That was a high quality game of tennis. I think both players were at their best. Some of the rallies and winners were breathtaking.
Murray did very well there, no doubt about it.
That was a high quality game of tennis. I think both players were at their best. Some of the rallies and winners were breathtaking.
Murray did very well there, no doubt about it.
Murray
2 great semis to look forward to
Ferrer is someone who just runs around a lot tbh
If he was a footballer, he'd be Michael Essien
Fixed that mistake for you.Originally Posted by Ach
Ferrer was pretty good in fairness. Murray had to be at his best to win today. What Maccy said about Murray's career probably falling off a cliff in a few years time is probably right. Murray is also someone who depends on his speed. Muzza could easily have been 2 sets down but the fact that Murray is 5 years younger meant he was physically little bit sharper in sets 3 and 4.
I like Ferrer but he has no Plan B
If he was a football team, he'd be Arsenal. Just with the work rate which we dont have.
He plays the same way. He cant change it up. Thats what imo has help him back from getting in to the top 4.
I must say as well you know I am little bit enjoying this tournament. Euros were boring for me but I'm genuinely looking forward to the semi finals (though not the wimin tomorrow). It helps that the Muzzatron is there but I think the standard of tennis in the men's is incredibly high right now. In other sports - you can look at things and say "money has ruined football" "it was tougher to bat in the Bradman's days or the 70s" or whatever.
If Murray was in any other era he probably would've won a few grand slams by now. I think the unanimous verdict amongst hardcore tennis fans, such as myself, is that you won't see a higher quality tennis match in any other decade. Though it has been pointed out to me by an older fan I was watching the Muzza game with that the most exciting time in tennis (or, particularly, Wimbledon) was when Becker broke through out of nowhere. Right now you can't have those fairytale stories where a wildcard or unknown kid comes from nowhere to cause a major upset. Though Nadal getting beaten by Rosol was pretty good.
Its certainly the best its been since ive been watching it. Early 90s til now although its only the last few years ive watched the other slams other than Wimbledon but i did watch Rusedski in the US Open final in 1997 when he got his ass handed to him by Pat Butcher from Eastenders.
The "if he was in another era" talk people come out with, (not just you but others have said it like Agassi and wtf does he know about Tennis?) can be said about any of the also rans in any era of Tennis. Ive only seen 2 era, the Sampras one and the Federer one. We are quite likely heading in to a third with Djokovic and Nadal but not atm. Same was said about Henman in the Sampras era which i thought was BS cos 2000 onwards Sampras got a bit shit and Henman still won f all. Murray is unfortunate he wasnt born in Tennis from 2000-2003 with the death of Sampras and Federer still in nappies. He'd definitely would have pubbed one then with the likes of Safin, Hewitt and Roddick all getting one. Alas its not to be.
This is his best chance of a slam cos he doesnt have to beat 2 of Djokovic, Nadal or Federer which only Del Potro has done on his way to a slam but only one. He has to get past Tsonga first though and that wont be easy.
To me, there appears to be a world of difference between Murray and Henman/Rusedski. Henman was just a pile of shit. Rusedski was a taller pile of shit with a faster serve. You never felt either were the best at what they do. You do feel that Murray is the best Scotty Parker in the business right now - if he can beat Ferrer whose game is also about relying on the opposition player making a mistake, then Muzza's the best at what he does. The trouble is the very best won't make mistakes but he's also serving well (and fast) in this tournament which helps.
These are the rankings at the end of '98:
1 Sampras, Pete USA 0 3915 3915 0 3131 784 22
2 Rios, Marcelo CHI 0 3670 3670 0 2920 750 23
3 Corretja, Alex ESP 0 3398 3398 0 2759 639 24
4 Rafter, Patrick AUS 0 3315 3315 0 2464 851 26
5 Moya, Carlos ESP 0 3159 3159 0 2432 727 24
6 Agassi, Andre USA 0 2879 2879 0 2135 744 20
7 Henman, Tim GBR 0 2620 2620 0 1804 816 29
8 Kucera, Karol SLV 0 2579 2579 0 1820 759 25
9 Rusedski, Greg GBR 0 2573 2573 0 1849 724 25
10 Krajicek, Richard
Haven't even heard of 2 and 3. Sampras was great but was he at the standard of either Djokovic, Nadal or Federer right now? That's the question you have to ask because that's who Murray keeps losing to in the latter stages of grand-slams. I was probably not mature enough to appreciate any talents of Sampras beyond 'ooh diving volley' but I've heard him being described as having a boring playing style.
In any case, the time has arrived for the Muzzatron.
Harsh on Henman and Rusedski
They werent shite imo. They put British Tennis back on the map. Henman was basically a Ferrer of that time. Could get to the Semis of Slams but no further when he met the cream of that time.
Murray is better than both though. Has a better all round game.
I always get Rios and Moya mixed up and i assume Corretja being Spanish won the French open 67 times hence why hes up there cos i cant remember him doing anything at Wimbledon which is all i watched back then.
How would Sampras fare against the big three? If he was playing now, he'd lose more than he won v them 3. However if we put them 3 back in the 90s then i reckon Sampras would win. It was a different game back then.
Radwanska v Kerber are out on court
Break point for Kerber.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote