Race for #1

[sid]

Andy Murray is the new world no1

 

[Didi]

Congratulations to Andy Murray and Iona. Hope to see her return to these boards. Murray is 73-9 this season which is as good a record as any career year any player not named Djokovic or Federer had by the way. And he's still got the final and the tour finals to proper that number. Gustavo Kuerten is a well respected player and legend who's been hailed for becoming year end #1 in 2000 with a 63-22 record. So please gimme a break with all the hate surrounding Murray. When you make three consecutive slam finals on slow hard, clay and grass, win masters on each surface and Queens, plus Olympic Gold and all the Indoor events you enter then you are the season's most complete player. It's as simple as that.

 

[Fiero425]

Congratulations to Andy Murray and Iona. Hope to see her return to these boards. Murray is 73-9 this season which is as good a record as any career year any player not named Djokovic or Federer had by the way. And he's still got the final and the tour finals to proper that number. Gustavo Kuerten is a well respected player and legend who's been hailed for becoming year end #1 in 2000 with a 63-22 record. So please gimme a break with all the hate surrounding Murray. When you make three consecutive slam finals on slow hard, clay and grass, win masters on each surface and Queens, plus Olympic Gold and all the Indoor events you enter then you are the season's most complete player. It's as simple as that.

Nole can salvage #1 ranking during the dead period between YE and AO by taking YEC thank GAWD! Murray's a terrible representative for the top spot and we need it to go right back to it's rightful owner! :angel: :dodgy:

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Andy definitely deserves to get to No. 1 but to me it feels definitely less meaningful than when Rafa or Novak did it for the first time. When they achieved it, they seemed to truly have surpassed the player they replaced (Rafa by beating Roger at Wimbledon an winning the Olympics, Novak by beating Rafa in four masters and the Wimbledon final) as the best player in the world at that moment, while with Andy it looks like it was enough to beat the opponents he usually beats and because the players he tended to lose against more often than not weren't even there to meet him that suddenly was enough to win a lot of tournaments instead of mostly reaching the semis or finals.

He's certainly more consistent than ever and had very few bad defeats since Miami but I think he only had to play a few Top 5 or even Top 10 opponents after the French Open to get the results that allowed his rise to No. 1. That is clearly not his fault as he can only play who is across the net but it definitely indicates that the issues especially Novak is dealing with are what made it possible for Andy to get the top ranking at this point in time and makes it tough to assess how much or even if at all he had to improve to get there.

 

[Rational National]

Congratulations to Andy Murray and Iona. Hope to see her return to these boards. Murray is 73-9 this season which is as good a record as any career year any player not named Djokovic or Federer had by the way. And he's still got the final and the tour finals to proper that number. Gustavo Kuerten is a well respected player and legend who's been hailed for becoming year end #1 in 2000 with a 63-22 record. So please gimme a break with all the hate surrounding Murray. When you make three consecutive slam finals on slow hard, clay and grass, win masters on each surface and Queens, plus Olympic Gold and all the Indoor events you enter then you are the season's most complete player. It's as simple as that.

Nole can salvage #1 ranking during the dead period between YE and AO by taking YEC thank GAWD! Murray's a terrible representative for the top spot and we need it to go right back to it's rightful owner! :angel: :dodgy:

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

Give it a rest already. You don't need to say the same thing 5 times, we know you don't like Murray.

Do you not think that you are being a little bit over the top by saying he is a terrible representative??? Despite the question marks at the end of my statement please don't mistake this as a question worthy of you pulling out your charge sheet and entering into a drawn out discussing about how Djokivic is a saint reincarnate whilst Murray is the embodiment of evil.... Quite frankly - I am too busy feeling genuinely emotional about someone from my country whom I believe embodies the best of attributes and represents my country in a way I, and many millions more, can feel proud off.

 

[Rational National]

Andy definitely deserves to get to No. 1 but to me it feels definitely less meaningful than when Rafa or Novak did it for the first time. When they achieved it, they seemed to truly have surpassed the player they replaced (Rafa by beating Roger at Wimbledon an winning the Olympics, Novak by beating Rafa in four masters and the Wimbledon final) as the best player in the world at that moment, while with Andy it looks like it was enough to beat the opponents he usually beats and because the players he tended to lose against more often than not weren't even there to meet him that suddenly was enough to win a lot of tournaments instead of mostly reaching the semis or finals.

