferred over runner-ups. Del Potro's slam makes his season better than Murray and Djokovic's. Murray next because of his MS titles. Djokovic has rarely come up with a big prize this year. Still enough time left for Djokovic to overtake Murray though.

Still this.

DrJules
11-15-2009, 12:33 PM
1 Federer
2 Nadal
3 Djokovic
4 Murray
5 Del Potro

Will be very surprised if that is not the closing order.

jonas
11-15-2009, 01:42 PM
Shut the fuck up bitch
Andy has had a better year than the djoke. It's not even close. Miami is one of the most important tournament after the slams (if not the most). So keep your bullshits to yourself. Vole won a tournament (that nobody cares about) and sudenly you act like he did something amazing. Roddick had a better year than this moron (Wimbly final). Enough said

Well, Key Biscane was called the fifth slam in the 80s, when ALL matches was best of five sets and it had a 128 draw.
But today? Nah.

Black Adam
11-15-2009, 02:50 PM
Thread starter demonstrating once again that he isn't the brightest crayon in the box. Stupidity at its best. Davydenko and Tsonga have done squat this season whilst Roddick in june did more than they could ever hope to accomplish in their careers.

oranges
11-15-2009, 02:58 PM
Thread starter demonstrating once again that he isn't the brightest crayon in the box. Stupidity at its best. Davydenko and Tsonga have done squat this season whilst Roddick in june did more than they could ever hope to accomplish in their careers.

Really. Tsonga has already done that, so much for only hoping to ever achieve it. Davydenko could end up ahead of Roddick despite missing a good chunk of the season.

Black Adam
11-15-2009, 03:04 PM
Australia is a mickey mouse tournament. Anybody can make a final there. Wimbledon is as prestigious as it gets. Fixer will never see a grand slam final in his career fact.

oranges
11-15-2009, 03:23 PM
Australia is a mickey mouse tournament. Anybody can make a final there. Wimbledon is as prestigious as it gets. Fixer will never see a grand slam final in his career fact.

:rolleyes: If it were MM, I'm sure Roddick would have a couple in his collection

CmonAussie
11-15-2009, 04:26 PM
Australia is a mickey mouse tournament. Anybody can make a final there. Wimbledon is as prestigious as it gets. Fixer will never see a grand slam final in his career fact.

:eek::eek:
You`re quite funny Black Adam:sad:
...
"Australia is a MM tourney"~~:confused:
IRONIC mate> how your avatar is a photo of Roddick winning Kooyong Exhibition [now there`s pure MM for you]:p
~~~
BTW, Djokovic winning his 5th title of the year & almost certain to secure the Year End #3 spot for the 3rd year in a row [even Murray`s best year not good enough to finish in the Top-3];)

tangerine_dream
11-15-2009, 04:29 PM
:lol: It feels like it was just yesterday when the Muzz bragged that reaching number one was just within his reach and all he had to do was just hold his serve....

MrChopin
11-15-2009, 04:36 PM
:rolleyes: If it were MM, I'm sure Roddick would have a couple in his collection

Careful... it would have to be over the Summer and played on US soil.

DrJules
11-15-2009, 06:29 PM
:lol: It feels like it was just yesterday when the Muzz bragged that reaching number one was just within his reach and all he had to do was just hold his serve....

Most at the start of the year had Nadal as favourite to end the year number 1 with Federer a distant 2nd(Nadal could theoretically end the year number 1, but it is unlikely).

Murray was considered by most an outsider and it was only around Wimbledon when if matches went his way he was around 2 matches from being number 1.

Noleta
11-15-2009, 06:36 PM
:lol: It feels like it was just yesterday when the Muzz bragged that reaching number one was just within his reach and all he had to do was just hold his serve....

:spit:

Burrow
11-15-2009, 06:38 PM
Australia is a mickey mouse tournament. Anybody can make a final there. Wimbledon is as prestigious as it gets. Fixer will never see a grand slam final in his career fact.

thats why duck cant reach final there haha

Il Primo Uomo
11-15-2009, 07:01 PM
You're cute and all but how in the sam Hell is Nole above Murray? Seriously!

However, there's no doubt that Fido, Nadal and JMDP are above the pack.
Andy did disappoint this year. I hope he finally clinch that GS very soon.

Ichiban1920
11-15-2009, 07:08 PM
Australia is a mickey mouse tournament. Anybody can make a final there. Wimbledon is as prestigious as it gets. Fixer will never see a grand slam final in his career fact.

Yet Andy Rodmug hasn't been able to reach the final his entire career.

Pathetic.

Mechlan
11-16-2009, 02:26 AM
:lol: It feels like it was just yesterday when the Muzz bragged that reaching number one was just within his reach and all he had to do was just hold his serve....

