Its done in a DRAW - so some players will come out of it with easier times than others!:D
Exactly. You can't really do it a fairer way. He can only beat what's put in front of him and if he wins all seven of them over the fortnight, then he deserves to be champion.
Who picks them out of the hat his mother and sponsers or the LTA that benefits from a win?
I'm assuming it's done by the Wimbledon committee and is observed by adjudicators. The draw really isn't biased in Murray's favour and against Nadal, despite what you may think.
I'm assuming it's done by the Wimbledon committee and is observed by adjudicators. The draw really isn't biased in Murray's favour and against Nadal, despite what you may think.
Well tbh it really did seem an easy ride last year except Djokovich in the final who played abysmally. I said to others its like he had a snowy path that had been cleared so he could walk without slipping, this with the BBC almost peeing their pants (prior to his win) just seemed all to cosy. Just hope this year is not a repeat...
Well tbh it really did seem an easy ride last year except Djokovich in the final who played abysmally. I said to others its like he had a snowy path that had been cleared so he could walk without slipping, this with the BBC almost peeing their pants (prior to his win) just seemed all to cosy. Just hope this year is not a repeat...
He only had an 'easy' (and I use that term loosely, considering that no opponent in a Grand Slam is a muppet) ride to the final last year because Nadal and Federer fell in the early rounds to opponents they should've breezed through against. Without that he'd have had to beat both before he even came up against Djokovic. Not exactly Murray's fault if some of the big names slip up early on.
You can only beat the players in front of you, and if you do that, you deserve to win it, regardless of who you have to play.
First two matches against two players seeded 92 and 95.
Compare this with Rafas first two matches opponents seeded 50 and 51???
Shouldn't it be shaken up so it is fair and equal?
I am assuming that you do know that it was a higher ranked player who lost to seed 95 in round 1 ? So had he won, Murray would have been playing a top 64 player. But don't let logic come into your argument will you ?
I am assuming that you do know that it was a higher ranked player who lost to seed 95 in round 1 ? So had he won, Murray would have been playing a top 64 player. But don't let logic come into your argument will you ?
It doesn't work like that here Darren. Pablo Andujar who lost to Rola is ranked 80.
Outwith the 32 seeds anyone can be placed anywhere in the draw.
I am assuming that you do know that it was a higher ranked player who lost to seed 95 in round 1 ? So had he won, Murray would have been playing a top 64 player. But don't let logic come into your argument will you ?
It wasn't rigged last year. And it's not rigged this year either. It's still week 1 for heavens sake.
No grand slam tournament has ever been rigged to ensure that a specific player wins it.
And looking back to last year nobody can truly say that Federer or Nadal would have beaten him if they had progressed as expected. Nadal and Federer did not perform well enough to progress to meetings with Murray last year so the "What if" and "But if" arguments were completely irrelevant. "But if" and "what if" have always been pointless arguments anyway because what happens happens and that's the only thing that really matters at the end of the day. The bottom line has always been to beat 7 players over best of 5 sets in a fortnight to become the champion, not who you beat to do so and how you've won it.
And Verdasco and Janowicz proved to be difficult obstacles for Murray and Murray's wins over them were highly worthy wins for the grand slam quarter and semi final stages.
And 3-0 straight sets in a big 4 v big 4 grand slam match happens a lot more than many people think, and likewise a big 4 being taken to a 5th set and/or deep in the 4th set by a non big 4 in a grand slam match happens a lot more than many people think. It often happens in the same grand slam tournament as well. Last year's Wimbledon in actual fact.
Well tbh it really did seem an easy ride last year except Djokovich in the final who played abysmally. I said to others its like he had a snowy path that had been cleared so he could walk without slipping, this with the BBC almost peeing their pants (prior to his win) just seemed all to cosy. Just hope this year is not a repeat...
Three-love between 2 big 4 players in a grand slam semi final or final is not anywhere near as weird or odd as many people think.
Murray could do the same to Djokovic again in the semi final like he did in the final last year if they meet.
Nadal and Federer could both very well lose before the final again this year, and Murray if he makes the final may do another 3-0 demolition job or a comfy looking 4 set win (winning 6/2 or 6/3 in the 4th) against Nadal or Federer if either of them make the final as well.
Murray winning a grand slam or not is no longer hanging on whether or not he faces Nadal or Federer or both (plus Djokovic). Murray can certainly win grand slam titles facing 2 or even all 3 of them along the way now. Murray has long since broken the psychological barrier. And in style too.
First two matches against two players seeded 92 and 95.
Compare this with Rafas first two matches opponents seeded 50 and 51???
Shouldn't it be shaken up so it is fair and equal?
Harder draw at the beginning usually means an easier draw somewhere down the line, if you can keep winning.
All of that's on paper though. You know for a fact that there will be a qualifier somewhere who plays far beyond his ranking just the same as there will be a seeded player who plays below himself.
In any case, both Nadal and Murray are at a level that losing to anyone (no matter their ranking) in rounds 1 or 2 would be a terrible tournament, even if they drew the highest ranked player they could in round 1 (I'm not sure if that would be the 33rd ranked player?).
It's just a pity they didn't think about clearing the way for Henman 15 years ago; they could really have cleaned up with him winning it.
