Riotbeard said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
Riotbeard said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
Last I checked, top 10 wins mean as much as a win over any other opponent as far as moving into the next round goes. This isn't chess. The way a tournament works, the deeper you go, the better. Murray has been into the semis at the FO and other clay masters (Monte Carlo twice and Rome). That's more than can be said for Fabio.
I will give you that he might traditionally have a been better chance of a deep run due to his #4 seeding (that he gets on other surfaces), that means that with one upset, he does not have to face a really high level player until the semis thus making it considerably easier for him to have more significant semi's runs that 3F and other players of a similar level without actually being better on clay. Had Fognini had a #4 seed going into every clay tournament for the last 6 years, do you really not see him making a good of masters event semis on clay and probably even one at RG. I would favor him into the semi at RG in 2011, if he had to face the same people as Andy.
Maybe there's a reason Fognini never had a #4 seed going into a clay tournament for the past 6 years? And no, it's not just due to his results on other surfaces. Check his results on clay.
My point has never been that Fognini (I did not bring Fognini into the discussion, but he is someone who functions at least ok for my argument) is great or should be number 4, just that we need to adjust expectations of Murray during the clay season. He is no where near the number 4 player on clay. And I think it's a fair point to say that anybody halfway decent with a high seed is occasionally gonna have good results, even on a surface that doesn't suit them, because of the luck of the draw. Therefore, just citing a few semi's runs without addressing who he beat en route to those semis does not inherently mean the player is good on clay, he might have just gotten lucky enough to always be facing players far weaker than him en route to those results.
The problem is, nobody ever disputed that Murray isn't realistically the 4th best player on clay, nor is he as much of a factor as he is on other surface. So what's the argument exactly?
If someone said Murray isn't a big factor on clay, nobody would hear a word from me cause it's true. But somehow, we're meant to ignore what little good results he's had, while championing others who haven't come close to doing as well, which what Herios did, and you agreed with him... or maybe you didn't judging by the above post. I'm confused.
Herios, in his bid to be cute, sarcastically asked me to confirm what Fognini's "ceiling" was, as apparently, beating Andy Murray on clay is supposed to mean the sky is the limit. Great, I'll dig up Herios post come the clay season after the first time Fognini loses to some OK player.
For now apparently, F3 has no ceiling. Which is something not even Federer can claim, since his ceiling is Nadal. Fabio Fognini: you've been confirmed as the 3rd favorite for Roland Garros.