You lie. :armed:

You're probably trolling, but just in case, quote?

Sunset of Age
11-16-2009, 02:40 AM
Most at the start of the year had Nadal as favourite to end the year number 1 with Federer a distant 2nd(Nadal could theoretically end the year number 1, but it is unlikely).

Murray was considered by most an outsider and it was only around Wimbledon when if matches went his way he was around 2 matches from being number 1.

Shouldn't all of this just tell how dangerous and most probably out-of-line any a prediction of the upcoming rankings indeed is? ;)
Truth is indeed a moving target, folks. :D

thrust
11-17-2009, 12:53 AM
You're cute and all but how in the sam Hell is Nole above Murray? Seriously!

However, there's no doubt that Fido, Nadal and JMDP are above the pack.
Andy did disappoint this year. I hope he finally clinch that GS very soon.

Check out the latest rankings! Slams: Nole-1, Murray-0

Filo V.
11-17-2009, 01:16 AM
Murray is definitely the #5 player of the year. Nadal, Federer and Del Potro won majors. Neither Murray nor Djokovic got to a major final, so then we have to look at what they have done in other events. Djokovic got to what, 5 MS finals? Didn't lose early in any of the MS. Just beat Federer in his backyard. So yes, Murray is the #5 player of the 2009 season.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 01:39 AM
Murray is definitely the #5 player of the year. Nadal, Federer and Del Potro won majors. Neither Murray nor Djokovic got to a major final, so then we have to look at what they have done in other events. Djokovic got to what, 5 MS finals? Didn't lose early in any of the MS. Just beat Federer in his backyard. So yes, Murray is the #5 player of the 2009 season.

He's the number 4 player until the rankings change. If Del Potro didn't gather enough points outside of the US Open to take over Murray, that's his own fault. Tennis is played throughout the whole year and is not just about the majors. The game wouldn't be worth watching if that wasn't the case.

Smoke944
11-17-2009, 01:44 AM
He's the number 4 player until the rankings change. If Del Potro didn't gather enough points outside of the US Open to take over Murray, that's his own fault. Tennis is played throughout the whole year and is not just about the majors. The game wouldn't be worth watching if that wasn't the case.

We're not talking about the rankings. And tennis is about the majors. If it wasn't then Del Potro wouldn't have had a better year.

Filo V.
11-17-2009, 01:50 AM
He's the number 4 player until the rankings change. If Del Potro didn't gather enough points outside of the US Open to take over Murray, that's his own fault. Tennis is played throughout the whole year and is not just about the majors. The game wouldn't be worth watching if that wasn't the case.

Some truth to your statement. However. The rankings don't always tell the facts of the story. Majors>anything else x2. Especially when you are in the top 5. And the US Open, which is probably Andy's best chance at a major, loses to Cilic, who then bombs out. Zero major finals. Djokovic with a higher ranking, more season wins, and better results at the MS outside of Andy's 2 wins. A major ALONE makes Del Potro's season better, because at the end of the day, he will be remembered as a grand slam champion this season and for his career, Andy's season will not be remembered in the history books, and Del Potro also came very close to potentially winning RG as well if he had beaten Roger, Murray was not really in a potentially winning position in any major. Majors/major tournaments are what players play for, and what Andy played for, and he for the most part failed.

Manon
11-17-2009, 01:57 AM
Cilic is not on the list??? He has to be. Myrray 4th, Novak 5th.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 03:55 AM
We're not talking about the rankings. And tennis is about the majors. If it wasn't then Del Potro wouldn't have had a better year.

Tennis is about the whole year, not just the majors. If we're basing ranking on major titles, Thomas Johansson should have leapfrogged to number 4 at the end of 2002. The same goes for Gaston Gaudio in 2004.

There's more to tennis than the majors. Doing it over 2 weeks is one thing, but having the consistency to do it over the course of a season is another. Many majors have been won by fairly ordinary players; therefore, consistency is equally significant.

Del Potro is the 5th best player in the world. No more and no less, until such time he moves up the rankings.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 04:11 AM
Some truth to your statement. However. The rankings don't always tell the facts of the story. Majors>anything else x2. Especially when you are in the top 5. And the US Open, which is probably Andy's best chance at a major, loses to Cilic, who then bombs out. Zero major finals. Djokovic with a higher ranking, more season wins, and better results at the MS outside of Andy's 2 wins. A major ALONE makes Del Potro's season better, because at the end of the day, he will be remembered as a grand slam champion this season and for his career, Andy's season will not be remembered in the history books, and Del Potro also came very close to potentially winning RG as well if he had beaten Roger, Murray was not really in a potentially winning position in any major. Majors/major tournaments are what players play for, and what Andy played for, and he for the most part failed.

