PDA

View Full Version : Has Murray overachieved?


Anaconda
05-24-2010, 01:22 PM
2 slam runners up, 4 MS titles, world number 4.......

- He serves around 30%
- Rarely comes to the net
- Rarely plays aggressive, doesn't play low % shots, or take risks
- Adequate mental game
- Ok forehand
- Backhand is good, however he rarely plays aggressive
- Has no big weapons



The only thing that is great about his game is his return, yet there are better returners like Ferrer and Nalbandian. He's had, and will have a better career than most guys with more game, Safin, for example.

batz
05-24-2010, 01:28 PM
Murray is just a pusher.

RoddickAce
05-24-2010, 01:29 PM
In terms of how he plays, I think he overachieved. In terms of how he can play, I think he underachieved.

viduka0101
05-24-2010, 01:32 PM
2 slam runners up, 4 MS titles, world number 4.......

- He serves around 30%
- Rarely comes to the net
- Rarely plays aggressive, doesn't play low % shots, or take risks
- Adequate mental game
- Ok forehand
- Backhand is good, however he rarely plays aggressive
- Has no big weapons



The only thing that is great about his game is his return, yet there are better returners like Ferrer and Nalbandian. He's had, and will have a better career than most guys with more game, Safin, for example.

-first serve percentage is 54%(go to the ATP website) and he wins 77% on first serve

-he tends to come to the net on break points

-correction:backhand is great

-probably best returner in the game,one of the best backhands,amazing defensive skills, next to Nadal best passing shots

Matt H.
05-24-2010, 01:33 PM
i'm wondering if the latest batch of racquet/string technology eliminated Murray.

Technology allowed the movers/retrievers/counter punchers/pushers/etc. to compete and take out the power hitters.

it now seems like despite the slower courts, the power hitters are making a comeback.

batz
05-24-2010, 01:34 PM
2 slam runners up, 4 MS titles, world number 4.......

- He serves around 30%
- Rarely comes to the net
- Rarely plays aggressive, doesn't play low % shots, or take risks
- Adequate mental game
- Ok forehand
- Backhand is good, however he rarely plays aggressive
- Has no big weapons



The only thing that is great about his game is his return, yet there are better returners like Ferrer and Nalbandian. He's had, and will have a better career than most guys with more game, Safin, for example.

He's been world number 2 and has never served @ 30% in a match.


When someone gets so many things factually incorrect, their credibility really takes a pounding. Can you hear that whistling noise? That's your credibility singing in the wind - stretched as it is to breaking point.

batz
05-24-2010, 01:37 PM
i'm wondering if the latest batch of racquet/string technology eliminated Murray.

Technology allowed the movers/retrievers/counter punchers/pushers/etc. to compete and take out the power hitters.

it now seems like despite the slower courts, the power hitters are making a comeback.

Are these the racquets and strings that only came out since the AO? Because I'm having trouble getting my head round how the guy who won more titles than anybody last year and made final of the 1st slam this year can be described as having been 'eliminated'.

Feña14
05-24-2010, 01:38 PM
He reached number 2, not 4 :)

But no, I don't think he's overachieved. A well played point by Murray is the most satisfying thing to see on the ATP imo.

ramseszerg
05-24-2010, 01:40 PM
Wow, what a ******** thread.

viduka0101
05-24-2010, 01:41 PM
2 slam runners up, 4 MS titles, world number 4.......

- He serves around 30%
- Rarely comes to the net
- Rarely plays aggressive, doesn't play low % shots, or take risks
- Adequate mental game
- Ok forehand
- Backhand is good, however he rarely plays aggressive
- Has no big weapons



The only thing that is great about his game is his return, yet there are better returners like Ferrer and Nalbandian. He's had, and will have a better career than most guys with more game, Safin, for example.

also, what's the meaning of: "Rarely plays aggressive, doesn't play low % shots, or take risks"
what should that indicate, not everyone can or wants to play ala Soderling

plus you won't say things like:
-has the ability to force an opponent into an error, mixes his shots very well, trows opponent off balance and etc
why is that?

davey25
05-24-2010, 01:43 PM
Murray is actually better than Federer at most aspects of the game:

Serve- Federer overall, but Murray has more powerful first serve
Return of Serve- Murray clearly
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Murray
Net game- Murray's volleys are actually better than Federer
Movement- Murray
Overall defense- Murray
Passing shots- Murray

Breaker
05-24-2010, 01:48 PM
Murray is actually better than Federer at most aspects of the game:

Serve- Federer overall, but Murray has more powerful first serve
Return of Serve- Murray clearly
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Murray
Net game- Murray's volleys are actually better than Federer
Movement- Murray
Overall defense- Murray
Passing shots- Murray

This is new.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=280925

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c338/IHTennis/2jg2mas.gif

viduka0101
05-24-2010, 01:51 PM
This is new.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=280925

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c338/IHTennis/2jg2mas.gif

lol, good memory

zagor
05-24-2010, 01:53 PM
In terms of how he plays, I think he overachieved. In terms of how he can play, I think he underachieved.

Best answer by far,the thread should have ended with this post.

kishnabe
05-24-2010, 05:01 PM
He can achieve more...and I hope he can reach more major finals and recieve more beatings from other players.!

tudwell
05-24-2010, 05:13 PM
Murray is actually better than Federer at most aspects of the game:

Serve- Federer overall, but Murray has more powerful first serve
Return of Serve- Murray clearly
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Murray
Net game- Murray's volleys are actually better than Federer
Movement- Murray
Overall defense- Murray
Passing shots- Murray

No way is Murray's net game better than Federer's. You are also very selective in your breakdown of the game. You have "overall defense" but no "overall offense," which would clearly go to Federer, or slice (Federer) or mental game (Federer) or fitness (Federer) or intangibles (Federer) or day-to-day consistency (Federer), etc.

jamesblakefan#1
05-24-2010, 05:20 PM
This is new.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=280925

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c338/IHTennis/2jg2mas.gif

Wow, just wow. How the heck do they not ban this guy already, he has to have like 15 different user IDs on here.

Polaris
05-24-2010, 05:26 PM
This is new.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=280925

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c338/IHTennis/2jg2mas.gif

Breaker, this is hilarious.

I had no idea that julesb was davey25. With this addition, davey25 now has 16 usernames, thereby equalling Federer's record of 16 Slams. I've got to update my daveyfile. :)

Even funnier, julesb was a great fan of Monica Seles and called her the greatest tennis player in history. He also wrote that Graf should have been banned from tennis for tax evasion. Now, davey25 is busy convincing the newbies that Graf is the greatest tennis player in history, and all of them agree with him and continue to engage him in conversation. It is comical.

Wow, just wow. How the heck do they not ban this guy already, he has to have like 15 different user IDs on here.
The current number is 16 and counting :) . The mods have been alert though. They have banned most of his sockpuppets. Of course, if you point this out, he will say that you are "stalking" him.

Breaker
05-25-2010, 07:14 AM
The real question is who had more usernames, The Pusher Terminator or davey25? Or perhaps they're the same also which would increase the number to 30+!

TMF
05-25-2010, 07:58 AM
Wow, just wow. How the heck do they not ban this guy already, he has to have like 15 different user IDs on here.

davey25 has so many IDs even he himself couldn't keep track all of them. There were time he even argue to himself without realizing that it was his own post.

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 08:22 AM
2 slam runners up, 4 MS titles, world number 4.......

- He serves around 30%
- Rarely comes to the net
- Rarely plays aggressive, doesn't play low % shots, or take risks
- Adequate mental game
- Ok forehand
- Backhand is good, however he rarely plays aggressive
- Has no big weapons



What's wrong with the term in bold Anaconda? You seem quite keen to rubbish people, you should at least be able to write a grammatically correct sentence, especially as you are still in school.

Quite what you get out of threads like this is beyond me. Why all the negativity?

raiden031
05-25-2010, 08:36 AM
What's wrong with the term in bold Anaconda? You seem quite keen to rubbish people, you should at least be able to write a grammatically correct sentence, especially as you are still in school.

