PDA

View Full Version : What exactly makes Djokovic so good/special? Well, when he was so good.


jodd
04-10-2010, 04:24 PM
I like Djokovic a lot, so this definitely isn't a thread set up with the intention of bashing.

But...

Compared to the rest of the top 4, there's very little that's unique about his game. Uniqueness doesn't necessarily mean success on the tour, I guess I just more clearly see what the other 3 have that allows them to do so well on the circuit. So does Djokovic just do the power-baseline thing (that most of the tour does) super-well? He's not as defensive as Nadal/Murray, but he's not as offensively minded as Fed, either. Is he just generally more consistent than the rest of the tour? I guess like the other 3, he's achieved a balance between attacking and defending, and a sense for when to transition between the two, which is probably a result of his solid movement...

Does he mix spins(something I wouldn't perceive)? Is it his down-the-line shots? His serve (especially now) isn't the best, but it was really solid... Maybe he's just a very well-rounded version of the typical modern baseliner...He doesn't go all out/attack from the first stroke, but he also doesn't let his opponents have free rein...

The_Steak
04-10-2010, 05:02 PM
He is the best at changing direction.

He did this the best at ao 2008

RyanRF
04-10-2010, 05:08 PM
I would argue that it's his lack of 'uniqueness' that makes him so good. Instead of having one or two monster shots, he's quick and has a great all-around game. He can adjust well to different situations and surprise his opponents with his variety.

"he's achieved a balance between attacking and defending, and a sense for when to transition between the two, which is probably a result of his solid movement..."

^

You're basically saying the same thing I am: speed + all-court game.

NamRanger
04-10-2010, 06:09 PM
His ability to go down the line from almost anywhere on the court was really a big factor for his success. Changing the direction of the ball almost at will.

Li Ching Yuen
04-10-2010, 08:01 PM
He's not as defensive as Nadal/Murray, but he's not as offensively minded as Fed, either. Is he just generally more consistent than the rest of the tour? I guess like the other 3, he's achieved a balance between attacking and defending, and a sense for when to transition between the two, which is probably a result of his solid movement...



Here you are wrong.

When he is on he can turn defense into attack like no one else on tour. Some of his forehands are the most vicious shots I have ever seen in tennis, and that is true for his backhand side too. He can be as dominant as Federer when he goes offensive.

Basically, every single aspect of the baseline game, he's a master at it, he had a consistently good serve too, which helped him a lot.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 01:58 AM
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.

Markov
04-11-2010, 02:01 AM
His all-around game is very good when he's playing well. He doesn't have any real weaknesses during such moments. This alone can help a player win a lot of tournaments (assuming he doesn't have problems on the mental side).

batz
04-11-2010, 05:02 AM
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.


That'll be why Murray has made half of the last 4 hardcourt slam finals - while Novak has made precisely zero slam finals in the same period.

Novak hasn't been beyond a slam semi in over two years.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 05:32 AM
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.


That'll be why Murray has made half of the last 4 hardcourt slam finals - while Novak has made precisely zero slam finals in the same period.

Novak hasn't been beyond a slam semi in over two years.


Let's be honest, Murray doesn't posses the weapons of someone like Djokovic and he doesn't have the game to dominate consistently on the big stage. With the type of game Murray plays he can lose to anyone.

Djokovic 1 slam. Murray 0. People can dance around it but Djokovic has proved he has the game to win a slam at least.

RoddickAce
04-11-2010, 05:53 AM
Djoker was consistent, could hit very heavy shots off both wings, had a decent first serve, had a very good and clutch second serve, excellent footwork, and above average net skills.

While a lot of players had weaker backhands, Djoker had a rock solid and powerful backhand that he can use to really dictate play even when under pressure. And it's not like his opponents could really attack his forehand, as it was a cannon.

In his 2008 AO run, he used the skills mentioned above to take time away from his opponents and thus consistently pressure his opponents into forced errors.

Li Ching Yuen
04-11-2010, 06:18 AM
[QUOTE=batz;4554013]


Let's be honest, Murray doesn't posses the weapons of someone like Djokovic and he doesn't have the game to dominate consistently on the big stage. With the type of game Murray plays he can lose to anyone.

Djokovic 1 slam. Murray 0. People can dance around it but Djokovic has proved he has the game to win a slam at least.

I'm sorry but Murray was the most dominant player at the AO2010, overall.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 06:28 AM
[QUOTE=Anaconda;4554046]

I'm sorry but Murray was the most dominant player at the AO2010, overall.

Wait. What? He beat one good player who had to retire. Got owned in the final. Federer was the most dominant player owning guys like Hewitt, and beat Davydenko playing tennis of his life.


Record books don't tell you who the dominant player was - only the winner. I'm sorry Murray doesn't get bonus points of beating a few journeymen. And that is a weak arguement anyway becasue the guy who dominates at a tournament wins. Because they have won all of there matches which makes it so.

batz
04-11-2010, 06:29 AM
[QUOTE=batz;4554013]


Let's be honest, Murray doesn't posses the weapons of someone like Djokovic and he doesn't have the game to dominate consistently on the big stage. With the type of game Murray plays he can lose to anyone.

Djokovic 1 slam. Murray 0. People can dance around it but Djokovic has proved he has the game to win a slam at least.

Your 1st paragraph is conjecture dressed as fact.

Your second paragraph is fact based but is a strawman. Who is arguing about how many slams each player has won - not me.

They've both made 2 slam finals - difference is, Murray has done his within the last 18 months while Novak hasn't made one in over 2 years. I'd say those facts have a bit more bearing on the question 'who will consistently make slam finals in the future' than your opinion based on what Novak did over 2 years ago.

Novak hasn't beaten Murray in 3 years and he's underperformed Murray by any measure over the last 2 years. Those are the facts.

batz
04-11-2010, 06:32 AM
[QUOTE=Li Ching Yuen;4554123]

Wait. What? He beat one good player who had to retire. Got owned in the final. Federer was the most dominant player owning guys like Hewitt, and beat Davydenko playing tennis of his life.


Record books don't tell you who the dominant player was - only the winner. I'm sorry Murray doesn't get bonus points of beating a few journeymen. And that is a weak arguement anyway becasue the guy who dominates at a tournament wins. Because they have won all of there matches which makes it so.

He made a slam final for the loss of one set. I'm guessing that's that what LCY meant.

Your analysis is just about the most one-eyed it could be. Everyone from Cilic to Isner to Rafa was supposed to be taking Murray down. Nobody came close to beating Murray until Godmode Roger turned up. Implying that Murray only beat Rafa becasue Rafa had to retire is a laughable distortion of reality

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 06:35 AM
[QUOTE=Anaconda;4554138]

He made a slam final for the loss of one set. I'm guessing that's that what LCY meant.

Your analysis is just about the most one-eyed it could be. Everyone from Cilic to Isner to Rafa was supposed to be taking Murray down. Nobody came close until Godmode Roger turned up.

I had Murray down to beat Isner and Cilic. Murray isn't good enough to say he would have beaten anyone in the final not named Federer IMO.

Li Ching Yuen
04-11-2010, 06:36 AM
[QUOTE=Li Ching Yuen;4554123]

Wait. What? He beat one good player who had to retire. Got owned in the final. Federer was the most dominant player owning guys like Hewitt, and beat Davydenko playing tennis of his life.


Record books don't tell you who the dominant player was - only the winner. I'm sorry Murray doesn't get bonus points of beating a few journeymen. And that is a weak arguement anyway becasue the guy who dominates at a tournament wins. Because they have won all of there matches which makes it so.

Way to juggle around the subject in order to make it look favorable for you.
And LOL, is Hewitt a big scary guy for the top players now?...or have you been not watching tennis for the past few years?

Fact is, up to the final, Murray showed a great solid performance in all of his matches.

The fact that Federer is a player that can bring out his best tennis when it matters is another thing.

We're talking here about Murray, who reached the final of the first slam of 2010 thus far.

Oh btw, how did your Djokovic do?

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 06:40 AM
[QUOTE=Anaconda;4554138]

Way to juggle around the subject in order to make it look favorable for you.
And LOL, is Hewitt a big scary guy for the top players now?...or have you been not watching tennis for the past few years?

Fact is, up to the final, Murray showed a great solid performance in all of his matches.

The fact that Federer is a player that can bring out his best tennis when it matters is another thing.

We're talking here about Murray, who reached the final of the first slam of 2010 thus far.

Oh btw, how did your Djokovic do?

Oh sorry Safin (who is my favourite) retired. I'm sure he won the AO 2005. Beating Prime Hewitt and Federer on the way.

Hewitt beat JMDP at Wimbledon and nearly beat the guy who lost 16-14 to Federer in the final. Hewitt isn't a slouch and is underrated. He is still a handful for the top guns.

batz
04-11-2010, 06:44 AM
[QUOTE=batz;4554145]

I had Murray down to beat Isner and Cilic. Murray isn't good enough to say he would have beaten anyone in the final not named Federer IMO.

You might have - plenty on here didn't.

I'm a bit confused by the combination of negatives in the second sentence - are you really saying that Murray would lose to anyone not named Federer if he made another slam final? You really think that if Murray got an unseeded player in slam final (like some guys have) that he would lose?

Rina
04-11-2010, 06:46 AM
[QUOTE=Anaconda;4554046]

I'm sorry but Murray was the most dominant player at the AO2010, overall.

How on earth was Murray the most dominant player at AO2010??? Did he win it? Are you forgetting that Fed devastated Tsonga and decimated Murray? As for this thread being about Djokovic, I would think that if Djokovic made it to AO finals he may have put an effort to give audience a better match even though he would've probably lost as well. And am I the only one annoyed how Murray fans just have to make everything about Murray?

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 06:47 AM
[QUOTE=Li Ching Yuen;4554123]

How on earth was Murray the most dominant player at AO2010??? Did he win it? Are you forgetting that Fed devastated Tsonga and decimated Murray? As for this thread being about Djokovic, I would think that if Djokovic made it to AO finals he may have put an effort to give audience a better match even though he would've probably lost as well. And am I the only one annoyed how Murray fans just have to make everything about Murray?

I didn't say that. LCY did. It was i mix up. I agree with you.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 06:48 AM
[QUOTE=Anaconda;4554149]

You might have - plenty on here didn't.

I'm a bit confused by the combination of negatives in the second sentence - are you really saying that Murray would lose to anyone not named Federer if he made another slam final? You really think that if Murray got an unseeded player in slam final (like some guys have) that he would lose?

No, but Murray isn't a lock against any top 20 player.

Markov
04-11-2010, 06:49 AM
How can you be the most dominant player in a tournament and not win it?

rovex
04-11-2010, 06:49 AM
No, but Murray isn't a lock against any top 20 player.

And your boy Roddick Is? :lol:

batz
04-11-2010, 06:52 AM
[QUOTE=Li Ching Yuen;4554123]

How on earth was Murray the most dominant player at AO2010??? Did he win it? Are you forgetting that Fed devastated Tsonga and decimated Murray? As for this thread being about Djokovic, I would think that if Djokovic made it to AO finals he may have put an effort to give audience a better match even though he would've probably lost as well. And am I the only one annoyed how Murray fans just have to make everything about Murray?

I don't think LCY is a Murray fan. He/she is wrong to say Murray was the most dominant player at AO - clearly Roger was.

As to your question in bold - the only reason I'm talking about Murray on this thread is because of anaconda's:

Let's be honest, Murray doesn't posses the weapons of someone like Djokovic and he doesn't have the game to dominate consistently on the big stage. With the type of game Murray plays he can lose to anyone.

Now Anaconda isn't a Murray fan either. So it would appear that no Murray fan mentioned Murray except me - but only after others had.

Finding it difficlut to see therefore how 'Murray fans' are 'making it everything about Murray' in this thread.

Li Ching Yuen
04-11-2010, 06:52 AM
How can you be the most dominant player in a tournament and not win it?

Godmode Federer in the final?

Li Ching Yuen
04-11-2010, 06:56 AM
First of all, Anaconda started talking about Murray, not me.

And I'm not a Murray fan, not even close to that. I think I've used every opportunity that I had on this forum to call him a pusher etc...

batz
04-11-2010, 06:58 AM
[QUOTE=batz;4554172]

No, but Murray isn't a lock against any top 20 player.


Tell me which player is 'a lock' i.e. 100% guaranteed to beat every player in the top 20 every time they meet?

It's a puerile assertion. It applies to every player on tour.

Markov
04-11-2010, 07:01 AM
Godmode Federer in the final?
But you just can't be the most dominant and the second best at the same time!

Li Ching Yuen
04-11-2010, 07:05 AM
But you just can't be the most dominant and the second best at the same time!

You don't understand.

Each finalist has to win 6 matches to reach the final, right?...

Well, let's put it this way, for me Murray's performance in those 6 matches and the way he won his matches was way more impressive than Federer's and not even Fed's straight-set victory in the final could change my opinion of the whole tournament. (mostly because I think Federer owns Murray despite their h2h, so I was kind of expecting it to happen)

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 07:06 AM
[QUOTE=Anaconda;4554183]


Tell me which player is 'a lock' i.e. 100% guaranteed to beat every player in the top 20 every time they meet?

It's a puerile assertion. It applies to every player on tour.

In a slam final, most top 8 guys would be.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 07:13 AM
And your boy Roddick Is? :lol:

Way to troll about clown. Safin. I repeat Safin is still my favourite player.



