PDA

View Full Version : Andy Murray next person to win a major?


yonex90
02-16-2007, 12:58 PM
Aside from Federer and Nadal who already hold titles, who will be the next to win one?

Andy Murray is my vote. He has the most developed game, the best coach, and has already show that he can give Fed. and Nadal a lot of trouble. Beat Fed last year.

ACE of Hearts
02-16-2007, 01:08 PM
I wanna see another Murray vs Fed match so Fed can kick his butt.I like Murray alot but he isnt ready for the Fed man just yet.

ferocious4hand
02-16-2007, 01:08 PM
How can Murray give Fed a lot of trouble? I didn't see the Cincy match between Fed and Murray but from i was told Fed had no gas in his tank to compete

fastdunn
02-16-2007, 01:08 PM
Andy Murray, Richard Gasquet, Marcos Baghdatis, Tomas Berdych, and maybe the french teenager whose name I forgot...

ceejay
02-16-2007, 01:16 PM
How can Murray give Fed a lot of trouble? I didn't see the Cincy match between Fed and Murray but from i was told Fed had no gas in his tank to compete

Did you see their previous match in Bangkok? Even though Fed won 6-3 7-5, Murray still caused him problems all match.

Lets just all hope Murray beats him again in the Wimbledon final this year.

Feņa14
02-16-2007, 01:16 PM
I don't think too many people would be surprised if he is the next winner of a major (other than Federer or Nadal)

alienhamster
02-16-2007, 01:33 PM
I don't think too many people would be surprised if he is the next winner of a major (other than Federer or Nadal)
I think he's more likely to beat Nadal or Fed in a major than he is to get through 6 other consecutive matches against "lesser" players, to be honest. The mental consistency still isn't there for him to be declared the next likely slam winner.

That being said, I wouldn't be totally shocked if he wins one soon. He's certainly got the talent.

Feņa14
02-16-2007, 01:55 PM
I think he's more likely to beat Nadal or Fed in a major than he is to get through 6 other consecutive matches against "lesser" players, to be honest. The mental consistency still isn't there for him to be declared the next likely slam winner.

That being said, I wouldn't be totally shocked if he wins one soon. He's certainly got the talent.

He does indeed.

To be honest, I can't see any of the other young guns being able to string together 6 other matches and then take out Federer or Nadal at the end. Baghdatis couldn't handle the pressure in Australia, Gasquet keeps on disappointing like he did today in losing to Soderling at home.

I also think that Murray stands more of a chance than a guy like Ljubicic, Davydenko, Hewitt, Nalbandian who all have alot of baggage in losing in slams.

I think the young, affraid of nobody attitude that Murray has is just what is needed to become a champion. I can't see him winning a slam this year but then again, I think Federer and Nadal will win all the slams between them this year so the next person to win a major may not be until 2008 onwards and Murray will surely be there or there abouts by then.

NamRanger
02-16-2007, 03:57 PM
He's too *****ly and not mentally there yet. Little things still bother him. I'd put my bets on Gonzalez and Roddick over Murray to be honest. Murray although he has a wide variety of weapons, doesn't have a big weapon such as the Gonzo forheand, Roddick Serve, Nadal's speed and topspin arsenal, etc. He'll be like Tim Henman, probably give you a scare or two, but will never win a slam because he doesn't have a weapon big enough to beat Federer with.


He's got solid groundstrokes, and does excel at shots that require touch, such as passing shots, lobs, volleys, and dropshots, but those aren't going to win you a slam when professional tennis is all about baselining. He's solid, but not too dangerous from the baseline really.

fastdunn
02-16-2007, 04:17 PM
I know talent is an eye of beholder thing and very subjective matter but
I've got so impressed when I saw the game of Murray, Gasquet
(and Baghdatis somewhat).

I never got that kind of impressiveness when I first saw Roddick,
Lubjicic, or Davydenko playing...

stormholloway
02-16-2007, 04:31 PM
You think Roddick has a better shot of beating Roger than Murray?

Is it the fact that Murray is simply a more talented tennis player than Roddick or because Murray has a better record against Federer than Roddick?

Or perhaps it's Murray's absolute dismantling of Roddick at Wimbledon?

Putting personal nonsense aside, isn't it obvious Murray is a hugely talented tennis player? He uses his head. Guys like Federer don't have trouble with big hitters like Gonzo and Roddick. I'll take smarts over power any day.

travlerajm
02-16-2007, 05:12 PM
I think Roddick has the best shot, but that is assuming that Fed stumbles to someone else like... Murray?

BabolatFan
02-16-2007, 05:21 PM
andy murray is my pick too. His game's got much variety.

oscar_2424
02-16-2007, 05:49 PM
Aside from Federer and Nadal who already hold titles, who will be the next to win one?

Andy Murray is my vote. He has the most developed game, the best coach, and has already show that he can give Fed. and Nadal a lot of trouble. Beat Fed last year.

Nah, Gasquet will win one before Murray.

iscottius
02-16-2007, 05:51 PM
Andy Murray, Richard Gasquet, Marcos Baghdatis, Tomas Berdych, and maybe the french teenager whose name I forgot...


Geal monfils........

Feņa14
02-16-2007, 06:01 PM
Nah, Gasquet will win one before Murray.

There is no doubt he is hugely talented but to be honest, i'm getting a bit bored of him losing matches that he should be doing better in. He lost again today in France to Soderling (who is a decent player but Gasquet should be beating him)

Murray generally wins the matches you would expect him to and then he goes on to really push (and sometimes even beat) the best players in the world.

I've seen Murray live a few times and i've seen Gasquet live at Nottingham on 5 different occasions and although they are both amazing to watch, i'll take Murray's touch and tactics over Gasquet's big backhand. In a slam you usually have one or two matches where you aren't at your best and it's how you deal with those matches that makes the player, it's all well and good destroying someone when your at the top of your game but I really don't feel like Gasquet has the ability to grind out matches. I really hope he gets it together in the end but at the moment I don't think he has the package to win a slam, neither does Murray but he is more of the way there.

ACE of Hearts
02-16-2007, 06:04 PM
I never been overly impressed with the Gasquet serve.I like Murray's serve somewhat.

