PDA

View Full Version : What Murray has achieved is nearly incalculable


Danny_G13
09-14-2012, 03:11 AM
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.

Britain has never produced especially good tennis players, especially males. Murray has risen in a drought of tennis quality, made 4 slam finals against machines, then won Olympic gold against one of them before beating another to win a grand slam.

I don't really feel like the media have truly given Murray the full credit he deserves. They've certainly applauded his achievement courteously, but this double on his part honestly in this country deserves wild celebrations.

He's done something quite, quite incredible.

Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?

Matheson
09-14-2012, 03:35 AM
Nope, Murray has been lauded quite enough for his single slam win against an absent Nadal and tired Djokovic.

gmatheis
09-14-2012, 03:59 AM
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.

SempreSami
09-14-2012, 04:20 AM
It's not Murray's fault he didn't get to play against chumps like Philippoussis in the final.

Mainad
09-14-2012, 04:28 AM
Nope, Murray has been lauded quite enough for his single slam win against an absent Nadal and tired Djokovic.

Lol...how did his win against an absent Nadal go? Did he just hit balls against a cardboard cut-out of Rafa or something? :)

As for tired Djokovic. Well, I guess HE must have got lucky when he beat a tired Murray in the AO sem-final in January? :cool:

Zarfot Z
09-14-2012, 04:31 AM
Er, no.

Federer's Wimbledon win should be lauded more.

He is 6-7 years older than his rivals, well past his prime yet manages to land a major and become #1.

On the other hand, Murray is in his prime and only had to go through Djokovic to win the US Open.

merlinpinpin
09-14-2012, 04:32 AM
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.


I would. If you call bs on all that 'weak-era' nonsense (as I do), it stands to reason you would also call it on the 'strong-era' nonsense, as they are one and the same, only reversed. ;)

Oh, and what Murray has done is easily 'calculable'--he's won one of the four grand slam tournaments in any given year, more specifically the fourth one, ie the US Open--which, considering the recent (and not-so-recent) tennis history of his country, is quite a feat. Overhyping it seems to run rampant in a few posts, though... :)

merlinpinpin
09-14-2012, 04:35 AM
Er, no.

Federer's Wimbledon win should be lauded more.

He is 6-7 years older than his rivals, well past his prime yet manages to land a major and become #1.

On the other hand, Murray is in his prime and only had to go through Djokovic to win the US Open.

Yes and no. In a sense, you're perfectly right. What a 31-year old Federer did at Wimbledon was admitedly harder than what a 25-year old Murray did at the US Open. But considering the pressure and the mental hurdles Murray had to overcome to win his first GS tournament (and he did his level best to lose it each time he was in a position to win in the first two sets, so it was anything but easy), his win is nothing to scoff at, quite the contrary. ;)

Zarfot Z
09-14-2012, 04:38 AM
Yes and no. In a sense, you're perfectly right. What a 31-year old Federer did at Wimbledon was admitedly harder than what a 25-year old Murray did at the US Open. But considering the pressure and the mental hurdles Murray had to overcome to win his first GS tournament (and he did his level best to lose it each time he was in a position to win in the first two sets, so it was anything but easy), his win is nothing to scoff at, quite the contrary. ;)

I'm not underrating Murray's achievement. To win a Grand Slam is definitely deserving of applause. But the point that OP makes, that Murray isn't getting lauded enough I find completely ridiculous. I live in Australia, and Murray is all over the news. Heck, the BBC would probably replay the USO final for the next few weeks.

Mainad
09-14-2012, 04:38 AM
#1 Nadal was not even there

So what? Murray has beaten Nadal at the USO before.


#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray

Well, silly old Fed and Berdych. By the way, Murray played sub-par against half of HIS opponents, probably including Djokovic, but HE managed to come through. Why couldn't they?


#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

Oh the wind factor again. Like it only affected Murray's opponents and not him!


In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

Absolutely. That's why he almost went out against Lopez and Cilic and could have lost to Berdych, wind or no wind. Yep, everything just fell into his lap, didn't it?


He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

Only time will tell with that one.


He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

So I guess both Nadal and Djokovic are also lucky to be 5 and 6 years younger than Fed?


But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.

The OP was over the top in his comments. But that's still no excuse for putting down Murray's achievement with these kind of clicheed,tired and ultimately invalid arguments.

tennisMVP
09-14-2012, 04:42 AM
Imagine if Murray had won Wimbledon to go along with Gold and US Open. He would have done a Serena Williams. And Murray was fairly close to being 2 sets to 0 up over Federer in that Wimbledon final. Although I wouldn't be sure of Murray winning the match even if he had won that 2nd set.