Out of the active players Hewitt, Ferrer, Roddick, Nalbandian are my favourites to watch.


Please, continue to troll and pick fights at random.

batz
04-11-2010, 07:17 AM
[QUOTE=batz;4554212]

In a slam final, most top 8 guys would be.

You're into the realms of fantasy now.

You are arguing that Murray has some intrinsic problem that only kicks in when he makes slam finals, a problem that other players in the top 8 don't suffer from, and that because of this problem, he has less of a chance of beating a player from the top 20 in a slam final than other players in the top 8.


Maybe Agassi suffered from the same problem until he won his first slam? Is there a name for this condition?

rovex
04-11-2010, 07:19 AM
Way to troll about clown. Safin. I repeat Safin is still my favourite player.



Out of the active players Hewitt, Ferrer, Roddick, Nalbandian are my favourites to watch.


Please, continue to troll and pick fights at random.

Hmm, you said Hewitt was your favorite player not long ago. You don't like sticking with the same player it seems do you? Troll? I'm just pointing the irony in within your posts. Oh, and the severe fanboyism!

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 07:22 AM
Hmm, you said Hewitt was your favorite player not long ago. You don't like sticking with the same player it seems do you? Troll? I'm just pointing the irony in within your posts. Oh, and the severe fanboyism!

When did i say Hewitt was my favourite player? I didn't.

You talk but you can't prove any of that because you're full of trash. Pfft. Dirty troll.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 07:25 AM
[QUOTE=Anaconda;4554228]

You're into the realms of fantasy now.

You are arguing that Murray has some intrinsic problem that only kicks in when he makes slam finals, a problem that other players in the top 8 don't suffer from, and that because of this problem, he has less of a chance of beating a player from the top 20 in a slam final than other players in the top 8.


Maybe Agassi suffered from the same problem until he won his first slam? Is there a name for this condition?

Because of Murray's defensive game he can lose to anyone. That's why he isn't a lock IMO. He very well could win slams but you never know.

rovex
04-11-2010, 07:25 AM
When did i say Hewitt was my favourite player? I didn't.

You seem to forget quickly, don't you?

You talk but you can't prove any of that because you're full of trash. Pfft. Dirty troll.

Oh dear, more hypocrisy from Mr. fanboy...

jackson vile
04-11-2010, 07:28 AM
I like Djokovic a lot, so this definitely isn't a thread set up with the intention of bashing.

But...

Compared to the rest of the top 4, there's very little that's unique about his game. Uniqueness doesn't necessarily mean success on the tour, I guess I just more clearly see what the other 3 have that allows them to do so well on the circuit. So does Djokovic just do the power-baseline thing (that most of the tour does) super-well? He's not as defensive as Nadal/Murray, but he's not as offensively minded as Fed, either. Is he just generally more consistent than the rest of the tour? I guess like the other 3, he's achieved a balance between attacking and defending, and a sense for when to transition between the two, which is probably a result of his solid movement...

Does he mix spins(something I wouldn't perceive)? Is it his down-the-line shots? His serve (especially now) isn't the best, but it was really solid... Maybe he's just a very well-rounded version of the typical modern baseliner...He doesn't go all out/attack from the first stroke, but he also doesn't let his opponents have free rein...


At one point he had the best serve out of the top 10 players, returns are one of the best, ground game one of the best.

What is failing him is all mental.

Oh and he should not have changed rackets and to those crapy string combination that is not made for a closed string pattern.

rovex
04-11-2010, 07:29 AM
At one point he had the best serve out of the top 10 players, returns are one of the best, ground game one of the best.

What is failing him is all mental.

Oh and he should not have changed rackets and to those crapy string combination that is not made for a closed string pattern.

He never changed racquets as far as i know. Using the same mold he had with Wilson.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 07:33 AM
You seem to forget quickly, don't you?



Oh dear, more hypocrisy from Mr. fanboy...


Then dig up a post where i said Hewitt was my 'all time favourite' then. Nice one.

jackson vile
04-11-2010, 07:34 AM
He never changed racquets as far as i know. Using the same mold he had with Wilson.

let's see here, flex is different, swing weight is different, static weight is different, balance is different, ...

Futhermore, consider this. If I used a liquid metal presitge one day and then a youtek pristige the next day, did I swith rackets or is it the same racket?

Markov
04-11-2010, 07:39 AM
You don't understand.

Each finalist has to win 6 matches to reach the final, right?...

Well, let's put it this way, for me Murray's performance in those 6 matches and the way he won his matches was way more impressive than Federer's and not even Fed's straight-set victory in the final could change my opinion of the whole tournament. (mostly because I think Federer owns Murray despite their h2h, so I was kind of expecting it to happen)
Alright alright... I agree that Murray surprised me a lot more. And I think you're completely entitled to having your opinion :) I just wouldn't say that Murray dominated...

NamRanger
04-11-2010, 08:33 AM
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.


That'll be why Murray has made half of the last 4 hardcourt slam finals - while Novak has made precisely zero slam finals in the same period.

Novak hasn't been beyond a slam semi in over two years.




Murray also didn't have to go through Federer to get to the finals, Djokovic did at the USO in 2008 and 2009.



BTW, Murray's game is too defensive to win slam finals against strong opposition. If he got a little lucky and managed to get a weaker opponent he might be able to do it, but against the likes of Federer, Nadal, Del Potro, heck even Roddick or Djokovic if they made a slam final, I think his defensive style of play will not work in the later rounds, as that relies on your opponent to make mistakes, which doesn't happen often at that stage of a slam.

Rina
04-11-2010, 09:47 AM
I didn't say that. LCY did. It was i mix up. I agree with you

Sorry didn't realize it was a mix up.

Rina
04-11-2010, 09:55 AM
Sorry to all about quoting the wrong people.

batz
04-11-2010, 10:38 AM
[QUOTE=batz;4554013]




Murray also didn't have to go through Federer to get to the finals, Djokovic did at the USO in 2008 and 2009.



BTW, Murray's game is too defensive to win slam finals against strong opposition. If he got a little lucky and managed to get a weaker opponent he might be able to do it, but against the likes of Federer, Nadal, Del Potro, heck even Roddick or Djokovic if they made a slam final, I think his defensive style of play will not work in the later rounds, as that relies on your opponent to make mistakes, which doesn't happen often at that stage of a slam.

This is a brilliant peice of sophistry. As with Anaconda, you imply that there is an inherent weakness that will manifest itself in a final, but not in any of the previous six rounds. Of the players you list, Murray only has a losing slam head to head with Federer. He's 1-0 v Delpo, 2-2 v Rafa (won the last 2), 1-1 v Roddick and 0-0 with Novak.

Yet again - the facts don't square with your assertions; but when has that ever bothered you.