Ronnie92
02-16-2007, 06:22 PM
He's a whiny nerd that doesn't hit nearly hard enough. Roddick will be the next to win a slam (other than Federer).

NamRanger
02-16-2007, 06:42 PM
You think Roddick has a better shot of beating Roger than Murray?

Is it the fact that Murray is simply a more talented tennis player than Roddick or because Murray has a better record against Federer than Roddick?

Or perhaps it's Murray's absolute dismantling of Roddick at Wimbledon?

Putting personal nonsense aside, isn't it obvious Murray is a hugely talented tennis player? He uses his head. Guys like Federer don't have trouble with big hitters like Gonzo and Roddick. I'll take smarts over power any day.



Tell me who else currently who has recently challenged Federer more other then Roddick or Nadal?


Murray beat Federer once after he played over a week and a half of tennis against some of the toughest players in the world with no rest in between. That doesn't count. Did Murray beat Federer just after he pretty much demolished everyone at Wimbledon? No, he didn't. Roddick did.

drakulie
02-16-2007, 06:45 PM
I would have to pick Gonzo, Roddick or Blake.

ShcMad
02-16-2007, 06:47 PM
I'd say it's only a matter of time before Murray wins something big.

stormholloway
02-16-2007, 07:02 PM
Tell me who else currently who has recently challenged Federer more other then Roddick or Nadal?


Murray beat Federer once after he played over a week and a half of tennis against some of the toughest players in the world with no rest in between. That doesn't count. Did Murray beat Federer just after he pretty much demolished everyone at Wimbledon? No, he didn't. Roddick did.

You mean 2003 Federer? Are you implying Roger was the same force in 2003 that he is today? I hope not.

Murray absolutely dismantled Roddick at Wimbledon, and I would say that grass was not a Murray strong point.

Murray has more variety than Roddick. Sure, power often puts pressure on even great players, but is it enough to beat them? Obviously not. Yeah, I know Roger was tired when Murray played him, but it's still Roger.

Did Murray beat Federer just after he pretty much demolished everyone at Wimbledon? No, he didn't. Roddick did.

That's ridiculous. Murray didn't play Federer after he won Wimbledon that year, so I don't see your point. Roddick beat Federer once in a 2003 season that saw a much more vulnerable Roger Federer. Technically speaking, Murray beat a much better Roger Federer at Cincy who had just dominated Wimbledon, so your point is moot.

Murray has more talent. He has a better all court game and more variety. Murray also has the head-to-head record. Murray isn't consistent and isn't fit, but if he becomes so, he'll be a much larger threat to Roger than the other crop. Roddick has had plenty of time to beat Roger on the big stage and he hasn't done it.

NamRanger
02-16-2007, 07:53 PM
You mean 2003 Federer? Are you implying Roger was the same force in 2003 that he is today? I hope not.

Murray absolutely dismantled Roddick at Wimbledon, and I would say that grass was not a Murray strong point.

Murray has more variety than Roddick. Sure, power often puts pressure on even great players, but is it enough to beat them? Obviously not. Yeah, I know Roger was tired when Murray played him, but it's still Roger.



That's ridiculous. Murray didn't play Federer after he won Wimbledon that year, so I don't see your point. Roddick beat Federer once in a 2003 season that saw a much more vulnerable Roger Federer. Technically speaking, Murray beat a much better Roger Federer at Cincy who had just dominated Wimbledon, so your point is moot.

Murray has more talent. He has a better all court game and more variety. Murray also has the head-to-head record. Murray isn't consistent and isn't fit, but if he becomes so, he'll be a much larger threat to Roger than the other crop. Roddick has had plenty of time to beat Roger on the big stage and he hasn't done it.


Federer is human.


I'd love to see Andy Murray against Roddick again. What happened last time they played? Oh, that's right, Roddick beat him soundly.


Federer in 2003 was hot off a Wimbledon victory. Although he is not the Federer of today, he was heavily favored to beat Roddick in the Rogers Master because of their head to head and how well Roger was playing. Roddick beat a Federer that was playing well that year (not as well as he is now, but better then what most of the top 10 of today can do). Mind you this is a Federer that has not played 2+ weeks of intense tennis either.



The only reason why Andy Murray won was because Federer had nothing left in the tank. He had no movement that day. The BIGGEST key to Federer's game is his movement. His strokes have EXACT timing, if he does not have it he frames the ball like nuts. Roddick would have won that match too, garunteed.



Murray's got talent, but he does not have a big weapon. Look at the people who win slams. They all have some sort of X-Factor. Federer has his forehand, Roddick has his serve, Safin has his impressive shot making abilities and his power game, Agassi with his returns, Sampras with his serves, the list goes on and on. What does Murray have? Even Nadal has a weapon, his forehand is one of the best in the game when it's on. Murray just plays solid tennis. He'll float around in the top 20 to top 10, but he will not win a slam, and he defintely won't beat Federer playing even anywhere remotely near his best.

stormholloway
02-16-2007, 08:14 PM
I'll remember you said that if Murray wins a slam.

Wilander won 8 slams. What was his weapon?

Since when is variety and creativity not a weapon?

Murray beat Roddick on the bigger stage buddy. That's what counts. Oh yeah, and Murray still has the head to head even though he only turned pro two years ago. Murray is top 15 right now. He has Gilbert as a coach and is only going to get better. He'll get fitter too.

Obviously if Murray beat Roddick on his grass then his return is some sort of weapon. Who has beaten Roddick at Wimbledon since 2003? Federer and Murray.

Feņa14
02-16-2007, 09:06 PM
I'd love to see Andy Murray against Roddick again. What happened last time they played? Oh, that's right, Roddick beat him soundly.

The only reason why Andy Murray won was because Federer had nothing left in the tank. He had no movement that day. The BIGGEST key to Federer's game is his movement. His strokes have EXACT timing, if he does not have it he frames the ball like nuts. Roddick would have won that match too, garunteed.

The last time Murray played Roddick he was coming off the back of a finals appearance in Washington and a semi final of a Masters Series in Canada and then having to play Roddick. He played Wimbledon, Newport, Davis Cup, Washington, Canada and Cincy back to back playing 20+ matches in a month whilst Roddick was rested after him missing tournaments before their meeting.

