posted Jul 1, 2009

my comment was two statements, 1 being that the seeding doesnt seem to work in my opninion. the other being that murray could reach the final without playing a top ten player, although so can Fed. When was the last time someone got to a grandslam final without playing a top ten opponent?? must have been sometime ago

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 1, 2009

Wimbledon
1) I think the BBC's coverage is so one-eyed that it has reached a point where it is quite embarassing and almost insulting to other players in the tournament.
2) The womens tennis is, with two exceptions, of such a low standard that they should pay us to watch - I doubt whether any of this current crop of robots could live with the top players of even 10 years ago.
3)I can't help but think that the game itself has largely forsaken skill for power and many players just don't have a 'plan B' if their power game doesn't work.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 1, 2009

No 1 seed is at top of top half, No 2 seed is at bottom of bottom half. If all seeds won their respective matches ACCORDING to their seeding, then No 1 would play No 4 in semi-final from top half and No2 would play No 3 in bottom half semi-final. This would be the FIRST time Nos 1 & 2 would theoretically play another seed. Simple really.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 1, 2009

Didn't neither finalist face a top ten opponent before last year's final?

I think you'll find it isn't so rare. If you're a high seed it only requires two potential opponents to go out early.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 1, 2009

Why is it a big deal if murray gets to the final without beating a top10 player? It isn't his fault if they all lose in earlier rounds. If roddick loses to hewitt then defeating hewitt will be worth more than defeating roddick anyway (hewitt stands a much better chance against murray). Federer won wimbledons beating minnows all the way up to the semi's but no one complained about this. The murray hate is getting ridiculous.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 1, 2009

when did i say i hated Murray?? i was just pointing out that i think its rare to make a grandslam final without plying a top ten opponent. and if u look back over the last couple of years of slams, it is rare.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 1, 2009

comment by CurryStains (U14050949)
posted 50 Minutes Ago

when did i say i hated Murray?? i was just pointing out that i think its rare to make a grandslam final without plying a top ten opponent. and if u look back over the last couple of years of slams, it is rare.

----------------------------------

And if Murray did actually go on to win the thing it wouldn't matter a jot. That's how knock-out competitions work. Sometimes the "best" players, by ranking, don't get through and "weak" players make it to the latter rounds.

It bears absolutely no positive nor negative influence of the other players nor the outcome of the tournament. Simple fact, the guy that wins it wins it.

I consistently see this bizarre point raised in the sports I watch. Seeding, love it or loathe it, doesn't guarantee the best players/teams reach the latter stages whatsoever. And in the rare occasions the seeded players/teams are knocked out earlier than expected, the remaining seeded players/teams victories are not devalued in any way.

Player ranking is the RESULT of performances in tournaments, not the other way around. Therefore, if all seeds or highly ranked players are knocked out early, those that beat them are good enough to challenge at later rounds, regardless of their rank - a figure that is not based on a single knock out match and is based on consistency.

By beating a seeded player, the victor is a serious challenge to players like Federer and Murray. I see little reason for stating that the opposition isn't in the top 10.

Who cares?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 1, 2009

1) I think the BBC's coverage is so one-eyed that it has reached a point where it is quite embarassing and almost insulting to other players in the tournament.
--------------------------

Reply:

1) Go to this site if you want to see different sport news http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sport/index.html?siteSect=180

2) If you have a son playing well, would you talk about his opponent in your house?

3) make your own news site and write articles about your favourites.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 1, 2009

@threetimesthree

I think it would be more accurate to say that his varied game simply wasn't on show in the last match. Tactically he was very poor. He always seemed to be attacking the stronger side of his opponent, he seemed scared to come into the net and he was trying to overpower his first serve that simply wasn't going anywhere near the service box.

He really didn't play very well at all. On the other hand, he's still in the tournament and that is what counts. The real test will be whether he can now raise his game now.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 1, 2009

posted 22 Hours Ago

I guess Murray will have a much more easier match tomorrrow.

JC Ferrero is a really good talented player - Former No.1 & a Grand Slam winner but he will be out of his depth tomorrow - i mean lets face it - hes no Nadal.

Wawrinka was fantastic - he would have done Federer a huge favour had he won but nevertheless, that was tremendous performance to take Murray AND the British Public to a 5 Set Match at Centre Court, Wimbledon is a fantastic achievement. If only he had done what Ivanisevic & Philippousis did to Henman.

I think Murray will win tomorrow and it will finish in 3 Sets in less than 2 hours methinks.

--------------------------

What did i tell you!!!!!

Muray has an EVEN EASIER Match on Friday vs Roddick.

Roddick will be running on an empty tank.

However i would like to see Roddick take Murray to 5 sets but i wont hold my breath.

add comment | complain about this comment