Seventeen
09-14-2012, 04:45 AM
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.

Quoted for truthacity.

tennisMVP
09-14-2012, 05:01 AM
It was a calm day/night at the Australian Open, and Murray took Djokovic to 7-5 in the fifth set. The wind isn't the main factor in a match between Djokovic and Murray. Murray has had some awful performances in the wind by the way (including a 6-1 6-2 loss at Indian Wells vs Nadal).

Russeljones
09-14-2012, 05:08 AM
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.
I think you might be surprised on this count.

Britain has never produced especially good tennis players, especially males. Murray has risen in a drought of tennis quality, made 4 slam finals against machines, then won Olympic gold against one of them before beating another to win a grand slam.
He won a final against a 31 year old man who'd played a 4+ hour marathon vs an inspired Del Potro. The conditions under which the USO final was played are unprecedented and clearly (to some) cast a shadow of doubt over the actual progress in Murray's game that has allowed him to break his duck.

I don't really feel like the media have truly given Murray the full credit he deserves. They've certainly applauded his achievement courteously, but this double on his part honestly in this country deserves wild celebrations.
I think the media have gone well over board, you only have to look at Mats Wilander and Pat Cash predicting him to dominate men's tennis.

He's done something quite, quite incredible.
No argument from me here. :)

Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?
This whole thread is so over the top it's nearly incalulable to use your own words

Pretty much.

Danny_G13
09-14-2012, 05:36 AM
It does seem that opinions around here, when others disagree with them, are rather chided.

There's a real lack of respect around on this forum.

Why?

Magnetite
09-14-2012, 05:41 AM
It's definitely a good excuse for wild celebrations.

In fact, most intelligent people find any excuse possible to wildly celebrate.

I'm not a big Murray fan, but if someone is throwing a wild celebration, count me in.

OTMPut
09-14-2012, 05:41 AM
I am not a big fan of Murray. However win is a win. You still have to get to the finals and take 3 sets off a #2 player. He nearly lost it and in the end he seemed to have overcome his familiar demons.

Good for him.

tennisMVP
09-14-2012, 05:44 AM
It does seem that opinions around here, when others disagree with them, are rather chided.

There's a real lack of respect around on this forum.

Why?

Three words-

bitter. federer. fans.

Sentinel
09-14-2012, 05:47 AM
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.

1. Like Nadal mattered. What if he had gone out in round 2 to some Rosol ? If Murray won WO, would we have still said he didn't face Nadal ?

2. That often happens. Even Nadal played a subpar Berdych who had beaten Fred (IIRC).

Tsonga beat Fed two years back and then played "subpar". So what ? These things happen.

3. The wind favoring - subjective. And even then we don't really know if Murray would have lost without the wind. It's hypothetical.

All your points are things that generally happen. Sorry but your congratulations in the end have no value after totally discrediting his win.

Going by the above, Murray should wish he had just lost again. He's getting it worse by winning than losing, lol. :rolleyes:

Tennis_Maestro
09-14-2012, 05:52 AM
Its started, indeeds started it has. The OP is jus a more articulate version of a troll in my eyes.

If you think winning your first major against a reigning Grand-slam Champion is easy, how about asking the guy who did so himself, only half an hour after the event...???....

"I don't mean to mean disrespectful to any other players, but you know when Federer won his first slam , it was against Philiposous who never one won, Rafa against Courtia who had never won one and Novak against Tsonga, you know and when I had played in the slam finals, it was against Roger who is the greatest player ever and against Novak."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQCq...ailpage#t=100s

Now, we all know Andy Murray, he is not insincere or dishonest about how he is feeling, ever, unlike (And I'm sorry to bring this up, its not through hate) but unlike Nadal, who very much plays it candid in interviews. Murray says exactly what he is thinking/feeling. Never will he compromise or make statements simply made to "sound good". I also have no doubt in my mind that Murray has more credibility when talking about how "hard" and "difficult" the route to Olympic Gold and US Open double glory is, than lets say, you.

So keep dissecting his draw's in both competitions and talking about how a bloke that never sweats, relies on amazing fitness or suffers serious injuries was fatigued. Keep doing this for the next few months and if Murray loses in the Semi or Final of the Australian Open, you can do it again until Wimbledon. (And again, and again) .. because that's what you trolls specialise in.

The-Champ
09-14-2012, 05:59 AM
Nope, Murray has been lauded quite enough for his single slam win against an absent Nadal and tired Djokovic.

