Wimbledon Final 2016: Murray v Raonic

[rafanoy1992]

I think this slam victory is like a monkey off Andy's back, we should see him a lot more competitive in big matches from now on...

I hope so...brother Kieran!

I will say this: He picked the perfect timing to be playing at his highest level. Olympics, Canada, Cincy, and US Open are all tournaments that Murray have won before. So, he has a great chance to Djokovic in the rankings.

 

[Kieran]

He's close in the race, so the year end #1 has to be his goal, but Novak will have something to say about that!

 

[Carol]

Congrats Muzz, very good control with the game, match and deserved win :clap

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Can we temporarily put Murray back in the top 4 after this win?

When did he leave?

Sorry, I meant big 4, not top 4. Recently people have been saying he does not belong to the big 4.

When was he in Big 4 to begin with? uzzled

 

[sid]

Great win,but not seen the match,so happy 4 Andy,get in there.

 

[Kieran]

He was the Plus One...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There should be four asterisks over this Wimbledon win of Andy.

*1. He did not have to face Novak.
*2. He did not have to face Roger
*3. He did not have to face Rafa (just kidding)
*4. He faced Milos in finals.

p.s. Before the non-existent Andy fans jump on me, I am just kidding. Moreover, this post has a kidding embedded within another kidding.

 

[rafanoy1992]

It is probably only me, but I included him in the Big 4 when he won his first major in 2012. I know he is not as talented and as accomplished as the other members of the Big 4, but he has been so consistent in the Majors/Masters 1000 in the past couple years.

Besides, the I don't like the term Big 3 + 1 personally.

 

[Kieran]

It is probably only me, but I included him in the Big 4 when he won his first major in 2012. I know he is not as talented and as accomplished as the other members of the Big 4, but he has been so consistent in the Majors/Masters 1000 in the past couple years.

Besides, the I don't like the term Big 3 + 1 personally.

I think the "Big 3 + 1" is actually a reasonable term: it separates Andy from the bunch behind him, who aren't of the same class, but also its not fair to place a 2 (now 3) slam winner alongside men like Roger, Rafa and Novak. There's a much bigger gulf between them and Andy than there is between Andy and the field..,

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It is probably only me, but I included him in the Big 4 when he won his first major in 2012. I know he is not as talented and as accomplished as the other members of the Big 4, but he has been so consistent in the Majors/Masters 1000 in the past couple years.

Besides, the I don't like the term Big 3 + 1 personally.

I call them three and half men (copying from the US TV series two and half men).

 

[rafanoy1992]

It is probably only me, but I included him in the Big 4 when he won his first major in 2012. I know he is not as talented and as accomplished as the other members of the Big 4, but he has been so consistent in the Majors/Masters 1000 in the past couple years.

Besides, the I don't like the term Big 3 + 1 personally.

I think the "Big 3 + 1" is actually a reasonable term: it separates Andy from the bunch behind him, who aren't of the same class, but also its not fair to place a 2 (now 3) slam winner alongside men like Roger, Rafa and Novak. There's a much bigger gulf between them and Andy than there is between Andy and the field..,

I understand your point, Kieran.

As for the Big 3 + 1, I just don't like the sound of it, that's all.

I just respect Murray's accomplishments especially against this generation that I want him included in the group.

Also, I am not undermining the other members achievements too..but I think as a whole group of players, they have exceptionally well.

 

[Front242]

It is probably only me, but I included him in the Big 4 when he won his first major in 2012. I know he is not as talented and as accomplished as the other members of the Big 4, but he has been so consistent in the Majors/Masters 1000 in the past couple years.

Besides, the I don't like the term Big 3 + 1 personally.

I call them three and half men (copying from the US TV series two and half men).

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

There should be four asterisks over this Wimbledon win of Andy.

*1. He did not have to face Novak.
*2. He did not have to face Roger
*3. He did not have to face Rafa (just kidding)
*4. He faced Milos in finals.

p.s. Before the non-existent Andy fans jump on me, I am just kidding. Moreover, this post has a kidding embedded within another kidding.

There should be more"

*5. He is a Brit. Home court advantage, Roger never won a slam in Switzerland !
*6. Milos does not like great returners so it was not fair !
*7. Roof was open !


...etc...:snicker

 

[Kieran]

It is probably only me, but I included him in the Big 4 when he won his first major in 2012. I know he is not as talented and as accomplished as the other members of the Big 4, but he has been so consistent in the Majors/Masters 1000 in the past couple years.

Besides, the I don't like the term Big 3 + 1 personally.

I think the "Big 3 + 1" is actually a reasonable term: it separates Andy from the bunch behind him, who aren't of the same class, but also its not fair to place a 2 (now 3) slam winner alongside men like Roger, Rafa and Novak. There's a much bigger gulf between them and Andy than there is between Andy and the field..,

I understand your point, Kieran.

As for the Big 3 + 1, I just don't like the sound of it, that's all.

He's the gooseberry, or blueberry, or raspberry or whatever you call it when a bloke turns up for a date and she brings along her best friend, the gooseberry, or whatever, who hasn't got her own place on the arm of a bloke. He's not Big 4 in his own right. He has no records, he hadn't been #1, he has a losing record against the others.

But he's better than the rest of the field by a country mile...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Milos might not have won the trophy. But, some Canadian boy won. Shapovalov won the Boy's title. He was also part of the doubles finals, but did not win it. :clap

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Milos might not have won the trophy. But, some Canadian boy won. Shapovalov won the Boy's title. He was also part of the doubles finals, but did not win it. :clap

He is good...and has a single hander for a backhand

 

[Backhand_DTL]

He's close in the race, so the year end #1 has to be his goal, but Novak will have something to say about that!

Andy's current race points includes something like 250 points from the Davis Cup final, so Novak is about 1000 points ahead when it comes to the battle for year end #1. With Beijing/Shanghai/Paris Bercy/World Tour Finals usually being a great stretch for Novak (I think he won 14 out of 16 possible titles from those events since 2012), Andy probably needs a considerable lead after the US Open to really make it interesting.

But as he played a lot since Monte Carlo and might even play Davis Cup next week I expect a bit of a letdown from him during the next two months and I wouldn't be surprised if he loses rather early in one or two events of Toronto/ Cincinnati/US Open or skips one of the Masters events.

So if Novak performs reasonably well by his standards for the rest of the year he still is a big favorite to end the year as No. 1 again in my opinion, but it definitely looks a lot less like a foregone conclusion than it did five weeks ago.

 

[Kieran]

No, the actual race, since January, Andy is only 815 points behind. It's large, but not impossible to an ambitious man. However, Novak is still favourite to extend that, rather than lose ground...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If anybody wants to prolong the agony, ABC is showing an encore presentation of the final starting 3 PM EDT. Just a PSA.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

No, the actual race, since January, Andy is only 815 points behind. It's large, but not impossible to an ambitious man. However, Novak is still favourite to extend that, rather than lose ground...

But those 7225 points include points for the Davis Cup Final. The race always restarts after the World Tour Finals, not in January. That's why points for events which take place after the WTF (of which the Davis Cup Final is the only significant one) count for the race of the new season but don't play a role for the year end No. 1.

So in theory it's possible that the final #1 of the 2016 race and the 2016 year end #1 are different players if it's really close between #1 and #2. For 2017 that won't be the case as the ATP doesn't award points for Davis Cup this year, so no top player will gain any points for the race before January.