Rafa's mind games or Reality?

We know Rafa is one of the best when it comes to mind games, I am shocked at one of Rafa's statement in which he claims the current Cincinnati court is slower than what he played in Montreal, traditionally Montreal prepares some of the slowest hard courts and to what ever I saw Montreal was way slower that current Cincy and in Cincy the ball seems much more heavier and hence the pace at which it travels is faster as well.

So a quick question do anybody else feel Cincy is slower than Montreal? is Rafa playing mind games to put more pressure on his rivals? is he playing on Fed's mind indirectly that the court is playing slow and are you sure you wanna play me here?  

What ever little I saw in Dimitrov vs Nadal, the court was playing lightening quick and Nadal won coz he played attacking tennis, Nadal is playing like 2004-2005 very attacking and less passive, Dimitrov came back from 2-4 down in the 2nd set to win at 7-5 coz of two reasons, the first one the court played quicker and 2nd one Nadal decides to play aggressive at the expense of errors.

Even grandpa Fed will fancy his chances on fast courts, so is Nadal playing mind games already? this title is for Fed and Murray to lose, I would be real surprised if either of Nadal or Djoko win this.

Nonsense. Have you seen Feds play recently?!!? Most of the remaining players would beat feds atm imo.

LuvSports! wrote:Nonsense. Have you seen Feds play recently?!!? Most of the remaining players would beat feds atm imo.

Yes I have seen Fed play recently and yes he is playing pathetic, have you seen me posts from FO? I got almost everything right from Fed losing to Tsonga in FO to Murray winning the title in Wimbledon.

OK here is the bet, Fed beats Nadal tomorrow  , how about that?

Fed needs Nadal tomorrow to reignite his passion, a win alone would get Fed back on his track , I see Murray as the clear favorite for the title and he is silently motoring along.

I wouldn't go as far as saying Montreal is one of the slowest HCs. Indian Wells, Miami and Melbourne look much slower. So is the WTF's slow, sticky surface. But Cincinatti is probably the quickest major tournament (1000 or higher) on tour, so it's definitely faster than Montreal. Except they've messed with the surface.

In my eyes Cincinatti is certainly faster than Montreal which was painfully slow. It perhaps explains why Andy looks a little more comfortable here.

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my eyes Cincinatti is certainly faster than Montreal which was painfully slow. It perhaps explains why Andy looks a little more comfortable here.

It's a medium pace court. It wasn't "painfully slow". And Murray is extremely comfortable grinding on slow HCs. Performance wise, the slow rubber of Melbourne seems arguably his favourite GS surface over the years. Murray wasn't comfortable at Montreal cos he was rusty and under-cooked after his post-Wimbledon break.

It is obviously a deliberate attempt to mess with the minds of his opponents. Rumor has it that in practice he has been talking loudly with his team about how the surface is playing just like red clay. But they all stop talking when no one is around. Suspicious me thinks! That Nadal who is rubbish on hard court is unbeaten on this surface this year is proof that this sneaky tactic is working. Whatever next? He'll be telling everyone that the surface in NY is perfect for sliding...

hawkeye wrote: Rumor has it that in practice he has been talking loudly with his team about how the surface is playing just like red clay. But they all stop talking when no one is around.

If no-one is around, who is making the observation that they stop talking?

mthierry wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my eyes Cincinatti is certainly faster than Montreal which was painfully slow. It perhaps explains why Andy looks a little more comfortable here.

It's a medium pace court. It wasn't "painfully slow". And Murray is extremely comfortable grinding on slow HCs. Performance wise, the slow rubber of Melbourne seems arguably his favourite GS surface over the years. Murray wasn't comfortable at Montreal cos he was rusty and under-cooked after his post-Wimbledon break.

Murray is actually at his best on the fastest surfaces the game provides, i.e. Wimbledon and then the fastest of the current hard courts of which Cincy is one. This is why he's looked an a different planet to two different players so far (but Berdy will be a big test)

Can we lose this "grinding" theory we have as it leads to wrong conclusions. It's Novak and possibly Rafa who are the king of slow hard courts. Murray and Federer tend (or Roger did do) to dominate the fastest hard court surfaces. It's simply because they rely on more touch, wrist action etc and are more instinctive so the ball coming on to them fast is no issue to them, but is to players with lesser instinctive ball skills

To answer the article. At night under the lights the court is probably slower, but for me still one of the fastest we currently have

These guys are actually playing on the surface and are therefore in the best position to make a judgement whether the surface is slow or fast.

To my simple mind, by looking at particular players results at Montreal/Cincy it may shed some light.

Federer who likes fast h/c has 5 titles here and at Flushing meadows. This suggests Cincy is a fast h/c as it suits a player who is good when put on this surface.
Djokovic has 4 AO titles and has had a lot of success in Montreal and the feeling is he prefers slow h/c and has not had a lot of success  in Cincy i.e no win...yet! Suggests slow h/c.

So maybe it is mind games or maybe the surface has been slowed down as it seems to be the norm these days.

