Loki Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, Elixir said: Still can't get my head around it, tbh. Hope he doesn't just down tools for Shanghai, Paris and the World Tour Finals. It would be nice to see him finally reach the final of the latter. After this year I hope he lets Edmund and Evans etc get on with the Davis Cup so he can focus more on winning the Slams and Masters events. You do know that tennis players lose matches all the time? Nishikori played as well as he could have and Murray still took him to five sets and had opportunities to win the match, but his serve let him down. Usually when his serve is misfiring he is protecting his back. He gave it his all and wasn't good enough. Kudos to Nishikori he dictated the latter part of the match and his depth and early taking of the ball had Murray in all kinds of bother. Nishikori has now beaten Djokovic, Wawrinka and Murray all at the US Open. I am not sure if you know this, but he's actually a good player. I am sure that the Undertaker's dong did distract him for a period, but Nishikori upped his level at this moment to punish Andy. You will see that Murray never gets distracted by these things when he is winning, generally when he is struggling. He isn't going to "down tools". As for your point about the Davis Cup, that's just rubbish. If he won the US Open he probably would have skipped the Davis Cup, like he did at Wimbledon. Murray would prefer to win another Davis Cup than a Masters title for sure. I think Murray does deserve criticism for last night's match, he played well within himself, but that was partly down to Nishikori. He has had a good year, that will continue. Anyway I'm rooting for Stan to win now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds are Forever Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Watching the point again where the let was called, I don't really get why Murray was so angry as the rally was pretty neutral. Murray was well behind the baseline and although it looks like Nishikori was struggling to get to Murray's backhand you can see Nishikori slows when the umpire calls. I know neutral in a rally is a better position than Nishikori getting another first serve, but it certainly didn't warrant being as annoyed as he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Murray and Soares make the final of the US Open. Their second slam final of the year after winning the Australian Open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds are Forever Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 16 minutes ago, KingQuerrey said: It was a break point on Nishikori's serve, was it not? Or at least a deuce point that he had a very good chance of winning and creating a break point. Perfectly entitled to be annoyed in my opinion, given the umpires inconsistency with calling a let for the noises. It was a break point, that's not really relevant to my point though. I'm saying that Murray getting so frustrated implies that he was going to win the point and was done out of winning it by a let being called, but when you actually watch it it's about 50/50 who would have won it from that point. I think that's actually partly why she maybe called a let as the rally was pretty neutral so neither would feel that aggrieved (or so she thought). If Murray was about to slam away a volley at the net and the noise went off I doubt very much she would have called a let. I've no issue with what you say is inconsistency, the noises were all of different levels and there are noises of some sort in every point of some level to a varying degree. You can't just have a blanket 'any noise and we stop' rule as you'd never get a point finished. She is paid to make that call of when the noise is loud (or sudden) enough to make a difference and I think she got it spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Serena down a set but broke back to 3-3 in the second. Kerber could be #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Pliskova up 2-0 in the tie breaker to win the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Pliskova through in straight sets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted September 9, 2016 Author Share Posted September 9, 2016 Pliskova through in straight sets. Pleasing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Kerber also through in straight sets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 19 hours ago, KingQuerrey said: Since 2012 Murray has reached 8 GS finals, 4 semis and 6 QFS Federer 4 finals, 7 semis, 3 QFS Nadal 6 finals, 0 semis, 2 QFS. In that period Murray has lost before reaching the QF's once. Federer's done it 4 times, Nadal 8 times. Fair to say you're talking out your hole. Wait, Murrays career only started in 2012? That's where I'm going wrong. All you're proving there is that Murray has lost more QF's, SF's and Finals than Federer/Nadal. Federer has 17 GS, Nadal has 14 GS, Murray has 3 GS , clearly Murray has had the most consistent career (in your tiny mind). So "fair to say your talking out of your 'selective' hole". No mention of Djokovic over the same period either, why would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 19 minutes ago, KingQuerrey said: M8, even if you stretch it out over all of their careers, Nadal and Federer have still had more pre-QF defeats than Murray has. They've won more than him because they were simply better players. It's got f**k all to do with Murray's apparent lack consistency. In the open era Murray is in the top 10 for finals reached, SFsreached, QFs reached, match wins, win%, consecutive SFs, consecutive QFs(twice). Literally one of the most consistent tennis players of all time, but that doesn't fit your definition of inhuman consistency for some reason. If there's anything that's going to push him over the barrier and finally break #1, it is his consistency in grand slams. Bizarre that you can look at the situation and think that the reason he hasn't usurped any of them