posted Sep 11, 2008

"No it's a fact." etc.

That's irrelevant to my point which is about the potential use of hawk-eye.

Hawk-eye has potential to be used by umpires to review points where the umpire or players think that a mistake has been made. This could be done as it is now by player challenge, or after the point if the player thinks it was too close to call during a point.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 11, 2008

King - It was very evident that he was below par in the final. Some of that will have been physical (the rest is immaterial, he had to prepare to play, and play for three days in a row), but I reckon probably he was mostly emotionally and mentally drained.
>>

King, even if he were fatigued in any way at all, there really should be no mention that it was as a result of having less rest than Federer.

Over the course of three days(Fri/Sat/Sun) AM played four sets. Compare that to to what 'should' have happened (under normal US Open conditions) where AM should have played four sets against Nadal on Saturday and 20 hours later played Federer. Surely if anything the weather delay assited AM? Why then make any mention whatsoever about the amount of rest Federer had?

Firstly I think the usual US Open Super Saturday is rediculous, abysmal even and had AM previously complained about the set up at FM, then sure I could appreciate him complaining about it after his loss, but to complain about something which actually made the match easier for you and (for the interviewer to ask such a question) is either ignorant or dishonest.

Federer won because he played like Federer. It was AM's first GS so you can understand he may not have played 100% as well as he did in the SF.

Lol as a side not apparently the English crowd jeered the Croats with 'Are you Scotland in disguise'... I guess there is nothing wrong with AM joking he supports anyone but England, even it contains a hint of truth

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 11, 2008

Zulu,

Federer had an extra to day to rest and prepare his tactics. How can you possibly argue that Murray benifitted from playing three days in a row compared to having a one day break? That is simply ludicrous.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 11, 2008

Murray only had to play a set and a half on Sunday. People have a go at Djokovic for taking medical time outs but Murray had a day's time out in the middle of the Nadal match

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 11, 2008

FPM-Federer had an extra to day to rest and prepare his tactics. How can you possibly argue that Murray benifitted from playing three days in a row compared to having a one day break? That is simply ludicrous.
>>

1. Murray did not play three days in a row. He had Friday off (no matches), Saturday he played two and half sets and Sunday a set and a half.
In fact he played the same amount of tennis over those three days that Federer played in three days, only difference was that he played a set and a half the day before.

The point I was making was that under normal conditions, Murray (playing in the 2nd SF) would have had even less rest than he did at this years US Open. In fact the bad weather gave him more time to rest for the final! As such why does the interviewer try to make it sound as if the weather gave Federer benefit when it was the opposite?

I raised the 'fairness' of the sequence of play in SF's on these forums a month before the US Open. At the Cincinnati Open Nadal/Djokovic played their SF a full six hours after the start of the Murray SF. This meant that Murray had around 24 hours rest for the final and Djokovic only 18. A clearly fatigued Djokovic in the final lost to Murray but I did not hear any excuses from Djokovic regarding fatigue or any comments by any BBC interviewer about how his limited rest could have attributed to the loss to Murray.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 12, 2008

With regard to Roger's form this season, I think people have underestimated the effect his bout of glandular fever had on him, coming at the start of the season it set his preparatoy work way back and meant he couldn't build up his fitness properly and when he came under pressure earlier in the season, this told big time.
I expect a fully fit Fed to win three slams next year, leaving the French to Nadal, but there's no doubt he'll want Wimbolden back the most.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 12, 2008

i can't believe people wrote off federer anyway, but still think he had a major psycological boost by not having to play nadal in the final. i think the murray v nadal match may have saved federer's career; if nadal had won that, then the final, i doubt if federer could have made it back from that

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 12, 2008

Roger Federer was the best man on the day

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 12, 2008

It was a shame that, in the final, Murray wasn't able to find the form that saw him beat Nadal.

Although Federer was awesome, he was certainly helped by Murray's poor start, which undoubtedly gave him some confidence.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 13, 2008

People are idiots. Let's face it, an Aussie Open semi, French and Wimbledon finals and a US open win aint exactly a bad year. Nadal has just been on fire. People should respect other players instead of brainlessly criticising End of.

add comment | complain about this comment