What you are saying is irrelevant. Tennis is about consistency, not just the majors. Del Potro hasn't been as consistent as Murray. He was rewarded with 2000 points for winning the US Open. I think that's plenty. If that isn't sufficient to take him past Murray, that's his own fault for not being as consistent in the Masters events. It's silly to put so much emphasis on the majors. We might as well scrap the ranking system altogether and not bother with the other tournaments if we're going to start placing major winners at the top, above the more consistent performers. I can name you major winners who, in the past, would have had no real business being at the top of the rankings. It's not the be all and end all achievement most make it out to be. Some utterly nondescript players have claimed majors in the past.

Djokovic has had a better season than Murray because he has gathered more points. That is beyond dispute. However, Murray has certainly achieved more over the course of the season. Any way you look at it, 2 Masters title and 1 other final > 1 Masters title and 4 other finals. Djokovic would swap those finals for another shield. Also, he has more match wins because he has played more tournaments. Murray has a better winning percentage and, arguably, would still be at number 3 if not for injury.

That doesn't change the fact that Djokovic is number 3 because he has been the more consistent player. Murray benefited from Nadal's knee injury every bit as much as Djokivic benefited from Murray's wrist injury. However, if you're trying to base it on achievements for 2009, as you seem to be, there's only one going to be one winner.

djb84xi
11-17-2009, 04:19 AM
I think of Murray as No. 4 at best this year, because IMHO, he performed better than Djokovic for the entire year. Djokovic really only played his best during this year's fall season. I would say Federer, Nadal, DelPotro, Murray and then Djokovic, as far as the 5 top players this season.

CmonAussie
11-17-2009, 05:22 AM
Murray is definitely the #5 player of the year. Nadal, Federer and Del Potro won majors. Neither Murray nor Djokovic got to a major final, so then we have to look at what they have done in other events. Djokovic got to what, 5 MS finals? Didn't lose early in any of the MS. Just beat Federer in his backyard. So yes, Murray is the #5 player of the 2009 season.

:wavey:
Thank you flyboy:cool:, you seem to be the only one who agrees with me;)

Smoke944
11-17-2009, 05:29 AM
Tennis is about the whole year, not just the majors. If we're basing ranking on major titles, Thomas Johansson should have leapfrogged to number 4 at the end of 2002. The same goes for Gaston Gaudio in 2004.

There's more to tennis than the majors. Doing it over 2 weeks is one thing, but having the consistency to do it over the course of a season is another. Many majors have been won by fairly ordinary players; therefore, consistency is equally significant.

Del Potro is the 5th best player in the world. No more and no less, until such time he moves up the rankings.

No. Players at the top of the game are judged solely on major titles. This much is clear.

Filo V.
11-17-2009, 01:04 PM
What you are saying is irrelevant. Tennis is about consistency, not just the majors. Del Potro hasn't been as consistent as Murray. He was rewarded with 2000 points for winning the US Open. I think that's plenty. If that isn't sufficient to take him past Murray, that's his own fault for not being as consistent in the Masters events. It's silly to put so much emphasis on the majors. We might as well scrap the ranking system altogether and not bother with the other tournaments if we're going to start placing major winners at the top, above the more consistent performers. I can name you major winners who, in the past, would have had no real business being at the top of the rankings. It's not the be all and end all achievement most make it out to be. Some utterly nondescript players have claimed majors in the past.

Djokovic has had a better season than Murray because he has gathered more points. That is beyond dispute. However, Murray has certainly achieved more over the course of the season. Any way you look at it, 2 Masters title and 1 other final > 1 Masters title and 4 other finals. Djokovic would swap those finals for another shield. Also, he has more match wins because he has played more tournaments. Murray has a better winning percentage and, arguably, would still be at number 3 if not for injury.

That doesn't change the fact that Djokovic is number 3 because he has been the more consistent player. Murray benefited from Nadal's knee injury every bit as much as Djokivic benefited from Murray's wrist injury. However, if you're trying to base it on achievements for 2009, as you seem to be, there's only one going to be one winner.

What you are saying is true in that consistency is what determines your rank. Consistently good results. That is all well and good. But when you are at the top, doing consistently good at small tournaments means absolutely nothing when it comes to prestige, when it comes down to what and who goes down in history in terms of achievements and results. When you are at the top, you play to win majors and you play to get #1, and those are the goals. Murray completely failed at all 4 GS. And Djokovic has a chance for #1 by early next season, Murray doesn't really unless he picks up his performances. What he did outside of the GS is all well and good. But majors are what the best of the best play for, and Murray failed at those. Majors have the most emphasis because they are the events players put the most importance on, for obvious reasons, so therefore they carry the most weight when it comes to who has accomplished more. And Andy did not make the magic happen, and Del Potro won an event with all the rain issues, playing back to back days, beating Nadal and Federer. Del Potro's accomplishment of winning a major alone PLUS coming close to potentially winning the FO puts him ahead of Murray. At the events the cream of the crop play for, the majors, Del Potro did better, that simple.