If you dismiss Murray's victory over Federer then you have to dismiss Roddick's victory over Murray. If you choose to go down the route of Federer having nothing left in the tank then say goodbye to your Roddick beating Murray argument.

As for Murray not having a weapon. He is the best returner of a first serve this year statistically and 4th in return games won, he is one hell of a returner which is a weapon in it's own right. Added to that the fact he can crank his serve up into the high 130mph's, solid as you like off both wings, one of the top 5 passers on tour, he can also volley (he caused Nadal problems with his volleys) not to mention he has a fantastic tennis brain. If all that isn't enough, he also has that slight sprinkling of genius in him that allows him to hit shots that other players couldn't even comprehend attempting.

He's going to do just fine.

drakulie
02-16-2007, 09:23 PM
Fena, excellent post.

jaggy
02-17-2007, 06:46 AM
I am not a Roddick fan and consider myself a huge Murray fan but I think the loss at Wimbledon actually helped Roddick. Since then he has stopped his crazy 10 foot behind the baseline thing, taken the ball earlier and improved.

illkhiboy
02-17-2007, 07:49 AM
Federer is human.


I'd love to see Andy Murray against Roddick again. What happened last time they played? Oh, that's right, Roddick beat him soundly.



Just like Murray beat an exhausted Fed, he himself was exhausted when losing to ROddick. He barely got out of a match against Ginepri the previous day and had played the semis the previous week to Gasquet who lost to Federer the following day. Infact Murray had played the week before as well, losing to Clement in the final.

stormholloway
02-17-2007, 07:56 AM
And guess what? They play each other in the semis at San Jose tonight.

I will say that neither player looks their best. Andy needed 3 sets for Spadea and Murray needed 3 for Taik-Lee. This match should be watched because I think it's basically the final. Karlovic/Becker doesn't interest me much.

I really don't understand why people dog Murray. Finally someone comes along who plays more than just a power, bash-em-up game, and people trash him. Roddick only dreams of having Murray's backhand down the line.

tennus
02-17-2007, 10:44 AM
There is no doubt he is hugely talented but to be honest, i'm getting a bit bored of him losing matches that he should be doing better in. He lost again today in France to Soderling (who is a decent player but Gasquet should be beating him)

Murray generally wins the matches you would expect him to and then he goes on to really push (and sometimes even beat) the best players in the world.

I've seen Murray live a few times and i've seen Gasquet live at Nottingham on 5 different occasions and although they are both amazing to watch, i'll take Murray's touch and tactics over Gasquet's big backhand. In a slam you usually have one or two matches where you aren't at your best and it's how you deal with those matches that makes the player, it's all well and good destroying someone when your at the top of your game but I really don't feel like Gasquet has the ability to grind out matches. I really hope he gets it together in the end but at the moment I don't think he has the package to win a slam, neither does Murray but he is more of the way there.

I kind of agree with you about Gasquet. Hugely talented (he's beaten Federer before) but lacks the consistency to win slams. Murray is a little in the same boat at the moment but I was very impressed in that 5 setter he lost against Nadal in the AO. Has a bit of mongrel in him which I think you need against the big 2 (Federer/Nadal). Murray reminds me a lot of McEnroe, ranting to himself and playing the self vs world card.

By way Fena, England's getting it's act together in the one dayers. You must be disappointed it's a couple of months too late. :)

Feņa14
02-17-2007, 12:15 PM
I kind of agree with you about Gasquet. Hugely talented (he's beaten Federer before) but lacks the consistency to win slams. Murray is a little in the same boat at the moment but I was very impressed in that 5 setter he lost against Nadal in the AO. Has a bit of mongrel in him which I think you need against the big 2 (Federer/Nadal). Murray reminds me a lot of McEnroe, ranting to himself and playing the self vs world card.

By way Fena, England's getting it's act together in the one dayers. You must be disappointed it's a couple of months too late. :)

Yeah i'm sure Gasquet will get it together at some point and become a major champion but I thought we would be seeing more fight in him by now. Murray last night really fought out a victory against an unusual opponent in Lee, after losing the first set he came back to take the second and then hold his nerve in a final set tie-break. I wouldn't of fancied Gasquet to of won that match if he wasn't playing at his best and a set down.

As for England, well I can't believe it to be honest! We've barely won a ODI over the last 2-3 years and now we have beaten Australia 3 times in a row and New Zealand once to take the tri nations tournament. Now Australia are really under pressure after their loss to New Zealand and a squad that looks pretty weak, are we witnessing a glimpse of the new Australia without their old players? I sure hope we are, i'm enjoying it :)
I think any team would be licking their lips at the prospect of playing against Haddin and White in the longer form of the game as opposed to Gilchrist and Warne! Maybe it's time for a different team to step up and dominate like West Indies and then Australia did, I nominate England ;)

unjugon
02-17-2007, 04:26 PM
I would have to pick Gonzo, Roddick or Blake.
Jesuschrist, no. How many times does it need to be said?

How can a guy who has not won a SINGLE five setter have a chance to win a grand slam?

justineheninhoogenbandfan
02-17-2007, 05:49 PM
Federer is human.

I'd love to see Andy Murray against Roddick again. What happened last time they played? Oh, that's right, Roddick beat him soundly.

Federer in 2003 was hot off a Wimbledon victory. Although he is not the Federer of today, he was heavily favored to beat Roddick in the Rogers Master because of their head to head and how well Roger was playing. Roddick beat a Federer that was playing well that year (not as well as he is now, but better then what most of the top 10 of today can do). Mind you this is a Federer that has not played 2+ weeks of intense tennis either.

The only reason why Andy Murray won was because Federer had nothing left in the tank. He had no movement that day. The BIGGEST key to Federer's game is his movement. His strokes have EXACT timing, if he does not have it he frames the ball like nuts. Roddick would have won that match too, garunteed.

Murray's got talent, but he does not have a big weapon. Look at the people who win slams. They all have some sort of X-Factor. Federer has his forehand, Roddick has his serve, Safin has his impressive shot making abilities and his power game, Agassi with his returns, Sampras with his serves, the list goes on and on. What does Murray have? Even Nadal has a weapon, his forehand is one of the best in the game when it's on. Murray just plays solid tennis. He'll float around in the top 20 to top 10, but he will not win a slam, and he defintely won't beat Federer playing even anywhere remotely near his best.

