Your expectations from Dimitrov in USO series?

[El Dude]

Everyone knows Murray has fluked at like 10 masters titles, 2 slams, and 1 Olympics. What blows my mind is that Andy has so many flukes against Federer that he has a h2h advantage.

Andy is clearly the third greatest player of his generation and the fourth greatest active player (Sorry Lleyton, but Andy gets the nod). There is no harm in that, considering that the other three players are all among the very best to ever play the sport. It is really as simple as that. No flukes involved.

 

[Riotbeard]

Why is it that whenever a great player loses, people come out of the woodwork to make excuses as to why it happened? Must be injury, not on his game, struggling, etc. It can't possibly be because one player out-played another. This happened with Rafa at the AO and Andy at Wimbledon. I know, I know, Rafa was injured and Andy has struggled this year - but that's all part of the sport, all part of a player's record. We can't separate out all a player's best matches and say "This is who they really are" and make excuses for the rest; we end up with an extremely partial and skewed view of said player. This is why we should thank Cali for giving us an example of how far this can go into absurdity.

In the end, results are results. A player should be judged by their total record, not just the days that they woke up feeling peppy and fresh. It is like a marriage; if you're a douche to your wife you can't expect her to be so quickly forgiving because "I wasn't feeling myself today." Everything counts.

Andy lost to Grigor because Grigor played better. There is no excuse. Grigor has now beaten Andy in their last two meetings, so he's got some momentum and is unlikely to be a push-over going forward. Certainly Andy has lost to some opponents this year that he normally wouldn't have - Stepanek, Giraldo, Fognini - but two defeats by Dimitrov means something. A Wimbledon defeat means something. Grigor is a legit top 10 player and a spoiler threat. At some point he's going to take down Roger or Novak or Rafa...it is only a matter of time. Things change, and we're seeing the very beginnings of a tidal shift that will likely take a few years to happen, but 2014--as I predicted a year or two ago--would be the first signs of that shift. Viva la change!

I don't think people are trying to take away credit for grigor, but Andy's form does matter when using a match as a way gauging where grigor's game is or when using that performance as a predictor of future performance.

 

[Kieran]

Well, firstly, Rafa was injured in Oz, so we can't ignore the result from its context. Is it an excuse? No, but the injury was a reason why he couldn't compete as well as usual, right? I'm sure you agree with this.

Nobody is making excuses for Murray: my post was in reply to the suggestion that Grigor's "crushing" of Andy raises expectations of the lad. I don't believe that match was indicative of much, except that Andy was mentally absent. That's not making an excuses: it's warning against drawing false conclusions from a strange match...

 

[El Dude]

I don't think people are trying to take away credit for grigor, but Andy's form does matter when using a match as a way gauging where grigor's game is or when using that performance as a predictor of future performance.

I completely agree. I'm just adding my own rant about how excuses are always made for great players when they lose and pointing out how everything counts - we can't separate the off days out and say the rest is who the player really is. People do this all the time, albeit usually subtly, especially with their favorite players.

Let us not forget that Andy was playing pretty good before he met Grigor. And I realize that even Grigor said that Andy was off his game. So the question is not whether Andy played his best - clearly he did not - but that a champion-caliber player needs to be able to adjust, and Andy didn't, and Grigor exploited that and played a terrific match, beating the defending champion of the biggest tournament of all. No small potatoes.

 

[El Dude]

Well, firstly, Rafa was injured in Oz, so we can't ignore the result from its context. Is it an excuse? No, but the injury was a reason why he couldn't compete as well as usual, right? I'm sure you agree with this.

Nobody is making excuses for Murray: my post was in reply to the suggestion that Grigor's "crushing" of Andy raises expectations of the lad. I don't believe that match was indicative of much, except that Andy was mentally absent. That's not making an excuses: it's warning against drawing false conclusions from a strange match...

I would agree to an extent, but still think you're downplaying Grigor's performance to much. A lesser player wouldn't have been able to take advantage of Andy's "mental absence." And perhaps Andy might have been less absent if Grigor wasn't playing well.

