PDA

View Full Version : Do you want Murray to win a slam?


slicefox
03-28-2010, 07:42 PM
With his current game (of pushing and retrieving) does anyone root for murray to win a slam?

If yes, say why, and I want a better reason than "cuz i'm british" u nationalist/racist.

I say no, this boring/lame style should not be rewarded with a trophy.

JoshDragon
03-28-2010, 07:46 PM
Hell no. I don't want him to win a slam. It would just take his focus off Modern Warfare 2 and we all know that he can't afford to get any more rusty at that game.

Sentinel
03-28-2010, 07:54 PM
Of course, but he has to earn it !

Losing repeatedly in a final does not make one deserving of winning.

Djokovicfan4life
03-28-2010, 07:58 PM
I'd love it just because it would stick it to this section. Then 20 threads would pop up about "Murray future GOAT", and then he'd go back to sucking.

djokster
03-28-2010, 08:05 PM
i hate his game. plays modified junior tennis imo...

Commando Tennis Shorts
03-28-2010, 08:06 PM
People say Roddick's game is way too passive to win another Slam, so I have no idea how they would expect Murray to win one

Justin Side
03-28-2010, 08:09 PM
Do I want Murray to win a Slam? I don't root for him, but I don't hate the guy either. If he earns it, he earns it. May the best man win.

swissmiss
03-28-2010, 08:15 PM
While Federer's still playing, I won't root for anyone else in the Slams, and wouldn't mind a bit if he won them all. But if Murray made it to a slam final against another opponent I'd be happy for him to win. If his game's good enough to win, it's good enough to win, and that's fine by me. To be honest he's really grown on me in the past few months, and if he can play well enough to win one then I would say it's well deserved.

Oh, and his game didn't bother me at the AO, except for part of the Cilic match (and in the final I was more focused on Federer's game).

bezs
03-28-2010, 08:20 PM
I'd much rather see other people win like Davydenko, Cilic.

RCizzle65
03-28-2010, 08:27 PM
He's probably one of the only players I really root against because I don't like him at all, so no I don't, but it'll probably happen eventually, he does got talent, even if he has a bad personality

JoshDragon
03-28-2010, 08:35 PM
I would rather see one of the TWF members win a major over Murray.

Lsmkenpo
03-28-2010, 08:46 PM
He won Cincinnati in 2008

jamesblakefan#1
03-28-2010, 08:51 PM
I want him to win a slam, just to see the carnage and chaos it would create on here. If he earns one, he earns one. Isn't changing my life one way or another in any large way. But the comedic value of the reactions on here would be worth it for a day or two.

JoshDragon
03-28-2010, 08:52 PM
I want him to win a slam, just to see the carnage and chaos it would create on here. If he earns one, he earns one. Isn't changing my life one way or another in any large way. But the comedic value of the reactions on here would be worth it for a day or two.

If you want to see chaos and carnage on the forums then you should be hoping for Ljubo to win a slam (not that it will happen.) The board won't be quite for months if Ljubo, ever gets around to winning a major.

Feņa14
03-28-2010, 08:56 PM
I'd love it if he could win one.

forthegame
03-28-2010, 08:58 PM
When Federer retires.
And Nadal.
And Cilic.
And Davydenko.

Then he can win before any other top tenner!

Sangria
03-28-2010, 09:00 PM
He definitely doesn't deserve one atm anyway. Although it would be a talking point for months on end!

sh@de
03-28-2010, 09:01 PM
Definitely not while he pushes around.


Otherwise... maybe.

Lsmkenpo
03-28-2010, 09:02 PM
I wouldn't mind it, if he would win the French beating Nadal in straight sets, that would make for great fun on the forum.

I don't really want him to win Wimbledon or Usopen. He would get too big a head if he ever won one of those two.

I guess I wouldn't mind if he won an AO, due to Djokovic retirement in final from hang nail on left pinky finger.

Rhino
03-28-2010, 09:23 PM
No, it would be annoying watching him.

JoshDragon
03-28-2010, 09:52 PM
I wouldn't mind it, if he would win the French beating Nadal in straight sets, that would make for great fun on the forum.

I don't really want him to win Wimbledon or Usopen. He would get too big a head if he ever won one of those two.