When Murray has lost a couple of slam finals to guys not named Roger then you might be on to something - until then, there is zero evidence to back up your hypothesis. You said Isner would take Murray out at the AO, then Cilic was going to do it. The fact is - since Murray entered the top 6, only Roger Federer has made more slam semis and finals than Murray.

Ambivalent
04-11-2010, 10:46 AM
His ability to go down the line from almost anywhere on the court was really a big factor for his success. Changing the direction of the ball almost at will.

I thought you had to be on a line to go "down" the line.

Ambivalent
04-11-2010, 10:52 AM
He's probably the most complete player on tour other than Federer. His only problem is motivation and fitness. He needs his old serve back ASAP.

1) He covers the court well. He's got very good movement.
2) He has got a great DH BH, whether it's DTL or CC
3) He takes chances on big points. Especially in 2007/2008
4) He has got power. A lot of ignorant people seem to disagree but he can hit 100mph + forehands and backhands all day long.
5)He's got great feel at the net.


I'm not a fan but there is no reason that with his game and talent he isn't a multipule slam champion right now. He's certainly capeable of beating anyone. I expect him to do well though in later years. He owns JMDP and Murray doesn't have the weapons to make slam finals consistently like Djokovic can if he wakes up.

Djokovic's net game is horrid. I have no idea what you are trying to say at #5.

#4 - No one can hit 100mph+ forehands all day long.

#1 - His weakness all along has been his fitness and thus his movement cannot be said to be great.

NamRanger
04-11-2010, 11:01 AM
[QUOTE=NamRanger;4554409]

This is a brilliant peice of sophistry. As with Anaconda, you imply that there is an inherent weakness that will manifest itself in a final, but not in any of the previous six rounds. Of the players you list, Murray only has a losing slam head to head with Federer. He's 1-0 v Delpo, 2-2 v Rafa (won the last 2), 1-1 v Roddick and 0-0 with Novak.

Yet again - the facts don't square with your assertions; but when has that ever bothered you.

When Murray has lost a couple of slam finals to guys not named Roger then you might be on to something - until then, there is zero evidence to back up your hypothesis. You said Isner would take Murray out at the AO, then Cilic was going to do it. The fact is - since Murray entered the top 6, only Roger Federer has made more slam semis and finals than Murray.




I never said Cilic was going to take him out, I said Murray should be able to take out Cilic because Del Potro and Roddick were both injured, and Cilic was mighty lucky to win both of those matches.


Brilliant work of sophistry? Murray so far has lost to these guys in the later rounds of a slam (I'm not just talking about slam finals) :


1. Cilic USO 2009, he basically didn't even play this match

2. Roddick Wimbledon 2009, was too defensive in the critical moments of this match

3. Verdasco Australian Open 2009, defensive again during critical moments of the match, and Verdasco takes advantage

4. Federer, Australian Open 2010, U.S. Open 2008. Federer playing great offensive tennis, Murray playing his same defensive tennis.

5. Gonzalez, French Open 2009. Supposedly Gonzalez was a "better claycourt" player when Murray had a clay court season (which I honestly don't buy at all; Gonzalez is good on clay, but Murray was having a pretty good clay season). Yet, Murray played too defensive and lost again here, when he had a good opportunity to make the SF.



Do you love Andy Murray so much that you can't even fathom that his defensive style of play is what is holding him back? In the key rounds of a slam (meaning the 2nd week, from the Round of 16 and on), most guys are not going to beat themselves. Murray if he runs into a hot opponent, is going to have trouble, because he simply doesn't have any offensive weapons to play from behind.


He certainly has the capabilities of doing it, as he really blew Nadal off the court during the USO 2008 SF. However, he has not ever replicated a match that has even come close to that level of play.




You can keep it up all you want, but the fact of the matter is, tennis is a game that favors the player that takes risk at the highest level. Why? Because someone like a Federer, or a Nadal, or any other champion in the later rounds of a slam, are simply not going to miss that often. You cannot rely on your opponent to miss; you have to go out there, and win it. Murray for whatever reason simply doesn't do that.


He had one good tournament where he was showing some decent level of aggression, now he has reverted back to Andy Murray of 2006 who mopes around on the court and just simply pushes everything back.

TheTruth
04-11-2010, 11:12 AM
Djokovic is a great player, he just seems to lack motivation at times. Who knows what's going on in any of their lives? There's a lot of life to be played after a tennis match is over. I hope he gets back and does well.

batz
04-11-2010, 11:15 AM
[QUOTE=batz;4554647]




I never said Cilic was going to take him out, I said Murray should be able to take out Cilic because Del Potro and Roddick were both injured, and Cilic was mighty lucky to win both of those matches.


Brilliant work of sophistry? Murray so far has lost to these guys in the later rounds of a slam (I'm not just talking about slam finals) :


1. Cilic USO 2009, he basically didn't even play this match

2. Roddick Wimbledon 2009, was too defensive in the critical moments of this match

3. Verdasco Australian Open 2009, defensive again during critical moments of the match, and Verdasco takes advantage

4. Federer, Australian Open 2010, U.S. Open 2008. Federer playing great offensive tennis, Murray playing his same defensive tennis.

5. Gonzalez, French Open 2009. Supposedly Gonzalez was a "better claycourt" player when Murray had a clay court season (which I honestly don't buy at all; Gonzalez is good on clay, but Murray was having a pretty good clay season). Yet, Murray played too defensive and lost again here, when he had a good opportunity to make the SF.



Do you love Andy Murray so much that you can't even fathom that his defensive style of play is what is holding him back? In the key rounds of a slam (meaning the 2nd week, from the Round of 16 and on), most guys are not going to beat themselves. Murray if he runs into a hot opponent, is going to have trouble, because he simply doesn't have any offensive weapons to play from behind.


He certainly has the capabilities of doing it, as he really blew Nadal off the court during the USO 2008 SF. However, he has not ever replicated a match that has even come close to that level of play.




You can keep it up all you want, but the fact of the matter is, tennis is a game that favors the player that takes risk at the highest level. Why? Because someone like a Federer, or a Nadal, or any other champion in the later rounds of a slam, are simply not going to miss that often. You cannot rely on your opponent to miss; you have to go out there, and win it. Murray for whatever reason simply doesn't do that.


He had one good tournament where he was showing some decent level of aggression, now he has reverted back to Andy Murray of 2006 who mopes around on the court and just simply pushes everything back.


Opponents didn't get any hotter than Isner at the AO - you yourself said he was 'the hottest guy on tour' whe nyou predicted he would take Murray out. Murray straight setted him. Yet again, your assertions and the facts don't square up. Just to repeat:


Murray if he runs into a hot opponent, is going to have trouble, because he simply doesn't have any offensive weapons to play from behind

Andy Murray wins in straight sets.