He's certainly more consistent than ever and had very few bad defeats since Miami but I think he only had to play a few Top 5 or even Top 10 opponents after the French Open to get the results that allowed his rise to No. 1. That is clearly not his fault as he can only play who is across the net but it definitely indicates that the issues especially Novak is dealing with are what made it possible for Andy to get the top ranking at this point in time and makes it tough to assess how much or even if at all he had to improve to get there.

I believe it indicates more about how terrible those players in the top 5 have been that they have not been able to reach semi's or finals to face Murray....

It's not like Novak was never able to face Murray - I believe he has fallen out of 3 tournaments in the last 2 months that Murray has gone onto win. If anything it's Murray himself that should feel cheated if the opportunity to start eating into the h2h record.....

 

[Fiero425]

Andy definitely deserves to get to No. 1 but to me it feels definitely less meaningful than when Rafa or Novak did it for the first time. When they achieved it, they seemed to truly have surpassed the player they replaced (Rafa by beating Roger at Wimbledon an winning the Olympics, Novak by beating Rafa in four masters and the Wimbledon final) as the best player in the world at that moment, while with Andy it looks like it was enough to beat the opponents he usually beats and because the players he tended to lose against more often than not weren't even there to meet him that suddenly was enough to win a lot of tournaments instead of mostly reaching the semis or finals.

He's certainly more consistent than ever and had very few bad defeats since Miami but I think he only had to play a few Top 5 or even Top 10 opponents after the French Open to get the results that allowed his rise to No. 1. That is clearly not his fault as he can only play who is across the net but it definitely indicates that the issues especially Novak is dealing with are what made it possible for Andy to get the top ranking at this point in time and makes it tough to assess how much or even if at all he had to improve to get there.

I believe it indicates more about how terrible those players in the top 5 have been that they have not been able to reach semi's or finals to face Murray....

It's not like Novak was never able to face Murray - I believe he has fallen out of 3 tournaments in the last 2 months that Murray has gone onto win. If anything it's Murray himself that should feel cheated if the opportunity to start eating into the h2h record.....

Let's not go insane! :angel: :dodgy: :snicker :laydownlaughing

Update: That made the cut to my blog! :snicker :ras:

- - https://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/10/whats-up-topic-21-entries-1016-on.html?showComment=1478373759291#c6312211110339340924 - -

 

[El Dude]

Fiero, you're a bit over the top. Andy is a very, very good one. In fact, he is bordering on being a true great. He is finishing his best year and if he wins another Slam or two, he'll be close or even right there with Wilander, Becker, and Edberg among the "outer circle" of all-time greats.

You're like the Donald Trump of tennis: "Make tennis great again," always harkening back to when in your day, men were men.

 

[sid]

Andy definitely deserves to get to No. 1 but to me it feels definitely less meaningful than when Rafa or Novak did it for the first time. When they achieved it, they seemed to truly have surpassed the player they replaced (Rafa by beating Roger at Wimbledon an winning the Olympics, Novak by beating Rafa in four masters and the Wimbledon final) as the best player in the world at that moment, while with Andy it looks like it was enough to beat the opponents he usually beats and because the players he tended to lose against more often than not weren't even there to meet him that suddenly was enough to win a lot of tournaments instead of mostly reaching the semis or finals.

He's certainly more consistent than ever and had very few bad defeats since Miami but I think he only had to play a few Top 5 or even Top 10 opponents after the French Open to get the results that allowed his rise to No. 1. That is clearly not his fault as he can only play who is across the net but it definitely indicates that the issues especially Novak is dealing with are what made it possible for Andy to get the top ranking at this point in time and makes it tough to assess how much or even if at all he had to improve to get there.

I believe it indicates more about how terrible those players in the top 5 have been that they have not been able to reach semi's or finals to face Murray....

It's not like Novak was never able to face Murray - I believe he has fallen out of 3 tournaments in the last 2 months that Murray has gone onto win. If anything it's Murray himself that should feel cheated if the opportunity to start eating into the h2h record.....

Let's not go insane! :angel: :dodgy: :snicker :laydownlaughing

Update: That made the cut to my blog! :snicker :ras:

- - https://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/10/whats-up-topic-21-entries-1016-on.html?showComment=1478373759291#c6312211110339340924 - -

thx I need some toilet paper cheers for the blog:snicker

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero, you're a bit over the top. Andy is a very, very good one. In fact, he is bordering on being a true great. He is finishing his best year and if he wins another Slam or two, he'll be close or even right there with Wilander, Becker, and Edberg among the "outer circle" of all-time greats.