I guess I wouldn't mind if he won an AO, due to Djokovic retirement in final from hang nail on left pinky finger.

I would rather see, Nadal straight set Soderling in the first round of the French Open.:twisted:

Lsmkenpo
03-28-2010, 10:12 PM
I would rather see, Nadal straight set Soderling in the first round of the French Open.:twisted:

What does that have to do with Murray? stay on topic or start another thread if you want to talk about Nadal and Soderling.

Sentinel
03-28-2010, 10:14 PM
No, it would be annoying watching him.
Not to mention that his jaw may break off when he gives the victory scream.

JoshDragon
03-28-2010, 10:35 PM
What does that have to do with Murray? stay on topic or start another thread if you want to talk about Nadal and Soderling.

Ok, well then if Murray had to win a slam. I'd rather he won it over Soderling.

Lsmkenpo
03-28-2010, 10:42 PM
Ok, well then if Murray had to win a slam. I'd rather he won it over Soderling.

Agreed,I wouldn't mind that either, Murray wins slam over Soderling, after Soderling has beaten Nadal in quarterfinals.

Paul Murphy
03-28-2010, 11:35 PM
I'd be happy for him to win one because it would create more interest at the top of the game.
Having said that, his game is like Roddick's - it lacks aggression and an offensive quality, so rewarding an essentially passive game is the downside.

TheTruth
03-28-2010, 11:59 PM
Sure. He's a talent, seems like a decent person. I wouldn't mind him winning one at all.

dropshot winner
03-29-2010, 12:53 AM
Absolutely, he was very unfortunate to not win a slam in the last 2 years.

But I want him to win his first slam with a more aggressive and positive approach.

Sentinel
03-29-2010, 05:14 AM
I'd rather Tsonga win a slam - much more interesting player and personality.

grass_hopper
03-29-2010, 05:18 AM
Every dog should have his day of basking in the sun.

he is very talented and only his personality limits his success. he is now fit but not coached well because he thinks he knows best.

Djokovicfan4life
03-29-2010, 05:20 AM
I'd rather Tsonga win a slam - much more interesting player and personality.
ALLEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've got to start saying that when I get back into it.

forzamilan90
03-29-2010, 05:23 AM
i like how this poll is going so far

P_Agony
03-29-2010, 05:37 AM
With his current game (of pushing and retrieving) does anyone root for murray to win a slam?

If yes, say why, and I want a better reason than "cuz i'm british" u nationalist/racist.

I say no, this boring/lame style should not be rewarded with a trophy.

Why not? Are boring games not legitimate?

If beautiful games were the ones to win slams, Federer would have had every slam for the past 8 years or so, not "just" 16. Murray is a good tactican, and a talented player. He's got a lot of variety and he can change his gameplan according to his opponent. He was a part of many great matches, and while you may not like him, you can appreciate his great talent.

I'm rooting for Murray.

Spider
03-29-2010, 05:59 AM
Murry is one of the most talented youngsters so why would anyone not want to see him win a slam? Of course I would love to see that and it will happen very soon.

Semi-Pro
03-29-2010, 06:13 AM
I do want him to win a slam but not anytime soon. Maybe in like 3 or 4 years, I just don't think he deserves one at the moment.

Ocean Drive
03-29-2010, 07:28 AM
Hell no, I don't.

zagor
03-29-2010, 07:40 AM
I'd first like to see him fulfill his potential in Modern Warfare,there will be time for tennis related success later.

rommil
03-29-2010, 07:55 AM
Yes but I would like him to tell off the British media first so bad they will be rooting against him. Then he can go and win a slam and the rest will be dramatic history.............

batz
03-29-2010, 09:40 AM
With his current game (of pushing and retrieving) does anyone root for murray to win a slam?

If yes, say why, and I want a better reason than "cuz i'm british" u nationalist/racist.

I say no, this boring/lame style should not be rewarded with a trophy.

I'd like to him to win one just so I can work it right up bawbags like you.

GasquetGOAT
03-29-2010, 09:43 AM
deleted..........

joeri888
03-29-2010, 09:45 AM
Only if he plays his Nadal-game constantly.

