If Murray Doesn't Win.... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If Murray Doesn't Win....

SheepleBuster
01-28-2010, 10:55 PM
I know Murray is young and will have more chances to win his a slam. But if he doesn't win, will he develop a Safina like syndrome, choking in more major finals. I mean this stuff is heavy and weighs on you when you fail to win a big one when scheduling and everything has gone right for you. I mean Murray hasn't really been pushed, except maybe a little bit against Cilic. He should be fresh. If he can't beat a Federer, who may not be as motivated as before, then he may never win a slam.

scoobs
01-28-2010, 10:58 PM
Doesn't it depend if he....actually chokes?

he might just be purely outplayed.

Look, if it's Federer, he's up against one of, if not the, best player of all time, a guy who knows how to win these things and what to do.

I believe that if Federer plays his best tennis, this match is out of Andy's hands, he doesn't get really any say over the outcome.

if he does actually, undeniably choke, then there may be a problem, a hangover in future, but he didn't choke in New York, he didn't play well enough for long enough to get in any kind of position to choke. he may not do again here, we'll have to see.

brithater
01-28-2010, 11:02 PM
Hes got four chances every year. Life is nothing more than a series of failures with brief moments of achievement. How you handle the failures detemines how many times you will have them. It will all be up to Andy in the end. Andy haveing the pressure of being the favorite in this tourny is a little premature and all media driven. Knowledgeable people in tennis know that he has yet to prove himself for it is only after you win one of these that you have shown you can do it. Until then its just speculation. I hope for the sake of the game that he does because not many players have have this ability. Whether Andy does remains to be scene.

Allez
01-28-2010, 11:03 PM
Murray is the hottest player on tour right now. Any outcome other than a win on Sunday is unfathomable right now. Don't fret, Murray WILL win. Even if he doesn't, he's not a mental midget like a Safina or Coria. He's got balls that one and he will be more determined than ever to wreck havoc on the tour. He has the game for it. I'm not in the least bit worried. This guy will win multiple slams. Believe it. :D

Clydey
01-28-2010, 11:04 PM
I know Murray is young and will have more chances to win his a slam. But if he doesn't win, will he develop a Safina like syndrome, choking in more major finals. I mean this stuff is heavy and weighs on you when you fail to win a big one when scheduling and everything has gone right for you. I mean Murray hasn't really been pushed, except maybe a little bit against Cilic. He should be fresh. If he can't beat a Federer, who may not be as motivated as before, then he may never win a slam.

Yes, if Murray doesn't beat the best player to ever pick up a racket, he is automatically a choker.

Murray can lose to Federer without it being a choke.

jonas
01-28-2010, 11:05 PM
Relax. It's his second GS final. Lendl lost four before he clinched his first GS title, and then went on to win another seven of them.
I don't predict Murray to be another Lendl, but I'm pretty certain he will win a couple.
And BTW, Federer hasn't won his SF yet. :rolleyes:

chalkdust
01-28-2010, 11:05 PM
Whether Andy does remains to be scene.
To be or not to be?

SheepleBuster
01-28-2010, 11:06 PM
I guess one shouldn't make comparisons between men and women. But take Safina. she lost to Serena when she was not a favorite. Then people said, she is definitely got French because she was the favorite, and she lost again. Now Andy is much stronger mentally than Safina or most players on men's tour. But didn't it take Agassi a bunch of tries to get over his failures. I am just saying. Andy is a great player but he is not too superior to his peers like Fed was over Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin. He'll have to contend with Nadal, Cilic, Delpotro, Djokovic, Tsonga, Monfils, and all these guys for years. So he'll most likely won't have an easy way to slams if he misses his chances now.

brithater
01-28-2010, 11:08 PM
Murray is the hottest player on tour right now. Any outcome other than a win on Sunday is unfathomable tight now. Don't fret, Murray WILL win. Even if he doesn't, he's not a mental midget like a Safina or Coria. He's got balls that one and he will be more determined than ever to wreck havoc on the tour. He has the game for it. I'm not in the least bit worried. This guy will win multiple slams. Believe it. :D

It does not really matter what we believe. It does not matter what Federer or Tsonga believes. It is all about what Andy believes. He is the underdog in this match. He has one zero majors and beat one top ten player to get to the finals. Andy really has no business winning this match on paper but fortunatley for his sake tennis does not work like that.

Clydey
01-28-2010, 11:08 PM
I believe that if Federer plays his best tennis, this match is out of Andy's hands, he doesn't get really any say over the outcome.



I think that's an oversimplification. It's not a case of two players turning up and playing separate matches. How one plays depends on the other. There's so much more to it than turning up and hoping to play your best. Players can have an impact on the level of their opponent.