I'm also confused as to how a guy who quote "simply doesn't haven't any offensive weapons" unquote is able to " blow Nadal off the court during the USO 2008 SF" not to mention AO 2010. So which is it Nam - is Murray capable of blowing one of the best defenders the game has ever seen off the court in grand slams or does he simply have no offensive weapons - because hey - both those statments can't be right can they?

If Murray has no offensive weapons, what does he use to blow Nadal away with? Perhaps he borrows someone else's offensive weapons on those days?

dh003i
04-11-2010, 11:21 AM
[QUOTE=Anaconda;4554138]

He made a slam final for the loss of one set. I'm guessing that's that what LCY meant.

Your analysis is just about the most one-eyed it could be. Everyone from Cilic to Isner to Rafa was supposed to be taking Murray down. Nobody came close to beating Murray until Godmode Roger turned up. Implying that Murray only beat Rafa becasue Rafa had to retire is a laughable distortion of reality

True, nobody came close to beating Murray until Federer. But I think that Davydenko could have beat Murray as well.

That said, of course you have to say Murray was the 2nd best player at the AO 2010. There's really no debate about it. But there can also be no argument that he was "the most dominant player", despite not winning. The guy who wins is the most dominant.

NamRanger
04-11-2010, 11:22 AM
[QUOTE=NamRanger;4554681]


Opponents didn't get any hotter than Isner at the AO - you yourself said he was 'the hottest guy on tour' whe nyou predicted he would take Murray out. Murray straight setted him. Yet again, your assertions and the facts don't square up. Just to repeat:


Murray if he runs into a hot opponent, is going to have trouble, because he simply doesn't have any offensive weapons to play from behind

Andy Murray wins in straight sets.

I'm also confused as to how a guy who quote "simply doesn't haven't any offensive weapons" unquote is able to " blow Nadal off the court during the USO 2008 SF" not to mention AO 2010. So which is it Nam - is Murray capable of blowing one of the best defenders the game has ever seen off the court in grand slams or does he simply have no offensive weapons - because hey - both those statments can't be right can they?

If Murray has no offensive weapons, what does he use to blow Nadal away with?



Nadal is a different type of opponent who Andy Murray matches up well with. Nadal let's you hang around in points, which in turns gives Murray an opportunity to be aggressive. And yes, I said Murray has the CAPABILITIES of playing aggressive, but for whatever reason, against an opponent who pressures him and takes his time away, he plays defensive. You seem to have some GREAT selective reading skills there don't you?


And *Gasp* I said he played one pretty good tournament where he played aggressive and didn't allow his opponents to dictate play. What tournament would that be? Oh, the Australian Open. And who did he lose to? Federer. Why? Because he didn't play the type of tennis that was necessary to beat Federer. You simply can't just stand there and rally all day with Federer; he's just simply going to pummel you into the ground if you try and do that. Not even Nadal does that, and he is a better mover and a better defender than Murray. He did beat a red hot Isner. Why? Because HE DID NOT ALLOW ISNER TO DICTATE PLAY.


Let me remind you what happened in the final despite all these improvements to his game. He got pummeled into the ground because he attempted to play a dumb defensive style of play, which Federer took full advantage of.


Murray's losses in the slams thus far since he has entered the top 5 have come to players who are hot, hit hard, take time away, and serve well (not necessarily big). Roddick, Federer, Cilic, and Verdasco all have that in common. If you pressure Murray and force the issue, he will respond by playing a defensive style of play. Against those guys (especially Federer), they are simply not going to miss that often if you are playing them in the latter stages of the slam. I saw some improvements at the Australian Open, yet he completely reverted to total defense once Federer came out and slapped a few forehands around.




But you know what, I'll let Murray's losses sink in for you. I know it's hard that he can't even win 3 set matches now. If you don't like what people say about Andy Murray, than just ignore them. There's no need to go on a 100000 page rampage, especially when it is totally off topic.

dh003i
04-11-2010, 11:27 AM
You don't understand.

Each finalist has to win 6 matches to reach the final, right?...

Well, let's put it this way, for me Murray's performance in those 6 matches and the way he won his matches was way more impressive than Federer's and not even Fed's straight-set victory in the final could change my opinion of the whole tournament. (mostly because I think Federer owns Murray despite their h2h, so I was kind of expecting it to happen)

Oh come on. Other than Federer's SF win over Tsonga who just came out flat, he had some impressive wins. No-one wanted to play Davydenko, and Davydenko was playing some pretty insane tennis. Wasn't good enough. I think that Federer beat the guys who were playing the best at the AO other than himself -- Davydenko and Murray.

Because Federer was near the top of his game, Murray would have lost that final even if he played his best, although he did not; however, I don't see how you can be more impressed with Murray overall when he still didn't try anything new to beat Federer in a slam final. It was his second slam final versus Federer and he was just as unimpressive against Federer as he was a few years ago at the USO final. When is he going to realize that at a slam, passive tennis will not beat Federer?

batz
04-11-2010, 11:30 AM
Namranger

Nadal is a different type of opponent who Andy Murray matches up well with. Nadal let's you hang around in points, which in turns gives Murray an opportunity to be aggressive. And yes, I said Murray has the CAPABILITIES of playing aggressive, but for whatever reason, against an opponent who pressures him and takes his time away, he plays defensive. You seem to have some GREAT selective reading skills there don't you?

My reading skills are just fine - that is why I'm able to point out that the statement above in bold is untrue, as what you actually said (and it's there for all to see) is that

Murray if he runs into a hot opponent, is going to have trouble, because he simply doesn't have any offensive weapons to play from behind

You said he doesn't have any offensive weapons. You didn't say he has offensive weapons but choosesto not to use them or is incapable of using them when put under pressure.

rovex
04-11-2010, 11:30 AM
[QUOTE=batz;4554705]



Nadal is a different type of opponent who Andy Murray matches up well with. Nadal let's you hang around in points, which in turns gives Murray an opportunity to be aggressive. And yes, I said Murray has the CAPABILITIES of playing aggressive, but for whatever reason, against an opponent who pressures him and takes his time away, he plays defensive. You seem to have some GREAT selective reading skills there don't you?


And *Gasp* I said he played one pretty good tournament where he played aggressive and didn't allow his opponents to dictate play. What tournament would that be? Oh, the Australian Open. And who did he lose to? Federer. Why? Because he didn't play the type of tennis that was necessary to beat Federer. You simply can't just stand there and rally all day with Federer; he's just simply going to pummel you into the ground if you try and do that. Not even Nadal does that, and he is a better mover and a better defender than Murray. He did beat a red hot Isner. Why? Because HE DID NOT ALLOW ISNER TO DICTATE PLAY.


Let me remind you what happened in the final despite all these improvements to his game. He got pummeled into the ground because he attempted to play a dumb defensive style of play, which Federer took full advantage of.