Quite what you get out of threads like this is beyond me. Why all the negativity?

rubbish is not a verb.

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 08:42 AM
rubbish is not a verb.

Of course it is, not only are you ignorant of this fact you couldn't even be bothered to look it up and are still prepared to try and 'correct' someone over it. Epic fail.

Verb

Infinitive
to rubbish (third-person singular simple present rubbishes, present participle rubbishing, simple past and past participle rubbished)

1. To denounce, to criticise.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rubbish

raiden031
05-25-2010, 08:48 AM
Of course it is, not only are you ignorant of this fact you couldn't even be bothered to look it up and are still prepared to try and 'correct' someone over it. Epic fail.

Verb

Infinitive
to rubbish (third-person singular simple present rubbishes, present participle rubbishing, simple past and past participle rubbished)

1. To denounce, to criticise.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rubbish

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rubbish

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 08:50 AM
That dictionary entry is incomplete, in English (the language of my country), rubbish is definitely a verb. The fact anyone could try and argue the contrary is somewhat bizarre.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=rubbish&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname

raiden031
05-25-2010, 08:51 AM
That dictionary entry is incomplete, in English (the language of my country), rubbish is definitely a verb. The fact anyone could try and argue the contrary is somewhat bizarre.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=rubbish&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname

Here in the United States, nobody uses 'rubbish' as a verb. I'd say its a stalemate.

Anaconda
05-25-2010, 08:55 AM
What's wrong with the term in bold Anaconda? You seem quite keen to rubbish people, you should at least be able to write a grammatically correct sentence, especially as you are still in school.

Quite what you get out of threads like this is beyond me. Why all the negativity?

That bored are you?

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 08:55 AM
Here in the United States, nobody uses 'rubbish' as a verb. I'd say its a stalemate.

Have you been all over the US? I've heard Americans use it, and it's included in the Meriam-Webster dictionary (the main US dictionary, post Noah Webster).

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/rubbish%5B2%5D

Secondly, the English have the last word on matters such as these. It's our language. If you were French Canadian would you argue with French sources about the grammatical status of a word and consider it, fatuously, to be 'stalemate' if you disagreed? I don't think so.

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 08:58 AM
That bored are you?

Answer the question. And regarding boredom, who spent much longer starting this pointless and negative thread?

Grammar is much more important than whether some school kid thinks Andy Murray has 'overachieved' (a nonsense argument of course, a player achieves what they achieve, no way to claim otherwise without resorting to idle speculation and the reading of tea leaves. Similarly, claiming that Sinatra or any other musician is the 'best in the world' is absurd. Category error fail).

raiden031
05-25-2010, 09:00 AM
Have you been all over the US? I've heard Americans use it, and it's included in the Meriam-Webster dictionary (the main US dictionary, post Noah Webster).

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/rubbish%5B2%5D

Secondly, the English have the last word on matters such as these. It's our language. If you were French Canadian would you argue with French sources about the grammatical status of a word and consider it, fatuously, to be 'stalemate' if you disagreed? I don't think so.

That bored are you?

Obviously.

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 09:02 AM
Obviously.

As if that consitutes a argument about rubbish not being a verb. An amusingly ineffectual retreat, no surprise really given how it began. Oh and nor is it 'obvious' that I'm bored, far from it, if that were true you'd be able to provide proof, which you cannot.

You're not doing very well here guys.

Anaconda
05-25-2010, 09:05 AM
Answer the question. And regarding boredom, who spent much longer starting this pointless and negative thread?



Ok, i will make a thread on how 0 slam wonders Murray and Nalbandian are legends of tennis. LOL. Excuse my negativity.

raiden031
05-25-2010, 09:07 AM
As if that consitutes a argument about rubbish not being a verb. An amusingly ineffectual retreat, no surprise really given how it began. Oh and nor is it 'obvious' that I'm bored, far from it, if that were true you'd be able to provide proof, which you cannot.

You're not doing very well here guys.

You want me to prove that you are bored?

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 09:11 AM
Ok, i will make a thread on how 0 slam wonders Murray and Nalbandian are legends of tennis. LOL. Excuse my negativity.