Howd the Dimi match go? Highlights suggest Nadal thrashed him, got a little sloppy, and then continued thrashing him.

banbrotam wrote:Murray is actually at his best on the fastest surfaces the game provides, i.e. Wimbledon and then the fastest of the current hard courts of which Cincy is one. This is why he's looked an a different planet to two different players so far (but Berdy will be a big test)

Can we lose this "grinding" theory we have as it leads to wrong conclusions. It's Novak and possibly Rafa who are the king of slow hard courts. Murray and Federer tend (or Roger did do) to dominate the fastest hard court surfaces. It's simply because they rely on more touch, wrist action etc and are more instinctive so the ball coming on to them fast is no issue to them, but is to players with lesser instinctive ball skills

To answer the article. At night under the lights the court is probably slower, but for me still one of the fastest we currently have

Murray is a top player on the quicker courts - just as he's a top player on the slow courts other than clay. Murray is no better at Cinci than he is at the snail pace Miami Masters or Indian Wells. And Djokovic is better on all HCs: slow, medium or fast. I'm surprised you think Wimbledon is fast: you probably thought different when Andy was repeatedly spanked on it by Rafa. I couldn't hear enough how it had morphed into "green clay" when Nadal or Nole won on it.

banbrotam wrote:

mthierry wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my eyes Cincinatti is certainly faster than Montreal which was painfully slow. It perhaps explains why Andy looks a little more comfortable here.

It's a medium pace court. It wasn't "painfully slow". And Murray is extremely comfortable grinding on slow HCs. Performance wise, the slow rubber of Melbourne seems arguably his favourite GS surface over the years. Murray wasn't comfortable at Montreal cos he was rusty and under-cooked after his post-Wimbledon break.

Murray is actually at his best on the fastest surfaces the game provides, i.e. Wimbledon and then the fastest of the current hard courts of which Cincy is one. This is why he's looked an a different planet to two different players so far (but Berdy will be a big test)

Can we lose this "grinding" theory we have as it leads to wrong conclusions. It's Novak and possibly Rafa who are the king of slow hard courts. Murray and Federer tend (or Roger did do) to dominate the fastest hard court surfaces. It's simply because they rely on more touch, wrist action etc and are more instinctive so the ball coming on to them fast is no issue to them, but is to players with lesser instinctive ball skills

To answer the article. At night under the lights the court is probably slower, but for me still one of the fastest we currently have

There is no shame whatsoever in being a grinder, I can't get why you want to deny the evidence on this respect. Borg was a gringer, so was Wilander, both of them far superior players than Murray, both skilled volleyer and occasionally hitting the odd winner from the baseline. That's the way a defensive player like to play and the most effective tactic he can use to win his points. So what's the matter? Probably all of these guys are/were not the most exciting to watch outside their fan base, obviously each in their own league....

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Murray is actually at his best on the fastest surfaces the game provides, i.e. Wimbledon and then the fastest of the current hard courts of which Cincy is one. This is why he's looked an a different planet to two different players so far (but Berdy will be a big test)

Can we lose this "grinding" theory we have as it leads to wrong conclusions. It's Novak and possibly Rafa who are the king of slow hard courts. Murray and Federer tend (or Roger did do) to dominate the fastest hard court surfaces. It's simply because they rely on more touch, wrist action etc and are more instinctive so the ball coming on to them fast is no issue to them, but is to players with lesser instinctive ball skills

To answer the article. At night under the lights the court is probably slower, but for me still one of the fastest we currently have

Murray is a top player on the quicker courts - just as he's a top player on the slow courts other than clay. Murray is no better at Cinci than he is at the snail pace Miami Masters or Indian Wells. And Djokovic is better on all HCs: slow, medium or fast. I'm surprised you think Wimbledon is fast: you probably thought different when Andy was repeatedly spanked on it by Rafa. I couldn't hear enough how it had morphed into "green clay" when Nadal or Nole won on it.

Oh dear!! A few flaws here.

1) Murray's won the American fastest hard court Masters twice, the second fastest twice, the third fastest once and the slowest never. Strange that!!!
2) Murray has improved every time at Wimbledon, so not certain where you are coming from. This year and last Wimbledon was fast for once, simply because we didn't have the soggy atmosphere that we had in the previous years. Or do you think it's mere coincidence that so many players got caught out by the pace, slipping and sliding etc? i.e. you need more grip to launch yourself only if the ball is going slightly faster
3) Strange also, that Murray normally likes the fast surface at Dubai (when on form that is) as illustrated by his infamous beating of Roger in 2007 and the fact that he beat the then invincible Nole at this event last year - to lose to Fed in the final

The faster the court the better Murray is - he's very good at the net, an instinctive volleyer and loves the pace as it gives him more meat on his returns - study one of the many points he won yesterday. One of them was an unbelievable backhand cross court flick - never would be an outright winner if it hadn't been hit with pace, feeding on the pace of the serve

It's fine that you want to think he some kind of grinder who relies on slow hard courts, but the reality is that he only wants this condition for Roger, as he's better (or was) than him on the fastest surfaces. Against all the others, he's easily the best on the fastest surfaces (doesn't mean he always wins though). Slow hard courts favour Novak and possibly Rafa against him

We also can no longer be talking about the Murray of 2010 (then again he was beating Roger and Rafa at Canada  ) simply because since the the US Open of 2011, he's made another step forward. 'Grinder', stated in that tired old 'all he does is push the ball back manner' is wrong

I know you're not one of his fans and are no doubt very perplexed as to why he's won 3 of the last 5 'majors' (i.e. including The Olympics) but at least recognise what is real

The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

mthierry wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my eyes Cincinatti is certainly faster than Montreal which was painfully slow. It perhaps explains why Andy looks a little more comfortable here.

It's a medium pace court. It wasn't "painfully slow". And Murray is extremely comfortable grinding on slow HCs. Performance wise, the slow rubber of Melbourne seems arguably his favourite GS surface over the years. Murray wasn't comfortable at Montreal cos he was rusty and under-cooked after his post-Wimbledon break.