Took a big risk with Murray too! Seeding him in Rafa's half last two years after Nadal beating him three times at WImby. Oh and he was drawn in Rafa's half in 09 too before Nadal pulled out.
Wouldn't it have been a lot more convenient put him in Ferrer's half last year?
Comments
I really don't think that has got anything to do with my question.
Exactly. You can't really do it a fairer way. He can only beat what's put in front of him and if he wins all seven of them over the fortnight, then he deserves to be champion.
Who picks them out of the hat his mother and sponsers or the LTA that benefits from a win?
I'm assuming it's done by the Wimbledon committee and is observed by adjudicators. The draw really isn't biased in Murray's favour and against Nadal, despite what you may think.
Well tbh it really did seem an easy ride last year except Djokovich in the final who played abysmally. I said to others its like he had a snowy path that had been cleared so he could walk without slipping, this with the BBC almost peeing their pants (prior to his win) just seemed all to cosy. Just hope this year is not a repeat...
It's random. That is the quintessence of "fair and equal".
Just because Nadal doesn't get a buy through to the final doesn't mean it's unfair.
What unlike Murray you mean...two years on the trot...
they could have 64
or have 96, give the top 32 a bye into round 2, and the last 64 play off in round 1.
just a thought.
He only had an 'easy' (and I use that term loosely, considering that no opponent in a Grand Slam is a muppet) ride to the final last year because Nadal and Federer fell in the early rounds to opponents they should've breezed through against. Without that he'd have had to beat both before he even came up against Djokovic. Not exactly Murray's fault if some of the big names slip up early on.
You can only beat the players in front of you, and if you do that, you deserve to win it, regardless of who you have to play.
I am assuming that you do know that it was a higher ranked player who lost to seed 95 in round 1 ? So had he won, Murray would have been playing a top 64 player. But don't let logic come into your argument will you ?
It doesn't work like that here Darren. Pablo Andujar who lost to Rola is ranked 80.
Outwith the 32 seeds anyone can be placed anywhere in the draw.
No what I mean DC, is that had Rola not won then Murray would have been playing a higher seeded player. But that doesn't enter the OP's mind
)
No grand slam tournament has ever been rigged to ensure that a specific player wins it.
And looking back to last year nobody can truly say that Federer or Nadal would have beaten him if they had progressed as expected. Nadal and Federer did not perform well enough to progress to meetings with Murray last year so the "What if" and "But if" arguments were completely irrelevant. "But if" and "what if" have always been pointless arguments anyway because what happens happens and that's the only thing that really matters at the end of the day. The bottom line has always been to beat 7 players over best of 5 sets in a fortnight to become the champion, not who you beat to do so and how you've won it.
And Verdasco and Janowicz proved to be difficult obstacles for Murray and Murray's wins over them were highly worthy wins for the grand slam quarter and semi final stages.
And 3-0 straight sets in a big 4 v big 4 grand slam match happens a lot more than many people think, and likewise a big 4 being taken to a 5th set and/or deep in the 4th set by a non big 4 in a grand slam match happens a lot more than many people think. It often happens in the same grand slam tournament as well. Last year's Wimbledon in actual fact.
And Nadal's first round match v about 135 last year which he lost and second round match v 100 the year before which (you guessed it) he lost
Three-love between 2 big 4 players in a grand slam semi final or final is not anywhere near as weird or odd as many people think.
Murray could do the same to Djokovic again in the semi final like he did in the final last year if they meet.
Nadal and Federer could both very well lose before the final again this year, and Murray if he makes the final may do another 3-0 demolition job or a comfy looking 4 set win (winning 6/2 or 6/3 in the 4th) against Nadal or Federer if either of them make the final as well.
Murray winning a grand slam or not is no longer hanging on whether or not he faces Nadal or Federer or both (plus Djokovic). Murray can certainly win grand slam titles facing 2 or even all 3 of them along the way now. Murray has long since broken the psychological barrier. And in style too.
Harder draw at the beginning usually means an easier draw somewhere down the line, if you can keep winning.
All of that's on paper though. You know for a fact that there will be a qualifier somewhere who plays far beyond his ranking just the same as there will be a seeded player who plays below himself.
In any case, both Nadal and Murray are at a level that losing to anyone (no matter their ranking) in rounds 1 or 2 would be a terrible tournament, even if they drew the highest ranked player they could in round 1 (I'm not sure if that would be the 33rd ranked player?).
No, no, no ... it's the The Wombles of Wimbledon - Great Uncle Bulgaria, Orinoco & Tobermory who make the draw each year.
How could you not know this?
..........
Do you really honestly think the draw is rigged, and Rafa & Roger were 'persuaded' to lose early last year so Andy would have an easier draw?
It's just a pity they didn't think about clearing the way for Henman 15 years ago; they could really have cleaned up with him winning it.
Henman's mum looks the shy, respectable type. She would have balked at such subterfuge.
Took a big risk with Murray too! Seeding him in Rafa's half last two years after Nadal beating him three times at WImby. Oh and he was drawn in Rafa's half in 09 too before Nadal pulled out.
Wouldn't it have been a lot more convenient put him in Ferrer's half last year?