PDA

View Full Version : Del Porto might have won the slam but Murray is still the better player


Pages : [1] 2

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:08 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 07:11 AM
rather be JMDP right now than murray

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:12 AM
^^ in a few years everything will be different. :)

All-rounder
09-15-2009, 07:13 AM
Sorry but JMDP 1 >>>>>>>>>>> Murray 0

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 07:13 AM
No, my friend, delpotro is 2 yrs younger than murray and is already a better player.

tudwell
09-15-2009, 07:14 AM
Sour grapes.

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 07:15 AM
it's not sour grapes, it's just one person acting stupid.

bhallic24
09-15-2009, 07:15 AM
lmfao is this a serious post? How bout we get a poll going if delpo faced off with murray who would you pick? It would be overwhelminging delpo. He'd destroy that little brit.

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:16 AM
What has age got to do anything? In that sense Hewitt should have been a greater tennis player as compared to Federer (and look at them now). It doesn't work that way. People mature at different times.

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 07:16 AM
rankings lie

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:17 AM
Having said that I respect what he has managed to achieve, great start to his career but all I want to say is let's not hype him like he is the best player or something.

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 07:19 AM
Having said that I respect what he has managed to achieve, great start to his career but all I want to say is let's not hype him like he is the best player or something.

How the hell is it hype - he's a slam champion. Murray = Hype king with no slam.

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:23 AM
How the hell is it hype - he's a slam champion. Murray = Hype king with no slam.

Ofcourse he is and no one is disputing that (that he is a slam champion). Winning one slam is great but when we start talking about him like he can be the best player and all, he needs to show much more. Murray hasn't done well at the slams this year and yet he is the third best player in the world (and second for sometime).

I don't like people overrating Del Porto now.

Bud
09-15-2009, 07:24 AM
No, my friend, delpotro is 2 yrs younger than murray and is already a better player.

Agreed.

Delpo has surpassed Murray in the last 12 months (and definitely in the last 6 months). Prior to 6 months ago... Murray could probably just edge out Delpo.

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:25 AM
^^ then why is Murray still the third best player since *Del Potro has surpassed him*?

Bud
09-15-2009, 07:26 AM
^^ then why is Murray still the third best player since *Del Potro has surpassed him*?

Ask me that question 6 months from now when the rankings catch up to actual performance. Rankings will always lag a bit.

Delpo has undoubtedly improved his game dramatically from even 6 months ago.

crazylevity
09-15-2009, 07:27 AM
^^ The same reason Dinara Safina is ranked no.1 on the womens tour with NO SLAMS. Are you saying that Safina > Williams/Clijsters etc?

edit: Sorry this was in reply to Spider's post.

David L
09-15-2009, 07:27 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.
I prefer Del Potro to Murray. Murray's game is based on his legs and involves a lot of pushing, which is going to make it tough for him when it comes to the Slams. At 2 years younger, with power and the consistency to match, Del Potro's upside looks better. His potential for improvement also looks better, whereas Murray's options seem more limited.

dh003i
09-15-2009, 07:28 AM
hahaha, that's funny.

Murray is a Grand Slam nobody. He got to 1 slam final and played passive tennis that couldn't even challenge Federer (he would have lost anyways at last year's USO, and if Fed played that good this year, he would've won it).

Del Potro is a great player who plays real aggressive tennis. He plays the kind of tennis hat can win grand slams. Murray's tennis will only win you slams at the French Open, but he isn't going to do that; there are numerous players better than Murray on clay.

In terms of "the best on hard-courts", it is Federer, Del Potro and Djokovic, Nadal, Soderling, Tsonga, Gonzales, and then maybe Murray. Sure, Murray's more consistent than some of those guys, but he isn't better than any of them.

In terms of best results on HC this year, it has to be (so far): Nadal, Del Potro, then Federer.

Murray hasn't done anything to convince me that he can win a Grand Slam.

rommil
09-15-2009, 07:28 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.


Juan Martin del Potro was still battling on the court while Murray was checking in his luggage for his British Airways flight. I think we can clearly say who's better now especially after he won the title.

All-rounder
09-15-2009, 07:31 AM
^^ then why is Murray still the third best player since *Del Potro has surpassed him*?
Please don't go WTA on us

Bud
09-15-2009, 07:32 AM
Murray is now the only guy in the top 6 without a GS win :oops:

Oui, c'est moi.
09-15-2009, 07:33 AM
Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.
Ok maybe your prediction is possible about Murray ultimately winning more slams


BUT saying Delpo was 'lucky' to win a slam...that kind of talk makes my blood boil! He worked HARD for that win over 2 weeks, he had the mental strength to see it through. Heck he beat the 2 greatest players of this generation (and the guy who took out Murray - Cilic) in a row! That's not luck, that's hard work.

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:34 AM
^^ The same reason Dinara Safina is ranked no.1 on the womens tour with NO SLAMS. Are you saying that Safina > Williams/Clijsters etc?

edit: Sorry this was in reply to Spider's post.

What? Are you comparing a one slam champ Del Potro to Serena? :confused:

If Federer falls out of top ten, he would still be the better player as compared to other players. This is a different case (and that's my point), a player with luck on his side wins a slam and people start predicting he will do better than Murray. Del Potro was great for two weeks but that's about it.

Like I earlier said, Hewitt won his first slam before Federer and yes Hewitt is the better player now, right? :)

Gorecki
09-15-2009, 07:34 AM
People have been overrating Rocky Balboa a lot since he won over Ivan Drago, I mean Ivan has been the second best Boxer, has been more consistent fighter in the last one year if we compare him to Balboa. Balboa was good for two hours and congrats on him on winning a fight but he was quite lucky to win this match lets be honest here.

Ivan is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more Fights than Balboa.

http://jovemnerd.ig.com.br/wp-content/uploads/ads_rocky_ivan_drago.jpg

Bud
09-15-2009, 07:34 AM
Ok maybe your prediction is possible about Murray ultimately winning more slams


BUT saying Delpo was 'lucky' to win a slam...that kind of talk makes my blood boil! He worked HARD for that win over 2 weeks, he had the mental strength to see it through. Heck he beat the 2 greatest players of this generation (and the guy who took out Murray - Cilic) in a row! That's not luck, that's hard work.

Agreed! Strong showing by Delpo... no easy matches... no easy draw. He earned it 100%.

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:36 AM
Juan Martin del Potro was still battling on the court while Murray was checking in his luggage for his British Airways flight. I think we can clearly say who's better now especially after he won the title.

Yes Del Potro was the better player for these two weeks, I agree

Gorecki
09-15-2009, 07:37 AM
saved and bumped in six months...

Dave M
09-15-2009, 07:37 AM
I think if he (JMDP) can get his "head round" the idea of grass I can't see why he won't be a serious contender for that title too.

raiden031
09-15-2009, 07:38 AM
but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.


Murray is lucky he continues to get so much undeserved praise. The guy has not proven that he can go the distance with the big dogs (Fed & Nadal) in the slams. Del Potro did and so he deserves more respect right now. Plus Del Potro has weapons and isn't afraid to use them under pressure while Murray gets too passive. In the long run I think Del Potro will be more successful.

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:38 AM
Ok maybe your prediction is possible about Murray ultimately winning more slams


BUT saying Delpo was 'lucky' to win a slam...that kind of talk makes my blood boil! He worked HARD for that win over 2 weeks, he had the mental strength to see it through. Heck he beat the 2 greatest players of this generation (and the guy who took out Murray - Cilic) in a row! That's not luck, that's hard work.

Ofcourse Del Potro deserves all credit but you cannot deny the fact that he was gifted at times this championship. I mean Nadal player his worst match that I have ever seen and Federer was pathetic again. Murray didn't have this luck last year. Nadal played a great match and Federer was great in the final as well.

batz
09-15-2009, 07:39 AM
Agreed.

Delpo has surpassed Murray in the last 12 months (and definitely in the last 6 months). Prior to 6 months ago... Murray could probably just edge out Delpo.

So how come DelP lost to Murray just 4 weeks ago - a breadstick in the 3rd?

DelP has done great - maximum kudos and congratulations to the guy, but are we just going to ignore the fact that only one guy has made at least semis of every hardcourt MS this year? That only one guy has made 3 hardcourt MS finals? That only one guy has won two hardcourt MS this season or that Delp is still behind Murray in both titles won this year and the race?

I know MS ain't slams - but they're not futures events either. Hewitt has won 2 in his career, Roddick has 4. They don't give out MS shields with every £20 of petrol.

Again, maximum kudos to the big guy - but can we retain just a teensy bit of perspective?

BTW DelP is is 16 months younger than Murray, not two years.

David L
09-15-2009, 07:40 AM
What? Are you comparing a one slam champ Del Potro to Serena? :confused:

If Federer falls out of top ten, he would still be the better player as compared to other players. This is a different case (and that's my point), a player with luck on his side wins a slam and people start predicting he will do better than Murray. Del Potro was great for two weeks but that's about it.

Like I earlier said, Hewitt won his first slam before Federer and yes Hewitt is the better player now, right? :)
There's nothing wrong with a little luck. There isn't a player in history who has not benefited from good fortune in winning titles and Slams. You always need a little bit of luck, but you have to give yourself the opportunity in the first place to benefit from that luck.

P_Agony
09-15-2009, 07:41 AM
Right now I have to say IMO DP > Murray, simply because of the slam. Murray can win 10 more MS titles and DP none, but as long as DP has a slam, not to mention he beat Nadal and Fed back to back for it, he's the better HC player today.

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:42 AM
There's nothing wrong with a little luck. There isn't a player in history who has not benefited from good fortune in winning titles and Slams. You always need a little bit of luck, but you have to give yourself the opportunity in the first place to benefit from that luck.

Yes but once this luck runs out you get exposed badly. :)

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:44 AM
Murray is now the only guy in the top 6 without a GS win :oops:

Federer also was slameless for quite some time, however things have turned out quite well now. :oops:

rommil
09-15-2009, 07:46 AM
Yes Del Potro was the better player for these two weeks, I agree

The problem with Murray is he has been talked about by people so much I think he is having problems with the pressure. Del Potro as we saw has managed to get past that and clinch the big win. Being a better player is beyond your groundstrokes and serves. Juan Martin has improved greatly this year, his movement belies his size and he has learned to balance out his emotions on court to play that consistent game. Murray can fist pump everytime he gets 30-15 but what matters is the last point . The longer time it lasted in waiting for Murray to make that big move the more I see it in his face, all the pressure and expectations on him.

Bud
09-15-2009, 07:46 AM
Federer also was slameless for quite some time, however things have turned out quite well now. :oops:

Well, that's what these threads are for... ridiculing others in the future if things either go for or against your guy :lol:

rommil
09-15-2009, 07:48 AM
Federer also was slameless for quite some time, however things have turned out quite well now. :oops:

It's not automatic for everybody else. Federer has shown countless times in the past that he can deal with the pressure.

Cyan
09-15-2009, 07:50 AM
Murray is now the only guy in the top 6 without a GS win :oops:

:oops: :oops:

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:52 AM
Murray has been talked about a lot because he is extremely talented and very versatile and people expect a lot out of him (same like it was with Federer earlier). So that hype because of the talent is justified. Now it's up to Murray to prove what he is capable of.

Del Potro is just an aggressive ball basher with a great serve, a big forehand and consistent backhand.

batz
09-15-2009, 07:52 AM
It's not automatic for everybody else. Federer has shown countless times in the past that he can deal with the pressure.


I think the point Spider is making is that at the time he went out of RG in R1 at his 16th attempt at winning a slam without getting beyond the QFs, Roger hadn't shown he could hack it at slams.

People were saying similar things about him as they are about Murray.

Bud
09-15-2009, 07:52 AM
:oops: :oops:

He best be careful or he'll be the next Safina... everyone talking about how he's undeserving of his current rank.

