Tennis
5.4 @3-0
I think the chances are 50/50.
So, Andy to lay at start.
Very confident.
In the bag methinks.
he's played well but there's plenty of chat and antagonism out there, initiated by murray, which the czech has allowed himself to become distracted by. combined with murray upping his play and berdych's finds himself losing focus for the first time in the entire tournament.
he'd been faultless and serene all tournament up until that murray rebreak, he now looks lost.
but with 72 hours to recover he will have everything no matter what happens here, even a 6 hour marathon won't matter, he would be 95% recovered after 48 hours but with an extra day he will be 100%
so no need to hold back now
Jan 29, 2015 -- 11:50AM, DStyle wrote:
who's the ranga sitting with Kim Sears with the awful haircut?
the ranga 
.
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:06PM, Mike-lfc wrote:
say he wins this... anyone think he can get the French and the career slam? Can't see it myself
No. Way too many people can beat him on clay.
To good when fully fit And in a slam. Berdy result against an unfit Nadal flattered and deceived
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:09PM, schillaci wrote:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=etcx0i&s=8#.VMoiwUesXWQ
schillaci goats again
But the likes of Bjorn Borg are rated higher than Agassi (11 slams vs 8 slams, but Agassi won all 4).
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:14PM, n88uk wrote:
You only get appreciation for completing calendar slam if it's something you're missing. Like Federer was before he won the French Open.But the likes of Bjorn Borg are rated higher than Agassi (11 slams vs 8 slams, but Agassi won all 4).
true
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:16PM, ArmchairIdiot wrote:
muzza wont give a toss about RG
I agree. Think his priority s are us Wimbledon oz then french in that order
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:16PM, n88uk wrote:
It's becoming an easier task though with the way the surfaces are these days.
clay is supposed to be faster now than what it was, but it's nowhere near fast enough yet at RG imo. it is at little challenger events around the world, and the small atp events, hence Karlovic opting for those over hardcourt events!
with Fed and Nadal looking suspect you never know, Muzz has gone Final-Win before there..
interesting to see if he has the motivation to push hard all year, why shouldn't he IF he has already a slam in the bag?
I missed both SF matches, was there anything remarkable?
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:20PM, mesmerised wrote:
The thing is, there is only one clay slam and one grass slam, to be called a complete player, really you have to be winning at least 1 slam on each surface, so it doesn't matter if you win the US Open but don't win Australian or vice versa, so I would rather win a slam on all 3 surfaces instead of winning say 5 slams 2 surfaces. because it'd always feel like something was missing, Federer would never had retired satisfied if he'd had never won the French.
Federer was already acknowledged as the greatest ever before he won RG.
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:20PM, judorick wrote:
seriously if Muzz were to win this title he would have the chance to push for #2 or even #1 later in the year, look at his MS 1000 total from last year, he barely made a QF all year and only has 270 points from IW and Miami combinedwith Fed and Nadal looking suspect you never know, Muzz has gone Final-Win before there..interesting to see if he has the motivation to push hard all year, why shouldn't he IF he has already a slam in the bag?
Not strong enough on clay is normally why he never truly challenges for #1. Murray's results on clay tend to lose him too much ground over his main rivals for #1.
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:22PM, ArmchairIdiot wrote:
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:20PM, mesmerised wrote:The thing is, there is only one clay slam and one grass slam, to be called a complete player, really you have to be winning at least 1 slam on each surface, so it doesn't matter if you win the US Open but don't win Australian or vice versa, so I would rather win a slam on all 3 surfaces instead of winning say 5 slams 2 surfaces. because it'd always feel like something was missing, Federer would never had retired satisfied if he'd had never won the French.Federer was already acknowledged as the greatest ever before he won RG.
yes but I'm not talking about greatest I'm talking about satisfaction, he'd never have had a complete career without the French. The goat debate is something else, but when you've only won 33% of matches v your biggest ever rival, whose bound to equal his 17 count, then not even federer fan boys will contest it.
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:26PM, ArmchairIdiot wrote:
Fed will also know he plucked his RG title from the bin. A perfectionist like him will know it means much less if you didnt KO Nadal
No-one remembers this in the future.
