Andy Murray The Greatest and General Tennis Chat

[Guest The Phoenix]

ver y harsh on murray, but that said it would have been harsh on anyone that didnt go through. Bit of a joke the way the competition is setup.

Why?

Murray had his destiny entirely within his own hands.

Firstly he lost to Federer and secondly he dropped a set to Verdasco.

If I was Federer, I know who I'd rather have put out and it wouldn't have been Murray.

[the jambo-rocker]

Why?

Murray had his destiny entirely within his own hands.

Firstly he lost to Federer and secondly he dropped a set to Verdasco.

If I was Federer, I know who I'd rather have put out and it wouldn't have been Murray.

Just that there was only one game in it. Del potro had 45-43, which narrowly edged murray on 44-43. I think someone has said that if Murray had won the coin toss against Verdasco and served first in the first set, he would have likely won it 6-3, instead of 6-4 and gone through or at least tie up the the games aggregate.

Edited November 27, 2009 by the jambo-rocker

[Guest The Phoenix]

Just that there was only one game in it. Del potro had 45-43, which narrowly edged murray on 44-43. I think someone has said that if Murray had won the coin toss against Verdasco and served first in the first set, he would have likely won it 6-3, instead of 6-4 and gone through.

Yeah, I accept that at the end of the day it came down to a single game but Murray could (and should if he were good enough) have closed the door on Verdasco 2 sets to 0.

[the jambo-rocker]

Yeah, I accept that at the end of the day it came down to a single game but Murray could (and should if he were good enough) have closed the door on Verdasco 2 sets to 0.

i dont disagree that murray probably should have had him two sets. He looked comfortable enough at the start of a few of break games in the third to go on and win them before bottling them and giving verdasco his hold.

[Skyline Drifter]

Is this wrong then? I wish it wasn't because it would put Murray through, but regardless, and although it's practically difficult to do, it's unfair that the final two matches aren't played simultaneously when they could depend on each other. If Murray was playing Verdasco second and knew he had to get a break in that 3rd set I'm pretty sure he would have played a different game. It all makes it very exciting but it is a little unfair on Murray.

Apparently it was wrong. In my defence I was repeating the rules as stated in the Independent yesterday morning. As they printed the rules Murray would be through. They said that in the event of a three way tie, games won would be used to decide the group winner (which would be Federer) and then the head to head of the other two would decide runner up. Had that been the case Murray would have gone through. Clearly it wasn't.

Have to say it's an absolute nonsense that the rules weren't crystal clear and it was completely ludicrous that Del Potro had to hang around on court for about 15 minutes post match last night before anyone was able to confirm to him he was through. Even if the rules can't be simplified, they should be completely clear to at least someone in authority so that the players know what's happened when they come off court.

Murray is extraordinarily unlucky to be out. He did everything he was expected to do ultimately as the No 4 in the world. He beat the Nos 5 and 7 and lost narrowly to the No 1. That ought to have had him in the semi finals and it's a hell of a series of results that means he isn't. To a fair extent though he had every opportunity to get there:

- He was 5-0 up 1st set against Del Potro and conceded a break back that ultimately cost him big even though he won the set 6-2.

- He had an opportunity to beat Verdasco in straight sets and guarantee his own progression and blew the 2nd set tiebreak.

- Del Potro had two serves in his own 2nd set tiebreak last night to take Murray and himself through.

- Federer had 3 break points in the 3rd set last night that would have taken Murray and himself through.

- But the most damning failure was Murray's own in tanking his final set to Federer 6-1. Even a respectable 6-3 in that set would have seen him through. It was noted at the time that the margin of defeat in that set might come back to haunt him. Sadly it did.

In the end the only way he could go out last night was if Del Potro won two sets very comfortably to Federer but lost one narrowly. That's exactly what happened. Even if Federer had put up a better fight first set last night that would have been enough for Murray.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Skyline Drifter

[RedWeb]

In the end the only way he could go out last night was if Del Potro won two sets very comfortably to Federer but lost one narrowly. That's exactly what happened.

