kundalini wrote:

---

Yes I too would have Andy as 3rd favourite but a very distant third, highly unlikely to win it third, rather than a 20% chance of taking the title.

At the US Open last year I thought Andy would beat Roger in the final. At Aus this year I thought he was perhaps a slight favourite going into the event. Had Andy won either of those Slams then I would have had him as a close 3rd favourite.

My initial post was simply meant to point out why I thought Andy was unlikely to win Wimbledon this year so I was highlighting his weaknesses. And if you look carefully at his last 4 Slams, he lost tamely to Nadal at Wimbledon. He froze against Federer. He was ill against Verdasco and the Gonzalez match was a weird mix of being beaten by the superior player in the first set, fighting back to level then handing Fernando the 3rd and 4th sets with terrible play. Andy's fighting qualities have been far more evident in the matches he has won rather than his defeats in recent times. Going back a few years he was losing epic encounters such as the Nadal match at Aus, Clement at US Open, Nalbandian at Wimbledon etc.

The reason I mentioned a possible departure at the quarter final stage is that Andy seems vulnerable to a good player playing well on the day. His approach to most matches is essentially Brad Gilbert's Winning Ugly tennis, which for those who haven't read the book, is a focus on asking your opponent to hit his least favourite shot, especially on the key points. Now I would argue that such a strategy works well against players of modest ability and even top players who aren't on form but it leaves you vulnerable against a high quality opponent who is playing well because they will have won the point before you have the chance to hit a short slice to their forehand, a high ball to their backhand, or invited them into the net to expose their lack of volleying ability. The opposite approach is to attempt to win the point before your opponent gets the chance to strike a winner. Andy adopts this strategy in some of his matches against Nadal on hardcourt and a few other matches such as Wawrinka at the US Open last year.

On the issue of holding serve, it strikes me that Andy does not give as much thought to constructing points so they can be won within the first 6 shots, as other top players. This is especially true on 2nd serve. While Andy tends to do well with unreturned first serves, he appears to win far fewer points with his first groundstroke behind the serve and indeed his second, compared to Novak, Rafa and Roger. Many times it looks as though Andy's mindset is "let's have a long rally". Even on first serve there are times when Andy will simply get the ball in play. Add to this the fact that Andy's first serve percentage is typically 5% below the other contenders and sometimes worse than that. It is very rare for Andy to serve aggressively at 70% first serves in play. If his stats are around 70% it is normally a sign of long spells of passive serving such as occurred in the recent loss to Gonzalez.

Thank you to all those who have defended my honour in this thread.





-- Edited by kundalini on Wednesday 10th of June 2009 02:51:26 PM

---

As I seem to have devoted most energy to having a pop it only seems fair to reply to your follow up.

P1 agree but would say he's got a 10%ish chance though that's completely unscientific of course

P2 agree completely

p3 still don't agree entirely

p4 disagree,when Andy executes his preferred gamestyle well, as his record against Djokovic and Federer(9-6) suggests, even the best struggle.

p5 agree mostly,it was the mention of 1st serve% without qualification I objected to.The lack of thought in his service games is deeply frustrating.His 1st serve % this year isn't below Federer's though.

I think you have a clear and almost certainly correct vision of the most effective way for an automaton Andy to play.The problem is playing against your nature can be counter productive even when tactically sound.The Gonzalez match was a case in point for me.For short spells Andy was agressive,as soon as he had a bad miss he retreated to the comfort of running balls down.

Can anyone tell me if it's possible to reply directly beneath the text you're replying to?With my rambling sentences I am even more open to saying things I don't intend when quoting in one big clump.

 

angry1 wrote:

---

Can anyone tell me if it's possible to reply directly beneath the text you're replying to?With my rambling sentences I am even more open to saying things I don't intend when quoting in one big clump.

 

---

I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but anyway...

My understanding is that however you post, it will go as the latest post on the thread.  I don't think there is any way of having your reply directly under the post you are replying to if the thread has moved on.

It is just that if you use"quote" that particular post comes up as a quote in your reply.  The option is there while you write that reply to edit down the quoted post if you so wish.

indiana wrote:

---

angry1 wrote:

---

 

Maybe I'm a sour git but I have been polite to you.If you wish to lecture me,and make repeated digs about "he really did say"and the like, then mocking me undermines that.

 

---

I am sorry that you feel that way.

I genuinely did and still do think you were reading into kundalini's things that were not there.  As many folk know I am a big Andy Murray supporter and hells teeth I am as much on the rampage as anyone if I see folk saying things against him that I simply don't believe to be true. 

Your quarters v semis comment did I am afraid seem to me have little foundation. I tried to refer to it quite jokingly.  I am sorry you saw it as mocking, and I can in retrospect see how that might have come across, it was not my intention. But to humourously ( im my mind ) just disagree that you had a point.  It did follow quite soon after I saw a quite hilarious short post from someone else in the Queens thread ( and I make no apologies whatever for laughing at the Queens one   )

As for spelling and punctuation, check for a moment how often I have to edt my posts, and stiill some of the stuff that I leave for fear of beating world edit records    I am far far more interested in what folk say, and sometimes the manner in which they say it, than actually structural things like spelling and punctuation.  As long as posts are clearly understandable, as your posts certainly are, I don't have any problems at all.  Such issues had never entered ny head.

Again, I am sorry if I have said things in a way that you didn't like. No offense was meant.

Anyway, kundalini has now spoken, it is interesting to see that he does make Andy 3rd favourite, however distant a 3rd.  That would have been my guess as to what he thought, though i wasn't sure.  Personally I'd make him quite a bit closer to Rafa, even a fully fit Rafa.  To my mind Andy's general game has moved up a fair level from what was undoubtably a very disappointing loss to Rafa at Wimbledon last year, but then even last year's Andy simply didn't really turn up that day.

Anyway, I'll leave you to take issue or not with kundalini.

  

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 10th of June 2009 03:33:14 PM

---

The inability to convey tone often makes me overly humourless in places like this.As such I tend to overreact to posts like that.I normally avoid risking mockery as you can't tell if it's gentle or unpleasant in tone,your post was clearly the former.My problem in interpretation,caused in part by suspicion and dislike of emoticons.

I took the reiteration of serving criticisms as intending to increase the weight of them, you correctly didn't,as we can now tell.

 

Again, I am sorry if I have said things in a way that you didn't like. No offense was meant.