Murray has for sure not achieved more than Djokovic. You want to use the consistency argument? Djokovic got to more finals. Djokovic never lost earlier than the QF in any MS. On that argument, Djokovic has made it farther than Murray more consistently on the big tournaments. At the beginning of the season, Murray would for sure win that argument based on his Miami and IW results. But when Djokovic did as well as he did in all the MS events (outside of Canada) starting on the clay making it deep in all of them (and unfortunately for him playing someone who is as unstoppable when healthy on clay as Nadal) and then, you have to give it to Djokovic IMO.

Lastly, you have to look at the H2H against Nadal and Federer. Djokovic has come closer than ever to beating Nadal on clay (Madrid) and destroyed Nadal in their 2 hard meatings. Djokovic has a winning record against Roger as well. Murray has a losing record against Nadal and got beaten pretty badly at Cincinnatti by Roger. Also, Djokovic beat Federer in his own domain in Basel.


The big results, the big events, the big head to heads, the ones people remember and truly hold to high esteem, Djokovic and Del Potro outperformed Murray overall. That is what matters at the end of the day. Start of the season, Murray would have won easily. But this isn't March anymore, and things have changed.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 01:05 PM
No. Players at the top of the game are judged solely on major titles. This much is clear.

No, they are not. What would be the point of the rest of the season if we're going to simply rank players by tallying up who won 4 tournaments over the course of 12 months?

The ATP, thankfully, doesn't agree with such an absurd ranking system. Like I said, some very ordinary players have won majors in the past. It is not the achievement people make it out to be.

Sophocles
11-17-2009, 01:12 PM
Don't want to get caught up in who was better this year - not sure it matters, 1 & 2 are clear and the rest of the top 5 all have something to be said for them -, but perhaps this debate just shows the ranking system doesn't give the majors enough relative weight. The trouble is, though, the sport can't survive with only 4 tournaments attracting big names, and the big names, who are chasing top-ten ranking, won't go to tournaments unless serious points are on offer. So there's no obvious solution.

Clydey - you're right that some comparatively ordinary players have won majors, but by the same token, plenty of ordinary players have achieved high ranking (albeit briefly). Sometimes they were the same players.

Filo V.
11-17-2009, 01:13 PM
:wavey:
Thank you flyboy:cool:, you seem to be the only one who agrees with me;)

You are most certainly welcome;)

zcess81
11-17-2009, 01:32 PM
No, they are not. What would be the point of the rest of the season if we're going to simply rank players by tallying up who won 4 tournaments over the course of 12 months?

The ATP, thankfully, doesn't agree with such an absurd ranking system. Like I said, some very ordinary players have won majors in the past. It is not the achievement people make it out to be.

:haha: You're kidding, right? Winning a grand slam is as big as it gets in tennis. It doesn't get bigger than that. But then again, I understand why you'd say something as rediculous as that, afterall, Murray's still chasing that small achievement. Had Murray won a grand slam by know you'd be singing a different song. Murray would sawp his 4 MS titles for 1 grand slam in a SECOND...as would any other player.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 01:38 PM
What you are saying is true in that consistency is what determines your rank. Consistently good results. That is all well and good. But when you are at the top, doing consistently good at small tournaments means absolutely nothing when it comes to prestige, when it comes down to what and who goes down in history in terms of achievements and results. When you are at the top, you play to win majors and you play to get #1, and those are the goals. Murray completely failed at all 4 GS. And Djokovic has a chance for #1 by early next season, Murray doesn't really unless he picks up his performances. What he did outside of the GS is all well and good. But majors are what the best of the best play for, and Murray failed at those. Majors have the most emphasis because they are the events players put the most importance on, for obvious reasons, so therefore they carry the most weight when it comes to who has accomplished more. And Andy did not make the magic happen, and Del Potro won an event with all the rain issues, playing back to back days, beating Nadal and Federer. Del Potro's accomplishment of winning a major alone PLUS coming close to potentially winning the FO puts him ahead of Murray. At the events the cream of the crop play for, the majors, Del Potro did better, that simple.

What on earth are you talking about? Murray's result at the majors this year pretty much mirror Djokovic's results. How can you say that Murray completely failed at the majors without saying the same about Djokovic? Also, I'm loving your startlingly inconsistent "Del Potro almost won the FO because he was in the Semi-Finals" argument. Murray was in the Semi-Finals of Wimbledon. Does that mean he "almost" won Wimbledon? I'm sorry, but what ifs are irrelevant.

