Day 2.

[Denise49IQ]

Sept 2, 2009 9:28:57 GMT -5 lexpretend said:

Roddick did not play the tennis of his life vs. Murray at Wimbledon. In patches, but...remember how he nearly choked the third set? He was there for the taking, but Murray played overly passively - i.e., more so than usual - and failed to switch up his strategy - again, unlike he usually does.

I mean, you know as well as I do that the "at [X]'s best" argument isn't that meaningful! This is like when people said that Rafa was just a moonballer, and all it'd take to beat him on hard courts was an aggressive player playing well, like Tsonga at the AO that year. Maybe so, but Rafa is one USO away from the Full House, so...it doesn't matter. To beat Murray, most players are going to have to have a great day, not just a good day.

Maybe not the 'match of his life', but given the circumstances, I don't think I'd ever seen Dick play with such variety. Tactically, he was also fantastic. Had Muzza played the match of his life and still lost... I would see Hurley's point, but, he sucked.

[Iorix]

Sept 1, 2009 21:05:00 GMT -5 @leelee said:

Same time Azarenka does?

Possibly.

Oh, how I will gloat to each and every one of you when Princess Vika is #1.

Let's get this straight: you say that Vika will be #1 and win 8120421304 Slams because

I) you actually think she's a good player

or

II) you're merely implying that women's tennis will suck so much in the future that even a generic player like Vika will be able to reach #1 and win 8120421304 Slams

[Iorix]

Sept 1, 2009 21:00:43 GMT -5 Edna Krabappel said:

Oh, dear. This is going to be horrible for Ana. I thought she was going to faint serving on that 2nd MP. She was 6-2 3-1 up here. I have no idea how she's going to get over this.

BAG always sux horribly at the USO. Surface doesn't favour her, but I believe not being given the same star treatment she gets in Europe after years of EPIC FAIL also plays a part.

[Iorix]

Sept 1, 2009 21:10:07 GMT -5 Calico said:

But what I don't undesrsrand is what happened to Ivanovic's serve which was the third best in women's tennis the first half of 2008. Ana didn't have a right shoulder injury so how did she lose her fine serve?

She served bigger (km/h) at RG 2007.

Her service motion has always been lazy (nearly no knee bend) and rudimentary - she simply throws the ball up at random and swings her arm to whack it as hard as possible. If she wasn't so sturdily built, her arm would have fallen off by now.

[lexpretend]

Sept 3, 2009 7:39:10 GMT -5 Iorix said:

Sept 1, 2009 21:00:43 GMT -5 Edna Krabappel said:

Oh, dear. This is going to be horrible for Ana. I thought she was going to faint serving on that 2nd MP. She was 6-2 3-1 up here. I have no idea how she's going to get over this.

BAG always sux horribly at the USO. Surface doesn't favour her, but I believe not being given the same star treatment she gets in Europe after years of EPIC FAIL also plays a part.

BAG sux horribly everywhere now The bulk of her points come from bullshit runs through weak draws: Linz title, IW final, inflated 4R points from RG and Wimbledon. And showing up to the YEC. It just seems odd to blame not getting star treatment on her terrible performance when ascending to star status is such a significant factor in her decline.

[leelee]

Sept 3, 2009 7:37:34 GMT -5 Iorix said:

Sept 1, 2009 21:05:00 GMT -5 @leelee said:

Possibly.

Oh, how I will gloat to each and every one of you when Princess Vika is #1.

Let's get this straight: you say that Vika will be #1 and win 8120421304 Slams because

I) you actually think she's a good player

or

II) you're merely implying that women's tennis will suck so much in the future that even a generic player like Vika will be able to reach #1 and win 8120421304 Slams

Mostly #1. Vika is not generic. She has the best technique of any rising player. She's going to get stronger on her return and forehand. The serve is already elite. And, most importantly, she has the mentality of a champion.

BAG had shoulder problems around '06/early '07 if I recall. That's why her serve got so lazy, and eventually problems arose. It's hard for me to explain Ana, when I still have no idea how she got to #1 with her glaring weaknesses.

[Iorix]

Sept 3, 2009 12:59:43 GMT -5 @leelee said:

Vika [...] has the mentality of a champion.

Maybe in the sense that the seems to be able to quickly put setbacks (of which there have been more than a few) behind her and soldier on. She doesn't bullshit her way to wins the way the "real champions" do.

Sept 3, 2009 12:59:43 GMT -5 @leelee said:

It's hard for me to explain Ana, when I still have no idea how she got to #1 with her glaring weaknesses.

She went through a patch from mid 07 to RG 08 in which literally everything went her way (draws opened up for her, she was able to dodge the elite players who are bad matchups for her, she only faced the "lame duck" top tenners of the day such as Danka, etc.) and above all during which she won every single tight match that she played.

[The Chloe]

Sept 1, 2009 13:01:31 GMT -5 :rolleyes: said:

Sept 1, 2009 1:06:43 GMT -5 The Chloe said:

I made ballbuster moderator for a day once, but he didn't notice. Then, I banned him. Then, I unbanned him. You never know what's going to happen next!

I don't log in everyday

Hence your failure to complain. Believe me, I was disappointed.