Murray's losses in the slams thus far since he has entered the top 5 have come to players who are hot, hit hard, take time away, and serve well (not necessarily big). Roddick, Federer, Cilic, and Verdasco all have that in common. If you pressure Murray and force the issue, he will respond by playing a defensive style of play. Against those guys (especially Federer), they are simply not going to miss that often if you are playing them in the latter stages of the slam. I saw some improvements at the Australian Open, yet he completely reverted to total defense once Federer came out and slapped a few forehands around.

You are making real sense here. How do you explain arguably the biggest hitter on tour Del Potro losing to Andy Murray at the USO? And losing to Andy Murray last year when he was playing his best ever while Federer and Nadal were getting a beat down At the USO and WTF? I've always (as you yourself are aware) doubted your objectivity, you haven't proved me wrong.

rovex
04-11-2010, 11:35 AM
Oh come on. Other than Federer's SF win over Tsonga who just came out flat, he had some impressive wins. No-one wanted to play Davydenko, and Davydenko was playing some pretty insane tennis. Wasn't good enough. I think that Federer beat the guys who were playing the best at the AO other than himself -- Davydenko and Murray.

Because Federer was near the top of his game, Murray would have lost that final even if he played his best, although he did not; however, I don't see how you can be more impressed with Murray overall when he still didn't try anything new to beat Federer in a slam final. It was his second slam final versus Federer and he was just as unimpressive against Federer as he was a few years ago at the USO final. When is he going to realize that at a slam, passive tennis will not beat Federer?

Too bad Davydenko had to choke. Although i realise many won't accept it.

batz
04-11-2010, 11:37 AM
[QUOTE=NamRanger;4554721]

You are making real sense here. How do you explain arguably the biggest hitter on tour Del Potro losing to Andy Murray at the USO? And losing to Andy Murray last year when he was playing his best ever while Federer and Nadal were getting a beat down At the USO and WTF? I've always (as you yourself are aware) doubted your objectivity, you haven't proved me wrong.

Namranger is one of the least objective posters here. Djokovic and Roddick are his blue eyed boys. That's how come he says people should go easy on Novak and not expect too much of him when he loses early @ IW and miami, but the same thing happening to Murray is a disaster. For the same reason, Roddick playing Murray's game is A Good Thing but Murray playing Murray's game is an affront to the gods of tennis.

He has more faces than the town clock.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 12:11 PM
My point is that Djokovic is more likely to win more slams because JMDP is the only other guy with game who can win slams, and Djokovic owns his H2H with him. And the other threat is Murray, who doesn't have the game to consistently make slam semi's and finals. Just ask JMDP why he won the US open. Because he played aggressive.

JoshDragon
04-11-2010, 12:18 PM
I like Djokovic a lot, so this definitely isn't a thread set up with the intention of bashing.

But...

Compared to the rest of the top 4, there's very little that's unique about his game. Uniqueness doesn't necessarily mean success on the tour, I guess I just more clearly see what the other 3 have that allows them to do so well on the circuit. So does Djokovic just do the power-baseline thing (that most of the tour does) super-well? He's not as defensive as Nadal/Murray, but he's not as offensively minded as Fed, either. Is he just generally more consistent than the rest of the tour? I guess like the other 3, he's achieved a balance between attacking and defending, and a sense for when to transition between the two, which is probably a result of his solid movement...

Does he mix spins(something I wouldn't perceive)? Is it his down-the-line shots? His serve (especially now) isn't the best, but it was really solid... Maybe he's just a very well-rounded version of the typical modern baseliner...He doesn't go all out/attack from the first stroke, but he also doesn't let his opponents have free rein...

Strengths

1. He has a great forehand.
2. He's relatively fast.
3. Very good first serve.
4. Pretty good backhand.

Weaknesses

1. The dropshots tend to backfire on him.
2. He's changed up his game a bit and is now looking for placement over power. He should go back to working on his forehand and make it the same weapon that it was back in early 08.

batz
04-11-2010, 12:20 PM
My point is that Djokovic is more likely to win more slams because JMDP is the only other guy with game who can win slams, and Djokovic owns his H2H with him. And the other threat is Murray, who doesn't have the game to consistently make slam semi's and finals. Just ask JMDP why he won the US open. Because he played aggressive.

If Murray doesn't have the game to make slam semis and final consistently, then how come nobody except Roger Federer has made more slam finals and semis than Murray since he made top 6? Nobody except Roger has been more consistent in slams these last 18 months.

For the second time, the facts don't back up your hypothesis.

Markov
04-11-2010, 12:23 PM
Djokovic is a great player, he just seems to lack motivation at times. Who knows what's going on in any of their lives? There's a lot of life to be played after a tennis match is over. I hope he gets back and does well.
Lately, he has indeed looked like he's lost something that's been very important for him and that he doesn't care about tennis that much anymore. Hopefully he'll bounce back.

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 12:26 PM
If Murray doesn't have the game to make slam semis and final consistently, then how come nobody except Roger Federer has made more slam finals and semis than Murray since he made top 6? Nobody except Roger has been more consistent in slams these last 18 months.

For the second time, the facts don't back up your hypothesis.

Murray made 1 semifinal last year.
Murray has made 3 semifinals in total.

Djokovic has been a winner, a finalist and has semifinals in each slam. So when Djokovic wakes up he will have a better career.

batz
04-11-2010, 12:34 PM
Murray made 1 semifinal last year.
Murray has made 3 semifinals in total.

Djokovic has been a winner, a finalist and has semifinals in each slam. So when Djokovic wakes up he will have a better career.

You got that bit right ;)

Only kidding - Novak is a great player; especially so when he has his Mojo - but you can't deny that his Mojo has been absent for a couple of years now.

rovex
04-11-2010, 12:54 PM
What makes Djokovic so special?

Lack of insecurity:

http://i41.tinypic.com/nn5kdj.jpg

Anaconda
04-11-2010, 01:10 PM
You got that bit right ;)

Only kidding - Novak is a great player; especially so when he has his Mojo - but you can't deny that his Mojo has been absent for a couple of years now.

At the end of the day. Go back 2 years. ND's record is better. Just ask Murray who's career he'd rather have - his or Djokovic's.

TheTruth
04-11-2010, 01:30 PM
Too bad Davydenko had to choke. Although i realise many won't accept it.

He choked. Big time. And was happy to do it. Lol!

David123
04-11-2010, 01:33 PM
hes a fighter with a big forehand.. also has variety in his game.

CCNM
04-11-2010, 02:16 PM
Novak's a character. That's why I like him.

RCizzle65
04-11-2010, 03:41 PM
Watch some of Djokovic's matches in 2008, he played very aggressive, and when he was on defense, he was amazing at keeping himself in the rally on the run most of the time. Plus, he had a great first serve and an amazing second serve that is hard to attack. The only thing failing him now is his mental game, his form goes up and dips at random times as we've seen the past couple years.