Murray is much younger then Roddick and is an impressive 2-1 over him head to head. Sure Roddick is still better now, and probably for another couple years will be anyway, but you are far too dismissive of Murray and his potential.

As for Roddick's win over Federer vs Murray's, it is harder to beat a weary Federer in 2006 then a fresh Federer in 2003. Murray's win also was straight sets, as opposed to a 3rd set tiebreaker. Both were impressive wins, I wouldnt sell Murray's win short by comparision due to circumstances when you could argue circumstances that made it harder for Murray to win too, like actually playing Federer when he was the games dominant player as oppose to a player who lost 4th rounder or sooner in 3 of his 4 slams and didnt win a single Masters title all year.

Murray's backhand and return of serve are weapons IMO.

Noveson
02-17-2007, 06:30 PM
I think that Murray is going to win one sooner or later. He has a wonderful game and once he gets over his mental issues he'd be hard pressed to not win a slam. I think Gael Monflis is going to be a constant in the grand slam race sooner or later in his career. He might pull a Safin and waste all of his natural talent, but I hope not. He is probably the most athletic of any of the top players.

stormholloway
02-17-2007, 06:48 PM
Monfils' game is kind of blah to watch IMO.

I think Berdych has a real shot. That guy hits huge.

Andrew
02-17-2007, 06:52 PM
I'll say that while Murray may not win a major this year or next year, he definitely has the most potential I've seen of all the younger generation players.

At this moment in time, I would say Roddick has a better chance of winning a slam than Murray. The two play tonight, so we'll see how it turns out. Roddick beat Murray in their last match (when Murray was tired), and Murray beat Roddick when Roddick was at his absolutely lowest point both confidence and skill wise that he'd been in in a couple years, so those two matches cancel out.

The Gorilla
02-17-2007, 07:19 PM
does no one else think it's interesting that they've sped up san jose to mid 1990's speed and 3 of the 4 semifinalists are 3 of the 4 best servers in the world:

benjamin becker

ivo karlovic

Roddick


apart from lubijic all the best servers in the worldo have made it through to the semis of a fast court tournament,
I think this shows there is a fine balance to be struck in terms of court speed.

Feņa14
02-17-2007, 07:55 PM
S P O I L E R





















Well Murray beats Roddick again. Before the match even started I just had that feeling that I used to get when Hewitt played Roddick a few years back when you were pretty confident that Hewitt was going to cause Roddick some real problems. I wouldn't of stayed up until 5am to watch a match with no sound if i wasn't confident of Murray winning and he didn't let me down. Murray now has a 3-1 head-to-head with Roddick and has won 7 out of the 9 sets they have played, including dismantling Roddick at Wimbledon which was a fantastic achievement.

Murray is really starting to grind out matches now and not get down on himself as much as he used to, added to that he seems to have a real knack of performing on the big stage like beating Roddick, Hewitt, Federer, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Safin etc..

Fedexeon
02-17-2007, 08:19 PM
He lost in 2nd round of Indian Wells last year and first round in Monte Carlo and Miami. He has many points to gain next few months. Should see him in top 10 very SOON.

jjl
02-17-2007, 08:27 PM
Murray's game reminds me of Miloslav Mecir, he sort of just glides around the court hitting off-speed stuff mixed in with power that drives his opponents crazy. I think he has a better chance of beating Fed than Roddick does, his game is more of a puzzle than Roddick's. i think he's closer to breaking through at a major than Gasquet, whose game i also love.

stormholloway
02-17-2007, 08:57 PM
Well that settles that. Two years in a row Murray clowns Roddick at San Jose.

I really don't see how Karlovic could pose problems considering Murray's return. I'm pretty sure Murray also hit more aces than Roddick. Jimmy Arias mentioned that Murray has the best return in the game statistically speaking.

Is that the kind of weapon you were talking about NamRanger?

yonex90
02-17-2007, 08:59 PM
For all the people who must not watch tennis who thinks Andy Roddick could ever win a title again you should look at today's results. Roddick is awful and will never come close to winning a major. The days are over when a serve alone will win against top players. Now someone like Blake does have a great game, and Gonzo was on fire in Australia.

stormholloway
02-18-2007, 07:53 AM
I guess NamRanger magically evaporated.

yonex90
02-18-2007, 09:06 AM
Murray must have shut him and Andy up with a straight set win.

arnz
02-18-2007, 09:13 AM
Murray is my pick to become number 2.

The problem with talking too big on these boards is that it can bite you on the behind, right Namranger? :-D

Ross K
02-18-2007, 10:23 AM
I don't know how far exactly he'll go exactly, but I'd say his potential just about exceeds everyone.

ShcMad
02-18-2007, 10:35 AM
Even though Murray may not have any easily-noticeable weapons, he has far more natural talent than Roddick. Murray's ability to read the court and the opponent's game and adjust to it accordingly is something Roddick would not be able to do in 100 years. So, please, let's not compare them. ; )

yonex90
02-18-2007, 11:39 AM
I'm surprised that Roddick's name came up. I thought that there would be more Gasquet, Baghdatis supporters though. Or maybe most people see the same thing I do in Murray's game.

Pisolino227
02-18-2007, 11:57 AM
Monfils' game is kind of blah to watch IMO.

I think Berdych has a real shot. That guy hits huge.

Berdych still has a Berd-brain.........Monfils is fast, he can slide on hardcourts, but GS anytime soon, I don't think so..................Murray is a smart player but he can act like a whiny b i otch sometimes.............I'm going with Roddick or Gonzo to be the next non-Fed slam winner. Let the haterade consumption begin!

Nick Irons
02-18-2007, 12:15 PM
For all the people who must not watch tennis who thinks Andy Roddick could ever win a title again you should look at today's results. Roddick is awful and will never come close to winning a major. The days are over when a serve alone will win against top players. Now someone like Blake does have a great game, and Gonzo was on fire in Australia.