Del Potro won the US Open and was awarded with 2000 points. As much as you'd like that achievement to mean a guaranteed spot in the top 4, it doesn't. Tennis is about consistency, not getting hot for 2 weeks. You completely ignored the point I made about some very ordinary players having won major titles. It is not the achievement you make it out to be. The fact is that he hasn't done enough throughout the rest of the season. He's also yet to beat Murray on anything other than clay.

Murray has for sure not achieved more than Djokovic. You want to use the consistency argument? Djokovic got to more finals. Djokovic never lost earlier than the QF in any MS. On that argument, Djokovic has made it farther than Murray more consistently on the big tournaments. At the beginning of the season, Murray would for sure win that argument based on his Miami and IW results. But when Djokovic did as well as he did in all the MS events (outside of Canada) starting on the clay making it deep in all of them (and unfortunately for him playing someone who is as unstoppable when healthy on clay as Nadal) and then, you have to give it to Djokovic IMO.

I already said that Djokovic deserves the number 3 spot because he has been more consistent. Do people deliberately ignore what is written in plain English? Here, allow me to remind you:

That doesn't change the fact that Djokovic is number 3 because he has been the more consistent player.

However, you were trying to suggest that Djokovic has achieved more than Murray throughout 2009. He hasn't. He has won fewer titles, fewer Masters Titles, and has an inferior winning percentage. You can slice it any way you want, Murray has achieved more in 2009 than Djokovic has. 2 Masters titles and one other final > 1 Masters title and 4 other finals. It's not even debatable. Djokovic would swap those 4 finals for another Masters shield.

Lastly, you have to look at the H2H against Nadal and Federer. Djokovic has come closer than ever to beating Nadal on clay (Madrid) and destroyed Nadal in their 2 hard meatings. Djokovic has a winning record against Roger as well. Murray has a losing record against Nadal and got beaten pretty badly at Cincinnatti by Roger. Also, Djokovic beat Federer in his own domain in Basel.


How can you put forward these contradictory arguments with a straight face? Murray has a 6-3 record over Federer, while Djokovic has a losing 5-9 record with Federer. If you mean only in 2009, Djokovic has a 3-2 record over Federer and Murray has a 2-1 record over Federer. It's almost exactly the same.

Murray has a 1-2 losing record against Nadal in 2009. Djokovic has a 2-4 losing record against Nadal in 2009. What planet are you on that you think highlighting these H2Hs helps your argument? You have actually just weakened your argument, since Murray has a better H2H against Federer and Nadal for 2009. He has a combined H2H of 3-3, while Djokovic has a combined, losing, H2H of 5-6. Need I also point out that Murray also spanked Djokovic in their one meeting this year, in the final of Miami?

The big results, the big events, the big head to heads, the ones people remember and truly hold to high esteem, Djokovic and Del Potro outperformed Murray overall. That is what matters at the end of the day. Start of the season, Murray would have won easily. But this isn't March anymore, and things have changed.

No, Del Potro outperformed Murray in the 4 majors. However, he didn't outperform Murray during the rest of 2009. And that's his problem. He's not at the stage where people can say, "Oh, he doesn't care about the Masters events anymore". He has to, you know, actually win one before people can start even thinking about saying that.

And Djokovic has not outperformed Murray at the majors. Their results are almost identical. In the other events, Murray has achieved more. He has won more titles and he has a better winning percentage. However, Djokovic has gathered more points because he has, firstly, been more consistent, and secondly, benefited from Murray's USO injury.

You cannot have it both ways, mate. If you base it on achievements for 2009, Del Potro goes to number 3 and Djokovic goes to number 5. If you're basing it on consistency, the rankings stay as they are. You're being far too inconsistent and seem to want to have it both ways.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 01:41 PM
:haha: You're kidding, right? Winning a grand slam is as big as it gets in tennis. It doesn't get bigger than that. But then again, I understand why you'd say something as rediculous as that, afterall, Murray's still chasing that small achievement. Had Murray won a grand slam by know you'd be singing a different song. Murray would sawp his 4 MS titles for 1 grand slam in a SECOND...as would any other player.

Of course it's the biggest achievement in tennis. Where did I say otherwise? I said that it's not the achievement people make it out to be. In other words, it's not the only thing that matters in tennis. If it was, why would we bother with the other tournaments?

Do you see me denying that Murray would swap his 4 Masters Titles for a major? I wasn't suggesting that the majors are less prestigious than the Masters. That would be stupid. I'm merely stating that they are not the be all and end all, and that some very ordinary players have won majors in the past. It's not always the cream of the crop who come out on top at the end of the 2 weeks.