BS. Even if Nadal was there, he probably would have lost to Murray. Andy is a better HC player. Djokovic has spent less time on court than Murray. Murray was tired, not Djokovic.

Tennis_Maestro
09-14-2012, 06:00 AM
BS. Even if Nadal was there, he probably would have lost to Murray. Andy is a better HC player. Djokovic has spent less time on court than Murray. Murray was tired, not Djokovic.

This X the amount of slams the top 4 have put together with nought's on the end of it.

The-Champ
09-14-2012, 06:01 AM
Er, no.

Federer's Wimbledon win should be lauded more.

He is 6-7 years older than his rivals, well past his prime yet manages to land a major and become #1.

On the other hand, Murray is in his prime and only had to go through Djokovic to win the US Open.

And Rafa's final opponent on his first major was the legendary Puerta, and federer had the inconsistent Philippousis.

Tennis_Maestro
09-14-2012, 06:02 AM
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.

You are too much of a casual follower of tennis to ever understand entirely what Murray has achieved, despite your final statement.

tacou
09-14-2012, 06:05 AM
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.

Murray worked through his draw, handled extremely difficult conditions in the SF and battled elements, a near mental collapse of epic proportions, and the best hard court player in tennis/defending USO champion to finally win a slam.

There are no asteriks for this win. In fact, Murray was close to elimination in the QF. Down a set and 5-1 just a few hours before Roger was eliminated, this tournament was very nearly Novak's for the taking.

tennisMVP
09-14-2012, 06:11 AM
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.

Murray worked through his draw, handled extremely difficult conditions in the SF and battled elements, a near mental collapse of epic proportions, and the best hard court player in tennis/defending USO champion to finally win a slam.

There are no asteriks for this win. In fact, Murray was close to elimination in the QF. Down a set and 5-1 just a few hours before Roger was eliminated, this tournament was very nearly Novak's for the taking.

Nadal was embarrassed? 6-4 in the 5th set, vs a player who hit the ball harder than anyone who's ever played Nadal. That's a good loss in my book. It shows it took something special to beat Nadal. And even then, it was a very narrow loss. If Murray played like Rosol, he might have beaten Nadal too in the past at Wimbledon.

Mainad
09-14-2012, 06:11 AM
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.

Murray worked through his draw, handled extremely difficult conditions in the SF and battled elements, a near mental collapse of epic proportions, and the best hard court player in tennis/defending USO champion to finally win a slam.

There are no asteriks for this win. In fact, Murray was close to elimination in the QF. Down a set and 5-1 just a few hours before Roger was eliminated, this tournament was very nearly Novak's for the taking.

Quoted for truth. Great post and absolutely spot on! :cool:

Russeljones
09-14-2012, 06:12 AM
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.

Murray worked through his draw, handled extremely difficult conditions in the SF and battled elements, a near mental collapse of epic proportions, and the best hard court player in tennis/defending USO champion to finally win a slam.

There are no asteriks for this win. In fact, Murray was close to elimination in the QF. Down a set and 5-1 just a few hours before Roger was eliminated, this tournament was very nearly Novak's for the taking.

Who is the 1 time slam finalist?

Tennis_Maestro
09-14-2012, 06:14 AM
Nadal was embarrassed? 6-4 in the 5th set, vs a player who hit the ball harder than anyone who's ever played Nadal. That's a good loss in my book. It shows it took something special to beat Nadal. And even then, it was a very narrow loss. If Murray played like Rosol, he might have beaten Nadal too in the past at Wimbledon.

I love how you have to put cherries on the top of everything you say mate. "harder than anyone who's ever played Nadal?" You can't be much of a Nadal fanatic. Tsonga, Australian Open Semi Finals. Soderling, French Open 3rd or 4th Round? Okay then.

tennisMVP
09-14-2012, 06:18 AM
I love how you have to put cherries on the top of everything you say mate. "harder than anyone who's ever played Nadal?" You can't be much of a Nadal fanatic. Tsonga, Australian Open Semi Finals. Soderling, French Open 3rd or 4th Round? Okay then.

I saw all those matches. And Rosol has them beat, no doubt about it. Ask anyone else who saw the Rosol-Nadal match. Rosol was in the zone and going for broke, more than anyone I've ever seen on a tennis court. He also had the right surface.

Danny_G13
09-14-2012, 06:20 AM
Its started, indeeds started it has. The OP is jus a more articulate version of a troll in my eyes.

A troll posts something incendiary specifically to get a reaction and to cause pain.