Atherton2003
04-11-2010, 04:08 PM
Djkovic is special cause he does a great impersonation of Nadal and Sharapova.

paulorenzo
04-11-2010, 04:26 PM
his tennis was very nice to watch when he was on. he was a great shotmaker from the baseline, especially on hardcourts in 07 and 08. his game is pretty complete, with the exception of the transition to the net which he has been doing at weird times as of late. he has bigger weapons than murray from every part of the court with the exception of the serve which nowadays is a toss up. he isn't as consistent or as tennis savvy as murray, but bigger weapons — check. he plays his best when he is playing aggressively and used to be able to turn defense to offense on a dime, almost as well as federer.

his greatest performances as of late that i recall were in the clay court season of of 2009. it was nice to see him do well on clay and have chances against nadal. but i feel he played a better game when he was giving federer a run for his money in 2007 thru 2008 on hardcourts.

gino
04-11-2010, 04:34 PM
He has a unique way of competing, so smooth and intense at the same time... a real pleasure to watch

darthpwner
04-11-2010, 05:08 PM
Back in 07/08, Djokovic seemed a lot more brash and cocky than he is now. His serve used to be very good as he could hit all the varieties: flat, kick, and slice, from the same toss. He was solid from everywhere in the court. His backhand is a reliable shot in which he could go DTL or CC with ease. His forehand, though it breaks down sometimes, was powerful and he could change directions with it well. Djokovic, back then, was willing and capable of changing the pace and coming in. He was also a great mover and could play the transition from defense to offense incredibly well.

Justdoit10
04-11-2010, 06:01 PM
He has a really good ground game and serve. He is an excellent mover as well.

I personally think he is really boring to watch. He needs some serious valium for his on court tantrums.

sh@de
04-12-2010, 12:49 AM
If you ask me, over the past 1.5 years, Djoker's shots seem to have become much loopier. So, sure, he's more consistent, but sometimes he's not flattening out enough. Just what I feel like sometimes.

Anaconda
04-12-2010, 01:20 AM
his tennis was very nice to watch when he was on. he was a great shotmaker from the baseline, especially on hardcourts in 07 and 08. his game is pretty complete, with the exception of the transition to the net which he has been doing at weird times as of late. he has bigger weapons than murray from every part of the court with the exception of the serve which nowadays is a toss up. he isn't as consistent or as tennis savvy as murray, but bigger weapons check. he plays his best when he is playing aggressively and used to be able to turn defense to offense on a dime, almost as well as federer.

his greatest performances as of late that i recall were in the clay court season of of 2009. it was nice to see him do well on clay and have chances against nadal. but i feel he played a better game when he was giving federer a run for his money in 2007 thru 2008 on hardcourts.

Djokovic had a better first serve than Murray. Murray's power is good but Djokovic had a more reliable and potent serve than Murray. His second serve is better than Murray, however most top 10 players have better 2nd serves than Murray.

It's actually sad when a player plays his best tennis at 19 or 20 and all of a sudden they just slump.

Oh and BTW Murray is more consistent than Djokovic because Djokovic actually takes chances on court. Murray is a junkballer who doesn't have the skills of Djokovic to blast winner so he has to rely on his opponents UE's.

davey25
04-12-2010, 01:38 AM
Djokovic has ended every year on tour ranked higher than Murray. He has better slam results by far, better Masters results and more Masters titles, has won the TMC. There is no comparision to who is the better player.

dmt
04-12-2010, 01:42 AM
Novak is obviously a better player. Although Djoker isnt quite the player he was a couple of years ago, he seems to lack the fire that he used to have. He is also more of an allcourt player, he's def better on clay too.

Halba
04-12-2010, 01:47 AM
Novak is obviously a better player. Although Djoker isnt quite the player he was a couple of years ago, he seems to lack the fire that he used to have. He is also more of an allcourt player, he's def better on clay too.

novak is definitely in an amazing decline. its sad to see, he possesses immense talent and power. in 07 and 08 it wasnt just he was a good player, but he believed he was, he was playing like he was no.1 in the world.

now he doesn't believe anymore. it all starts there. also others believe they can get to top 5.

dmt
04-12-2010, 01:55 AM
he started to play some great tennis post US open last year so i thought he was rreturning to form and i thought he'd be one of the favs for the aussie open but i was wrong

Cup8489
04-12-2010, 04:44 AM
he started to play some great tennis post US open last year so i thought he was rreturning to form and i thought he'd be one of the favs for the aussie open but i was wrong

That's the most frustrating part, as a fan. Do you recall how he reacted to winning in Paris? And then he's done nothing worth mentioning this season, now in its fourth month. Dubai wasn't a big deal, though i believe it was his first successful title defense. I really hope to see the old Djokovic again soon. For a while there, he really made it the big 3, and while Murray is a great player, he hasn't stepped up to the plate on the biggest stages; Djokovic did in AO 08, dropping just 1 set, in the finals.

forzamilan90
04-12-2010, 05:14 AM
solid player he was, good hitter of the ball, entertaining to watch too, very unique, maybe a less better looking version of safin

batz
04-12-2010, 10:07 AM
Djokovic had a better first serve than Murray. Murray's power is good but Djokovic had a more reliable and potent serve than Murray. His second serve is better than Murray, however most top 10 players have better 2nd serves than Murray.

It's actually sad when a player plays his best tennis at 19 or 20 and all of a sudden they just slump.

Oh and BTW Murray is more consistent than Djokovic because Djokovic actually takes chances on court. Murray is a junkballer who doesn't have the skills of Djokovic to blast winner so he has to rely on his opponents UE's.

Sigh. That's right. Murray never hits winners and has limited skill. It really is possible for a talentless pusher to reach number 2 in the world, make multiple slam finals and win 4 master series without hitting winners - all you have to do is knock the ball back over the net and wait for your opponent's UE. Murray has won his last 3 matches against Novak just by hittign the ball back and waiting for an UE.

2slik
04-12-2010, 10:15 AM
Djokovic has ended every year on tour ranked higher than Murray. He has better slam results by far, better Masters results and more Masters titles, has won the TMC. There is no comparision to who is the better player.

I do think though that Murray has a greater ceiling.

Both players are close to the age where their potential ability will plateau out.

I have serious issues with Djoker's game. It is that he does have the game and speed to run around his forehand as much as possible and hit explosive shots. He recently more than ever tends to just hit the same paced shot of both sides of the court. A little like Giles Simon. While it is consistent to beat most of the top 20, it will not beat the top 5 players on a regular basis.

paulorenzo
04-13-2010, 04:24 PM
Djokovic had a better first serve than Murray. Murray's power is good but Djokovic had a more reliable and potent serve than Murray. His second serve is better than Murray, however most top 10 players have better 2nd serves than Murray.

It's actually sad when a player plays his best tennis at 19 or 20 and all of a sudden they just slump.

