Overend or overawed?

According to the font of all tennis knowledge Maria Sharapova will be ladies champion here

Quote "I was going to say Victoria Azarenka but, having seen Heather Watson in practice, I think a shock is possible. I will go with Sharapova as a former winner but I'm not particularly confident."

Quite Johnathan. She only came up 11 games short.

Let's hope (for your sake) both Maria and Andy do better. BTW Jonathan did you realise that this indeed was a slam you were talking about and that Djokovic, Federer and Nadal had entered or did you write this before you got off the plane?

The guy is an idiot. I will leave it at that. I read his rather partisan views and while I applaud his belief in Britain's players, I do think he should've been a bit more realistic in his predictions.

I found the guy who thought Li Na would be a big letdown as the funniest comment with Clijsters too.

A lot of them plumped for Kvitova, so a safe assumption is that they stopped watching tennis after Wimbledon.

lk yes I picked up on that Li Na prediction too. Funny that she beat Kvitova and only lost out to Azarenka last week.

What gets me with all these predictions is that they seem to completely ignore the facts as to who won what last year. Quite how Djokovic has gone from all conquering to the pick of one pundit out of five is frankly bizarre.

Finally the Lendl effect. Don't get me wrong Andy's in with a shout. Favourite? No way. I mean it's not like Lendl's actually going to hit the ball for him. Plus anybody with much of a tennis brain will tell you it takes a bit of time for a relationship to gel. To expect Murray to immediately see off all- comers simply because he's now got Ivan in his corner is underestimating the qualities of Djokovic et al.

It shows the lack of knowledge that the BBC have in general in regards to tennis. I was amazed to how much Djokovic was overlooked. Do they think Andy can topple him given that the only time he beat Djokovic recently was down to him retiring at Cincinnatti?

Why is Tim quiet? I think if they asked Henman, Becker, Cash I don't think Murray would have been favoured at all.

lg looks like you need to chewck out yahoo for some proper analysis and meaningful predictions

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/previewing-predicting-men-2012-australian-open-170221803.html

Their pundit goes for -

SF Djokovic vs. Tsonga, Federer vs. Nadal
Finals: Djokovic d. Federer

He goes for Tsonga beating Andy in the quarters. I'd go for Andy in that one but either way the winner would be unlikely to go past Djokovic.

In fact, just look at Andys draw. Ryan Harrison will be no push over and Tsonga waits in the quarter finals should they both get that far. And these other guys make him the favourite??

Murray defeating Djokovic is more wishful thinking than based on careful analysis. Murray might beat Djokovic if they both make it to the semi-finals but it is unlikely at this moment in time.

Similarly if Federer and Nadal both make it to the semi-finals (in one piece), then it is most likely that Nadal will defeat Federer. There is something about that match up that gives the advantage to Nadal (if it is not an end of season, indoor tournament - then Nadal tends now to win, and win quite comfortably).

NS for BBC Tennis Correspondant

NS historically Nadal has more often than not got the better of Federer in slams but he does appear to be struggling somewhat at present. As they say though class is permanent and form is temporary so perhaps it wouldn't be that great a shock if Nadal somehow were to find a way to prevail.

It must, however, be a brave (or more likely misinformed) man who'd bet against Novak. The bookies make him around5/4 favourite with Federer 4/1 and both Nadal and Murray around 5/1.

The BBC article was terrible but I have to say that I think Jeremy Bates trumped Mr Overend when it came to providing complete bilge:

"Men's Champion: Andy Murray. His track record here, his form going into the event and the x-factor that is Ivan Lendl, which has just added that five per cent of focus to his game, makes Murray my pick."

Not only has he found a way to measure focus in % terms, he is able to draw this conclusion on the basis of one tournament, in which none of Andy's rivals played and in which Lendl didn't even join him until half way through!

Bates is also the guy who, during Wimbledon, attributed the improvement in Djokovic's serve in 2011 as down to his work with Todd Martin.

It's as if he skim reads a few headlines, recycles them and then presents them as informed opinion.

Bates is truly shocking as a pundit anyway. Sky didn't want to touch him and rumour has that he tried his hardest to get in there. I know the Beeb had him once for DC duty and that said enough of his quality as commentator or pundit. Eurosport don't touch him. Very much out of the Boycott ilk!

