Tennis!

[naiwf]

You know what's going to be funny? Watching you guys shit on Murray for being a complete and utter waste of air once he loses. The guy's an OK talent, and you're all setting him up for a huge fall regardless of how and when he crashes out.

[Summers]

All anyone is said is that he had a good day, looks good, and MIGHT be lucky to make it to the next week. No one's really built him up.

[Liam]

You know what's going to be funny? Watching you guys shit on Murray for being a complete and utter waste of air once he loses. The guy's an OK talent, and you're all setting him up for a huge fall regardless of how and when he crashes out.

←

It's the British way >_>

But really, he looks better than just being OK. Sure, he is young, but beating the World Number 13 (not just beating, but taking him apart) on a weaker surface than you like (as he prefers clay) is some feat.

[naiwf]

But really, he looks better than just being OK. Sure, he is young, but beating the World Number 13 (not just beating, but taking him apart) on a weaker surface than you like (as he prefers clay) is some feat.

←

[Liam]

But really, he looks better than just being OK. Sure, he is young, but beating the World Number 13 (not just beating, but taking him apart) on a weaker surface than you like (as he prefers clay) is some feat.

←

Since when is winning 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 "taking someone apart"? That's one break per set. And just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, would you say the guy that beat Henman is better than Murray considering he beat a higher ranked player on Henman's favorite surface? It's just one result against a guy who has never even made it to the 4th round in any of the 13 Grand Slam tourneys he's played in. Stepanek's not a top player, he just plays a ton of events and has cracked the top 20 as a result of staying busy. Just for completeness, the guy's record this year is now 30-16, which is fairly mediocre at best.

←

But he beat a decent player in the 1st round, also beat some people at Queens, before unluckily losing to Johansson (who he should have beaten, and was unlucky against). Whether Stepanek is any good or not, he is 13th in the world, so its an impressive feat, just like Henman's victor winning against Henman was an impressive feat, as is anytime someone punches above thier weight.

And don't be naive when you say "6-4, 6-4, 6-4 isn't taking someone apart", as it wasn't the score that was impressive (and when you say someone was taken apart, it isn't about the score/ratings/points/whatever the sport is judged on), just the fact that he totally outplayed him in all aspects. Stepanek never looked like getting on top, so yeah, I'd say he was taken apart. He wasn't "thrashed" or "drubbed" or "stuffed" which I would have said if it was 6-2, 6-1, 6-2 or something, but he tactically outclassed him really.

EDIT: Looking at how the game went as well, he was 5-2 up in the 2nd before beaing broken, and let Stepanek back in, and had 2 break/match points at 5-3 in the 3rd. Considering it was only his second match at Wimbledon, you can expect some mistakes due to nerves and such. If he hadn't have let him back in those 2 games, then it coulda been a drubbing.

Edited June 23, 2005 by kevinnashwannabe

[Grounded Wingman]

Nalbandian will be a level up for Murray from today's game.

I just watched Nalbandian beat Kucera in straight sets and Nalbandian looked damn impressive. 3 years ago Nalbandian was a Wimbledon finalist, that's what Murray is up against.

Any win from now on (even today's) is a massive win for Murray.

[Liam]

Nalbandian will be a level up for Murray from today's game.

I just watched Nalbandian beat Kucera in straight sets and Nalbandian looked damn impressive. 3 years ago Nalbandian was a Wimbledon finalist, that's what Murray is up against.

Any win from now on (even today's) is a massive win for Murray.

←

Nalbandian has been impressive for a while now, so I think Murray may struggle, but who knows?

[naiwf]

  And don't be naive when you say "6-4, 6-4, 6-4 isn't taking someone apart", as it wasn't the score that was impressive (and when you say someone was taken apart, it isn't about the score/ratings/points/whatever the sport is judged on), just the fact that he totally outplayed him in all aspects. Stepanek never looked like getting on top, so yeah, I'd say he was taken apart. He wasn't "thrashed" or "drubbed" or "stuffed" which I would have said if it was 6-2, 6-1, 6-2 or something, but he tactically outclassed him really.

←

[Summers]

In a football match, a team can win 1 - 0. But still completely out class the opposition. It's not always about the stats.

Edited June 23, 2005 by Summers

[Liam]

  And don't be naive when you say "6-4, 6-4, 6-4 isn't taking someone apart", as it wasn't the score that was impressive (and when you say someone was taken apart, it isn't about the score/ratings/points/whatever the sport is judged on), just the fact that he totally outplayed him in all aspects. Stepanek never looked like getting on top, so yeah, I'd say he was taken apart. He wasn't "thrashed" or "drubbed" or "stuffed" which I would have said if it was 6-2, 6-1, 6-2 or something, but he tactically outclassed him really.

←

Match Summary

Stepanek (CZE) Murray (GBR)

1st Serve % 63 of 93 = 68 % 41 of 86 = 48 % by 20%

Aces 5 7 by 2

Double Faults 3 2 by 1

Unforced Errors 26 19 by 7

Winning % on 1st Serve 43 of 63 = 68 % 37 of 41 = 90 % by 22%

Winning % on 2nd Serve 15 of 30 = 50 % 25 of 45 = 56 % by 6%

Winners (Including Service) 27 34 by 7

Receiving Points Won 24 of 86 = 28 % 35 of 93 = 38 % by 10%

Break Point Conversions 1 of 4 = 25 % 4 of 9 = 44 % by 19%

Net Approaches 37 of 73 = 51 % 9 of 13 = 69 % by 18%

Total Points Won 82 97 by 15

Fastest Serve 131 MPH 132 MPH by 1

Average 1st Serve Speed 117 MPH 123 MPH by 6

Average 2nd Serve Speed 104 MPH 93 MPH by 11

I fail to see where any of those numbers illustrate that Murray totally outclassed him. Stepanek didn't play well, and Murray didn't dominate him. As someone who doesn't care one way or the other about either guy, it was a relatively even match throughout, with Murray winning just enough points to get the straight sets victory.

