Australian Open

[interista]

If you post a pic to how beautiful you are..we can do a comparison.

 

I don't see the relevance. Murray's not gay and is unlikely to be interested in me (plus I'm not available).

[shaun.lawson]

Think the only thing that could be dull about Federer is the fact he wins almost all the time, the same reason why personally I find Phil Taylor in the darts dull. But in contrast, even when Federer wins it's worth watching because it's that good.

 

Some other players could be considered dull. Nadal for one with the fact that he wins a lot of the time due to physical fitness, Roddick is mainly just a big serve and Del Potro just whacks the ball every time with no variety, Davydenko the same. With Federer it's pretty much a mixture of everything and he'll play completely different shots from one point to the next. It's a unique all round game and I don't see there being another player like him again.

 

Murray's time will come though, you could see how much it meant to him and he won't stop working until he gets a Slam. Everything's going in the right direction and in terms of all round ability, he's only second behind Federer at the minute.

 

Probably. I'm both encouraged and worried by his reaction afterwards though. Encouraged because it hurt him so much: he won't settle for being anything less than the best, and has a mindset which wouldn't embrace glory in defeat for a moment. But worried too, because I'm quite sure he's shocked by how far behind Federer he still was, and maybe even embarrassed by aspects of his play. He needs to improve considerably: the question is, can he?

 

I mentioned the age gap between the two of them earlier on. That's one encouragement - but what happens if Federer remains untouchable for the rest of the year (perfectly possible: the Grand Slam itself isn't beyond him), then people think "now's his chance!", only for someone else to emerge and dominate, as Federer has, and Sampras did before him? Tennis is ruthlessly competitive and rapidly changing, and opportunities must be exploited when they present themselves - because there's no guarantee they'll come again.

 

Murray will believe he should have won a Slam by now. He'll also look around, see Djokovic and Del Potro with one, and wonder why it hasn't happened for him yet. That could either be the making of him, or the ruin of him: the crucial thing is how he reacts over the next few months. I think it's highly likely he'll get the monkey off his back in the end - but it's never been a certainty, and I think what happened today will have impacted on his confidence.

[kitster]

Think the only thing that could be dull about Federer is the fact he wins almost all the time, the same reason why personally I find Phil Taylor in the darts dull. But in contrast, even when Federer wins it's worth watching because it's that good.

 

Some other players could be considered dull. Nadal for one with the fact that he wins a lot of the time due to physical fitness, Roddick is mainly just a big serve and Del Potro just whacks the ball every time with no variety, Davydenko the same. With Federer it's pretty much a mixture of everything and he'll play completely different shots from one point to the next. It's a unique all round game and I don't see there being another player like him again.

 

Murray's time will come though, you could see how much it meant to him and he won't stop working until he gets a Slam. Everything's going in the right direction and in terms of all round ability, he's only second behind Federer at the minute.

 

You are correct Martin..as a Hearts fan I do find people winning things over and over again dull. With a Scot so close to the door I find it harder.

 

Beaten but not disgraced and I hope like you his time will come. No matter what he's an inspiration as a tennis player.

[Deek]

Probably. I'm both encouraged and worried by his reaction afterwards though. Encouraged because it hurt him so much: he won't settle for being anything less than the best, and has a mindset which wouldn't embrace glory in defeat for a moment. But I'm worried, because I'm quite sure he's shocked by how far behind Federer he still was, and maybe even embarrassed by aspects of his play. He needs to improve considerably: the question is, can he?

 

I mentioned the age gap between the two of them earlier on. That's one encouragement - but what happens if Federer remains untouchable for the rest of the year (perfectly possible: the Grand Slam itself isn't beyond him), then people think "now's his chance!", only for someone else to emerge and dominate, as Federer has, and Sampras did before him? Tennis is ruthlessly competitive and rapidly changing, and opportunities must be exploited when they present themselves - because there's no guarantee they'll come again.

 

Murray will believe he should have won a Slam by now. He'll also look around, see Djokovic and Del Potro with one, and wonder why it hasn't happened for him yet. That could either be the making of him, or the ruin of him: the crucial thing is how he reacts over the next few months. I think it's highly likely he'll get the monkey off his back in the end - but it's never been a certainty, and I think what happened today will have impacted on his confidence.

 

Federer did not win a grand slam until 1 month short of his 22nd birthday. Murray still has plenty time. As long as Fed gets knocked out in an earlier round though.