All-rounder
03-29-2010, 10:07 AM
The question is does Murray want to win a slam?

kishnabe
03-29-2010, 10:13 AM
Maybe he would have a chance if he meets nadal in the final of a HC slam....

I still wouldn't want him to win one....If he does...I will simply believe that slam didn't take place that year!

Ledigs
03-29-2010, 10:16 AM
You should add an option that says "Yes but not if it takes away one from Nadal/Fed"

Anaconda
03-29-2010, 10:23 AM
Maybe he would have a chance if he meets nadal in the final of a HC slam....

I still wouldn't want him to win one....If he does...I will simply believe that slam didn't take place that year!

Haha. Just lol :) As for whether Murray wants to win a slam. Most guys on tour would love a slam.

joeri888
03-29-2010, 10:25 AM
Murray's best chance is if Nadal ends in Federer's half at the US Open.

Olorin
03-29-2010, 10:33 AM
I want Murray to try to win a slam.....and then get destroyed. Broken. Flattened. Pummeled.

I want him to get to the French Open finals. Yes, French Open finals.....only to be destroyed by Federer or Nadal. If, by some miracle, he gets to the finals of another slam, I want him to be taught a lesson.

Then, at Wimbledon, in the finals, Federer thrashes him in straight sets. I want his spirit to be shattered. He is already in a dark place. I want him to be knee deep in the abyss where there is nothing but darkness.

I want him to be in that place for a long, long time. I then want Wayne Ferriera to make a come back and dismantle Murray in the finals of the US Open. His loss to Wayne will put him in cardiac arrest.

Then Murray starts to win ! That's right ! He starts winning, left, right and center in all the Master series events. He gets his spirit back to what it once was. He is the Champion of the People.

He is stronger than ever.

THIS is the time King Jester will win a slam. At next years Australian open. He will be ready. Except.....he faces Federer... again.

He is ****ed. Spirit destroyed. I want his spirit to be rebuilt and destroyed. Again. And again. And again. I want him to say to the media that he no longer wants to play because he is a piece of ****.

I want his final performance in a slam final to be so lob sided it's sad. I want his final moments on the court to be "I am a piece of **** player with a big ****ing mouth'.....'MONNNNN.....

I want his final 'point' in a slam final to be a double fault on the opposite side of the court where he makes his signature scream 'MMOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN' with his wide open mouth.

I want that to be his legacy. That moment. Not any other moment, but THAT one. Judy then screams 'MOONNN'....with Andy.

I want the crowd to boo him off the stage. I want Judy to slap Murray as he is walking off the court and to tell him that she wished he was never born.

I want his father to tell him that he stinks as a player because of that horrendous mark on his leg, call it a birthmark or a birthdefect.

He also smells bad.

The End.

PS I hope you do well Murray. You piece of ****.

Regards,

batz
03-29-2010, 10:34 AM
Murray's best chance is if Nadal ends in Federer's half at the US Open.

Disagree. His best chance is for JMDP to land in Roger's half and for him to be in Rafa's - at the USO.

NamRanger
03-29-2010, 10:36 AM
Disagree. His best chance is for JMDP to land in Roger's half and for him to be in Rafa's - at the USO.



Yes but it's not like there aren't any other players that can beat him on any given day. Cilic, Verdasco, Roddick, heck, any big hitter or a guy that takes alot of risk could beat Murray. At this point, I'd give an unfit Nalbandian a decent shot at taking out Murray.

batz
03-29-2010, 10:37 AM
I want Murray to try to win a slam.....and then get destroyed. Broken. Flattened. Pummeled.

I want him to get to the French Open finals. Yes, French Open finals.....only to be destroyed by Federer or Nadal. If, by some miracle, he gets to the finals of another slam, I want him to be taught a lesson.

Then, at Wimbledon, in the finals, Federer thrashes him in straight sets. I want his spirit to be shattered. He is already in a dark place. I want him to be in knee deep in the abyss; darkness and unending.

I want him to be in that place for a long, long time. I then want Wayne Ferreira to make a come back and dismantle Murray. His loss to Wayne will put him in cardiac arrest.