Dini
11-17-2009, 01:43 PM
I think winning tournaments should count for more than making finals, whatever the circumstances. Whilst I much prefer Djokovic as a player I don't agree that his year has been better than Murray's because Andy has won two ATP 1000s to Djokovic's one. :shrug: Their Slam performances have been pretty similar so not sure that works as a tiebreaker.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 01:45 PM
Don't want to get caught up in who was better this year - not sure it matters, 1 & 2 are clear and the rest of the top 5 all have something to be said for them -, but perhaps this debate just shows the ranking system doesn't give the majors enough relative weight. The trouble is, though, the sport can't survive with only 4 tournaments attracting big names, and the big names, who are chasing top-ten ranking, won't go to tournaments unless serious points are on offer. So there's no obvious solution.

Clydey - you're right that some comparatively ordinary players have won majors, but by the same token, plenty of ordinary players have achieved high ranking (albeit briefly). Sometimes they were the same players.

I'm not denying that fact. I'm simply saying that winning a major is not the earth-shattering achievement it is made out to be. It is the pinnacle for any player in tennis. However, some people put so much emphasis on the majors that you wonder why they bother watching any other tournaments. MTF's valuation of the 4 majors boggles the mind. You'd think it was a different sport entirely.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 01:48 PM
I think winning tournaments should count for more than making finals, whatever the circumstances. Whilst I much prefer Djokovic as a player I don't agree that his year has been better than Murray's because Andy has won two ATP 1000s to Djokovic's one. :shrug: Their Slam performances have been pretty similar so not sure that works as a tiebreaker.

It depends on what you value more. The guy I'm arguing with wants to judged based on achievements when it comes to comparing Murray and Del Potro, yet he wants to judge based on consistency when comparing Murray and Djokovic. He can't have it both ways.

Personally, I judge based on the consistency, as do the ATP. That's why I think the rankings are fine the way they are.

zcess81
11-17-2009, 01:52 PM
I think winning tournaments should count for more than making finals, whatever the circumstances. Whilst I much prefer Djokovic as a player I don't agree that his year has been better than Murray's because Andy has won two ATP 1000s to Djokovic's one. :shrug: Their Slam performances have been pretty similar so not sure that works as a tiebreaker.

It's simple. Djokovic has been more consistant this year while Murray won one more (I think) tournament than Novak. It's good to reach finals, but I think that Novak would swap all his final appearences for 1 more masters shield that Murray won. Tennis is measured on consistancy, so that's why Novak has as many points as he does. Yes, Murray was injured and skipped Shanghai which helped Novak get to number 3, but that's part of the sport...same thing happened when Murray briefly overtook Nadal as no.2. Nadal pulled out of Wimbledon and lost 2000 points. It's all fair.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 02:02 PM
It's simple. Djokovic has been more consistant this year while Murray won one more (I think) tournament than Novak. It's good to reach finals, but I think that Novak would swap all his final appearences for 1 more masters shield that Murray won. Tennis is measured on consistancy, so that's why Novak has as many points as he does. Yes, Murray was injured and skipped Shanghai which helped Novak get to number 3, but that's part of the sport...same thing happened when Murray briefly overtook Nadal as no.2. Nadal pulled out of Wimbledon and lost 2000 points. It's all fair.

Then we both value consistency more than achievements when it comes to rankings? Djokovic is number 3 because he has gathered more points than Murray. It's that simple and that's the way, in my opinion, the rankings should be calculated. And that's why Del Potro is, and should be, at number 5.

FiBeR
11-17-2009, 02:10 PM
:lol: for Clydey Rios = Federer.. since both got to #1 :cuckoo:

Clydey
11-17-2009, 02:13 PM
:lol: for Clydey Rios = Federer.. since both got to #1 :cuckoo:

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying.

Get a grip.

zcess81
11-17-2009, 02:27 PM
Then we both value consistency more than achievements when it comes to rankings? Djokovic is number 3 because he has gathered more points than Murray. It's that simple and that's the way, in my opinion, the rankings should be calculated. And that's why Del Potro is, and should be, at number 5.

Consistency is very important, as are other tournaments but ALL THAT is to pave way for the ultimate achievement, which is to win slams. Winning slams is primary in my book, everything else (being no 1, 2, 3, whatever...winning MS/other titles) is just what you must do to prove to yourself that you're good enough to win slams. Like any sport tennis is about confidence and you get confidence by playing smaller tournaments and being consistant. Yes, some players win grand slams without winning MS or reaching number 1, and that to me is simply amazing. Winning the biggest trophy in the sport without winning MS or being in top 5 MUST be a HUGE achievement. A player must have ENOURMOUS belief in himself/his game to be able to do that. I don't buy all that "he was lucky" bs. A little luck can be involved, but nobody can be lucky in EVERY match and lift a grand slam trophy, competing against the best players in the world. Every slam winner (one slam wonder or not) deserve their title (unless they're on steroids or other performance enhancing drugs).

