That's just totally contradictory, without the others playing their part we wouldn't be here, so no it isn't down to one man.
Well winning the QF, SF, final (the main matches) will be down to one-man most likely. If it wasn't why on earth would they play Murray in doubles when it'd be far easier rest him?
Andy was dead on his feet this afternoon. Without Colin stepping up to the plate he'd have lost the match in 5.
He really played a great point on the break-back point in that final set. We have decent doubles players, people like Marray and J. Murray, Wimbledon champs, can't get in. There's also Inglot and Hutchins.
He really played a great point on the break-back point in that final set. We have decent doubles players, people like Marray and J. Murray, Wimbledon champs, can't get in. There's also Inglot and Hutchins.
Murray played a bit of a singles match this morning! If the coach truly believed these guys were capable of winning they'd have been played instead of Murray surely?
He would need to beat Fognini tomorrow anyway so it would have been ideal to rest him
He really played a great point on the break-back point in that final set. We have decent doubles players, people like Marray and J. Murray, Wimbledon champs, can't get in. There's also Inglot and Hutchins.
Very surprised Marray doesn't get chosen more often.
Well winning the QF, SF, final (the main matches) will be down to one-man most likely. If it wasn't why on earth would they play Murray in doubles when it'd be far easier rest him?
Why wouldn't they play their best player, your argument is confusing. We haven't won all those ties yet, and as I say we wouldn't be here without the others, or perhaps Fleming. Ward gave Fog a match too, may have tired hin, who knows?
Murray played a bit of a singles match this morning! If the coach truly believed these guys were capable of winning they'd have been played instead of Murray surely?
He would need to beat Fognini tomorrow anyway so it would have been ideal to rest him
Again you choose your best players like in any sport, he still needed a decent partner.
Andy was dead on his feet this afternoon. Without Colin stepping up to the plate he'd have lost the match in 5.
Colin stepped up today. Against a players who mental stability on court is seriously questionable. (Saying that, good! Fabio will turn up tomorrow and beat Andy)
I wouldn't give Andy and Colin any chance against Berdych/Stepanek (who have never lost a davis cup doubles match together), or Federer/Wawrinka (if Stan turns up tomorrow) Plus those teams have players who can beat Andy in singles. Or probably whoever France threw in doubles if they make it through.
Why wouldn't they play their best player, your argument is confusing. We haven't won all those ties yet, and as I say we wouldn't be here without the others, or perhaps Fleming. Ward gave Fog a match too, may have tired hin, who knows?
But playing Murray so soon after finishing a singles match is a massive high-risk strategy surely? You're risking him being a bit off in the doubles match and running the even bigger risk of tiring him out for the singles match the next day. It'd surely be far more beneficial play a fresh doubles player?
Without another top singles player though it is a tricky position for Smith to be in. You NEED Murray winning his two singles but it's futile if they lose doubles
Colin stepped up today. Against a players who mental stability on court is seriously questionable. (Saying that, good! Fabio will turn up tomorrow and beat Andy)
I wouldn't give Andy and Colin any chance against Berdych/Stepanek (who have never lost a davis cup doubles match together), or Federer/Wawrinka (if Stan turns up tomorrow) Plus those teams have players who can beat Andy in singles. Or probably whoever France threw in doubles if they make it through.
Never thought I'd see Rog and Stan lose a doubles match. Strange things can happen in Davis Cup. The pressure is even more intense than a slam final.
But playing Murray so soon after finishing a singles match is a massive high-risk strategy surely? You're risking him being a bit off in the doubles match and running the even bigger risk of tiring him out for the singles match the next day. It'd surely be far more beneficial play a fresh doubles player?
Without another top singles player though it is a tricky position for Smith to be in. You NEED Murray winning his two singles but it's futile if they lose doubles
Smiths strategy of using Andy for the doubles is totally wrong and disrespectful to the other top GB doubles players who are more than capable of stepping up.
Smiths strategy of using Andy for the doubles is totally wrong and disrespectful to the other top GB doubles players who are more than capable of stepping up.
But my point is he clearly doesn't have faith in them
i.e. he's relying on Andy to bail them out in everything!
Colin stepped up today. Against a players who mental stability on court is seriously questionable. (Saying that, good! Fabio will turn up tomorrow and beat Andy)
I wouldn't give Andy and Colin any chance against Berdych/Stepanek (who have never lost a davis cup doubles match together), or Federer/Wawrinka (if Stan turns up tomorrow) Plus those teams have players who can beat Andy in singles. Or probably whoever France threw in doubles if they make it through.
I'd be amazed if he did
Murray is always hugely motivated in these matches, far more than even any Masters nowadays
He's a much better player than Fognini even on clay. No way I can see Murray losing this one.
Smiths strategy of using Andy for the doubles is totally wrong and disrespectful to the other top GB doubles players who are more than capable of stepping up.
I disagree. I don't care who plays, provided we win the match. If playing murray increases the odds even 15% of winning, I'd play him. Whatever gives us the best chance of winning is what we should care about.
But playing Murray so soon after finishing a singles match is a massive high-risk strategy surely? You're risking him being a bit off in the doubles match and running the even bigger risk of tiring him out for the singles match the next day. It'd surely be far more beneficial play a fresh doubles player?
Without another top singles player though it is a tricky position for Smith to be in. You NEED Murray winning his two singles but it's futile if they lose doubles
It was only part of a singles match, as others have said if it had gone longer he probably wouldn't have played.
