Who are your other favorites?

[Front242]

You were the ONLY one that had an interest in it. You are absolutely walking that back. You did the same thing just a few days ago when I proved you wrong on Nadal and prophelactic knee braces. You just claim you're too busy when you get called out for talking out of your arse. We all can swing a little free in conversation, and I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't so willing to be accusatory about really serious things. You really think nothing about slagging certain players for drugging, etc., but then you're not available for the follow-up. That's not cool.

You didn't prove me wrong on anything as I put you in your place here. "People squatting heavy often wear knee braces for support and not because of pain and likewise with wrist supports in the gym and playing sports. They're called supports as that's what they do. They prevent injury."

https://www.tennis-prose.com/tennis...te-fedal-wars-thread.4229/page-49#post-317868

Oh and btw, you STILL think I gave a damn about that stupid court case eventhough I've said now countless times I didn't. The REAL reason I brought it up was because some Nadal tards were going on and on about suspicions of PEDs with Federer (laughable as Nadal fans btw when he's the biggest suspect) and I pointed out it was Nadal who was the one with the court case and allegations and not Federer. So that's it. End of. You're wrong. Again.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Lots of armchair doctoring re: Nadal's knee injury.

 

[DarthFed]

In what is sometimes your argument, you go by ranking, in which case Tsonga trumped delPo. And you thought Berdych was part of what made Fed's draw so terrible at the AO this year. So I don't get why there's no comparison. Del Potro seems to be a movable feast with some people...tough in the draw when you want him to be, but ranked below 28, or whatever, when Nadal beat him at the USO this year, thereby making Nadal's USO a cakewalk. He was ranked around 142 when Stan beat him at the USO in '16. And it took him 4. Either you're going to go by ranking, or how people are playing at the time. Pick your poison, but don't keep moving the goalposts.

Give me a break with this BS. Berdych in the 3rd round is a tough draw, the semifinals is a different story. I think that's common sense. And DP was playing way better in last year's USO than he was this year. I think a lot of people last year thought he'd take Stan and could get to the final. Anyone who thought he had a chance vs Nadal wasn't paying any attention. He was playing like the #25 player in the world until this Fall when he showed solid form.

Anyways the fact of the matter is Murray didn't play anyone elite to win last year's Wimbledon. It wasn't the extra filling donut-fest ATP 250 that this USO was but it was a pretty nice ride.

 

[Moxie]

Give me a break with this BS. Berdych in the 3rd round is a tough draw, the semifinals is a different story. I think that's common sense. And DP was playing way better in last year's USO than he was this year. I think a lot of people last year thought he'd take Stan and could get to the final. Anyone who thought he had a chance vs Nadal wasn't paying any attention. He was playing like the #25 player in the world until this Fall when he showed solid form.

Anyways the fact of the matter is Murray didn't play anyone elite to win last year's Wimbledon. It wasn't the extra filling donut-fest ATP 250 that this USO was but it was a pretty nice ride.

I believe I said that the 2016 W was the one where Murray was the last man standing. I'll have to take your word for how much better JMDP was last year than this, but I still think you're parsing him and Berdy a bit to fit your own narrative. Berdych's best result at a major was at Wimbledon. At least too much to call my post "BS."

 

[Moxie]

Pretty rational post, Broken, but the phrases above pretty much end the discussion.

It kinda depends on what you think the discussion is. GSM made some comment that Stan's wins were more impressive than Andy's. I was basically taking up for Murray, in the sense that I don't think it's that useful to qualify Major wins in that way, just because you're not as much of a fan of one player. I know that the "peak Stan > peak Murray" gets tossed around here a lot, but I don't think that was the discussion. I like Broken's point that Murray has long-played at a level to put himself in the position to make SFs and Fs, and it is not a vastly different version of his game that wins him Majors, so maybe it looks less impressive. Stan is much more of a roller-coaster vis-a-vis his level, but I do agree that when he goes to his A/A+ game, he has played top-drawer tennis. But I don't get putting down Murray's wins as if he just lucked into them.

 

[mrzz]

@Moxie, if the discussion is all about which wins were more impressive, well, that's a pretty subjective discussion to begin with. And, yes, not only I dislike Murray, but I also prefer to watch Wawrinka's style of tennis. But I really try to look beyond my bias here. I am not dismissing Murray's wins (I never did that), he won three majors in the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era. This says it all. I know he earned his wins the hard way and I won't deny that for a second.

But I came up with my favorite punch line "peak Wawrinka > peak Murray" (which I admit to use most times just for sheer fun) for a reason. Actually it is not a shot at Murray, but a compliment to Wawrinka. His peak level is, well, impressive. We could go match by match, but you know the history already. I will only say one thing: if Wawrinka's level wasn't absurd in all his major wins, we would not be discussing the outcome of the AO 2014 match in the absence of injury: we would all be sure he would have lost it.

I agree that Murray haven´t lucked in to them, but not only Wawrinka also went by Nadal (something that Murray didn't, and everyone would agree that he is the last guy you wanna see across the net in a final), he also stopped Djokovic in a moment were he seemed unstoppable -- and exactly at the precise tournament he wanted the most. Incidentally, the next guy who tried the same feat, and failed, was Murray himself.