SheepleBuster
01-28-2010, 11:11 PM
I think if Fed goes to final, motivation will be a factor. I was surprised that Fed didn't get emotional with Del Potro in that final. I mean he had that match won when served for the 2nd set. He choked there. He could choke against Andy. But Andy needs to put him in the position to choke. One thing is for certain though. Andy won't fail to win a game for an hour like Mr. Personality.

Henry Kaspar
01-28-2010, 11:11 PM
Safina will win her slams.

scoobs
01-28-2010, 11:11 PM
I think that's an oversimplification. It's not a case of two players turning up and playing separate matches. How one plays depends on the other. There's so much more to it than turning up and hoping to play your best. Players can have an impact on the level of their opponent.
of course they can and I'm not to claim otherwise. I just feel that if Fed is firing at the top of his game, he can and will find answers to everything Andy throws at him.

However, in truth, I don't expect Federer to be at his very best in the final, should he get there - he hasn't been for the last 4 at least.

SheepleBuster
01-28-2010, 11:17 PM
of course they can and I'm not to claim otherwise. I just feel that if Fed is firing at the top of his game, he can and will find answers to everything Andy throws at him.

However, in truth, I don't expect Federer to be at his very best in the final, should he get there - he hasn't been for the last 4 at least.

I completely agree with you. I mean think about it. Federer is the better player on the paper even now. If this was 2 years ago, this final would be so one sided. However, Fed has won everything. His No. 1 is guaranteed for now. And he has been somewhat sub-par in his last 4 slams. Ironically, the last time he was great in a slam was against Murray. But, to quote Randy Couture here, when you lose to someone and go at it again, it's more difficult for the winner to strategize. You don't want to change a winning strategy. But Andy could be up to something new. I want Fed to win but I think Andy might win it in 4

Clydey
01-28-2010, 11:17 PM
of course they can and I'm not to claim otherwise. I just feel that if Fed is firing at the top of his game, he can and will find answers to everything Andy throws at him.

However, in truth, I don't expect Federer to be at his very best in the final, should he get there - he hasn't been for the last 4 at least.

The point I'm making is that one of Andy's strengths is his ability to drag the level of his opponent down. If it was a straight game of attacking tennis, played instinctively, I'd agree that Murray has no say if Federer plays his best.

There are too many variables to consider when you try to mentally match up the best of two players. For that reason, I don't like saying that a match is out of a player's hands under certain circumstances.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
01-28-2010, 11:19 PM
Doesn't it depend if he....actually chokes?

he might just be purely outplayed.

Look, if it's Federer, he's up against one of, if not the, best player of all time, a guy who knows how to win these things and what to do.

I believe that if Federer plays his best tennis, this match is out of Andy's hands, he doesn't get really any say over the outcome.

if he does actually, undeniably choke, then there may be a problem, a hangover in future, but he didn't choke in New York, he didn't play well enough for long enough to get in any kind of position to choke. he may not do again here, we'll have to see.

You know, I don't agree with this. I would have Murray as slight favourite for a final against Fed. First, Murray has played really well this tournament. He has adjusted his game slightly from what we saw last year, which did at times descend into cowardly pushing. His attitude has improved. No more ridiculous "my leg hurts" anguished looks when he's losing.

Second, from Federer's side, he is 29 now. Almost all tennis players are past their peak at this point and Fed blows very much hot and cold these days. I don't think his "best tennis" is what it was. His career has paralleled Sampras ten years ago. In 2000 Sampras was very flaky. Won Wimbledon but was very beatable elsewhere. In the 2000 US Open final Safin absolutely hammered him and really put him out to pasture. Up till then there had been a feeling that if Sampras played his best tennis, nobody could stop him (similar to what you're saying for Fed now). Fed hasn't yet received a similar hammering on hard or grass courts. At some point some young and up and coming player is going to straight set him in a Slam. It will definitely happen within the next two years, possibly even this year.

He has been straight setted in Slams before but those matches weren't due to long-term decline (Nadal FO - Nadal just too good, Fed didn't believe he could win; Djoko AO - Fed unwell).

I'm not just trying to "jinx" Murray or whatever - I genuinely have him as slight favourite.

Of course, there are no guarantees. Fed could play really well and win. So could Murray. Murray could revert to pushing and get blasted off the court. Murray could revert to pushing and Fedmug might appear and hand him the victory. Who knows?

Allez
01-28-2010, 11:19 PM
It does not really matter what we believe. It does not matter what Federer or Tsonga believes. It is all about what Andy believes. He is the underdog in this match. He has one zero majors and beat one top ten player to get to the finals. Andy really has no business winning this match on paper but fortunatley for his sake tennis does not work like that.

