Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 Jan 13
10:32
Joined:
Date Joined:
09 May 05
He has really surpassed my expectations and probably 99.999% of everyone else`s expectations.
He is challenging in an era which includes probably the 2 greatest hard court players of all time in Federer and Djokovic. Murray has probably matched and perhaps passed the ability of an ageing Federer and is snapping on the heals of Djokovic.
Yet barring the injured Nadal. No other player is can consistently get a look in against these 3 greats. Obviously Murray has had to raise his game to try and match the unbelievably high standards set by Federer and over the last 2 seasons Federer. Yet Murray has created quite a gap to extremely good players such as Ferrer, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga and Co... ..Would Murray have been more than a match for the previous greats in the game, and beat them consistently?
He is challenging in an era which includes probably the 2 greatest hard court players of all time in Federer and Djokovic. Murray has probably matched and perhaps passed the ability of an ageing Federer and is snapping on the heals of Djokovic.
Yet barring the injured Nadal. No other player is can consistently get a look in against these 3 greats. Obviously Murray has had to raise his game to try and match the unbelievably high standards set by Federer and over the last 2 seasons Federer. Yet Murray has created quite a gap to extremely good players such as Ferrer, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga and Co... ..Would Murray have been more than a match for the previous greats in the game, and beat them consistently?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 72
|
By:
In the pre federer era he may have done ok.
|
|
By:
ffs typo`s
He has really surpassed my expectations and probably 99.999% of everyone else`s expectations. He is challenging in an era which includes probably the 2 greatest hard court players of all time in Federer and Djokovic. Murray has probably matched and perhaps passed the ability of an ageing Federer and is snapping on the heals of Djokovic. Yet barring the injured Nadal. No other player can consistently get a look in against these 3 greats. Obviously Murray has had to raise his game to try and match the unbelievably high standards set by Federer and over the last 2 seasons Djokovic. Yet Murray has created quite a gap to extremely good players such as Ferrer, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga and Co... ..Would Murray have been more than a match for the previous greats in the game, and beat them consistently? |
|
By:
Joel
How much has Federer lost iyo? Has the bar been raised by Djokovic? Before Djokovic improved, Federer had it easy. I mean how good is Andy Roddick? |
|
By:
I actually think that if Federer was the same age as Murray it would still be extremely close between them.
|
|
By:
he's already had a career most players could only dream of. as you say fed/djok/nadal are 3 of the best ever so fair play to him that he has been able to stay competitive.
djokovic looks a wee bit ahead of the rest at the mo but murray is not far behind at all. |
|
By:
It's impossible to say exactly how well he would have faired. As you say the high standards have spurred him on to become an even better player than he may have been in another era. Then you have to consider the slowing down of the courts, Aus is a ridiculously slow court, the slower balls and advances in rackets and strings all which benefit Murray more so relatively compared to players in previous eras.
He would have competed but not dominate in my opinion |
|
By:
northanlite
I would go as far as saying Fed/Djork are the BEST EVER hard court players and Nadal is best ever clay court player. So what an era. The gap between Murray and the chasing pack is surprising. |
|
By:
Murray vs Agassi would have been interesting.
|
|
By:
do you think the rackets/strings help murray?
if there is one thing he has been vulnerable to it has been a real ball basher type who really do benefit from the extra power and sweet spot of rackets. i think with his touch & movement he would have been pretty effective with the an old dunlop maxply or wilson jack kramer autograph(i've still got one of them) |
|
By:
No. He was lucky to win he did in weather conditions that created a lottery.
|
|
By:
I'd say yes, but that would apply to any of the top 10, such is the extreme competitiveness of the men's game and the technical expertise these days. But yeah, he's bloody good. Compare that to the women's game,where someone can take 12 years off and still bumble into the third round of a slam aged 42. Federer is the real miracle though, to be that competitive at the very top level for so long is remarkable.
|
|
By:
People forget how good Pete Sampras was. 7 wimbledons and 5 us opens.
|
|
By:
yes every generation has "the best ever" its media bollox. Tennis is just more so with "4 best ever" at the same time ffs
 |
|
By:
Sampras had nobody to beat.
|
|
By:
Jim Courier
 |
|
By:
could say the same about Djokovic. Federer is 31 - a geriatric in tennis terms but still beat him at Wimbledon and was #1 again for a time last year. Nadal is injured most of the time these days.
Djok and Murray are nowhere near as good as people think. Their success is largely based on being able to retrieve almost anything - noone can hit winners past them. They'll be shot in a couple of years. |
|
By:
in the sampras-agassi era he would have won around 6 majors i reckon
|
|
By:
AT
 |
|
By:
Their success is largely based on being able to retrieve almost anything - noone can hit winners past them.