Of course we're struggling without another top singles player, but both Evo and Ward have stood up in this comp. That's what Team comps are all about, be it the Ryder Cup, World Cups (of all sports), it's about people standing up when their country is involved, even if they're outclassed, it's why these things are fun:)
I disagree. I don't care who plays, provided we win the match. If playing murray increases the odds even 15% of winning, I'd play him. Whatever gives us the best chance of winning is what we should care about.
But his tactics could backfire tomorrow if Andy hasn't recovered and is too knackered to play.
I'd love to see what he'd do if they played Switzerland. Realistically you'd need a Murary near 100% to beat both Stan and Roger. If he plays doubles it's hard to imagine him being 100% for his last singles match but if they leave him out of doubles it's surely a massive ask to win
Can't they use any surface though? It's away I think if Kazakhstan win
Yes, I know it's away, but I'm just saying most teams away against us choose clay because it's not our best surface. The Kazakh can't really do that because they're awful on the surface.
I think hard court is probably our best, but grass will do.
Murray is always hugely motivated in these matches, far more than even any Masters nowadays
He's a much better player than Fognini even on clay. No way I can see Murray losing this one.
Not another assertion
We'll find out tomorrow if the relying on Murray strategy worked (Fog is no pushover especially on clay). GB are not the only side to have relied on one player though.
If the strategy works then fair enough, I'm not really that bothered who plays when ^_^
Comments
Well winning the QF, SF, final (the main matches) will be down to one-man most likely. If it wasn't why on earth would they play Murray in doubles when it'd be far easier rest him?
Murray always goes through slumps in matches doesn't mean hes "dead on his feet" he's one of the fittest players on tour. US open final ring a bell
Had they no Murray they wouldn't have been 2-0 up in the first place
He really played a great point on the break-back point in that final set. We have decent doubles players, people like Marray and J. Murray, Wimbledon champs, can't get in. There's also Inglot and Hutchins.
Murray played a bit of a singles match this morning! If the coach truly believed these guys were capable of winning they'd have been played instead of Murray surely?
He would need to beat Fognini tomorrow anyway so it would have been ideal to rest him
Very surprised Marray doesn't get chosen more often.
Why wouldn't they play their best player, your argument is confusing. We haven't won all those ties yet, and as I say we wouldn't be here without the others, or perhaps Fleming. Ward gave Fog a match too, may have tired hin, who knows?
If so is it the Swiss or Kazakhstan in the semi?
Again you choose your best players like in any sport, he still needed a decent partner.
Stan needs to win tomorrow which is looking dicey.
Colin stepped up today. Against a players who mental stability on court is seriously questionable. (Saying that, good! Fabio will turn up tomorrow and beat Andy)
I wouldn't give Andy and Colin any chance against Berdych/Stepanek (who have never lost a davis cup doubles match together), or Federer/Wawrinka (if Stan turns up tomorrow) Plus those teams have players who can beat Andy in singles. Or probably whoever France threw in doubles if they make it through.
Honestly would be amazing for us if Kazak win, they're not even good on clay, so we should walk it.
But playing Murray so soon after finishing a singles match is a massive high-risk strategy surely? You're risking him being a bit off in the doubles match and running the even bigger risk of tiring him out for the singles match the next day. It'd surely be far more beneficial play a fresh doubles player?
Without another top singles player though it is a tricky position for Smith to be in. You NEED Murray winning his two singles but it's futile if they lose doubles
Never thought I'd see Rog and Stan lose a doubles match. Strange things can happen in Davis Cup. The pressure is even more intense than a slam final.
Can't they use any surface though? It's away I think if Kazakhstan win
Smiths strategy of using Andy for the doubles is totally wrong and disrespectful to the other top GB doubles players who are more than capable of stepping up.
Ah now.
Poor Stan's mentality can't be 100% since the Australian. Understandable, I'd still be on the drink if I were him
But my point is he clearly doesn't have faith in them
i.e. he's relying on Andy to bail them out in everything!
I think he's afraid not to use Andy for personal reasons, which really should be kept out of it.
I'd be amazed if he did
Murray is always hugely motivated in these matches, far more than even any Masters nowadays
He's a much better player than Fognini even on clay. No way I can see Murray losing this one.
I disagree. I don't care who plays, provided we win the match. If playing murray increases the odds even 15% of winning, I'd play him. Whatever gives us the best chance of winning is what we should care about.
It was only part of a singles match, as others have said if it had gone longer he probably wouldn't have played.
Of course we're struggling without another top singles player, but both Evo and Ward have stood up in this comp. That's what Team comps are all about, be it the Ryder Cup, World Cups (of all sports), it's about people standing up when their country is involved, even if they're outclassed, it's why these things are fun:)
But his tactics could backfire tomorrow if Andy hasn't recovered and is too knackered to play.
Yes, I know it's away, but I'm just saying most teams away against us choose clay because it's not our best surface. The Kazakh can't really do that because they're awful on the surface.
I think hard court is probably our best, but grass will do.
Indeed. While it'll likely be ok versus Fognini, it very well may not be v Federer
Not another assertion
We'll find out tomorrow if the relying on Murray strategy worked (Fog is no pushover especially on clay). GB are not the only side to have relied on one player though.
If the strategy works then fair enough, I'm not really that bothered who plays when ^_^