Andy believes he can win on Sunday. check out his interviews. He has dropped ONE set the whole tournament and has spent the least amount of time on court than either of the other semi finalists. He holds winning records against both players. he's no underdog unless one is just playing some silly mental games thinking making him the favourite puts undue pressure on him to win. That's BS. His record against these guys speaks for itself and he has played the better tennis than both Fed and Tsonga to get to this stage. Any loss would be purely mental and Andy is much much stronger than he was in 2008 when he lost that match at the Open. Also he is physically he is also much fitter than the other guys giving him huge amounts of confidence in his ability to outlast anyone over 5 sets. Any way you look at it, this slam is for Andy's to lose. I just hope he doesn't suffer from food poisoning or injure himself in practice or something silly like that. This is exciting stuff. I love Rogi but it's time for Murray to get in on the act. It's happening :D

scoobs
01-28-2010, 11:20 PM
The point I'm making is that one of Andy's strengths is his ability to drag the level of his opponent down. If it was a straight game of attacking tennis, played instinctively, I'd agree that Murray has no say if Federer plays his best.

There are too many variables to consider when you try to mentally match up the best of two players. For that reason, I don't like saying that a match is out of a player's hands under certain circumstances.
That is one of Murray's strengths, however I think he'd need to have that firing on all cylinders + every other area of his game to really trouble Roger in JesusFed mode.

I do get what you're saying and ultimately, if the match happens we'll just have to wait and see. There are too many variables, but that never stops any of us trying to see patterns and themes to these matchups to make some sort of sense out of what we see.

Clydey
01-28-2010, 11:20 PM
I completely agree with you. I mean think about it. Federer is the better player on the paper even now. If this was 2 years ago, this final would be so one sided. However, Fed has won everything. His No. 1 is guaranteed for now. And he has been somewhat sub-par in his last 4 slams. Ironically, the last time he was great in a slam was against Murray. But, to quote Randy Couture here, when you lose to someone and go at it again, it's more difficult for the winner to strategize. You don't want to change a winning strategy. But Andy could be up to something new. I want Fed to win but I think Andy might win it in 4

That's easy to say in hindsight. People were not saying that at the time, however. You have to remember that Murray had a winning record over Federer even 2 years ago. I think Federer is playing much better now than he was in 2008, generally speaking. The USO final was an exception for him that year.

MsTree
01-28-2010, 11:22 PM
The only thing that will happen if Andy doesn't win on Sunday is that his haters will have some new material (as if they need it :rolleyes:) His real fans will be happy that he went further in this competition than he's managed before. And Andy might be pissed for a couple of days but he's an intelligent guy and will learn the lessons he needs to from it. That's if he hasn't learnt them already. The world will not stop turning, and he'll still have the same chances in the next slam (ok the next but one). No big deal, unless you work for an english tabloid.

scoobs
01-28-2010, 11:22 PM
That's easy to say in hidnsight. People were not saying that at the time, however. You have to remember that Murray had a winning record over Federer even 2 years ago. I think Federer is playing much better now than he was in 2008, generally speaking. The USO final was an exception for him that year.
I think Roger's game is generally more solid again than it was in 2008 but there also seem to be quite a lot less of the inspirational, elevated levels he was able to display at times throughout 2004 - 2006/7

Allez
01-28-2010, 11:26 PM
You know, I don't agree with this. I would have Murray as slight favourite for a final against Fed. First, Murray has played really well this tournament. He has adjusted his game slightly from what we saw last year, which did at times descend into cowardly pushing. His attitude has improved. No more ridiculous "my leg hurts" anguished looks when he's losing.

Second, from Federer's side, he is 29 now. Almost all tennis players are past their peak at this point and Fed blows very much hot and cold these days. I don't think his "best tennis" is what it was. His career has paralleled Sampras ten years ago. In 2000 Sampras was very flaky. Won Wimbledon but was very beatable elsewhere. In the 2000 US Open final Safin absolutely hammered him and really put him out to pasture. Up till then there had been a feeling that if Sampras played his best tennis, nobody could stop him (similar to what you're saying for Fed now). Fed hasn't yet received a similar hammering on hard or grass courts. At some point some young and up and coming player is going to straight set him in a Slam. It will definitely happen within the next two years, possibly even this year.

He has been straight setted in Slams before but those matches weren't due to long-term decline (Nadal FO - Nadal just too good, Fed didn't believe he could win; Djoko AO - Fed unwell).

I'm not just trying to "jinx" Murray or whatever - I genuinely have him as slight favourite.

Of course, there are no guarantees. Fed could play really well and win. So could Murray. Murray could revert to pushing and get blasted off the court. Murray could revert to pushing and Fedmug might appear and hand him the victory. Who knows?

Excellent post. That's it. You've got it. That blitzing could even happen tomorrow. Tsonga is capable of pulling a 2000 Safin. Fed is at that age now when he's just playing from memory much like Sampras was back in those last years of his career.

