Simon Reed picks Murray
tim
Eurosport-Yahoo! blogger Simon Reed is sticking with his prediction
that Andy Murray will win the US Open, but admits Roger Federer
provides a strong alternative.
Before the Cincinnati Masters I said that Andy Murray was my clear
favourite to win the US Open. If you were to ask me now if Roger
Federer's win in that event has changed my mind I'd say it has a bit,
but only marginally.
Federer played really well and in the first set he was unbelievable.
However, I think the match was more important for Federer than it was
for Murray and that Federer was more up for it. Murray was of course
up for it too, but I don't think to the same degree.
After losing four consecutive matches against Andy, Roger knew he had
to win this one, and as a result he was absolutely on his A game.
Federer blew Murray apart in the first set before he edged a tight
second.
For Federer, it was a very significant win and because of that my
confidence in Murray to win the US Open has gone back a shade.
However, if you had to nail me down to a winner, I would still say
Murray.
I think Murray's performances throughout the year have been better
than Federer's. He has consistently beaten top guys in big matches.
On the other hand, and I accept this is pretty brutal on someone who
has won two Grand Slams this year, things have fallen into Federer's
lap time after time after time.
I know some people will say how many Grand Slams does Federer have to
win before you can no longer say luck is a factor, and I understand
that viewpoint, but I'm still of the opinion that Federer is not quite
the player he once was.
He is still a formidable threat, but I don't think he is the best
player in the world right now - I think Murray is.
It is true though that Federer is now a more dangerous beast than he
was in say April or May as he has got a lot of monkeys off his back.
He has won the French Open, he has got the record number of Grand Slam
titles, and he has also become a father. I think the win in the French
for example was particularly key.
Then there is also the fact that he thoroughly outplayed Murray in the
US Open final last year.
So there are many factors that would lead you to believe that Federer
will do it again.
But there are two question marks still remaining. Firstly, how near is
Federer to his best? It looks like he is nearer to his best than I
thought he was - but that might not be enough.
Secondly, if he is back to near his best, will he buckle under the
pressure like he has done against good players - mostly Nadal - in
finals before?
I think for all the reasons we have outlined that is unlikely, so I
can very much see the argument why somebody would tip Federer for
victory. But again, I just think over the year that Murray has been
the best player.
I also think that Federer hates playing Murray. Last week Murray was
mentally tired and I don't think he was capable of giving as much as
he normally does, so I'm not giving that result total credence.
I'd rather look at the year as a whole, and while Murray may not have
won a Grand Slam, I think he has been more consistently impressive.
+++
As for other names in the event, well, maybe I'm being alarmist here,
but I fear this might be the last hurrah for Rafael Nadal - and it may
not be too much of a hurrah either.
I don't think he can afford to have even one more injury break. His
tendinitis isn't going to go away because the amount of pressure he
puts on his body, especially on hard courts, is absolutely brutal.
If he is fit then of course he is a danger - but I'm very suspicious
of his prospects. Can he quickly dismiss players the way that he used
to in the first few rounds? You just don't know; I don't think he even
knows. I hope he can though, because in many ways he is my favourite
player. But like I said, I'm suspicious.
It was great to see Novak Djokovic find some form last week but I have
not rated him much this year so cannot really see him winning.
Andy Roddick is a danger. He has come to realise in the last year that
he can be a contender and his performance at Wimbledon will be a huge
boost. He is also the kind of guy who thrives on pressure; I don't
think he has ever lost a match mentally. He has been blown away by
Federer in the past, but that was because Federer was too good for
him.
The way Roddick plays and uses the crowd is pretty important too and
he will be very difficult to beat in New York.
Outside of those players, Fernando Verdasco has been a favourite of
mine in the past but he has not kicked on the way I hoped he would
after the Australian Open. Robin Soderling has a huge game and is
always a threat, while Jo-Wilfried Tsonga is coming back into form.
Juan Martin Del Potro has been knocking on the door for a while too,
but there is still not quite enough to his game to convince me he can
win a Slam. However he is still capable of knocking off the top guys
if he catches them on an off-day.
So I have Murray and Federer as the clear favourites, Nadal and
Roddick as the next threats and Djokovic hovering around the third
tier with the likes of Soderling, Tsonga and Del Potro.
Simon Reed / Eurosport
only human
Simon reed is obviously a flaming idiot to think Murray is currently the
best player based on tuneup performance this year. LOL- totally absurd.
Federer sure has brought out some idiot sports writers in the light
since his domination. some of these morons just will not accept Federer
as the king of tennis. something he has more then earned wining so many
slams and other titles in 6 years.
Manolo
How clever do one need to be to become a TV journalist?
Probably not much...
This idiot is explaining why his favorites are totally following the
ATP ranking but for Murray (can't afford to say the opposite of what
he was saying for days/weeks?).
So instead of talking about how he "feels" players are *right now*,
for having saw them training, talked to some maybe, Simon is kind
enough to remind the dumbest of his readers (at least the ones with
the worse memory) that, appart from the Top7, players who had a
brilliant run at slam this year are potentially dangerous!