Murray is actually at his best on the fastest surfaces the game provides, i.e. Wimbledon and then the fastest of the current hard courts of which Cincy is one. This is why he's looked an a different planet to two different players so far (but Berdy will be a big test)

Can we lose this "grinding" theory we have as it leads to wrong conclusions. It's Novak and possibly Rafa who are the king of slow hard courts. Murray and Federer tend (or Roger did do) to dominate the fastest hard court surfaces. It's simply because they rely on more touch, wrist action etc and are more instinctive so the ball coming on to them fast is no issue to them, but is to players with lesser instinctive ball skills

To answer the article. At night under the lights the court is probably slower, but for me still one of the fastest we currently have

There is no shame whatsoever in being a grinder, I can't get why you want to deny the evidence on this respect. Borg was a grinder, so was Wilander, both of them far superior players than Murray, both skilled volleyer and occasionally hitting the odd winner from the baseline. That's the way a defensive player like to play and the most effective tactic he can use to win his points. So what's the matter? Probably all of these guys are/were not the most exciting to watch outside their fan base, obviously each in their own league....

I've never heard Borg described as a grinder, but have heard Wilander described as such. That's simply because it's no more than a back handed compliment, usually made by those that think points should end in 5 strokes

Wilander was ocean's more entertaining to watch than the fairly one dimensional stuff that Stich showed us. Strangely, Stich gets a good press for basically having a serve and a couple of other merely good shots. Apparently having all the shots and been able to use them at any time, often within the same point - is obviously not the done thing

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

That's why it was put in brackets  

Given the importance to all those that participated last year, yours is an argument in the minority. I've yet to find more than 1 out of ever 5 'experts' that didn't think it was more or less up there

But you're entitled to your opinion. Strange that it seems that since this failure, Roger hasn't been quite the same player

HM Murdoch wrote:

hawkeye wrote: Rumor has it that in practice he has been talking loudly with his team about how the surface is playing just like red clay. But they all stop talking when no one is around.

If no-one is around, who is making the observation that they stop talking?

 

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

That's why it was put in brackets  

Given the importance to all those that participated last year, yours is an argument in the minority. I've yet to find more than 1 out of ever 5 'experts' that didn't think it was more or less up there

But you're entitled to your opinion. Strange that it seems that since this failure, Roger hasn't been quite the same player

What????????? The Olympics has now become the fifth major? Oh dear    

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

That's why it was put in brackets  

Given the importance to all those that participated last year, yours is an argument in the minority. I've yet to find more than 1 out of ever 5 'experts' that didn't think it was more or less up there

But you're entitled to your opinion. Strange that it seems that since this failure, Roger hasn't been quite the same player

 Most players that participated in the Olympics were just using it as practice for events that they and their team had decided were more prestigious. They were also hoping to cadge a few free tickets to watch Bolt and Phelps

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

That's why it was put in brackets  

Given the importance to all those that participated last year, yours is an argument in the minority. I've yet to find more than 1 out of ever 5 'experts' that didn't think it was more or less up there

But you're entitled to your opinion. Strange that it seems that since this failure, Roger hasn't been quite the same player

What on earth are you on about?

No one thinks the OG is 'up there' with a slam except the fawning British press and even they have not said as much.

Interesting that on the one hand you agree with my sentiment by stating 'that's why it was put in brackets' and then immediately after you try to justify your initial (ridiculous) claim that it is akin to a major, so which is it?

Let me make it very simple for you.

There are four slams. AUS Open, French Open, W, and the USO - there is no OG on that exclusive list. Whatever the transient feelings of a bunch of players may be it does not affect the status of a tournament. That is determined by history, ranking points, etc.

You've been trying to push this OG as the fifth 'major' ever since Andy won it (I wonder why   Don't recall hearing a squeak about it from you beforehand) but this nonsense will stop NOW.

I said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWW. I am the emancipator and I will not tolerate such folly.

 

emancipator

emancipator wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

That's why it was put in brackets  

Given the importance to all those that participated last year, yours is an argument in the minority. I've yet to find more than 1 out of ever 5 'experts' that didn't think it was more or less up there

But you're entitled to your opinion. Strange that it seems that since this failure, Roger hasn't been quite the same player

What on earth are you on about?

No one thinks the OG is 'up there' with a slam except the fawning British press and even they have not said as much.

Interesting that on the one hand you agree with my sentiment by stating 'that's why it was put in brackets' and then immediately after you try to justify your initial (ridiculous) claim that it is akin to a major, so which is it?

Let me make it very simple for you.

There are four slams. AUS Open, French Open, W, and the USO - there is no OG on that exclusive list. Whatever the transient feelings of a bunch of players may be it does not affect the status of a tournament. That is determined by history, ranking points, etc.

You've been trying to push this OG as the fifth 'major' ever since Andy won it (I wonder why   Don't recall hearing a squeak about it from you beforehand) but this nonsense will stop NOW.

I said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWW. I am the emancipator and I will not tolerate such folly.

 

emancipator

You would be surprised at the number of 2 week tennis fans who consider the Olympics to be right up there.

A colleague of mine for example rates Murray's win over Federer that day as huge and even went so far as to say he thinks its a sign Murray could possibly be even better than Fed due to winning gold.
As far as sentimentality is concerned it could be but considering maximum points for gold was 750, it is not deemed worthy to be on a par, let alone above, a MS1000 event. If you look at previous winners of these medals there is not a great deal of pedigree there except 2008 onwards and of course Agassi in 96. You have players like Massu, Mark Rosset, Mercir etc.

That said, I would have liked Fed to have got it as Nadal has it. But would I rather have seen him lose the Wimbledon final last year and win gold? DEFINITELY NOT!

banbrotam wrote:Oh dear!! A few flaws here.

