Week 32 - ATP Masters 1000 - Montréal, Canada (Hard)

Allan94 · Lower Club Player

RE: Week 32 - ATP Masters 1000 - Montréal, Canada (Hard)

Allan94 · Lower Club Player

GSM Murray 6-4 7-6(2)

Allan94 · Lower Club Player

L16 Andy Murray WR 2 V Ernests Gulbis WR 38

RJA · Hall of fame

Not the best of performances but hardly surprising as it was his first match for a month. Stepped it up when needed.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Allan94 wrote:
L16 Andy Murray WR 2 V Ernests Gulbis WR 38

Well, that might be a match - you never know quite what you're going to get with Ernie . . .

indiana · Tennis legend

Also through to the last 16 is Vasek Pospisil, Evo's narrow conquerer in last wee's Vancouver Challenger final. He beat Stepanek 6-2 6-4 in R2.

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

How many points would Andy stand to gain if he won in Montreal?

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

BeefyDeedz wrote:
How many points would Andy stand to gain if he won in Montreal?

A total of 910 - that is 1000 for winning minus the 90 from last year that would come off.

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

Interesting. So while Andy has max points to defend at the USO, he has few points to defend at Montreal, Cincy and Paris. It'll be interesting to see where Murray finishes points-wise, especially with a possible Tour Finals points gain.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Bob in Spain wrote:
Not in the least bit surprised by this result and in truth, not too worried either.

This tournament was an accident waiting to happen. After the high of Wimbledon, it was always going to be difficult to achieve the level of intensity needed. Come the US Open, Andy will be ready and back in the zone.

Bob - I see the point you are trying to make but I also think that you are just making excuses. You are effectively saying that Gulbis only won because Murray did not perform at the level that he did a few weeks ago. Well Djokovic clearly did not perform at the level he had in previous rounds during the Wimbledon final for whatever reason (fatigue maybe?) but of course you Murray fans didn't take much notice of that and why would you? I realise you can't win all the time but Murray hasn't played a tournament for nearly a month so I also think your excuse is a poor one.

I just wander what you would have said if the roles had been reversed with Murray ranked 38 in the world and Gulbis was Wimbledon Champion? Would you have made such a remark about lack of intensity from Gulbis or would it have been more on the lines of a great result for Murray? I suspect the latter.

-- Edited by A131 on Thursday 8th of August 2013 09:33:40 PM

steven · Tennis legend

A131 wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
Not in the least bit surprised by this result and in truth, not too worried either.

This tournament was an accident waiting to happen. After the high of Wimbledon, it was always going to be difficult to achieve the level of intensity needed. Come the US Open, Andy will be ready and back in the zone.
Bob - I see the point you are trying to make but I also think that you are just making excuses. You are effectively saying that Gulbis only won because Murray did not perform at the level that he did a few weeks ago. Well Djokovic clearly did not perform at the level he had in previous rounds during the Wimbledon final for whatever reason (fatigue maybe?) but of course you Murray fans didn't take much notice of that and why would you? I realise you can't win all the time but Murray hasn't played a tournament for nearly a month so I also think your excuse is a poor one.
I just wander what you would have said if the roles had been reversed with Murray ranked 38 in the world and Gulbis was Wimbledon Champion? Would you have made such a remark about lack of intensity from Gulbis or would it have been more on the lines of a great result for Murray? I suspect the latter.

I'm sure Gulbis fans are calling it a great result for Ernests, which it is, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's anything more serious for Andy himself apart from the obvious embarrassment of losing to someone like that, so I don't really understand what your problem is with what Bob said. If Ernests beat Andy in a slam, it would be an even more brilliant result for him but hopefully that won't ever happen!

As for the Wimbledon Final, I'd say Andy played brilliantly that day and hopefully would have won anyway, but the fact that Djokovic was a bit fatigued was part of the reason why he finished him off in straight sets. It's very unusual for players to come into a match late into a tournament without any extraneous factors tipping the scales at least a little bit.

-- Edited by steven on Thursday 8th of August 2013 10:25:15 PM

DF · Tennis legend

Lost.4 - 6 3 - 6

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Not in the least bit surprised by this result and in truth, not too worried either.

This tournament was an accident waiting to happen. After the high of Wimbledon, it was always going to be difficult to achieve the level of intensity needed. Come the US Open, Andy will be ready and back in the zone.

RJA · Hall of fame

A131 wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
Not in the least bit surprised by this result and in truth, not too worried either.

This tournament was an accident waiting to happen. After the high of Wimbledon, it was always going to be difficult to achieve the level of intensity needed. Come the US Open, Andy will be ready and back in the zone.
Bob - I see the point you are trying to make but I also think that you are just making excuses. You are effectively saying that Gulbis only won because Murray did not perform at the level that he did a few weeks ago. Well Djokovic clearly did not perform at the level he had in previous rounds during the Wimbledon final for whatever reason (fatigue maybe?) but of course you Murray fans didn't take much notice of that and why would you? I realise you can't win all the time but Murray hasn't played a tournament for nearly a month so I also think your excuse is a poor one.
I just wander what you would have said if the roles had been reversed with Murray ranked 38 in the world and Gulbis was Wimbledon Champion? Would you have made such a remark about lack of intensity from Gulbis or would it have been more on the lines of a great result for Murray? I suspect the latter.

I think you have missed the point big time. Murray has made it pretty clear over the past couple of years that his priority is winning Slams. Montreal and Cincinnati are effectively warm up events for the US Open. Sure he would like to win one, or both, of them but I don't think he will be losing too much sleep tonight.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

A131 wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
Not in the least bit surprised by this result and in truth, not too worried either.

This tournament was an accident waiting to happen. After the high of Wimbledon, it was always going to be difficult to achieve the level of intensity needed. Come the US Open, Andy will be ready and back in the zone.
Bob - I see the point you are trying to make but I also think that you are just making excuses. You are effectively saying that Gulbis only won because Murray did not perform at the level that he did a few weeks ago. Well Djokovic clearly did not perform at the level he had in previous rounds during the Wimbledon final for whatever reason (fatigue maybe?) but of course you Murray fans didn't take much notice of that and why would you? I realise you can't win all the time but Murray hasn't played a tournament for nearly a month so I also think your excuse is a poor one.
I just wander what you would have said if the roles had been reversed with Murray ranked 38 in the world and Gulbis was Wimbledon Champion? Would you have made such a remark about lack of intensity from Gulbis or would it have been more on the lines of a great result for Murray? I suspect the latter.

-- Edited by A131 on Thursday 8th of August 2013 09:33:40 PM

Am I an Andy Murray fan ? Yes - and unashamedly so. Consequently my comments are normally going to focus on Andy and I will look at things from an Andy perspective.

This doesn't mean that I don't respect the other players. I am sure that Gulbis played a great game today and deserved his win. But having not seen the match, I cannot comment on what actually happened. But if you read through the thread "Battle for Top 3", you will see that I stated before the tournament even started that I feared for Andy in this tournament. My comment today is not simply a kneejerk reaction to a poor result. Was it lack on intensity or simply rustiness having not played for a month - who knows.

If you are trying to tell me that ANY player would be equally motivated for a L16 Masters match and a Grand Slam (Wimbledon) Final, we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

But if it will make you feel better - Congratulations Ernest. Very well played and good luck for the next round.

With regard to my comments on Andy, I stand by what I said.