That would inaccurate too. No tennis player alive today is a 'legend' (look up what the word means).

Whether or not Murray has 'overachieved' is entirely subjective, this should be obvious (same goes for 'greatest' musicians and the like). The difference between objectivity and subjectivity, fact and opinion has seemingly passed you by Anaconda. Apparently you're not learning philosophy or critical thinking at school which is a shame (or perhaps you are and you're just looking out of the window instead of listening).

No excuse not to study it now it's been pointed out to you though. At least that would spare us threads like this in the future.

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 09:13 AM
You want me to prove that you are bored?

Not particularly, I just require accuracy where possible when involved in a discussion, not much to ask really. If you advance an argument or use a term which you cannot substantiate, it will be pointed out, is this unfair?

Anaconda
05-25-2010, 09:19 AM
That would inaccurate too.

Nice one. Now go back to your cave. LOL.

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 09:27 AM
Nice one. Now go back to your cave. LOL.

A typo does not alter the argument, to which you have failed to attend. The fact remains, the premise that a tennis player can 'overachieve' is ridiculous, if you think pointing out a typo here and there alters that fact then you're are stupid as this thread makes you appear to be.

Anaconda
05-25-2010, 09:33 AM
A typo does not alter the argument, to which you have failed to attend. The fact remains, the premise that a tennis player can 'overachieve' is ridiculous, if you think pointing out a typo here and there alters that fact then you're are stupid as this thread makes you appear to be.

I believe you mean 'typing error' instead of 'typo'. You started this argument correcting me on one error. You are nothing but a small minded hypocrite. I just want to discuss something who doesn't try to rip someone for a spelling mistake and make one themselves. Is that not reasonable?

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 09:40 AM
I believe you mean 'typing error' instead of 'typo'. You started this argument correcting me on one error. You are nothing but a small minded hypocrite. I just want to discuss something who doesn't try to rip someone for a spelling mistake and make one themselves. Is that not reasonable?

Ok I'm starting to lose patience with correcting myself when to any reasonable observer it isn't required. Do you know what an abbreviation is?

Look it up, then think about the the first sentence of your last post.

Secondly, when in this thread have I tried to 'rip' someone for a spelling mistake? Be specific.

Thirdly, and most importantly, attend to the argument I put forward (personally I don't think you're capable of it based on the evidence presented so far, but you have the right to reply, let's hear it).

viduka0101
05-25-2010, 09:49 AM
I probably shouldn't get involved in this but...:neutral:

I believe you mean 'typing error' instead of 'typo'. You started this argument correcting me on one error. You are nothing but a small minded hypocrite. I just want to discuss something who doesn't try to rip someone for a spelling mistake and make one themselves. Is that not reasonable?

no you didn't, you got more than enough responses(including two from me) but you didn't answer any of them(I suspect that's because most of them weren't to your liking)
and this isn't arguing:

Ok, i will make a thread on how 0 slam wonders Murray and Nalbandian are legends of tennis. LOL. Excuse my negativity.

That bored are you?

Nice one. Now go back to your cave. LOL.

this is just a perfect example of someone that can't take critique well so he resorts to irrational arguments and insults
plus you keep avoiding the subject of the thread you started:-?
and I'm not sure why Xenakis keeps responding to your gibberish, he should have realized already that it's futile

BullDogTennis
05-25-2010, 09:56 AM
Murray is actually better than Federer at most aspects of the game:

Serve- Federer overall, but Murray has more powerful first serve
Return of Serve- Murray clearly
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Murray
Net game- Murray's volleys are actually better than Federer
Movement- Murray
Overall defense- Murray
Passing shots- Murray

i think you forgot what really matters, and ill let you fill them in.

tournaments won:

federer-
murray-

Masters won:

federer-
murray-

Slams won:

federer-
murray-

rocket
05-25-2010, 09:59 AM
Murray is actually better than Federer at most aspects of the game:

Serve- Federer overall, but Murray has more powerful first serve
Return of Serve- Murray clearly
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Murray
Net game- Murray's volleys are actually better than Federer
Movement- Murray
Overall defense- Murray
Passing shots- Murray

at the last AO, Murray was beaten in every department. couldn't even win a set.