You're like the Donald Trump of tennis: "Make tennis great again," always harkening back to when in your day, men were men.

Now you've gone over the top! Those legends did a little more than just retrieve like a skittish pup! Murray's better than most, but nowhere near the ability or consistency of a Wilander! He needed Fedalovic to be getting old, injured, or apathetic to reach these heights! He has no one to "prove" what you say since today's "also-rans" are far from the quality of the true "Golden Ages" of tennis! Too many are just placeholders on the rankings with little movement over their long and boring careers like Cilic, Berdych, Ferrer, Gasquet, Tsonga, Isner, and so many others who had the skills, but not the BRAIN to use their talents to make a significant mark! :nono :cover :-/

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Andy definitely deserves to get to No. 1 but to me it feels definitely less meaningful than when Rafa or Novak did it for the first time. When they achieved it, they seemed to truly have surpassed the player they replaced (Rafa by beating Roger at Wimbledon an winning the Olympics, Novak by beating Rafa in four masters and the Wimbledon final) as the best player in the world at that moment, while with Andy it looks like it was enough to beat the opponents he usually beats and because the players he tended to lose against more often than not weren't even there to meet him that suddenly was enough to win a lot of tournaments instead of mostly reaching the semis or finals.

He's certainly more consistent than ever and had very few bad defeats since Miami but I think he only had to play a few Top 5 or even Top 10 opponents after the French Open to get the results that allowed his rise to No. 1. That is clearly not his fault as he can only play who is across the net but it definitely indicates that the issues especially Novak is dealing with are what made it possible for Andy to get the top ranking at this point in time and makes it tough to assess how much or even if at all he had to improve to get there.

I believe it indicates more about how terrible those players in the top 5 have been that they have not been able to reach semi's or finals to face Murray....

Yes, that's exactly the point. Until after the US Open Roger and Rafa were two of those Top 5 players and neither Wawrinka (apart from the US Open), nor Raonic or Nishikori achieved much of note while being in the Top 5. So I think the weakness of the other top players definitely helped Andy to win as much as he did recently. I actually doubt he played any match where he wasn't the betting favourite after the French Open final. Losing just three (with the Davis Cup loss against Del Potro having no relevance for the rankings) of those matches is still impressive but it's tough to say if Andy really improved this year or if playing at his usual level was already enough for those results once Novak's level dropped and no other top player was able to step up somewhat consistently.

It's not like Novak was never able to face Murray - I believe he has fallen out of 3 tournaments in the last 2 months that Murray has gone onto win. If anything it's Murray himself that should feel cheated if the opportunity to start eating into the h2h record.....

Novak played just five tournaments (four in which he could have met Andy) with relevance for the rankings after the French Open. In Wimbledon, Shanghai and Paris Novak lost early and at the US Open Andy didn't get past the quarter finals. As they can only meet in the finals if he plays well enough to get there I would always give Novak a chance against Andy because the match-up suits him on most courts but playing like in the matches he lost since Wimbledon definitely wouldn't have been enough against Andy at those tournaments.

 

[Rational National]

Andy definitely deserves to get to No. 1 but to me it feels definitely less meaningful than when Rafa or Novak did it for the first time. When they achieved it, they seemed to truly have surpassed the player they replaced (Rafa by beating Roger at Wimbledon an winning the Olympics, Novak by beating Rafa in four masters and the Wimbledon final) as the best player in the world at that moment, while with Andy it looks like it was enough to beat the opponents he usually beats and because the players he tended to lose against more often than not weren't even there to meet him that suddenly was enough to win a lot of tournaments instead of mostly reaching the semis or finals.

He's certainly more consistent than ever and had very few bad defeats since Miami but I think he only had to play a few Top 5 or even Top 10 opponents after the French Open to get the results that allowed his rise to No. 1. That is clearly not his fault as he can only play who is across the net but it definitely indicates that the issues especially Novak is dealing with are what made it possible for Andy to get the top ranking at this point in time and makes it tough to assess how much or even if at all he had to improve to get there.

I believe it indicates more about how terrible those players in the top 5 have been that they have not been able to reach semi's or finals to face Murray....