Clydey
11-17-2009, 02:31 PM
Consistency is very important, as are other tournaments but ALL THAT is to pave way for the ultimate achievement, which is to win slams. Winning slams is primary in my book, everything else (being no 1, 2, 3, whatever...winning MS/other titles) is just what you must do to prove to yourself that you're good enough to win slams. Like any sport tennis is about confidence and you get confidence by playing smaller tournaments and being consistant. Yes, some players win grand slams without winning MS or reaching number 1, and that to me is simply amazing. Winning the biggest trophy in the sport without winning MS or being in top 5 MUST be a HUGE achievement. A player must have ENOURMOUS belief in himself/his game to be able to do that. I don't buy all that "he was lucky" bs. A little luck can be involved, but nobody can be lucky in EVERY match and lift a grand slam trophy, competing against the best players in the world. Every slam winner (one slam wonder or not) deserve their title (unless they're on steroids or other performance enhancing drugs).

I don't believe in luck in tennis either. There's no such thing. A lot of people say things like, "Oh, Nadal was lucky Federer missed that mid court forehand on breakpoint" (just as an example). That isn't luck. That's poor execution by Federer.

That's the beauty of tennis. The player who wins a match deserves to win. Unless he gets an endless series of dead netcords and wins the match (which is pretty much inconceivable), there's no such thing as a lucky win.

zcess81
11-17-2009, 02:43 PM
I don't believe in luck in tennis either. There's no such thing. A lot of people say things like, "Oh, Nadal was lucky Federer missed that mid court forehand on breakpoint" (just as an example). That isn't luck. That's poor execution by Federer.

That's the beauty of tennis. The player who wins a match deserves to win. Unless he gets an endless series of dead netcords and wins the match (which is pretty much inconceivable), there's no such thing as a lucky win.


It's a very strange day. You and I agree on something.

stebs
11-17-2009, 04:34 PM
Performances in slams is what makes the seasons notable in the history books but in terms of who was a better performer in whatever year, the rankings are the best way. There is a difference between historical relevance and contemporary relevance.

FiBeR
11-17-2009, 04:59 PM
Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying.

Get a grip.

thanks, already got one. Btw here is my spare one

it could come handy for Andy to win a slam some time :)

http://www.getprice.com.au/images/uploadimg/791/350__1_Tennis-20--20Grip-20Tape.jpg

Clydey
11-17-2009, 05:12 PM
Performances in slams is what makes the seasons notable in the history books but in terms of who was a better performer in whatever year, the rankings are the best way. There is a difference between historical relevance and contemporary relevance.

Spot on.

fast_clay
11-17-2009, 05:48 PM
Performances in slams is what makes the seasons notable in the history books but in terms of who was a better performer in whatever year, the rankings are the best way. There is a difference between historical relevance and contemporary relevance.

yes... that's too big... possibly a thread ender...

Smoke944
11-17-2009, 07:05 PM
No, they are not. What would be the point of the rest of the season if we're going to simply rank players by tallying up who won 4 tournaments over the course of 12 months?

The ATP, thankfully, doesn't agree with such an absurd ranking system. Like I said, some very ordinary players have won majors in the past. It is not the achievement people make it out to be.

Ughhhhh. So you are happier with Andy's actual year than how you would be if Murray had Del Potro's year? If the answer is yes than there is nothing more for me to say. That's certainly not how Andy feels.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 07:41 PM
Ughhhhh. So you are happier with Andy's actual year than how you would be if Murray had Del Potro's year? If the answer is yes than there is nothing more for me to say. That's certainly not how Andy feels.

Of course I'm not. As stebs said, Del Potro's major has more historical significance. However, that isn't what we base rankings on. Murray has had a more consistent year.

Collective
11-17-2009, 09:23 PM
Murray would trade his 5 MM for Del Potro's slam. That should be enough to decide who had the better season. He'll win his slam eventually but in the meanwhile, you have to accept that Del Potro > Murray.

Clydey
11-17-2009, 10:00 PM
Murray would trade his 5 MM for Del Potro's slam. That should be enough to decide who had the better season. He'll win his slam eventually but in the meanwhile, you have to accept that Del Potro > Murray.

In much the same way we have to accept Gaudio > Rios.

CmonAussie
11-26-2009, 11:12 PM
...
MUZZA`s failure to get to the SF stage at WTF [with home crowd support behind him]~~ further evidence that Andy is merely the #5 player of 2009 [after so much hype]!!

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 11:20 PM
...
MUZZA`s failure to get to the SF stage at WTF [with home crowd support behind him]~~ further evidence that Andy is merely the #5 player of 2009 [after so much hype]!!

Disagree. Murray won 2/3 matches and only lost to the world number 1 in 3 sets. Nothing to be ashamed of.