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:53 AM
:oops: :oops:

Nadal won only six games in a slam semi. :twisted:

Bud
09-15-2009, 07:53 AM
Nadal won only six games in a slam semi. :twisted:

Don't try and deflect the issue :)

zagor
09-15-2009, 07:54 AM
Murray has been talked about a lot because he is extremely talented and very versatile and people expect a lot out of him (same like it was with Federer earlier). So that hype because of the talent is justified. Now it's up to Murray to prove what he is capable of.

Del Potro is just an aggressive ball basher with a great serve, a big forehand and consistent backhand.

You just described a great player.Anyone who has a great serve and big but consistant ground game is a slam contender.

Oui, c'est moi.
09-15-2009, 07:54 AM
Ofcourse Del Potro deserves all credit but you cannot deny the fact that he was gifted at times this championship. I mean Nadal player his worst match that I have ever seen and Federer was pathetic again. Murray didn't have this luck last year. Nadal played a great match and Federer was great in the final as well.
Then why didn't Murray use this 'lucky' time to win US Open? He failed to take even a set off Cilic, he missed his chance to beat Nadal at his 'worst' and missed his chance to take out a 'weaker' Fed than last year. :rolleyes:


Yes Del Potro was the better player for these two weeks, I agree
Well he picked the best 2 weeks to be a better player HAHA.

crazylevity
09-15-2009, 07:56 AM
Murray has been talked about a lot because he is extremely talented and very versatile and people expect a lot out of him (same like it was with Federer earlier). So that hype because of the talent is justified. Now it's up to Murray to prove what he is capable of.

Del Potro is just an aggressive ball basher with a great serve, a big forehand and consistent backhand.

:shock::shock::shock:

JUST?

The right way to use the word is as follows:

Murray is JUST a consistent counterpuncher with a weak second serve, loopy slow forehands and consistent backhand.

Gosh.

P.S. I'd like to clarify that actually I admire Murray's skills and footwork very much. It's just that I can't stand people (read: fanboys) who bring other pros down.

AAAA
09-15-2009, 07:58 AM
Maybe Murray is or he isn't, not sure. However I'm 100% certain come the end of the season Del Potro will be happier with his 2009 season than Murray by a huge margin. It's all about the Majors, has been for a long time. Look at the cr&p Safina has to put up with for failing at the slams.

Cyan
09-15-2009, 07:58 AM
Nadal won only six games in a slam semi. :twisted:

Nadal will retire with more slams than the great white hope from Scotland. Next.

Spider
09-15-2009, 07:58 AM
Don't try and deflect the issue :)

He is slamless at the moment that's right but in 5-6 years we all can look back and see who was right. :)

David L
09-15-2009, 07:58 AM
Yes but once this luck runs out you get exposed badly. :)
It's not as if he got hugely lucky. The overwhelming majority of his success at the US Open is down to him. Murray also benefited from some luck in making his 1st Slam final and even winning some of his Masters Series titles. He's not exactly dominating the field. At this level, these guys are so close to each other in ability that sometimes a little luck makes the difference between a win and a loss. Chances are if you put yourself in those final round positions often enough, luck will fall on your side from time to time, but the credit is in getting into that position in the first place.

Antonio Puente
09-15-2009, 07:59 AM
but are we just going to ignore the fact that only one guy has made at least semis of every hardcourt MS this year? That only one guy has made 3 hardcourt MS finals? That only one guy has won two hardcourt MS this season or that Delp is still behind Murray in both titles won this year and the race?


Yes. Yes, we are.

Beating both Nadal and Federer to win the US Open obviously trumps that.

Blinkism
09-15-2009, 07:59 AM
1 > 0

Murray is a mug

Del Potro is the real thing

Cyan
09-15-2009, 08:00 AM
1 > 0

Murray is a mug

Del Potro is the real thing

Yup. It's all about the slams.

All-rounder
09-15-2009, 08:01 AM
Murray has been talked about a lot because he is extremely talented and very versatile and people expect a lot out of him (same like it was with Federer earlier). So that hype because of the talent is justified. Now it's up to Murray to prove what he is capable of.

Del Potro is just an aggressive ball basher with a great serve, a big forehand and consistent backhand.
Who happens to have a slam :roll: with this playing style

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 08:03 AM
the fact is that noone was talking about JMDP at all. I wasn't, all eyes were on murray and fed. Coincidently, murray did his usuall rubbish and has no excuses for not winning a slam.

Players who have been completely raped and killed in the federer rapage era - 2004 until the end of 2007 have still done more a.k.a roddick/hewitt/safin.

David L
09-15-2009, 08:03 AM
Murray has been talked about a lot because he is extremely talented and very versatile and people expect a lot out of him (same like it was with Federer earlier). So that hype because of the talent is justified. Now it's up to Murray to prove what he is capable of.

Del Potro is just an aggressive ball basher with a great serve, a big forehand and consistent backhand.
Federer is considerably more talented than Murray. They are not at all in the same ball park when it comes to talking about ability and talent. Murray is not significantly different, as a prospect, to many of the top 5 or top 10 players we have seen over the years. Federer is a phenomenon.

mrmo1115
09-15-2009, 08:04 AM
Yup. It's all about the slams.

Agree as well.

Del Po >>> Murray

Antonio Puente
09-15-2009, 08:05 AM
Nadal won only six games in a slam semi. :twisted:

That's because Del Potro is a stud. Del Potro = great champion. Murray = three set king.

And when you have six slams in the bank at age 23, it doesn't matter how many games you win in the semis. It would take a century for Murray to win six slams.

woody88
09-15-2009, 08:06 AM
thread rated. thanks!

Spider
09-15-2009, 08:07 AM
1 > 0

Murray is a mug

Del Potro is the real thing

Murray has always beaten Del Potro in a slam. Winning a slam will happen in the future and then we can see who was the Hewitt and who was the Federer of this era. :)

Yup. It's all about the slams.

I agree it's all about the slams not one particular slam. We'll see how things turn out but Murray will have his share (probably more than Nadal).

Who happens to have a slam :roll: with this playing style

He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.

thejoe
09-15-2009, 08:08 AM
I still think Murray will win more slams than Del Potro.

Cyan
09-15-2009, 08:10 AM
Murray has always beaten Del Potro in a slam. Winning a slam will happen in the future and then we can see who was the Hewitt and who was the Federer of this era. :)



I agree it's all about the slams not one particular slam. We'll see how things turn out but Murray will have his share (probably more than Nadal).



He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.

LOL. That is some good weed you are smoking.

Cyan
09-15-2009, 08:11 AM
I still think Murray will win more slams than Del Potro.

Nah.....................

Cyan
09-15-2009, 08:12 AM
That's because Del Potro is a stud. Del Potro = great champion. Murray = three set king.

And when you have six slams in the bank at age 23, it doesn't matter how many games you win in the semis. It would take a century for Murray to win six slams.

Murray will never win a slam.

rommil
09-15-2009, 08:12 AM
Plus Murray has to deal with the whole Fred Perry record. Maybe the whole Scottish/British thing is getting to him. If he just showed up with the perspective that he is this Scottish player with no records of expectations to equal or surpass, he prob will do better. I don't think it's helping him everytime he gets into Wimbledon or any tournament for that matter when he plays. Then again you can't tell people what to say or write. I don't know if Federer had to deal with these kinds of pressure when he first started. I'm not saying they are players of the same caliber as well.

David L
09-15-2009, 08:13 AM
He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.
Yes, but I think you are overrating Murray's talent relative to the talent on the rest of the tour. Murray's success came from being a workhorse, not from a huge reservoir of irrepressible talent. He's extremely competent, but he's not a genius.

rommil
09-15-2009, 08:15 AM
Yes, but I think you are overrating Murray's talent relative to the talent on the rest of the tour. Murray's success came from being a workhorse, not from a huge reservoir of irrepressible talent. He's extremely competent, but he's not a genius.

Just like Novak said. He thinks he was born in the wrong era.

Spider
09-15-2009, 08:17 AM
Murray will never win a slam.

Yes he will and Nadal will probably just win one or two RG from now on (nothing else).

Plus Murray has to deal with the whole Fred Perry record. Maybe the whole Scottish/British thing is getting to him. If he just showed up with the perspective that he is this Scottish player with no records of expectations to equal or surpass, he prob will do better. I don't think it's helping him everytime he gets into Wimbledon or any tournament for that matter when he plays. Then again you can't tell people what to say or write. I don't know if Federer had to deal with these kinds of pressure when he first started. I'm not saying they are players of the same caliber as well.

That maybe true but he has done quite well this year. Murray is too talented to be *just* another player, he can dominate the tour. Whether he does it, only time can tell.



Yes, but I think you are overrating Murray's talent relative to the talent on the rest of the tour. Murray's success came from being a workhorse, not from a huge reservoir of irrepressible talent. He's extremely competent, but he's not a genius.

He isn't a genius but after Federer the most talented player on the tour at the moment. He is just magical at times.

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 08:20 AM
can the OP actually prove anything he is saying, seems like a bunch of opinions to me.

As far as i'm concerned, murrayis the worst player in the top 6 because he hasn't won a slam in a period where the two best players in the world aren't even playing that great.

babolat15
09-15-2009, 08:24 AM
Murray is an incredible player but look at his range of improvement: he is already in pretty much the best condition he can be in, also he has already had his huge jump off improvement on the court...now think about delpo with murrays conditioning, the guy will be scary

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 08:27 AM
delpotro doesn't need murray's conditioning - he's not a pusher who runs around like a stupid rabbit retrieving dead balls.

David L
09-15-2009, 08:27 AM
He isn't a genius but after Federer the most talented player on the tour at the moment. He is just magical at times.
I disagree. I think Murray is one of many in the talent stakes. He has just been able to put his talents to better use than many of the other talented players on tour. I also consider Del Potro, at least, as talented as him. Talent will only get you so far anyway. I mean, I consider Nalbandian, Safin, Tsonga or past players like Rios to be greater talents than Murray, but they have not succeeded, to date, to the extent that they might have. There is nothing magical about Murray's game, but he is very solid. If you can play with few errors, you are going to get a lot of wins. That's what he does.

rommil
09-15-2009, 08:27 AM
Yes he will and Nadal will probably just win one or two RG from now on (nothing else).



That maybe true but he has done quite well this year. Murray is too talented to be *just* another player, he can dominate the tour. Whether he does it, only time can tell.





He isn't a genius but after Federer the most talented player on the tour at the moment. He is just magical at times.

Done quite well to me is an underachievement for Murray this year. In poeple's eyes at the start of this year, he should already have Wimbledon and /or the USO by now the way he was touted.
Federer has more than talent. He has seen the bigger picture more than anybody has, even Nadal. His style of play is not only for aesthetics, there is a greater purpose to it. It's not a coincidence he has made these many consecutive semis/finals over the years without being hampered with a sidelining injury. Point is, Murray is young but his style is taxing to his body. Yes he can do it now but he is getting older, like everybody else. If he needs to break through, he needs to do it soon (see Nadal).

Cyan
09-15-2009, 08:31 AM
Murray's competition will be too strong on HC in the future. His pushing game won't win him any slams on HC, his supposed best surface.

Spider
09-15-2009, 08:31 AM
Done quite well to me is an underachievement for Murray this year. In poeple's eyes at the start of this year, he should already have Wimbledon and /or the USO by now the way he was touted.
Federer has more than talent. He has seen the bigger picture more than anybody has, even Nadal. His style of play is not only for aesthetics, there is a greater purpose to it. It's not a coincidence he has made these many consecutive semis/finals over the years without being hampered with a sidelining injury. Point is, Murray is young but his style is taxing to his body. Yes he can do it now but he is getting older, like everybody else. If he needs to break through, he needs to do it soon (see Nadal).

Ofcourse Federer has achieved all the things that he has and will continue to break more records. But he was also *just* another player at one point in his career and then he dominated the tour like no other player.

I don't expect Murray to do all those things (Federer has created some unbelieveable bench marks) but I will be surprised if Murray isn't the most successful player from his generation of players (including Nadal, and yes I believe this).

Blinkism
09-15-2009, 08:32 AM
Murray has always beaten Del Potro in a slam. Winning a slam will happen in the future and then we can see who was the Hewitt and who was the Federer of this era. :)

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the rest of the Top 6's slam titles

:)

Spider
09-15-2009, 08:32 AM
Murray's competition will be too strong on HC in the future. His pushing game won't win him any slams on HC, his supposed best surface.

But his variety game will. :)

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 08:33 AM
Murray's competition will be too strong on HC in the future. His pushing game won't win him any slams on HC, his supposed best surface.

His pushing has never helped him out. Players will get better - delpotro will get better and djokovic will become dominant once he changes his racket and gets a grip of himself. Murray is out of his league.

I don't know why the OP is actually trying to defend murray when he hasn't got a shred of evidence to back up his comment.

Cyan
09-15-2009, 08:37 AM
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the rest of the Top 6's slam titles

:)

LOL...........................................

rocket
09-15-2009, 08:38 AM
Sorry my British friends, Delpo is way superior to Murray in slams. Yesterday's win wasn't a fluke. Look at the way he manhandled Nadal in the semis.

This forehand of his is going to do a lot of damage on grass next year.

Cyan
09-15-2009, 08:40 AM
Del Potro will win more slams than Vilas. He will also be the first Argie number one. Something Sabatini and Vilas couldn't achieve....

rommil
09-15-2009, 08:42 AM
Sorry my British friends, Delpo is way superior to Murray in slams. Yesterday's win wasn't a fluke. Look at the way he manhandled Nadal in the semis.

This forehand of his is going to do a lot of damage on grass next year.

I don't know about del Potro and grass. If somebody is smart enough to employ low bouncing shots on him, this could be trouble for Juan. We shall see.

tudwell
09-15-2009, 08:42 AM
Murray is a hardcourt masters specialist. :D

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 08:43 AM
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the rest of the Top 6's slam titles

:)

Well, no, your actually giving murray a slam by including the phrase 'top 6'. I think we can safely say that andy 'no slam' murray is crying in his bed over delpo's GS win.

rocket
09-15-2009, 08:45 AM
I don't know about del Potro and grass. If somebody is smart enough to employ low bouncing shots on him, this could be trouble for Juan. We shall see.

He's use the one-two combination, with a big 1st serve to force a weak reply and... bam.

ceberus
09-15-2009, 08:47 AM
Lol, Murray to be knocked from the top 5 real soon. Talent wise, JMDP is better, just needs to hone his skills. Murray may have the shots, but his defensive mentality won't win him big time.

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 08:47 AM
Wait, im gonna start my own thread at this place to replace this stupid thread the OP has made.

Can JMDP win more slams than anyone?

discuss

David L
09-15-2009, 08:47 AM
Ofcourse Federer has achieved all the things that he has and will continue to break more records. But he was also *just* another player at one point in his career and then he dominated the tour like no other player.

I don't expect Murray to do all those things (Federer has created some unbelieveable bench marks) but I will be surprised if Murray isn't the most successful player from his generation of players (including Nadal, and yes I believe this).
Yes, but Federer was a player who happened to have huge talent and huge potential, but was inexperienced and a headcase. Murray, in contrast, is really focused, mentally strong and doing everything he can utilising every resource and stretching every sinew to win, but is still falling short on the big stage. Sure, it's early days and many things might happen in the future, but there is nothing inevitable about Murray's future success. To me, his abilities already look maxed out. I see more potential in Del Potro's game improving than I do for Murray.

beernutz
09-15-2009, 08:47 AM
it's not sour grapes, it's just one person acting stupid.

No, its both.

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 08:50 AM
No, its both.

lol, murray fans really care because they don't want to see anyone progress past murray's level. Fans of other players just accept the fact that JMDP played a great tournament and deserves everything he gets.

rommil
09-15-2009, 08:51 AM
He's use the one-two combination, with a big 1st serve to force a weak reply and... bam.

I think that's what make Del Potro different from the past tall guys, he can hang from the baseline, meaning he doesn't employ the one two combo. To me, him and Cilic are a bit the same, tall guys solid from the baseline.
He is still tall regardless and anybody who can chip the ball and draw him in might be in a better position against him on grass.

danb
09-15-2009, 08:53 AM
Here comes the AO 2010 "heavy" favorite Andy Murray... Time will tell but JMDP is the better player (1 GS) and 2 years younger. There is more media hype around Murray - I'll give him that.

rommil
09-15-2009, 08:57 AM
If he can't live up to it, Judy Murray can start Dunblane Open just like the Djokos did in Belgrade( although Nole has 1 Aussie title).

rocket
09-15-2009, 08:57 AM
I think that's what make Del Potro different from the past tall guys, he can hang from the baseline, meaning he doesn't employ the one two combo. To me, him and Cilic are a bit the same, tall guys solid from the baseline.
He is still tall regardless and anybody who can chip the ball and draw him in might be in a better position against him on grass.

He can definitely hang on the baseline & grind out the point, but when the ball lands on his forehand side, he just steps in & rips it.

That's what killed Fed yesterday, together with Fed's low 1st serve percentage.

rommil
09-15-2009, 08:58 AM
He can definitely hang on the baseline & grind out the point, but when the ball lands on his forehand side, he just steps in & rips it.

That's what killed Fed yesterday, together with Fed's low 1st serve percentage.

Ok Imagine that scenario ON grass.(well not the bad serving of Federer lol).

EndLy
09-15-2009, 09:02 AM
Murray is not the better player. Maybe in best 2/3 sets. but best outta 5 this year Del Porto showed that he's gotten better results.

1 championship. 1 semi, 1 quarter, but a bad loss to hewitt at wimbledon.

compared to murray's

1 semi, 1 quarter and 2 R16s.

sure murray's won 2 masters but Del Porto's got arguably the second biggest slam of the 4 and it's supposedly on Murray's BEST SURFACE!! plus it was over ROGER FEDERER who's maybe the one of the best at the USO.

Murray got annihilated in last year's final.

rocket
09-15-2009, 09:04 AM
Ok Imagine that scenario ON grass.(well not the bad serving of Federer lol).

Wimby grass is not that low bouncing anymore. The firmer surface allows the ball to pop up more. We see mostly baseline rallies nowadays.

nikdom
09-15-2009, 09:10 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Murray fans are the most delusional bunch of the lot. One guy wins a major beating Nadal and Roger along the way, the other guy fades like a lily against Cilic. Who is the better player again??

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 09:11 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Murray fans are the most delusional bunch of the lot. One guy wins a major beating Nadal and Roger along the way, the other guy fades like a lily against Cilic. Who is the better player again??

Delpotro might have a slam - but murray has his 500's & 1000's

rommil
09-15-2009, 09:12 AM
Wimby grass is not that low bouncing anymore. The firmer surface allows the ball to pop up more. We see mostly baseline rallies nowadays.

Does it bounce like a hard court?

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 09:14 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Murray fans are the most delusional bunch of the lot. One guy wins a major beating Nadal and Roger along the way, the other guy fades like a lily against Cilic. Who is the better player again??

They might be delusional, but what of the people that in desperation to have a dig, have to turn another person's great achievement into fuel for trolling.

woody88
09-15-2009, 09:14 AM
for spider to rate his own thread a 5 stars? shame shame shame.

nikdom
09-15-2009, 09:19 AM
They might be delusional, but what of the people that in desperation to have a dig, have to turn another person's great achievement into fuel for trolling.

If you're talking about yourself, that's a pretty accurate assessment. Great job identifying your problem. Now please enter rehab. :)

rocket
09-15-2009, 09:20 AM
Does it bounce like a hard court?

Somewhere between a hard court & the old grass.

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 09:21 AM
I don't think I've ever said that by Player A winning something, player A sucks because they didn't do what player B did.

nikdom
09-15-2009, 09:24 AM
I don't think I've ever said that by Player A winning something, player A sucks because they didn't do what player B did.

What is this, some sort of riddle to be solved? Why don't you simply come out and say what you want to say.

I never said Murray sucks - you're injecting words into my mouth. I'm just commenting on the statement that people feel Murray is the "Better" player even though Del Potro is the one to have come thru on the grand stage- and I think its delusional of his fans.

Serpententacle
09-15-2009, 09:33 AM
Murray's gig is up. Top 25 players are beginning to figure him out. He will lose more and more frequently. He plays like a puss.

This entire thread is pathetic.

Delpo is far and beyond better than Murray. I look forward to Delpo mopping up the stain that is Murray every time they play from this moment forward.

drwood
09-15-2009, 09:34 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.

Laughable. Not only has Delpo has done better than Murray in 3 of the past 4 slams (Australian, French and US Open), he also WON against Fed in a slam final while Murray was blown away.

Also, Murray has a TON of points to defend (plus an automatic 1000 points coming off b/c Madrid is no longer on HC), so it is likely that Delpo will pass him in the rankings by year's end.



Epic fail by OP.

trix123
09-15-2009, 09:55 AM
Murray has always beaten Del Potro in a slam. Winning a slam will happen in the future and then we can see who was the Hewitt and who was the Federer of this era. :)



I agree it's all about the slams not one particular slam. We'll see how things turn out but Murray will have his share (probably more than Nadal).



He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.

I highly doubt Murray will have more slams than Nadal

roddickfan1000
09-15-2009, 09:56 AM
Murray's gig is up. Top 25 players are beginning to figure him out. He will lose more and more frequently. He plays like a puss.

This entire thread is pathetic.

Delpo is far and beyond better than Murray. I look forward to Delpo mopping up the stain that is Murray every time they play from this moment forward.

plus djokovic

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 10:17 AM
What is this, some sort of riddle to be solved? Why don't you simply come out and say what you want to say.

I never said Murray sucks - you're injecting words into my mouth. I'm just commenting on the statement that people feel Murray is the "Better" player even though Del Potro is the one to have come thru on the grand stage- and I think its delusional of his fans.

I was never targeting you though, I was referring to threads mentioning Murray even though the news shouldn't even be about him, it should be about Del Potro pwning Federer.

Andres
09-15-2009, 10:37 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.
Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.
Del Potro slam results:

AO: Quarterfinals (360)
FO: Semifinals (720)
W: 2nd round (45)
USO: Won (2000)

Murray slam results:

AO: R16 (180)
FO: Quarterfinals (360)
W: Semifinal (720)
USO: R16 (160)

Del Potro: 3125 pts
Murray: 1420 pts

Nadalfan89
09-15-2009, 10:53 AM
This thread is funny.

Murray will never win a slam in his entire career. He's a pusher and only wins small tournements that no one gives a **** about.

Pushers never become great.

JustBob
09-15-2009, 10:56 AM
Define "better". If you mean skills/natural talent, than yes Murray is "better" than Del Po. But that doesn't necessarily translate into better results on the court.

David L
09-15-2009, 11:01 AM
Define "better". If you mean skills/natural talent, than yes Murray is "better" than Del Po. But that doesn't necessarily translate into better results on the court.
I wouldn't even go this far.

Lifted
09-15-2009, 11:01 AM
Wow. There are a lot of people here who don't like Murray...and I'm one of them.

As to the question of whether Murray or Del Potro will be the better or is the better of the two...I don't know and I don't particularly care. I like DelPo WAY more than Murray and am very, very glad he won. I wanted either player (Federer or DelPo) to win at the start, so I'm quite pleased.

coloskier
09-15-2009, 11:15 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.

Murray doesn't have the one big shot that is needed to win a slam like all the others who have won it do (Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro). So I highly doubt he will even get one, let alone more than one.

klementine79
09-15-2009, 11:17 AM
IMO

Murray has versatility in his game.. but lacks confidence and mental fortitude. To all those who call him a 'pusher' .. I cannot agree.. He has game and can play great.. the problem with Murray is.. he tries to adapt to his opponents instead of concentrating on his strengths.

Del Potro.. is the opposite of Murray.. Confident and Relentless.. He plays his game and does not worry too much about how his opponent will react.. I like this about Del Potro.. he knows his strengths and sticks to them.

On a tangent... Why didn't Federer or Nadal attack the net more against Delpo?.. You cannot hang around the baseline with Delpo.. he is too strong and takes patient risks behind the baseline.

I feel a true S&V game would hinder and confuse Delpo...

Dutch-Guy
09-15-2009, 11:39 AM
Del Potro did what Murray failed to do last year. As of now Del Potro>>>Murray.

egn
09-15-2009, 11:43 AM
I would still rather have the title than be the "better player".

JeMar
09-15-2009, 04:23 PM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.

The fact that really matters here is that Murray's game is already extremely polished. He can improve maybe 10-15%, if that. Del Potro has already proven that he can beat the world's best on its grandest stage with a very unpolished version of this game. Del Potro stands to improve anywhere from 20-30%. The guy moves well, but he could move much better. Brad Gilbert's said that once Del Potro's done improving, he could serve consistently in the high 130s-low 140s. His backhand is one of the best in the world already; his forehand is one of the biggest, but it's still highly inconsistent. He'll never be a great volleyer, but with that wingspan, he only needs to be decent to be a presence at net.

Murray's already about as good as he's going to be. And sure, he's had looks at slams, but his A game is still inferior to aggressive baseliners that can hit through the court with ease. In tennis, great offense will beat great defense just about every time. Guys like Federer, Del Potro, Nadal, and even Djokovic when he's playing well have the ability to rip a match out of their opponents hands. They have the ability to make their opponent an irrelevant part of whatever match they play if they are on their A game. Murray will always be at the mercy of a good ball striker having a good day. And the tour is FULL of them.

I mean, even a few weeks ago, when Del Potro played Murray, Del Potro was in charge of the match. He was the one that was dictating play. He was the one that was making shots happen. He was well on his way to victory when he ran out of gas.

You can work on your fitness. You can't work on your talent.

Speaking of talent, I've seen a ton of people throw around the fact that Federer was pretty much crap at the slams between the time he beat Sampras and his first Wimbledon.

Federer was an incredible talent, but he was also highly unpolished. He could hit a winner from anywhere on the court and he could hit pretty much every shot in the tennis book, but he needed to take time to harness his gifts. Keep in mind that not many people remember that Federer used to be a much much aggressive player prior to 2003 than he was before. The kid had been raised as a serve and volleyer and had to morph into primarily a baseliner.

Serve and volley players are notorious for taking longer to develop than simple baseliners, so it was expected that he would take longer to find his game. Add to this the fact that he totally changed his game at a late state, and you have a great talent that takes a very long time to develop.

Murray, on the other hand, already has his game. He knows how he'll be playing when he's 28. It will be the same way he's playing at 22.

Federer's lateness to the grand slam party does mean that Murray's the same case. They are completely different.

flying24
09-15-2009, 04:37 PM
The fact that really matters here is that Murray's game is already extremely polished. He can improve maybe 10-15%, if that. Del Potro has already proven that he can beat the world's best on its grandest stage with a very unpolished version of this game. Del Potro stands to improve anywhere from 20-30%. The guy moves well, but he could move much better. Brad Gilbert's said that once Del Potro's done improving, he could serve consistently in the high 130s-low 140s. His backhand is one of the best in the world already; his forehand is one of the biggest, but it's still highly inconsistent. He'll never be a great volleyer, but with that wingspan, he only needs to be decent to be a presence at net.

Murray's already about as good as he's going to be. And sure, he's had looks at slams, but his A game is still inferior to aggressive baseliners that can hit through the court with ease. In tennis, great offense will beat great defense just about every time. Guys like Federer, Del Potro, Nadal, and even Djokovic when he's playing well have the ability to rip a match out of their opponents hands. They have the ability to make their opponent an irrelevant part of whatever match they play if they are on their A game. Murray will always be at the mercy of a good ball striker having a good day. And the tour is FULL of them.

I mean, even a few weeks ago, when Del Potro played Murray, Del Potro was in charge of the match. He was the one that was dictating play. He was the one that was making shots happen. He was well on his way to victory when he ran out of gas.

You can work on your fitness. You can't work on your talent.

Speaking of talent, I've seen a ton of people throw around the fact that Federer was pretty much crap at the slams between the time he beat Sampras and his first Wimbledon.

Federer was an incredible talent, but he was also highly unpolished. He could hit a winner from anywhere on the court and he could hit pretty much every shot in the tennis book, but he needed to take time to harness his gifts. Keep in mind that not many people remember that Federer used to be a much much aggressive player prior to 2003 than he was before. The kid had been raised as a serve and volleyer and had to morph into primarily a baseliner.

Serve and volley players are notorious for taking longer to develop than simple baseliners, so it was expected that he would take longer to find his game. Add to this the fact that he totally changed his game at a late state, and you have a great talent that takes a very long time to develop.

Murray, on the other hand, already has his game. He knows how he'll be playing when he's 28. It will be the same way he's playing at 22.

Federer's lateness to the grand slam party does mean that Murray's the same case. They are completely different.

Excellent post.

big bang
09-16-2009, 12:09 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.

I have always wanted you Brit´s to win some slams, especially Wimby and I cheered for Henman. I really liked him as both person and player, but the problem for me is that I simply cant stand either Murray´s play or personality:(

ASL
09-16-2009, 12:15 AM
H2H:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>> Del potro 1

Master Series:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>>> Del Potro 0


Some people here are soo naive and obnoxious...

sh@de
09-16-2009, 01:24 AM
H2H:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>> Del potro 1

Master Series:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>>> Del Potro 0


Some people here are soo naive and obnoxious...

Slam:

Del Potro 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray 0

Your point is?

Cindysphinx
09-16-2009, 03:31 AM
Del Potro has more courage than Murray. Simple as that.

ASL
09-16-2009, 03:31 AM
Slam:

Del Potro 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray 0

Your point is?

1 slam says nothing when compared to the two other stats.

Cindysphinx
09-16-2009, 03:34 AM
In tennis, great offense will beat great defense just about every time. [B]Guys like Federer, Del Potro, Nadal, and even Djokovic when he's playing well have the ability to rip a match out of their opponents hands. They have the ability to make their opponent an irrelevant part of whatever match they play if they are on their A game. Murray will always be at the mercy of a good ball striker having a good day. And the tour is FULL of them.



+1. If you need more evidence on this point, here it is: Gael Monfils.

Murray is a slower version of Monfils. That ain't good.

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 03:37 AM
1 slam says nothing when compared to the two other stats.
Like it or not, but slams are what players are remembered for.

ASL
09-16-2009, 03:39 AM
Like it or not, but slams are what players are remembered for.

That's not necessarily true. I remember Andre for his record MS titles more than the slams he won.

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 03:44 AM
That's not necessarily true. I remember Andre for his record MS titles more than the slams he won.

Those 17 titles are nowhere near as much worth as his career grandslam.

ASL
09-16-2009, 03:50 AM
Those 17 titles are nowhere near as much worth as his career grandslam.

That's YOUR opinion.

The fact is, Murray has been able to defeat the top four consistantly while Del Potro has only really mananged to get a rhythm with Nadal only.

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 03:58 AM
That's YOUR opinion.

The fact is, Murray has been able to defeat the top four consistantly while Del Potro has only really mananged to get a rhythm with Nadal only.
It's the opinion of pretty much everyone in the game.

Most people have no idea how many MS titles Sampras, Safin or Kuerten won, but everyone knows their number of slams.

I don't think that Del Potro is a more talented player than Murray, he's too one-dimensional for that.
But Del Potro has beaten Nadal and Federer back-to-back in a slam, this will be remembered in 10 years, but not many will know the number of MS that Murray won between 2008 and 2009.

ASL
09-16-2009, 04:00 AM
It's the opinion of pretty much everyone in the game.

I'm afraid that's just not true. Hey, i'll create a thread with a poll to see who comes out on top? is that ok?

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 04:13 AM
I'm afraid that's just not true. Hey, i'll create a thread with a poll to see who comes out on top? is that ok?
Sure, go ahead.

For historic significance:

Del Potro's 1 slam > Murray's 4 MS
Agassi's career slams * > Agassi's MS record


* The fact that Federer has equalled one feat but not the other has diminished the former's value.
But when both records are broken, which could happen this year, the career slams will be percieved as Agassi's biggest achievement by nearly everyone.

ASL
09-16-2009, 04:24 AM
Ok. have in a look in the FPP section.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 04:30 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.

Lets be really honest

Murray has been second best this year, only because the true number 2 has been crippled with injury and his rival for number 3 has been a total headcase for the past 12 months.

Murray's success has come of the back of his hard work, not his 'talent'.

When he was another lazy player not working hard on his fitness he was having pretty mediocre results. There were no flashes of brilliance that made people think this guy is going to dominate. The Murray Hype Machine only started when he pulled his finger out and started trying to match Nadal in the fitness department. Murray has been working his *** off and is probably in as good condition as he can be right now, and any gains from now will only be minor and will have little bearing on actual match results.

Murray has been at his peak both Physically and Technically for a while now. He has no obvious weaknesses in his game or his conditioning. For him to break through this grand slam plateau he is going to have to fundamentally change the way he approaches matches tactically. Its not an easy task to make such a change, and I dont think there has ever been a player to win a slam who has managed it by changing their natural way of playing. Hewitt tried to change his style later on in his career and it was disastrous.

When you look at a player like Nadal or Federer in their early years they were already fundamentally the player that they are today. Federer an amazing shot maker, Nadal a tremendous athlete with Borg like Natural stamina and athleticism. Federer's game rose as he began to work harder, Nadal's game rose as he shored up his technical weaknesses.

Murray's obvious attributes were his court craft and his ability to control rally's with placement, spin, change of pace etc, like a male Hingis.

No player has succeeded with that kind of style since Wilander, and he was so mentally burned out he never won a slam after his career year, and there are no GOAT contenders who played like that besides Rosewall.

Murray might win 1, 2 or maybe 3 slams in his career if he is lucky. If he manages to stay injury free.If he manages to stay in the kind of shape he is now he will have a chance if he can go through a field where he doesn't encounter a more naturally aggressive player on a hot streak.

Players who work so hard on their fitness however rarely stay at their peak for longer than a couple of years though. Lendl is an exception, since he was a power baseliner rather than a grinder, but look at guys like Courier, Muster or Hewitt. Even guys like Borg and Nadal who were naturally very gifted physically even have trouble maintaining their bodies while playing a grinding style. Borg was mentally burned out at 25 (maybe physically too, who knows?), and Nadal's body is certainly starting to show signs of decline.

If Murray is going to go on a Grand Slam rampage then the clock is ticking, because once his body starts to wear down, we're going to find out just how much 'talent' he really has.

All signs point to Murray not being an all time great.

sh@de
09-16-2009, 05:01 AM
1 slam says nothing when compared to the two other stats.

are you serious? So tell me, if you were a pro player, would you rather win 4 MS titles in your entire career, or a grandslam?

ASL
09-16-2009, 05:05 AM
H2H:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>> Del potro 1

Master Series:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>>> Del Potro 0


Some people here are soo naive and obnoxious...

I never said only the MS wins. The H2H against the top 4, the H2H between those two and the MS all together makes it much more worthy than 1 single slam.

Spider
09-16-2009, 05:09 AM
How can anyone say Murray's at his physical peak and is therefore playing at his absolute peak at the moment? That is incorrect, Murray was playing spectacular tennis, showing flashes of brilliance before Wimbledon last year (the main thing is flashes of brilliance). Since then he is a different player.

Between this period (Wimbledon last year and AO this year) he performed so well in most events he entered that most people had him as a favorite over even both Federer and Nadal for winning the AO this year. If a person can improve so drastically in such a short period of time, there is no reason to believe that he can't get better again this time when the new season starts in January. He has all the shorts that anyone can be proud of. The two glaring weaknesses in his game is his loopy forehand and horrible second serve. If he can work and develop on these two aspects during the offseason, he will be unplayable next year.

hankash
09-16-2009, 05:12 AM
Both faced Federer in the US Open finals. Murray got destroyed, and Delpo won. If Delpo was British, he would be hyped much more than Murray. But when your best player in a long time is Tim Henman, and someone like Murray comes along, of course they're going to hype him and believe he's something which he is not.

If Del Potro keeps this play up, he will be the next #1 after Federer leaves (or gets old), while Murray, Djokovic and Nadal vie for the other top spots.

batz
09-16-2009, 05:13 AM
How can anyone say Murray's at his physical peak and is therefore playing at his absolute peak at the moment? That is incorrect, Murray was playing spectacular tennis, showing flashes of brilliance before Wimbledon last year (the main thing is flashes of brilliance). Since then he is a different player.

Between this period (Wimbledon last year and AO this year) he performed so well in most events he entered that most people had him as a favorite over even both Federer and Nadal for winning the AO this year. If a person can improve so drastically in such a short period of time, there is no reason to believe that he can't get better again this time when the new season starts in January. He has all the shorts that anyone can be proud of. The two glaring weaknesses in his game is his loopy forehand and horrible second serve. If he can work and develop on these two aspects during the offseason, he will be unplayable next year.

I don't know about being unplayable but he definitley has scope for improvement.

Spider
09-16-2009, 05:15 AM
I don't know about being unplayable but he definitley has scope for improvement.

Well if a player like Federer has some scope of improvement (his backhand) then everyone else does as well.

I am pretty confident Murray will beat Del Potro the next time these two play each other.

ASL
09-16-2009, 05:17 AM
Well if a player like Federer has some scope of improvement (his backhand) then everyone else does as well.

I am pretty confident Murray will beat Del Potro the next time these two play each other.

But Murray has beaten Del Potro the last two times they play on HC. Del Potro is no match for Murray. On clay DP the favorite obviously.

batz
09-16-2009, 05:19 AM
But Murray has beaten Del Potro the last two times they play on HC. Del Potro is no match for Murray. On clay DP the favorite obviously.

It's the last 3 times, but I think 'no match for Murray' is a bit silly to be honest - the guy has just won a hardcourt slam by beating Roger and Rafa!

nfor304
09-16-2009, 05:21 AM
How can anyone say Murray's at his physical peak and is therefore playing at his absolute peak at the moment? That is incorrect, Murray was playing spectacular tennis, showing flashes of brilliance before Wimbledon last year (the main thing is flashes of brilliance). Since then he is a different player.

Between this period (Wimbledon last year and AO this year) he performed so well in most events he entered that most people had him as a favorite over even both Federer and Nadal for winning the AO this year. If a person can improve so drastically in such a short period of time, there is no reason to believe that he can't get better again this time when the new season starts in January. He has all the shorts that anyone can be proud of. The two glaring weaknesses in his game is his loopy forehand and horrible second serve. If he can work and develop on these two aspects during the offseason, he will be unplayable next year.

Murray started working seriously on his fitness after his loss to Nadal at the AO 2007. He had been steadily climbing the rankings then had a big jump mid 2008 coinciding with the huge gains he had made in conditioning (hence the whole bicep showing thing).

He's been playing at roughly the same level since 2008 USopen with no noticeable level of improvement since then. This leads me to believe he has entered his peak. The point where any improvements he has been making are not obvious nor have any direct bearing on his results.

Those two weaknesses are not technical weaknesses. His forehand is loopy because he likes to hit it that way because of his defensive mindset. His second serve is spiny and 'horrible' because he doesn't like to double fault and doesn't go after that serve as much as he could.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 05:23 AM
But Murray has beaten Del Potro the last two times they play on HC. Del Potro is no match for Murray. On clay DP the favorite obviously.

Murray barely scraped through in their last match in Montreal. Del Potro was very fatigued and was only a couple of points away from a straight sets win.

ASL
09-16-2009, 05:25 AM
Murray barely scraped through in their last match in Montreal. Del Potro was very fatigued and was only a couple of points away from a straight sets win.

Why bring excuses into play? Murray outplayed him. Simples.

mandy01
09-16-2009, 05:26 AM
Murray barely scraped through in their last match in Montreal. Del Potro was very fatigued and was only a couple of points away from a straight sets win. other than that tennis is about match-ups.And an H2H only reflects a match-up not who the better player is.Overall results on the other hand.....

Spider
09-16-2009, 05:30 AM
Murray barely scraped through in their last match in Montreal. Del Potro was very fatigued and was only a couple of points away from a straight sets win.

No, that is just an excuse. Murray is a bad match up for Del Potro, Murray has too much variety in his game to frustrate Del Potro so if they play, on most occasions Murray will be the winner.

Murray (like Federer) is Del Potro's worst nightmare because of variety he brings to play. So if Murray plays badly (like what happened to Federer at this year's US open final) then Del Potro can get one win.

cknobman
09-16-2009, 05:34 AM
Murray sucks

Spider
09-16-2009, 05:38 AM
Murray sucks

Yeah Federer sucked and was pathetic (worse than Murray) in 2002 too. :neutral:

ASL
09-16-2009, 05:39 AM
Yeah Federer sucked and was pathetic (worse than Murray) in 2002 too. :neutral:

Don't feed the troll.

batz
09-16-2009, 05:41 AM
Murray started working seriously on his fitness after his loss to Nadal at the AO 2007. He had been steadily climbing the rankings then had a big jump mid 2008 coinciding with the huge gains he had made in conditioning (hence the whole bicep showing thing).

He's been playing at roughly the same level since 2008 USopen with no noticeable level of improvement since then. This leads me to believe he has entered his peak. The point where any improvements he has been making are not obvious nor have any direct bearing on his results.

Those two weaknesses are not technical weaknesses. His forehand is loopy because he likes to hit it that way because of his defensive mindset. His second serve is spiny and 'horrible' because he doesn't like to double fault and doesn't go after that serve as much as he could.

The statement in bold is incorrect. Murray didn't have a fitness trainer until he got rid of Brad at the end of 2007.

Spider
09-16-2009, 05:43 AM
Don't feed the troll.

I know I accept Murray isn't perfect but saying 'Murray sucks' is stupid and you're right I shouldn't respond to such posts.

Gorecki
09-16-2009, 05:47 AM
i am working my backseat off here trying to find out wich of these is "Maximilia"!

Spider
09-16-2009, 06:11 AM
Both faced Federer in the US Open finals. Murray got destroyed, and Delpo won. If Delpo was British, he would be hyped much more than Murray. But when your best player in a long time is Tim Henman, and someone like Murray comes along, of course they're going to hype him and believe he's something which he is not.

If Del Potro keeps this play up, he will be the next #1 after Federer leaves (or gets old), while Murray, Djokovic and Nadal vie for the other top spots.

It also depends on how these same players play. Both Federer and Nadal played their best tennis last year and worst tennis this year (at the US open final and semi final). So this makes their opponents look better than what they really are.

I am not saying Murray would have 100% won it this year if Fed and Nadal played the exact same way like they did against Del Potro, but I would give him much more chance than last year.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 07:23 AM
No, that is just an excuse. Murray is a bad match up for Del Potro, Murray has too much variety in his game to frustrate Del Potro so if they play, on most occasions Murray will be the winner.

Murray (like Federer) is Del Potro's worst nightmare because of variety he brings to play. So if Murray plays badly (like what happened to Federer at this year's US open final) then Del Potro can get one win.

No these are just excuses

What has age got to do anything? In that sense Hewitt should have been a greater tennis player as compared to Federer (and look at them now). It doesn't work that way. People mature at different times.

Ofcourse Del Potro deserves all credit but you cannot deny the fact that he was gifted at times this championship. I mean Nadal player his worst match that I have ever seen and Federer was pathetic again. Murray didn't have this luck last year. Nadal played a great match and Federer was great in the final as well.

Federer also was slameless for quite some time, however things have turned out quite well now. :oops:

He is slamless at the moment that's right but in 5-6 years we all can look back and see who was right. :)


He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.

ASL
09-16-2009, 07:25 AM
No these are just excuses

Four of the five quotes you picked are anything but excuses.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 07:26 AM
Why bring excuses into play? Murray outplayed him. Simples.


Ok no excuses.

Grand Slams are the most important events in tennis.

Murray has failed to win a grand slam. Del Potro has not.

Del Potro is better than Murray.

Del Potro's achievements have outplayed Murray's.

Simples.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 07:27 AM
Four of the five quotes you picked are anything but excuses.

Enlighten me.

How exactly are they not excuses as to why Murray has not yet won a slam?

ASL
09-16-2009, 07:29 AM
Ok no excuses.

Grand Slams are the most important events in tennis.

Murray has failed to win a grand slam. Del Potro has not.

Del Potro is better than Murray.

Del Potro's achievements have outplayed Murray's.

Simples.

H2H:

Murray 4 >>>>>>>>>>> Del Potro 2

Master series:

Murray 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Del Potro 0

------------------

I think these two stats speak for themselves.

hoodjem
09-16-2009, 07:31 AM
Those 17 titles are nowhere near as much worth as his career grandslam.
I would say that the career GS has received a lot of hype in that last 6 months, but is next to worthless. But that's just my opinion. (You never heard of it 1880-1990.)

ASL
09-16-2009, 07:32 AM
Enlighten me.

How exactly are they not excuses as to why Murray has not yet won a slam?

Spider:

Federer also was slameless for quite some time, however things have turned out quite well now.

He is slamless at the moment that's right but in 5-6 years we all can look back and see who was right.

He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.

--------

If you think these are excuses then may the lord help you.

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 07:37 AM
I would say that the career GS has received a lot of hype in that last 6 months, but is next to worthless. But that's just my opinion. (You never heard of it 1880-1990.)
Between 1969 and 1999 no one achieved the career GS, that might be a reason why it wasn't talked about much in the early to mid 90s.

I don't know about 1880, though. :)

nfor304
09-16-2009, 07:38 AM
H2H:

Murray 4 >>>>>>>>>>> Del Potro 2

Master series:

Murray 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Del Potro 0

------------------

I think these two stats speak for themselves.

Do you believe winning masters shields and good H2H records are more important than winning grand slam tournaments?

Why then do Fed, Nadal, and yes even Murray routinely skip Masters Series events? Why do the top 10 avoid playing each other in lead up tournaments to Grand Slams (think Queens Vs Halle)?

Surely if they were so important, you would think nobody would ever skip a masters event, and the top players would be trying to play the same event as their peers all the time to try to boost their H2H instead of avoiding them?

Weird.

ASL
09-16-2009, 07:38 AM
I would say that the career GS has received a lot of hype in that last 6 months, but is next to worthless. But that's just my opinion. (You never heard of it 1880-1990.)

I agree with you.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 07:41 AM
Spider:

Federer also was slameless for quite some time, however things have turned out quite well now.

He is slamless at the moment that's right but in 5-6 years we all can look back and see who was right.

He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.

--------

If you think these are excuses then may the lord help you.

Again i'll have to ask you to actually explain why these aren't excuses. I'm just not following you sorry.

If I were to say this for example:

"Sure Murray leads their head to head now, but just wait, in 5-6 years Del Potro will lead their head to head 10-4"

Would that be an excuse or not?

Or how about this:

"Del Potro has only 1 slam now, but Federer only had 1 slam too back in 2003. Look at how things turned out there"

Would that be an excuse?

ASL
09-16-2009, 07:44 AM
Do you believe winning masters shields and good H2H records are more important than winning a grand slam tournament?

Why then do Fed, Nadal, and yes even Murray routinely skip Masters Series events? Why do the top 10 avoid playing each other in lead up tournaments to Grand Slams (think Queens Vs Halle)?

Surely if they were so important, you would think nobody would ever skip a masters event, and the top players would be trying to play the same event as their peers all the time to try to boost their H2H instead of avoiding them?

Weird.

What are you on about? when was the last time Federer, Murray and Nadal skip a MS event?

If pro's skipped MS events, there ranking would be affected and thus leading me to the conclusion that your argument is flawed.

malakas
09-16-2009, 07:46 AM
I believe that Murray will win slams and most probably more than one.And I don't like those attacks on Murray now.

But this thread after Delpo's GS's win is at least ridiculous.

ASL
09-16-2009, 07:50 AM
Again i'll have to ask you to actually explain why these aren't excuses. I'm just not following you sorry.

If I were to say this for example:

"Sure Murray leads their head to head now, but just wait, in 5-6 years Del Potro will lead their head to head 10-4"

Would that be an excuse or not?


No, what Spider said was simply a prediction. Not an excuse. Know the difference!

Or how about this:

"Del Potro has only 1 slam now, but Federer only had 1 slam too back in 2003. Look at how things turned out there"

Would that be an excuse?

First of all, Spider never wrote this exact statement. What he did infact write was also a prediction and nothing else.

l_gonzalez
09-16-2009, 07:55 AM
Murray lacks the strength of will and conviction to go after the truly big matches. His match against Cilic was a great example; Murray went in trying to feel his way into the match and being too clever with his tennis, looking to outfox Cilic... then Cilic found his range and Murray had no answer. It has been said time and again by tennis greats and no so greats: To win you have to go for your shots. Murray doesn't do that and he will not win a slam unless he changes his mentality.

Easier said than done though, drastically changing the way you play and going WAY outside your comfort zone is not easily done.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 07:57 AM
No, what Spider said was simply a prediction. Not an excuse. Know the difference!



First of all, Spider never wrote this exact statement. What he did infact write was also a prediction and nothing else.

So whats the difference between what I said there and what Spider said?
How is my prediction an excuse and Spiders is not?
Mine are completely unfounded predictions too.

Just because you agree with what Spider said it doesnt not make them anything more than excuses.

And clearly Spider didnt write that. I did.

ASL
09-16-2009, 08:00 AM
So whats the difference between what I said there and what Spider said?
.

I should be asking you that question. Why did you fiddle with his quotes? Because you know what he said was nothing more than a prediction. :S

jjermann
09-16-2009, 08:03 AM
H2H:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>> Del potro 1

Master Series:

Andy Murray 4 >>>>>>> Del Potro 0


Some people here are soo naive and obnoxious...

their Masterseries head to head is 4-1

please, and one murray win was because delpo retirement because back injury, and one was because delpo was fatigued montreal final ;)

jjermann
09-16-2009, 08:05 AM
ok i read it wrong, you meant that murray has 4 masterseries and delpo has 0, well delpo would have won that montreal final he lost it because he was fatigued :D

nfor304
09-16-2009, 08:07 AM
I should be asking you that question. Why did you fiddle with his quotes? Because you know what he said was nothing more than a prediction. :S

Go back and read properly. I never fiddled with anyone's quotes, I made up my own 'predictions' as you call them.

Time to take a comprehension course.

A 'prediction' that is being used to justify someones failure, and has no basis whatsoever but hope is called an excuse.

ASL
09-16-2009, 08:07 AM
their Masterseries head to head is 4-1

please, and one murray win was because delpo retirement because back injury, and one was because delpo was fatigued montreal final ;)

Err...I swear i put down H2H as 4-1... :roll:

Oh please, these excuses are awful.

ArrowSmith
09-16-2009, 08:09 AM
H2H:

Murray 4 >>>>>>>>>>> Del Potro 2

Master series:

Murray 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Del Potro 0

------------------

I think these two stats speak for themselves.

Slams

Del Potro 1
Murray 0

That speaks for itself LOZAH!!!!!!

ASL
09-16-2009, 08:11 AM
Go back and read properly. I never fiddled with anyone's quotes, I made up my own 'predictions' as you call them.

Time to take a comprehension course.

A 'prediction' that is being used to justify someones failure, and has no basis whatsoever but hope is called an excuse.

Why didn't you use his exact quotes? and please give a decent and intelligentanswer for once.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 08:12 AM
Err...I swear i put down H2H as 4-1... :roll:

Oh please, these excuses are awful.

Finally! YES these excuse are awful.

Please stop putting your awful Murray fail excuses out into the world.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 08:13 AM
Why didn't you use his exact quotes? and please give a decent and intelligentanswer for once.

I did you moron.

Can you please learn to read properly.

ASL
09-16-2009, 08:14 AM
Finally! YES these excuse are awful.

Please stop putting your awful Murray fail excuses out into the world.

When did i use an excuse?

Don't bother replying if you can't find a quote.

ASL
09-16-2009, 08:16 AM
I did you moron.

Can you please learn to read properly.

As expected, you answer with the knowledge of an 8 year old. Congratulations.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 08:18 AM
THESE are all Spider's original quotes. Or unfounded predictions/excuses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, that is just an excuse. Murray is a bad match up for Del Potro, Murray has too much variety in his game to frustrate Del Potro so if they play, on most occasions Murray will be the winner.

Murray (like Federer) is Del Potro's worst nightmare because of variety he brings to play. So if Murray plays badly (like what happened to Federer at this year's US open final) then Del Potro can get one win.

No these are just excuses

What has age got to do anything? In that sense Hewitt should have been a greater tennis player as compared to Federer (and look at them now). It doesn't work that way. People mature at different times.

Ofcourse Del Potro deserves all credit but you cannot deny the fact that he was gifted at times this championship. I mean Nadal player his worst match that I have ever seen and Federer was pathetic again. Murray didn't have this luck last year. Nadal played a great match and Federer was great in the final as well.

Federer also was slameless for quite some time, however things have turned out quite well now. :oops:

He is slamless at the moment that's right but in 5-6 years we all can look back and see who was right. :)


He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then I asked you why they aren't excuses and you said this:

Spider:

Federer also was slameless for quite some time, however things have turned out quite well now.

He is slamless at the moment that's right but in 5-6 years we all can look back and see who was right.

He lost this time, loses happen. But talent is still there and that would slowly translate into success.

--------

If you think these are excuses then may the lord help you.


To which I replied with this:

Again i'll have to ask you to actually explain why these aren't excuses. I'm just not following you sorry.

If I were to say this for example:

"Sure Murray leads their head to head now, but just wait, in 5-6 years Del Potro will lead their head to head 10-4"

Would that be an excuse or not?

Or how about this:

"Del Potro has only 1 slam now, but Federer only had 1 slam too back in 2003. Look at how things turned out there"

Would that be an excuse?

Notice how in the last post I didnt quote anyone, including Spider. The quotes in inverted commas are my own. I didnt 'fiddle' with anything.

My god man. Did you even go to school?

nfor304
09-16-2009, 08:19 AM
When did i use an excuse?

Don't bother replying if you can't find a quote.

Your 'predictions' as you call them are nothing but excuses. You idiot.

ASL
09-16-2009, 08:20 AM
THESE are all Spider's original quotes. Or unfounded predictions/excuses.



No these are just excuses















Then I asked you why they aren't excuses and you said this:




To which I replied with this:



Notice how in the last post I didnt quote anyone, including Spider. The quotes in inverted commas are my own. I didnt 'fiddle' with anything.

My god man. Did you even go to school?

Incredible, you don't know the difference between and excuse and a prediction. You really need to learn something, fast!

nfor304
09-16-2009, 08:21 AM
Incredible, you don't know the difference between and excuse and a prediction. You really need to learn something, fast!

How about you tell me the difference genius?

ASL
09-16-2009, 08:21 AM
Your 'predictions' as you call them are nothing but excuses. You idiot.

Didn't find any worthy quote, ey? :lol:

nfor304
09-16-2009, 08:23 AM
Didn't find any worthy quote, ey? :lol:

I'm done arguing with a 12 year old who has a reading problem.

malakas
09-16-2009, 08:25 AM
You are BOTH saying the same thing.That this SILLY thread is only based on pure predictions and wishfull thinking.

but hey!Keep it up you two,and get yourself banned!

fleabitten
09-16-2009, 08:25 AM
DP Just Lucky? Just a good 2 weeks?
My *****.

ASL
09-16-2009, 08:27 AM
I'm done arguing with a 12 year old who has a reading problem.

I'm done with someone who believes pro's skip Master 1000 tournaments beacuse "they don't feel that it's worth playing". :lol:

hyogen
09-16-2009, 08:28 AM
How the hell is it hype - he's a slam champion. Murray = Hype king with no slam.

murray also uses steriods. look at his marvelous transformation over the past year and half..

LINK (http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com)

topspin
09-16-2009, 08:51 AM
Ah such sour grapes. Not surprised to see that the OP is from the UK. If Murray will ever be the better player, then he will be the one holding up the trophy and Dick Enberg will be telling him to 'make it snappy' during the interview. Until that precious moment arrives (if ever), enjoy the solid tennis by other players.

GuyClinch
09-16-2009, 08:55 AM
My bet is the OP hasn't seen these guys play in person. While of course they are both very talented players.. Del Potro really grabs your attention..

1) He moves MUCH better then any of the other "super bigs" out there - Isner, Karlo, etc. When you watch him play you actually forget how huge the guy is. The other players remind you of this constantly..

2) He has LEGIT weapons. Of course this is what sets him apart. His serve is big - his kicker is great of course. But its his forehand thats mind blowing. I haven't see a ball striker like that since Agassi. And I never seen a guy hit like that at his size. He relies more on his ground game then his serve - at 6'6" (legit too).

Murray OTOH looks like a mini Federer on TV. But the big difference is like his a detuned Fed. He has alot of nice touch strokes. He has all the shots. He moves well. But unlike Federer he doesn't have massive weapons.

That's where Federer (and Henin) have tricked some of the fans. Its not just their well rounded strong defense with every shot in the book that wins them titles. Its the WEAPONS. Federer has an awesome forehand. He didn't want to say HIS forehand is the best in the game. But it might be. His serve is DEADLY. Don't be fooled..

I will admit Del Potro could be a one slam wonder. But during this run the guy really was the best. Those super tall guys don't usually stay healthy. They tend to accumulate injuries and lose speed and fall off the map. Goran was one slam wonder but you can't take that away from him... For that month he was the best in the world. If everything comes together right these super tall guys can dominate.

Murray's problem is kind of the opposite of Del Potro's. Even if "EVERYTHING" is going right he can still get overpowered. He runs into just one hot player with weapons he is done for. Without the weapons he can just be outclassed. This is why developing weapons is something all tennis players should strive to do - even pros. Murray hits an okay rally ball - but when he wants that extra something he just doesn't seem to have it on demand like a Federer or a Del Potro or even a Henin (who dominated in winner catergories during 2007).

Even when he wins - he produces less winners then his opponents. Its hard to win grandslams with that kind of game. Murray and Federer's game might look superfically similiar on TV but in real life you see a very different style of player. Federer is flashy and aggressive. Murray is patient but gutless.



Pete

cknobman
09-16-2009, 09:02 AM
I would say that the career GS has received a lot of hype in that last 6 months, but is next to worthless. But that's just my opinion. (You never heard of it 1880-1990.)

Sure because during most of that period a grand slam much less a career grand slam meant something different. Up until the what 1980's the grand slams were not on 4 different surfaces. You always had two or more on the same surface (grass, clay).