Hardly my intention at all - it was just a valid observation of how the press has portrayed his victory.

But I am glad you view me as an 'articulate troll' - I try to make sure I attract a novel insult daily. Good for the glands.

That said, the rest of your post appears to be agreeing with me, or is really strangely composed.

So, if that's the case, I'm confused as to the troll moniker.

helloworld
09-14-2012, 06:22 AM
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.



You are just too funny. :lol:

Tennis_Maestro
09-14-2012, 06:24 AM
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.

This is the person my post was aimed @. Apologies to the opening post.

Its started, indeeds started it has. This dude is jus a more articulate version of a troll in my eyes.

If you think winning your first major against a reigning Grand-slam Champion is easy, how about asking the guy who did so himself, only half an hour after the event...???....

"I don't mean to mean disrespectful to any other players, but you know when Federer won his first slam , it was against Philiposous who never one won, Rafa against Courtia who had never won one and Novak against Tsonga, you know and when I had played in the slam finals, it was against Roger who is the greatest player ever and against Novak."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQCq...ailpage#t=100s

Now, we all know Andy Murray, he is not insincere or dishonest about how he is feeling, ever, unlike (And I'm sorry to bring this up, its not through hate) but unlike Nadal, who very much plays it candid in interviews. Murray says exactly what he is thinking/feeling. Never will he compromise or make statements simply made to "sound good". I also have no doubt in my mind that Murray has more credibility when talking about how "hard" and "difficult" the route to Olympic Gold and US Open double glory is, than lets say, you.

So keep dissecting his draw's in both competitions and talking about how a bloke that never sweats, relies on amazing fitness or suffers serious injuries was fatigued. Keep doing this for the next few months and if Murray loses in the Semi or Final of the Australian Open, you can do it again until Wimbledon. (And again, and again) .. because that's what you trolls specialise in.

syc23
09-14-2012, 06:26 AM
We'll just have to wait and see when Murray beats either Fed/Djokovic/Rafa back-to-back to win his next slam to shut all the haters up. Until then, Murray is the 2012 USO champion and no of you haters can change it ;)

Vamos.

Tennis_Maestro
09-14-2012, 06:29 AM
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.

You know what it is, it's posters being pedantic about the "name". Too-many people on this board are obsessed with the name, if its not a big name that the tennis globe are immediately aware of, it doesn't count. It wouldn't matter a jot if Monaco came out and played tennis to the standard of a Djokovic and knocked Del Potro out in a Grand-slam, people would undermine Del Potro and start writing him off.

Tennis_Maestro
09-14-2012, 06:33 AM
We'll just have to wait and see when Murray beats either Fed/Djokovic/Rafa back-to-back to win his next slam to shut all the haters up. Until then, Murray is the 2012 USO champion and no of you haters can change it ;)

Vamos.

No, we won't, he's beaten Rafa in slams on hard-courts in the past and regularly beats him in Masters Series. Djokovic he jus beat and he beat the bloke that beat Federer. End of discussion. Or else we can start igniting the debate about how Federer had it easy to win the French Open. Making him lucky to carry all 4 Grand-slams.

Mainad
09-14-2012, 06:34 AM
We'll just have to wait and see when Murray beats either Fed/Djokovic/Rafa back-to-back to win his next slam to shut all the haters up. Until then, Murray is the 2012 USO champion and no of you haters can change it ;)

Vamos.

Lol....don't you believe it. Even if Murray were to take out Fed/ Djok/ Rafa back to back to win all 4 Slams in one calendar year, many on here would say he just got lucky because:

a) He had an easy draw.
b) Nadal was injured.
c) Federer was sub-par.
d) Djokovic was too tired.
e) It was just too windy for any of his opponents since, as we all know, Murray is the only player that can handle windy conditions.

:)

sureshs
09-14-2012, 06:37 AM
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.

Britain has never produced especially good tennis players, especially males. Murray has risen in a drought of tennis quality, made 4 slam finals against machines, then won Olympic gold against one of them before beating another to win a grand slam.

I don't really feel like the media have truly given Murray the full credit he deserves. They've certainly applauded his achievement courteously, but this double on his part honestly in this country deserves wild celebrations.

He's done something quite, quite incredible.

Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?

I don't think Britain not having champions for a long time is directly related to this. Probabilities don't work that simply, and Britain is not some place with no tennis infrastructure. It is not like a child succeeding in spite of poverty. The real reason for his win is that his window opened with Nadal's injury and Fed's aging.

