Your expectations from Dimitrov in USO series?

[TennisFanatic7]

I don't see why people even acknowledge fastgrass' blatant anti-Murray agenda. Straight setting old Federer means nothing in the Olympic final. Roger was in such woeful form that year he was one win away from ending the year as number one player. I guess you missed the recent Wimbledon Championships where ancient Roger, now two years older than the 2012 Olympics, came extremely close to winning the whole thing? But sure, nobody has objective facts to back up Murray's grass court pedigree. He's definitely not won three Queen's titles, an Olympic Gold and a Wimbledon on the surface or anything....

@ Topic..

I expect more of the same from Grigor in these tournaments. I don't think he'll win any of the three but I think he'll take some wins against the likes of Berdych, Ferrer, possibly Murray if they meet again. He's still a step away from the top tier.

 

[Front242]

^ Well he has a point actually, Roger played one of the longest deciding sets of all time in a 3 set match against Del Potro and his legs were nowhere near fresh enough for the final at his age.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

^ Well he has a point actually, Roger played one of the longest deciding sets of all time in a 3 set match against Del Potro and his legs were nowhere near fresh enough for the final at his age.

He has a point inferring that Murray beating Roger Federer 6-2, 6-1, 6-4 on Wimbledon Centre Court was all down to Federer being old and nothing to do with how good Murray is? Sure. Forgive me for refusing to let that fly as a negative against Murray. If anything it's kudos to Andy for getting through his semi final with two-time Wimbledon champion Novak Djokovic in straight sets (yet another meaningless result that was all down to Djokovic being in some way incapacitated and nothing to do with Murray being a good player, I'm guessing).

 

[Riotbeard]

^ Well he has a point actually, Roger played one of the longest deciding sets of all time in a 3 set match against Del Potro and his legs were nowhere near fresh enough for the final at his age.

Come on Front. You know what Fastgrass is saying and it's not a sane point about fed being a bit worse for wear after a long match, which is what you are saying.

 

[Front242]

^ Well he has a point actually, Roger played one of the longest deciding sets of all time in a 3 set match against Del Potro and his legs were nowhere near fresh enough for the final at his age.

He has a point inferring that Murray beating Roger Federer 6-2, 6-1, 6-4 on Wimbledon Centre Court was all down to Federer being old and nothing to do with how good Murray is? Sure.Forgive me for refusing to let that fly as a negative against Murray. If anything it's kudos to Andy for getting through his semi final with two-time Wimbledon champion Novak Djokovic in straight sets (yet another meaningless result that was all down to Djokovic being in some way incapacitated and nothing to do with Murray being a good player, I'm guessing).

When did I say any of that? Here's what fastgrass originally said "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". And he's 100% right there. Federer was physically slow and tired looking on court, did not play well but equally so Andy did also play well, could see Roger was drained and made him run even more to tire him further. But I doubt very much Murray would've won 2 sets 6-1 and 6-2 if Roger didn't play that mammoth 3rd set against Del Potro. Their matches are always closer than that regardless of who wins when both are equally fresh.

 

[Front242]

^ Well he has a point actually, Roger played one of the longest deciding sets of all time in a 3 set match against Del Potro and his legs were nowhere near fresh enough for the final at his age.

Come on Front. You know what Fastgrass is saying and it's not a sane point about fed being a bit worse for wear after a long match, which is what you are saying.

He's always slagging Murray alright but regarding Federer being 31 years old, tired and sub par in that match he's 100% correct.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

^ Well he has a point actually, Roger played one of the longest deciding sets of all time in a 3 set match against Del Potro and his legs were nowhere near fresh enough for the final at his age.

He has a point inferring that Murray beating Roger Federer 6-2, 6-1, 6-4 on Wimbledon Centre Court was all down to Federer being old and nothing to do with how good Murray is? Sure.Forgive me for refusing to let that fly as a negative against Murray. If anything it's kudos to Andy for getting through his semi final with two-time Wimbledon champion Novak Djokovic in straight sets (yet another meaningless result that was all down to Djokovic being in some way incapacitated and nothing to do with Murray being a good player, I'm guessing).

When did I say any of that? Here's what fastgrass originally said "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". And he's 100% right there. Federer was physically slow and tired looking on court, did not play well but equally so Andy did also play well, could see Roger was drained and made him run even more to tire him further. But I doubt very much Murray would've won 2 sets 6-1 and 6-2 if Roger didn't play that mammoth 3rd set against Del Potro. Their matches are always closer than that regardless of who wins when both are equally fresh.

I also doubt he would have won those sets so heavily if he had a more gruelling match against Djokovic in the semi finals but he didn't because he was good enough to win that match in straight sets on grass.

Anyone who throws the word "fluke" into a discussion about a player winning a title by beating Djokovic in two straight sets and then Federer in three straight sets has an agenda, even if they cleverly try and pull the wool over your eyes by saying "sorry for using this word" as if they don't want to say it.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

^ Well he has a point actually, Roger played one of the longest deciding sets of all time in a 3 set match against Del Potro and his legs were nowhere near fresh enough for the final at his age.

Come on Front. You know what Fastgrass is saying and it's not a sane point about fed being a bit worse for wear after a long match, which is what you are saying.

He's always slagging Murray alright but regarding Federer being 31 years old, tired and sub par in that match he's 100% correct.

In that yes he is correct, I wasn't disputing that. However there's no way you can use that to conclude that Murray's grass court abilities are "over-rated", which was the point he was making. Also the fact that Roger was 31 years old has less than zero relevance given that, when he was that age, he went into the final of the year end championships with a chance of ending up as no. 1, and when he's two years older, he's still good enough to come within a few games of winning Wimbledon again.

 

[Front242]

I didn't agree with any of his posts on fluking any wins, merely agreeing that Federer was clearly tired from the match against Del Potro and didn't play well in the final. He said himself mental fatigue from the strain of that final set against DP didn't help either and to his credit also as I mentioned above, Murray could see Roger was tired and made him run a lot. Roger said he could feel he was slow getting to the corners of the court. It's actually a good tournament to showcase that Roger is definitely clean too 'cos he clearly gets visibly tired after long matches.

 

[Moxie]

Dimitrov was just too good for Murray on grass since he's unquestionably more complete player than Murray.. Grass rewards all courters since they are more skilful.

I just wanted to point out this one fallacy in your argument. However much grass might be a good surface for "all-courters," it doesn't make them, by definition, more "skillful." A style of play is one thing, and being skillful at it is quite another. Murray has made quite a career of the style he plays.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

talking to fastgrass is futile..its like trying to have a balanced discussion with some nimbocumulus clouds.

 

[Moxie]

It's actually a good tournament to showcase that Roger is definitely clean too 'cos he clearly gets visibly tired after long matches.

You never miss an opportunity, do you? Is this the reason for Roger's poor 5-set record? Because the rest of the field dopes? Any number of things can be used for/against, in terms of doping. What about the fact that Fed's never missed a Major, and his SF/QF streak? Just because he's "unnaturally" healthy? You insist that tennis has a drug problem at a higher level than Cilic and Troicki. If that is so, why is Federer exempt? Because he got tired after playing DelPotro? What about both Djokovic and Nadal being gasses in the humidity by the 4th set at RG this year? Front, you like an innuendo. But I don't think you parse out your implications fairly.

 

[lacatch]

Moxie---he wasn't even talking about your guy---thou doth protest too much!

 

[lacatch]

BTW--does he pay you in euros or $ ?

 

[Moxie]

Moxie---he wasn't even talking about your guy---thou doth protest too much!

I was actually talking about Federer. And Front's trying to defend him, while he makes inferences about others. Beyond one match, I didn't mention Nadal, and in that case I mentioned him and Djokovic.

Thou dost infer too much.

 

[Front242]

It's actually a good tournament to showcase that Roger is definitely clean too 'cos he clearly gets visibly tired after long matches.

You never miss an opportunity, do you? Is this the reason for Roger's poor 5-set record? Because the rest of the field dopes? Any number of things can be used for/against, in terms of doping. What about the fact that Fed's never missed a Major, and his SF/QF streak? Just because he's "unnaturally" healthy? You insist that tennis has a drug problem at a higher level than Cilic and Troicki. If that is so, why is Federer exempt? Because he got tired after playing DelPotro? What about both Djokovic and Nadal being gasses in the humidity by the 4th set at RG this year? Front, you like an innuendo. But I don't think you parse out your implications fairly.

Never said it had anything to do with his 5 set record. That could be down to anything. Many other players in history never missed a major. That's down to style of play and ending matches quickly. His QF/SF streak? Please. Maybe, just maybe that's because he's so good. I never said Federer was exempt from doping but certainly he's been a lot more vocally critical of the testing regime than others and told the authorities they're not doing a good job and this was way before the Armstrong case when many only then decided to change their tune and talk differently to the media following that scandal. I merely mentioned Roger's recovery post long matches is as natural as it gets, he plays a long match, you know he'll be less than his best next match. That's all I said in my post and that's all I'm going to say 'cos I wasn't talking about anyone else. I wasn't expecting all and sundry to complain about that post and in fact no one else did 'cos I wasn't inferring anything by it other than it certainly was indicative of a clean player that his legs get very noticeably slowed down after a long match.

It's very much the general consensus that Federer at 30+ cannot string together a series of big wins after a long match these days and that's why in pre slam discussions on draws we all agree he hasn't a hope of going through multiple big matches one after the other. Most people undoubtedly at any age would have sore/tired legs after a 4 hour 26 minute semi ending 19-17 in the third set, which alone took two hours and 43 minutes. If I saw him running around as fresh as a daisy next day after that I'd be scratching my head 'cos it's not normal. Thankfully he wasn't and that's the point I made.

 

[Kieran]

I expect more of the same from Grigor in these tournaments. I don't think he'll win any of the three but I think he'll take some wins against the likes of Berdych, Ferrer, possibly Murray if they meet again. He's still a step away from the top tier.

I wonder if Grigor feels the weight of expectation now, as well - or is he the kinda lad who sees the coming weeks as an opportunity? This aspect of things is important. I remember Pete felt the weight of things on his shoulder after he won his first major, and it took a while before he recovered. In fact, he was quoted as saying that his loss in the semi of the US the following year was a relief, because the pressure was off him - something that gave Jimmy Connors the opportunity to snort.

Of course, there's no such pressure on Dimitrov, these things are relative, but I wonder how he thinks of the coming weeks, if he think of them at all. Maybe he's just too busy polishing his game...

 

[El Dude]

My sense--and this is just a hunch--is that Grigor is hungry and getting hungrier, that any pressure is secondary to a deepening desire to win a big one. Anyhow, there is certainly pressure on him but I don't think it is immense. There isn't a ton of expectation on his generation, just a kind of hesitant hope.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

There isn't a ton of expectation on his generation, just a kind of hesitant hope.

Haha, I like this way of describing it. Hopefully this will work to the advantage of Dimitrov and Raonic.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

^ Well he has a point actually, Roger played one of the longest deciding sets of all time in a 3 set match against Del Potro and his legs were nowhere near fresh enough for the final at his age.

Come on Front. You know what Fastgrass is saying and it's not a sane point about fed being a bit worse for wear after a long match, which is what you are saying.

He's always slagging Murray alright but regarding Federer being 31 years old, tired and sub par in that match he's 100% correct.

In that yes he is correct, I wasn't disputing that. However there's no way you can use that to conclude that Murray's grass court abilities are "over-rated", which was the point he was making. Also the fact that Roger was 31 years old has less than zero relevance given that, when he was that age, he went into the final of the year end championships with a chance of ending up as no. 1, and when he's two years older, he's still good enough to come within a few games of winning Wimbledon again.

That's actually not true. Djokovic was assured of being year-end number 1 in 2012 before Paris Bercy began, but the WTF final maybe felt like a battle for the "real number 1" as both Roger and Novak won a slam and 3 masters and had a H2H of 2:2 before the match for that year. After the WTF Novak was ahead by around 2500 points I think, so that's a quite comfortable lead and a significantly bigger difference than between Rafa and Novak last year for example.

But it's obvious that Roger played mostly on a consistently high level between Basel 2011 and Cincinnati 2012. While it wasn't really surprising that he wasn't able to play near his best in the Olympic final, the margin of Andy's victory shows that he would have pretty good chances to win anyway. And in my opinion the level he showed at the Olympics was the best he ever played for a complete tournament, so it's hard to argue there was any luck involved in him winning gold in the end.