[shaun.lawson]

Federer did not win a grand slam until 1 month short of his 22nd birthday. Murray still has plenty time. As long as Fed gets knocked out in an earlier round though.

 

He's 22 now, as you say. He turns 23 in May. For the record, amazingly few tennis players break through and win their first Grand Slam after their 24th birthday. That gives us an idea of what his window of opportunity is. No pressure, Andy!

[Martin]

Probably. I'm both encouraged and worried by his reaction afterwards though. Encouraged because it hurt him so much: he won't settle for being anything less than the best, and has a mindset which wouldn't embrace glory in defeat for a moment. But I'm worried, because I'm quite sure he's shocked by how far behind Federer he still was, and maybe even embarrassed by aspects of his play. He needs to improve considerably: the question is, can he?

 

I mentioned the age gap between the two of them earlier on. That's one encouragement - but what happens if Federer remains untouchable for the rest of the year (perfectly possible: the Grand Slam itself isn't beyond him), then people think "now's his chance!", only for someone else to emerge and dominate, as Federer has, and Sampras did before him? Tennis is ruthlessly competitive and rapidly changing, and opportunities must be exploited when they present themselves - because there's no guarantee they'll come again.

 

Murray will believe he should have won a Slam by now. He'll also look around, see Djokovic and Del Potro with one, and wonder why it hasn't happened foe him yet. That could either be the making of him, or the ruin of him: the crucial thing is how he reacts over the next few months. I think it's highly likely he'll get the monkey off his back in the end - but it's never been a certainty, and I think what happened today will have impacted on his confidence.

 

He was behind in the first two sets but if Federer plays like that, he's that far ahead of everyone in the world. The third set was a bit more even once Federer's level dropped that little bit. Against Federer, the thing that really hurts Murray is that he really respects him. Against other players, Federer can go out with the attitude that even if he has a dip, he'll still beat them anyway but he's concentrated from the first minute against Murray.

 

Federer could win Wimbledon and the US Open (still don't see him winning the French again, although hope I'm proved wrong). I thought his motivation would have tailed off by now considering what happened last year but throughout this tournament, he's been more relaxed than ever. That's the scary thing for the rest of the players. Tennis does change but I can't see someone coming along anytime soon and dominating to this extent. You never know but it's unlikely.

 

It will be tough to see Djokovic and Del Potro with Slams, particularly when Murray has more talent than either of them. Because of his game style, it was always going to take more time. It took Federer 17 Grand Slams to win one and that was Murray's 17th Grand Slam. He's got so many options, he's still working out what the best way to play is (the same way that it happened to Federer). It's much easier to win a Grand Slam at a younger age when you just hammer the ball because you've got one game plan and that's it, eg Del Potro winning the US Open.

 

His confidence might be dented but he should go away full of confidence for the rest of the year. He was by far the better player against Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro weren't impressive at all and Davydenko has shown he's not capable of winning a Grand Slam.

[Martin]

You are correct Martin..as a Hearts fan I do find people winning things over and over again dull. With a Scot so close to the door I find it harder.

 

Beaten but not disgraced and I hope like you his time will come. No matter what he's an inspiration as a tennis player.

 

Predictability in sport is the worst, that's one reason why football is dying. But as a Hearts fan, we know that one of these days it'll happen.

 

Couldn't agree more about him being an inspiration as a tennis player. You compare him to some arsehole footballers, whether they are Scottish/British/wherever and they think they are something special when in reality, they don't deserve a quarter of what they get. Murray could be like that but he's not, he seems down to earth and has a real hardworking mentality.

 

Think people underestimate how big an achievement it is to get that high up in the world rankings and to get to a Grand Slam final. But no it's more important for some people to slag him off for some of the most ridiculous reasons. No wonder Scottish sport is in the state it is with that mentality.

[shaun.lawson]

He was behind in the first two sets but if Federer plays like that, he's that far ahead of everyone in the world. The third set was a bit more even once Federer's level dropped that little bit. Against Federer, the thing that really hurts Murray is that he really respects him. Against other players, Federer can go out with the attitude that even if he has a dip, he'll still beat them anyway but he's concentrated from the first minute against Murray.

 

Federer could win Wimbledon and the US Open (still don't see him winning the French again, although hope I'm proved wrong). I thought his motivation would have tailed off by now considering what happened last year but throughout this tournament, he's been more relaxed than ever. That's the scary thing for the rest of the players. Tennis does change but I can't see someone coming along anytime soon and dominating to this extent. You never know but it's unlikely.