Then Murray starts to win ! That's right ! He starts winning, left, right and center in all the Master series events. He gets his spirit back to what it once was. He is stronger than ever.

THIS is the time King Jester will win a slam. At next years Australian open. He will be ready. Except he faces Federer again.

He is ****ed. Spirit destroyed. I want his spirit to be rebuilt and destroyed. Again. And again. And again. I want him to say to the media that he no longer wants to play because he is a piece of ****.

The End.

Regards,

Grist for the mill. It's boring kid - have you nothing original and vaguely funny? Go and speak to grandmaster Blink. He'll show you what proper Murray trolling looks like.

joeri888
03-29-2010, 10:37 AM
Disagree. His best chance is for JMDP to land in Roger's half and for him to be in Rafa's - at the USO.

Hmm, he can beat Delpo I think. Del Potro AND Rafa in Roger's half at the USO would be perfect. He can beat anyone of course, but if Roger's in the final, he usually has a plan that works against Andy. Don't expect Roger to suddenly lose to Delpo in Slams everytime either.

I wouldn't necessarily say Murray can't beat Roger in a Slam, but each time it doesn't happen will make it tougher. Paradoxically, especially if he keeps beating Roger in smaller tourneys. It feels like Roger's toying with him.

batz
03-29-2010, 10:44 AM
Yes but it's not like there aren't any other players that can beat him on any given day. Cilic, Verdasco, Roddick, heck, any big hitter or a guy that takes alot of risk could beat Murray. At this point, I'd give an unfit Nalbandian a decent shot at taking out Murray.

Yep - he could lose to any of them on a given day. He could aslo be kidnapped by aliens. None of which has any bearing on the assertion that 'His best chance is for JMDP to be in Roger's half'. Those strawmen of yours get strawier by the day.

OKUSA
03-29-2010, 10:46 AM
I voted no, only because he says he doesn't love tennis. People who don't enjoy matches shouldn't deserve such honor. If he stops being a headcase then I'll like him again

Olorin
03-29-2010, 10:50 AM
It's boring kid - have you nothing original and vaguely funny?

Sure, pappy. Mistake number 1 was assuming I intended for my post to be funny. I did not. Mistake number 2 is that you made the dubious assumption that I intended for it to be original.

I did not.

You are fairly proficient at making assumptions for which I did not intend on making. Of course, the fact that I don't care is par for the course.

Also, if you're bored then clearly boredom is your problem, not mine, correct ? So....I suppose then we're at an impasse ? Except I couldn't give a damn, pappy. I'm here for my own entertainment.

go and speak to grandmaster Blink. He'll show you what proper Murray trolling looks like.

Of course, pappy, one post out of 74 is enough to define oneself as a 'troll', however I would vehemently disagree with that. I suppose trollish behavior and a troll are two separate things altogether.

Also, for clarity, I don't feel like 'speaking' to Blink. I have no allegiances to any member on this board nor do I care in the slightest. I'm here for my own amusement.

'MONNNN....'

Regards,

batz
03-29-2010, 10:55 AM
Sure, pappy. Except my post wasn't intended to be original or funny. If you're bored then clearly that's your problem, not mine.



One post out of 74 doesn't define me as a 'troll'. I suppose trollish behavior and a troll are two separate things altogether. I don't feel like 'speaking' to Blink. I have no allegiances to any member on this board.

'MONNNN....'

Regards,

Nope. Posting trolly stuff makes you a troll. Now get back under that bridge.

Olorin
03-29-2010, 11:08 AM
Nope. Posting trolly stuff makes you a troll.

'Trolly' ? You mean 'trollish', surely ?

Regards,

batz
03-29-2010, 11:13 AM
'Trolly' ? You mean 'trollish', surely ?

Regards,

Mmmmmm. I can live with trolly. But thanks for the suggestion.

Olorin
03-29-2010, 11:46 AM
But thanks for the suggestion.

Hey, no problem.

Regards,

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 11:56 AM
Maybe he would have a chance if he meets nadal in the final of a HC slam....

I still wouldn't want him to win one....If he does...I will simply believe that slam didn't take place that year!

He would choke in the final. QF is a different story.

batz
03-29-2010, 12:06 PM
He would choke in the final. QF is a different story.