Jchurch
05-25-2010, 10:10 AM
at the last AO, Murray was beaten in every department. couldn't even win a set.

Point. Set. Thread.

Rocket

Blinkism
05-25-2010, 10:19 AM
Murray was promised to win Wimbledon last year so I'd say he's a big underachiever.

But it's ok, he WILL win Wimbledon this year!

Fedex
05-25-2010, 10:31 AM
Murray was promised to win Wimbledon last year so I'd say he's a big underachiever.

But it's ok, he WILL win Wimbledon this year!

Hello Jinxer

MichaelChang
05-25-2010, 10:40 AM
davey25 has so many IDs even he himself couldn't keep track all of them. There were time he even argue to himself without realizing that it was his own post.

lol I can imagine that lol.

Fedex
05-25-2010, 10:41 AM
Murray was promised to win Wimbledon last year so I'd say he's a big underachiever.

But it's ok, he WILL win Wimbledon this year!

Blinky's new image:

http://images.elfwood.com/fanq/l/h/lhommedieu3/jinx.jpg

Xenakis
05-25-2010, 10:47 AM
I'm not sure why Xenakis keeps responding to your gibberish, he should have realized already that it's futile

This was actually a mistake, I have no counter argument.

TMF
05-25-2010, 10:55 AM
lol I can imagine that lol.

Yes, and it gets even funnier...he reply to someone’s post but log on with a WRONG username. Then he edited the post to avoid getting caught!

kraggy
05-25-2010, 11:02 AM
I'm no Murray fan but any player capable of handing back to back defeats to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic AND who hasn't yet won a slam has definitely underachieved.

YodaKnowsBest
05-25-2010, 12:09 PM
Had Federer taken masters series a bit more serious, had Djokovic not been joking around alot and the last had Nadals knees not been older than my dads Murray wouldnt even come close to winning a master let alone GS.

Thomas Crown
05-25-2010, 12:13 PM
stretched as it is to breaking point.

just like your metaphor

rovex
05-25-2010, 12:18 PM
Had Federer taken masters series a bit more serious, had Djokovic not been joking around alot and the last had Nadals knees not been older than my dads Murray wouldnt even come close to winning a master let alone GS.

Come one YodaKnowsBest, we could easily say the same for Djokovic, can't we now?

batz
05-25-2010, 12:30 PM
just like your metaphor

Never caught a big fish on a windy day then?

batz
05-25-2010, 12:31 PM
Had Federer taken masters series a bit more serious, had Djokovic not been joking around alot and the last had Nadals knees not been older than my dads Murray wouldnt even come close to winning a master let alone GS.

And if your Aunt had bollocks, she'd be your Uncle.

YodaKnowsBest
05-25-2010, 12:35 PM
Come one YodaKnowsBest, we could easily say the same for Djokovic, can't we now?

so you're saying on fire Djokovic didnt deserve his grandslam title?
He would have beaten Federer anyway so I dont really know how you can compare a genius, potential goat, a role model with a pusher. :-?

YodaKnowsBest
05-25-2010, 12:57 PM
And if your Aunt had bollocks, she'd be your Uncle.

I understand your frustration... Its pretty hard to be a Murray Fan.
I really understand what you're going trough...

1. He never fullfills his expectations
2. Hes always whining or crying (AO final)
3. Never gives credit to his opponents
4. Blames others for his loss
5. Addicted to Playstation
6. Too many c'mons on opponents errors
7. Hes playing dirty ( He targeted Gasquet at the net yesterday)
Do I really need to continue?

rovex
05-25-2010, 12:59 PM
so you're saying on fire Djokovic didnt deserve his grandslam title?
He would have beaten Federer anyway so I dont really know how you can compare a genius, potential goat, a role model with a pusher. :-?

No way does djokovic beat federer in a grand slam final.

Chris Rizutto
05-25-2010, 01:01 PM
He is overhyped and has under achieved and your threads are under achieving.

rovex
05-25-2010, 01:01 PM
I understand your frustration... Its pretty hard to be a Murray Fan.
I really understand what you're going trough...

1. He never fullfills his expectations
2. Hes always whining or crying (AO final)
3. Never gives credit to his opponents
4. Blames others for his loss
5. Addicted to Playstation
6. Too many c'mons on opponents errors
7. Hes playing dirty ( He targeted Gasquet at the net yesterday)
Do I really need to continue?

there is soo much irony within this post.

batz
05-25-2010, 01:06 PM
I understand your frustration... Its pretty hard to be a Murray Fan.
I really understand what you're going trough...

1. He never fullfills his expectations
2. Hes always whining or crying (AO final)
3. Never gives credit to his opponents
4. Blames others for his loss
5. Addicted to Playstation
6. Too many c'mons on opponents errors
7. Hes playing dirty ( He targeted Gasquet at the net yesterday)
Do I really need to continue?

LOL :)

It's like primary school in here at times.

bizarre_opinion
05-25-2010, 01:07 PM
what a stupid question. The guy's just 23 years old and your asking whether he's over achieved, you bloody prat.

AndyArodRoddick
05-25-2010, 01:07 PM
I dont know how is he going to win Wimby ?! No weapons at all and he even lost to Roddick by playing very good tennis.

I simply cant see him winning Wimby with this pushing game.

jamesblakefan#1
05-25-2010, 01:09 PM
I understand your frustration... Its pretty hard to be a Murray Fan.
I really understand what you're going trough...

1. He never fullfills his expectations Who really expected to win all of these slams though? The only slam where he was THE legit favorite and had a disappointing result was AO 09 and maybe Wimbledon as well, but even there he made SF losing admirably to Roddick. It's not like he's talked up at every slam and going out 1R or anything. He's made 4R or better of 7 straight slams now. That's not fulfilling expectations?
2. Hes always whining or crying (AO final) Subjective bashing
3. Never gives credit to his opponents Murray's the only player to not give opponents total credit? Fed and Nadal have both done the same in the past.
4. Blames others for his loss Unsubstantiated bashing
5. Addicted to Playstation Worthless bashing.
6. Too many c'mons on opponents errors Fed did this plenty of times in Madrid vs Gulbis
7. Hes playing dirty ( He targeted Gasquet at the net yesterday) Not dirty at all, everyone that plays tennis knows that is a fair play.
Do I really need to continue?
No, we've had enough of your meaningless Murray bashing.

Response in bold.

batz
05-25-2010, 01:09 PM
I dont know how is he going to win Wimby ?! No weapons at all and he even lost to Roddick by playing very good tennis.

I simply cant see him winning Wimby with this pushing game.

Murray is a pusher? I hadn't heard.

jamesblakefan#1
05-25-2010, 01:12 PM
there is soo much irony within this post.

Oh yeah, I did just realize all of that was coming from a DJOKOVIC fan, so I should've taken it with a grain of salt.

TheRed
05-25-2010, 01:12 PM
Murray is actually better than Federer at most aspects of the game:

Serve- Federer overall, but Murray has more powerful first serve
Return of Serve- Murray clearly
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Murray
Net game- Murray's volleys are actually better than Federer
Movement- Murray
Overall defense- Murray
Passing shots- Murray

This is so lame it's funny.
Serve - Federer's 1st and 2nd serve is better, with the second being far better. "More powerful" in what way?
Return of serve - umm, Fed is probably one of the 3 best returners in the game. There is not a clear better here.
Movement - There is no one, in the history of tennis that moves better than federer. Maybe just as well (i.e. Nadal)

rovex
05-25-2010, 01:12 PM
"Never gives credit to his opponents"........

I know for a fact this is not true. He always praises people he loses to. I remember when he lost to Gonzo this time last year he said "He was hitting winners from outside the tramlines, it's just too good"...

davey25
05-25-2010, 01:20 PM
This is so lame it's funny.
Serve - Federer's 1st and 2nd serve is better, with the second being far better. "More powerful" in what way?

