PDA

View Full Version : How much potential does Andy Murray have?


2slik
12-06-2009, 08:55 AM
I remember watching him against Roddick in Doha earlier this year and he was amazing. I thought he had a chance of winning the AO, French and Wimbledon if he kept playing smart tennis like he played here. I think the season unravelled for him at the SF loss to Roddick at wimbledon where i don't believe he clicked into that next gear you need to reach at tournaments like this. He is clearly a better player then Henman was and can also volley well. I think if he served and volleyed on his own serve he would have a better winning percentage.

Tsonga#1fan
12-06-2009, 09:28 AM
I think we have already seen the best of Murray. It will just be more of the same for a few more years.

vanity
12-06-2009, 09:31 AM
I see him winning a slam or even two next season. He will step it up and play the best tennis of his life. The AO and USO is where he's most likely to win.

Vyse
12-06-2009, 09:33 AM
he will win a slam. he is still very young, no worries for him despite what people on here say. he gonna get a slam

fps
12-06-2009, 09:39 AM
he needs better shot selection/ management of the many strategies available to him, he needs to be braver in the big matches, and he needs a better serve.

everything else, he has.

Anaconda
12-06-2009, 10:00 AM
He has potential. But lets not forget that JMDP and Djokovic have already fulllfiled their potential.

I believed in Murray at the start of the year. He raped Roddick and Federer at the start then loses to chokestar Verdasco. He then was meant to at least get to the wimbledon Final but loses to a Roddick who lost to Murray years ago - and Murray is much better now than in 2006. Murray was then tipped to win the US open and loses to Cilic who hasn't even made a slam Quarter Final up until that point.

I still say that Murray will probably win a slam next year. No more due to fullfilling his goal of the year - he will probably win a few slams.

OddJack
12-06-2009, 10:12 AM
I remember watching him against Roddick in Doha earlier this year and he was amazing. I thought he had a chance of winning the AO, French and Wimbledon if he kept playing smart tennis like he played here. I think the season unravelled for him at the SF loss to Roddick at wimbledon where i don't believe he clicked into that next gear you need to reach at tournaments like this. He is clearly a better player then Henman was and can also volley well. I think if he served and volleyed on his own serve he would have a better winning percentage.

Ahem, vanity, if you dont mind I would like to expand this thread a lil bit.

He kept playing smart tennis, but there is such a thing as being too smart. He's too smart for his own good. He over did his fitness for one. And, he plays tennis like a chess game. He wants to outsmart everyone everytime by playing smart tennis and it simply doesnt work. He probably would make a good chess player but even there he is more like Capablanca than Tall.
If he does not change few things in his game he is a no slam wonder. For one he needs to change his coach. He has been taking with him a minivan of coaches and yet we saw no improvements in 09.
Look at his second serve for goodness sake, he is #4 in the world and don't have one. Davydenko at 5'9" has a better second serve than him.
His break up with Sears tells me he is becoming an unhappy person too, and that's in part for allowing the UK media getting into him. He got to stay away from the hype, focus and rebuild his game and he needs to do it soon.

Anaconda
12-06-2009, 10:18 AM
I see him winning a slam or even two next season. He will step it up and play the best tennis of his life. The AO and USO is where he's most likely to win.

He won't win 2. He didn't make a final this year so he would have to go beyond his capabilities. I'm backing him for AO.US open is a 'maybe' and Wimbledon is a 'NO WAY'.

batz
12-06-2009, 10:25 AM
Ahem, vanity, if you dont mind I would like to expand this thread a lil bit.

He kept playing smart tennis, but there is such a thing as being too smart. He's too smart for his own good. He over did his fitness for one. And, he plays tennis like a chess game. He wants to outsmart everyone everytime by playing smart tennis and it simply doesnt work. He probably would make a good chess player but even there he is more like Capablanca than Tall.
If he does not change few things in his game he is a no slam wonder. For one he needs to change his coach. He has been taking with him a minivan of coaches and yet we saw no improvements in 09.
Look at his second serve for goodness sake, he is #4 in the world and don't have one. Davydenko at 5'9" has a better second serve than him.
His break up with Sears tells me he is becoming an unhappy person too, and that's in part for allowing the UK media getting into him. He got to stay away from the hype, focus and rebuild his game and he needs to do it soon.

I'm not sure that's strictly true. Yes, he went one round further in slams in 08 than he did in 09, but he also amde the second week of every slam for the 1st time in 09, had his best ever performances @ Wimby and RG in 09, his highest ever ranking in 09, and his most titles won in a season in 09.

It wasn't stellar improvement, but i think it's unfair to say he flat-lined this year.

Jchurch
12-06-2009, 10:37 AM
He needs to stop pushing. I doubt he'll ever win a slam

dropshot winner
12-06-2009, 10:37 AM
I'm not a fan of his current defensive style, but if he keeps working on his game, attitude and strategy, 5 slams and #1 ranking are possible.

OddJack
12-06-2009, 10:39 AM
I'm not sure that's strictly true. Yes, he went one round further in slams in 08 than he did in 09, but he also amde the second week of every slam for the 1st time in 09, had his best ever performances @ Wimby and RG in 09, his highest ever ranking in 09, and his most titles won in a season in 09.

It wasn't stellar improvement, but i think it's unfair to say he flat-lined this year.

Yes he won titles and didnt exactly flat lined but he did not achieve his goal which was winning a major. And..his highest ever ranking had nothing to do with him and everything to do with Nadal.

fps
12-06-2009, 10:40 AM
I'm not sure that's strictly true. Yes, he went one round further in slams in 08 than he did in 09, but he also amde the second week of every slam for the 1st time in 09, had his best ever performances @ Wimby and RG in 09, his highest ever ranking in 09, and his most titles won in a season in 09.

It wasn't stellar improvement, but i think it's unfair to say he flat-lined this year.

i saw improvements too, especially at RG, and he won a lot of tournies, which definitely counts for something.

i wonder whether, for all the praise he's got for having so many coaches, there are too many voices in his head before the big matches, too many opinions other than his own crowding his judgement. i don't know whether the advice of a seasoned claycourter is what murray needs in his ear, for instance, when his natural instinct is to grind anyway.

batz
12-06-2009, 11:43 AM
Yes he won titles and didnt exactly flat lined but he did not achieve his goal which was winning a major. And..his highest ever ranking had nothing to do with him and everything to do with Nadal.

Re point 1 - not achieveing his goal for the seaon isn't the same as not making progress; which was your original contention.

Re your second point - true that Nadal's injury was a pre-requisite but untrue that it was nothing to do with Murray. He needed to have the required number of points to make number 2 - both things had to happen, not just Rafa's injury. If Murray had lost every match after RG and still got to number 2 then you could make that argumenent - but the fact is he Murray to make a slam semi, win an MS and make another MS semi to get to number 2.

kishnabe
12-06-2009, 12:22 PM
He best reulst is winning a hard cour masters. Nothing more than that. I rather see someone else win thatn Murray. I am a murray hater for his game but whatever works for him. Murray has no pontentil to grow in his game other than his fitness. maybe he starts voleying a bit more that ya like Aussie open 2007 against Nadal.

mtr1
12-06-2009, 12:27 PM
I remember watching him against Roddick in Doha earlier this year and he was amazing. I thought he had a chance of winning the AO, French and Wimbledon if he kept playing smart tennis like he played here. I think the season unravelled for him at the SF loss to Roddick at wimbledon where i don't believe he clicked into that next gear you need to reach at tournaments like this. He is clearly a better player then Henman was and can also volley well. I think if he served and volleyed on his own serve he would have a better winning percentage.

Not true. Henman was consistantly more of a threat at his best slam that Murray will be at his.

clayman2000
12-06-2009, 12:34 PM
Problem for him is hes not a standout on any 1 surface. At the AO, Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal are all better players. At the FO, Nadal, Fed, Djoker, Del Po, Gonzo, Monfils are all superior. On grass, Nadal, Roddick, Fed are all better. At the USO its Federer, Del Po, Djokovic.

As you can see hell never be a top 3 contender at a slam

fps
12-06-2009, 12:58 PM
Not true. Henman was consistantly more of a threat at his best slam that Murray will be at his.

Murray's already made a grand slam final and he's competitive with each of the top guys, he's a much better player than Henman was.

batz
12-06-2009, 01:01 PM
Not true. Henman was consistantly more of a threat at his best slam that Murray will be at his.

Hate away mate but even Tim Henman reckons Andy Murray is a better player than Tim Henman was.

vanity
12-06-2009, 01:30 PM
Not true. Henman was consistantly more of a threat at his best slam that Murray will be at his.

Quite amusing. i like Henman, but no way is he greater than Murray. He's achieved more than Henman has in his career.

anointedone
12-06-2009, 01:37 PM
Problem for him is hes not a standout on any 1 surface. At the AO, Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal are all better players. At the FO, Nadal, Fed, Djoker, Del Po, Gonzo, Monfils are all superior. On grass, Nadal, Roddick, Fed are all better. At the USO its Federer, Del Po, Djokovic.

As you can see hell never be a top 3 contender at a slam

Your accessment is pretty good. Then again he often is a better player than Djokovic and Del Potro in non slam hard court events so I understand people thinking why cant he be in the hard court slams. Obviously Federer is a different animal in the slams and not even trying to max out in the other events anymore, so he get a pass.

jazzyfunkybluesy
12-06-2009, 01:38 PM
Potential is overrated. Show me some results then we can talk.

mtr1
12-06-2009, 01:48 PM
Quite amusing. i like Henman, but no way is he greater than Murray. He's achieved more than Henman has in his career.