So murray can beat Rafa in a slam quarter, a slam semi, but not the final? Are you implying that Murray has 'choked' in his 2 finals against Roger - and therefore he would do the same against Rafa?

Looking over the net and seeing Rafa on a hardcourt is nothing like looking over and seeing Roger. Not even close.

Murray Mound
03-29-2010, 12:29 PM
I like the unbiased poll options....

Option 1: yes

Option 2: NO !!!!!!!!!!!

AM95
03-29-2010, 01:08 PM
With his current game (of pushing and retrieving) does anyone root for murray to win a slam?

If yes, say why, and I want a better reason than "cuz i'm british" u nationalist/racist.

I say no, this boring/lame style should not be rewarded with a trophy.

i dont like him.

but i say yes. i feel that the reason he's playing all defensive and everything is because he is AFRAID to lose. he just has so much pressure on him thanks to these brits and the tabloids and everything.

i hope he gets 1 slam, and if he doesnt change his playing style than i hope he gets no more.

RalphNYC
03-29-2010, 01:10 PM
he's a baby, and yells at his box when he's playing bad. Grow up, grow a heart, and I'll root for you

NamRanger
03-29-2010, 03:31 PM
Yep - he could lose to any of them on a given day. He could aslo be kidnapped by aliens. None of which has any bearing on the assertion that 'His best chance is for JMDP to be in Roger's half'. Those strawmen of yours get strawier by the day.



Strawier? Uh, he just lost to Mardy Fish on what is considered by far his best surface. And Mardy Fish is no longer a top player; dude is a journeyman at this point in his career.



Like I said, at this point Murray can lose to nearly any big hitting player the way things are going with him.

jaggy
03-29-2010, 04:04 PM
Id love it because he is Scottish.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 04:17 PM
Option 1: yes

Option 2: NO !!!!!!!!!!!

Ha! You make that NO!!!!!!! look awfully tempting.

anointedone
03-29-2010, 04:19 PM
If he ends this year poorly I would have doubts about him ever winning a slam. I know it is most times silly to write off someone that young who has already achieved so much but he seems to be mentally losing it, and maybe his defensive game style has taken him as far as it can unless he makes some changes, and that hasnt been to a slam title win yet.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 04:22 PM
I think what hurts him is his passive style of playing. When he cranks it up he's a jacked up version of Lleyton Hewitt. But when he's rope a doping his opponents and yelling "c'mon" on almost every error he reminds me more and more of Hewitt. Perhaps their careers will end up similar.

NamRanger
03-29-2010, 05:03 PM
I think what hurts him is his passive style of playing. When he cranks it up he's a jacked up version of Lleyton Hewitt. But when he's rope a doping his opponents and yelling "c'mon" on almost every error he reminds me more and more of Hewitt. Perhaps their careers will end up similar.



Except Hewitt was far more aggressive when he needed to be and actually won slams.

T1000
03-29-2010, 05:07 PM
I think what hurts him is his passive style of playing. When he cranks it up he's a jacked up version of Lleyton Hewitt. But when he's rope a doping his opponents and yelling "c'mon" on almost every error he reminds me more and more of Hewitt. Perhaps their careers will end up similar.

Comparing Murray to Hewitt is an insult to Hewitt. They play NOTHING alike. Hewitt takes it off the rise, comes to the net, can hit winners, and actually won 2 slams, including Wimbledon. He also had to deal with prime Fed, something Murray never had too. Murray can't even beat a past prime Fed at slams, he'll never win one

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 05:23 PM
Comparing Murray to Hewitt is an insult to Hewitt. They play NOTHING alike. Hewitt takes it off the rise, comes to the net, can hit winners, and actually won 2 slams, including Wimbledon. He also had to deal with prime Fed, something Murray never had too. Murray can't even beat a past prime Fed at slams, he'll never win one


So Hewitt bashing a well past his prime Sampras in the 2001 final doesn't count? Or a clearly nervous Nalbandian in the Wimby final either? Hewitt was a speedy couterpuncher, but he couldn't hit winners. Hewitt has a 100 percent better mentality than Murray, but Murray can jack up the forehand and serve in ways Hewitt could only dream of. Hewitt was a bulldog on the court who gave no quarter, day in, day out. Once he lost the speed and then the fire he couldn't rely on firepower on the ground or a big serve to sort of ride out the twilight years better than now.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 05:24 PM
Comparing Murray to Hewitt is an insult to Hewitt. They play NOTHING alike. Hewitt takes it off the rise, comes to the net, can hit winners, and actually won 2 slams, including Wimbledon. He also had to deal with prime Fed, something Murray never had too. Murray can't even beat a past prime Fed at slams, he'll never win one

Shoot, and I thought was negative.