Absolutely

I stated this in another thread:

Poor Roddick

He gets a U.S. Open and since has been 'just another player'. I'm starting to think his day's are numbered. Federer has owned him in Finals and now Murray; isn't he 3 - 1 on him now ?

Is Roddick gonna be another Sabatini ? A Chang ? A One Slam wonder at the hands of Federer ?

Roddick is done.

Viper
02-18-2007, 12:30 PM
Roddick will win Wimbledon this year, and when he does all the "haters" will be like " LOLX I KNEWD HE CUD DO EET, I ALWAIZ HAD FAITH IN HEEM!"

Pisolino227
02-18-2007, 01:07 PM
Absolutely

I stated this in another thread:



Roddick is done.

Roddick is the new Chang.........I've been saying for years his game is too one dimensional, once someone arrives with hardcore variety in their game he's finished...........Connors' push for Roddick to move forward payed off on the lower end of the spectrum, but did little to nothing against RFed

noeledmonds
02-18-2007, 01:18 PM
I recon that the next major winner (apart from Fed and Nads) is likely to be a GS champion. Safin, Roddick and Hewitt all have what it takes. If not one of these then a young gun (Bag, Murray, Berd, MOnfils, Gas, Docov). Of course you can never rule out some clay court specilist winning the FO out of nowhere.

Andrew
02-18-2007, 04:43 PM
Monfils isn't a threat to win any Grand Slam any time soon.

Kid Carlos
02-18-2007, 06:03 PM
Murray is playing well currently, I think however the best bet for someone to win another slam is at the French and I dont think Murray is that someone. Wimby and the US open will be with Fed for I think at least the next 2 years, I dont think Murray will be fit enough to take the Australian and I could see someone like Almagro or Canas doing something at the French before Murray does.

alienhamster
02-18-2007, 06:48 PM
For all the people who must not watch tennis who thinks Andy Roddick could ever win a title again you should look at today's results. Roddick is awful and will never come close to winning a major. The days are over when a serve alone will win against top players. Now someone like Blake does have a great game, and Gonzo was on fire in Australia. You're so right. The semifinals at the Austrailian Open less than a month ago, and the finals at the US Open just a few months ago, are just SO, SO FAR from winning a major. Much, much further than any other player not named Federer. Roddick is so clearly "done." :rolleyes:

What dimension does your brain inhabit?

yonex90
02-18-2007, 08:45 PM
You Roddick fans should look at his record against top 10 players at grand slams. He's awful. He gets as far as he does off easy draws then the first top 10 player he's up against embarrases him. At least Murray could take Fed out last year. Roddicks lost the last 10 against him. And he continues to get embarrased by Andy Murray over and over and over and over. Maybe if he fires Conners he will totally drop out of the top 50 and we can then have a real conversation about who has a chance to win a slam against the top two players.

Nick Irons
02-18-2007, 09:06 PM
Grand Slam Wins over Top 10 Ranked Players since the 2003 U.S. OPEN

1

R16 Ancic, Mario (CRO) RANKED 10 @ the 2007 Aussie Open

But how many TOP 10 Player's has he faced since the 2003 U.S. Open in Grand Slams ?

2 in 13 Slams (Hewitt and the above Ancic)



The reality is, the difference between the The Number 1 Player in the World and the Rest of the Field is more than neglible more often than not.

fastdunn
02-18-2007, 11:40 PM
I would put it this way:
Murray has very interesting potential while Gasquet and Baghdatis
has very dangerous potential.

capriatifanatic
02-19-2007, 12:20 AM
He's too *****ly and not mentally there yet. Little things still bother him. I'd put my bets on Gonzalez and Roddick over Murray to be honest. Murray although he has a wide variety of weapons, doesn't have a big weapon such as the Gonzo forheand, Roddick Serve, Nadal's speed and topspin arsenal, etc.......................Murray beat Federer once after he played over a week and a half of tennis against some of the toughest players in the world with no rest in between. That doesn't count. Did Murray beat Federer just after he pretty much demolished everyone at Wimbledon? No, he didn't. Roddick did.

blah, blah, blah some more............

I'd love to see Andy Murray against Roddick again. What happened last time they played? Oh, that's right, Roddick beat him soundly...........The only reason why Andy Murray won was because Federer had nothing left in the tank. He had no movement that day. The BIGGEST key to Federer's game is his movement. His strokes have EXACT timing, if he does not have it he frames the ball like nuts. Roddick would have won that match too, garunteed.......He'll float around in the top 20 to top 10, but he will not win a slam, and he defintely won't beat Federer playing even anywhere remotely near his best.


NamRanger strikes out yet again:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=reu-mensanjosedc&prov=reuters&type=lgns

Murray schools Roddick to go to 3-1 vs Roddick now. Excuses, not confident, too tired, whatever, Murray has now beaten Federer once, and Roddick 3 of his last 4 meetings with him.

Murray will only float from 20-10 in the rankings? ROTFL! Anybody who knows tennis realizes Murray will at worst be a top 5 player at some point, and probably for quite awhile be in the top 5. Then again this is the logic of the "Agassi is the most dominant and greatest baseliner ever" "Kafelnikov would be a much tougher opponent for Federer then Nadal is" "Gasquet is as much or more talented then Federer" individual so that kind of mind boggling logic fits in perfectly with past statements. I would have expected no less. :p

caulcano
02-19-2007, 12:22 AM
I wanna see another Murray vs Fed match so Fed can kick his butt.I like Murray alot but he isnt ready for the Fed man just yet.

that's exactly what I was thinking.... :p

capriatifanatic
02-19-2007, 12:24 AM
I would put it this way:
Murray has very interesting potential while Gasquet and Baghdatis
has very dangerous potential.

Bhagdatis will never have a better year then 2006 period. His top 10 year will be the kind of career year guys like Schuetler and Lapenti had the years they were top 10. He does not have "potential", the best is already up.

Murray, Gasquet, Djokovic, and Berdych all have great potential but perhaps Murray will be the most successful of that group. He isnt the most explosive or magical of that group in the way he plays, but he is more likely to be it all together upstairs and maximize his still considerable abilities.

caulcano
02-19-2007, 12:25 AM
I think he's more likely to beat Nadal or Fed in a major than he is to get through 6 other consecutive matches against "lesser" players, to be honest. The mental consistency still isn't there for him to be declared the next likely slam winner.