Yes, that's exactly the point. Until after the US Open Roger and Rafa were two of those Top 5 players and neither Wawrinka (apart from the US Open), nor Raonic or Nishikori achieved much of note while being in the Top 5. So I think the weakness of the other top players definitely helped Andy to win as much as he did recently. I actually doubt he played any match where he wasn't the betting favourite after the French Open final. Losing just three (with the Davis Cup loss against Del Potro having no relevance for the rankings) of those matches is still impressive but it's tough to say if Andy really improved this year or if playing at his usual level was already enough for those results once Novak's level dropped and no other top player was able to step up somewhat consistently.

i suppose you quote the weakness of the top players to go deep as a way to question the legitimacy - I choose it as a means to further strengthen the claim for Murrays peaked ascedency - none of the fetted names you cite good do it in one tournament let alone multiple back to back like murray did...

It's not like Novak was never able to face Murray - I believe he has fallen out of 3 tournaments in the last 2 months that Murray has gone onto win. If anything it's Murray himself that should feel cheated if the opportunity to start eating into the h2h record.....

Novak played just five tournaments (four in which he could have met Andy) with relevance for the rankings after the French Open. In Wimbledon, Shanghai and Paris Novak lost early and at the US Open Andy didn't get past the quarter finals. As they can only meet in the finals if he plays well enough to get there I would always give Novak a chance against Andy because the match-up suits him on most courts but playing like in the matches he lost since Wimbledon definitely wouldn't have been enough against Andy at those tournaments.

if he is not good enought to make the finals then he is not good enough to beat Murray - of course he is the better player all things being equal but if he isnt playing his best you can't assume he would all of a sudden be able to do it against the very best player out there by virtue of the past alone....

 

[Backhand_DTL]

I believe it indicates more about how terrible those players in the top 5 have been that they have not been able to reach semi's or finals to face Murray....

Yes, that's exactly the point. Until after the US Open Roger and Rafa were two of those Top 5 players and neither Wawrinka (apart from the US Open), nor Raonic or Nishikori achieved much of note while being in the Top 5. So I think the weakness of the other top players definitely helped Andy to win as much as he did recently. I actually doubt he played any match where he wasn't the betting favourite after the French Open final. Losing just three (with the Davis Cup loss against Del Potro having no relevance for the rankings) of those matches is still impressive but it's tough to say if Andy really improved this year or if playing at his usual level was already enough for those results once Novak's level dropped and no other top player was able to step up somewhat consistently.

i suppose you quote the weakness of the top players to go deep as a way to question the legitimacy - I choose it as a means to further strengthen the claim for Murrays peaked ascedency - none of the fetted names you cite good do it in one tournament let alone multiple back to back like murray did...

It's not like Novak was never able to face Murray - I believe he has fallen out of 3 tournaments in the last 2 months that Murray has gone onto win. If anything it's Murray himself that should feel cheated if the opportunity to start eating into the h2h record.....

Novak played just five tournaments (four in which he could have met Andy) with relevance for the rankings after the French Open. In Wimbledon, Shanghai and Paris Novak lost early and at the US Open Andy didn't get past the quarter finals. As they can only meet in the finals if he plays well enough to get there I would always give Novak a chance against Andy because the match-up suits him on most courts but playing like in the matches he lost since Wimbledon definitely wouldn't have been enough against Andy at those tournaments.

if he is not good enought to make the finals then he is not good enough to beat Murray - of course he is the better player all things being equal but if he isnt playing his best you can't assume he would all of a sudden be able to do it against the very best player out there by virtue of the past alone....

Yes that's what I was trying to say. If Novak would have played Andy instead of Querrey, Bautista Agut and Cilic he would most probably have lost to him on those days, but Novak and Andy playing each other is only possible in the final right now and when Novak plays well enough to get there his level will likely be good enough to have a chance in such match. So thinking Andy would have won their finals to improve the H2H if they would have taken place recently is a questionable assumption in my opinion.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Haven't been around here for the longest of times, thought I'd pop by to see if some of the old usual suspects would actually swallow some pride and say well done to Andy, like him or not, for getting up to number 1.

Alright, he hasn't had to beat Djokovic since they last played at the French Open, and he hasn't beaten Nadal or Federer during this recent tear either because they've been injured or losing early. In fact, Murray has won Queen's, Wimbledon, Olympic Gold, Beijing, Shanghai and Vienna without beating the rest of the 'top 4', and these tournament wins (barring the 0-point Olympics) have led him to the number one spot.

But, none of these things are in his control. He's turned up and won the tournaments he's entered, he's beaten the opposition that's been put in front of him, that's all you can do as a tennis player and he's done it with such success over the last few months that he's ended up at the top of the rankings.