I've just read what I wrote and I come across as stupid so I'll try again. I'm not saying Henman is "greater" that Murray, I just don't think Murray is miles better that Henman. I'm sure Murray will win 1-2 hard court slams, but I prefer Henman's game, and his personality, as I'm sure most people do.

jamesblakefan#1
12-06-2009, 02:29 PM
I've just read what I wrote and I come across as stupid so I'll try again. I'm not saying Henman is "greater" that Murray, I just don't think Murray is miles better that Henman. I'm sure Murray will win 1-2 hard court slams, but I prefer Henman's game, and his personality, as I'm sure most people do.

Henman had zero personality in his playing days. Good on commentary from what I hear, but in his playing days he was Sampras in every way w/ the exception of slams - that includes the lack of personality.

All-rounder
12-06-2009, 02:36 PM
Not true. Henman was consistantly more of a threat at his best slam that Murray will be at his.
He was only a threat on grass courts

sosa09
12-06-2009, 05:20 PM
i think he has the potential , to win all the grand slams except roland garros

jaggy
12-06-2009, 05:24 PM
If he can win faster points he could win a slam but 2 weeks of his current style make it much tougher

surfvland
12-08-2009, 11:32 PM
Incredible player, but he may never win a major, depending on his longevity, and the competition.

Spider
12-09-2009, 04:10 AM
Incredible talent. After Federer, he is the most talented player of this decade. Many of us thought he could win slam titles this year. However, at the right time, Murray wasn't fit enough (which is his completely his fault only). Having wrist injury and being sick at both USO and AO respectively, the slams where he is one of the biggest threats, didn't help his cause this year.

I think he should do well in 2010. He is too talented to go away without slam titles. Most of us have great hopes from him.

Marshredder
12-09-2009, 04:18 AM
Incredible talent. After Federer, he is the most talented player of this decade. Many of us thought he could win slam titles this year. However, at the right time, Murray wasn't fit enough (which is his completely his fault only). Having wrist injury and being sick at both USO and AO respectively, the slams where he is one of the biggest threats, didn't help his cause this year.

I think he should do well in 2010. He is too talented to go away without slam titles. Most of us have great hopes from him.

Look, I know your from the UK, and so supporting him is compulsary, but lets not throw around phrases like "greatest of the decade" or anything, ok?

In the 00's, there were loads of better players. Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal etc...

Spider
12-09-2009, 04:23 AM
Look, I know your from the UK, and so supporting him is compulsary, but lets not throw around phrases like "greatest of the decade" or anything, ok?

In the 00's, there were loads of better players. Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal etc...

Let me correct my statement, I meant players playing at their primes, in this decade. I would put Murray above all players except Federer. I wouldn't include Sampras and Agassi as this generation's players since their primes were in the 90's and I already put Murray below Federer, so I don't know what problem you have?

Spider
12-09-2009, 04:24 AM
In the 00's, there were loads of better players. Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal etc...

No one would put Nadal over Murray on the basis of talent, ask any objective tennis fan.

batz
12-09-2009, 04:25 AM
Let me correct my statement, I meant players playing at their primes, in this decade. I would put Murray above all players except Federer. I wouldn't include Sampras and Agassi as this generation's players since their primes were in the 90's and I already put Murray below Federer, so I don't know what problem you have?

You'd put him above a guy who's won six slams this decade on 3 different surfaces?

Spider
12-09-2009, 04:26 AM
On the basis of pure talent, yes I would.

Marshredder
12-09-2009, 04:28 AM
Agassi was winning slams as far in as 2003, so I'd say he firmly has a place in this decade. Other players, such as Hewitt and Safin also, when playing at their prime, were ahead of Murray.

Anyway, you can hardly say "based on playing at his prime," as Murray has only played at that a handful of times, hes no-where near consistent enough to say he's second best of the decade, he hasn't even got a slam!

Spider
12-09-2009, 04:31 AM
Incredible talent. After Federer, he is the most talented player of this decade. Many of us thought he could win slam titles this year. However, at the right time, Murray wasn't fit enough (which is his completely his fault only). Having wrist injury and being sick at both USO and AO respectively, the slams where he is one of the biggest threats, didn't help his cause this year.

I think he should do well in 2010. He is too talented to go away without slam titles. Most of us have great hopes from him.

I quoted my initial post just to clear my point. Big difference between more accomplished and more talented. There are many players more accomplished than Nalbandian but he is more talented than most of then.

There you go.

batz
12-09-2009, 04:32 AM
On the basis of pure talent, yes I would.

We all have different definitons of 'talent' - so I can't argue with you on that.

What I will say is that this thread is about Murray's potential, not talent. Whether or not Murray is deemed to have achieved his potential will be a function of what he wins. On the basis that Rafa has already achieved 6 slams (Murray would be delirious if he thought he could retire with 6 slams to his name IMO) - it would not be unreasonable to argue that Rafa's potential is > Murray's potential. Unless you think Murray is going to dominate tennis a la Roger for the next 5 years.

namelessone
12-09-2009, 05:27 AM
I actually agree with Oddjack, Murray thinks too much on court and he starts playing almost pusher tennis sometimes. It's like he wants to put another ball in just to play and think some more instead of just winning the dam point. Murray gives me the impression that he ends the point once he is bored. Seriously. Look,it's like this: Nadal is a almost purely instinctual player(little strategy,a lot of fight),Federer is the perfect mix of knowing what to do and when to do it and Murray knows how to do it but not when to do it and he seems to lack a killer instinct,unlike the first two guys on my list.

And he has no excuse for not developing a decent second serve(his first one isn't great either) seeing as unlike the other guy with a bad serve at the top(Nadal).he actually plays with his natural hand.

To answer the question,yes,I think Murray does have talent potential but he won't fulfill it with this game.

CMM
12-09-2009, 07:35 AM
Incredible talent. After Federer, he is the most talented player of this decade. Many of us thought he could win slam titles this year. However, at the right time, Murray wasn't fit enough (which is his completely his fault only). Having wrist injury and being sick at both USO and AO respectively, the slams where he is one of the biggest threats, didn't help his cause this year.

I think he should do well in 2010. He is too talented to go away without slam titles. Most of us have great hopes from him.

You've posted in the wrong thread. Let me help you http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=300786

Spider
12-09-2009, 07:57 AM
You've posted in the wrong thread. Let me help you http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=300786

Hey, thanks for the help, actually I meant to post it here, and not there. Some of variety he produces, especially on his slice, most players are incapable of doing that (including Nadal).

Marshredder
12-09-2009, 10:17 AM
You've posted in the wrong thread. Let me help you http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=300786

I lol'ed.

There are 2 things that mean your opinion on Murray is flawed.

1) He's the least liked player on the board, no-ones going to back you up.

2) He's FAR from the second best player of the decade, talent wise or otherwise. Theres no doubt, he's NOT the second best, I would be wary of putting him in the top 10.

MethodTennis
12-09-2009, 10:33 AM
this much __ federer has this much---

CMM
12-09-2009, 10:46 AM
I lol'ed.

There are 2 things that mean your opinion on Murray is flawed.

1) He's the least liked player on the board, no-ones going to back you up.

2) He's FAR from the second best player of the decade, talent wise or otherwise. Theres no doubt, he's NOT the second best, I would be wary of putting him in the top 10.

I like Murray. And I'm not British.

Antonio Puente
12-09-2009, 12:18 PM
I like Murray. And I'm not British.

So, you're the one.

Gugafan
12-09-2009, 12:19 PM
Hey, thanks for the help, actually I meant to post it here, and not there. Some of variety he produces, especially on his slice, most players are incapable of doing that (including Nadal).

I like Murray but he is nowhere near as talented as Nadal. Just because he can slice well and play with alot of variety doesn't make him anymore talented, especially considering he has defficiencys in other more important parts of his game like Forehand and second serve.

SempreSami
12-09-2009, 02:16 PM
He could definitely win a slam, probably heighten his chances if he knew when he has to be a bit more aggressive.

nickynu
12-09-2009, 04:10 PM
When Lazy people rag on Murray for his serve, look at the tour stats for the year.

1st service- Points won % = ANDY MURRAY 9th on tour - Consider that Djokovic is 21st on tour .... Yes 21st ..... and get ready for it NADAL is ....... well erm nowhere (27th best on tour) Davydenko is one spot behind that even 28th

2nd service - points won = ANDY MURAY 8th on tour - consider Del potro is ............ 16th on tour.

So even if you think thats not impressive ...... Look at return of serve

Andy murray leads the ATP tour on points won against the 1st serve and is second on every other catagory only Nadal has a better record on those(points against 2nd serve/ break point conversion / return games won)

Murray = TALENT .... Dont take my word, Its Statistically proven :shock:

Marshredder
12-09-2009, 04:17 PM
If you want statistics....

Murray Grand Slams - 0
Nadal Grand Slams - 6
Djokovic - 1
Del Potro - 1
Hewitt - 2

You can analyse "talent" via %'s all you want, you can make conclusions based on those etc etc, but at the end of the day, its Slams that matter, theyre what the talent is aimed at achieving, and you can have all the talent in the world, but if you dont use it to win slams, then well...

Theres a beginner girl at my club that NEVER misses a first serve. Her first serves are SLOW, but so so consistent. Her first serves in % is higher than most top 100 players in all likelihood, but does that make her more talented?

No.

NamRanger
12-09-2009, 04:17 PM
When Lazy people rag on Murray for his serve, look at the tour stats for the year.

1st service- Points won % = ANDY MURRAY 9th on tour - Consider that Djokovic is 21st on tour .... Yes 21st ..... and get ready for it NADAL is ....... well erm nowhere (27th best on tour) Davydenko is one spot behind that even 28th

2nd service - points won = ANDY MURAY 8th on tour - consider Del potro is ............ 16th on tour.

So even if you think thats not impressive ...... Look at return of serve

Andy murray leads the ATP tour on points won against the 1st serve and is second on every other catagory only Nadal has a better record on those(points against 2nd serve/ break point conversion / return games won)

Murray = TALENT .... Dont take my word, Its Statistically proven :shock:





And here's another statistically proven fact :



Andy Murray : ZERO SLAMS

britbox
12-09-2009, 04:22 PM
I like Murray. And I'm not British.

I dislike Murray and I am British.

Murray does have the potential to win a slam but needs to take his head out of his backside and understand you don't win them by playing passive reactive tennis - no slam is going to fall into his lap. Fortune favours the brave and unless he starts becoming more agressive and less reactive then he won't be winning majors. Definitely has the potential but I don't think he will.

crackbillionair
12-09-2009, 04:23 PM
I remember watching him against Roddick in Doha earlier this year and he was amazing. I thought he had a chance of winning the AO, French and Wimbledon if he kept playing smart tennis like he played here. I think the season unravelled for him at the SF loss to Roddick at wimbledon where i don't believe he clicked into that next gear you need to reach at tournaments like this. He is clearly a better player then Henman was and can also volley well. I think if he served and volleyed on his own serve he would have a better winning percentage.


What's the good in volleying well if you never come to the net?

I vote that Murray has the greatest potential to get into a 200 stroke rally.

And I pray he never wins anything good. The kid is such a terrible puke! I mean that kindly.

He should cut some more promos with ESPN, doing situps and catching the medicine ball. That worked out well.

Then he should talk some more about how he can become number 1 if he wins Cincy and The Open.

Henman had balls and knew when to keep quiet. Murray lacks those attributes.

nickynu
12-09-2009, 04:57 PM
If you want statistics....

Murray Grand Slams - 0
Nadal Grand Slams - 6
Djokovic - 1
Del Potro - 1
Hewitt - 2

You can analyse "talent" via %'s all you want, you can make conclusions based on those etc etc, but at the end of the day, its Slams that matter, theyre what the talent is aimed at achieving, and you can have all the talent in the world, but if you dont use it to win slams, then well...

Theres a beginner girl at my club that NEVER misses a first serve. Her first serves are SLOW, but so so consistent. Her first serves in % is higher than most top 100 players in all likelihood, but does that make her more talented?

No.

OMG if talent is purely only a function of achieving grand slams as your points suggest, I feel guilty about all the enjoyment I gained watching Santoro toy with Safin, or Nastase at wimbledon, J Mac and Sampras at the french.......... or Mecir and Henri leconte generally .

If only I had realised those guys werent actually talented ..............Thanks for your attempts at sucking the enjoyment out of life, and your help in making me see tennis in a different, less interesting, light.

Ps the beginner girl at your club is not better than Murray as she has not won a slam either, so by your arguement she is only equal to Murray, Verdasco, Davydenko ETC. In fact Im looking forward to her emergence next year as a real force on the world scene. Thanks for the heads-up, could you supply details her touring schedule please, as I want to plan my Television viewing. Thanks

Marshredder
12-09-2009, 05:18 PM
OMG if talent is purely only a function of achieving grand slams as your points suggest, I feel guilty about all the enjoyment I gained watching Santoro toy with Safin, or Nastase at wimbledon, J Mac and Sampras at the french.......... or Mecir and Henri leconte generally .

If only I had realised those guys werent actually talented ..............Thanks for your attempts at sucking the enjoyment out of life, and your help in making me see tennis in a different, less interesting, light.

Ps the beginner girl at your club is not better than Murray as she has not won a slam either, so by your arguement she is only equal to Murray, Verdasco, Davydenko ETC. In fact Im looking forward to her emergence next year as a real force on the world scene. Thanks for the heads-up, could you supply details her touring schedule please, as I want to plan my Television viewing. Thanks

O.o

Every player on the tour is out there to win slams, in Tennis, the most talented win the slams. You can say people have infinite talent, but the thing is, tennis is a sport, you need the talent to win slams, and if you're not winning then something is wrong with your game, and the people that are winning are more talented as they're reaching the goal more often.

Tennis is a sport. Sport is about winning. Murray hasn't won a major yet, so he's not as talented as those who have, saying he's better than Nadal is pointless when you're looking at the sport, its like saying some other runner is more talented than Usain Bolt. He might have better technique or something, but he hasn't got the results. And in sport, EVERYTHING comes down to the results, the aim is to win.

I wasn't trying to say that she was better than Murray, damn, I thought i made that pretty obvious? I was using her as an example to prove that looking at percentages is a pointless exercise when it comes to analyzing talent. Good strokes and percentage of key shots is only a small part of the sport, when it comes down to it, the difference between winners and losers is tactical, psychological, being able to read the opponent etc. Every player in the top 500 have amazing groundstrokes and serves etc, its the way the player constructs those shots to best effect that matters on gameday.

Im not saying Murray doesnt have slam potential, im saying that calling him the second best player of the decade is outright stupid.

nickynu
12-09-2009, 05:39 PM
O.o

Every player on the tour is out there to win slams, in Tennis, the most talented win the slams. You can say people have infinite talent, but the thing is, tennis is a sport, you need the talent to win slams, and if you're not winning then something is wrong with your game, and the people that are winning are more talented as they're reaching the goal more often.

Tennis is a sport. Sport is about winning. Murray hasn't won a major yet, so he's not as talented as those who have, saying he's better than Nadal is pointless when you're looking at the sport, its like saying some other runner is more talented than Usain Bolt. He might have better technique or something, but he hasn't got the results. And in sport, EVERYTHING comes down to the results, the aim is to win.

I wasn't trying to say that she was better than Murray, damn, I thought i made that pretty obvious? I was using her as an example to prove that looking at percentages is a pointless exercise when it comes to analyzing talent. Good strokes and percentage of key shots is only a small part of the sport, when it comes down to it, the difference between winners and losers is tactical, psychological, being able to read the opponent etc. Every player in the top 500 have amazing groundstrokes and serves etc, its the way the player constructs those shots to best effect that matters on gameday.

Im not saying Murray doesnt have slam potential, im saying that calling him the second best player of the decade is outright stupid.

Totally agree with your last point BTW

But IMHO a player without a slam can easily be more talented than 1 with a slam as mental toughness is entirely different from talent. An example would be Roddick ... Yes he has a slam but there are many many more talented players as he is actually pretty limited in many ways. Can you honestly tel me that you believe Roddick has more PURE TALENT than say a Murray or a Monfils for example. If you think so Im honestly shocked but its your call.

NamRanger
12-09-2009, 06:21 PM
Totally agree with your last point BTW

But IMHO a player without a slam can easily be more talented than 1 with a slam as mental toughness is entirely different from talent. An example would be Roddick ... Yes he has a slam but there are many many more talented players as he is actually pretty limited in many ways. Can you honestly tel me that you believe Roddick has more PURE TALENT than say a Murray or a Monfils for example. If you think so Im honestly shocked but its your call.




Roddick makes more use of his talent than Andy Murray does, and that makes him a superior player.

abmk
12-09-2009, 06:29 PM
Incredible talent. After Federer, he is the most talented player of this decade. Many of us thought he could win slam titles this year. However, at the right time, Murray wasn't fit enough (which is his completely his fault only). Having wrist injury and being sick at both USO and AO respectively, the slams where he is one of the biggest threats, didn't help his cause this year.

I think he should do well in 2010. He is too talented to go away without slam titles. Most of us have great hopes from him.

In this decade, safin, nalbandian,nadal, djokovic and del potro are more talented when compared to him ....A relatively weak forehand and a laughable 2nd serve don't help his cause at all.

Chelsea_Kiwi
12-09-2009, 07:29 PM
When Lazy people rag on Murray for his serve, look at the tour stats for the year.

1st service- Points won % = ANDY MURRAY 9th on tour - Consider that Djokovic is 21st on tour .... Yes 21st ..... and get ready for it NADAL is ....... well erm nowhere (27th best on tour) Davydenko is one spot behind that even 28th

2nd service - points won = ANDY MURAY 8th on tour - consider Del potro is ............ 16th on tour.

So even if you think thats not impressive ...... Look at return of serve

Andy murray leads the ATP tour on points won against the 1st serve and is second on every other catagory only Nadal has a better record on those(points against 2nd serve/ break point conversion / return games won)

Murray = TALENT .... Dont take my word, Its Statistically proven :shock: Yeah but how many grand slams does he have again? Statistics can't shown how much of a mental nutcase he is so there goes any argument you had. Sorry.

vanity
12-09-2009, 11:06 PM
Roddick makes more use of his talent than Andy Murray does, and that makes him a superior player.

He certainly made use of his 3 Wimbledon finals. Winning...


oops, none

volleynets
12-09-2009, 11:07 PM
He certainly made use of his 3 Wimbledon finals. Winning...


oops, none

First of all Roddick played Federer in his prime and this year got a little unlucky.


Now ask yourself if Murray has even made 3 Wimbledon finals like Roddick?

oops, he's made none. :oops:

vanity
12-09-2009, 11:07 PM
And here's another statistically proven fact :



Andy Murray : ZERO SLAMS

How narrow minded. Need i remind you that Murray has won as many MS events as your boy Roddick yet he's 5 years younger?

vanity
12-09-2009, 11:09 PM
Now ask yourself if Murray has even made 3 Wimbledon finals like Roddick?

oops, he's made none. :oops:

Murray is 5 years younger than Roddick, he will end up with more slams than him. I guarantee.

Bud
12-09-2009, 11:19 PM
Murray is 5 years younger than Roddick, he will end up with more slams than him. I guarantee.

Not if he continues on the same path he tread in 2009. This was supposed to be his break out year and it should have been. He simply can't deliver the goods.

vanity
12-09-2009, 11:23 PM
Not if he continues on the same path he tread in 2009. This was supposed to be his break out year and it should have been. He simply can't deliver the goods.

Next year he will really turn on the gas. He's won more tournaments and matches this year than the previous - it will only get better.

nickynu
12-10-2009, 03:37 AM
Thomas Johannson ...... Has a slam so he must be pretty talented compared to murray then .........

malakas
12-10-2009, 03:41 AM
He definitely has a lot of potential.To win a couple of slams and to become the most annoying and disliked player of the last decade.He already has fullfilled some of the latter.:)

settolove
12-10-2009, 03:44 AM
Murray is 5 years younger than Roddick, he will end up with more slams than him. I guarantee.

So? Roddick had a slam and two slam finals five years ago.

Murray is a very talented player but talent isn't everything. It is how you use that talent. Sadly it appears Murray is letting his talent go to waste.

Marshredder
12-10-2009, 03:46 AM
So? Roddick had a slam and two slam finals five years ago.

Murray is a very talented player but talent isn't everything. It is how you use that talent. Sadly it appears Murray is letting his talent go to waste.

Spot on!

Anyway, when it comes down to history, MS events dont really mean anything. Does anyone talk about how many MS events Sampras or Connors or MacEnroe won? No, a players legacy is how many slams they won.

dlk
12-10-2009, 04:32 AM
Spot on!

Anyway, when it comes down to history, MS events dont really mean anything. Does anyone talk about how many MS events Sampras or Connors or MacEnroe won? No, a players legacy is how many slams they won.

You're right. 30 years form now, one won't notice 10 tornament wins in a year if none were majors, but the player who only won one tournament, but it was a major will be perceived as the better player.

jonahnaturals
12-10-2009, 04:52 AM
It's strange, sometimes, Murray looks like he can't be beat (like when he took Roger down in Doha), but there are other times when it looks like he isn't a top ten player (like when he lost to Marin).

But I guess this is normal for everyone - ups and downs.

I wonder if he is experiencing mercury toxicity. He is said to eat a ton of sushi, and while smaller fish like salmon are typically low in mercury, bigger species like tuna are typically quite high in mercury.

With the amount of sushi that he reportedly eats, I hope that someone on his team is aware of this and that he makes sure that his health and performance aren't negatively effected by high mercury levels.

I'm a huge fan of Andy Murray. Hoping that he wins two slams this coming year.

Ben

malakas
12-10-2009, 05:23 AM
It's strange, sometimes, Murray looks like he can't be beat (like when he took Roger down in Doha), but there are other times when it looks like he isn't a top ten player (like when he lost to Marin).

But I guess this is normal for everyone - ups and downs.

I wonder if he is experiencing mercury toxicity. He is said to eat a ton of sushi, and while smaller fish like salmon are typically low in mercury, bigger species like tuna are typically quite high in mercury.

With the amount of sushi that he reportedly eats, I hope that someone on his team is aware of this and that he makes sure that his health and performance aren't negatively effected by high mercury levels.

I'm a huge fan of Andy Murray. Hoping that he wins two slams this coming year.

Ben

Congrats!That was the second most original excuse I have ever heard right after the "he lost because he was wearing a hat".

Hat's off!!!!!:D :D :D

Spider
12-10-2009, 05:33 AM
It's strange, sometimes, Murray looks like he can't be beat (like when he took Roger down in Doha), but there are other times when it looks like he isn't a top ten player (like when he lost to Marin).

But I guess this is normal for everyone - ups and downs.

I wonder if he is experiencing mercury toxicity. He is said to eat a ton of sushi, and while smaller fish like salmon are typically low in mercury, bigger species like tuna are typically quite high in mercury.

With the amount of sushi that he reportedly eats, I hope that someone on his team is aware of this and that he makes sure that his health and performance aren't negatively effected by high mercury levels.

I'm a huge fan of Andy Murray. Hoping that he wins two slams this coming year.

Ben


Murray will always be a threat at three out of the four slams each year (leaving RG), so don't worry, he surely will win lots of slam titles in his career.

malakas
12-10-2009, 05:41 AM
Murray will always be a threat at three out of the four slams each year (leaving RG), so don't worry, he surely will win lots of slam titles in his career.

not if sushi has anything to say about this!!!:twisted: har har har!

jazzyfunkybluesy
12-10-2009, 06:44 AM
Surely he realizes that he can't push to win a slam. He has got to learn when to turn up the heat and make it happen. Maybe he needs a few more coaches. What does have 5?

