Your expectations from Dimitrov in USO series?

[Iona16]

I don't see why people even acknowledge fastgrass' blatant anti-Murray agenda.

He's not worth the effort TF7. Save your time and energy. There will be plenty of anti-Andy threads from him. He's known for them.

 

[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.

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.

My error there then. Still, Roger was number one around Cincinnati or at some point that year, if I remember correctly? So it's not like anyone can use the fact that he was 31 as a reason why it was "easy" or something for Andy.

 

[Front242]

No one used being 31 as a reason for anything but being 31 and just coming off a 4 hour 26 min semi ending 19-17 in the 3rd set is a different matter entirely. Recovering from that would be tough at any age, but with the number of matches Federer has played on tour and being 31 at the time, it sure didn't help a whole lot either.

 

[Riotbeard]

No one used being 31 as a reason for anything but being 31 and just coming off a 4 hour 26 min semi ending 19-17 in the 3rd set is a different matter entirely. Recovering from that would be tough at any age, but with the number of matches Federer has played on tour and being 31 at the time, it sure didn't help a whole lot either.

What you mean is you didn't. I can think of one poster who has used that as an excuse to take credit away from Andy

 

[markus1]

I do not have that many expectations from him.. he's always somewhere in the middle, not good not bad, imo

 

[Fastgrass]

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.

Is this your knowledge of Tennis? :lolz: So is there a rule if Player 'A' has been playing in good form doesn't get tired after 4-5 hr. physical game? such a nonsense stupid post.

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....

Didn't care to read it seeing your knowledge of Tennis above, do some homework before posting.

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.

Let's see how it goes, I'll be satisfied if he makes final one irrespective of results at other two

 

[Fastgrass]

He's not worth the effort TF7. Save your time and energy. There will be plenty of anti-Andy threads from him. He's known for them.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

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.

My error there then. Still, Roger was number one around Cincinnati or at some point that year, if I remember correctly? So it's not like anyone can use the fact that he was 31 as a reason why it was "easy" or something for Andy.

Yes, Roger was number 1 for 17 weeks from after Wimbledon until after Basel, but Novak was ahead in the race since after the US Open I think and Roger's withdrawal from Paris Bercy meant the year-end-number 1 was dedided at that point.

Before the Olympic final Roger even was the slight favorite I think, so it definitely wasn't consideres as easy, but it became clear pretty early that he hadn't recovered from the semi final. And such a kind of result between elite players usually means one played great, while the other one had an off day. But even with both playing the way they did on the way to the final, Andy would have won that match somewhat comfortably in my opinion.

 

[Fastgrass]

My error there then. Still, Roger was number one around Cincinnati or at some point that year, if I remember correctly? So it's not like anyone can use the fact that he was 31 as a reason why it was "easy" or something for Andy.

Actually for Dimitrov it was way harder to beat 27 yo prime fresh Murray with all crowd cheering against him than Murray's victory over Fed since Fed was already 31 and got tired by Delpo in semifinals. How you could expect 31 yo to recover fully in short time and to beat 6 year younger opponent in his peak? Federer was enough good to beat Murray even at 31 but his age and extremely grueling encounter took away his Gold medal. Fed was never physical beast it happened lot of times after playing long match he got rountined by lesser players also

At RG 13 Tsonga straight setted Fed coming from 5 setter against Simon.. Does that mean Tsonga was just too good? Murray's win was deserving but fresh Fed would've taken him out in 4 or 5 and that was not even surprise since he did it one month earlier!

Dimitrov's win over prime Murray was sheer brilliance and it showed his champion's attitude. Taking very experienced grass player and defending champion out playing his first second slam quarters was monumental feat additionally he did it in emphatic fashion, smoking Murray, that makes it very very special!

 

[Fastgrass]

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.

Still might be? 7 Time Wimbledon champion Fed is pusher like recent champions? There are lot of all courters but top all courters like Fed, Dimitrov always proven more skilful than defensive base liners since they can play brilliantly in every part of the court unlike pushers/grinders rely on limited baseline skills. Dimitrov's win over Murray was clear evident he's more skillful since he doesn't have same baseline power but still made it pretty routine on pretty much slow grass. On fast grass it would be bagel at least I guess.

