Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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?
Show More
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?
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?
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?
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?
I actually think that if Federer was the same age as Murray it would still be extremely close between them.
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.
djokovic looks a wee bit ahead of the rest at the mo but murray is not far behind at all.
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
He would have competed but not dominate in my opinion
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.
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.
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)
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)
No. He was lucky to win he did in weather conditions that created a lottery.
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.
People forget how good Pete Sampras was. 7 wimbledons and 5 us opens.
yes every generation has "the best ever" its media bollox. Tennis is just more so with "4 best ever" at the same time ffs 
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.
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.
in the sampras-agassi era he would have won around 6 majors i reckon
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.
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.
I haven't contradicted myself at all stop making things up AG you frequently do this.
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.
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.
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
That is right up there with the stupidest things I've seen on this forum
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
ffs chit chat no longer obsessed with muzza?!
A_T
Murray and Djokovic so bad they are in Sundays final and easily the best 2 players around.
Murray and Djokovic so bad they are in Sundays final and easily the best 2 players around.
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.
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.
Since 2008
Murray is 5-4 up against Nadal on Hard Courts.
So he had more than proved himself against even a fit Nadal.
Murray is 5-4 up against Nadal on Hard Courts.
So he had more than proved himself against even a fit Nadal.
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.
Murray is 3-2 up since 2010 so i don`t really see Nadal being a jinx at all on hard courts.
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.
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.
Federer yes perhaps.
But McEnroe only ever once made the Semi finals in the Australian Open
But McEnroe only ever once made the Semi finals in the Australian Open
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
AT
Since 2008
Murray is 5-4 up against Nadal on Hard Courts.
So he had more than proved himself against even a fit Nadal.
Since 2008
Murray is 5-4 up against Nadal on Hard Courts.
So he had more than proved himself against even a fit Nadal.
With McEnroe it all depends on how much physical training he would be willing to do. His touch would not be enough alone. He would have to really hammer it in the gym.
Would he be able to move with the top guys now.
Would he be able to move with the top guys now.
Nadal has always had a lot of physical problems with hard courts - lots of heavy defeats at slams to lesser players like Tsonga, Ferrer, Gonzalez when his body has given way. Nadal's crushed Murray all 3 times they've met at Wimbledon.
The top of the thread clearly says Hard Courts
By the way AT Sprinter Sacre has already hit the same rating as Moscow flyer after only 6 chases. It took Moscow Flyer at most of his career to get even close. I would rather listen to the handicapper, Barry G, NH and the other pundits when assessing how good SS is.
By the way AT Sprinter Sacre has already hit the same rating as Moscow flyer after only 6 chases. It took Moscow Flyer at most of his career to get even close. I would rather listen to the handicapper, Barry G, NH and the other pundits when assessing how good SS is.
To address the thread title directly the answer is "most certainly not".
Personally I think Andy and Murray should both have a damn good thrashing and be sent back to school. Whoever they are
it never did me any harm
it never did me any harm
Regardless of surface, Nadal had become Murray's problem.
I don't think in any other era 'peak' Murray could have been stopped. He's seriously that good.
Sampras would certainly have been pleased to have taken a set or two off him at best, and even then only on grass.
But Nadal just got into his head regardless of surface and on clay, grass AND hard court he repeatedly took Murray out of the slams in 2011.
When the final tally of Murray's titles is done, we will look back to Nadal's silent knee ban as the key moment of opportunity.
I don't think in any other era 'peak' Murray could have been stopped. He's seriously that good.
Sampras would certainly have been pleased to have taken a set or two off him at best, and even then only on grass.
But Nadal just got into his head regardless of surface and on clay, grass AND hard court he repeatedly took Murray out of the slams in 2011.
When the final tally of Murray's titles is done, we will look back to Nadal's silent knee ban as the key moment of opportunity.
Glad we agree AG
For the record on Sunday I'm expecting a heavy defeat for Murray.
For the record on Sunday I'm expecting a heavy defeat for Murray.
Can't fault Murray for coming unstuck against Nadal. Nadal is a monster competitor and the most intimidating player the game has ever seen (ask Fed). Always interesting to debate players of different eras. Mac will always be the greatest talent for me, but the game has changed beyond recognition since his heyday.
Murray would have learned to beat Nadal, just as he learned to beat Federer and Djokovic.
Thanks Alias. Heels is indeed correct.
Nadal had really started to read Murray`s game, and with Murray`s two handed backhand, Nadal was consistently bending the ball away as a left hander meaning all Murray could do was slice the ball back, allowing Nadal to gain the momentum in the rally. This happened time and time again. I have to agree that Nadal had the measure of Murray big time.
Nadal had really started to read Murray`s game, and with Murray`s two handed backhand, Nadal was consistently bending the ball away as a left hander meaning all Murray could do was slice the ball back, allowing Nadal to gain the momentum in the rally. This happened time and time again. I have to agree that Nadal had the measure of Murray big time.
erm they all had murray's number in the slams until after wimbledon ffs
he's a different play now and rafa hasn't even hit a ball
he's a different play now and rafa hasn't even hit a ball
yeah the big difference for Murray has been Nadal being injured and Federer's powers diminishing. Murray could still win a fair few slams though because there is noone in the 18-22 age bracket who looks remotely capable of getting to a slam final nevermind winning one. It was a real shame Del Potro got injured when he did he was up there with the top 4 and hasn't been able to recapture that form.
I put del potro, ferrer, tsonga and co in the same bracket as the likes of kuerten, kafelnikov, courier etc. capable of winning a few majors between them but shut out (bar one for potro) because of the top two(then three and now four).
Murray is more controlled on court and his serve has improved since Nadal has been injured but i still feel Nadal would beat him more than not.