 

[Kieran]

Well, firstly, Rafa was injured in Oz, so we can't ignore the result from its context. Is it an excuse? No, but the injury was a reason why he couldn't compete as well as usual, right? I'm sure you agree with this.

Nobody is making excuses for Murray: my post was in reply to the suggestion that Grigor's "crushing" of Andy raises expectations of the lad. I don't believe that match was indicative of much, except that Andy was mentally absent. That's not making an excuses: it's warning against drawing false conclusions from a strange match...

I would agree to an extent, but still think you're downplaying Grigor's performance to much. A lesser player wouldn't have been able to take advantage of Andy's "mental absence." And perhaps Andy might have been less absent if Grigor wasn't playing well.

I was careful not to take away from Grigor, by saying several times that he held his end up. The issue for me isn't that he won - it's that a conclusion was drawn from the win, based upon him "crushing" Murray. I saw a crushed Murray, but I didn't see Grigor crushing him. I couldn't agree to the conclusion that was drawn from that match.

I'm happy for Grigor and I'm rooting for the guy - and I was rooting for him against Murray - but we have to look at matches as well as results if we're going to draw conclusions from them...

 

[DarthFed]

Regardless how he got it, it was a big win for Grigor to take out Murray and reach his first semi. The only problem seems to be he has trouble pushing through the door in the huge matches. The 3rd set TB vs. Rafa and 4th set TB vs. Nole were ones he should have won but he gave them away. So there is still a long ways to go for him to be a great player IMO.

 

[El Dude]

I was careful not to take away from Grigor, by saying several times that he held his end up. The issue for me isn't that he won - it's that a conclusion was drawn from the win, based upon him "crushing" Murray. I saw a crushed Murray, but I didn't see Grigor crushing him. I couldn't agree to the conclusion that was drawn from that match.

I'm happy for Grigor and I'm rooting for the guy - and I was rooting for him against Murray - but we have to look at matches as well as results if we're going to draw conclusions from them...

Again, agreed. Perhaps the "crushing" part is where we see Murray's bad day manifesting, as well as a weakness in his overall mentality. But the fact that he lost...well, here we have to emphasize Grigor. He did what he had to do to beat Andy.

 

[El Dude]

Regardless how he got it, it was a big win for Grigor to take out Murray and reach his first semi. The only problem seems to be he has trouble pushing through the door in the huge matches. The 3rd set TB vs. Rafa and 4th set TB vs. Nole were ones he should have won but he gave them away. So there is still a long ways to go for him to be a great player IMO.

"Regardless of how he got it" - exactly. This is part of what I'm trying to say. This isn't Lukas Rosol or Sergiy Stakhovsky or Steve Darcis, all of whom happened to play great against an elite in the right place at the right time, but for whom we didn't expect a lot more (although, as an aside, I sometimes wonder why Rosol isn't more consistently in the top 40). This is a young player who may be the most talented of his admittedly rather weak generation, who of all players in his generation (which I'm loosely defining as those players born in the first half of the 90s, 90-94) has the best chance of adding a Slam or three to his resume.

In that sense, I disagree that there's "still a long ways to go for him to be a great player." I think he's quite close to his peak potential, which is substantial but clearly not on the level of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic at their best. I think the best-case scenario for Grigor is that he walks away with a few Slams and is somewhere in that nebulous "near-great" category of 2-4 Slam winners - Safin, Kafelnikov, Courier, Kuerten, and yes, Andy Murray (so far).

I could also see Dimitrov having a similar career as David Nalbandian - who may be one of the greatest players to never win a Slam. Think Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Rios, Medvedev, Enqvist, Henman, etc - players that were, perhaps, better than some one-Slam wonders but were never in the right place at the right time.

As an aside, it is interesting--and rather convenient--to note that no one in the Open Era has won 5 Slams, which gives us a nice gap between 4 and 6 by which we can separate to true greats from the near-greats. Who knows, maybe someone like Andy Murray can buck that trend and win three more - it certainly would be fitting, wouldn't it?