Clydey
01-28-2010, 11:26 PM
I think Roger's game is generally more solid again than it was in 2008 but there also seem to be quite a lot less of the inspirational, elevated levels he was able to display at times throughout 2004 - 2006/7

I can't believe I'm about to agree with Wilander here, but I couldn't find fault with his opinion. He said that he believes Federer is not the ballstriker he was from 2004-2007, but that he is more tactically astute. In other words, he is more willing to play the opponent. He no longer goes into matches with the attitude that he'll put up his best against your best, playing instinctive tennis.

He's not as good as he was from 2004-2007, but 2008 was a real low point.

bad gambler
01-28-2010, 11:27 PM
It's time for Murray to step up and win

scoobs
01-28-2010, 11:29 PM
I just don't equate Federer's place in the game as being equivalent to "Sampras 2000" yet, not by a way. I agree Federer's 2010 best is not as good as his, say, 2006 best when he lost 5 matches all year, but you know, he is still on an amazing run of slam semis and indeed finals, something Sampras clearly was not in 2000, nor anything like it in terms of slam consistency.

We can argue the toss right up until the umpire says "ready...play..." but I guess we just don't quite know until we see what happens. We can all make a case and provide arguments for or against it but....

scoobs
01-28-2010, 11:31 PM
I can't believe I'm about to agree with Wilander here, but I couldn't find fault with his opinion. He said that he believes Federer is not the ballstriker he was from 2004-2007, but that he is more tactically astute. In other words, he is more willing to play the opponent. He no longer goes into matches with the attitude that he'll put up his best against your best, playing instinctive tennis.

He's not as good as he was from 2004-2007, but 2008 was a real low point.
I think this is probably true. Back in 2006 or around then Federer was pretty disdainful of the idea of going out there with a gameplan - he did feel like if he played like he can, whatever his opponent tried he was equal to and then better than.

You don't get that sort of spiel from him anymore - he still doesn't really say he goes out with strategies against opponents but from the way he zones in on the weaknesses as he sees them of his toughest opponents, clearly it's something he gives more thought to than he used to.

Allez
01-28-2010, 11:32 PM
It's simply impossible for Murray to lose this. I just can't see it happening. I'm betting heavily on a Murray win. He better not disappoint :mad::mad::mad:

brithater
01-28-2010, 11:34 PM
Andy believes he can win on Sunday. check out his interviews. He has dropped ONE set the whole tournament and has spent the least amount of time on court than either of the other semi finalists. He holds winning records against both players. he's no underdog unless one is just playing some silly mental games thinking making him the favourite puts undue pressure on him to win. That's BS. His record against these guys speaks for itself and he has played the better tennis than both Fed and Tsonga to get to this stage. Any loss would be purely mental and Andy is much much stronger than he was in 2008 when he lost that match at the Open. Also he is physically he is also much fitter than the other guys giving him huge amounts of confidence in his ability to outlast anyone over 5 sets. Any way you look at it, this slam is for Andy's to lose. I just hope he doesn't suffer from food poisoning or injure himself in practice or something silly like that. This is exciting stuff. I love Rogi but it's time for Murray to get in on the act. It's happening :D

What players say and what they actually believe are two different things. I dont know if your being serious because some of your statment are pretty over the top. Saying this is Andys tournament to lose is like saying Roger is a washed up has been and cant come through in a major. Fitness does not win matches it only loses them. On the day form and nerves are going to be the deciding factor in this match. Andy has not shown he has what it takes to win majors yet. He has game yes but he has to prove that he can win in a final of a major. I get that your a huge Murray fan but sometimes you have to turn off the Fan mode and take a look at the big picture.

Allez
01-28-2010, 11:38 PM
I don't get why some people assume that Fed will always win regardless of how old he gets and regardless of the talent on the other side of the court. These are the same people who probably would have predicted a one sided Sampras win at the 2000 US Open...simply because he was the world number one and had just won a slam. Reactive logic.

scoobs
01-28-2010, 11:40 PM
if every player who said they could win the tournament in interviews and sounded confident actually went on to win a slam, then we'd need to have about 100 grand slams a season.

if people want to believe Murray is a lock for this title, that he can't be beaten and he absolutely won't be beaten, then that's their choice but I think that is absolutely crazy. But whatever works for you - just don't bet money you can't afford to lose :)

Allez
01-28-2010, 11:41 PM
What players say and what they actually believe are two different things. I dont know if your being serious because some of your statment are pretty over the top. Saying this is Andys tournament to lose is like saying Roger is a washed up has been and cant come through in a major. Fitness does not win matches it only loses them. On the day form and nerves are going to be the deciding factor in this match. Andy has not shown he has what it takes to win majors yet. He has game yes but he has to prove that he can win in a final of a major. I get that your a huge Murray fan but sometimes you have to turn off the Fan mode and take a look at the big picture.

Before the 2003 Wimbledon final had Roger shown he had what it takes to win majors?

Clydey
01-28-2010, 11:45 PM
Before the 2003 Wimbledon final had Roger shown he had what it takes to win majors?

I don't understand why you're so sure about this. I suppose I could understand your confidence to some extent if he was guaranteed to face Tsonga. However, I simply don't see cause for such exaggerated optimism if he faces Federer.

brithater
01-28-2010, 11:50 PM
Before the 2003 Wimbledon final had Roger shown he had what it takes to win majors?


Only in theory. I am sure everyone told roger he could but there is always doubt. Especially with Andy because he has been their before and lost. Roger won his first. And Who did he play that year????

BAMJ6
01-28-2010, 11:54 PM
It depends

The only player to really choke in losing to the 04-present Fed in grand slams was Tommy Haas in the 2009 French Open.

If Murray gets up 2-0 sets and loses to Fed, he'll join Haas in infamy

If it's Tsonga, were it not for his previous Aussie final 2 years ago, it would be an absolute disgrace because Murray's supposed to defeat that kind of player (to Murray/British fans.

Allez
01-28-2010, 11:54 PM
I don't understand why you're so sure about this. I suppose I could understand your confidence to some extent if he was guaranteed to face Tsonga. However, I simply don't see cause for such exaggerated optimism if he faces Federer.

The only thing I'm sure about is Andy's talent and mental toughness. If he faces Fed, there is a chance the big man may pull out all the stops to delay the inevitable...but I doubt it. Fed has zero motivation these days. Too passive. Happy go lucky. I don't blame him. Now Tsonga is a whole another ball game. He is too hungry to give up without a fight. Roger at his best is the best of all time. No one is denying that. But Roger's best is years behind him now. There's no shame in admitting that.

scoobs
01-28-2010, 11:56 PM
The only thing I'm sure about is Andy's talent and mental toughness. If he faces Fed, there is a chance the big man may pull out all the stops to delay the inevitable...but I doubt it. Fed has zero motivation these days. Too passive. Happy go lucky. I don't blame him. Now Tsonga is a whole another ball game. He is too hungry to give up without a fight. Roger at his best is the best of all time. No one is denying that. But Roger's best is years behind him now. There's no shame in admitting that.

I just have no earthly understanding of what you're basing that on. he still seems pretty motivated to me.

MsTree
01-29-2010, 12:00 AM
If it's Tsonga, were it not for his previous Aussie final 2 years ago, it would be an absolute disgrace because Murray's supposed to defeat that kind of player (to Murray/British fans.

Jo put him out in the first round 2 years ago. If he's firing on all cylinders it's not beyond reason that he could beat him in the final. Don't know quite why you posted that, even with the exemption. It certainly wouldn't be a disgrace even if Jo hadn't been in the final before :confused:

sammy01
01-29-2010, 12:05 AM
If Murray Doesn't Win.............He is back to being Scottish?

brithater
01-29-2010, 12:06 AM
Jo put him out in the first round 2 years ago. If he's firing on all cylinders it's not beyond reason that he could beat him in the final. Don't know quite why you posted that, even with the exemption. It certainly wouldn't be a disgrace even if Jo hadn't been in the final before :confused:

I dont think that will happen again that way. Andy should have learned from that match. He changed tactics when things were working and let Tsonga back into that match. That was a bad tactical match for Andy. If they play again I believe he would have a better game plan. I hope.

BAMJ6
01-29-2010, 12:06 AM
Jo put him out in the first round 2 years ago. If he's firing on all cylinders it's not beyond reason that he could beat him in the final. Don't know quite why you posted that, even with the exemption. It certainly wouldn't be a disgrace even if Jo hadn't been in the final before :confused:

1. I didn't know they faced off in a GS before until now, much less that fateful Open I alluded to.
2. Everyone thinks that if Federer loses, Murray will be a overwhelming favorite, especially the British who are hungry for a hometown player to win a slam Wimbledon or not.

1 and 2 combined were the reason i wrote the absolute disgrace part

brithater
01-29-2010, 12:09 AM
If Murray Doesn't Win.............He is back to being Scottish?

No he is back to being a talentless pusher that will never win a slam because he does not have the game and should retire because Federer is the GOAT. Until Wimbledon. Then he will be the critics choice again who has the same chances of winning as Federer.

fran70
01-29-2010, 12:09 AM
He can win either the Australian Open, Wimbledon or US Open. So if he doesn`t win this tine he will win another. And cerainly that he will win more than one GS in his career. In this case, I wouldn`t be concerned for that.

Frufru
01-29-2010, 12:13 AM
The only thing I'm sure about is Andy's talent and mental toughness. If he faces Fed, there is a chance the big man may pull out all the stops to delay the inevitable...but I doubt it. Fed has zero motivation these days. Too passive. Happy go lucky. I don't blame him. Now Tsonga is a whole another ball game. He is too hungry to give up without a fight. Roger at his best is the best of all time. No one is denying that. But Roger's best is years behind him now. There's no shame in admitting that.