NamRanger
12-10-2009, 06:51 AM
Murray is 5 years younger than Roddick, he will end up with more slams than him. I guarantee.




Oh Maximo, when will you ever stop?

batz
12-10-2009, 07:22 AM
Oh Maximo, when will you ever stop?

You think Murray will win fewer slams than Roddick? Do you think Arod will win more or are you writing Murray off as of now?

rocket
12-10-2009, 07:50 AM
You think Murray will win fewer slams than Roddick? Do you think Arod will win more or are you writing Murray off as of now?

Del Potro will win more slams than Murray.

batz
12-10-2009, 07:53 AM
Del Potro will win more slams than Murray.

Mibbes aye, mibbes naw.

malakas
12-10-2009, 07:54 AM
Mibbes aye, mibbes naw.

see rob?You DO speak a foreign language!!:D

Anaconda
12-10-2009, 08:04 AM
He certainly made use of his 3 Wimbledon finals. Winning...


oops, none

I know you can't reply, but maybe you should think before you speak.

Murray and Roddick do have the same amount of Masters Series events. But Roddick was out of sorts in 2006 (even with his cincy win) - 2008. If Murray was as good as people say then he should be ahead.

And your theory on how Murray will win more slams than Roddick due to age. Not true. How do you know that Roddick won't win another few grand Slams - Agassi is a prime example of this. Roddick had a better career than Murray when he was 21.

And you are taking the p1ss out of Roddick's Wimbledon final record, personally i think he has done brilliantly (for some with 'no talent' ROFL) to push Federer hard in 2 of them.

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

Anyway, your a banned user so i will never get the chance to diminish your points again. Good luck in life.

batz
12-10-2009, 08:12 AM
I know you can't reply, but maybe you should think before you speak.

Murray and Roddick do have the same amount of Masters Series events. But Roddick was out of sorts in 2006 (even with his cincy win) - 2008. If Murray was as good as people say then he should be ahead.

And your theory on how Murray will win more slams than Roddick due to age. Not true. How do you know that Roddick won't win another few grand Slams - Agassi is a prime example of this. Roddick had a better career than Murray when he was 21.

And you are taking the p1ss out of Roddick's Wimbledon final record, personally i think he has done brilliantly (for some with 'no talent' ROFL) to push Federer hard in 2 of them.

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

Anyway, your a banned user so i will never get the chance to diminish your points again. Good luck in life.

Agree with much of this (would love to see Arod win slams toward the end of his career) but not the stuff in bold. You can't just say 'but so and so was pants for 3 seasons' as a reasonable excuse for why he has the same number of MS as Murray. MS are hard to win - the fact that Hewitt and Arod (two worthy number 1 and slam champs) have six between them is testimony to that.

They're not slams of course - but they don't give them away in cornflakes boxes either.

Anaconda
12-10-2009, 08:35 AM
Agree with much of this (would love to see Arod win slams toward the end of his career) but not the stuff in bold. You can't just say 'but so and so was pants for 3 seasons' as a reasonable excuse for why he has the same number of MS as Murray. MS are hard to win - the fact that Hewitt and Arod (two worthy number 1 and slam champs) have six between them is testimony to that.

They're not slams of course - but they don't give them away in cornflakes boxes either.

I'm not going to argue, but if Roddick didn't go off track then he wouldn't be on 1 slam and 4 MS titles - he could have more.

malakas
12-10-2009, 08:41 AM
Anyway, your a banned user so i will never get the chance to diminish your points again. Good luck in life.

haha maximo got banned?Again?:D don't be so fast to say your goodbyes,I'm certain you will have the chance to make fun of his ridiculous posts pretty soon.:)
I'm not going to argue, but if Roddick didn't go off track then he wouldn't be on 1 slam and 4 MS titles - he could have more.

yeah yeah right..and if my grandmother had balls she would be my grandfather.:)

Anaconda
12-10-2009, 09:35 AM
haha maximo got banned?Again?:D don't be so fast to say your goodbyes,I'm certain you will have the chance to make fun of his ridiculous posts pretty soon.:)


yeah yeah right..and if my grandmother had balls she would be my grandfather.:)

I hope not. He's long gone and he isn't comming back.

If Roddick didn't get rid of Brad Gilbert (i mean) he would be on 2 slams at least by now and could have more masters. Just my opinion; It's not definate.

jazzyfunkybluesy
12-10-2009, 09:54 AM
Gilbert seems to be a good coach. A real hard azz.

djokovicgonzalez2010
12-10-2009, 12:30 PM
Murray has plenty of potential. He's just throwing it away. Getting rid of Brad Gilbert an awful idea, or did he quit?