While Petchey is a Murray fanboy, I find his analysis on the Sky website to be the most sensible. Him and Fleming talk the most sense. Shiras has his moments. I would like for Sky to pick up Henman. He could replace Buckland and Cowan and even Rusedski. I wait in anticipation to see who ITV use for the French Open.

legendkillar wrote: I wait in anticipation to see who ITV use for the French Open.

Probably Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley!

HM Murdoch wrote:

legendkillar wrote: I wait in anticipation to see who ITV use for the French Open.

Probably Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley!

Good grief. I would watch if holly Willobooby is host!

Ricky Gervais may be looking for work then.

thing is though, Djokovic is a bit of an unknown at the moment. We're not quite sure what sort of form he's in as he hasn't really played much this year. I guess tonight will tell us more. Murray probably looks in good form as he won Brisbane, admittedly not beating anyone particularly great. Federer has question marks over his back which his interview today doesn't dispel, and no one's quite sure where Rafa's fitness is either.

Also, it's a BBC article, hence pro-Murray biased.

ITV and the French Open? Sacre bleu! I must have missed that one.

Whatever next? The British no.2 on Britain's got Talent no doubt.

I usually have an issue with Overend because he thinks the world of Tennis ends with Fedal

You will actually find that Murray gets more bad than good press from the likes of Jonathan and others in the media

Overend is the biggest kiss ass to Murray out there!!!

Overplaying his performances and chances at Slams and only ever once had a pop at him after that US Open performance in 2010.

Other than that he stays relatively quiet.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:thing is though, Djokovic is a bit of an unknown at the moment. We're not quite sure what sort of form he's in as he hasn't really played much this year. I guess tonight will tell us more. Murray probably looks in good form as he won Brisbane, admittedly not beating anyone particularly great. Federer has question marks over his back which his interview today doesn't dispel, and no one's quite sure where Rafa's fitness is either.

Also, it's a BBC article, hence pro-Murray biased.

A sweeping statement. Made on the assumption, that because they believe Murray can win a slam - then they must be biased. If they are so 'pro-Murray' can you explain the numerous times that they are so pro-Fed in a far more 'non scientific' manner, i.e,.Fed used to dominate so he must always be favourite

There is a logic to the verdicts for once. Nadal and Fed have fitness question marks against them, at the outset. The other two don't. When Murray plays well he can beat Nole and vice-versa. Hence, it's not nonsense to make Murray a slight favourite

The Beeb along with the rest of he British media have a very 'hero or zero' with Murray. He's the best thing ever right now as soon as he loses he's rubbish. Witness the reaction to us losing the other five Brits in the first round. To listen to 5Live, you'd think it was the biggest shock since Tsonga reached the final four years ago!!

legendkillar wrote:Overend is the biggest kiss ass to Murray out there!!!

Overplaying his performances and chances at Slams and only ever once had a pop at him after that US Open performance in 2010.

Other than that he stays relatively quiet.

Disagree. Although I don't like Overend as a jounralist because he often gets things wrong. However, he did a review of 2010 (Xmas time) and it was very much centred on Fed and Nadal and if anything he talked down the chance of Andy in 2011 (quite right too ) I've never seen him as a sycophantic fan of Murray, but more a poor reporter who often goes OTT either way

newballs wrote:lg looks like you need to chewck out yahoo for some proper analysis and meaningful predictions

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/previewing-predicting-men-2012-australian-open-170221803.html

Their pundit goes for -

SF Djokovic vs. Tsonga, Federer vs. Nadal
Finals: Djokovic d. Federer

He goes for Tsonga beating Andy in the quarters. I'd go for Andy in that one but either way the winner would be unlikely to go past Djokovic.

In fact, just look at Andys draw. Ryan Harrison will be no push over and Tsonga waits in the quarter finals should they both get that far. And these other guys make him the favourite??

I don't see how this is any better or worse than the Overend and Bates thinking Murray will win the event.

Last time Andy met Tsonga in a crucial match he beat him to go to 6-1

Tsonga loses virtually every match he plays against the Top 4 and we've still to see if he can actually consistently get to the latter stages of slams

Last time Murray met Nole he beat him

It just shows that we'll accept a logical prediction if it's suits our viewpoint but not it it doesn't.