Great tier1 analyst, no doubt...
It's fucking harder & harder having to suffer from such non-stop
medias spouting.
Simon, please, since you are unable to have to own opinion, based on
your own views of subtle observations, seek somewhere else for
opinions you will copy'n'paste.
It'll be better than your very very poor description of a "basic"
reality we (tennis players/readers/followers) already know.
in girum imus nocte etconsumimur igni
Joe Ramirez
> Despite Cincinnati Simon Reed is still strongly behind Murray to win.
>
> Secondly, if he is back to near his best, will he buckle under the
> pressure like he has done against good players - mostly Nadal - in
> finals before?
Er, huh? Federer has never lost a slam final to anyone *except* Nadal.
Since he launched at Wim 2003, Fed's record in finals of all kinds is
53-15. That's some pretty feeble buckling. Mr. Reed is a serious
dimwit.
Stapler
felangey
interest, hoping against all hope that they don't have to write in a small
inside back page article that "oh yeah, you know Federer? He won the USopen
again". They want the big scoop about how the new era has arrived, and
Murray is it's King....and they - yes they - foretold it's arrival. How
great would that look as a double-page spread! :)
What it leaves us with is just bad, bad, illogical 'journalism'.
Professor X
Simon Reed is one of the most reputable sports-writers on the planet.
I have nothing but respect for his prophetic genius.
Manolo
And for non slam final, well:
Safin when Marat was still concerned.
Djokovic who had at that moment what still remains the run of his
career.
Funny thing, as I started to reply this initial post, no-one had
answered.
I wasn't expecting all other replies were going to the same conclusion
as mine: Simon is an idiot.
And yet, each other of replies so far (only human, Joe Ramirez,
felangey) put in light things I other had not mentioned...
Talk about cross-fire :-) !
felangey
Yes, well, what a thoroughly ringing endorsment of his abilities. He will be
made-up when he hears! ;)
Professor X
How do you know i'm not Simon Reed?
TT
I don't...but what I do know he must have said something awful since
he's called an idiot by so many smart posters...
--
"If I was 7-13 against Andre it would be hard to say I was the best of
my generation"
TT
-You and your "launch"...how about before that.
-He said he has buckled before...not that he's buckled much
-He wasn't talking about slams
-He was talking about good players
-He did what...predicted that Murray will win USO...what an idiot!
ruanz3
ruanz3
You an Simon Reed is the same person as far as im concerned.
TT
You have a Federer-blog...LOL!
You have a Federer-blog, call a professional writer a clown...and don't
know how a draw works, LOL!
You call someone a clown because he predicted Murray will win USO, geez.
ruanz3
Hahahahahahahaha :D
TT
Shouldn't you go back to some teenage forum?
TT
> ruanz3 wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 11:23 pm, TT <gol...@ilbuono.net> wrote:
>>> ruanz3 wrote:
>>>> I made a blog post about this clown.
>>>> http://ruansfedererblog.com/?p=1539
>>> You have a Federer-blog...LOL!
>>>
>>> You have a Federer-blog, call a professional writer a clown...and don't
>>> know how a draw works, LOL!
>>>
>>> You call someone a clown because he predicted Murray will win USO, geez.
>>
>> Hahahahahahahaha :D
>
> Shouldn't you go back to some teenage forum?
>
alt.help.pimples?
Vrai Cinico
So he picked Federer at this year's Roland Garros. Pretty darn good.
--
Cheers,
vc
ruanz3
I picked Federer at RG, i doubt Reed did. If he did it would never
make up for all his Henman and Murray balls sucking.
Professor X
Your blogs are way off the mark.
ruanz3
Jason Catlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Isn't that the same guy who said Verdasco was the future of tennis?
Joe Ramirez
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 1:53 pm, tim <mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Despite Cincinnati Simon Reed is still strongly behind Murray to win.
>
> >> Secondly, if he is back to near his best, will he buckle under the
> >> pressure like he has done against good players - mostly Nadal - in
> >> finals before?
>
> > Er, huh? Federer has never lost a slam final to anyone *except* Nadal.
>
> > Since he launched at Wim 2003, Fed's record in finals of all kinds is
> > 53-15. That's some pretty feeble buckling. Mr. Reed is a serious
> > dimwit.
>
> -You and your "launch"...how about before that.
Consider yourself indulged that I went as far back as 2003. Anyone who
argues that a Federer loss in some tuneup final in 2001 or 2002 has
any relevance at all to his likely performance in a U.S. Open final in
2009 is qualified to host the international dimwits convention.
Manolo
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 8:33 pm, "felangey" <b...@home.com> wrote:
> >>> I have nothing but respect for his prophetic genius.<
> >> Yes, well, what a thoroughly ringing endorsment of his abilities. He will be
> >> made-up when he hears! ;)
>
> > How do you know i'm not Simon Reed?
>
> I don't...but what I do know he must have said something awful since
> he's called an idiot by so many smart posters...
Not his claim, in case you misread.