That being said, I wouldn't be totally shocked if he wins one soon. He's certainly got the talent.

Indeed. He's got the talent all he needs now is the mental & physical side to last 2 weeks of a GS.

caulcano
02-19-2007, 12:30 AM
Murray's got talent, but he does not have a big weapon. Look at the people who win slams. They all have some sort of X-Factor. Federer has his forehand, Roddick has his serve, Safin has his impressive shot making abilities and his power game, Agassi with his returns, Sampras with his serves, the list goes on and on. What does Murray have? Even Nadal has a weapon, his forehand is one of the best in the game when it's on. Murray just plays solid tennis. He'll float around in the top 20 to top 10, but he will not win a slam, and he defintely won't beat Federer playing even anywhere remotely near his best.

The guy's only 19 ... I'm sure he'll get better & hopefully add a "big weapon" to his game ... I think he'll win a few slams ...

chess9
02-19-2007, 12:33 AM
Aside from Federer and Nadal who already hold titles, who will be the next to win one?

Andy Murray is my vote. He has the most developed game, the best coach, and has already show that he can give Fed. and Nadal a lot of trouble. Beat Fed last year.

Murray has the best TRAINER and the best coach. :) Well, they are among the best. But, Murray had to execute, so he is the hero. If he weren't BENDABLE he'd break, particularly under Gilbert's tutelage.

Murray is not ready to beat Federer, but he can beat Nadal. Murray's win over Federer was a gift. No one is going to beat Federer unless he gets injured. The guy's on another planet.

Murray is definitely top 5 material.

-Robert

capriatifanatic
02-19-2007, 12:43 AM
Murray has the best TRAINER and the best coach. :) Well, they are among the best. But, Murray had to execute, so he is the hero. If he weren't BENDABLE he'd break, particularly under Gilbert's tutelage.

Murray is not ready to beat Federer, but he can beat Nadal. Murray's win over Federer was a gift. No one is going to beat Federer unless he gets injured. The guy's on another planet.

Murray is definitely top 5 material.

-Robert

No win over Federer is a "gift". Murray beat Federer fair and square period.
Of course Federer didnt play his best, Federer hasnt played anywhere near his best in any match he has lost for about 3.5 years now, basicaly ever since he won Wimbledon 2003, every match he has lost he hasnt been anywhere near his best. So if you discount Murray's win because of that you would have to do that with everyone else who has beaten Federer. Murray's win over Federer was a great win and well deserved, no matter how Federer played that day. Federer never wants to lose matches.

Murray will be the most successful of all the young players. Gasquet, Berdych, Djokovic, all have great potential too. Nadal will stay in the top 5 for awhile probably. However Murray could end up having the most success of any of them. You will see.

rafan
02-19-2007, 02:29 AM
Well it is certainly going to be a more exciting year than last year. With Gonzalez causing a few shocks at the AO and Murray has improved enormously thanks to his brilliant coach. I still think Gonzalez is on the up though

Mr Topspin
02-19-2007, 08:56 AM
I used to agree with the reasoning that a player needed to have a discernible weapon to be ultra successful. Therefore, guys like Agassi, Sampras, Courier had recognisble goto shots that allow them to go deep in grandslams on a consistent basis. However, I have slowly come to the conclusion that some players are equally succesfull (i.e. winning grand slams without any major shot. Mats Willander is a great example). Furthermore, you get some good players that are solid and aren't who you would normally associate with grand slams who end up winning one. Albert Costa, Thomas Johansson, Peter Korda are a few that come to find. Who is to say Murray won't end up with one like the guys above. I admit that i am one of murray's biggest critics and originally thought he would max out at the top 30. He has already proved me wrong by entering the top 15 and getting to the second week of 2 grand slams, plus he has just defended his title from last year - no mean feat for a 19 year old.

Bjorn99
02-19-2007, 10:27 AM
With Brad Gilbert in the wings, c'mon. Brad will turn something into a world class strength. Or add up the sum of all the parts, and make it STRONG overall.

Plus the kid seems to be getting very, very, very fit. I think he will come up with something.

fastdunn
02-19-2007, 10:56 AM
Bhagdatis will never have a better year then 2006 period. His top 10 year will be the kind of career year guys like Schuetler and Lapenti had the years they were top 10. He does not have "potential", the best is already up.

Murray, Gasquet, Djokovic, and Berdych all have great potential but perhaps Murray will be the most successful of that group. He isnt the most explosive or magical of that group in the way he plays, but he is more likely to be it all together upstairs and maximize his still considerable abilities.

I would put Baghdatis higher than Djokovic and Berdych in terms of
telent potential.

Baghdatis is a great ball striker.

dozu
02-19-2007, 11:04 AM
Murray is just a leaner and younger version of Nalbandian. His game has no big weapons to hurt Fed. The next guy other than Fed/Nad to win a major will be some big hitter who gets extremely hot on fast surface.

That's how Safin got his last Aussie title.

yonex90
02-19-2007, 12:04 PM
No big weapons huh? How about a huge serve, something like 14 aces in the last match. How about being able to play on all parts of the court well? How about being the best returner in tennis statistically with some saying he may be better even than Agassi?

Also, its funny that he will get to beat Roddick again in Memphis at the current tournament. Roddick must be ticked off to have another "Fed" type player to always loose against.

The Gorilla
02-19-2007, 12:13 PM
I hate murray but he has, according to mats wilander, 'the very best backhand in the world', and a 145 mph serve, he's not lacking in big weapons.

alwaysatnet
02-19-2007, 12:41 PM
No. Gasquet will win one first.

Forehand Forever
02-19-2007, 12:42 PM
Bhagdatis will never have a better year then 2006 period. His top 10 year will be the kind of career year guys like Schuetler and Lapenti had the years they were top 10. He does not have "potential", the best is already up.

Baghdatis is only 21 years old. Why are you saying he has no potential at all?

Feņa14
02-19-2007, 01:04 PM
No. Gasquet will win one first.

Yeah, you see, there is no real evidence pointing towards this happening.