Oh and BTW Murray is more consistent than Djokovic because Djokovic actually takes chances on court. Murray is a junkballer who doesn't have the skills of Djokovic to blast winner so he has to rely on his opponents UE's.

i agree with everything you've stated. i prefer watching djokovic over murray any day. i prefer watching anyone in the top 10 over murray any day. i was just trying to be objective.

murray doesn't have the relative firepower. he doesn't have a big shot he can rely on unlike everyone else in the top 5. he has great placement, yes, but he needs to get used to taking more risks.

paulorenzo
04-13-2010, 04:25 PM
I do think though that Murray has a greater ceiling.

Both players are close to the age where their potential ability will plateau out.

I have serious issues with Djoker's game. It is that he does have the game and speed to run around his forehand as much as possible and hit explosive shots. He recently more than ever tends to just hit the same paced shot of both sides of the court. A little like Giles Simon. While it is consistent to beat most of the top 20, it will not beat the top 5 players on a regular basis.

same can be said for murray. and then some.

Atherton2003
04-13-2010, 04:26 PM
Out of the top 10 players, I like Murray the least. he has ZERO charisma, he looks pompous, he doesn't seem very nice and his game is, BORING, aside from the fact that I have a nightmare after looking at him.

NamRanger
04-13-2010, 04:41 PM
Sigh. That's right. Murray never hits winners and has limited skill. It really is possible for a talentless pusher to reach number 2 in the world, make multiple slam finals and win 4 master series without hitting winners - all you have to do is knock the ball back over the net and wait for your opponent's UE. Murray has won his last 3 matches against Novak just by hittign the ball back and waiting for an UE.




It's also possible to win lots of slams doing that, if your name is Bjorn Borg. Just because someone plays a highly defensive style of play doesn't mean it's an insult. Stop parading Murray around like he's got all the talent in the world; he doesn't.

sh@de
04-14-2010, 12:23 AM
Sigh. That's right. Murray never hits winners and has limited skill. It really is possible for a talentless pusher to reach number 2 in the world, make multiple slam finals and win 4 master series without hitting winners - all you have to do is knock the ball back over the net and wait for your opponent's UE. Murray has won his last 3 matches against Novak just by hittign the ball back and waiting for an UE.

You are correct! Be proud. :)

ChanceEncounter
04-14-2010, 01:50 AM
This thread has told me that no one TT apparently knows how to quote properly.

Anaconda
04-14-2010, 02:23 AM
It's also possible to win lots of slams doing that, if your name is Bjorn Borg. Just because someone plays a highly defensive style of play doesn't mean it's an insult. Stop parading Murray around like he's got all the talent in the world; he doesn't.

Yes but Bjorn Borg actually had better movement, a better serve and obviously a stronger head than Murray and was a better at everything than Murray . Borg would rattle you mentally a physically and Murray cannot do that.

I give Murray one slam at best. Because, the game could potentially pass Murray by when Djokovic gets his act together, JMDP will recover and other guys like Cilic, and a big 'if' Gulbis and Dmitrov could come into the fray. They all have games to be contesting in slam finals consistently, Murray doesn't - however he will be left with the scraps given to him if they all get knocked out. Of course he's not a lock but with all the big guns out h ewould be favourite.

corners
04-14-2010, 02:26 AM
[QUOTE=Anaconda;4554046]

Your 1st paragraph is conjecture dressed as fact.

Your second paragraph is fact based but is a strawman. Who is arguing about how many slams each player has won - not me.

They've both made 2 slam finals - difference is, Murray has done his within the last 18 months while Novak hasn't made one in over 2 years. I'd say those facts have a bit more bearing on the question 'who will consistently make slam finals in the future' than your opinion based on what Novak did over 2 years ago.

Novak hasn't beaten Murray in 3 years and he's underperformed Murray by any measure over the last 2 years. Those are the facts.

Dude, your argument has no legs. Murray can't be the most dominant man in a tournament where he was dominated by the guy who beat him in the final. He may have been the most dominant to that point, but getting slapped around by the champion put the rest of his results into perspective. There are no symbolic victories in tennis.

Anaconda
04-14-2010, 02:28 AM
^^^I never said that Murray was the most domainant player by the way - that was Batz. Just incase becasue the quoting went AWOL.

P_Agony
04-14-2010, 02:30 AM
He doesn't have a lot wrong in his game, it's just super solid. He's great on the defense, he moves well, he can go offensive and can change directions very well. Djokovic has two main problems:

1) He DFs at all the wrong moments during some matches, and it's the reason why I usually call him the Dementieva of men's tennis - she's super solid from the baseline as well but her serve fails her at the wrong moments.

2) His fitness, while improved, is still a factor and can lose him matches.

Underhand
04-14-2010, 04:19 AM
He's overrated with his one fluke GS win. I hate Đoković and proud of it.

dmt
04-14-2010, 04:56 AM
That's the most frustrating part, as a fan. Do you recall how he reacted to winning in Paris? And then he's done nothing worth mentioning this season, now in its fourth month. Dubai wasn't a big deal, though i believe it was his first successful title defense. I really hope to see the old Djokovic again soon. For a while there, he really made it the big 3, and while Murray is a great player, he hasn't stepped up to the plate on the biggest stages; Djokovic did in AO 08, dropping just 1 set, in the finals.

yeah i remember the paris match, he played very well there. Tennis is at its best when all the top guys are performing. He seems to play best when there isnt alot of pressure(after the us open is over). But there are some players who arent mentally strong when they are young but they do get mentally tough when they get a bit older.

rovex
04-14-2010, 04:58 AM
Yes but Bjorn Borg actually had better movement, a better serve and obviously a stronger head than Murray and was a better at everything than Murray . Borg would rattle you mentally a physically and Murray cannot do that.

I give Murray one slam at best. Because, the game could potentially pass Murray by when Djokovic gets his act together, JMDP will recover and other guys like Cilic, and a big 'if' Gulbis and Dmitrov could come into the fray. They all have games to be contesting in slam finals consistently, Murray doesn't - however he will be left with the scraps given to him if they all get knocked out. Of course he's not a lock but with all the big guns out h ewould be favourite.

Ha, your boy Roddick is an overrated one slam wonder circus freak and Murray will end up with more slams than him.

rovex
04-14-2010, 05:02 AM
It's also possible to win lots of slams doing that, if your name is Bjorn Borg. Just because someone plays a highly defensive style of play doesn't mean it's an insult. Stop parading Murray around like he's got all the talent in the world; he doesn't.

How about you start being objective and not a Roddick fanboy who's arguments are full of conjecture and lack in logic.

*Val*
04-14-2010, 05:33 AM
He's overrated with his one fluke GS win. I hate Đoković and proud of it.

That should have been Tsonga's slam... screw you Djokovic with your annoying helmet head!