So, yes, I think Wawrinka's wins were more impressive. But, to be honest, I would need to rewatch the Murray's finals to give a completely knowledgeable (personal) judgement. Right now I don't remember them as absolute classics (I probably skipped some parts to be honest). The Wawrinka one's, on the other hand, were nail bitters. That's why I think they were more impressive.

 

[Moxie]

I always appreciate your input, mrzz. But yes, the distinction, imo, is subjective and personal preference. I made the point that Murray/Djokovic matches are historically dull, so that's one reason they don't sing in your memory, but he still beat Djokovic. And one of the reasons that Wawrinka's (minus the Nadal one) were "nail-biters" is that we never know when Stan will cave, or go whole-hog. Plus, it's a better style match-up for a good match. I also appreciate your saying that if Wawrinka hadn't won his next two so impressively, we wouldn't think he'd have beaten Nadal, but for the back. That's just honest. In any case, you're within your rights to be more impressed with Stan's Major wins. My only point is that that's an opinion, not a fact.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Wawrinka

Always up for a fight at the best times

 

[mrzz]

@Moxie, considering your phrase about the dullness of the Djokovic/Murray matches -- something I ultimately agree with but writing it that bluntly it really looks harsh -- I guess we're talking about different things here. You're probably giving more attention to the feat in itself -- beating Djokovic two times in a major final, something both did -- while the others, including myself, are more focused on the match itself -- given that it is the title-winning match. My point is, no one would ever write the phrase "the dullness of Wawrinka/Djokovic matches".

Regarding the 2014 AO final, surely it became anti-climatic after the injury became apparent, but before that simply everyone where shocked about what was happening -- even the ones who at the time could swear the tide would turn. Again, impressive.

But I feel your are protecting a greater point, but don't worry, I won't say that the Wawrinka's majors are worth more than the Murray ones.






Just that peak W > peak M

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie, considering your phrase about the dullness of the Djokovic/Murray matches -- something I ultimately agree with but writing it that bluntly it really looks harsh -- I guess we're talking about different things here. You're probably giving more attention to the feat in itself -- beating Djokovic two times in a major final, something both did -- while the others, including myself, are more focused on the match itself -- given that it is the title-winning match. My point is, no one would ever write the phrase "the dullness of Wawrinka/Djokovic matches".

Regarding the 2014 AO final, surely it became anti-climatic after the injury became apparent, but before that simply everyone where shocked about what was happening -- even the ones who at the time could swear the tide would turn. Again, impressive.

But I feel your are protecting a greater point, but don't worry, I won't say that the Wawrinka's majors are worth more than the Murray ones.

Just that peak W > peak M

To be clear, my point about the "dullness" of Murray/Djokovic matches is that I think that others find them so. There have been more than a few derisive comments made that it was like watching a game of Pong, before the finals. I actually have the patience for cat-and-mouse matches, but that's me. I was trying to get at the crux of why some folks were giving less value to the Murray wins, thinking that may have been a factor, for some people. Personally, I think they've played some very good matches, especially at key moments. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I know where you stand. :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

Wawrinka

Always up for a fight at the best times

Welcome to @Wimbledonerer! Yeah, Stan is up for the fight in the best of times, but often not in the worst of times.

 

[mrzz]

I actually have the patience for cat-and-mouse matches

Honest question, in terms of point construction, how high do you rate those matches? I ask this because it is one thing to stay in the rallies and other to really think ahead in the point. Strangely enough I pay attention to this when I watch a classical clay courter play (on clay), but much less on HC. I always thought of Murray as one guy who would counter punch extremely well, but not as a guy who really works the point. Not exactly the same for Djokovic, but again different from my view of "point construction".

 

[Moxie]

Honest question, in terms of point construction, how high do you rate those matches? I ask this because it is one thing to stay in the rallies and other to really think ahead in the point. Strangely enough I pay attention to this when I watch a classical clay courter play (on clay), but much less on HC. I always thought of Murray as one guy who would counter punch extremely well, but not as a guy who really works the point. Not exactly the same for Djokovic, but again different from my view of "point construction".

I can't pretend I'm the best at analyzing this. Both are smart tennis players. Their matches require a certain amount of patience from each, because neither is going to stupidly rush the net, as both are more than capable of a great pass or lob. There is a lot of time spent prodding and feeling each other out, or trying to get the point to neutral on the other's serve, to find the opening. I disagree that Murray doesn't work the point, as he's deemed to have a high tennis IQ. I think Djokovic is more likely to force the issue, though. Murray's biggest flaw, I guess, is waiting too long. When he's aggressive, judiciously, he's had his best results.

 

[Federberg]

I can't pretend I'm the best at analyzing this. Both are smart tennis players. Their matches require a certain amount of patience from each, because neither is going to stupidly rush the net, as both are more than capable of a great pass or lob. There is a lot of time spent prodding and feeling each other out, or trying to get the point to neutral on the other's serve, to find the opening. I disagree that Murray doesn't work the point, as he's deemed to have a high tennis IQ. I think Djokovic is more likely to force the issue, though. Murray's biggest flaw, I guess, is waiting too long. When he's aggressive, judiciously, he's had his best results.

I think you've soaked up the narrative from the tennis pundits, a large proportion of whom are British. I think there's a chasm of difference between how Novak and Andy play. Superficially they both look attritional, superb backhands, all time great returns of serve, awesome movement. But Novak, quite apart from having a superior serve has an aggressive mindset. Yes he'll grind players down if he isn't feeling his game or thinks it's the best strategy to win in a specific circumstance. Murray is all counter-attack and doesn't impose his will on the game. The idea that their eternal rallies are due to these guys feeling each other out is flawed. Novak knows exactly what Murray is going to do and is content to tough it out against him generally, knowing that he'll eventually break Murray down mentally. There's nothing exciting or tactical about the tennis at all. In fact it's just about the most putrid fare that can be called top class tennis that's on offer. This idea that Murray is some kind of high IQ tennis genius that has been pushed for years comes entirely from the British press, and it's laughable.

Just look at how Murray wins. When Novak is in trouble, you can see the adjustments he makes, same with Rafa, same with Roger. You can see the intent, and it is indeed smart play. I urge you to watch Murray play, particularly when things are going against him. The guy invests most of his energy setting up excuses for his impending loss, with grimaces and clutching his thighs than trying to find a solution. Look, I'm clearly not a fan of the guy, but I'm not a fan of Rafa either. It doesn't stop me from seeing the intelligence in his play. Murray generally wins because he's phenomenally talented and better than just about everyone out there. But he's actually quite terrible at figuring out what someone is doing successfully against him, or even what he needs to change to be successful against them. If they don't fold like a cheap tent like the Verdascos or Gasquets are wont to do he loses. I repeat, I think he's a talented player. He's a greater player than Stan, but a battle between Andy and Stan playing at their peak? I'll bet the farm on Stan. He'll actually go out there to win, Murray will simply try to outlast him. Good luck with that

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think you've soaked up the narrative from the tennis pundits, a large proportion of whom are British. I think there's a chasm of difference between how Novak and Andy play. Superficially they both look attritional, superb backhands, all time great returns of serve, awesome movement. But Novak, quite apart from having a superior serve has an aggressive mindset. Yes he'll grind players down if he isn't feeling his game or thinks it's the best strategy to win in a specific circumstance. Murray is all counter-attack and doesn't impose his will on the game. The idea that their eternal rallies are due to these guys feeling each other out is flawed. Novak knows exactly what Murray is going to do and is content to tough it out against him generally, knowing that he'll eventually break Murray down mentally. There's nothing exciting or tactical about the tennis at all. In fact it's just about the most putrid fare that can be called top class tennis that's on offer. This idea that Murray is some kind of high IQ tennis genius that has been pushed for years comes entirely from the British press, and it's laughable.

Just look at how Murray wins. When Novak is in trouble, you can see the adjustments he makes, same with Rafa, same with Roger. You can see the intent, and it is indeed smart play. I urge you to watch Murray play, particularly when things are going against him. The guy invests most of his energy setting up excuses for his impending loss, with grimaces and clutching his thighs than trying to find a solution. Look, I'm clearly not a fan of the guy, but I'm not a fan of Rafa either. It doesn't stop me from seeing the intelligence in his play. Murray generally wins because he's phenomenally talented and better than just about everyone out there. But he's actually quite terrible at figuring out what someone is doing successfully against him, or even what he needs to change to be successful against them. If they don't fold like a cheap tent like the Verdascos or Gasquets are wont to do he loses. I repeat, I think he's a talented player. He's a greater player than Stan, but a battle between Andy and Stan playing at their peak? I'll bet the farm on Stan. He'll actually go out there to win, Murray will simply try to outlast him. Good luck with that

A bit overly harsh but I definitely agree with most of this, especially with how overrated Murray's tennis IQ is. Because he plays with variety and is good at making inferior players implode and beat themselves, he got himself this unearned reputation. I honestly don't recall Murray ever making any key tactical adjustments mid-match at a major to beat one of the top guys. In fact, it's often the other way around, where he comes out and does well early until they make the necessary adjustment. And if they actually come out firing, he's left looking pretty helpless.

 

[Moxie]

I take the points here, and maybe I have drunk the kool-aid from the commies, a bit. But I think he made great tactical decisions in terms of the wind to take the 2012 USO, and I think he played the 2013 Wimbledon superbly. I don't buy that Djokovic was fatigued in that match. He was out-played.

 

[mrzz]

We changed subject from point construction to tennis IQ, which are related things, but not equal. I wouldn't say Murray has zero tennis IQ, but in general I agree with Broken, he hardly makes meaningful adjustments, or even gets into a match against a player who is as good as him and/or has some surface/environment advantage with a smart strategy. Because beating guys that you know you should beat doesn't take too much tennis IQ, unless you beat them way easier than you should, which in most cases in fact is the opposite of what Murray does.