Are you kidding me??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/05/murray_survives_stormy_day_in.html#more

So the fact he mentions Murray could win the FO as not negative??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/murray_proves_his_mettle.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/does_nadals_exit_open_way_for.html

Not overplaying his chances??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/06/top_four_wimbledon.html

Wimbledon. Not overhyping his chances?

It's obvious that the lack of tennis knowledge in certain quarters is criminal. The BBC should pull the article, do an Orwellian re-write on it and send the culprit to North Korea as a foreign correspondent

All from strangely enough the year 2011 when he was downplaying his chances

newballs wrote:lk yes I picked up on that Li Na prediction too. Funny that she beat Kvitova and only lost out to Azarenka last week.

What gets me with all these predictions is that they seem to completely ignore the facts as to who won what last year. Quite how Djokovic has gone from all conquering to the pick of one pundit out of five is frankly bizarre.

Finally the Lendl effect. Don't get me wrong Andy's in with a shout. Favourite? No way. I mean it's not like Lendl's actually going to hit the ball for him. Plus anybody with much of a tennis brain will tell you it takes a bit of time for a relationship to gel. To expect Murray to immediately see off all- comers simply because he's now got Ivan in his corner is underestimating the qualities of Djokovic et al.

How can you say with so much conviction that a player who won two out of the last three hard court Masters, reached the last two Aus finals and all four SF's of the Slams in 2011 is "Favourite? No way." Fed's Slam form in 2011 was worse than Murray's. Nadal's carrying shoulder and now knee injuries and last time Murray met him at Aus - he beat him. Nole ended the season with a whimper, although seems back to his best.

The Lendl factor comment isn't as proposterous as you think. If he gets to the latter stages having someone like Lendl in his corner could be a big psychological boost to him. Call that ludicrous if you want, if you do - you obviously don't understand how the mind will work. And most people say it is that which has stopped Andy from winning

I often think Overend is ridiculous and Bates even more so - but we're using our dislike of them to make comments (about Murray not the others!!) look more ludicrous than they

legendkillar wrote:Are you kidding me??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/05/murray_survives_stormy_day_in.html#more

So the fact he mentions Murray could win the FO as not negative??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/murray_proves_his_mettle.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/does_nadals_exit_open_way_for.html

Not overplaying his chances??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/06/top_four_wimbledon.html

Wimbledon. Not overhyping his chances?

I've only read the Wimbledon one, which I read before. You'll have to remind me why this is "overhype' when Overend warns.....

"Much will depend on his consistency of play. He has the form graph with the most fluctuations. Brilliant at his best, a match for the other three certainly, but over the best of five sets against rivals with reputations for consistency? Murray has to find a Roddick performance from Queen's, extend it for another set, and then repeat it over and over and over"

Methinks that some people do not understand what overhype means!! Andy could not be overhyped when it comes to winning a Slam - his track record means that he is always a contender. Now the Watson comments - that's overhype!!

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Are you kidding me??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/05/murray_survives_stormy_day_in.html#more

So the fact he mentions Murray could win the FO as not negative??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/murray_proves_his_mettle.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/does_nadals_exit_open_way_for.html

Not overplaying his chances??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/06/top_four_wimbledon.html

Wimbledon. Not overhyping his chances?

I've only read the Wimbledon one, which I read before. You'll have to remind me why this is "overhype' when Overend warns.....

"Much will depend on his consistency of play. He has the form graph with the most fluctuations. Brilliant at his best, a match for the other three certainly, but over the best of five sets against rivals with reputations for consistency? Murray has to find a Roddick performance from Queen's, extend it for another set, and then repeat it over and over and over"

Methinks that some people do not understand what overhype means!! Andy could not be overhyped when it comes to winning a Slam - his track record means that he is always a contender. Now the Watson comments - that's overhype!!

So someone who hasn't won Slams is not being over-hyped? Not even reaching the Wimbledon Final?

Are you Jonathan Overend in disguise?

banbrotam wrote:

newballs wrote:lk yes I picked up on that Li Na prediction too. Funny that she beat Kvitova and only lost out to Azarenka last week.

What gets me with all these predictions is that they seem to completely ignore the facts as to who won what last year. Quite how Djokovic has gone from all conquering to the pick of one pundit out of five is frankly bizarre.