 

It will be tough to see Djokovic and Del Potro with Slams, particularly when Murray has more talent than either of them. Because of his game style, it was always going to take more time. It took Federer 17 Grand Slams to win one and that was Murray's 17th Grand Slam. He's got so many options, he's still working out what the best way to play is (the same way that it happened to Federer). It's much easier to win a Grand Slam at a younger age when you just hammer the ball because you've got one game plan and that's it, eg Del Potro winning the US Open.

 

His confidence might be dented but he should go away full of confidence for the rest of the year. He was by far the better player against Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro weren't impressive at all and Davydenko has shown he's not capable of winning a Grand Slam.

 

Because of Nadal's problems, I think Federer will win the French this year, and probably Wimbledon as well. It's New York I'm not sure about - especially if he's under the suffocating pressure of being one Slam away from an extraordinary accomplishment by that point. Murray knows he needs a vastly more attacking game to beat Federer: it's hardly guaranteed that he'll perfect it though.

 

I've never subscribed to the thought that Murray was certain to win a Slam, largely because he can't overpower players the way Nadal or Del Potro have done. He has a beautiful all round game, but there's a question mark over his weapons in five sets against the very best. He's improved massively over the past couple of years, and bulked up considerably - but that second serve... eesh. And what you said about if Fed plays like he did in the first two sets, he's far ahead of everyone else: well, sure. But the simple realisation of that is devastating for a player as brilliant as Murray: "How much better do I have to get?"

 

Incidentally, on Davydenko: a former player told Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim that whoever won his quarter-final with Federer would win the tournament. "That's the real final", he said; and was absolutely right.

[Martin]

Because of Nadal's problems, I think Federer will win the French this year, and probably Wimbledon as well. It's New York I'm not sure about - especially if he's under the suffocating pressure of being one Slam away from an extraordinary accomplishment by that point. Murray knows he needs a vastly more attacking game to beat Federer: it's hardly guaranteed that he'll perfect it though.

 

I've never subscribed to the thought that Murray was certain to win a Slam, largely because he can't overpower players the way Nadal or Del Potro have done. He has a beautiful all round game, but there's a question mark over his weapons in five sets against the very best. He's improved massively over the past couple of years, and bulked up considerably - but that second serve... eesh. And what you said about if Fed plays like he did in the first two sets, he's far ahead of everyone else: well, sure. But the simple realisation of that is devastating for a player as brilliant as Murray: "How much better do I have to get?"

 

Incidentally, on Davydenko: a former player told Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim that whoever won his quarter-final with Federer would win the tournament. "That's the real final", he said; and was absolutely right.

 

The French is a difficult one just now but then again if you look at Federer's record on clay, it's been miles better than anyone else apart from Nadal's, so there's definitely every chance. I wonder how well Federer might have coped today with the pressure if he'd won the US Open last year. It wouldn't have been a full Slam in one year but it would have been the chance to have all four at once. Possibly another reason why it was bad for Murray that Del Potro won the US Open.

 

Murray's second serve is a problem and people have always said you can measure a player's game by their second serve. It's definitely his biggest weakness and because he breaks the opponent so often, having a more reliable serve would make things a lot easier for him. Against Federer, you get such a small window of opportunity that you need to take any chance you can. Even though Federer played great, Murray had 30-30 on his serve almost every time in the first two sets.

 

Once Federer beat Davydenko that was it for him. That was the one danger match for him considering recent history. Then again I still don't think that even if Davydenko won that match, he would have won it because he's not got the mental capability to win it all.

[PresidentRomanov]

Because of Nadal's problems, I think Federer will win the French this year, and probably Wimbledon as well. It's New York I'm not sure about - especially if he's under the suffocating pressure of being one Slam away from an extraordinary accomplishment by that point. Murray knows he needs a vastly more attacking game to beat Federer: it's hardly guaranteed that he'll perfect it though.

 

I've never subscribed to the thought that Murray was certain to win a Slam, largely because he can't overpower players the way Nadal or Del Potro have done. He has a beautiful all round game, but there's a question mark over his weapons in five sets against the very best. He's improved massively over the past couple of years, and bulked up considerably - but that second serve... eesh. And what you said about if Fed plays like he did in the first two sets, he's far ahead of everyone else: well, sure. But the simple realisation of that is devastating for a player as brilliant as Murray: "How much better do I have to get?"

