Andy Murray Latest and General Tennis Chat

[Reynard]

Marin Cilic started his match with Del Potro in terrific fashion, but his arse fell off and he looks like he could be going out. To be fair Del Potro is playing the best tennis I have seen from him in this open so far.

Del Potro is looking good. And he is swaggering slightly. I like him a lot as a player. I think he feels he has a big chance to win this.

[RedWeb]

It shows the ATP ranking system up as a farce that a player like Murray can rank ahead of a player the calibre of Nadal.

Murray was ahead of Nadal because in the previous 12 months he had won more ranking points. Not sure how else a "ranking points list" is meant to work. Suggestions welcome

[dubs]

No way in hell is Andy 'Majorless' Murray the second best Tennis player on Earth. No way in hell.

It shows the ATP ranking system up as a farce that a player like Murray can rank ahead of a player the calibre of Nadal. They're like night and day. Nadal is by far the superior player.

Murray lacks the winning mentallity. It comes with being British. It's even more potent in Scots.

Funnily enough I would have said Murray is the polar opposite of the typical quote unquote British player - he doesn't give a f**k what anyone says about him or who he upsets, he just wants to win.

There isn't a question of his mentality, it's his tentative approach that causes him to fail against big hitting in form players at the Slams.

[Skyline Drifter]

Murray was ahead of Nadal because in the previous 12 months he had won more ranking points. Not sure how else a "ranking points list" is meant to work. Suggestions welcome

I agree with you but there is a body of opinion which would suggest that even though the points are weighted towards majors, they aren't weighted heavily enough towards them. I don't actually think the Men's Rankings are much of a problem. Nadal is behind Murray because he's missed tournaments through injury, not because the rankings aren't fair. There's not much the system can do about that and in any event Nadal will be back above him on Monday.

It's far more noticeable in the women's system where Serena Williams can hold three majors but not be No1 whilst Safina can be No 1 despite never having won a major or even particularly threatened to do so. That's an utter nonsense.

[ayrmad]

Funnily enough I would have said Murray is the polar opposite of the typical quote unquote British player - he doesn't give a f**k what anyone says about him or who he upsets, he just wants to win.

There isn't a question of his mentality, it's his tentative approach that causes him to fail against big hitting in form players at the Slams.

Is that not contradictory?

[ayrmad]

I agree with you but there is a body of opinion which would suggest that even though the points are weighted towards majors, they aren't weighted heavily enough towards them. I don't actually think the Men's Rankings are much of a problem. Nadal is behind Murray because he's missed tournaments through injury, not because the rankings aren't fair. There's not much the system can do about that and in any event Nadal will be back above him on Monday.

It's far more noticeable in the women's system where Serena Williams can hold three majors but not be No1 whilst Safina can be No 1 despite never having won a major or even particularly threatened to do so. That's an utter nonsense.

That's the part I don't like about rankings,if someone for talking sake held all the slams it should be impossible for another player to be ranked above them.

If a player earns 4,800 points for winning 4 majors then the points for finishing 2nd in all the slams + winning every week should not total more that 4,800 points.

[H_B]

I think he feels he has a big chance to win this.

Me too. I think he "should" have beaten Federer in Paris. I think he has a mighty good chance and will win.

[Skyline Drifter]

That's the part I don't like about rankings,if someone for talking sake held all the slams it should be impossible for another player to be ranked above them.

If a player earns 4,800 points for winning 4 majors then the points for finishing 2nd in all the slams + winning every week should not total more that 4,800 points.

Equally it could be arged that a points system so designed over-values the majors to such an extent that one lucky draw and glory run in a major can over-rate a journeyman player for a year. As it did with the likes of Baghdatis for instance a couple of years back.

[Guest Springboard]

Murray was ahead of Nadal because in the previous 12 months he had won more ranking points. Not sure how else a "ranking points list" is meant to work. Suggestions welcome

Nadal is three times the player Murray is. That much is clear to see.

How's that for starters?

[StewartyMac]

No way in hell is Andy 'Majorless' Murray the second best Tennis player on Earth. No way in hell.

It shows the ATP ranking system up as a farce that a player like Murray can rank ahead of a player the calibre of Nadal. They're like night and day. Nadal is by far the superior player.

Murray lacks the winning mentallity. It comes with being British. It's even more potent in Scots.

In the last 12 months, Murray has played Nadal four times, and beaten him twice, including the semi final of a Grand Slam.

Right now, if both players were playing at the top of their game, I'd still have Nadal as the better player, but not by a lot.

Also, I like your use of the word 'majorless' as some sort of slur on Murray, even though at the exact same stage in his career, Federer hadn't won a major either. Also, in the last four/five years, only Djokovic has won a 'slam' outwith the big two. Being 'majorless' in the current era isn't exactly a disgrace.

Stick to commenting on stuff you actually know anything about Savo. I've no idea what that could be, but there must be something you know about.

[Gnash]

It's far more noticeable in the women's system where Serena Williams can hold three majors but not be No1 whilst Safina can be No 1 despite never having won a major or even particularly threatened to do so. That's an utter nonsense.

If Serena Williams wants to be the no. 1 ranked player (although I don't see why it should be an end in itself), she ought to do better in the other tournaments. I'd argue that the slams should be worth less in the women's game, because they are only best of 3 sets - like all the other tournaments - whereas the for men the slams are that bit more demanding as they are best of 5.

[Reynard]

Nadal is three times the player Murray is. That much is clear to see.

How's that for starters?

I'd say you were looking to be controversial because you seek attention.

Go away and get your hole son.

[hirop]

Murray is one big shot away from winning his first Slam - I expect by this time next year to see Murray with a more aggressive attacking game. It's his lack of a big attacking forehand that keeps him short at the moment, when he gets that he will be able to handle those days he serves less well and his opponent goes on a blinder (Gonzalez@French, Tsonga@Australian, Roddick@Wimbledon). I appreciate his two handed on-the-move backhand down the line (or cross court) is a thing of beauty, but he needs a cannon to take the next step.

Said it before and I'll say it again.....

I don't think he can change his game mid season, his incredible run in the past 12 months was due to his physical conditioning applied to his existing game - he didn't change how he played, he just got better at it. For all the criticism he is getting here, without have an offensive game he has managed to rise to no. 2 is the rankings, when he gets the big shot he will deliver as his ranking suggests he should. He thinks about his game too much for anything else to happen. I think he has been trying to swing the forehand since the post-Wimbledon break, it's just not there yet, it's only been 3 tourneys. There is a difference between noticeably offensive against lower ranked players in the early rounds, compared to against the top guys who all have weapons to worry about.

[ayrmad]

Equally it could be arged that a points system so designed over-values the majors to such an extent that one lucky draw and glory run in a major can over-rate a journeyman player for a year. As it did with the likes of Baghdatis for instance a couple of years back.

I understand it over-values the majors and falsely elevates the one-off performer,that has got to be better than watching the Womens No.1 getting absolutely destroyed and looking like someone 50 places down the rankings,that just made womens tennis look ridiculous in my eyes.

In the men's rankings Murray shouldn't be able to get above Nadal due to a few tournament absences from Nadal,he is defo the 3rd best man in the world but over the past 4 or 5 years the other 2 have been totally dominant in the majors.

Edited September 12, 2009 by ayrmad

[StewartyMac]

In the men's rankings Murray shouldn't be able to get above Nadal due to a few tournament absences from Nadal,he is defo the 3rd best man in the world but over the past 4 or 5 years the other 2 have been totally dominant in the majors.

The rankings are based on a rolling 12-month period. The previous 4/5 years are irrelevant. I like that, it keeps the rankings fresh.

Anyway, one of his tournament absences was one of the four Grand Slams where Nadal was defending a lot of points, having won it the year before. Anyone who takes a 2000 point hit in the rankings is going to drop quite significantly.

[ayrmad]

The rankings are based on a rolling 12-month period. The previous 4/5 years are irrelevant. I like that, it keeps the rankings fresh.

Anyway, one of his tournament absences was one of the four Grand Slams where Nadal was defending a lot of points, having won it the year before. Anyone who takes a 2000 point hit in the rankings is going to drop quite significantly.

I realise that but perhaps a rolling 24 month period would iron out the anomalies.

[RedWeb]

I realise that but perhaps a rolling 24 month period would iron out the anomalies.

Nah. 2 years is far too long to be giving people credit for something. The ranking list is simply a measure of who has won more points in the last year. It's not saying Murray is better then Nadal or Roddick is better than Del Potro. All it's saying is that in the last 12 months player A has won more points than player B. As such they have earned the right to a higher seeding. If Nadal is better than Murray then he'll beat him so what does it matter where he's seeded.

[airdrieman]

Pish. As brilliant as Murray is when he's at his best, he's far too inconsistent. And he doesn't seem to raise his game for the slams like most of the other top players do.

Much as it pains me to say it, it's very difficult to see him winning any slams in his career. He just can't play well enough for long enough.

Pretty much sums it up. he isn't aggresive enough as well. Time for changes in team Murray I think.

Edited September 13, 2009 by airdrieman

[DomDom]

How good is Fed ?

That shot he did to make it 40-0 in the last game was unreal.

[Reynard]

How good is Fed ?

That shot he did to make it 40-0 in the last game was unreal.

He is in some great form just now. He just destroyed Djokovic out there. It will be an interesting final. Del Potro has looked very very good this whole tournament and I hope they play a good final. I don't mind who wins it as I like watching both of them.