Indeed. If you'd scripted a film called "Let's Get Murray Out In The Most Agonising Way Possible" I'm sure most Hollywood producers would have rejected it for being too far fetched. Watching the match it felt like almost every point which needed to go a certain way went that way. The first two sets needed to be split with Potty winning his easily and Fed winning in a tie-break, it of course happened exactly like that. However, the icing on the cake of this farce was surely Rogers "collapse" at 3-3 in the 3rd. The stupid twerp only needed to take one of 3 break points but couldn't manage it. Well, at least he'll hold serve as he has been solid for the last hour or so of play. Low and behold it's the worst service game of the week and Murray is as good as out.

Of course it wasn't a fix but it sure as hell felt like it as the nightmare script unfolded to perfection

[StewartyMac]

You have to wonder if there's any more ways our sportsmen can just miss out. We seem to have gone through them all.

Imagine Scotland being at the World Cup finals (no wait, come back), and winning two of their three group games, but losing out on goal difference. That must be what it feels like for Murray.

[The Woolshed]

You have to wonder if there's any more ways our sportsmen can just miss out. We seem to have gone through them all.

Imagine Scotland being at the World Cup finals (no wait, come back), and winning two of their three group games, but losing out on goal difference. That must be what it feels like for Murray.

Before i say this, i am fully prepared for the backlash from the Fed fans......

But i couldn't help but feel that if Fed really had to win that final set to qualify, he would have. I'm not neccasirly saying he through the match, just thought he knew that by winning 1 game in the 3rd (He's a clever guy, i'm sure he would know the possible outcomes), that he had qualified. His record against Murray isn't great, hes an astute tactician both on and off the court in my eyes...

[Guest The Phoenix]

Before i say this, i am fully prepared for the backlash from the Fed fans......

But i couldn't help but feel that if Fed really had to win that final set to qualify, he would have. I'm not neccasirly saying he through the match, just thought he knew that by winning 1 game in the 3rd (He's a clever guy, i'm sure he would know the possible outcomes), that he had qualified. His record against Murray isn't great, hes an astute tactician both on and off the court in my eyes...

Yip, got to rank alongside JFK, Lady Di and The Moon Landing.

[Skyline Drifter]

Before i say this, i am fully prepared for the backlash from the Fed fans......

But i couldn't help but feel that if Fed really had to win that final set to qualify, he would have. I'm not neccasirly saying he through the match, just thought he knew that by winning 1 game in the 3rd (He's a clever guy, i'm sure he would know the possible outcomes), that he had qualified. His record against Murray isn't great, hes an astute tactician both on and off the court in my eyes...

His record against Del Potro isn't great either.

I'm prepared to accept Federer may have known with relative certainty (as certain as anyone could be about anything last night) during the third set that he'd already done enough to get through but I doubt he then deliberately lost. It may have taken an edge off him though. Who knows?

[printer]

Anyone else feel the media have been incompetent here? Part of their job is to inform us and they seemed totally confused as to what the rules were and how to apply them. They are not that complex. With the nature of the tournament this or a similar situation was always likely to arise.

In particular the BBC are a joke these days. Dumbing down all over the place.

[Skyline Drifter]

Anyone else feel the media have been incompetent here? Part of their job is to inform us and they seemed totally confused as to what the rules were and how to apply them. They are not that complex. With the nature of the tournament this or a similar situation was always likely to arise.

In particular the BBC are a joke these days. Dumbing down all over the place.

Mmm, not really.

The media certainly got it wrong in plenty of sources (The Independent yesterday morning was quite clear for instance that if the result ended up as it did Murray would go through with Federer as runner up due to his head to head with Del Potro). The BBC were contradicting themselves in different places with the website disagreeing with Radio Five Live.

However, the fact the ATP themselves needed a desperate 15 minutes post match before they could announce the standings whilst Del Potro embarrassingly knocked a ball about on court with Tevez somewhat underlines that even the people who made the rules didn't fully understand them. If that's the case I don't really think the media can be blamed too much.