So Agassi's and Federer's career grandslam do have meaning just because it shows their capability of being the best on all 4 surfaces.

And for the record, until Murray wins a slam hes just an over hyped choker.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 10:54 PM
I'm done with someone who believes pro's skip Master 1000 tournaments beacuse "they don't feel that it's worth playing". :lol:

You are a colossal moron.

First of all, you accuse me of tampering with quotes, which you only believed because of your inability to read properly.

Second you decide to throw out a quote of mine that I never made.

Third. Yes they do skip masters events sometime. If you dont realise that then your by far the dumbest, most ignorant poster on these boards.

The Masters events have been compulsary since about 2001. BUT:

How many clay masters events did Roddick play this year? How many of those does he usually play?

How many clay court masters did Agassi play in his last couple of years?

What about Blake or Fish, when was the last time they played a full clay court swing including all the masters events?

They're all pro's right?

Do you remember when Federer skipped Paris a couple of years ago because he wanted to rest before the Masters Cup?

Of course not. Because your an idiot who talks crap without any knowledge to back things up.

Go back under the bridge troll.

Hope that wasn't to hard for you to understand with all the big words and such. Genius.

grafselesfan
09-16-2009, 11:00 PM
I would say that the career GS has received a lot of hype in that last 6 months, but is next to worthless. But that's just my opinion. (You never heard of it 1880-1990.)

I mostly agree. The one thing it does show is the versatility to win on all surfaces. Really though the type of versatility for the greatest of greats should be to show they can win often and as similarily as possible on various surfaces. Laver did of course. Rosewall it seems pretty clear would have won all the slams multiple times had it been Open tennis and was pretty balanced on all the frequently played ones then also. Gonzalez not so clear when it comes to clay which while he is a great could mean he is less versatile. Federer has won a French but being as his clay victories are so very scarce compared to other surfaces, it also means he isnt as versatile as Laver or Rosewall. Nadal is not an excuse, greats have to find a way to win vs any competition, and if his less deep and strong competition overall in dominating Wimbledon and the U.S Open is dismissed, then likewise the excuse of a true great on the clay surface being in his way must also be by the same logic. Sampras of course falls into that event moreso being not even as good on clay as Federer or probably Gonzales. Borg didnt get nearly as much of a shot on hard courts, but obviously wasnt as strong on hard courts as grass or clay overall.

Then again Agassi isnt in the same league as these GOAT candidates, and compared to the guys he is being compared to maybe it is something in his favor as even less of the guys around his level in history won on all surfaces. Still for the most part I agree the whole career slams is vastly overrated. In the case of Agassi his holes as far as consistency and lack of dominance really more than negate the value of whatever his career slam should be worth, again even when comparing to guys near his own level in history.

NamRanger
09-16-2009, 11:03 PM
I'm done with someone who believes pro's skip Master 1000 tournaments beacuse "they don't feel that it's worth playing". :lol:



Pros used to skip the Australian Open and other major tournaments regularly. You've got to be kidding me right?

nfor304
09-16-2009, 11:05 PM
Pros used to skip the Australian Open and other major tournaments regularly. You've got to be kidding me right?

Apparently ASL finds it hard to believe that pro's would skip a tournament that is compulsory to their ranking.

He has no idea about anything tennis related.

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:13 PM
Pros used to skip the Australian Open and other major tournaments regularly. You've got to be kidding me right?

Yes, but they skipped only due to injury and if there rank would not be affected. You've got to know that, surely?

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:14 PM
Apparently ASL finds it hard to believe that pro's would skip a tournament that is compulsory to their ranking.

He has no idea about anything tennis related.

You know nothing about tennis itself. Go read a book of some sort.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 11:14 PM
Yes, but they skipped only due to injury and/if there rank would not be affected. You've got to know that, surely?

No they didn't. You should stop advertising how little you actually know.

There was a reason that Agassi didnt play at the Australian Open until 1995.
It was because he didn't want to.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 11:15 PM
You know nothing about tennis itself. Go read a book of some sort.

Why did you get rid of my quote in your sig?

Is it because you realized all it would do is advertise how stupid you are?

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:25 PM
No they didn't. You should stop advertising how little you actually know.

.

I wouldn't be talking. :roll:


Agassi chose NOT to play at the AO due to the fact it was very far away from where he lived. He never really cared about his ranking in the early stages of his career.

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:26 PM
Why did you get rid of my quote in your sig?

Is it because you realized all it would do is advertise how stupid you are?

Actually, i took it out as i was about to replace it with a new and another ignorant statement from another user. But now, i think i should rethink that. :lol:

nfor304
09-16-2009, 11:28 PM
I wouldn't be talking. :roll:


Agassi chose NOT to play at the AO due to the fact it was very far away from where he lived. He never really cared about his ranking in the early stages of his career.

So in other words, he didnt want to play it.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 11:29 PM
Actually, i took it out as i was about to replace with a new and another ignorant statement from another user. But now, i think i should rethink that. :lol:

Go right ahead. With every post you make you will prove more and more how ignorant you are.

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:31 PM
So in other words, he didnt want to play it.

He DIDN't care about his ranking and reputation in the early stages of his career. You've been generalizing the whole ATP tour which is just insane and really does show how incompetent you are.

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:34 PM
Go right ahead. With every post you make you will prove more and more how ignorant you are.

I think you are mistaken. The person i am replying to is the one who needs a lecture on tennis.

nfor304
09-16-2009, 11:35 PM
I'm just going to re-post this because clearly nothing seems to be getting through your thick head and I don't have the energy to re-word something for the benefit of an 11 year old who hasn't figured out how to read properly.

I never said all players skip grand slam events. I said players skip masters events often with no good reason.

You idiocy is just running out of control now.

You are a colossal moron.

First of all, you accuse me of tampering with quotes, which you only believed because of your inability to read properly.

Second you decide to throw out a quote of mine that I never made.

Third. Yes they do skip masters events sometime. If you dont realise that then your by far the dumbest, most ignorant poster on these boards.

The Masters events have been compulsary since about 2001. BUT:

How many clay masters events did Roddick play this year? How many of those does he usually play?

How many clay court masters did Agassi play in his last couple of years?

What about Blake or Fish, when was the last time they played a full clay court swing including all the masters events?

They're all pro's right?

Do you remember when Federer skipped Paris a couple of years ago because he wanted to rest before the Masters Cup?

Of course not. Because your an idiot who talks crap without any knowledge to back things up.

Go back under the bridge troll.

Hope that wasn't to hard for you to understand with all the big words and such. Genius.

ArrowSmith
09-16-2009, 11:38 PM
Suddenly "career slam" doesn't matter? All i know is Federer was getting crucified until he won the French Open.

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:41 PM
I'm just going to re-post this because clearly nothing seems to be getting through your thick head and I don't have the energy to re-word something for the benefit of an 11 year old who hasn't figured out how to read properly.

I never said all players skip grand slam events. I said players skip masters events often with no good reason.

You idiocy is just running out of control now.

Yes, i will repost what you ACTUALLY said and show the world your incompetence.

Why then do Fed, Nadal, and yes even Murray routinely skip Masters Series events? Why do the top 10 avoid playing each other in lead up tournaments to Grand Slams (think Queens Vs Halle)?.

Go ahead, name me the last time Fed, Nadal and Murray skipped an ATP Master Series tourney. If you can, that is. :lol:

nfor304
09-16-2009, 11:44 PM
[QUOTE=nfor304;3950642]I'm just going to re-post this because clearly nothing seems to be getting through your thick head and I don't have the energy to re-word something for the benefit of an 11 year old who hasn't figured out how to read properly.

I never said all players skip grand slam events. I said players skip masters events often with no good reason.

You idiocy is just running out of control now.[/QUO
TE]
Yes, i will repost what you ACTUALLY said and show the world your incompetence.



Go ahead, name me the last time Fed, Nadal and Murray skipped and ATP MS? If you can, that is. :lol:

Federer Paris 07.

Murray Monte Carlo 07.

Nadal Paris 06.

Sure showed me. :shock:

batz
09-16-2009, 11:49 PM
[QUOTE=ASL;3950650]

Federer Paris 07.

Murray Monte Carlo 07.

Nadal Paris 06.

Sure showed me. :shock:

Federer lost to Nalby in the 3rd round in Paris 07.

Murray injured his back @ Monte Carlo 07 playing in a doubles match with his brother. He was out of action for 3 weeks after it.

That's a funny definition of 'skipping' you seem to be using.

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:55 PM
[QUOTE=ASL;3950650]

Federer Paris 07.

Murray Monte Carlo 07.

Nadal Paris 06.

Sure showed me. :shock:

Why don't you add the reasons for 2 of those withdrawals? because i know the reason behind all 2!

Actually, don't bother replying because the post will consist of 'They didn't feel like it".

nfor304
09-16-2009, 11:56 PM
[QUOTE=nfor304;3950654]

Federer lost to Nalby in the 3rd round in Paris 07.

Murray injured his back @ Monte Carlo 07 playing in a doubles match with his brother. He was out of action for 3 weeks after it.

That's a funny definition of 'skipping' you seem to be using.

Federer Paris 06.

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:57 PM
Federer Paris 06.

Oops...:roll:

ASL
09-16-2009, 11:57 PM
Federer lost to Nalby in the 3rd round in Paris 07.

Murray injured his back @ Monte Carlo 07 playing in a doubles match with his brother. He was out of action for 3 weeks after it.

That's a funny definition of 'skipping' you seem to be using.

Soon after Murray had a severe wrist injury which kept him out of two slams.

doom
09-17-2009, 12:03 AM
Soon after Murray had a severe wrist injury which kept him out of two slams.



The Masters events have been compulsary since about 2001. BUT:

How many clay masters events did Roddick play this year? How many of those does he usually play?

How many clay court masters did Agassi play in his last couple of years?

What about Blake or Fish, when was the last time they played a full clay court swing including all the masters events?

They're all pro's right?

Do you remember when Federer skipped Paris a couple of years ago because he wanted to rest before the Masters Cup?



so the other examples he gave dont count for some reason :???:
yeah pro's never skip masters events because they're just as important as slams :-?

nfor304
09-17-2009, 12:07 AM
so the other examples he gave dont count for some reason :???:
yeah pro's never skip masters events because they're just as important as slams :-?

Apparently.

you win ASL. I admit it. Nobody ever skips masters series events.

ASL
09-17-2009, 12:09 AM
How many clay masters events did Roddick play this year? How many of those does he usually play?
.

Roddick had his wedding and spent his honeymoon during the most part of the clay court season. Didn't research enough, ey?

ASL
09-17-2009, 12:12 AM
How many clay court masters did Agassi play in his last couple of years?
.

Agassi had a back injury 2006 which prevented him to play at the FO and all the rest of the clay court season. Nice try, though.

ASL
09-17-2009, 12:20 AM
What about Blake or Fish, when was the last time they played a full clay court swing?
.

Blake and Fish spent most of the clay court season in the US. Playing Houston and such.

I should stop feeding this troll.

MizunoMX20
09-17-2009, 12:37 AM
I'm afraid that's just not true. Hey, i'll create a thread with a poll to see who comes out on top? is that ok?

How's the poll going? Ahhh... I see.. 18-1 in favour of the Career Grand Slam.. That must hurt surely!

The amount of crap you spilled on this thread is mindblowing.

ASL
09-17-2009, 12:42 AM
How's the poll going? Ahhh... I see.. 18-1 in favour of the Career Grand Slam.. That must hurt surely!
.

No, not really...to hold a record number of MS is special IMO.

MizunoMX20
09-17-2009, 12:56 AM
No, not really...to hold a record number of MS is special IMO.

It is special. But clearly not more special than the Career Grand Slam.

ASL
09-17-2009, 12:57 AM
It is special. But clearly not more special than the Career Grand Slam.