Strategy
09-14-2012, 06:39 AM
Why do we need a new thread every day about Murray's win.. cant we use 1 thread?

Legend of Borg
09-14-2012, 06:45 AM
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.

Britain has never produced especially good tennis players, especially males. Murray has risen in a drought of tennis quality, made 4 slam finals against machines, then won Olympic gold against one of them before beating another to win a grand slam.

I don't really feel like the media have truly given Murray the full credit he deserves. They've certainly applauded his achievement courteously, but this double on his part honestly in this country deserves wild celebrations.

He's done something quite, quite incredible.

Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?

Over the top for sure.

Reality will hit you in the next 6 months.

Mainad
09-14-2012, 06:46 AM
Why do we need a new thread every day about Murray's win.. cant we use 1 thread?

Hear, hear! :cool:

JMR
09-14-2012, 06:53 AM
Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?

Yes, you're being over the top. Winning a slam is not an "incalculable" achievement; it's winning a slam. It's happened many times in the past and will happen many time in the future. Great, but not rare.

Any player who wins the U.S. Open deserves a lot of credit. But he does not deserve extra credit simply because other players around him have won more slams than he has. Why isn't he the one who's won more slams?

Fedex
09-14-2012, 07:56 AM
Yes, you're being over the top. Winning a slam is not an "incalculable" achievement; it's winning a slam. It's happened many times in the past and will happen many time in the future. Great, but not rare.

Any player who wins the U.S. Open deserves a lot of credit. But he does not deserve extra credit simply because other players around him have won more slams than he has. Why isn't he the one who's won more slams?

A British player winning a slam is a very big deal.
And the manner in which he won it having lost 4 finals, being aware of countless morons saying he will never win one or when will he win one, and then to lose the Wimbledon final and follow it up by straight setting Djokovic and Federer to win Olympic Gold then follow that up by fighting his way through a very tough draw with some tough matches and on top of that have to overcome Djokovic in a grueling 5 sets, to me that is a quite remarkable achievement.
To do all that, with that pressure and competition and previous bad fortune, and at the end of it all lies the first British player in 76 years to win a slam.
The effect on British sport and tennis could actually be almost incalculable.
Maybe not for a pile of bitter dicks who can't hack it but for normal people, it is quite fathomable.

JMR
09-14-2012, 08:22 AM
A British player winning a slam is a very big deal.
Primarily to the British. To the rest of the world, that fact is just an attractive historic sidebar (i.e., more than a footnote, but not the lead story) to the U.S. Open result. Many other recent slams have had historic features as well: Federer's record-tying seventh Wimbledon; Nadal's record-breaking seventh French Open (and denial of Djokovic's attempt at a NCYGS). As a general tennis fan, I certainly wouldn't say that the end of British slam futility is a more significant story than these all-time records. If it is to the British, of course that's fine.

And the manner in which he won it having lost 4 finals

Lendl lost his first four finals. Stolle lost his first five finals. Agassi lost his first three finals. Clijsters lost her first four finals. All were denigrated and abused for their failures.

Murray's finally coming through was great, for both himself and his country, but not unprecedented, nor "incalculable."

Maybe not for a pile of bitter dicks who can't hack it but for normal people, it is quite fathomable.

Ad hominem. Surely you can do better than that.

Russeljones
09-14-2012, 08:28 AM
Primarily to the British. To the rest of the world, that fact is just an attractive historic sidebar (i.e., more than a footnote, but not the lead story) to the U.S. Open result. Many other recent slams have had historic features as well: Federer's record-tying seventh Wimbledon; Nadal's record-breaking seventh French Open (and denial of Djokovic's attempt at a NCYGS). As a general tennis fan, I certainly wouldn't say that the end of British slam futility is a more significant story than these all-time records. If it is to the British, of course that's fine.



Lendl lost his first four finals. Stolle lost his first five finals. Agassi lost his first three finals. Clijsters lost her first four finals. All were denigrated and abused for their failures.

Murray's finally coming through was great, for both himself and his country, but not unprecedented, nor "incalculable."



Ad hominem. Surely you can do better than that.

Fedex can be 'over the top' (to keep in line with the spirit of the OP's first post) but he is at heart a good guy. At least so it seems. Some people feel so strongly about something they cannot see the obvious, it's almost like love. ;)

tennisMVP
09-14-2012, 08:35 AM
Why do we need a new thread every day about Murray's win.. cant we use 1 thread?

Might as well use 5 or 6 Murray threads, as that is the way of the federer fan. This is Murray's world now.