 

[Fastgrass]

I do not have that many expectations from him.. he's always somewhere in the middle, not good not bad, imo

It's true but you'll never know his improvements under Rasheed (mostly physical) and extra added confidence with SF run at Wimbledon which includes victories over Murray 2.0, Saville (young rival), Mayer (Best form of his life), Dolgo (very high quality match in terms of pure shot making) he could improve his results at masters I hope.

 

[Kieran]

fastgrass, you know you're trolling now with this stuff about Murray? Why don't you just stick to your central question, and leave the editorial comments to people who know more?

 

[Fastgrass]

Kiren please can you help me to find those post? care to refute? I think you've attempted all excuses now,lost all points you raised and shamelessly trolled once to derail the thread once. Still accusing others for trolling? I think there is no need to do "Dirty Work" in thread if you have nothing to add? Such a hypocrite. I'm responding all types of comments, but you've hard time to digest what Dimitrov did at Wimbledon that's what you're finding everything trolling stuff. Give it time, apply some ICe it will finally cool! :wink:

 

[Kieran]

You've been answered about Murray. Your assessment of the Wimbledon match is biased.

Your thread is about Dimitrov - why don't you stay on topic? People are interested in Grigor, not your drooling, gloopy hatred of Andy...

 

[Fastgrass]

You've been answered about Murray. Your assessment of the Wimbledon match is biased.

says the "Unbiased Analyst" who believes it's fact that peak Murray would've straight setted Dimitrov. :cover

Your thread is about Dimitrov - why don't you stay on topic? People are interested in Grigor, not your drooling, gloopy hatred of Andy...

Well said, they are not even interested in your constant whining, excuse making and comparison with Murray's mythical peak. So give Grigor credit, stop moaning now, only fool could believe it's fact Murray could straight set Dimitrov since he wasn't good enough to take one. Grigor yet to hit peak, he's Still just too good for Murray 2.0 (leads 2-0 since Rasheed), you'll never know how it goes!

Objective data says Grigor is good, only fanboys could claim that was hatred since they had no answers and you're nothing different from them.

 

[Kieran]

Objective data says Grigor is good

Well said. You've finally written something that makes sense.

Carry on...

 

[Fastgrass]

Kiern proving again he's just too gracious in defeat, almost like this-

:lolz:

Anyway you're making everyone on this forum look so soo objective with your endless moaning, and completely free service! Please continue! No reason to stop you since more you embarrasses yourself making clueless assertions more we look Better.

 

[Riotbeard]

Fastgrass, do you ever get tired? Do you wonder why this is the only thread where it's one person versus the entire forum?

And you're right. Kieran is the problem.

 

[Fastgrass]

Fastgrass, do you ever get tired? Do you wonder why this is the only thread where it's one person versus the entire forum?

And you're right. Kieran is the problem.

Did you feel that problem? Every fan base has trolls, I don't find any problems with it, it's true it's tiresome to handle them but still lot of good points raised here despite of endless attempts of fanboys to derail this thread.


No I just figured he is not problem, I was since I was feeding him.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No one used being 31 as a reason for anything but being 31 and just coming off a 4 hour 26 min semi ending 19-17 in the 3rd set is a different matter entirely. Recovering from that would be tough at any age, but with the number of matches Federer has played on tour and being 31 at the time, it sure didn't help a whole lot either.

One thing that is not said, at least explicitly, is that the finals of Olympics was on the
very next day to that of Semifinals (unlike in most grandslams). When a player ages,
the first thing that goes away is the recovery time. After that long semifinal, Fed
pretty much gave up on even trying to win the final, as he knew he would have no
chance. This is not to say he would have won had there been one more day gap,
although it is possible. Most probably, he would have fought valiantly and lost,
had there been one more day gap.

In one Olympics, Fed lost the semifinals and then the bronze match (if I
remember right) and given that he had no medals in Olympics singles
at that time and given that there is a possibility of that happening again
(as the loser's match was also on the next day), Fed put all his heart and
mind to ensure the he wins against JMDP at any cost. The cost in this case
was being unable to give a good fight in the finals.

Although me and Front are talking about Fed's fatigue, Fed himself did
not say anything about physical fatigue in his post-match interview. But,
he did explicitly mention that he had mental fatigue.