Gasquet to me looks the same player as he did a couple of years ago, maybe even gone backwards in some ways. Sure his game is good to watch but I can't see it winning him a major anytime soon.

unjugon
02-19-2007, 01:07 PM
Murray is just a leaner and younger version of Nalbandian. His game has no big weapons to hurt Fed. The next guy other than Fed/Nad to win a major will be some big hitter who gets extremely hot on fast surface.

That's how Safin got his last Aussie title.
Murray moves a lot better than Nalbandian. And their first serves arenīt comparable. :(

yonex90
02-19-2007, 01:37 PM
Why do some of you hate Murray? Just a question. I think he has a lot of charisma in his interviews and he's fun to watch on the court. Some of these guys are like watching a robot. Murray is fun, and it's great to see Brad Gilbert in the stands.
As far a Gasquet goes I think he's got a lot of potential but it doesn't seem like he can pull out big results yet, and his serve is weak. Baghdatis could be great but he doesn't train. Look how much better Murray's playing after getting into great condition and working heavily on his serve.

alienhamster
02-19-2007, 02:19 PM
You Roddick fans should look at his record against top 10 players at grand slams. He's awful. He gets as far as he does off easy draws then the first top 10 player he's up against embarrases him. At least Murray could take Fed out last year. Roddicks lost the last 10 against him. And he continues to get embarrased by Andy Murray over and over and over and over. Maybe if he fires Conners he will totally drop out of the top 50 and we can then have a real conversation about who has a chance to win a slam against the top two players. Whether or not I'm a Roddick fan is irrelevant: the sort of argument you present here is totally bogus. Everyone has all sorts of tough and easy parts of draws to get through in two weeks of a slam. Federer has had some remarakably easy draws, in part due to his top seed, but in the largest part due to how much freakin' better he is than everyone else. Does his "draw" suggest anything less about his success? No, of course not.

Moreover, all these other "outstanding players" out there that are just so much better than Andy Roddick have over the years had a similar set of difficult players to deal with. Why aren't all of these folks getting to the semis and finals, then? Bottom line is that Roddick has some impressive consistency in overall slam performance, moreso than any other player not named Fed the past 4 years, BECAUSE HE BRINGS IT. It's ridiculous to assert that his success is due to "easy draws." He's got some outstanding strengths, and he finds ways to win. It's unfortunate Fed is such a demi-god, because he would most likely have 2-3 more slams under his belt w/o Fed around.

So can you and your ilk just quit it with the illogical claims about Roddick and other top pros' lack of ability?

It's unfortunate that I have to post this yet again, because I do agree that Murray is a top player with a great future ahead, pending some better physical and mental fitness.

alienhamster
02-19-2007, 02:23 PM
Murray is just a leaner and younger version of Nalbandian. His game has no big weapons to hurt Fed. The next guy other than Fed/Nad to win a major will be some big hitter who gets extremely hot on fast surface.

That's how Safin got his last Aussie title.
I see what you mean about the Nalbandian comparison, though I think Murray plays with even more variety. He may in fact play with better pace than Nalby, too, but I need to see more of him in the long run.

That being said, this is exactly the type of player that can bother Federer. You need someone who can keep Fed off rhythm and can do damage off the backhand side (DTL shot requisite).

yonex90
02-19-2007, 05:30 PM
Wow, so many Roddick fans. We'll I guess my last Roddick arguement is he's just not a good player. I tried not to focus on the fact but he gets consistantly beat by Murray who at the minimum is way better than Roddick now so why is Roddick even brought up on this thread which is actually about who is the next person to win a major, Not I wish Andy Roddick was good and had a chance to win a major. :grin:

rafan
02-20-2007, 04:34 AM
Part of Brad Gilberts great influence has shown itself in how much Murray has matured. He is no longer showing that off putting hound dog look and looks much more in charge - even if he is losing a point. A year ago I would not have really bothered to watch him play - sad though it sounds- but this young guy is now becoming as exciting as Nadal to watch but has the right philosophy - he is taking note of how to avoid the pitfalls of the other players, according to the interview, and if he keeps improving he may well make it to the top place.

capriatifanatic
02-20-2007, 06:46 AM
Murray's backhand and return of serve could be the best in the game soon, his first serve is quite big-I never saw the 145 mph somebody else is referring to though so if you could show me evidence of that I would appreciate, a very solid forehand, hes very quick. He is a very smart guy and constructs points very well. He is a real competitor and fights hard out there, not a Nadal in that sense, but still very good.

I cant believe anybody would say that kid has no weapons, he has a great game that is good in almost every way, and his backhand and return of serve are huge weapons. That guy has top 5 written all over him and soon.

He has far more potential then Bhagdatis or Monfils who get more hype then him. He probably will end up having more success then Gasquet, Berdych, and Djokovic as well.

grif
02-20-2007, 10:01 AM
Murray's backhand and return of serve could be the best in the game soon, his first serve is quite big-I never saw the 145 mph somebody else is referring to though so if you could show me evidence of that I would appreciate, ...

This link mentions Murray's 145mph serve:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6300819.stm

MonkeyPox
02-20-2007, 04:16 PM
I'd say Blake before Murray. And both of them before Gasquet who seems to be too lazy or something to win. He doesn't have that fire or seem to be dedicated enough. Maybe the French tend to value other things more or have a different work ethic, but at this point, seems like a Safin-esque talent waste. But at least Marat got two slams!