Fedex
09-14-2012, 09:17 AM
Thing is people keep trying to compare Murray to Federer and Nadal and say he's nothing compared to them so his slam is no big deal.
Players of that calibre are way out and we don't expect Murray to ever get near that success.
We and I'm sure he is more than happy with the one and that one is massive for Britain especially the way he achieved it.
If Murray ever attains more well that's a bonus.
We don't expect him to have the success of Federer or Nadal or even Djokovic.
And Russell yes I am a good guy but some of the dicks, yes DICKS JMR (not referring to yourselves) sometimes drive me round the twist with their blinkered views. It's a forum with people I don't know so why?
And I've been one of Murray's biggest critics over the years and always strived to see things with an objective eye so my 'love' is not blind.

Russeljones
09-14-2012, 09:21 AM
my 'love' is not blind.

But you refuse to acknowledge his pushing :lol:

Fedex
09-14-2012, 09:23 AM
But you refuse to acknowledge his pushing :lol:

Don't forget the wind.

monfed
09-14-2012, 09:28 AM
I agree. It's nearly incalculable how past-his-prime Federer aka Olderer is #1 in the strongest era of men's tennis. Truly remarkable. :)

Clarky21
09-14-2012, 09:59 AM
Nope, Murray has been lauded quite enough for his single slam win against an absent Nadal and tired Djokovic.


Tired from what? he lost one set up until the final,and spent a lot less time on court than Andy did. This is the same guy who played a marathon match late into the night against Andy in Rome last year,only to turn up to the final the very next day fresh as a daisy,beating Nadal in straights. This is also the same guy who played yet another marathon match against Andy at the AO this year,only to turn up and play another marathon match in the final,winning it. To say he was tired in the final of the USO is a total load of rubbish.

nhat8121
09-14-2012, 09:59 AM
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.

if berdych beat fed and then murray beat berdych...does that mean anything?

Antonio Puente
09-14-2012, 10:13 AM
What Murray has achieved is nearly incalculable

Incalculable? Sure, if you're incapable of counting to one.

batz
09-14-2012, 10:15 AM
Incalculable? Sure, if you're incapable of counting to one.

Made me :)

Sid_Vicious
09-14-2012, 12:31 PM
He won a major title.

If anything, the media is over-hyping the hell out of it because he is British.

{Deleted/Forget that}

you know what, Congrats Andy.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6si51h8471qg39ewo1_500.gif

Fedex
09-14-2012, 12:32 PM
I agree. It's nearly incalculable how past-his-prime Federer aka Olderer is #1 in the strongest era of men's tennis. Truly remarkable. :)

That's why he went out in the quarters.
I can calculate that.

JMR
09-14-2012, 12:36 PM
He won a major title.


This is off-topic, but are you a Pistols fan, or a Jam fan? I'm getting mixed messages here.

Sid_Vicious
09-14-2012, 12:38 PM
This is off-topic, but are you a Pistols fan, or a Jam fan? I'm getting mixed messages here.

I'm a big fan of The Jam. I also listen to a bit of the pistols as well, but the Jam are number 1 for me. I just randomly picked my username.

batz
09-14-2012, 12:40 PM
I'm a big fan of The Jam. I also listen to a bit of the pistols as well, but the Jam are number 1 for me. I just randomly picked my username.

I had Eton Rifles blaring out of my wee Bose not 2 minutes ago! :)

Sid_Vicious
09-14-2012, 12:43 PM
I had Eton Rifles blaring out of my wee Bose not 2 minutes ago! :)

Awesome! I have CD full of the finest Jam hits. I no longer dread the 30 minute drive to the University. :)

Btw, What are your favorite Jam songs, batz?

Danny_G13
09-14-2012, 12:54 PM
I will add only one comment to this. The same folk saying Murray wasn't good enough to win one are the ones dismissing him winning one.

Which says it all really.

/peace.

SempreSami
09-14-2012, 12:57 PM
Awesome! I have CD full of the finest Jam hits. I no longer dread the 30 minute drive to the University. :)

Btw, What are your favorite Jam songs, batz?

'A' Bomb in Wardour Street is my personal favourite.

Fedex
09-14-2012, 01:01 PM
My pal saw the Jam at the Playhouse, Edinburgh in 1980.
Crowd was a bit quiet and standing back initially when Paul Weller shouted the immortal words "Hey you lot at the back. Get involved".
A riotous rush forward ensued totally kick starting the show.

cork_screw
09-14-2012, 01:04 PM
3 very solid points. Thank you, someone who's actually using thought before just writing some random crap.