 

Incidentally, on Davydenko: a former player told Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim that whoever won his quarter-final with Federer would win the tournament. "That's the real final", he said; and was absolutely right.

 

Nice piece of back tracking from our online expert

[PresidentRomanov]

As I stated earlier, he is a Hobo choker. Thanks to Mr Federer we are now a few quid richer and JWL will be spewing.

 

I'm going to collect our winnings this afternoon, when I'm in, I'll ask what odds they're offering on when JWL will come out of hiding

[shaun.lawson]

The French is a difficult one just now but then again if you look at Federer's record on clay, it's been miles better than anyone else apart from Nadal's, so there's definitely every chance. I wonder how well Federer might have coped today with the pressure if he'd won the US Open last year. It wouldn't have been a full Slam in one year but it would have been the chance to have all four at once. Possibly another reason why it was bad for Murray that Del Potro won the US Open.

 

Murray's second serve is a problem and people have always said you can measure a player's game by their second serve. It's definitely his biggest weakness and because he breaks the opponent so often, having a more reliable serve would make things a lot easier for him. Against Federer, you get such a small window of opportunity that you need to take any chance you can. Even though Federer played great, Murray had 30-30 on his serve almost every time in the first two sets.

 

Once Federer beat Davydenko that was it for him. That was the one danger match for him considering recent history. Then again I still don't think that even if Davydenko won that match, he would have won it because he's not got the mental capability to win it all.

 

Exactly. That's why I think calling Murray a choker is just way off. He doesn't get anywhere near as many cheap points as Federer, which is a huge problem over a long match. Then consider that in order to catch and overtake The Greatest, Nadal took himself literally beyond the confines of his body, and is paying a horrible price for it now. His problems are, in a sense, as big a tribute to Federer's greatness as anything else: gutted though I am for Rafa, who tennis desperately needs in my opinion.

 

Had it been a Davydenko-Murray final - well, who knows? I'm quite confident Davydenko would've been in a position to win - the question is, would he, or would he have performed a Guillermo Coria 2004 French Open choke instead? We'll never know now.

[Therapist]

I'm going to collect our winnings this afternoon, when I'm in, I'll ask what odds they're offering on when JWL will come out of hiding

 

Cheers. I will pop round to your work tomorrow to collect. Incidentally, I have the Gorgie Rules flag in my second hand car.

 

You will get massively long odds on the JWL bet. He's gone to ground big stylee.

[Therapist]

calling Murray a choker is just way off.

 

He had five or six set points in the third set tie break. He lost them all. These are the classic signs of a choker/bottler. Fact.

[shaun.lawson]

Nice piece of back tracking from our online expert

 

Absolutely zero backtracking here. I'm the one who was on here constantly preaching caution and saying I thought he'd probably win one, but was by no means certain to win one, for months and months. There was a thread on here in November 2008 which makes very amusing reading now: the hype was ridiculous.

 

There's two types of tennis player: those who've won a Grand Slam, and those who haven't. For all his excellence, Murray is still in the latter category - and until he's in the former one, it'll get harder for him.

[kitster]

I don't see the relevance. Murray's not gay and is unlikely to be interested in me (plus I'm not available).

 

who cares if you are available? You called her a 'fat munter'. Let's see the oil painting you are.

[PresidentRomanov]

Cheers. I will pop round to your work tomorrow to collect. Incidentally, I have the Gorgie Rules flag in my second hand car.

 

You will get massively long odds on the JWL bet. He's gone to ground big stylee.

 

No problem, see you tomorrow, I'll give you your deserved share of the winnings, and transfer the Gorgie Rules flag into my brand new car

 

I fully expect William Hills to do a JWL themselves on this occasion, and brick it to take the bet

[Therapist]

I fully expect William Hills to do a JWL themselves on this occasion, and brick it to take the bet

 

Oh ma sides.

 

Does Romanov Jr not have a game today?

[shaun.lawson]

He had five or six set points in the third set tie break. He lost them all. These are the classic signs of a choker/bottler. Fact.

 

He doesn't have the serve to make winning those points a certainty. He also had the greatest player to ever pick up a tennis racket on the other side of the net, who wins an astounding number of those points: just ask Andy Roddick after last year's Wimbledon final.

 

Murray just wasn't good enough today, and was probably tired. When the world number five plays the world number one, and the number one wins comfortably, the idea that it's because the number five choked is simply daft.