 Surely this is a weapon A_T and if you combine it with all the winners which they hit then you have the greatest players. You seem to have contradicted your point. |
|
By:
I haven't contradicted myself at all stop making things up AG you frequently do this.
|
|
By:
Of course you have.
Djok and Murray are nowhere near as good as people think. Their success is largely based on being able to retrieve almost anything - noone can hit winners past them. A great defence is the sign of being really good. There is more than one way of winning a point. So they hit less UE than other players and force their opponents from side to side and out think with drop shots. You are inferring that this is a negative to prove their greatness.  Go and check Djokovics` winner ratio to UE ratio. To say he is no way near as good as what people think because no one can hit winners past him is ridiculous and contradicts the point you are trying to make. |
|
By:
Djok and Murray are nowhere near as good as people think. Their success is largely based on being able to retrieve almost anything - noone can hit winners past winners past them.
That is right up there with the stupidest things I've seen on this forum |
|
By:
Yeah I agree. We have FOUR Sampras's not NO Sampras's. Men's tennis has never had four players so consistently make the semis. Murray's in the semi tomorrow and I'm not even excited, it was that predictable. Of the four, Murray is of course the least successful, so far, but yeah I think they probably are the best four ever.
|
|
By:
northanlite
He even accused me of making it up |
|
By:
That`s it Clunge, we just take it for granted that Murray gets to the last 4 because the gap between himself and the pack is substantial.
Obviously Samprass would probably be superior to Murray on grass but on hard courts i think Murray is too hard to break down and that he would have a consistent edge on Samprass. |
|
By:
I remember at the end of the US Open people asking why Murray wasn't happier - the answer was of course that he'd given so much he could barely walk. I'm no fan of sportsmen crying but I remember Federer crying and realising that was because he'd also given absolutely everything and it hadn't been enough.
|
|
By:
Tennis fans have been blessed over the last few years. Unfortunately Nadal`s knee is taking the toll of all his commitment but still i`m sure that in a decade or so we will realise what a great period of tennis this really is.
|
|
By:
Nadal strikes me as being like Tiger Woods or...in a day gone by, Seb Coe...he's so concentrated on making his body as athletic as possible he's extremely prone to injury. Read an article a while back about how Craig Stadtler just...never got injured!
|
|
By:
ffs chit chat no longer obsessed with muzza?!
|
|
By:
A_T
Murray and Djokovic so bad they are in Sundays final and easily the best 2 players around. |
|
By:
Every recent major force in the game had a 'lucky break' that allowed them to kickstart a good run of wins.
For Federer, rafa and Djoko the lucky break was meeting a doughball in their first final. Murray never had that luxury (meeting grade A winners in each if his first three finals) But in fact his lucky break did come, it was just a bit different i.e. nadal's long ongoing wait for the B-test results of whether his knee is any better Nadal was becoming a bit of an ongoing jinx before the enforced layoff. |
|
By:
Since 2008
Murray is 5-4 up against Nadal on Hard Courts. So he had more than proved himself against even a fit Nadal. |
|
By:
Just to add
Murray is 3-2 up since 2010 so i don`t really see Nadal being a jinx at all on hard courts. |
|
By:
Murray and Djokovic so bad they are in Sundays final and easily the best 2 players around.
they're the 2 best players no doubt - they're just not the all-time greats many people think they are. a 25 year old Federer, Sampras or McEnroe would have wiped the floor with Murray today. |
|
By:
Federer yes perhaps.
But McEnroe only ever once made the Semi finals in the Australian Open |
|
By:
Noone cared about the Aussie Open until recently. McEnroe, Borg, Connors rarely even bothered going.
It's a symptom of today's short attention spans and lack of critical thinking that people always think what they're seeing is the best ever. Sprinter Sacre is another case. |
|
By:
not much point comparing one generation with another. who knows how sampras or mcenroe or for that matter rod laver, don budge or rene lacoste would have got on had they played now.
but you are right AT if it wasn't for the fact they keep getting the ball back in play those two in sunday's final would struggle |
|
By:
the talk about Murray morphing into some sort of superhuman in the last 12 months is laughable. he was ranked #3 nearly 4 years ago FFS. all that's happened recently is that Federer's getting old and Nadal's body is fcked.
|
|
By:
AT
No doubting there is a short attention span because people are turned on for this moment, today, now. But to say .. a 25 year old Federer, Sampras or McEnroe would have wiped the floor with Murray today. is as daft as anything the short attention span non critical thinkers would come with. I think that if you throw Samprass into the mix now as a 25 year old and he would have his work cut out because if you compare the movement of Fed, Djork and Murray then you start to understand why they have broken away. Agassi, Samprass and the other greats have admitted that Federer took the game to another level, which is why players such as Djork and Murray had to raise their own bar to get compete competitive. Their fitness is unbelievable. |