#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.

Fedex
09-14-2012, 01:04 PM
I will add only one comment to this. The same folk saying Murray wasn't good enough to win one are the ones dismissing him winning one.

Which says it all really.

/peace.

This 1000 times.

bluetrain4
09-14-2012, 01:06 PM
His acheivement is amazing, and quite calculable.

Sid_Vicious
09-14-2012, 01:14 PM
'A' Bomb in Wardour Street is my personal favourite.

Great choice!

I really like Strange Town and Mr. Clean.

My pal saw the Jam at the Playhouse, Edinburgh in 1980.
Crowd was a bit quiet and standing back initially when Paul Weller shouted the immortal words "Hey you lot at the back. Get involved".
A riotous rush forward ensued totally kick starting the show.

Man that sounds awesome. I have watched some videos of the Jam live from the early 80's and they brought a lot of energy to the gigs.

Fedex
09-14-2012, 01:15 PM
3 very solid points. Thank you, someone who's actually using thought before just writing some random crap.

If you think these points are solid and not random crap then you'd better think again.
Care to come up with some solid points about why Murray won Olympic Gold?

There was no wind.
There was no one else to take out Djokovic and Federer back to back.

So what's the excuse there?

Come on. Let's give it some serious thought and come up with more solid points.

batz
09-14-2012, 01:17 PM
Awesome! I have CD full of the finest Jam hits. I no longer dread the 30 minute drive to the University. :)

Btw, What are your favorite Jam songs, batz?

I like the early stuff Sid - In The City, David Watts, News of The World etc.

Fedex
09-14-2012, 01:21 PM
Great choice!

I really like Strange Town and Mr. Clean.

Man that sounds awesome. I have watched some videos of the Jam live from the early 80's and they brought a lot of energy to the gigs.

He was also a massive Joy Division fan and that was his big regret not seeing them.

JMR
09-14-2012, 01:28 PM
I like the early stuff Sid - In The City, David Watts, News of The World etc.

Cut and pasted directly from my blog:

Best Songs by The Jam
1. "In the City"
2. "All Around the World"
3. "That's Entertainment"
4. "The Modern World"
5. "Going Underground"

No. 6 probably would be "A Bomb in Wardour Street."

Legend of Borg
09-14-2012, 01:29 PM
Well, THAT escalated quickly.

cork_screw
09-14-2012, 01:55 PM
I absolutely agree that this is a very strong era for men's tennis, in defense to people who claim that the most competitive era for tennis past 20-30 years ago. People compare what it used to be with now, with players like nastase, borg, mccenroe, sampras, agassi, lendl, rafter ivanesevic etc..(many of which played in an era of serve volley tennis, even agassi, even though he was more of a baseline grinder), but the sport has changed where you need to factor in that if high school players are hitting 120 mph serves that they are being groomed at a very young age for a more complete package of not just s/v but with power and spin in the same company. Moreover, with the advent of racquet and string technology this has really accelerated the power and spin potential. And I think one of the biggest side factors that are non equipment related is college tennis and satellite/challengers tournaments and all these tennis academies that have sprung out in the past 10 years has really increased the competition. Back in the 80's and even earlier not many people went to college. I think if you were very wealthy or fortunate you decided to go to college. Nowadays more kids are going to college and a lot of them are getting in through sporting scholarships with tennis included. There, they really fine tune their games and are shown the proper and most accurate way to execute what needs to be done to be on the top tier of their division. And consider this that this is only college tennis which most players don't end up making a career out of it, they are in fact the bottom of the ladder when it comes to people who take tennis seriously. Then there's tennis academies which have been more abundant than in the past 20-30 years and then on top of all this the physio and the training that is done to get yourself physically ready to compete is also a big change. People nowadays are actually doing strength and endurance training, they are running sprints and long distance running, and on the side they are bulking up with protein drinks and very intense weight training. This was unheard of during the mccenroe days. So why were there so many noticeable names back then? Probably because the competition to break in is so high because there are so many competing that if those players were to play today, they would probably be mixed in with the satellite/challenger crowd. Everyone today is so good, that I believe it redistributes any names who would have been big (maybe a jessie levine if he played back in the 80's might have been a really stand out player and maybe gasquet and others), but that's why you see just a small core of guys who have risen past everyone else and that's why you see Nad, Fed, Mur, Djok as the top guys who are looking down on everyone else.

ninman
09-14-2012, 04:11 PM
Dude, do you read the BBC website? They had about 5 or 6 different stories all about Murray's win, I mean it is literally all they've talked about. From "Murray targets more GS success", a truly worthy news story if I ever heard one, to "will Murray dominate tennis". It's been totally insane.