Finally the Lendl effect. Don't get me wrong Andy's in with a shout. Favourite? No way. I mean it's not like Lendl's actually going to hit the ball for him. Plus anybody with much of a tennis brain will tell you it takes a bit of time for a relationship to gel. To expect Murray to immediately see off all- comers simply because he's now got Ivan in his corner is underestimating the qualities of Djokovic et al.

How can you say with so much conviction that a player who won two out of the last three hard court Masters, reached the last two Aus finals and all four SF's of the Slams in 2011 is "Favourite? No way." Fed's Slam form in 2011 was worse than Murray's. Nadal's carrying shoulder and now knee injuries and last time Murray met him at Aus - he beat him. Nole ended the season with a whimper, although seems back to his best.

The Lendl factor comment isn't as proposterous as you think. If he gets to the latter stages having someone like Lendl in his corner could be a big psychological boost to him. Call that ludicrous if you want, if you do - you obviously don't understand how the mind will work. And most people say it is that which has stopped Andy from winning

I often think Overend is ridiculous and Bates even more so - but we're using our dislike of them to make comments (about Murray not the others!!) look more ludicrous than they

This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read!!!

So if Andy makes the final it will be down to Lendl? Yet in the first sentence you talk about his form prior to Lendl?

I am starting to think your eyeing a BBC job!

banbrotam nobody seems to be saying that Lendl won't make a positive difference starting with both Sydney and here. To extrapolate a few weeks getting to know Ivan with making all the difference needed to win your first slam though may well be over-egging the pudding a bit though.

If he helps make Andy competitive the whole way through - win or lose - then that's all you can ask for. I'm no psychologist and never claimed to be, but usually it's safe to say that there''s no such thing as a short-term fix. If Andy wins here then yes, it'll be because he was ready to do so and Lendl's given him that extra "psychological boost" (using your words) to help him over the line.

It may well be though this relationship is a work in progress and the longer-term results will be a better indicator of how successful a partnership it is rather than the knee-jerk reaction of certain soothsayers.

legendkillar wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Are you kidding me??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/05/murray_survives_stormy_day_in.html#more

So the fact he mentions Murray could win the FO as not negative??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/murray_proves_his_mettle.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/does_nadals_exit_open_way_for.html

Not overplaying his chances??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/06/top_four_wimbledon.html

Wimbledon. Not overhyping his chances?

I've only read the Wimbledon one, which I read before. You'll have to remind me why this is "overhype' when Overend warns.....

"Much will depend on his consistency of play. He has the form graph with the most fluctuations. Brilliant at his best, a match for the other three certainly, but over the best of five sets against rivals with reputations for consistency? Murray has to find a Roddick performance from Queen's, extend it for another set, and then repeat it over and over and over"

Methinks that some people do not understand what overhype means!! Andy could not be overhyped when it comes to winning a Slam - his track record means that he is always a contender. Now the Watson comments - that's overhype!!

So someone who hasn't won Slams is not being over-hyped? Not even reaching the Wimbledon Final?

Are you Jonathan Overend in disguise?

So was Federer 'overhyped' in 2003 when he was touted as one of the favourites - even though he'd lost in the last 16 of the Aus and first round of the French that year?

Here's a definition of "hype" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hype

Not certain that it's "extravagant" to give Murray a fair chance or see him as favourite of winning any of the three non-clay court Slams

Can you only be a favourite if you've reached a final before? Would this mean that in a Murray v Hewitt final, the Aus legend would be favourite?

I'm sure you see it's not quite as black and white!!

Overend does talk nonsense and is prone to writing nonsense - however he's nearly always has a caveat when discussing Andy's chance, as I've shown above in the article I've read

newballs wrote:banbrotam nobody seems to be saying that Lendl won't make a positive difference starting with both Sydney and here. To extrapolate a few weeks getting to know Ivan with making all the difference needed to win your first slam though may well be over-egging the pudding a bit though.

If he helps make Andy competitive the whole way through - win or lose - then that's all you can ask for. I'm no psychologist and never claimed to be, but usually it's safe to say that there''s no such thing as a short-term fix. If Andy wins here then yes, it'll be because he was ready to do so and Lendl's given him that extra "psychological boost" (using your words) to help him over the line.

It may well be though this relationship is a work in progress and the longer-term results will be a better indicator of how successful a partnership it is rather than the knee-jerk reaction of certain soothsayers.

I agree to a degree!! Let's be honest here, the hilarious comments are those about Heather Watson!!