Perhaps his on court demeanor isn't the most endearing at times but to argue that he's anything but a good representative for the sport is absolutely ridiculous at this stage. Even this week he launched an article on the Huffington Post putting his name to a new campaign about men's mental health, and he's done as much 'extra-curricular' charity stuff as anyone else has. He's fought tooth and nail for his country and raised the profile of tennis in his home country exponentially by securing two gold medals in the Olympics, leading the unfancied Great Britain team to the Davis Cup title, becoming the first British winner of a Grand Slam and Wimbledon in like a trillion years, and now he's the first Brit to top the world rankings.

As for what he's achieved, anyone who wins three slams in this era, 39 other main tour titles including many Masters events and two Olympic titles and spends even a week as a world number one in the era of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, regardless of the aforementioned favourable circumstances, after all of the setbacks, major final losses and all the doubts around whether he'd ever overcome them, deserves a lot of credit, and these achievements say a lot about him as a person and a professional.

Andy Murray is all about hard work, bouncing back and perseverance and while I may be biased it can be nothing but a good thing that these traits can prevail to propel someone to the top of their sport.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Congrats Andy..job well done Mission Accomplished :clap

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Andy became #1 due to not having to play other members of big four. In a fitting a way, he achieved the #1 without playing a single ball by means walkover. :cover

 

[Rational National]

Andy became #1 due to not having to play other members of big four. In a fitting a way, he achieved the #1 without playing a single ball by means walkover. :cover

Can't argue with the second part, but seeing as the ranking is determined by 12 months results, it is not correct to say he never faced players (and beat) from the top 4/5.

 

[El Dude]

Andy became #1 due to not having to play other members of big four. In a fitting a way, he achieved the #1 without playing a single ball by means walkover. :cover

Can't argue with the second part, but seeing as the ranking is determined by 12 months results, it is not correct to say he never faced players (and beat) from the top 4/5.

This got me curious. Here is Andy vs. Rafa, Novak, and Roger during 2016:

vs. Novak: 1-3
vs. Roger: 0-0
vs. Rafa: 1-1

So he's 2-4 vs Novak and Rafa, hasn't played Roger. He's lost only 9 matches this year, 3 to Novak, 1 to Rafa, and 5 to others: del Potro, Nishikori, Cilic, Dimitrov, and Delbonis.

Anyhow, not sure what conclusions to draw from this, but that's a pretty good list of players to lose to. Even Delbonis and Dimitrov are "problem players" who are capable of a high level.

 

[Kieran]

I think if Andy finishes the season #1, Novak will still be considered the best player this year, because he won more big titles, and completed the Novak slam. But this doesn't mean Andy doesn't deserve to be number one. Look at his career, and look at the careers of others who've been number one in the past. Of course he deserves to be number one. The top ranking isn't reserved just for goats. And he's clicked the W's this year, especially since Lendl returned. He's been in 3 slam finals. He's the Wimbledon champ. Taken as a calendar year, Novak has the bigger wins, but Andy has been the better player since Paris and this reflects that, in a cold statistical way.

I say, well done to him, he's been around a long time and he's worked hard to get there. I hope he stays there a while, because he's far greater than Rafter, Hewitt, Rios, Roddick, and Courier. And Vilas. And they all had a stint there for a while. He deserves a longer reign than them...

 

[lob]

In my humble opinion, it is plain silly to argue that Andy doesn't deserve the #1. Everyone knows that Novak hasn't been anywhere near the No1e mode since FO. I get the Novak fan's pain. What's that got to do Andy's reaching #1? Unless I am missing something, for quite some time, he has been the greatest player in the open era not to reach #1. He has spent his entire career in the shadows of giants. His career rivals the greats such as Becker, Edberg and Wilander. It is debatable whether his tennis has that special something. But it is hypocritical to argue that he is a retriever/pusher and call it "great defense" for Fedalovic. For a decade it has been impossible to win much unless you are also a great "pusher" among other things. Aesthetically, I find his movement and ball striking quite pleasing. I never noticed oversized arrogance in him. Plays fair, especially in comparison to Nadalovic. Is less selfish and less canny off the court than Fedalovic. Look at what the other talented players such Roddick, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer, Gasquet, did in the last decade. No one except Stanimal could keep their Mojos. And I am not even going into the unique mental challenges, disappointments and pressures he overcame. Andy Murray 100% deserves his #1 each and every day he can hold on to it.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk