blue4578
-
Posts
305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by blue4578
-
-
I think a lot of it came from the whining bitchery of the clay courters with their "grass is for cows" approach in the 80s and 90s. Several used to skip Wimbledon, until their sponsors told them to get over there, then they lost in Round One and went back across the channel grumbling.
I too think it was a mistake. It's completely removed serve volleying as an artform.
Absolutely, agree with all of that.
I think they should play at least one of the Masters 1000 events on grass also. It's a bit unfair playing 3 of them on clay, 6 on various types of hard court and none on grass. It wasn't that many years ago that the French Open was the only grand slam not played on grass.
Of course he would of been a massive favourite, Federer is a massive favourite against anyone on grass, other than Nadal. Murray's loss to Nadal at Wimbledon 2 years ago is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Murray wasn't the player he is now, and was still obviously gassed from his epic with Gasquet. This year, his match with Rafa was a very, very tight match, that could very easily have gone Murray's way.
If he would've been a massive favourite against Murray this year, then Murray can't be a slightly better grass court player as you claim then surely?
Murray lost in straight sets to Nadal at Wimbledon, hardly close was it? Murray had his chances certainly, but tennis at the highest level is about playing the big points well usually. Murray soiled himself (just like in Australia against Federer), Nadal (as usual) rose to occasion when it really mattered.
The second best clay-court record of the last 10 years. The facts don't lie. You can have whatever opinion you want, but if the grass court field was as strong as the clay, federer wouldn't have been as nearly dominant on grass as he was. Federer also has a better grass court record than he does on hardcourt, you're not going to try and tell me he is a better grass courter are you?
Federer's favourite/best surface is grass without question. He has been such an outstanding player since 2003, that he has won about 90% of his matches 2003-2010, regardless of the opponent or the surface. They could have been playing on an ice rink with a net and Federer would still have been the dominant player. He has won more events on clay and hard because there are a lot more events on those surfaces. Nadal, the only player to consistently get the better of Federer, has nearly always been worn out by the time the North American hard court swing starts because of the problems with his knees. Therefore using your ridiculous arguments, you could say that the hard court fields have been weakened because Nadal wasn't fully fit. Nadal's record post-Wimbledon has always been poor. He usually gets hammered at the end of year Masters Cup / ATP World Tour Finals because of the wear and tear on his knees.
You could take this further, let's pick one clay courter in particular, Gaston Gaudio. I believe (although I'm not going to check) that the year he won the French Open he won only one match all year on an outdoor hard court. In a 14 year career, he has won only 48 matches on hard (compared to 210 on clay). Many clay courters are rubbish on hard as well as grass. This makes sense since the surfaces are so similar these days. If Federer only dominated on grass because everyone else was rubbish on the surface, then you could equally say the same about hard courts (not that I am, but following the ridiculous arguments outlined by McKee). Federer won US Open finals against Roddick and Hewitt, so if they are mugs on grass (which of course they aren't) then they would be equally rubbish on hard courts because the US Open play even faster than grass.
Both of Federer's wins on clay against Nadal (not really relevant to this argument) came when Nadal was worn out, and on fast clay courts. This doesn't prove that Federer is better on clay than grass.
If Bjorn Borg had been 25 years younger, or Pete Sampras 10 years younger (Federer won their only meeting at Wimbledon anyway), then perhaps Federer may have less than 6 Wimbledons. The argument is pointless. If Borg had been 25 years younger, then Nadal almost certainly wouldn't have won 5 French Opens. You beat what is in front of you, and Wimbledon is regarded by most people as the tournament they'd most like to win. Sure, clay court specialists tend to struggle on grass, but at least during Federer's spell of dominance, all of the top 32 in the world were in the field, unlike in the 1990's.
0 -
There's a school of thought these days that the clay and grass are getting more and more similar in style, is this rubbish?
No, grass plays more like a hard court these days for various reasons. Hard courts are the half way point between clay and grass, so I suppose you can say grass is more like clay than it used to be. Nadal would never have even made a Wimbledon final if it played like it did in the 1980's or 1990's because there are many people with a better serve and he wouldn't be able to defend and hit with massive top spin like he does.
About 10 years ago, they changed the grass and the soil, which has meant that the ball bounces higher and more evenly. The balls are also now heavier at Wimbledon than they used to be because people were saying the points were over too quick, with serve being too dominant. A lot of the players say Wimbledon now plays slower than the US Open. Personally, I think that's the wrong way to go but they won't be going back.
0 -
Absolutely, yes. Andy Roddick being his main rival says it all really. His only other rivals in his prime were Safin, who was awful on grass, and Hewitt. Both lacked variety against Federer, theydid the same old stuff, and got beat the same old way. I haven't said Murray wouldn't beat prime Federer on grass, not even close.
Yep, he most definitely is. Federer would have upward of 5 FO's if it weren't for the greatest clay courter of all time. Add in some other excellent clay courters like Corjetta, Moya, Coria, Bruguera, Nalbandian, Daydenko, Kuerten, Djokovic and all the Spanish and French clay speciallists. The clay court field was, and remains to be, immensely stronger than the grass court field, no doubt about it.
If Federer had played Murray at Wimbledon this year, he would've been a massive favourite to win. Nadal has beaten Murray twice at Wimbledon in straight sets even though the surface doesn't suit his natural game; Federer's style of play is made for grass, Murray's isn't.
You will be the only person on planet Earth who thinks that Federer is better on clay than grass. No one can argue that there are more specialist clay court players than grass court ones. People in Spain and South America grow up on the surface, and there are dozens of clay court tournaments per year, while grass is only played on for only a few weeks each summer. Just because there are more people who like playing on clay, it doesn't automatically follow that because Federer may have a few slightly tougher matches early on in tournaments on clay, that he is better on clay than grass. That remains the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.
0 -
Multiple grand slam winners have almost always won their first one by the age of 22.
The very best multiple Grand Slam winner (Roger Federer) won his first at the age of 23 - which Murray will also achieve.
Let's back this up with some facts since I'm not doing much this afternoon. Multiple male grand slam winners since 1980.
Name, total number of grand slam titles, age at first grand slam win
Bjorn Borg, 11 GS, age 18
John McEnroe, 7 GS, age 20
Johan Kriek, 2 GS, age 23 [won 2 Australian Opens when most of the top players didn't bother playing]
Mats Wilander, 7 GS, age 18
Jimmy Connors, 8 GS, age 22
Ivan Lendl, 8 GS, age 24
Stefan Edberg, 6 GS, age 19
Boris Becker, 6 GS, age 18
Pete Sampras, 14 GS, age 19
Jim Courier, 4 GS, age 20
Andre Agassi, 8 GS, age 22
Sergei Bruguera, 2 GS, age 22
Yevgeny Kafelnikov, 2 GS, age 22
Gustavo Kuerten, 3 GS, age 20
Patrick Rafter, 2 GS, age 24
Marat Safin, 2 GS, age 20
Lleyton Hewitt, 2 GS, age 20
Roger Federer 16 GS, age 21
Rafael Nadal, 8 GS, age 18/19 [birthday around the date of French Open final, can't be bothered checking]
So there you have it. Of the 19 multiple grand slam winners from the past 30 years, only 3 of them won their first one past the age of 22. Kriek doesn't really count as the Australian Open in 1981 and 1982 featured hardly any of the top players and was just another tournament in the eyes of most people at that time. Lendl and Rafter were 24 when winning their first grand slam - Murray is 24 in May. Lendl is the only player to have had massive success who didn't win a grand slam by the age of 22 (Rafter and Kriek "only" won 2). Time is ticking for Murray.
If you're going to argue this one garymcc1874, please make sure your facts are correct, thanks.
0 -
The very best multiple Grand Slam winner (Roger Federer) won his first at the age of 23 - which Murray will also achieve.
Wrong.
Federer won Wimbledon in 2003 when he was 21. I'm all for people having opinions (even if they're ridiculous like McKee), but if you're going to argue facts at least get it right.
0 -
What are the odd's on murray becoming number 1 in the world?
Winning multiple Grand slams?
Not bets i would place as i don;t know loads about tennis but im interested. I do think the US is by far his best chance of a slam.
You can bet on year end number one at the start of the year with a few bookmakers (with Betfair all through the year, but there is no money in the market). Link to the market Obviously Nadal has 7045 points in the bank from Monte Carlo in April through to Wimbledon at the beginning of July, so unless he gets injured no one can realistically challenge him until the French Open next year.
Multiple grand slams, no one would offer this bet but you can ask for it (William Hill probably most likely to accommodate you, at awful odds).
Agreed, he has always said so himself. Got more chance at the Australian Open than Wimbledon also. Currently just short of 4/1 to win the US Open. I wouldn't back that price given the way he has bottled his two previous grand slam finals. He also needs to pretty much match Soderling's performance in Cincy this week, otherwise he could go into the US Open seeded fifth, which could mean playing one of the top players in the quarters.
Yes, I think Murray is currently a slightly better grass courter than Federer. One of the reasons Federer was so dominant on grass was due to a fairly weak grass court field. Hardcourt has always been by far his best surface, followed by clay.
:lol:Federer loses one match to Berdych and suddenly he's not as good as Murray on grass? Federer won Wimbledon six times beating a load of no hopers did he? Federer is better on clay than grass?
:lol: That is the most ludicrous statement I've ever read on this forum. Seriously, are you on the wind up or have you just never watched tennis before? Federer's game (good first serve, big forehand, excellent at the net, generally a very attacking player) means he wants the courts as fast as possible so he gets full value for his shots, and he also wants the bounce to be as low as possible so that he can attack and use his skills at the net where possible. Now which surface would be the best for all that?
Here's a clue for you: his career winning percentage on grass is 87.2%, outdoor hard courts 81.9% and clay 76.6% . Given he is better on clay than grass
, why is his career record against Nadal on clay 2-10, while his career record on grass against Nadal 2-1 (all Wimbledon finals)? Incidentally, the two clay wins against Nadal were on faster clay courts in Hamburg and Madrid, both of which came when Nadal was a long way short of 100% fitness. I'm not even going to waste my time responding any more, carry on in your fantasy world.
0 -
Some bizarre posts on this thread. People with a fetish for Gulbis (I've no idea why?), people who think Murray is/will be better than Nadal.
It's always been the same with British tennis. We have so few good players, that when we do have a pretty good one (Henman or Murray), they get slaughtered for every loss in a big match, then if they happen to win a few matches suddenly they're the best thing since sliced bread. Clearly Murray is better than Henman ever was, but he needs to make the major breakthrough quickly or else it may pass him by (as I said up the thread amongst all the Gulbis nonsense). Multiple grand slam winners have almost always won their first one by the age of 22 (Murray was 23 in May). I firmly believe that when del Potro is fit again, he will be superior to Murray on hard courts and will be around throughout Murray's career. Murray does have a 4-0 hard court record against him before anyone points this out, but wait and see next year when del Potro is fit. Perhaps even Gulbis will start winning everything?
The next top player may be in his teens and ready to emerge also. Nadal is already one of the all time great players. Murray isn't and never will be. Don't forget that Murray won the Canadian Masters 1000 event last year, and following that up by losing 5-7 2-6 2-6 to Cilic in the US Open. The very best players know how to peak for the biggest tournaments. Murray has made two finals, but has admitted previously that he hasn't quite got it right yet.
Murray is a very, very good player playing in an era with two all time great players and several other very good ones. He might win a US Open or an Australian Open along the way, but Nadal is on another planet altogether.
0 -
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you'll be in a very small minority believing he'll win majors and reach the top five. He is unlikely to find motivation if he hasn't already.
Also, if Gulbis has Nadal's attitude and temperament he'd already be a multiple grand slam champion.
Only three players other than Nadal and Federer have won one of the grand slams since Wimbledon 2004. Safin (Australia 2005), Djokovic (Australia 2008) and del Potro (US Open 2009). All of those three players are better than Gulbis, whatever his attitude or motivation. Gulbis has not been remotely close at any point to a grand slam win. Are you suggesting if he'd been a bit more motivated he would've beaten Federer in grand slams over the past few years? Or beaten Nadal at Roland Garros? A ludicrous suggestion.
I'm tiring of this pointless argument, but if you're persisting with the direct comparison with Tsonga, why if Gulbis is so much better, does Tsonga have a 3-0 head to head record against him?
Like I say, when it comes talent, Gasquet is probably the only player on the ATP Tour who could claim to be perhaps as naturally gifted as Federer. What has he won? Nothing much. What is he likely to win? Nothing much, because his attitude is all wrong. Gulbis doesn't have the ability of Gasquet, so why should he be any different?
0 -
Elite players almost always have made the top 20 by the age of 22. Elite players have also usually won one of the four majors by that age. You always get slightly late developers, particularly in the men's game. Someone like Gulbis looks the sort of player who will achieve what he is going to by the age 25 I would've thought. He had a decent run earlier in the year which boosted his ranked but many players move into the top 30 for a while before falling back again.
Tsonga has won a Masters 1000 and reached a grand slam final. I would be astonished if Gulbis ever does either of those things. In the last eight grand slam events that Gulbis has played, he has not made it past round two. To achieve far, far more than Tsonga, he would have to win a grand slam, multiple Masters 1000 events and do better than Tsonga's career high ranking of 6. A very, very long shot.
Gulbis certainly has ability, but he has very little mental strength and application. If it was just down to talent, Richard Gasquet would have been in the top three in the world rankings for the past few years, but it's about more than that. If you gave Gulbis Nadal's attitude and temperament, he would have a shot at the top 10 at some point. As it stands, very unlikely to ever happen.
0 -
Gulbis is 22 in a couple of weeks and has a career high ranking of 27, which is not impressive. He tends to show brief runs of decent form, before deciding he can't be bothered again. He has talent but there is nothing to suggest he has the application to be a consistently top 20 player. Tsonga has already achieved more than Gulbis ever will in his career is all likelihood.
Talented teenagers like Dimitrov are ten a penny on the ATP Tour, not many of them make it to the top of the game. He is currently ranked 270, with a career high of 255. By his age, Nadal had won the French Open and Murray was ranked inside the top 50. People endlessly talk Dimitrov up all the time, but I've never really seen why. Need to see more of him, but I would be very surprised if he is in the top 20 two years from now.
0 -
PS, I think it's laughable how much you are overrating Tsonga. He is the epitome of averageness. Totally bizzare that you think he'll be ahead of the likes of Berdych, Gulbis, Querry, Cilic, Dimitrov and Young in 2 years time.
Only Berdych and possibly Cilic out of that list have any realistic chance of being ranked above Tsonga in 2012. Would be surprised to see any of the others in the top 20.
0 -
del Potro is the real deal, he improved massively over the course of last year. Without the injury, I reckon he would probably be sitting at number two in the rankings currently. Whether he will be able to reach the same level when he returns is not certain, but his all round game is superb. He may not have the finesse of some players, but he can hit with massive power off both wings and has an excellent serve.
Soderling won't dominate anything. He is currently enjoying a purple patch, which may last for a while longer, but is unlikely to involve him winning a major tournament.
Berdych is very talented, but until this year was all over the place when it came to the matches that really mattered. He has the potential to be a dangerous opponent for many years to come, but he doesn't have the mental strength to be a consistent winner.
Tsonga I love to watch, but he just doesn't have that something extra to make him an elite player. Too inconsistent, and prone to the odd injury. Murray beat him easily at Wimbledon, which just about shows where he is at. His return of serve is poor and movement could be better.
Djokovic is probably deserving of more respect. He is currently ranked number two (until tomorrow), and is consistent in making the semi finals of most tournaments he plays at least. He has problems in the intense heat, as well as other physical problems, which have lead him to retire from important matches in the past. Djokovic is more than a match for everyone outside the top four usually, but hasn't improved in the past two years the way a couple of other players have. That's not to say he won't in the future.
Murray, I think time is running out. Almost all multiple grand slam winners have won their first one by the age of 22. He has every chance in the US Open, and the Australian Open after that, but if he fails to win either, the game may pass him by. The next Federer/Sampras may emerge (it may be del Potro IMO), Nadal is only a few months older than Murray, so he needs to get it done now. Will be interesting to see how he gets on in New York, always regarded by himself and others as his best chance of winning the big one.
People like Thomas Johansson and Goran Ivanišević won majors out of nowhere late in their careers, so you certainly can't rule any good player out and say "he'll never win one".
0 -
Another betting and laying question
Its easier to understand though if its based on your own betting.
Basically, I've £4( Billy Big Stakes, Eh!?) on Nick Watney, mainly just for interest. He is half way through his first round, and is -2.
I got him at 60.0 and he is now at 19 and able to lay at 19.5.
What kinda of money would I A) Have to put down to make some profit and B) What kind of profit could I look at?
I will not necessarily lay it but if I can make some dosh without the drama I probably will. Does the lowness of my intial stake dramatically effect the profit margins?
Sorry if these are silly questions.
Yours Sincerely.
J.Stu x
If you want the same return either way, you just divide the odds you backed (60) by the odds you can lay (19.5) and multiply by the stake (£4). The odds have to be in decimal form for this.
(60/19.5)*4 = £12.31 , which means lay £12.31 @ 19.5
If he wins, you win (59*4) - (18.5*12.31) = £8.27
If he doesn't win, you win 12.31 - 4 = £8.31
The same either way, except for a few pence due to rounding.
0 -
Good question - except I don't know the answer.
Some bookmakers were offering Over/Under a certain number of goals for individual players before the World Cup started. However, Messi's total will have been 3 or 3.5 so that's no good. Alternatively, you could've just layed him to score any time for each game and rolled over the returns onto the next one. He was odds on to score in all of the group games, mostly you could lay in the low 1.8's. Today you could've layed about Evens, he went off at about 2.04. The only problem with that is that in the knockout stages, extra doesn't count for those bets. So he could score a hat-trick in extra time and your bet would be a winner provided he didn't score in 90 mins.
If you'd layed him to score in every game so far and rolled over all returns onto the next bet, your odds would be between 21/1 and 22/1 so far.
0 -
Murray is getting absolutely murdered, probably shows why I was in the minority. I used to be a serious tennis gambler, all I can say tonight is that I'm glad I didn't bother betting on this match as I'd be in a very deep hole right now.
0 -
Ferrer isn't that clear a favourite, the odds suggest 60/40 in Ferrer's favour. I reckon Murray has a bit more chance than that, but I'm probably in the minority.
0 -
I'd back short odds that said PM contained your referral code.
0 -
As you can see from mid-table's stats, generally the lower the level the less home advantage counts. I made a living for years backing largely away teams in the Scottish Second and Third divisions because home advantage doesn't count for much but the bookmakers priced the games as if it did. Home advantage is the same as any factor in betting, the more successful you are at quantifying it, the better you'll do.
0 -
No, it's far from being a private members club Blue. And aye, absolutely, there is room at the inn.
We typically play from 9:30 until 10:30 and pay five pounds a piece for the let. If you can commit to the terms then, by all means, consider yourself in.
I always think we benefit from new blood.
How would you describe your playing repertoire? Inclined towards graft or guile? What's the fitness like? (Don't worry, a sheet of A4 couldn't conga under our set-bar).
That's all fine by me. The new blood will be temporary unfortunately though as Glasgow is 160 miles from home.
I'm better at defending than attacking, so graft would be more my style. Fitness is sadly lacking, but as long as you're not all fine athletic specimens, it shouldn't be too bad.
Just at the power-league pavilion changes Blue. I trust you know where it is aye?
That's the same place as the P&B Fives isn't it?
Make sure you PM someone with your number.
Will do, although I hope I don't get calls with funny grunting noises at strange times of the night.
0 -
Yeah that's no problem, got a few engagements in the afternoon but nothing on in the evening. Won't be online tomorrow all day though, do you have a usual meeting point?
0 -
Chaps, is this a private members club or do you allow one-off appearances from special guest stars?
I'm in Glasgow on Monday and Tuesday so if you've room for one more I can play if you like?0 -
Yes it's a fair point, you have to look at every game in exactly the same way whether it's one of many on a Saturday, or the only game on a Monday night, which also happens to be televised. Although for many people, they bet to give them an interest in televised sport, so they bet anyway. I lay prices on virtually every game anyway, but don't always get matched on the solitary games - I don't change my methods just to make sure I have a bet matched.