Titles never get devalued because of who you played (unless it's one of those years where players were striking etc.).
he has scope to improve hugely in all the MS 100S, Wimbledon, USO and the Tour Finals so the clay is not so important
what is important is going into each event intending to go as far as possible and that has not often been the case in the past
but with 2 x GS behind him it might... specially if that is 3 x GS title
Casual tennis fans might not pay attention to him not meeting Nadal, but those within the game and the hard core followers will always remember.
Murray I don't think will be able to win RG because he plays the clayers like he's playing on a hard court, no grip change, no spin.
but if he were to win AO he might think switching focus to RG next year would be worth it to do the career slam
that would involve changing training, coaching on technique etc etc to raise clay level
only really 3 or 4 players likely to beat him (that he might meet through the draw) and he has made SF before at RG...
Jan 29, 2015 -- 12:36PM, judorick wrote:
yes, Muzz may not be bothered by RG especially this year..but if he were to win AO he might think switching focus to RG next year would be worth it to do the career slamthat would involve changing training, coaching on technique etc etc to raise clay levelonly really 3 or 4 players likely to beat him (that he might meet through the draw) and he has made SF before at RG...
Fognini, Nadal, Federer and Djokovic?
but he can't meet ALL of them in the same tournament and if he #2 in the rankings not meet the big boys til SF and final
would need to switch focus, maybe as much as a year in advance, to do it but it might happen if he wins on Sunday
17 months later push for RG, Fed be old by then, who knows what state Rafa will be in..
just speculating
he was never gonna reach a slam final then reached 4
then he was never gonna win a slam after losing 4 finals, then he won 2
then he was never gonna reach another slam final and now he has
now, he's never gonna win RG because Platini says so
Extra week between them starting this year.
Personally I don't think it's out of the question for Murray to win the French at some stage. He had his worst year in a long time last year and still managed to get to the semis there.
and the chances, in my opinion, will more than double if he were to win the AO this Sunday because he's the kind of guy that would see it as a major challenge
but if he loses on Sunday it has to be unlikely he will ever commit to it strongly enough
v wawrinka 0-2
v Nadal 0-7
v djokovic 0-3
v Ferrer 0-4
He struggled badly on his way to the semi last year against Kohli, think it was over 2 days it went on that long, and then 3 tight set v Dasco, the problem is he can't dictate points like he can when he receives a true bounce on a hard court, he has to generate his own pace and it doesn't suit him, one of his biggest assets is speed around court which for a 6ft3" player is impressive, but a slider and a stepper outta point player he is not, if he ever won the French, it'd be the most impressive thing he'd done in his career
When it got to the semi he was spent because of too many long matches beforehand. The Monfils match was another one he had under complete control and let him back into it.
Some of those matches against those better clay court players have been close. With his variety of shots there's no reason why he shouldn't do well on clay really. I've always thought his biggest problem has been lack of patience in the longer rallies.
Don't think they've played on clay platini, they played Madrid but I'm sure that was hard court at the time.
That match should have been done and dusted in a comfortable 4 sets.
Some of those matches against those better clay court players have been close
on clay
v Ferrer 2-9 sets
v wawrinka 0-4 sets
v Djokovic 1-7 sets
v Nadal 2-14 sets
from all those defeats on clay only once has it reached a 3rd set tie break. Watched most of them and he is always schooled on the dust.
Don't know what criteria you use to assess control of a match but a player going from the middle of the 2nd to the middle of the 4th without being broken whilst breaking 3 times himself seems in control to me. At 3-0 in that 4th set it looked for all the world like a 6-0 or 6-1 set on the way till he lost his concentration.
Amongst that lot there have been matches against Ferrer at RG where he was a set up and lost a tie break in the 2nd. He was a break up in the final set against Nadal in Rome last year and he's been in the semis at RG twice losing both to Nadal, one of which was in a year where he was miles off his best. Hardly the profile of someone who couldn't possibly win the thing at some stage. Like I said he could need a bit of luck in the draw but he's assured of being top 4 again now after this tournament so that wouldn't be out of the question either.
We'll have to agree to differ. I know what I saw in that Kohlschreiber match. Then again you're a gooner so what the feck do you know about anything to do with sport