 

[Riotbeard]

In that sense, I disagree that there's "still a long ways to go for him to be a great player." I think he's quite close to his peak potential, which is substantial but clearly not on the level of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic at their best. I think the best-case scenario for Grigor is that he walks away with a few Slams and is somewhere in that nebulous "near-great" category of 2-4 Slam winners - Safin, Kafelnikov, Courier, Kuerten, and yes, Andy Murray (so far).

I agree pretty whole heartedly with this. I think he is about 6-12 months from hitting his peakish. If he doesn't at least win 1 masters in the next 12 months, he will have some deep thinking to do. Not to mention that Novak and Andy are only a year or so from entering , what you have aptly titled, their plateau years.

If he truly has a long way to go, I fear he may never make it. I think he is a different calibre player from the 3 greats perched atop right now, but should be in the mix with the near-greats.

 

[Kieran]

Again, agreed. Perhaps the "crushing" part is where we see Murray's bad day manifesting, as well as a weakness in his overall mentality. But the fact that he lost...well, here we have to emphasize Grigor. He did what he had to do to beat Andy.

The "crushing part" is the original posters agenda, which is what I was really replying to...

 

[Fastgrass]

illogical, but fairly cool.

Let's see how much logic media brainwashed representative of Sir Andrew have.

No need for you to be defensive - it wasn't Grigor's fault.

I'm not defensive but your brainwash that coming from reading news articles from certain media and consequences forced me to reply you.

He may still have won, but I doubt he'd have won so easily

So you're saying he would've won but hard fought victory .

In fact, had Murray played his best - and fought like he used to under Lendl - I doubt Grigor would have won more than a single set.

How it is fact since it's your opinion additionally now you are saying Dimitrov wouldn't have won set against Peak Murray, how can you prove it? I believe Dimitrov 2014 would've beaten that Murray in 4 since he is improved a lot under Rasheed but still opinion since so called peak Murray needed excellent choke from player like Verdasco lolz to past QF, Dimitrov was not on mood choking that since he was clutch at important moments (In TB he made excellent backhand pass and two aggressive net approaches to win last 3 points)
Dimitrov's variety made Murray look so worse since he even couldn't execute his own game as Dimitrov has clear game plan. Don't bring Lendl excuse from back door, no player forgets skills and techniques coach taught him as soon as he splits. :lolz: I'm waiting for next excuse I think you'll switch to surgery now losing above two. LOL

And I'm not sure you help your argument by describing Murray's Olympics win over Federer as a "fluke" - in fact, you may have hindered it...

Sorry for using word "fluke" I think Murray's grass court abilities always overrated referring straight sets win over 31 yo tired sub par Fed, I'm taking nothing away from Murray but peak Fed would've bageled Murray on grass since he was got breadsticked by Baby Fed! Additionally Dimitrov smoked 27 yo prime Murray (Full fresh) in front of home crowd cheering against him. Excuses for fanboys and media brainwashed kids but Dimitrov's win certainly have more significance than Murray's win over Fed as Dimitrov smoked him in his prime. Seriously how much you negative for Dimitrov? Your desperate attempts to prove that wasn't any special since Murray didn't play 100% is purely subjective. I've opposite opinion plus objective approach since results say that. yeah Dimitrov crushed prime Murray and that's what history will remember no matter how much brainwashed kids will cry.

 

[Fastgrass]

The "crushing part" is the original posters agenda, which is what I was really replying to...

6-1 7-6 6-2 in front of home crowd with numerous fan girls crying was definitely "crush". If anybody have opinion it was close match, then even McEnroe will beg for objectivity. LOL

Your agenda is quite transparent now, since he you have opinions like Murray would've straight setted Dimitrov. :cover I think you've no respect and interest for new gun coming in top since you're just too busy having "Wet Dreams" with traditional hero, Dimitrov spoiled party.

I've replied you in details, very interesting to see how you could discredit Dimitrov more or embarrass yourself more making clueless statements like I've written earlier.

 

[Fastgrass]

I don't think people are trying to take away credit for grigor, but Andy's form does matter when using a match as a way gauging where grigor's game is or when using that performance as a predictor of future performance.

I've similar observation Federer's form does matter when using Olympics finals as a way gauging Murray's grass court abilities. No disrespect to him but he never that good on grass like they were hyping and Dimitrov has proven this by "Crushing" him in his prime. Murray's win was over 31 yo tired Fed while Dimitrov defeated 27 yo prime Murray quite comfortably playing his 2 slam QF. So which performance do you believe more significant judging grass abilities of respective player?

And don't forget Dimitrov almost took Djokovic to Five sets, nobody knows what would have happened then and also he was coming with 10 (9?) match winning steak on grass with Queens title. Dimitrov was just too good but some guys still living in July 2013 can't digest this!

 

[Riotbeard]

The "crushing part" is the original posters agenda, which is what I was really replying to...

6-1 7-6 6-2 in front of home crowd with numerous fan girls crying was definitely "crush". If anybody have opinion it was close match, then even McEnroe will beg for objectivity. LOL

Your agenda is quite transparent now, since he you have opinions like Murray would've straight setted Dimitrov. LOL. I think you've no respect and interest for new gun coming in top since you're just too busy having "Wet Dreams" with traditional hero, Dimitrov spoiled party. :wink:

I've replied you in details, very interesting to see how you could discredit Dimitrov more or embarrass yourself more making clueless statements like I've written earlier.

You realize that none of the people you are talking to are big Murray fans. I would guess that all of the people you are arguing with rooted for dimitrov while watching.

It was certainly a routine win for dimitrov, but I think crushed implies that Dimitrov beat and demoralized Murray, when clearly Murray's form contributed to the way he lost. I do believe Dimitrov is capable of beating Murray on a good day, but that isn't what happened at Wimbledon, so to act like it did is dishonest. Dimitrov said as much that Murray was off his game. It is what it is.

 

[Kieran]

fastgrass,

You do realise that it's a simple matter for anyone to look up previous threads you've run about Murray, right? So you'll have to forgive me if I take anything you say about the man with a shovelful of salt.

I'd prefer the shovelful of salt, actually, to the shovelful of s**t you usually post about him...

 

[Fastgrass]

fastgrass,

You do realise that it's a simple matter for anyone to look up previous threads you've run about Murray, right? So you'll have to forgive me if I take anything you say about the man with a shovelful of salt.

I'd prefer the shovelful of salt, actually, to the shovelful of s**t you usually post about him...

Sorry to say you went on full trolling mode as expected since you've no objective data to backup your claims peak Murray would've straight setted Dimitrov or tons of excuses you attempted.

There is nothing wrong losing argument but coming like this post after so much subjective bias is shameful attitude. I'm still waiting for objective discussions, try it if it is in your realm of possibilities. Otherwise I'm leaving you for living in bubble now. No longer subjective claims and derailing of discussions are tolerable.

I believes Dimitrov's performance could be used to judge his future achievements, how could you refute it? Reply my detail post refute every point, let's see how you are good at objective analysis. Derailing thread, making excuses is rather very cheap business..

Try to be objective or leave it with I lost argument label, no need to attack me or derailing thread posting that nothing related to Tennis.

 

[Kieran]

I believe that if you believe that "Dimitrov's performance could be used to judge his future achievements", then you're getting the short shrift you deserve.

Looking at Grigor objectively, anything may happen. Personally, I think he's the best of a certain age group, but I'm not convinced fully by him yet. I hope he does well, but we'll see...

 

[Riotbeard]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlUPk9-il2Q[/video]

I tap! Andy Murray stinks at tennis. I don't know how he made it out of the juniors. It's amazing Dimitrov hasn't won more majors than Andy at this point, because Andy stinks and is mentally weak, where as dimitrov is an experienced player with an insurmountable game that has won him dozens of titles.

Are people happy?

 

[Kieran]

:laydownlaughing

I agree! He's rubbish. In fact, he's no longer British - he's definitely only Scottish.

I find myself in the odd position recently of defending Federer, Djoker and Murray more often than I'm defending young Ralph. There's something very fishy going down, I reckons... :snigger