The Gorilla
02-20-2007, 04:32 PM
I'd say Blake before Murray. And both of them before Gasquet who seems to be too lazy or something to win. He doesn't have that fire or seem to be dedicated enough. Maybe the French tend to value other things more or have a different work ethic, but at this point, seems like a Safin-esque talent waste. But at least Marat got two slams!

the french are lazy.

ctbmar
02-21-2007, 03:29 AM
This link mentions Murray's 145mph serve:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6300819.stm

I have been thinking...Why can't Sampras or Federer serve more than 140 mph when players skinner than them such as Goran & Murray could serve above 140 mph? Technically Sampras & Federer have gained supreme confidence and mastery over their serves and their techniques are pretty flawless...Sampras & Federer's forearms are pretty muscular, they got the built, technique....Did they choose not to blast a few serves to get it above 140 mph or they really cannot hit above 140 mph? What is the extra element that Goran & Murray have in their serves that allow them to hit above 140 mph which is missing in Sampras' & Rogers' serves? The only think I can think is Murray has the extra long arms to give more reach and Goran is taller and has more reach too. Sampras had quite a good knee bend and Sampras really throws himself into the serve, so I really cannot understand why Sampras fastest serve ever was 139 mph and Roger's fastest serve ever was 137 mph.
Please don't tell me that during Sampras' time, the radar guns were calibrated differently...I just want to know why Sampras did not or could not crank it up to the serving speeds of Rusedski / Goran....The way Roger hits his forehand, it is one of the biggest forehand in the game together with Blake and Gonzalez, so Roger definitely has the power and strength to blast some serves, but he chose not to or he can't?

caulcano
02-21-2007, 03:42 AM
That guy has top 5 written all over him and
soon.


Agreee.

He has far more potential then Bhagdatis or Monfils who get more hype then him. He probably will end up having more success then Gasquet, Berdych, and Djokovic as well.

Though he's had A LOT of hype in the UK for years now ... the next British hope, which I didn't like.

Camilio Pascual
02-21-2007, 04:25 AM
Andy Murray is my vote.

To answer the question you asked:
I'll predict one of the Bryan brothers and his female partner will concurrently be the next players to win a Major. As the entries become more clear, I'll give a more specific answer.

rafan
02-21-2007, 04:25 AM
Yes he has had a lot of Hype to live up to here in the UK but his young chap is proving he has the potential to be in the top 10 if not top 5. I really like the way he fought against Nadal in Australia - the climate was not what he would get in Scotland after all and it was an exhausting tournament. I noticed in the last tournament he won that his forehand at times could almost be compared to Federer but his serve could be improved on.

christos_liaskos
02-21-2007, 04:42 AM
Here's how I see it. Murray is possibly the number 2 player in the world and challenging Federer for no.1 if you look at a one of match. What I mean by this is if he was to play someone in an exhibition type match where you dont have to grind through the draw then I think if anyone beat him then for me its a bit of an upset. As for how close Murray is to Fed I am not quite sure because I didnt see the Cincy match but as someone else pointed out Murray did cause Fed problems in Bangkok.

Using this theory I dont think Murray will be the next most likely player apart form Fed or Nadal to win a slam, because I could see Murray or even anyother young player (Gasquet) or someone that we cant even predict, playing the match of their life in an early round (quarters or before) and taking Fed out. Whoever manages that though, including Murray, does not yet have the mental strength to keep it together for the 7 matches, especially after a gruelling match with Fed. So I believe the next Slam winner could easily be Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Gonzalez or Ljubicic. All players that I would expect Murray to take care of in a one of match but would be mentally and physically spent if he had to play one of these more experienced players in a semi or a final.

If Fed and Nadal do clear up again this year though then by next year Murray may have the experience to take them out and keep the level up for the rest of the tournament, but for this year I am sticking with my theory. As for Nadal being a threat, I only see him at RG as a potential winner, elsewhere he has to bring something new to his game to keep the rest of the field on their toes.

To conclude, Murray for me is definitely a future slam champion and possibly no.1, but not this year. This year he may cause the upset but will then be taken out when he runs out of gas. Perfect example of this is Gasquet beating Fed in Monte Carlo but then not having the experience or strength to take the title. And, of course Murray taking Fed out in Cincy but then not being able to go on and win is another example of this. Taking out the no.1 seed does not make you the no.1 player.

gigglzes
02-21-2007, 05:37 AM
i agree, he does have a good chance, but my real choice is james blake of course. i aslo choose roddick too

Ethan04
02-25-2007, 10:39 AM
similar to Andy Roddick, Murray would probably win one or two majors.

travlerajm
02-25-2007, 11:10 PM
I have been thinking...Why can't Sampras or Federer serve more than 140 mph when players skinner than them such as Goran & Murray could serve above 140 mph? Technically Sampras & Federer have gained supreme confidence and mastery over their serves and their techniques are pretty flawless...Sampras & Federer's forearms are pretty muscular, they got the built, technique....Did they choose not to blast a few serves to get it above 140 mph or they really cannot hit above 140 mph? What is the extra element that Goran & Murray have in their serves that allow them to hit above 140 mph which is missing in Sampras' & Rogers' serves? The only think I can think is Murray has the extra long arms to give more reach and Goran is taller and has more reach too. Sampras had quite a good knee bend and Sampras really throws himself into the serve, so I really cannot understand why Sampras fastest serve ever was 139 mph and Roger's fastest serve ever was 137 mph.
Please don't tell me that during Sampras' time, the radar guns were calibrated differently...I just want to know why Sampras did not or could not crank it up to the serving speeds of Rusedski / Goran....The way Roger hits his forehand, it is one of the biggest forehand in the game together with Blake and Gonzalez, so Roger definitely has the power and strength to blast some serves, but he chose not to or he can't?

Sampras strung too tight to serve 145, and Fed's balance is too HL to serve 145.

jamesblakefan#1
06-07-2010, 06:15 PM
Interesting thread. I guess Murray has been hyped for a while now.

The-Champ
06-07-2010, 06:17 PM
Interesting thread. I guess Murray has been hyped for a while now.

he will win the next 3.

vortex1
06-07-2010, 06:25 PM
he will win the next 3.

Mugza will never win a slam. He'll always remain male version of Wozniacki.

Baikalic
06-07-2010, 06:31 PM
he will win the next 3.

Calendar slam 2011 fosho!

clayman2000
06-07-2010, 06:40 PM
Here is the deal on Murray:
Pros:
Good 1st Serve
Great Backhand
Great Retriever (3rd to Rafa and Gael)
Has beaten everyone there is to beat

Cons:
2nd Serve
Forhand lacks natural power
Naturally passive

While the pros outnumber the cons, his cons, are the two biggest things you need to win a slam: a good forhand, and a strong 2nd serve. The forhand will be hard to make better as he uses little wrist. If he can improve his second serve, and step into the court against Federer, like he does against Nadal, maybe he has a shot at 1 or 2 slams