Thats a good post I have to agree with. Funnily enough I would prefer Tsonga's chances to beat Murray than Feds. Murray is just so much hungrier than Fed. Also I think so far Andy has been playing the best tennis I have seen him playing. So maybe I should place some bets while odds are good.:devil::devil:

Allez
01-29-2010, 12:14 AM
I just have no earthly understanding of what you're basing that on. he still seems pretty motivated to me.

Then clearly you have not been following his matches post SW19. He should have won the USO. He should have beaten Davydenko in London & Doha. he lost to Sordeling for the first time when he should not have. Where is this infinite well of motivation you imagine Roger swimming in ? He wins because he is a cut above most players NOT because he is willing to fight for every point a la Murray.

scoobs
01-29-2010, 12:18 AM
Then clearly you have not been following his matches post SW19. He should have won the USO. He should have beaten Davydenko in London & Doha. he lost to Sordeling for the first time when he should not have. Where is this infinite well of motivation you imagine Roger swimming in ? He wins because he is a cut above most players NOT because he is willing to fight for every point a la Murray.
He maybe should have beaten Del Potro at the Open but then again you can make the same argument against Nadal at the Australian last year, before he won the French and Wimbledon and suddenly lost all motivation.

As for the best of 3 losses, he's been having those for 3 years now and it has not affected his motivation in the slams nor his performance at them - he's still in the semis here, he's still likely to make the final so he can't be *that* demotivated. i think that's an awful lot of wishful thinking.

We can look at all the meaningless results - ooh he lost to Davydenko in Doha, he's shitting bricks, ooh he lost to Soderling in an EXO what now?

When it comes to the ones that matter, the only one that really does give me a headscratch is the Del Potro one at the Open, and just because he lost the plot there does not by any stretch of the imagination mean he will do so against Murray in the final.

sammy01
01-29-2010, 12:19 AM
No he is back to being a talentless pusher that will never win a slam because he does not have the game and should retire because Federer is the GOAT. Until Wimbledon. Then he will be the critics choice again who has the same chances of winning as Federer.

no matter what he will always be simon reeds pick :worship: lol

scoobs
01-29-2010, 12:20 AM
no matter what he will always be simon reeds pick :worship: lol
Is there anything more important, anyway?

brithater
01-29-2010, 12:21 AM
Then clearly you have not been following his matches post SW19. He should have won the USO. He should have beaten Davydenko in London & Doha. he lost to Sordeling for the first time when he should not have. Where is this infinite well of motivation you imagine Roger swimming in ? He wins because he is a cut above most players NOT because he is willing to fight for every point a la Murray.


I agree with you on the US Open. I thought that was the worst Slam final he has played. I even questioned his motivation in that match but until he shows it again it was either one of two things.....

Mentally drained from an emotional year and it just happened to hit him that day

or

Just one of those days......it happens.

The only other possibility would be that Delpo played a great match but that was the worst quality 5 setter in major I have ever seen. Fed just could not lift his game that match...or would not.

brithater
01-29-2010, 12:26 AM
no matter what he will always be simon reeds pick :worship: lol

For me if he wins.....hes the Brave Scot, if he loses hes a talentless brit.:) A bum I tell ya!

sammy01
01-29-2010, 12:34 AM
Is there anything more important, anyway?

nope, reed is god's conduit :worship:

Noleta
01-29-2010, 12:54 AM
Even if he was to lose,which no one can say,unless they can predict the future.He's got the game and the mentality to win more slams in the future,what with Rafa not healthy enough,and Fed getting older:p

Persimmon
01-29-2010, 12:55 AM
If Murray doesn't win he will just have to keep on trying. In 2009, Del Potro was spanked by Fed at the AO(like Murray was spanked by Fed at the 2008 USO), then Del Potro lost a 5 setter at the FO and finally beat Fed in a 5 setter at the USO. Same might happen with Murray. He might lose the AO final but then beat Fed in their next slam meeting.

brithater
01-29-2010, 01:04 AM
This is the best I can do in response to the title of this thread. I say this with absolute certainty because...
I KNOW TENNES!!!!

If Murray Doesn't Win....... Then he DEFINITLY will lose!

Hah!

sammy01
01-29-2010, 01:06 AM
This is the best I can do in response to the title of this thread. I say this with absolute certainty because...
I KNOW TENNES!!!!

If Murray Doesn't Win....... Then he DEFINITLY will lose!

Hah!

10/10 for intuition :worship:

brithater
01-29-2010, 01:12 AM
10/10 for intuition :worship:

Decades of study are required for this kind of ......STUFF!

sammy01
01-29-2010, 01:15 AM
Decades of study are required for this kind of ......STUFF!

i am not worthy :worship:

Goldenoldie
01-29-2010, 01:28 AM
If Murray doesn't win he will still have achieved as many grand slam singles finals as Tim Henman, Greg Rusedski, John Lloyd and all other male British tennis players since WW2 PUT TOGETHER!
I prefer to celebrate what he has done, not cry about what he hasn't.

brithater
01-29-2010, 01:37 AM
i am not worthy :worship:

LOL :D...Ready.....Set.....GO!

No Sammy, you are Wrong. You are worthy. You are a Winner! For it is you Sammy that has won the greatest race of them all. The race of life. Out of Millions of challengers you were out in front of the pack. You were the one that penetrated the egg to survive. In the struggle for life and death you showed your courage and strength leaving the rest behind. You won! You Lived! So dont sulk and talk yourself into being a loser. It is time to for Great Britain to live once more. Rise up above failure, above fear, above tyranny. Rise up and take your lives back into your own hands. Tell all your people.......RISE UP!!!!

Thats why I came, Thats why Im here.

:wavey:

HKz
01-29-2010, 01:43 AM
I know Murray is young and will have more chances to win his a slam. But if he doesn't win, will he develop a Safina like syndrome, choking in more major finals. I mean this stuff is heavy and weighs on you when you fail to win a big one when scheduling and everything has gone right for you. I mean Murray hasn't really been pushed, except maybe a little bit against Cilic. He should be fresh. If he can't beat a Federer, who may not be as motivated as before, then he may never win a slam.

You can't expect everything. Fact is tennis is a cruel sport. You either win it or you don't. Some players go through their career being on the worse ends of things, and eventually it does lead to being mentally down on yourself. But that is unfair to expect a win out of someone on the ATP, because there can only 1 winner and 1 loser, it isn't like if you reach xx, your fine.

Action Jackson
01-29-2010, 02:13 AM
Life will go on as before. Most people working in jobs they hate because they have to survive, some natural disaster and wars will still be fought.

Noleta
01-29-2010, 02:40 AM
Life will go on as before. Most people working in jobs they hate because they have to survive, some natural disaster and wars will still be fought.

That is so true.

brithater
01-29-2010, 02:50 AM
That is so true.

and necessary

abraxas21
01-29-2010, 02:54 AM
You know, I don't agree with this. I would have Murray as slight favourite for a final against Fed. First, Murray has played really well this tournament. He has adjusted his game slightly from what we saw last year, which did at times descend into cowardly pushing. His attitude has improved. No more ridiculous "my leg hurts" anguished looks when he's losing.

Second, from Federer's side, he is 29 now. Almost all tennis players are past their peak at this point and Fed blows very much hot and cold these days. I don't think his "best tennis" is what it was. His career has paralleled Sampras ten years ago. In 2000 Sampras was very flaky. Won Wimbledon but was very beatable elsewhere. In the 2000 US Open final Safin absolutely hammered him and really put him out to pasture. Up till then there had been a feeling that if Sampras played his best tennis, nobody could stop him (similar to what you're saying for Fed now). Fed hasn't yet received a similar hammering on hard or grass courts. At some point some young and up and coming player is going to straight set him in a Slam. It will definitely happen within the next two years, possibly even this year.

He has been straight setted in Slams before but those matches weren't due to long-term decline (Nadal FO - Nadal just too good, Fed didn't believe he could win; Djoko AO - Fed unwell).

I'm not just trying to "jinx" Murray or whatever - I genuinely have him as slight favourite.

Of course, there are no guarantees. Fed could play really well and win. So could Murray. Murray could revert to pushing and get blasted off the court. Murray could revert to pushing and Fedmug might appear and hand him the victory. Who knows?


I agree entirely.

I've been following Fed troughout this tournament and the picture I get is the same of the last season. He has been on and off during patches of some matches. With Hewitt he played really well but with Kolya he played more or less crappy, imo.

In order for Fed to beat Murray, he's going to need his best tennis for the entire match and quite frankly I'm not really counting on it.

abraxas21
01-29-2010, 03:00 AM
I don't get why some people assume that Fed will always win regardless of how old he gets and regardless of the talent on the other side of the court. These are the same people who probably would have predicted a one sided Sampras win at the 2000 US Open...simply because he was the world number one and had just won a slam. Reactive logic.

Happened the same last year at the US Open final with Del Potro. EVERYONE was betting on fed to win comfortably and yet he ended up losing in 5 sets.

I'm inclined to think that Murray will take the AO. I've only seen 2 of his matches in this AO and both were awesome. He totally blew a ferocious Nadal off the court and the last 3 sets of his match against Cilic were out of this world.

jcempire
01-29-2010, 03:03 AM
100000000000000% Andy wins

Don't worry about it. Andy Murray now is the best player and no one else can beat him

green25814
01-29-2010, 03:08 AM
MTF = retarded. Provided he makes the final, OF COURSE Federer is the favourite.

