Queen's

[Lencarl]

Murray declared himself fit to compete in the Tournament. Will be interesting to see how he gets on but do not hold out much hope for him depending on who he plays against.

 

 

 

 

[Tyrant]

Nick Kyrgios plays Andy in round one.

 

If Murray just got through this one I'd be surprised. Although the priority has to be coming through it with his hip feeling good. The bookies aren't giving Andy much of a chance.

 

 

[Lencarl]

Nick Kyrgios plays Andy in round one.

 

If Murray just got through this one I'd be surprised. Although the priority has to be coming through it with his hip feeling good. The bookies aren't giving Andy much of a chance.

 

Agreed,very tough first round match for Murray tomorrow.This will test his metal.

 

Novak Djokovic has also said he needs to get his mind sorted out before he can win the big games again. Honest of him to admit that.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lencarl]

Andy did well considering his lay off. Nick Kyrgios is a character on the court. He said after the game he did not regard this match as a win for him due to it being Andy's first match.

[manc_don]

I know a lot has been said about this in the Murray thread, but I can't see him coming back to anywhere near the same level.  Hopefully and happily be proved wrong.  Good to see him back anyway.

[KennyFuckinPowers]

Used to love watching the old Tennis, was a massive Andy Roddick fan, must admit that I have barely watched it since his retirement. When I have though, big Kevin Anderson has impressed me, I just like old fashioned sluggers, although I accept Tennis is far more technical now.

 

I know he's done lots of positive stuff outside of Tennis, but one guy I cannot stomach, is Roger Federer, not denying that he's a superb, world class player, even now, but he always came across as an absolute bell-end and pretty disrespectful to opponents, especially when they ran him close, he had a sly dig at them. 

[Tyrant]

Tennis is a lot more technical now. With players like Andy and Djokovic whose return of serve ability was probably unprecedented before them the players with just a big serve aren't really coming close to winning tournaments anymore. Pete Sampras, for example, wouldn't have won many majors if any in the current era. Kevin Anderson is a man who has a serve and not much else and has a record that doesn't say much. He did get the a slam final I think. But with a favourable and depleted draw. Roddick had a lot more to his game.

 

Andy did really well on Tuesday. I was gutted he couldn't finish the job but he did better than I thought he would. Nick Kyrgios has some serve on him as well and when he's on his game he can trouble the best.

[KennyFuckinPowers]

Roddick was always criticised, same aspect as you have said of Anderson, int hat all he had was a serve, but he broke serves all the time & although he only won 1 major, he was so close to a good few more, but his heart was clearly not in it in the latter stage of his career, he was losing easily against much lesser and totally unknown players, so he was probably right to retire. 

 

Anderson has a strong serve, but he's also capable of slugging out good rallies with the best, it's when he has to go to the net or try lob etc... that he really struggles.

 

Del Potro is another, been very unfortunate with injuries, but I reckon he could have been up there with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray etc... had he stayed fit. 

[Kowalski]

I like Del Potro a lot, it’s a shame about his injuries. His duel with Murray at the Rio Olympic final was just epic.

 

Murray looked pretty good this week. I’m sure he’ll win a few more tournaments yet - I doubt he would have come back if he didn’t think it was worth it. Tennis not the same without him!

[Guest kiriakovisthenewstrachan]

Pete Sampras, for example, wouldn't have won many majors if any in the current era.

 

Oh, come on Tyrant you must have been on the wacky backy these last couple of days.

 

Sampras is third on the list of all time grand slam winners.  There was a bit more to his game than just a big serve.  Andy Roddick and Kevin Anderson shouldn't even be mentioned in the same hemisphere as someone like Sampras.

 

Always difficult to compare people in different eras, similarly in golf and even fitba to an extent but I always tend to think that a great player in most cases would adapt their game to suit any era.

[Kowalski]

Tyrant’s right about Sampras. The last 10 years of men’s tennis has been incredible, way more competitive than the Sampras era, and the physical demands went up a notch with the big four, probably why they are riddled with injury problems now.

 

Murray would have won loads of slams playing in the pre-Federer era.

[Guest kiriakovisthenewstrachan]

I agree with you that Murray might have won another few slams if he had been around pre-Federer but from what you guys are suggesting about Sampras struggling to win anything in the modern game, that would indicate that Murray is a better all round tennis player than Sampras was which is just laughable given Sampras' record.  Sampras was world number one continuously for over 5 years and won 14 grand slams.  He was a lot more than just a one trick pony.

 

It's interesting though that you say tennis is far more competitive now.  I know you mean one man is not dominating like has happened in the past on a few occasions but if you look at the stats 4 men have won 48 of the last 53 grand slams, quite astonishing.  Is it really competitive other than the guys at the very top? - not sure.

[Kowalski]

Sampras wouldn’t have struggled, he just wouldn’t have won nearly as much IMHO.

[Tyrant]

I agree with you that Murray might have won another few slams if he had been around pre-Federer but from what you guys are suggesting about Sampras struggling to win anything in the modern game, that would indicate that Murray is a better all round tennis player than Sampras was which is just laughable given Sampras' record.  Sampras was world number one continuously for over 5 years and won 14 grand slams.  He was a lot more than just a one trick pony.

 

It's interesting though that you say tennis is far more competitive now.  I know you mean one man is not dominating like has happened in the past on a few occasions but if you look at the stats 4 men have won 48 of the last 53 grand slams, quite astonishing.  Is it really competitive other than the guys at the very top? - not sure.

 

 

:laughing:

 

Murray at his best destroys Sampras! Straight sets min. The movement these days is unreal. Murray is/was lightning across the court. Federer's grace is his trademark. Djokovic's flexibility is legendary and Nadal is no slouch. Compare Sampras to these guys and he's practically immobile. Sampras would maybe be in the top 10 but nae much higher than that. We're talking Milos Roanic's level. A contender.. if enough of the top players are injured.

 

 

Murray in Pistol Pete's era would have won so much more. Starting with all the Aussie Opens he came runner up in.