World Beater
03-29-2010, 05:45 PM
murray is not a choker. the guy is pretty darn good and is usually a fantastic competitor.

the problem is his usual game style doesnt match up well against god-mode federer in gs finals.

flyinghippos101
03-29-2010, 05:52 PM
Hell no. I don't want him to win a slam. It would just take his focus off Modern Warfare 2 and we all know that he can't afford to get any more rusty at that game.

He's probably only gotten to 7th prestige because of practice!

DownTheLine
03-29-2010, 05:54 PM
He can win a Title but not a Slam.

kishnabe
03-29-2010, 05:59 PM
He should switch to golf and maybe he would have a chance!

matchmaker
03-29-2010, 06:08 PM
This is a subjective question with a subjective answer: no, I don't like his game neither his attitude enough to want him to win a slam.

Dark Tempest
03-30-2010, 01:52 AM
No. Watching someone as boring as Murray lift a slam title would make me cry.

batz
03-30-2010, 02:07 AM
Strawier? Uh, he just lost to Mardy Fish on what is considered by far his best surface. And Mardy Fish is no longer a top player; dude is a journeyman at this point in his career.



Like I said, at this point Murray can lose to nearly any big hitting player the way things are going with him.

Agreed. Just like Novak can. Just as well for those two that there's not a slam at this point eh. You know slams, those things that you argue are the be-all and end-all of tennis. The 1 thing that Murray hasn't won, and the 1 thing he said would be his focus for this season - having been the only guy to win 5 of those 'don't matter' titles back to back over the last 2 years.

Also, i'm not sure I consider hardcourt to be Murray's best surface 'by far'. He's as much of a threat on grass as he is on hard IMO.

Finally Nam, why is it that if Novak loses to early Rochus, you respond with the not unreasonable view that:

Djokovic is not a guy that is going to year in and year out dominate and win every tournament. Give it up people, you are setting the bar too high. Stop being spoiled and expect everyone to dominate like Federer and Nadal.

Why is it that you feel the need to get stuck into Murray for losing to Fish? How come it's something profound and meaningful if Murray loses but 'meh' if Novak loses? Seems like you are juggling a couple of standards there.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
03-30-2010, 02:20 AM
With his current game-style? That will be extremely difficult, he will have to change it, i still think he will be a major threat at this years Wimbledon, the break-up from Kim Sears probably affects him aswell although that`s not something he would ever confess. I would like to see him win a slam, and id love to see him beat Nadal or Djokovic in the final.

Sentinel
03-30-2010, 04:41 AM
No. Watching someone as boring as Murray lift a slam title would make me cry.
Seems you were "only 3 sets away" from crying (if one goes by some posters here, ref AO '10).

tintin
03-30-2010, 05:30 AM
I pray he doesn't win a major anytime soon
same goes for Roddick
Querrey
Isner and Blake

borg number one
03-30-2010, 05:48 AM
I think that if he stays motivated, he's likely to win at least one Slam. He's got the talent and fitness required to do so. He could win at Wimbledon, the AO, or perhaps even at the U.S. Open. The French Open seems less likely for him.

*Val*
03-30-2010, 02:16 PM
C'MON!!

No seriously, I think it'd be far too annoying. Sometimes I actually kind of like Murray, like after he lost at AO, and nearly cried, I think everyone felt a little sorry and some warmth towards him, after all, he played really well to get there (and to the US Open final in 2008 ).

Most of the time I hate him though, he's just such a boring personality.