1) Murray's won the American fastest hard court Masters twice, the second fastest twice, the third fastest once and the slowest never. Strange that!!!
2) Murray has improved every time at Wimbledon, so not certain where you are coming from. This year and last Wimbledon was fast for once, simply because we didn't have the soggy atmosphere that we had in the previous years. Or do you think it's mere coincidence that so many players got caught out by the pace, slipping and sliding etc? i.e. you need more grip to launch yourself only if the ball is going slightly faster
3) Strange also, that Murray normally likes the fast surface at Dubai (when on form that is) as illustrated by his infamous beating of Roger in 2007 and the fact that he beat the then invincible Nole at this event last year - to lose to Fed in the final

The faster the court the better Murray is - he's very good at the net, an instinctive volleyer and loves the pace as it gives him more meat on his returns - study one of the many points he won yesterday. One of them was an unbelievable backhand cross court flick - never would be an outright winner if it hadn't been hit with pace, feeding on the pace of the serve

It's fine that you want to think he some kind of grinder who relies on slow hard courts, but the reality is that he only wants this condition for Roger, as he's better (or was) than him on the fastest surfaces. Against all the others, he's easily the best on the fastest surfaces (doesn't mean he always wins though). Slow hard courts favour Novak and possibly Rafa against him

We also can no longer be talking about the Murray of 2010 (then again he was beating Roger and Rafa at Canada  ) simply because since the the US Open of 2011, he's made another step forward. 'Grinder', stated in that tired old 'all he does is push the ball back manner' is wrong

I know you're not one of his fans and are no doubt very perplexed as to why he's won 3 of the last 5 'majors' (i.e. including The Olympics) but at least recognise what is real

You stated nothing factual here. Just your perception. Wimbledon wasn't any faster the last 2 years though I know Murray's performances in that period have coloured your perception. Players struggled with the slick, slippery conditions in the first week - not the court pace. I don't know how you came by your ranking of HC Masters in pace. You just twisted the whole thing to conform to your point. Miami is at least one of the 2 slowest HC Masters surfaces and coupled with the humidity, often makes for the slowest conditions and Murray has had great success there. He's made 3 finals at the AO which is far slower than the US Open. So I stand by saying he's every bit as good - even better - on the slower surfaces. And I disagree he's a better fast HC player than Nole. No way.

And if Murray isn't a "grinder", then Nole and Rafa aren't grinders either. In the big matches, against opponents with big games, he is a pure baseliner like anyone else. I don't measure his game by how many lobs he plays against Llodra or Stephanek but how he approaches the likes of Nole, Rafa, Berdych, Del Potro etc. Djokovic is far more willing to depart the baseline routine when he plays Murray, who plays basically like a more powerful, athletic, Ferrer in the big matches grinding from the baseline. That's hard fact.

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Oh dear!! A few flaws here.

1) Murray's won the American fastest hard court Masters twice, the second fastest twice, the third fastest once and the slowest never. Strange that!!!
2) Murray has improved every time at Wimbledon, so not certain where you are coming from. This year and last Wimbledon was fast for once, simply because we didn't have the soggy atmosphere that we had in the previous years. Or do you think it's mere coincidence that so many players got caught out by the pace, slipping and sliding etc? i.e. you need more grip to launch yourself only if the ball is going slightly faster
3) Strange also, that Murray normally likes the fast surface at Dubai (when on form that is) as illustrated by his infamous beating of Roger in 2007 and the fact that he beat the then invincible Nole at this event last year - to lose to Fed in the final

The faster the court the better Murray is - he's very good at the net, an instinctive volleyer and loves the pace as it gives him more meat on his returns - study one of the many points he won yesterday. One of them was an unbelievable backhand cross court flick - never would be an outright winner if it hadn't been hit with pace, feeding on the pace of the serve

It's fine that you want to think he some kind of grinder who relies on slow hard courts, but the reality is that he only wants this condition for Roger, as he's better (or was) than him on the fastest surfaces. Against all the others, he's easily the best on the fastest surfaces (doesn't mean he always wins though). Slow hard courts favour Novak and possibly Rafa against him

We also can no longer be talking about the Murray of 2010 (then again he was beating Roger and Rafa at Canada  ) simply because since the the US Open of 2011, he's made another step forward. 'Grinder', stated in that tired old 'all he does is push the ball back manner' is wrong

I know you're not one of his fans and are no doubt very perplexed as to why he's won 3 of the last 5 'majors' (i.e. including The Olympics) but at least recognise what is real

You stated nothing factual here. Just your perception. Wimbledon wasn't any faster the last 2 years though I know Murray's performances in that period have coloured your perception. Players struggled with the slick, slippery conditions in the first week - not the court pace. I don't know how you came by your ranking of HC Masters in pace. You just twisted the whole thing to conform to your point. Miami is at least one of the 2 slowest HC Masters surfaces and coupled with the humidity, often makes for the slowest conditions and Murray has had great success there. He's made 3 finals at the AO which is far slower than the US Open. So I stand by saying he's every bit as good - even better - on the slower surfaces. And I disagree he's a better fast HC player than Nole. No way.

And if Murray isn't a "grinder", then Nole and Rafa aren't grinders either. In the big matches, against opponents with big games, he is a pure baseliner like anyone else. I don't measure his game by how many lobs he plays against Llodra or Stephanek but how he approaches the likes of Nole, Rafa, Berdych, Del Potro etc. Djokovic is far more willing to depart the baseline routine when he plays Murray, who plays basically like a more powerful, athletic, Ferrer in the big matches grinding from the baseline. That's hard fact.

Spot on.

You'll no doubt have noted that Banbro has some outlandish theories (imaginations may be a better term). In his world Murray is some sort of God-like fast court player who presumably is being hampered by the (slower) conditions against Rafa and Novak. He, we are told, is the de facto number one, except conditions have conspired against him. In that respect Rafa and Novak have both been very fortunate.