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Are you kidding me??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/05/murray_survives_stormy_day_in.html#more

So the fact he mentions Murray could win the FO as not negative??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/murray_proves_his_mettle.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/01/does_nadals_exit_open_way_for.html

Not overplaying his chances??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanoverend/2011/06/top_four_wimbledon.html

Wimbledon. Not overhyping his chances?

I've only read the Wimbledon one, which I read before. You'll have to remind me why this is "overhype' when Overend warns.....

"Much will depend on his consistency of play. He has the form graph with the most fluctuations. Brilliant at his best, a match for the other three certainly, but over the best of five sets against rivals with reputations for consistency? Murray has to find a Roddick performance from Queen's, extend it for another set, and then repeat it over and over and over"

Methinks that some people do not understand what overhype means!! Andy could not be overhyped when it comes to winning a Slam - his track record means that he is always a contender. Now the Watson comments - that's overhype!!

So someone who hasn't won Slams is not being over-hyped? Not even reaching the Wimbledon Final?

Are you Jonathan Overend in disguise?

So was Federer 'overhyped' in 2003 when he was touted as one of the favourites - even though he'd lost in the last 16 of the Aus and first round of the French that year?

Here's a definition of "hype" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hype

Not certain that it's "extravagant" to give Murray a fair chance or see him as favourite of winning any of the three non-clay court Slams

Can you only be a favourite if you've reached a final before? Would this mean that in a Murray v Hewitt final, the Aus legend would be favourite?

I'm sure you see it's not quite as black and white!!

Overend does talk nonsense and is prone to writing nonsense - however he's nearly always has a caveat when discussing Andy's chance, as I've shown above in the article I've read

Convenient you missed out the opponent of that final. One Mark Philoppoussis. Also at the time Federer was ranked in the top 10. So answer me this. Was Murray favourite in any of his finals against Federer? Nope. Was he favourite against Djokovic? Nope.

Hewitt would be favourite at his home Slam having been a 2 time winner. I think only the seriously hard of thinking would think he had no chance.

For you to suggest Overend is impartial when discussing Andy's chances is rather criminal. Ever listened to one of his Radio 5 Live discussions? Probably not.

You are right in one thing.

Things are never Black nor White. Don't make assumptions based on blogs when the guy's media outlet is far greater than that.

legendkillar

I pointed out as follows earlier "However, he did a review of 2010 (Xmas time) and it was very much centred on Fed and Nadal and if anything he talked down the chance of Andy in 2011"

This was on 5 Live. We both have to accept, that we won't agree although it doesn't mean either are wrong

I've said I find Overend incompetent. And have previously posted questions as to why he was busy covering a second tier footie match and not watching Murray in the Far East

There's an argument that he gets excited about everything and he's certainly one of those, who you suspect, wasn't interested in Tennis before 6th July 2003 - what I mean is he tends to talk up all the players. I mean they can't all be playing good at once

However, I maintain, that despite Murray not winning a Slam he can be a favourite. For instance if Nole's injury problems return and they get to the SF, then like Cincy, Andy becomes the favourite

Of course if they meet on equal terms, Nole is the favourite - but it's not ludicrous to form a case for Andy being it

Yes Jonathan is incompetent.

He does pose questions at times about Andy's prospects, but he has such a un-shakable belief in Andy winning a Slam that it pours all over every Slam event he covers. If he was sensible like many of the former pro's, he would look at the surfaces that he plays the best one. For me Andy has been disappointing at Flushing Meadows since his 2008 final appearance.

Yes he has reached the final here in Melbourne twice and for once is carrying some good form into this event after winning Brisbane and also a coach in place which helps with settling him off the court. Should that culminate in Slam success in this next fortnight, I shouldn't centre the emphasis of the recipe of that success squarely on Lendl's door.

However, if Andy wins here in Melbourne there will those who will proclaim the lack of fitness of the top 3 as a deciding factor. I more than anyone want Andy to win a Slam to banish the ghost of Perry and 1936 and all that!

In some corners, some put Tsonga ahead of Murray in this tournament. I think Murray needs that iron performance by where physically and mentally he plays a perfect match that encompasses those strengths at Slam level against the top 3, I think it will open the door for Slam success. I think 2 victories over Nadal somewhat masks the picture that against Nadal at Slam level his record reads 2-6. Against Federer it is 0-2 and against Djokovic 0-1. 2-9 in total.