NamRanger
03-30-2010, 10:19 PM
Agreed. Just like Novak can. Just as well for those two that there's not a slam at this point eh. You know slams, those things that you argue are the be-all and end-all of tennis. The 1 thing that Murray hasn't won, and the 1 thing he said would be his focus for this season - having been the only guy to win 5 of those 'don't matter' titles back to back over the last 2 years.

Also, i'm not sure I consider hardcourt to be Murray's best surface 'by far'. He's as much of a threat on grass as he is on hard IMO.

Finally Nam, why is it that if Novak loses to early Rochus, you respond with the not unreasonable view that:

Djokovic is not a guy that is going to year in and year out dominate and win every tournament. Give it up people, you are setting the bar too high. Stop being spoiled and expect everyone to dominate like Federer and Nadal.

Why is it that you feel the need to get stuck into Murray for losing to Fish? How come it's something profound and meaningful if Murray loses but 'meh' if Novak loses? Seems like you are juggling a couple of standards there.


A. Djokovic has more firepower in his game than Murray, therefore can break a slump by just catching a hot streak. If Murray's game continues to plummet, he will just end up like Hewitt and Chang and never recover.

B. Djokovic is a slam champion; Murray is not. Kind of makes a difference when you are analyzing them. One has proven he can win 7 matches in a slam, the other can't.



Djokovic was ALWAYS overrated from the beginning, I said it and no one believed me. I said the same thing about Murray when he first came onto the scene too. However, Djokovic has the game to win a slam at nearly anytime if he can catch a hot streak ala Safin. Murray simply does not posses the firepower from any of his shots in order to win a slam. You can't just rely on your opponents to give you a slam. That simply does not happen, and that's how Murray plays.




Hilarious how you say he is a bigger threat on grass when you were singing a different tune just a few months back about how Murray's best surface is HCs. Clearly, his best surface is HCs, with two finals and multiple master titles on that surface. His SF run at Wimbledon was very fortunate, with him facing no top 10 player until the SF, and he had a very favorable match-up too and still ended up losing.

batz
03-30-2010, 11:26 PM
A. Djokovic has more firepower in his game than Murray, therefore can break a slump by just catching a hot streak. If Murray's game continues to plummet, he will just end up like Hewitt and Chang and never recover.

B. Djokovic is a slam champion; Murray is not. Kind of makes a difference when you are analyzing them. One has proven he can win 7 matches in a slam, the other can't.



Djokovic was ALWAYS overrated from the beginning, I said it and no one believed me. I said the same thing about Murray when he first came onto the scene too. However, Djokovic has the game to win a slam at nearly anytime if he can catch a hot streak ala Safin. Murray simply does not posses the firepower from any of his shots in order to win a slam. You can't just rely on your opponents to give you a slam. That simply does not happen, and that's how Murray plays.




Hilarious how you say he is a bigger threat on grass when you were singing a different tune just a few months back about how Murray's best surface is HCs. Clearly, his best surface is HCs, with two finals and multiple master titles on that surface. His SF run at Wimbledon was very fortunate, with him facing no top 10 player until the SF, and he had a very favorable match-up too and still ended up losing.

What does gamestyle or slam record have to do with the way you judge players? You have just admitted that you hold different players to different standards - and the crazy thing is that you hold the non-slam winner to a higher standard than the slam winner! So Novak gets a 'go easy on the guy' response when losing early despite having done the square root of hee-haw for 2 years, while Murray, who has outperformed Novak by any measure for the last 2 years gets a kicking for losing early - because you don't like Murray's gamestyle and because he's never been fortunate enough to meet a sick Roger in a slam or JWT in a slam final? Is that REALLY your position on this? Your utter lack of objectivity is revealed for all to see

Point out where I said Murray was a bigger threat on grass. I said he was as much of a threat on grass as he was on hard - it's not like you to use strawmen is it Nam - I'm shocked. I've always said Murray is a threat on grass. Also, if there were as many grass court tournaments as there are hard, then your like for like comparison might make sense. As it is, it's just another one of those fast-becoming-legendary strawmen of yours. One day you'll post an argument that doesn't contain one - I certainly live in hope.

Murray's 1st ATP win came on grass. His first win over a top 20 player came on grass. His 1st slam QF was on grass. He's won Queen's. He has played Wimby 4 times and improved every year he's played. These are not facts that you would associate with a player who isn't a grasscourt threat. He's certainly achieved more on grass than Novak.