The way that coward is trying to settle his claim.
Huge difference.
Would have been exactly the same reply from me if he had picked Nadal
(pretty "smart" things said about Rafa too) / Djokovic / Roddick or
Federer using same "technique".
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>He is still a formidable threat, but I don't think he is the best
>player in the world right now - I think Murray is.
Oh ffs... I can understand people saying Nadal is, but this is just
too much...
Simon Reed is not a very good commentator, but his blogs are even
worse. But this Murray thing, maybe the Brits are just hopelessly
biased, see the Brits in rst.
ruanz3
Yes.
TT
Your whole "launch" idea is designed to disregard Federer's poorish
early success.
This case it's even more obvious than usual. You are saying that not
only Federer did bloom late skillwise, he bloomed late mentally
too...since that's what this argument is about: his mental prowess.
You're also saying that for example Nadal was mentally fully developed
at the age of 18, while Federer was at the age of 22...which is quite
ridiculous.
Do you really want to give a free pass for someone like Lendl who really
took his time to win his first slam final?
It's a widely accepted fact that you either have "bottle" or you
don't...you can work on that, but mainly you're born with it or not.
One can be able to outperform his mental side, though, by being plainly
much better skillwise than his opponents, then there's not really as
much pressure as playing against evenly skilled players.
It can be argued that this is exactly what happened with Federer, he got
so much better than the top players that he didn't have to "buckle
under pressure"...as he does against more evenly skilled players, such
as Nadal and Murray.
Now we see that Federer has not changed, he's still same racket breaking
guy as he was when he was 21...but only when he's losing. It's easy to
carry on exemplary behaviour when you're winning.
As it is equally easy to display mental toughness when you're that much
better than your opponent...which was not the case through his early
years and now against two top dogs.
Definitely career statistics are much less biased than starting from
first slam. Unless you explicitly want to measure Federer's mental
toughness against vastly inferior players. But that's not what Reed was
talking about.
Say hi from rst to that convention.
Sakari Lund
>Now we see that Federer has not changed, he's still same racket breaking
>guy as he was when he was 21...but only when he's losing.
Heh. He broke the racket once, causing worldwide amazement, despite
losing a lot in the last few years.
Federer's mental strength is seriously underrated.
Also isn't there inconsistency, usually you say he is not that good,
he wins because the clowns don't believe they can beat him. Now you
say he is just way too good for everyone except Nadal and Murray.
Whisper
What if it comes true? You'll look like an even bigger idiot than you
already do.
Superdave
wrote:
Perhaps a bit but don't worry, you will still be far far ahead of him
on that score.
Whisper
Best to ignore Fedfuckers. Their reasoning is childlike & there is
nothing to be gained conversing with them.
Whisper
Brits are desperate. Understandable given they haven't had a decent
player since the 1930's.
Superdave
wrote:
Why ?
because :
1. They reject your hyperbole ?
2. They call you out on your lies ?
3. They can count ?
TT
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:20:32 +0300, TT <gol...@ilbuono.net> wrote:
>
>> Now we see that Federer has not changed, he's still same racket breaking
>> guy as he was when he was 21...but only when he's losing.
>
> Heh. He broke the racket once, causing worldwide amazement, despite
> losing a lot in the last few years.
And abused ballboys!
>
> Federer's mental strength is seriously underrated.
>
> Also isn't there inconsistency, usually you say he is not that good,
> he wins because the clowns don't believe they can beat him. Now you
> say he is just way too good for everyone except Nadal and Murray.
>
Yes. But of course if I want to convince Joe about his statistical
approach being wrong, it's better to convince him starting from the
views he believes in.
Joe Ramirez
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 4:13 pm, TT <gol...@ilbuono.net> wrote:
> >> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> >>> On Aug 30, 1:53 pm, tim <mail...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Despite Cincinnati Simon Reed is still strongly behind Murray to win.
> >>>> Secondly, if he is back to near his best, will he buckle under the
> >>>> pressure like he has done against good players - mostly Nadal - in
> >>>> finals before?
> >>> Er, huh? Federer has never lost a slam final to anyone *except* Nadal.
> >>> Since he launched at Wim 2003, Fed's record in finals of all kinds is
> >>> 53-15. That's some pretty feeble buckling. Mr. Reed is a serious
> >>> dimwit.
> >> -You and your "launch"...how about before that.
>
> > Consider yourself indulged that I went as far back as 2003. Anyone who
> > argues that a Federer loss in some tuneup final in 2001 or 2002 has
> > any relevance at all to his likely performance in a U.S. Open final in
> > 2009 is qualified to host the international dimwits convention.
>
> Your whole "launch" idea is designed to disregard Federer's poorish
> early success.
No, I introduced the "launch" concept in March of 2006 in a thread
about when great players arose throughout the open era and the effects
of disequilibrium on the numbers of such champions. Fortunately for
the integrity of that thread, you were not yet an RST participant at
the time.
Try to understand that no one spends any time thinking about ways to
excuse Federer's "poorish early success." No one talks about that
except you. No one cares about it except you.