[pantene proV]

I thought it was quite straightforward. Because Murray won two matches 2-1, a 2-1 win for Del Potro would put him out as both he and Federer had already won at least one match 2-0. Therefore both there 'set differences would be greater than Murrays.

Both Federer & Del Potro beat Verdasco 2-1 not 2-0 so not that straightforward for you

Every match in group A went to 3 sets and that's why the confusion.

Edited November 27, 2009 by pantene proV

[TheScarf]

Both Federer & Del Potro beat Verdasco 2-1 not 2-0 so not that straightforward for you

Every match in group A went to 3 sets and that's why the confusion.

Oh aye. I thought I was being a smart arse

[printer]

Mmm, not really.

The media certainly got it wrong in plenty of sources (The Independent yesterday morning was quite clear for instance that if the result ended up as it did Murray would go through with Federer as runner up due to his head to head with Del Potro). The BBC were contradicting themselves in different places with the website disagreeing with Radio Five Live.

Surely this just backs up my point?

However, the fact the ATP themselves needed a desperate 15 minutes post match before they could announce the standings whilst Del Potro embarrassingly knocked a ball about on court with Tevez somewhat underlines that even the people who made the rules didn't fully understand them. If that's the case I don't really think the media can be blamed too much.

Not sure there is there any evidence that the delay was because they didn't understand the rules fully. Was the delay not to be expected given the closeness of the results while the powers that be checked the situation?

In any case, even if they didn't fully understand the situation, that doesn't IMO excuse the media. The rules are not rocket science.

I heard the reporter on BBC Radio Scotland on Thursday morning making the point that Murray could win "and still go out" as though that were an incredible situation in sport, when it is pretty straightforward given the format of the event.

Edited November 27, 2009 by printer

[Virtual Insanity]

I was at the afternoon session watching Murray yesterday, and afterwards being the stats geek I am I checked the rules and did the sums, and thus knew exactly what the permutations were going into the Federer match, it really wasn't that difficult. When it got to 4-3 Del Potro with Federer serving it seemed clear a hold for Federer would take Murray through. Now I'm not about to go all CN with the conspiracy theories, but I can honestly say I have never, ever seen Federer crumble at such an important stage of a match in the manner he did last night.

[Guest The Phoenix]

I was at the afternoon session watching Murray yesterday, and afterwards being the stats geek I am I checked the rules and did the sums, and thus knew exactly what the permutations were going into the Federer match, it really wasn't that difficult. When it got to 4-3 Del Potro with Federer serving it seemed clear a hold for Federer would take Murray through. Now I'm not about to go all CN with the conspiracy theories, but I can honestly say I have never, ever seen Federer crumble at such an important stage of a match in the manner he did last night.

Also picked up in Sky commentary - at 5-3 to Del Potro, they said "Providing Del Potro doesn't lose his serve, he's through and Murray is out".

[xbl]

News that will have HB spluttering into his Earl Grey!

Murray withdraws from Davis Cup tie

Team GB face Lithuania in March and Murray will now sit down with the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) before every match to discuss his participation.

More to follow, but it sounds from the way he's talking about it like he just doesn't want to play tennis for the decaying old Union any more.

[Guest The Phoenix]

News that will have HB spluttering into his Earl Grey!

Murray withdraws from Davis Cup tie

More to follow, but it sounds from the way he's talking about it like he just doesn't want to play tennis for the decaying old Union any more.

Nonsense.

Andy Murray has fully consulted with the LTA in making this decision and has made it clear he is available to play for his country at any time.

[RedWeb]

News that will have HB spluttering into his Earl Grey!

Murray withdraws from Davis Cup tie

Quite fucking right. Murray should have f**k all to do with the Dave Cup until someone else grows a set and is able to win a singles match. Time for the likes of Evans and Co to learn the hard way. If we can't beat Lithuania without Murray we should pack it in.