Fed was on top after the 4th set in the Aus semi the other day, but seemed to wilt all of a sudden from the beginning of the 5th. Not sure Murray is a `different player` since Nadal got injured. Sure he is more finally tuned but Nadal had him running from side to side and dominating him.
Fed was on top after the 4th set in the Aus semi the other day, but seemed to wilt all of a sudden from the beginning of the 5th. Not sure Murray is a `different player` since Nadal got injured. Sure he is more finally tuned but Nadal had him running from side to side and dominating him.
Murray won the olympics and the US Open. He won the last two big events and is in the final of this one. Hard to say if that is because he has "stepped up" or not, but he HAS won whereas before healways failed at the final hurdle. Now he knows he can, and has, won and you cant buy or fake that kind of mental confidence.
I didn't think Fed was ever on top to be honest. He had to play **** or bust tennis to get out of Dodge in the 4th and you can't keep that up. More importantly, I think Murray thought that also. In the fifth set he looked like someone swatting a fly he thought he'd already killed.
I still fear Fed, he is the greatest and may yet have one more slam in him, best chance Wimbers this year, but clearly third best now(at best), even now he can, seemingly from nowhere, play tennis that belongs with the gods that the other three can only dream of, (see last year's wimbledon final for proof). If he can keep it up, as he clearly couldnt in yesterday's semi, then he could yet win another slam.
these days Fed can't recover from tough matches like he used to - the struggle with Tsonga really took it's toll and he was spent by the 5th vs Murray. Djokovc and Murray are like duracell bunnies - even after 4 hours they still seem to be as fresh as ever reaching balls from all corners.
That`s true Rob. However in the Olympics Djork had been showing signs of burn out and Fed never produced his A game the. The US Open was similar.
I remember backing Murray against Nadal in the US Open in 2011 and at no point did i think Murray had a chance. That was the difference, against Fed and Djork(Unless Djork is at his best) i always feel he has a chance.
I remember backing Murray against Nadal in the US Open in 2011 and at no point did i think Murray had a chance. That was the difference, against Fed and Djork(Unless Djork is at his best) i always feel he has a chance.
That`s true AT.
This is why i feel Samprass, McEnroe and a few other old time top players would have to be seriously committed to the intense training these guys go through. Just look at the difference in leg muscles from say Murray to McEnroe.
This is why i feel Samprass, McEnroe and a few other old time top players would have to be seriously committed to the intense training these guys go through. Just look at the difference in leg muscles from say Murray to McEnroe.
speaking as someone who has watched nearly every slam match of murray's career, i can assure you all he's stepped up!
was fairly obvious changes were happening when he took djok to 5 12 months ago and performed decent in the wimbledon final
on the mental side, it's like he has a new brain
was fairly obvious changes were happening when he took djok to 5 12 months ago and performed decent in the wimbledon final
on the mental side, it's like he has a new brain
Angel Gabrial 26 Jan 13 13:05
Murray is more controlled on court and his serve has improved since Nadal has been injured but i still feel Nadal would beat him more than not.
Fed was on top after the 4th set in the Aus semi the other day, but seemed to wilt all of a sudden from the beginning of the 5th. Not sure Murray is a `different player` since Nadal got injured. Sure he is more finally tuned but Nadal had him running from side to side and dominating him.
yes fed had 2 purple patches in the match, the 2nd set tb and 6-5 in the 4th and the tb
as someone who attended said, one of those rare 5 set thrashings
and when you see the stats it's even more surprising it wasn't done in 3
Murray is more controlled on court and his serve has improved since Nadal has been injured but i still feel Nadal would beat him more than not.
Fed was on top after the 4th set in the Aus semi the other day, but seemed to wilt all of a sudden from the beginning of the 5th. Not sure Murray is a `different player` since Nadal got injured. Sure he is more finally tuned but Nadal had him running from side to side and dominating him.
yes fed had 2 purple patches in the match, the 2nd set tb and 6-5 in the 4th and the tb
as someone who attended said, one of those rare 5 set thrashings
and when you see the stats it's even more surprising it wasn't done in 3
Agree, was a rare 5 set thrashing. Is that canaryboy?
yeah congrats today
we deserved all we got!
another woeful cup display at home after we should have made the fa quarters last season and league cup semi this
we deserved all we got!
another woeful cup display at home after we should have made the fa quarters last season and league cup semi this
its the same in all sports, once one person at the top raises the bar, the rest have to go with them and everybody improves.
if the 90's tennis players played the current players they'd get hammered, however if they were around now then they'd be just as fast and strong as them.
george best in his prime would get slaughtered in today's premier league, however imagine how good he could've been had he trained as hard as they do now, also had he played against defenders who werent out to break his legs or footballs made of cement.
you can only really measure a player in any sport in the context of his era, as compared to previous generations they are typically miles better, murray as he is today would win every slam he played in against players pre-fed.
if the 90's tennis players played the current players they'd get hammered, however if they were around now then they'd be just as fast and strong as them.
george best in his prime would get slaughtered in today's premier league, however imagine how good he could've been had he trained as hard as they do now, also had he played against defenders who werent out to break his legs or footballs made of cement.
you can only really measure a player in any sport in the context of his era, as compared to previous generations they are typically miles better, murray as he is today would win every slam he played in against players pre-fed.
also if this current crop of tennis players is to be remembered as having a 'top 4' then for me Murray has to win at least 3 more over the next two years.
what's the longest a multiple slam winner went before picking up their first?
what's the longest a multiple slam winner went before picking up their first?
lendl was a year younger at 24 winning his first and won 8
must be Lendl in the open era. He was 25 & had lost his first 4 finals, so very very similar to Murray, before winning 8 titles.
he also lost 11 slam finals so had a pretty impressive record in the majors.
he also lost 11 slam finals so had a pretty impressive record in the majors.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539