[DBBN]

Sept 1, 2009 20:53:54 GMT -5 DBBN said:

Seriously, he's a fine player. But that Dushevina style won't win majors as long as people keep their heads about them. If a retard like Gulbis can hit through him and EASILY on numerous points, that's...well, that's why he hasn't won one, and probably won't, as long as non-morons hit much much much harder.

Verdasco at AO.
Gonzalez at RG.
Roddick at W.

It seems pretty obvious.

It seems pretty obvious.

[GoDom]

What's obvious is that Murray played a horrible match.

You make it sound as if anyone having a good day can just hit him off the court. That's not true at all if he's not horrible.

[DBBN]

...

[GoDom]

Sept 1, 2009 21:43:50 GMT -5 DBBN said:

But I mean...if everyone plays well, he'll get beat by someone, every single time.

This statement is wrong because Murray's "best" is not worse than the other top players' "best".

Now, in Slams, Murray does not deliver his "best". I agree with that now. I gave him the benefit of the doubt until this tournament, but this loss is really bad, and much worse than the previous ones.

[DBBN]

Sept 8, 2009 17:14:10 GMT -5 GoDom said:

Murray's "best" is not worse than the other top players' "best".

Yeah, it is, by a lot. Again, it's pretty obvious, considering who the other top players happen to be and what they've accomplished.

[GoDom]

Murray having less accomplishments (i.e. Slams) equals Murray playing worse than usual at Slams. This has nothing to do with how good his best is.

[DBBN]

Unfortunately, this discussion is about Murray's performance in Slams.

If you want to redefine what determines "best" -- H2H, ranking, etc. -- that's different. But, my point is that Murray isn't good enough to win Slams as long as at least one other top (or less-than-top) player is playing well. I apparently can't stress it enough. So all I'll say is that...in sports, results tend to speak for themselves.

Feel free to bump when he wins a Slam.

[GoDom]

Then please explain to me what the differences are between regular tournaments (where Murray beats the likes of Federer and Djoko repeatedly) and Slams. According to you, in all these matches Federer and Djoko must have been playing far from their best.

This is not the WTA where you have someone like Serena who just turns up at a Slam and whoops the no.1 because she is just better. It doesn't work like that on the men's side.

Of course Murray can get hit off the court. Everyone can because there are many players capable of doing that. But I doubt that this is what really happened today.

[DBBN]

Sept 8, 2009 17:43:11 GMT -5 GoDom said:

Then please explain to me what the differences are between regular tournaments (where Murray beats the likes of Federer and Djoko repeatedly) and Slams. According to you, in all these matches Federer and Djoko must have been playing far from their best.

Sorry to c/p but I've made all my points in this discussion.

Sept 8, 2009 17:33:54 GMT -5 DBBN said:

Unfortunately, this discussion is about Murray's performance in Slams.

If you want to redefine what determines "best" -- H2H, ranking, etc. -- that's different.

[GoDom]

Sept 8, 2009 17:33:54 GMT -5 DBBN said:

But, my point is that Murray isn't good enough to win Slams as long as at least one other top (or less-than-top) player is playing well. I apparently can't stress it enough.

You can stress that as much as you want, I still won't agree with it.

Murray wouldn't be no.2 with numerous titles and big wins if some random top 20 player could give him a 3-set drubbing just by "playing well". That's nonsense.

[DBBN]

Sept 8, 2009 17:33:54 GMT -5 DBBN said:

Unfortunately, this discussion is about Murray's performance in Slams.

[GoDom]

So Murray plays worse in Slams by default? It's in the nature of his game that he gets hit off the court at Slams, but not elsewhere?

lol

[leelee]

This is not the WTA where you have someone like Serena who just turns up at a Slam and whoops the no.1 because she is just better. It doesn't work like that on the men's side.

I think that's applicable to Federer. Nowhere near the level of Serena or Sampras, but he's tanked a few MS in his day, and probably a couple of his losses to Murray.

And Muzza has only lost to him once in a slam.

Then please explain to me what the differences are between regular tournaments (where Murray beats the likes of Federer and Djoko repeatedly) and Slams.

It's a mystery why Muzza plays worse in slams...

[Denise49IQ]

Yeah, I don't really see why Hurley is being such a douche about all of this.

Again, I would see his point if Andy had played his best in all four Slam matches this year AND STILL LOST. He was far from his best in all of them. So the fact someone was playing "better" than him is moot. Okay, maybe if their level caused Andy to play like crap... but, still, no. He just sucked.

Plus, he didn't choke away any big leads, is not considered a choker, is still pretty young and has many years to get it together for 7 matches in a row.

[leelee]

Well, it's happened enough now to where there's concern.

Muzza has to change something. Preparation, etc... But, it's not as if he overplays. Meh, I don't know.

[DBBN]

Sept 8, 2009 17:57:34 GMT -5 @leelee said:

Well, it's happened enough now to where there's concern.

Muzza has to change something.

Jesus Christ. Someone actually looking at RESULTS.

[GoDom]

Results shmesults.

[DBBN]

Apparently!

[DBBN]

Muzza looks pretty hot in his PC though Couldn't see his teeth at all.

[GoDom]

He IS hot. What other reason would there be for me to defend him?

[Denise49IQ]

If we're still losing like this in 2 years, I am joining Hurley. MUZZA has plenty of time.

[R. Black]

Why are we discussing in Day 2.