Dark Tempest
03-31-2010, 12:23 AM
What does gamestyle or slam record have to do with the way you judge players? You have just admitted that you hold different players to different standards - and the crazy thing is that you hold the non-slam winner to a higher standard than the slam winner! So Novak gets a 'go easy on the guy' response when losing early despite having done the square root of hee-haw for 2 years, while Murray, who has outperformed Novak by any measure for the last 2 years gets a kicking for losing early - because you don't like Murray's gamestyle and because he's never been fortunate enough to meet a sick Roger in a slam or JWT in a slam final? Is that REALLY your position on this? Your utter lack of objectivity is revealed for all to see

Point out where I said Murray was a bigger threat on grass. I said he was as much of a threat on grass as he was on hard - it's not like you to use strawmen is it Nam - I'm shocked. I've always said Murray is a threat on grass. Also, if there were as many grass court tournaments as there are hard, then your like for like comparison might make sense. As it is, it's just another one of those fast-becoming-legendary strawmen of yours. One day you'll post an argument that doesn't contain one - I certainly live in hope.

Murray's 1st ATP win came on grass. His first win over a top 20 player came on grass. His 1st slam QF was on grass. He's won Queen's. He has played Wimby 4 times and improved every year he's played. These are not facts that you would associate with a player who isn't a grasscourt threat. He's certainly achieved more on grass than Novak.


u make me laugh.djokovic>Murray on any surface.Djokovic has a slam murray is on 0.Djokovic has a semi in wimbledon to and is a bigger threat to muz.sorry.

batz
03-31-2010, 12:38 AM
u make me laugh.djokovic>Murray on any surface.Djokovic has a slam murray is on 0.Djokovic has a semi in wimbledon to and is a bigger threat to muz.sorry.

Remind me how many grass titles Novak has won? When was the last time Murray lost on grass to a player from outside the top 10? (something Novak has done 3 times in the last 2 seasons) (A: 2006)

Novak hasn't beaten Murray in nearly 2 years. Live in the now, dude.

PimpMyGame
03-31-2010, 12:47 AM
u make me laugh.djokovic>Murray on any surface.Djokovic has a slam murray is on 0.Djokovic has a semi in wimbledon to and is a bigger threat to muz.sorry.

Nice argument.

Djokovic's slam was against an unseeded guy who was out of his depth at that time in his career. Last time I checked, Murray also had a semi in Wimbledon. Also he was taken out in two finals by the GOAT, first time in a similar circumstance to the Djokovic/Tsonga final in that he was out of his depth, second time becuase he didn't play well enough and Federer was too good on the day anyway.

Both Djokovic and Murray are not playing well at the moment but last time I looked Murray owns Djokovic as he won their last 3 meetings. First four went to Djokovic of which 3 were within 2 years of Murray turning pro (Djokovic has 2 years more pro experience than Murray).

Frankly, I don't see where Djokovic is going to get anywhere near another slam, whereas Murray should be knocking on the door of AO, USO and Wimby for the next couple of years.

Dark Tempest
03-31-2010, 04:20 AM
Nice argument.

Djokovic's slam was against an unseeded guy who was out of his depth at that time in his career. Last time I checked, Murray also had a semi in Wimbledon. Also he was taken out in two finals by the GOAT, first time in a similar circumstance to the Djokovic/Tsonga final in that he was out of his depth, second time becuase he didn't play well enough and Federer was too good on the day anyway.

Both Djokovic and Murray are not playing well at the moment but last time I looked Murray owns Djokovic as he won their last 3 meetings. First four went to Djokovic of which 3 were within 2 years of Murray turning pro (Djokovic has 2 years more pro experience than Murray).

Frankly, I don't see where Djokovic is going to get anywhere near another slam, whereas Murray should be knocking on the door of AO, USO and Wimby for the next couple of years.

djokovic 1 slam muz 0 slams.

Peters
03-31-2010, 05:37 AM
True. But PimpMyGame's assessment is sound.

However biased you may be, surely most people would accept Murray is the more likely of the two to win a future GS, regardless of what you personally think of him.