0 -
Good to hear from you, it's been a while.
Can you give me your opinion on the Championship, I have Newcastle in a treble that returns about £3k that is looking okay, but West Brom are looking half decent at the moment. Been studying the run ins and it might get a bit too close to call for my liking.
Also got Lakers to win the Western Conference Final, can talk more about that one in May!
It has been a while. My visits to this forum have been rather infrequent since last summer, plus not been using MSN much at all either for one reason or another. I'll probably be around quite a lot more the next few months.
My gut feeling is that Newcastle will come out on top, but of course you may want to cover yourself. I'm a risk taker in those sort of situations so I would probably take my chances. Although if you remember correctly, a little bit later than this time last year, I was getting Betfair to put Championship season match bets up and sticking thousands up laying Ipswich v Watford @ 1.6 or so! Luckily there were no takers. This time they've already got them up, with pretty much nothing matched on any of them as you'd expect. At least it would probably be much easier to get them to add West Brom v Newcastle if need be than it was to get them put up at all last season.
My long-term bets are probably going to make me more than last season - most of the larger bets I've got focus on Portsmouth to do badly. As I posted here before the season, there were some great bets around, I'd have had literally almost everything I owned on them to finish in the bottom half @ 2/7. I'm just hoping Portsmouth go into administration rather than liquidation as I think the bookmakers would cause trouble when it comes to paying out on relegation/bottom half/bottom six/season match bets involving them if they ceased to exist in their current form and all their results were wiped from the records.
Lakers are the usual Lakers this season, they might win the NBA Championship easily or lose to a team they really shouldn't. My focus has almost entirely been on the totals betting this season, I've almost stopped caring who actually wins!! Lakers are certainly best of the West, but as usual this is the better conference with a few dangerous teams about come playoff time. I think the Lakers have been too short most of the season and I'd not be a backer at current prices. That said, fluke results in the playoffs are a lot harder to come by than in the NFL or MLB.
0 -
Price it to 100%, it's much easier that way.
I tend to find the best method is to price the favourite first, then the draw. The draw should be the easiest of the three outcomes to price. Once you've got your favourite and draw odds, if you're pricing to 100%, the outsider odds follow automatically. You will find using this method that on occasion you might end up with the outsider at a silly price. This is especially true if there is a very short priced favourite.
For example, from memory Man Utd v Portsmouth was something like 1.17 Man Utd and 9.6 the draw. From this it would automatically follow that Portsmouth should be 24.31 if you're pricing to 100%. However, you might've said that perhaps the draw odds should be 7.2 . A perfectly natural assumption since the draw at nearly 9/1 for a Premier League match might seem a little high. If you have the prices at 1.17 and 7.2, Portsmouth would then be about 155/1. If you priced either Man Utd or the draw any shorter, then you'd have over a 100% book just for the first two outcomes.
My point is that it gets easier to do with experience, and sometimes you have to play around with the prices a little bit. When one team is a big favourite, everything is more sensitive using that method I described.
0
:lol:
:lol: That is the most ludicrous statement I've ever read on this forum. Seriously, are you on the wind up or have you just never watched tennis before? 
I'm in Glasgow on Monday and Tuesday so if you've room for one more I can play if you like?
Andy Murray Latest and General Tennis Chat
in All Other Sports
Posted
As usual, you're not correct. Total points were Nadal 98-91.
Tennis isn't basketball. The scoring system is different, it's not about total points won (even though Nadal won more anyway). If you have stacks of break points and miss them all, and your opponent is 3/3 on break points, then you lose. As I just said, at the highest level, tennis is about playing the big points well.
Just take the 2008 Federer-Nadal Wimbledon final as the perfect example. Total points were 209-204 Nadal, but Federere had loads of break points the first two sets and missed them all. He was 1/13 overall in the match, Nadal was 4/13. Federer had break point 4-3 up in the final set. If he took that, he almost certainly wins and everyone says how great he is. He didn't, but Nadal took his chance and won 9-7. On such fine margins are big matches decided.
The mental side of the game is crucual, and so far Murray has fallen short in the two grand slam finals and two Wimbledon semi finals he has played. He has frozen on the big points, which lost him any chance of winning.