throughout his career is due to poorer consistency. No, it's because he's a lesser player and was usually beaten by one of them whenever they eventually met in the latter stages of the grand slam. If you don't think Federer/Nadal/Djokovic have been more consistent over long periods (they are also better players, I'll give you that one) than Andy Murray that's fine, it's your opinion.....and it's wrong. I would say Stan Wawrinka (amongst others) is a better player than Murray but why is he perpetually below him in the rankings? Murray is consistent but he's had to overcome others with inhuman consistency. You can call losing in QF's,SF's and F's consistent if you like but it's still consistently losing compared to his rivals success. If Murray was able to put together a similar kind of winning consistency to any of those guys then he'd have been world No.1 by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 6 minutes ago, Tommy Nooka said: If you don't think Federer/Nadal/Djokovic have been more consistent over long periods (they are also better players, I'll give you that one) than Andy Murray that's fine, it's your opinion.....and it's wrong. I would say Stan Wawrinka (amongst others) is a better player than Murray but why is he perpetually below him in the rankings? Murray is consistent but he's had to overcome others with inhuman consistency. You can call losing in QF's,SF's and F's consistent if you like but it's still consistently losing compared to his rivals success. If Murray was able to put together a similar kind of winning consistency to any of those guys then he'd have been world No.1 by now. There are plenty of stats out there, one of you could post them so we could remove opinion from the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 There's no way on Earth that Stan Wawrinka is a better player than Andy Murray. That's just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, KingQuerrey said: Stopped reading here. You're no fan of tennis! 2 minutes ago, ayrmad said: There are plenty of stats out there, one of you could post them so we could remove opinion from the subject. Federer - 88 titles, Nadal - 69, Djokovic - 66, Murray - 39 ^ Is that good enough? I'm not bashing Murray in any way, I have (mostly) enjoyed watching him over the years, but to claim he hasn't been up against some the most blindingly consistent players to have ever bashed a ball is being wilfully ignorant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Just now, KingQuerrey said: By what possible measure is Wawrinka(amongst others) a better player than Murray? By using my eyes and seeing that Wawrinka, Del Potro and (to a lesser extent) Cilic would all beat Murray when on their top game, problem is they don't have enough good days...although Del Potro has had horrendous luck with injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 9 minutes ago, TheScarf said: There's no way on Earth that Stan Wawrinka is a better player than Andy Murray. That's just plain wrong. SW is a better tennis player than Andy Murray, is he as consistent as Murray? Not even close, yet he could equal Murrays GS total this weekend. Not bad for someone who is no way on Earth as good as Murray. I've never seen Murray play as well as Stan did on the day of his FO victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tommy Nooka said: SW is a better tennis player than Andy Murray, is he as consistent as Murray? Not even close, yet he could equal Murrays GS total this weekend. Not bad for someone who is no way on Earth as good as Murray. I've never seen Murray play as well as Stan did on the day of his FO victory. Wawrinka has less variety than Murray, is no where near as good at volleying, returning, covering the court. He has a better backhand than Wawrinka too. I could go on, but I'll stop there. You clearly don't watch many Andy Murray matches if you've never seen him play as well as Stan did in Paris last year. Also, delete your account at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 grand slam The Final murray a. 3 8 11 grand slam Quarterfinals murray a. 19 7 26 grand slam Semifinals murray a. 11 9 20 57 grand slam The Final nadal r. 14 6 20 grand slam Quarterfinals nadal r. 22 5 27 grand slam Semifinals nadal r. 19 3 22 69 grand slam The Final federer r. 17 10 27 grand slam Quarterfinals federer r. 40 8 48 grand slam Semifinals federer r. 26 13 39 114 grand slam The Final djokovic n. 12 8 20 grand slam Quarterfinals djokovic n. 28 4 32 grand slam Semifinals djokovic n. 20 9 29 81 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, KingQuerrey said: Marin Cilic is a more talented tennis player than Andy Murray is honestly one of the worst things I've ever seen on this forum. I can't believe I've actually just seen someone say that. Wawrinka, with his 63 losses, 17 wins record against the top 4 being able to play a standard of tennis unreachable for Murray is up there as well though. Keep going though, this is a good laugh. IMO Stan is unbeatable on top form, his problem is he's only reached that level a handful of times in his career compared to Federer Nadal and Djokovic who regulary reach top form, his average game is poor in comparison to the top 4 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 1 minute ago, KingQuerrey said: Marin Cilic is a more talented tennis player than Andy Murray is honestly one of the worst things I've ever seen on this forum. I can't believe I've actually just seen someone say that. Wawrinka, with his 63 losses, 17 wins record against the top 4 being able to play a standard of tennis unreachable for Murray is up there as well though. Keep going though, this is a good laugh. Cilic is a talented tennis player, his head is all over the place though. It's funny how you'll use stats when they support your argument. Coincidentally what's Murrays record against the top 3? Here's a clue, it's pretty similar to Wawrinkas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.