Let's agree to disagree.

Halba
09-17-2009, 01:01 AM
hahaha, that's funny.

Murray is a Grand Slam nobody. He got to 1 slam final and played passive tennis that couldn't even challenge Federer (he would have lost anyways at last year's USO, and if Fed played that good this year, he would've won it).

Del Potro is a great player who plays real aggressive tennis. He plays the kind of tennis hat can win grand slams. Murray's tennis will only win you slams at the French Open, but he isn't going to do that; there are numerous players better than Murray on clay.

In terms of "the best on hard-courts", it is Federer, Del Potro and Djokovic, Nadal, Soderling, Tsonga, Gonzales, and then maybe Murray. Sure, Murray's more consistent than some of those guys, but he isn't better than any of them.

In terms of best results on HC this year, it has to be (so far): Nadal, Del Potro, then Federer.

Murray hasn't done anything to convince me that he can win a Grand Slam.

murray has to learn how to slide properly and develop a forehand. joke draws only get you so far.

doom
09-17-2009, 01:40 AM
Blake and Fish spent most of the clay court season in the US. Playing Houston and such.

I should stop feeding this troll.

its you who's the troll buddy.
you haven't made a single valid point yet in this thread and your arguments against what nfor304 said are inconsistent and lacking in logic.

everyone knows that Agassi, Roddick, Blake etc dont always play all the clay court masters. everyone but you for some reason. You saying Blake and Fish played Houston just proves that your argument about how nobody skips MS events wrong.

Like the above poster said, the amount of garbage you have spilled in this thread is mind boggling.

you've been a member what all of 3 days? You've got a big future here. Really gonna take the challenge to the established trolls.

Q&M son
09-17-2009, 03:55 AM
Time will tell...

Rhinosaur
09-17-2009, 07:30 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.

Del Potro had a very good summer. Saying he was good for "two weeks" and that's why he won is idiocy.

bluetrain4
09-17-2009, 07:36 AM
Doesn't the gist of this thread also work in reverse, i.e., "(Assuming you believe) Murray may be the better player, but Del Potro still has the Slam."

I have no idea who is "better" and maybe Murray will be in the long term. But, there's no point in being "better" without a Slam to show for it.

jwbarrientos
09-17-2009, 08:48 AM
so ... The Delpo vs Murray will replace the Roger vs Rafa???:shock:

danb
09-17-2009, 08:56 AM
People have been overrating Del Potro a lot since he won the US open, I mean Murray has been the second best player, has been more consistent player in the last one year if we compare him to Del Potro. Del Potro was good for two weeks and congrats on him on winning a slam but he was quite lucky to win this slam lets be honest here.

Murray is still ahead of him in the ranking and in the long run will end up winning more slams than Del Potro.

He is the first guy to beat Fed and Nadal at the same GS. That is no luck, that is talent Murray is missing.
Murray is on his way DOWN. Murray is a pusher, JMDP strikes the ball pretty well; big difference.

ASL
09-17-2009, 08:58 AM
He is the first guy to beat Fed and Nadal at the same GS. That is no luck, that is talent Murray is missing.
Murray is on his way DOWN. Murray is a pusher, JMDP strikes the ball pretty well; big difference.

Murray is not a pusher. He's a counter puncher.



Besides, when he plays offensively, Federer and Nadal can't even beat him.

danb
09-17-2009, 09:09 AM
Murray is not a pusher. He's a counter puncher.



Besides, when he plays offensively, Federer and Nadal can't even beat him.

Good one - WHEN he play offensively. We saw that when it mattered, at GS.
Can he hit a winner? Oh, yes. A blind squirrel may find a good nut. Point is he pushes the ball back 95% of the time. Counter puncher is the player that turns defense into offense. Murray can't do that 3 sets out of 5 - he just can't.
Of course he will be again the favorite for AO 2009 and lose again somewhere in the second week (if not first week)... At some point people will wake up and see him for who he is. Have patience.

ASL
09-17-2009, 09:21 AM
Good one - WHEN he play offensively. We saw that when it mattered, at GS.
Can he hit a winner? Oh, yes. A blind squirrel may find a good nut. Point is he pushes the ball back 95% of the time. Counter puncher is the player that turns defense into offense. Murray can't do that 3 sets out of 5 - he just can't.
Of course he will be again the favorite for AO 2009 and lose again somewhere in the second week (if not first week)... At some point people will wake up and see him for who he is. Have patience.

Murray does not play defensively 95% of the time. That is just dumb to even say that.

Here are a few vids which clearly demonstrates that he can play aggressive tennis when it matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOB6MJvjH9U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvsX37XQE7c&feature=related (Hey look, Del Potro scrambling like a headless chicken to even stay in the point) :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rpXJnOV-lg&feature=related

diegaa
09-17-2009, 10:10 AM
Ofcourse Federer has achieved all the things that he has and will continue to break more records. But he was also *just* another player at one point in his career and then he dominated the tour like no other player.

I don't expect Murray to do all those things (Federer has created some unbelieveable bench marks) but I will be surprised if Murray isn't the most successful player from his generation of players (including Nadal, and yes I believe this).

are you serious? you really think murray will have more slams than nadal? he has to win 6 only to tie with rafa and has done zero so far. You lost all your ojectivity AND credibility with this ridiculous statement.

GuyClinch
09-17-2009, 10:15 AM
Murray is not an offensive player - he doesn't have good weapons. This is why he is often on the wrong end of the winner stats for matches. His game is like Hewitt's - solid in every aspect except he lacks firepower. His serve is stronger then Hewitt but Hewitt's mental toughness is far superior.

Pete

ASL
09-17-2009, 10:24 AM
This is why he is often on the wrong end of the winner stats for matches.

Murray's topping several other stats actually. Courtesy of Bob Larson's Daily Tennis.

OVERALL WINNING PERCENTAGE:
1..Murray......87%
2..Nadal.......86%
3..Federer.....85%
4..del Potro...78%
5..Djokovic....76%

MASTERS WINNING PERCENTAGE: (includes Masters Cup)
1..Nadal.......84%
2..Murray......83%
3..Federer.....79%
4..Djokovic....76%
5..del Potro...67%

OPTIONAL EVENT WINNING PERCENTAGE:
1..Murray.....100%
2..Federer.....89%
3..del Potro...86%
4..Nadal.......86%
5..Djokovic....75%

TOP TEN WINS:
1..Federer......15
1..Murray.......15
3..Nadal........12
4..Djokovic.....11
4..del Potro....11

WINNING PERCENTAGE AGAINST TOP TEN:
1..Murray......65%
2..Nadal.......63%
3..Federer.....60%
4..Djokovic....52%
5..del Potro...48%

LOSSES TO PLAYERS BELOW #10:
1..Federer.......1
2..Nadal.........3
3..Murray........4
4..del Potro.....5
5..Djokovic......9

LOSSES TO PLAYERS BELOW #20:
1..Federer.......0
2..Murray........1
2..Nadal.........1
4..del Potro.....4
5..Djokovic......6

----------------------------------------

Murray pretty much tops or comes up close second in those stats. AND beats Del Potro in every one.

MizunoMX20
09-17-2009, 10:32 AM
What he meant is that opponents generally speaking hit more winners than Murray in a match.

Andres
09-17-2009, 10:47 AM
Murray's topping several other stats actually. Courtesy of Bob Larson's Daily Tennis.

OVERALL WINNING PERCENTAGE:
1..Murray......87%
2..Nadal.......86%
3..Federer.....85%
4..del Potro...78%
5..Djokovic....76%

MASTERS WINNING PERCENTAGE: (includes Masters Cup)
1..Nadal.......84%
2..Murray......83%
3..Federer.....79%
4..Djokovic....76%
5..del Potro...67%

OPTIONAL EVENT WINNING PERCENTAGE:
1..Murray.....100%
2..Federer.....89%
3..del Potro...86%
4..Nadal.......86%
5..Djokovic....75%

TOP TEN WINS:
1..Federer......15
1..Murray.......15
3..Nadal........12
4..Djokovic.....11
4..del Potro....11

WINNING PERCENTAGE AGAINST TOP TEN:
1..Murray......65%
2..Nadal.......63%
3..Federer.....60%
4..Djokovic....52%
5..del Potro...48%

LOSSES TO PLAYERS BELOW #10:
1..Federer.......1
2..Nadal.........3
3..Murray........4
4..del Potro.....5
5..Djokovic......9

LOSSES TO PLAYERS BELOW #20:
1..Federer.......0
2..Murray........1
2..Nadal.........1
4..del Potro.....4
5..Djokovic......6

----------------------------------------

Murray pretty much tops or comes up close second in those stats. AND beats Del Potro in every one.
Yet, Del Potro won the USO, and reached further in every slam, except Wimby.

boredone3456
09-17-2009, 11:14 AM
Yet, Del Potro won the USO, and reached further in every slam, except Wimby.

Murray may be overall a bit more consistant in some of those stats, but like you say, this year on the big stages, Del Potro stepped up a bit better than Murray did.

As for Murray being the best of his generation, he has no slams (Nadal has 6, djoker and delpo each have 1), I highly doubt it, I doubt at this point Murray will even end his career being markedly more successful overall than Del Potro or Novak...let alone Nadal.

egn
09-17-2009, 11:18 AM
Murray's topping several other stats actually. Courtesy of Bob Larson's Daily Tennis.

OVERALL WINNING PERCENTAGE:
1..Murray......87%
2..Nadal.......86%
3..Federer.....85%
4..del Potro...78%
5..Djokovic....76%

MASTERS WINNING PERCENTAGE: (includes Masters Cup)
1..Nadal.......84%
2..Murray......83%
3..Federer.....79%
4..Djokovic....76%
5..del Potro...67%

OPTIONAL EVENT WINNING PERCENTAGE:
1..Murray.....100%
2..Federer.....89%
3..del Potro...86%
4..Nadal.......86%
5..Djokovic....75%

TOP TEN WINS:
1..Federer......15
1..Murray.......15
3..Nadal........12
4..Djokovic.....11
4..del Potro....11

WINNING PERCENTAGE AGAINST TOP TEN:
1..Murray......65%
2..Nadal.......63%
3..Federer.....60%
4..Djokovic....52%
5..del Potro...48%

LOSSES TO PLAYERS BELOW #10:
1..Federer.......1
2..Nadal.........3
3..Murray........4
4..del Potro.....5
5..Djokovic......9

LOSSES TO PLAYERS BELOW #20:
1..Federer.......0
2..Murray........1
2..Nadal.........1
4..del Potro.....4
5..Djokovic......6

----------------------------------------

Murray pretty much tops or comes up close second in those stats. AND beats Del Potro in every one.

Murray might be better overall but so far when it comes down to it Del Potro has done what Murray was supposed to do..come up big. When is Murray going to do that? Don't make excuses because nobody even picked Del Potro to win a slam this year or anytime soon for that matter, this was supposed to be Murray's year.

Chadwixx
09-17-2009, 11:23 AM
Why are people hyping up murray so much lately? He hasnt been a threat (outside the clueless media) in any event that plays 3 out 5.

Great game but please, lets base players on results, not potential.

Antonio Puente
09-17-2009, 11:29 AM
Originally Posted by Spider
Ofcourse Federer has achieved all the things that he has and will continue to break more records. But he was also *just* another player at one point in his career and then he dominated the tour like no other player.

I don't expect Murray to do all those things (Federer has created some unbelieveable bench marks) but I will be surprised if Murray isn't the most successful player from his generation of players (including Nadal, and yes I believe this).

Do you believe in fairies and elves as well?

Rafa is only 12 months older than Murray. He has 6 slams to Murray's 0. He has a gold medal; Murray does not. He's won 15 shields to Murray's 4. He's won 36 tournaments to Murray's 13.

I would start praying for Murray to simply win one slam.