Murray has more mph on the 1st serve. Anyway I conceded Federer's serve overall was still better.

Return of serve - umm, Fed is probably one of the 3 best returners in the game. There is not a clear better here.

LOL you are overrating Federer's return. Murray, Nalbandian, Nadal, Davydenko, Ferrer, possibly Hewitt, Djokovic, and Del Potro as well all return better than him.

Movement - There is no one, in the history of tennis that moves better than federer. Maybe just as well (i.e. Nadal)

Borg, Nadal, Chang, just for starters all moved better in their primes.

YodaKnowsBest
05-25-2010, 01:32 PM
Yes ofcourse he has praised someone but how many times???? He has whined more than praised an opponent and thats a fact, especially when we look at yesterdays match vs Gasquet. Every time Gasquet hit a winner he was like NO WAY he could have done that. If it was Djokovic he would have aploused those shots. There is always an excuse with him. Another huge difference between Djokovic and Murray is when Djokovic's on fire, he CAN beat Federer.

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af292/Zlaja1991/Funny%20pics/trophy.jpg

rovex
05-25-2010, 01:36 PM
If it was Djokovic he would have aploused those shots.


Remember the tweener Federer hit at the USO Semi? Djokovic DID NOT applaud after it. Your point isn't a very valid one, is it?

patty_mnouchkine
05-25-2010, 01:37 PM
davey25 has so many IDs even he himself couldn't keep track all of them. There were time he even argue to himself without realizing that it was his own post.

There's nothing more generous than lending humor for free. Thanks TMF this post will keep me cheerful for the rest of the day!!!

batz
05-25-2010, 01:38 PM
Yes ofcourse he has praised someone but how many times???? He has whined more than praised an opponent and thats a fact, especially when we look at yesterdays match vs Gasquet. Every time Gasquet hit a winner he was like NO WAY he could have done that. If it was Djokovic he would have aploused those shots. There is always an excuse with him. Another huge difference between Djokovic and Murray is when Djokovic's on fire, he CAN beat Federer.
http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af292/Zlaja1991/Funny%20pics/trophy.jpg

Yep - that's how come Novak has a winning head to head v Roger and Murray doesn't - right?

YodaKnowsBest
05-25-2010, 01:41 PM
Remember the tweener Federer hit at the USO Semi? Djokovic DID NOT applaud after it. Your point isn't a very valid one, is it?

Federer had 2 match points. He had more important thinks to do than aploading Federer who was about to win the match, dont you agree?

YodaKnowsBest
05-25-2010, 01:42 PM
Yep - that's how come Novak has a winning head to head v Roger and Murray doesn't - right?

Djokovic- 1 grandslam
Murray- :lol:

batz
05-25-2010, 01:49 PM
Djokovic- 1 grandslam
Murray- :lol:


Pity he's done the square root of nothing in slams since that one win. If I was you'd I'd live in the past too, as Novak's best days are so long ago - it must pain you to see him outperfromed in slams by Murray the pusher these last 2 years.

YodaKnowsBest
05-25-2010, 01:54 PM
Pity he's done the square root of nothing in slams since that one win. If I was you'd I'd live in the past too, as Novak's best days are so long ago - it must pain you to see him outperfromed in slams by Murray the pusher these last 2 years.

Its too bad Djokovic will be rememberd for his one slam and Murray for none.:lol:

batz
05-25-2010, 02:19 PM
Its too bad Djokovic will be rememberd for his one slam and Murray for none.:lol:

Have they both retired then?

Look mate - knock yourself out with your kiddy-level trolling. It's like arguing with a nine year old. I blame myself for even bothering. Have a nice evening.

YodaKnowsBest
05-25-2010, 02:59 PM
Have they both retired then?

Look mate - knock yourself out with your kiddy-level trolling. It's like arguing with a nine year old. I blame myself for even bothering. Have a nice evening.

I was just putting some facts together and i know thats a little hard to bear for a Murray fan, but if you continue to cry and whine like Murray I'm affraid I'll have to put you in my troll list.

jigar
05-26-2010, 07:28 PM
I think he achieved more than you could only dream about.