The reality is that Rafa is a better slow court, fast court and clay court player than Murray. He's at least as good at the net imo.
Novak, likewise, to date is better on all surfaces except grass.

The facts will testify to this.

 

emancipator

hawkeye wrote:Most players that participated in the Olympics were just using it as practice for events that they and their team had decided were more prestigious. They were also hoping to cadge a few free tickets to watch Bolt and Phelps

Clearly that's why Roger was going on about it at every moment before the event, during 2012  And of course Del Potro stated that it was the most important thing he'd ever won - and he got bronze  As for Novak, so hacked off was he - that his golden form could't deliver a gold medal, he clearly wasn't quite up for the bronze medal fight. So you have a point - he was probably using that match as practice  

Hilarious stuff from The Emanc, Kyle etc. Of course your opinions are far more important and valid than the likes of Mac and Wilander - but as usual Hawkeye outdoes you all

Incidentally, I'm not saying that it was as important - if you note I was making an important point about Murray. It was the 5th Major of last year - that doesn't make it a major

FedsFan wrote:

emancipator wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

That's why it was put in brackets  

Given the importance to all those that participated last year, yours is an argument in the minority. I've yet to find more than 1 out of ever 5 'experts' that didn't think it was more or less up there

But you're entitled to your opinion. Strange that it seems that since this failure, Roger hasn't been quite the same player

What on earth are you on about?

No one thinks the OG is 'up there' with a slam except the fawning British press and even they have not said as much.

Interesting that on the one hand you agree with my sentiment by stating 'that's why it was put in brackets' and then immediately after you try to justify your initial (ridiculous) claim that it is akin to a major, so which is it?

Let me make it very simple for you.

There are four slams. AUS Open, French Open, W, and the USO - there is no OG on that exclusive list. Whatever the transient feelings of a bunch of players may be it does not affect the status of a tournament. That is determined by history, ranking points, etc.

You've been trying to push this OG as the fifth 'major' ever since Andy won it (I wonder why   Don't recall hearing a squeak about it from you beforehand) but this nonsense will stop NOW.

I said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWW. I am the emancipator and I will not tolerate such folly.

 

emancipator

You would be surprised at the number of 2 week tennis fans who consider the Olympics to be right up there.

A colleague of mine for example rates Murray's win over Federer that day as huge and even went so far as to say he thinks its a sign Murray could possibly be even better than Fed due to winning gold.
As far as sentimentality is concerned it could be but considering maximum points for gold was 750, it is not deemed worthy to be on a par, let alone above, a MS1000 event. If you look at previous winners of these medals there is not a great deal of pedigree there except 2008 onwards and of course Agassi in 96. You have players like Massu, Mark Rosset, Mercir etc.

That said, I would have liked Fed to have got it as Nadal has it. But would I rather have seen him lose the Wimbledon final last year and win gold? DEFINITELY NOT!

Fedfan. You know very well how highly rated the 2012 Olympics was by Roger. You also know there are lots of people who think it was equivalent to a major, who don't have to be dissed by you as 'two week fans' simply because you disagree

mthierry wrote:Miami is at least one of the 2 slowest HC Masters surfaces and coupled with the humidity, often makes for the slowest conditions and Murray has had great success there. He's made 3 finals at the AO which is far slower than the US Open. So I stand by saying he's every bit as good - even better - on the slower surfaces. And I disagree he's a better fast HC player than Nole. No way

Murray has won Cincy twice, Canada twice and yes (I forgot) Miami twice. Cincy is regarded as the fastest of them followed by the Canada ones, followed by Miami and then IW - which Murray has never won. People on the Masters thread have discussed the surfaces - fine if you disagree with them, but please stop ignoring facts to suit your argument

Another bit of your "let's ignore the facts to prove the mthierry theory" is that Nole is better on the fastest surfaces. He isn't.

It's marginal, but if you look at Wimbledon, Cincy, Canada and Dubai (they've never played each other at Paris) which are surely on average the 5 fastest surfaces (unless you want to include Shanghai where Murray has won twice) then Murray has the better head to head

Move over to the slower HC's and Novak has the age. Remember, he's been beaten twice by Novak at the Aus. The US which you rightly say is faster has a Murray victory at their only meeting!! Supporting my point  

I've noticed that even when given a considered view, which uses facts that others have stated (i.e. it is others who have given these hard courts their 'fast' ranking) you still can't concede a point. I'm sure you'll come back with something else and you're welcome to

You think Murray is a grinder and you don't like his play or really rate him like the other three. This is fine, but please get it correct which are his best surfaces

Anyway back to the thread, it could be an interesting match up, but I favour Rafa tonight due to the slower conditions that night gives

I suspect that's because it's the last trophy missing in his cabinet. The point is to pick up the odd (not even well documented) talk of a player or casual fan to big up the Olympics is just silly. Every true tennis fan knows well where the Olympics stand in term of prestige, and that has never - ever been a big deal for tennis, just like football to this regard (also forgetting that the WTF has far biggest prestige and that that tournament , if any, shoould eventually be liked to a fifth major) . It's a bit pathetic really.

emancipator wrote:You'll no doubt have noted that Banbro has some outlandish theories (imaginations may be a better term). In his world Murray is some sort of God-like fast court player who presumably is being hampered by the (slower) conditions against Rafa and Novak. He, we are told, is the de facto number one, except conditions have conspired against him. In that respect Rafa and Novak have both been very fortunate.

The reality is that Rafa is a better slow court, fast court and clay court player than Murray. He's at least as good at the net imo.
Novak, likewise, to date is better on all surfaces except grass.

The facts will testify to this.

You're first bit is very good as I do believe that - although not God like. That's Federer

Then it drifts off severely. I think you'll find in the last few years that Rafa and Murray share their head to heads on HC. Certainly they do in slams 2-2

But keep trying

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I suspect that's because it's the last trophy missing in his cabinet. The point is to pick up the odd (not even well documented) talk of a player or casual fan to big up the Olympics is just silly. Every true tennis fan knows well where the Olympics stand in term of prestige, and that has never - ever been a big deal for tennis, just like football to this regard (also forgetting that the WTF has far biggest prestige and that that tournament , if any, shoould eventually  be liked to a fifth major) .  It's a bit pathetic really.

Last year. All the players saw it as a big deal. Just because you didn't, doesn't mean that it wasn't. It also doesn't make it a Slam - but it makes it at least the 5th most important event of the year and I think the second (behind Wimbledon) to Roger

It could be that now the Tennis at The Olympics will be seen as a blue ribbond event for the rest of it's life

Nadal sacrificed his US Open bid for the gold medal in Beijing. The Olympics was held just a week before the US Open and the talk was that anyone doing well in the Olympics would have little chance at the Open. Some players missed the Olympics or benefited from an early loss because of this. No one talked about Nadal's gold medal being the equivalent of a slam then. The only one with a little glint of envy in his eyes was perhaps Federer. By the time the London Olympics came round Federer was the newly crowned Wimbledon champion having also regained the number one position to break the record for the number of weeks held. Federer was in a position were it was difficult to envy anyone...

banbrotam wrote:

FedsFan wrote:

emancipator wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

That's why it was put in brackets  

Given the importance to all those that participated last year, yours is an argument in the minority. I've yet to find more than 1 out of ever 5 'experts' that didn't think it was more or less up there

But you're entitled to your opinion. Strange that it seems that since this failure, Roger hasn't been quite the same player

What on earth are you on about?

No one thinks the OG is 'up there' with a slam except the fawning British press and even they have not said as much.

Interesting that on the one hand you agree with my sentiment by stating 'that's why it was put in brackets' and then immediately after you try to justify your initial (ridiculous) claim that it is akin to a major, so which is it?

Let me make it very simple for you.

There are four slams. AUS Open, French Open, W, and the USO - there is no OG on that exclusive list. Whatever the transient feelings of a bunch of players may be it does not affect the status of a tournament. That is determined by history, ranking points, etc.

You've been trying to push this OG as the fifth 'major' ever since Andy won it (I wonder why   Don't recall hearing a squeak about it from you beforehand) but this nonsense will stop NOW.

I said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWW. I am the emancipator and I will not tolerate such folly.

 

emancipator

You would be surprised at the number of 2 week tennis fans who consider the Olympics to be right up there.

A colleague of mine for example rates Murray's win over Federer that day as huge and even went so far as to say he thinks its a sign Murray could possibly be even better than Fed due to winning gold.
As far as sentimentality is concerned it could be but considering maximum points for gold was 750, it is not deemed worthy to be on a par, let alone above, a MS1000 event. If you look at previous winners of these medals there is not a great deal of pedigree there except 2008 onwards and of course Agassi in 96. You have players like Massu, Mark Rosset, Mercir etc.

That said, I would have liked Fed to have got it as Nadal has it. But would I rather have seen him lose the Wimbledon final last year and win gold? DEFINITELY NOT!

Fedfan. You know very well how highly rated the 2012 Olympics was by Roger. You also know there are lots of people who think it was equivalent to a major, who don't have to be dissed by you as 'two week fans' simply because you disagree

I never said it was not worthy of recognition, I merely said it is not as recognised as the other events and you cannot give it the same weight or put it in a category next to a slam. And I will defend the comment about 2 week tennis fans as there are loads of people who only follow Wimbledon and Queens. Beyond that they have no clue what goes on throughout the season. For example, following Lisicki's win over Serena and Bartoli reaching the final, most people I work with were going on about 'unheard of players' in the final this year. Two week tennis fans!

banbrotam wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I suspect that's because it's the last trophy missing in his cabinet. The point is to pick up the odd (not even well documented) talk of a player or casual fan to big up the Olympics is just silly. Every true tennis fan knows well where the Olympics stand in term of prestige, and that has never - ever been a big deal for tennis, just like football to this regard (also forgetting that the WTF has far biggest prestige and that that tournament , if any, shoould eventually  be liked to a fifth major) .  It's a bit pathetic really.

Last year. All the players saw it as a big deal.
It could be that now the Tennis at The Olympics will be seen as a blue ribbond event for the rest of it's life

Really?? All the players......interesting..... how do you know that and btw do you have any records to back that. Personally I would be surprised if a player in joining an event would say that well, it has no value to him/ her other than the prize money. I would be glad if you can show me any interview where a player stated clearly that he/her considers the Olympic more important that say a Master1000 or the WTF for instance. Thanks!

banbrotam wrote:Murray has won Cincy twice, Canada twice and yes (I forgot) Miami twice. Cincy is regarded as the fastest of them followed by the Canada ones, followed by Miami and then IW - which Murray has never won. People on the Masters thread have discussed the surfaces - fine if you disagree with them, but please stop ignoring facts to suit your argument

Another bit of your "let's ignore the facts to prove the mthierry theory" is that Nole is better on the fastest surfaces. He isn't.