SheepleBuster
01-29-2010, 03:38 AM
You can't expect everything. Fact is tennis is a cruel sport. You either win it or you don't. Some players go through their career being on the worse ends of things, and eventually it does lead to being mentally down on yourself. But that is unfair to expect a win out of someone on the ATP, because there can only 1 winner and 1 loser, it isn't like if you reach xx, your fine.

Are you dissing Davydenko now? ;)

NYCtennisfan
01-29-2010, 03:46 AM
I can't believe I'm about to agree with Wilander here, but I couldn't find fault with his opinion. He said that he believes Federer is not the ballstriker he was from 2004-2007, but that he is more tactically astute. In other words, he is more willing to play the opponent. He no longer goes into matches with the attitude that he'll put up his best against your best, playing instinctive tennis.

He's not as good as he was from 2004-2007, but 2008 was a real low point.

It's interesting that you posted this comment because a few years back, you believed that Federer was more or less the same, but that the players around him had just gotten better. What made you change your mind? This is not meant as a challenge but I'm just curious as to what you saw. Since the questions began about the game getting past him, Federer has made 7 consecutive finals

Federer himself has hinted that today's players are more difficult to play against since they have few weaknesses, can serve well with today's racquets and have the length and athleticsm to run down a lot of balls.

green25814
01-29-2010, 06:41 AM
Fed's movement has worsened over the last few years. What made him so special was the perfect positioning he would create before each shot, today he doesn't do that quite so well, hence more UEs. Still the same player for the most part though.

Clydey
01-29-2010, 07:10 AM
It's interesting that you posted this comment because a few years back, you believed that Federer was more or less the same, but that the players around him had just gotten better. What made you change your mind? This is not meant as a challenge but I'm just curious as to what you saw. Since the questions began about the game getting past him, Federer has made 7 consecutive finals

Federer himself has hinted that today's players are more difficult to play against since they have few weaknesses, can serve well with today's racquets and have the length and athleticsm to run down a lot of balls.

I do think the players have gotten better. I believe that Federer's relative inconsistency is a combination of a slight decline in his own game and better competition. I think his physical decline has been greatly exaggerated, but it's clear he doesn't produce his best tennis with the same frequency as he did before.

There was nothing specific that caused me to change my mind. It was simply a case of the more I watched, the more I appreciated the view that he isn't quite the player he was. But as I said, most on MTF exaggerate the difference between 2004-2007 Fed and 2010 Fed. It's their own way of denying the fact that Federer racked up a lot of slams in a slightly weaker era. The players themselves have stated explicitly that the tour today is stronger and has more depth.

Allez
01-29-2010, 07:48 AM
Happened the same last year at the US Open final with Del Potro. EVERYONE was betting on fed to win comfortably and yet he ended up losing in 5 sets.

I'm inclined to think that Murray will take the AO. I've only seen 2 of his matches in this AO and both were awesome. He totally blew a ferocious Nadal off the court and the last 3 sets of his match against Cilic were out of this world.

Exactly. Everyone had written Del Potro off because "he hadn't yet shown he could win majors". So ridiculous.:rolleyes:

Lopez
01-29-2010, 07:55 AM
The players themselves have stated explicitly that the tour today is stronger and has more depth.

I think that that is the natural flow of tennis, if not any sport. I don't buy into these weak era -arguments, though I know you're not making one. Sure the players today are better, but at the same time they are probably better than most in any era.

Bjorkman said in an interview with a Finnish sports magazine that he was a better player later on his career than when he was world nr. 4, that the game had progressed so that if you kept the same level of play, your ranking would fall instead of staying the same.

Of course there is a lot of grey area here and we can never know for sure whether these weak era arguments have validity or not.

Huntress555
01-29-2010, 07:57 AM
It doesnt matter so much about the outcome just more how he plays. He cant do too much if Fed is playing amazing and just outplaying him. Its the performanc Andy has himself. If he goes out there and plays his best and fights till the end he'll take that into other GS finals. If he goes out and nothing goes right for him, and he misses alot, and his attitude sucks then maybe he'll think about that next GS final and that certainly wont help.

Im sure he'll be fine though :D

Mechlan
01-29-2010, 08:01 AM
It doesnt matter so much about the outcome just more how he plays. He cant do too much if Fed is playing amazing and just outplaying him. Its the performanc Andy has himself. If he goes out there and plays his best and fights till the end he'll take that into other GS finals. If he goes out and nothing goes right for him, and he misses alot, and his attitude sucks then maybe he'll think about that next GS final and that certainly wont help.

Im sure he'll be fine though :D

Well put. The only thing Murray can do is go out there and give it his best shot. If he does that, I'm sure he can live with whatever the outcome is.