bizzle
11-26-2009, 11:34 PM
And what if Nole fails to reach the semis too? I'm guessing he's still in front of Murray? :lol: Or doesn't it even matter? Your mind already seems made up :lol:

fast_clay
11-26-2009, 11:42 PM
Disagree. Murray won 2/3 matches and only lost to the world number 1 in 3 sets. Nothing to be ashamed of.

yes very harsh to discredit murray for that RR.. that said, cmon aussie is a pretty harsh critic...

CmonAussie
11-29-2009, 12:50 PM
...
If Delpo wins tonight he`ll officially bump Muzza down to #5..

Nole fan
11-29-2009, 01:36 PM
It doesn't matter, Djokovic will always be better than Murray. :p

Aaric
11-29-2009, 01:54 PM
Murray is SO overrated :o

tektonac
11-29-2009, 03:11 PM
It doesn't matter, Djokovic will always be better than Murray. :p

+1 (on so many levels).

Mechlan
11-29-2009, 03:22 PM
...
If Delpo wins tonight he`ll officially bump Muzza down to #5..

So now you'll admit that Murray was the #4 player of 2009? :p

CmonAussie
11-29-2009, 03:25 PM
So now you'll admit that Murray was the #4 player of 2009? :p

mmm, Muzza will have to be #6 then [Koyla bumped him]:p

Mechlan
11-29-2009, 03:29 PM
mmm, Muzza will have to be #6 then [Koyla bumped him]:p

Well that way I see it, you either go by rankings or by big titles. On rankings (the right way imo), Murray is #4. On big titles, Murray is #5. Your odd combination of the two befuddles me. :shrug:

CmonAussie
11-29-2009, 03:33 PM
Well that way I see it, you either go by rankings or by big titles. On rankings (the right way imo), Murray is #4. On big titles, Murray is #5. Your odd combination of the two befuddles me. :shrug:

:wavey:
Go by quality:

FED - 2 slams
Rafa - 1 slam
Delpo - 1 slam
Koyla - 1 WTF
Nole - 10 finals [most on tour]

Mechlan
11-29-2009, 03:44 PM
:wavey:
Go by quality:

FED - 2 slams
Rafa - 1 slam
Delpo - 1 slam
Koyla - 1 WTF
Nole - 10 finals [most on tour]

I follow your first four. Why does Murray's two Masters not top Djokovic's one? Your entire premise seems to be winning the big titles, not coming second.

rocketassist
11-29-2009, 03:45 PM
Nole is not above Nikolay and Murray.

bizzle
11-30-2009, 08:39 PM
:lol:

DrJules
11-30-2009, 09:50 PM
4 is the answer.

ExcaliburII
11-30-2009, 09:59 PM
Federer
Nadal
DelPotro
Djokovic
Davydenko-Murray

rocketassist
11-30-2009, 11:23 PM
WTF >> Paris TMS

Denko >> Faker.

born_on_clay
12-17-2009, 11:54 AM
Doesn't the year-end ranking say Murray is 4th ?

MrChopin
12-17-2009, 08:19 PM
This thread title should read: ~*((!*(How to twist data(*$&&%(~~

sammy01
12-17-2009, 09:29 PM
4 is the answer.

is that to how many balls are in the dogs mouth? :p


anyways i would say him and novak were pretty even, but there was deffinately 4 players playing higher quality tennis for parts of this year.

Goldenoldie
12-18-2009, 02:24 PM
I could have sworn Murray won 6 titles in 2009, not 5.

Where did I go wrong?

kyleskywalker007
12-20-2009, 01:10 PM
I could have sworn Murray won 6 titles in 2009, not 5.

Where did I go wrong?

It doesn´t matter if he won 5 or 6, I still believe he is the 4th player in the world. You could make a case for Delpo being ahead of him due to the US open win and that he finally broke through this year.
But let's not forget that at the beginning of the year Murray was a fearsome player and Del Potro was not on that level yet. After Miami everything started to change though and Murray lost a step or two and Delp made it to the big leagues.
So, all in all, it was a year of huge improvements for Del Potro and a year of some disappointments for Murray (even though most players would kill to have his year of course).

So, you can make a case between Delpo and Murray as I said because they are close in the rankings, they are like 300 points apart i think (haven't checked though)and Juan has the big win while Andy has 2 mid wins.

Davydenko has an ATP1000 and the WTF but he is thousands behind both Delpo and Murray.
As for Djokovic, well, he is officially the third and can´t be touched actually. He had a consistent albeit slightly disappointing year all in all.

Now that I think about it the only players who have had a year in which they have pogressed are Del Potro and Davydenko, oh and Soderling of course. And you could also throw Roddick and Tsonga in the mix