←

I didn't say he outclassed him, just saying that he took him apart. At no time was there a doubt after he broke him in the first set, there wasn't really a time were Stepanek looked threatening, especially after the 3rd set.

Also, those stats show that pretty much in every aspect (apart from 1st serve percentage) he got better percentages than Stepanek. Some not by much, some by a lot......so didn't exactly show it as the "even match" you talked about.

Edited June 23, 2005 by kevinnashwannabe

[naiwf]

In a football, a team can win 1 - 0. But still completely out class the opposition. It's not always about the stats.

←

[Summers]

But I still fail to see where anyway has bigged him up to be that great.. He *was* the best player out there today.. as he won. But no one has said "He'll win the whole thing~!!" Everyone's said he looks good, he has potential to get better, and he had a good game today.

[Liam]

In a football, a team can win 1 - 0. But still completely out class the opposition. It's not always about the stats.

←

I realize that, but there was nothing dominant about his performance. I saw the bulk of the match, and Stepanek played like crap and was still in every set. It's not like he was down and out in every set, mounted a small comeback and still lost handily. Murray deserved to win, but let's not anoint him the best player on the court in any match he plays from here on out. I don't see him having a problem with Nalbandian, but wait until he plays a stud and wins before going crazy about him.

←

As Summers said, no-one was like "zOMG HE IS TEH BESTUST EVAR!", we just said it was an impressive match, as he is only 18,and it is only his second match at Wimbledon, and first match on one of the show courts, against a man ranked about 300 places above him. Impressive victory, whatever way you look at it.

[FLiam]

Hey naiwf, stop with the Anti-Murray stuff.

He is brilliant, let us celebrate his greatness.

He is the next Sampras you see.

Edited June 23, 2005 by Gooner4Life

[naiwf]

just the fact that he totally outplayed him in all aspects. . .  but he tactically outclassed him really.

←

Edited June 23, 2005 by naiwf

[Summers]

But we haven't fucking built him up like you've claimed we all have. This arguement's growing annoying now, as you're simply dodging that point.

[Liam]

just the fact that he totally outplayed him in all aspects. . .  but he tactically outclassed him really.

←

I didn't say he outclassed him, just saying that he took him apart. At no time was there a doubt after he broke him in the first set, there wasn't really a time were Stepanek looked threatening, especially after the 3rd set.

←

Do you mean what you say, or do you just throw around hyperbole for the sake of being dramatic? Maybe I just don't understand "the British way", but he didn't wow me at all. I'm still sure that you guys will shit on him when he eventually loses.

←

Do you just ignore the fact that A)Summer and I both said that no-one has classed him as the next anything, or the best thing since sliced bread (except for Gooner4Life, but I sense sarcasm)

or b) that your stats proved your "even match" theory wrong

because you'd rather get picky about semantics than answer questions that proves you to be wrong?

Sorry, I did say outclassed (which to certain extent, your ratings show....he didn't thrash him or anything, but he seemed to definitely outplay him, and those are based on the stats you brought into the talk), but I wonder if we'll get a "sorry, my stats actually do show that generally Murray was ahead of Stepanek pretty comfortably in all aspects" or "sorry, no-one actually has built him up as being anything overly special, I see that you just said he had a good win" from you.

And when he loses, he'll get fucking deified (sp?) whatever now for this year.....watch for next year when people crucify him.

Edited June 23, 2005 by kevinnashwannabe

[FLiam]

The only thing I am not looking foward to is seeing the papers tomorrow who will be claiming Murray has taken Henmans place, how Henman is going downhill and Murray is the new Sampras blah blah blah.

Just look at Rooney, new Pele, not quite.

English press suck. What annoys me most is that they don't pay attention to tennis hardly ever in the papers except the two weeks of Wimbledon and clearly don't see Henman doing well elsewhere, it just bugs me.

Edited June 23, 2005 by Gooner4Life

[naiwf]

I said Murray deserved to win the match before. I also said that the stats were about as close as you'll ever see for a straight sets victory. When 15 points seperates two players over the course of three full sets, it had to be a relatively close match. The victory was never in doubt because Stepanek is an average player who played poorly. If Murray takes out Nalbandian, and plays well in the round after that, then I'll give him the credit for having a breakthrough event.

[Liam]

The only thing I am not looking foward to is seeing the papers tomorrow who will be claiming Murray has taken Henmans place, how Henman is going downhill and Murray is the new Sampras blah blah blah.

English press suck. What annoys me most is that they don't pay attention to tennis hardly ever in the papers except the two weeks of Wimbledon and clearly don't see Henman doing well elsewhere, it just bugs me.

←

Not this year, but Henman did pretty good at the US and the French last year, if I remember rightly...might have been the Australian, not sure.

But yeah, the British media sucks.

EDIT: Maybe you are right in that sense, naiwf, but unlike a lot of other countries, we don't produce a lot of talented youngsters. Sure, Nadal is 19 and winning Grand Slam events, but we can't expect that from Murray at all, not even for the next 3-5 years. But for him to go in to his first Grand Slam, where most GBR women and men lost in the 1st round (only Rusedski, Sherwood, Henman and O Donoghue went through), and he is the only one in the 3rd round, it is a breakthrough in a sense. Just shows that he can perform on the bigger stage, not just the challenger circuits, or whatever they are called, and at a young age, it gives hope for a decent British male tennis player about in the future.

Edited June 23, 2005 by kevinnashwannabe