It's marginal, but if you look at Wimbledon, Cincy, Canada and Dubai (they've never played each other at Paris) which are surely on average the 5 fastest surfaces (unless you want to include Shanghai where Murray has won twice) then Murray has the better head to head

Move over to the slower HC's and Novak has the age. Remember, he's been beaten twice by Novak at the Aus. The US which you rightly say is faster has a Murray victory at their only meeting!! Supporting my point  

I've noticed that even when given a considered view, which uses facts that others have stated (i.e. it is others who have given these hard courts their 'fast' ranking) you still can't concede a point. I'm sure you'll come back with something else and you're welcome to

You think Murray is a grinder and you don't like his play or really rate him like the other three. This is fine, but please get it correct which are his best surfaces

I'm correct at his equal adeptness across the various HC surfaces.
Indian Wells and Miami are pretty equal in speed of conditions and depending on the year, each can be quicker than the other. It's not as simple as measuring h2h's. Else, Nadal is a better outdoor HC player than Federer which would be preposterous. Djokovic has lost 4 Cinci finals to different players: it's probably more a freakish abberation rather than indicating his ability (or lack off) on the surface. Murray beat him at the US Open but Nole's record there is still far better than Murray's. And Murray's record there is still not as consistent as it is at the Aus Open. You've doctored your share of facts too - like trying to claim Wimbledon is suddenly faster because of Murray's last 2 years on it.

banbrotam wrote:Murray has won Cincy twice, Canada twice and yes (I forgot) Miami twice. Cincy is regarded as the fastest of them followed by the Canada ones, followed by Miami and then IW - which Murray has never won. People on the Masters thread have discussed the surfaces - fine if you disagree with them, but please stop ignoring facts to suit your argument

Another bit of your "let's ignore the facts to prove the mthierry theory" is that Nole is better on the fastest surfaces. He isn't.

It's marginal, but if you look at Wimbledon, Cincy, Canada and Dubai (they've never played each other at Paris) which are surely on average the 5 fastest surfaces (unless you want to include Shanghai where Murray has won twice) then Murray has the better head to head

Move over to the slower HC's and Novak has the age. Remember, he's been beaten twice by Novak at the Aus. The US which you rightly say is faster has a Murray victory at their only meeting!! Supporting my point  

I've noticed that even when given a considered view, which uses facts that others have stated (i.e. it is others who have given these hard courts their 'fast' ranking) you still can't concede a point. I'm sure you'll come back with something else and you're welcome to

You think Murray is a grinder and you don't like his play or really rate him like the other three. This is fine, but please get it correct which are his best surfaces

I'm correct at his equal adeptness across the various HC surfaces.
Indian Wells and Miami are pretty equal in speed of conditions and depending on the year, each can be quicker than the other. It's not as simple as measuring h2h's. Else, Nadal is a better outdoor HC player than Federer which would be preposterous. Djokovic has lost 4 Cinci finals to different players: it's probably more a freakish abberation rather than indicating his ability (or lack off) on the surface. Murray beat him at the US Open but Nole's record there is still far better than Murray's. And Murray's record there is still not as consistent as it is at the Aus Open. You've doctored your share of facts too - like trying to claim Wimbledon is suddenly faster because of Murray's last 2 years on it.

Apologies for the double post.

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

If you want a career golden slam you have to have won an olympic singles gold medal.

erictheblueuk wrote:

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

If you want a career golden slam you have to have won an olympic singles gold medal.

And if you want a career golden slam with fries, you have collect and send off special vouchers.

This diminishing of the career slam by adding a bauble irritates the heck out of me.

What next? Shall we add the WTF in too and make it the Champion Career Golden Slam? And then we can add in all the Masters and make a Champion Master Career Golden Slam.

HM Murdoch wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

If you want a career golden slam you have to have won an olympic singles gold medal.

And if you want a career golden slam with fries, you have collect and send off special vouchers.

This diminishing of the career slam by adding a bauble irritates the heck out of me.

What next? Shall we add the WTF in too and make it the Champion Career Golden Slam? And then we can add in all the Masters and make a Champion Master Career Golden Slam.

Hehe,  

my sentiments exactly - which I've voiced vigorously in the past.

BTW we can also add in the 500's and 250's and call it the Champion Master Career Golden Slam with 500 + 250 fries on top  

I hope you don't do a Banbro and start supporting this ridiculous concept now that Novak is getting close  

Of course Banbro would've have been telling us how the WTF is the fifth slam - if only Murray had already won it.

Ah well, maybe in a few months.

 

emancipator

emancipator wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

emancipator wrote:The Olympics is not a 'major' despite your desperate attempts to make it so - at least recognise what is real.

If you want a career golden slam you have to have won an olympic singles gold medal.

And if you want a career golden slam with fries, you have collect and send off special vouchers.

This diminishing of the career slam by adding a bauble irritates the heck out of me.

What next? Shall we add the WTF in too and make it the Champion Career Golden Slam? And then we can add in all the Masters and make a Champion Master Career Golden Slam.

Hehe,  

my sentiments exactly - which I've voiced vigorously in the past.

BTW we can also add in the 500's and 250's and call it the Champion Master Career Golden Slam with 500 + 250 fries on top  

I hope you don't do a Banbro and start supporting this ridiculous concept now that Novak is getting close  

Andre Agassi "the first of two to achieve the Career Golden Slam (Career Grand Slam and Olympic gold medal), and the only man to win the Career Golden Slam and the ATP Tour World Championships (won in 1990): a distinction dubbed as a "Career Super Slam" by Sports Illustrated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi

Imagine if Nadal wins the WTF. Bedlam!

To be honest I think an Olympic medal is a little unique. You have 36 chances in four years to win Masters, vs only one to win Gold. Then theres the Five set final, Infinite third set. I think the way media generally describe Nadal's achievements is how I view it. "Twelve Slams and Olympic Gold". The Olympic medal is an awesome footnote. Far more important in the sporting world than a solitary MS1000.