[PresidentRomanov]

I thought he'd probably win one.

 

Yes you did, but yet again, you were wrong, and I wasn't

[Therapist]

and was probably tired

 

:rofl:

 

I've heard it all now. Murray is supposed to be a professional athlete. How can he be tired unless choking saps one's energy?

[PresidentRomanov]

Oh ma sides.

 

Does Romanov Jr not have a game today?

 

Called off an hour ago, supposed to be away to smelly Leith Athletic, but the useless peasants can't keep their pitch playable

 

Going to go up town and spend my Fed winnings on something nice for Abu Dhabi

[Therapist]

Called off an hour ago, supposed to be away to smelly Leith Athletic, but the useless peasants can't keep their pitch playable

 

Going to go up town and spend my Fed winnings on something nice for Abu Dhabi

 

Useless Leith ********

 

Cruise have a sale on at the moment.

[Gigolo-Aunt]

:rofl:

 

I've heard it all now. Murray is supposed to be a professional athlete. How can he be tired unless choking saps one's energy?

 

heh heh heh!

[Gambo]

Delighted Federer skelped the jumped up wee hobo.

 

All this talk about Federer being unplayable today are a lot of bull also, he played well but look at the amount of unforced errors he made..............hitting the net and going to long on shots he would normally do in his sleep.

 

The hobo was 5-2 up in the last set and blew it.

 

The one thing that really stops me liking Murray is that when he is taking a skelping he always has to hold his ankle/thigh/back and use it as some sort of excuse.

[Everybody loves Baz]

Just relieved Mr Wullie Hill of ?281.25.

 

That will go towards a nice Armani number i have my eye on.

[PresidentRomanov]

Useless Leith ********

 

Cruise have a sale on at the moment.

 

Excellent, that's where I'm going.

 

If I can stop laughing at Shauns "he was probably tired" line for a minute that is, that's an all time classic, even for him

[shaun.lawson]

:rofl:

 

I've heard it all now. Murray is supposed to be a professional athlete. How can he be tired unless choking saps one's energy?

 

By which reckoning, it's impossible for any sportsman to be tired at any point, no matter how long they've been on court, or how much harder they've had to work to win points. Why do you think the best football teams pull defences about during a game? Why do you think a tennis player, when up against an injured opponent, makes them run and run for everything?

 

Still, you're always boasting about how you're physically fit. So why not go and run through the Sahara desert right now? Shouldn't be a problem: it's impossible for someone physically fit to be tired, isn't it?

[Therapist]

The hobo was 5-2 up in the last set and blew it.

 

The one thing that really stops me liking Murray is that when he is taking a skelping he always has to hold his ankle/thigh/back and use it as some sort of excuse.

 

Yet more classic signs of a bottler.

[shaun.lawson]

Excellent, that's where I'm going.

 

If I can stop laughing at Shauns "he was probably tired" line for a minute that is, that's an all time classic, even for him

 

Two weeks of Grand Slam tennis is physically and emotionally demanding. If you think it's easy, try it sometime.

[PresidentRomanov]

By which reckoning, it's impossible for any sportsman to be tired at any point, no matter how long they've been on court, or how much harder they've had to work to win points. Why do you think the best football teams pull defences about during a game? Why do you think a tennis player, when up against an injured opponent, makes them run and run for everything?

 

Still, you're always boasting about how you're physically fit. So why not go and run through the Sahara desert right now? Shouldn't be a problem: it's impossible for someone physically fit to be tired, isn't it?

 

Can't believe he's digging himself in even deeper

 

I take it the fact that the 22 year old, had more rest before the game, than the 28 year old, in neither here not there

[Therapist]

By which reckoning, it's impossible for any sportsman to be tired at any point, no matter how long they've been on court, or how much harder they've had to work to win points.

 

There was nothing unusual about that final, hence the reason why Murray could not have been tired. It's not like he was forced to play a seven hour marathon.

 

 

Still, you're always boasting about how you're physically fit. So why not go and run through the Sahara desert right now? Shouldn't be a problem: it's impossible for someone physically fit to be tired, isn't it?

 

I am extremely fit, but I don't run as it bores me.

[PresidentRomanov]

Two weeks of Grand Slam tennis is physically and emotionally demanding. If you think it's easy, try it sometime.

 

Fed seemed to cope no problem, then again, he's not a creepy wee mummies boy

[Therapist]

Can't believe he's digging himself in even deeper

 

It's incredible, isn't it? He simply can't admit he's wrong, which indicates Shaun has severe psychological problems.

[shaun.lawson]

It's incredible, isn't it? He simply can't admit he's wrong, which indicates Shaun has severe psychological problems.

 

That'd be you Therapist, as I pointed out the other day.

 

However, further note to self: Shaun, read djf's post from earlier in the thread. And heed it this time!

 

I wonder who i'd prefer to be.

 

An internationally famous multi-millionaire sports star.

 

Or

 

A grown man who gets my kicks winding people up on an internet forum.

 

Answers on a post-card.

[Gavsy Van Gaverson]

Fed seemed to cope no problem, then again, he's not a creepy wee mummies boy

 

No, Fed is just a creep.

[PresidentRomanov]

It's incredible, isn't it? He simply can't admit he's wrong, which indicates Shaun has severe psychological problems.

 

It's hilarious, I wish I didn't have to go out, this has the potential for another Shaun classic

 

He only played three sets

[Therapist]

That'd be you Therapist, as I pointed out the other day.

 

I have no problem admitting if I'm wrong. Having said that, me being wrong is rarer than hen's teeth.

[kitster]

you missed out a word.

[Therapist]

However, further note to self: Shaun, read djf's post from earlier in the thread. And heed it this time!

 

Bit nasty of DJF to talk about you like that. I hope you reported him to the Mods.

[shaun.lawson]

I have no problem admitting if I'm wrong. Having said that, me being wrong is rarer than hen's teeth.

 

You've never admitted to being wrong on here about anything in history. Even though you very often have been. What was that Chelsea were going to be doing at Manchester City a couple of months back? Showing them what it's like to be playing with the big boys, wasn't it?

[kitster]

in fact the whole grammar of the sentence is wrong.

[PresidentRomanov]

Does anyone have any idea what Kitsters on about?

[Therapist]

You've never admitted to being wrong on here about anything in history. Even though you very often have been. What was that Chelsea were going to be doing at Manchester City a couple of months back? Showing them what it's like to be playing with the big boys, wasn't it?

 

Shaun, that was an opinion, so doesn't count. When one talks facts I'm rarely, if ever, wrong.

[Therapist]

Does anyone have any idea what Kitsters on about?

 

I haven't a scooby. Hence the reason why I am ignoring him/her.

[scott_jambo]

Does anyone have any idea what Kitsters on about?

 

[portobellojambo1]

He doesn't have the serve to make winning those points a certainty. He also had the greatest player to ever pick up a tennis racket on the other side of the net, who wins an astounding number of those points: just ask Andy Roddick after last year's Wimbledon final.

 

Murray just wasn't good enough today, and was probably tired. When the world number five plays the world number one, and the number one wins comfortably, the idea that it's because the number five choked is simply daft.

 

 

Think you might have been better leaving it at "just wasn't good enough today" Shaun rather than adding on the tired bit.

 

I would agree that during the match this morning the better player was victorious, but I think it was Federer's skill rather than Murray's tiredness that led to defeat.

 

I would reckon that in terms of what this tournament takes out of players both would have been at a similar level of fitness/fatigue.

[scott_jambo]

Shaun, that was an opinion, so doesn't count. When one talks facts I'm rarely, if ever, wrong.

 

Surely Shaun is just giving his opinion on the match, so that doesnt count either?

 

Facts are never wrong, judgement can be.

 

Your judgement on the Chelsea Man City match can be questioned, no?

[scott_jambo]

Think you might have been better leaving it at "just wasn't good enough today" Shaun rather than adding on the tired bit.

 

I would agree that during the match this morning the better player was victorious, but I think it was Federer's skill rather than Murray's tiredness that led to defeat.

 

I would reckon that in terms of what this tournament takes out of players both would have been at a similar level of fitness/fatigue.

 

Murray was only incredibly tired because Federer had im running the equivalent of a half marathon, while Fed barely broke a sweat.

 

No one can beat Federer when he plays like that. Being the 2nd best tennis player on the planet at the moment is no disgrace.

[Therapist]

Surely Shaun is just giving his opinion on the match, so that doesnt count either?

 

Incorrect.

 

I gave an opinion pre-match.

 

Shaun has stated what he believes to be a fact post-match.

 

There's a huge difference between the two scenarios.