I think these factors are something that Mr Overend overlooks.

lk the minute anyone dares suggest Murray might not win a slam it's burn the heretic time round here.

Half the trouble is certain pundits will claim Andy can do this, that or the other without actually looking how all the opposition is doing. The assertion that it's just that extra so many % or just sorting out his body language so Lendl's arrival will automatically herald a new golden age.. etc is also not necessarily true.

Of course, it isn't that simple. If Andy really performs to his best and manages to assert himself when the pressure is really on then he's in with a chance and that's where Lendl really has to earn his money. But if he's still not quite good enough all the advice in the world isn't going to work in the short-term.

There is also pay-back time owed to Tsonga who obviously looks the biggest threat outside the top 4. Beating him this time round (should they meet) will go a long way to answering whether or not Andy now has what it takes. Just then leaving the small matter of overcoming probably two out of the big three who will all go into that match expecting to beat him.

As you point out JO seems to have overlooked those facts. That's why it's biased and blinkered thinking to make Andy favourite.

I agree NB.

I am a big Murray fan and I will defend him when he comes in for some 'unfair' criticism, but if he isn't good enough on the day, then he isn't good enough.

Like you so correctly point out, others overlook what the rest of the field are doing.

My crunch question would be at this moment in time if Murray met Tsonga would you favour Murray for the win?

The Lendl X factor is based on him being able to pass on the secret of winning slams to Andy. The thing is he's up against (among others) 3 guys who have worked out that secret for themselves...

I wouldn't say secret hawky, more formula. Is there a difference in the mentality in Federer's first Wimby to his last Australian Open title? Is there a difference in Rafa's mentality from his first Roland Garros title to his last? I think there are elements in this equation that Murray hasn't quite worked out yet.

legendkillar wrote:I agree NB.

I am a big Murray fan and I will defend him when he comes in for some 'unfair' criticism, but if he isn't good enough on the day, then he isn't good enough.

Like you so correctly point out, others overlook what the rest of the field are doing.

My crunch question would be at this moment in time if Murray met Tsonga would you favour Murray for the win?

I also agree.

As regards your cruch question - yes I would. Please don't ask me the same question about Djokovic. If they both reach the semis I will be hiding at work and hoping for the best.

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I agree NB.

I am a big Murray fan and I will defend him when he comes in for some 'unfair' criticism, but if he isn't good enough on the day, then he isn't good enough.

Like you so correctly point out, others overlook what the rest of the field are doing.

My crunch question would be at this moment in time if Murray met Tsonga would you favour Murray for the win?

I also agree.

As regards your cruch question - yes I would. Please don't ask me the same question about Djokovic. If they both reach the semis I will be hiding at work and hoping for the best.

I would favour Murray, but it is high risk to allow Tsonga to go for his shots. It works better in a BO5 because Tsonga cannot power winners all the time for 5 sets. He may have done against Federer at Wimbledon, but least we forget that at the FO the month before he squandered a 2 set lead against Wawrinka.

Djokovic on the other hand, I would be hoping for a Cincinnatti outcome. Says the coward in me.

legendkillar wrote:Djokovic on the other hand, I would be hoping for a Cincinnatti outcome. Says the coward in me.

Nooooooo! Can you imagine the reaction of his detractors?? I would prefer a Rome like match with the slight tweak of a Murray win .

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Djokovic on the other hand, I would be hoping for a Cincinnatti outcome. Says the coward in me.

Nooooooo! Can you imagine the reaction of his detractors?? I would prefer a Rome like match with the slight tweak of a Murray win .

But I would say it is in the history books. The Slam win. Can never be taken away

legendkillar wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Djokovic on the other hand, I would be hoping for a Cincinnatti outcome. Says the coward in me.

Nooooooo! Can you imagine the reaction of his detractors?? I would prefer a Rome like match with the slight tweak of a Murray win .

But I would say it is in the history books. The Slam win. Can never be taken away

Very true

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Djokovic on the other hand, I would be hoping for a Cincinnatti outcome. Says the coward in me.

Nooooooo! Can you imagine the reaction of his detractors?? I would prefer a Rome like match with the slight tweak of a Murray win .

But I would say it is in the history books. The Slam win. Can never be taken away

Very true

Enjoy the Toblerone