After all, Nadal has to date skipped multiple WTF's, while Federer has gone on record to state he has his eye on Rio. Of the two guys looking to win a Career Super Slam, who would you say is more willing to complete it?

Winning a tournament once could just be down to luck. Only players who have won the same trophy at least 7 times have the proof that their wins are not flukes

kingraf wrote:Howd the Dimi match go? Highlights suggest Nadal thrashed him, got a little sloppy, and then continued thrashing him.

I won't quite agree he thrashed Dimitrov, indeed Dimitrov was getting very comfortable with Rafa as the match went on, but unfortunately Dimitrov is not consistent and one drop means Rafa will capture on it, the score might say a different story but the match was much closer than what the score suggests.

banbrotam wrote:

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Murray is actually at his best on the fastest surfaces the game provides, i.e. Wimbledon and then the fastest of the current hard courts of which Cincy is one. This is why he's looked an a different planet to two different players so far (but Berdy will be a big test)

Can we lose this "grinding" theory we have as it leads to wrong conclusions. It's Novak and possibly Rafa who are the king of slow hard courts. Murray and Federer tend (or Roger did do) to dominate the fastest hard court surfaces. It's simply because they rely on more touch, wrist action etc and are more instinctive so the ball coming on to them fast is no issue to them, but is to players with lesser instinctive ball skills

To answer the article. At night under the lights the court is probably slower, but for me still one of the fastest we currently have

Murray is a top player on the quicker courts - just as he's a top player on the slow courts other than clay. Murray is no better at Cinci than he is at the snail pace Miami Masters or Indian Wells. And Djokovic is better on all HCs: slow, medium or fast. I'm surprised you think Wimbledon is fast: you probably thought different when Andy was repeatedly spanked on it by Rafa. I couldn't hear enough how it had morphed into "green clay" when Nadal or Nole won on it.

Oh dear!! A few flaws here.

1) Murray's won the American fastest hard court Masters twice, the second fastest twice, the third fastest once and the slowest never. Strange that!!!
2) Murray has improved every time at Wimbledon, so not certain where you are coming from. This year and last Wimbledon was fast for once, simply because we didn't have the soggy atmosphere that we had in the previous years. Or do you think it's mere coincidence that so many players got caught out by the pace, slipping and sliding etc? i.e. you need more grip to launch yourself only if the ball is going slightly faster
3) Strange also, that Murray normally likes the fast surface at Dubai (when on form that is) as illustrated by his infamous beating of Roger in 2007 and the fact that he beat the then invincible Nole at this event last year - to lose to Fed in the final

The faster the court the better Murray is - he's very good at the net, an instinctive volleyer and loves the pace as it gives him more meat on his returns - study one of the many points he won yesterday. One of them was an unbelievable backhand cross court flick - never would be an outright winner if it hadn't been hit with pace, feeding on the pace of the serve

It's fine that you want to think he some kind of grinder who relies on slow hard courts, but the reality is that he only wants this condition for Roger, as he's better (or was) than him on the fastest surfaces. Against all the others, he's easily the best on the fastest surfaces (doesn't mean he always wins though). Slow hard courts favour Novak and possibly Rafa against him

We also can no longer be talking about the Murray of 2010 (then again he was beating Roger and Rafa at Canada  ) simply because since the the US Open of 2011, he's made another step forward. 'Grinder', stated in that tired old 'all he does is push the ball back manner' is wrong

I know you're not one of his fans and are no doubt very perplexed as to why he's won 3 of the last 5 'majors' (i.e. including The Olympics) but at least recognise what is real

+1

Murray has time and again proved he is the 2nd best fast court player, but now he could be the best fast court player on the tour as he improved further while Fed's level diminished astonishingly.

Cincy will not be a walkover for Rafa like in Montreal and his real challenges come from Today in Fed and Tomorrow in Murray if he makes it, Nole will be a tough challange but these two ahead of him will be more tougher.

Intriguing (and at times quite baffling) claims earlier that the Olympics has somehow become "the fifth major".

Ah.... yes ....... what a proud and distinguished history the sport of tennis has at the Olympics. Just like the Slams. Maybe even more so .......   ?   

In fact, by 1924, it had already acquired such status, popularity and universal acceptance as an integral part of the Games that for the next sixty years they never actually got round to playing any tennis at all.

Sorry but it is mighty clear to me that Andy prefers pacier courts. For the clues look at where his titles were won and where he won his first slam (US Open) and then Wimbledon are the two fastest slam surfaces out there - quicker than Melbourne and RG. I have followed his career very closely since the start and it has been clear to me - the quicker the surface the better. Andy's worse surface is clay - yes movement isn't great but it is also the slowest surface.

kingraf wrote:Imagine if Nadal wins the WTF.  Bedlam!

To be honest I think an Olympic medal is a little unique. You have 36 chances in four years to win Masters, vs only one to win Gold. Then theres the Five set final, Infinite third set.

Thats why I would say Olympic is of less value in sports like Tennis, coz more luck is involved than skill , for instance if a player gets injured on that particular month then he never gets a chance if his career lasts only  7 years, in contrast if a player has skill , talent and hardwork luck should not elude success every time.

Lets put your Nadal example, had USO been once in 4 years, he wouldn't have won one by now and given Rafa's talent that shouldn't be the case and it would have been a real shame had that been the case  , Olympic deserves its status but not more than Masters.

I dont know how you know Nadal wouldnt have won a USO by now if it was every four years... but I understand your point. The key is the fact that you have so few chances at an Olympic makes it worth its weight in gold (and silver)