Tony48
09-14-2012, 04:31 PM
Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?

This.

10 chars

gmatheis
09-14-2012, 06:16 PM
We'll just have to wait and see when Murray beats either Fed/Djokovic/Rafa back-to-back to win his next slam to shut all the haters up. Until then, Murray is the 2012 USO champion and no of you haters can change it ;)

Vamos.

That has been what he can't do in a slam, beat one of the top 3 in the semis then another one of them in the finals. And since the top 3 have been so consistent for the most part that was the only path to a major title.

So he got a major yes, but it wasn't by doing something he had never been able to do (beat two of the top 3 back to back in best of 5 set matches) it was by circumstances that didnt require him to do that.

That was bound to happen eventually with Fed getting older and Nadal's body letting him down.

As for all the people claiming Roger only had to beat Philippoussis, yes it's true but he did it at 21 not 25,when Fed was 25 he had 11 majors in the bag!

Mainad
09-14-2012, 06:58 PM
That has been what he can't do in a slam, beat one of the top 3 in the semis then another one of them in the finals. And since the top 3 have been so consistent for the most part that was the only path to a major title.

Well, none of the other top 4 players won their first Slam titles by beating the top 2 players back to back either. In fact, all 3 only had to face unseeded players in ther first Slam finals ie.Philippousis, Puerta and Tsonga. Murray at least had to beat a top 10 player in the semis, the guy who had just beaten the world #1, before facing the world #2 and defending champion in the final. So Murray's first Slam win is arguably much more impressive than either Federer's, Nadal's or Djokovic's.

In fact Djokovic himself has only managed to do that once at the 2011 USO, at his FOURTH Slam title win. So give Murray time. He's only just won his FIRST. And its not his fault Federer couldn't get past Berdych in the quarters, is it?


As for all the people claiming Roger only had to beat Philippoussis, yes it's true but he did it at 21 not 25,when Fed was 25 he had 11 majors in the bag!

Then it's a good job that Federer didn't have to face top players like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic dominating the tennis scene when he was 21, unlike Murray.

oy vey
09-14-2012, 07:16 PM
In fact Djokovic himself has only managed to do that once at the 2011 USO, at his FOURTH Slam title win. So give Murray time. He's only just won his FIRST.



Delpo managed to do it the first time.

Mainad
09-14-2012, 07:40 PM
Delpo managed to do it the first time.

Yes and kudos to him for doing it. But he was given the opportunity. Murray wasn't.

Rjtennis
09-14-2012, 08:18 PM
I do think that the wind really helped murray big time and allowed him to primarily just play defense which he is most comfortable doing. But that doesnt change the fact that he ia now a GS champ. He put himself in enough finals to finally get one. I dont like that he was basically able to just push the ball, but the conditions allowed it and he took full advantage.

sonicare
09-14-2012, 08:50 PM
Yes and kudos to him for doing it. But he was given the opportunity. Murray wasn't.

he was . AO 2010

Mainad
09-14-2012, 09:20 PM
he was . AO 2010

Not quite. He played Cilic in the semis and Federer in the final so that wouldn't have been a 1/2 back to back win.

helloworld
09-14-2012, 09:44 PM
He has achieved exactly 1 slam. Not quite incalculable...

batz
09-15-2012, 01:10 AM
Well, none of the other top 4 players won their first Slam titles by beating the top 2 players back to back either. In fact, all 3 only had to face unseeded players in ther first Slam finals ie.Philippousis, Puerta and Tsonga. Murray at least had to beat a top 10 player in the semis, the guy who had just beaten the world #1, before facing the world #2 and defending champion in the final. So Murray's first Slam win is arguably much more impressive than either Federer's, Nadal's or Djokovic's.

In fact Djokovic himself has only managed to do that once at the 2011 USO, at his FOURTH Slam title win. So give Murray time. He's only just won his FIRST. And its not his fault Federer couldn't get past Berdych in the quarters, is it?



Then it's a good job that Federer didn't have to face top players like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic dominating the tennis scene when he was 21, unlike Murray.

But, Murray didn't win a slam by beating Roger, Rafa, Novak, Andre, Pete, John and Jimmy, blind-folded, left handed, while riding a unicycle.

When he does that, he can consider himself a true slam champion.

Russeljones
09-15-2012, 01:24 AM
I think the exercise in reverse psychology that some Murray fans have entered into is a little disappointing. I expected there to be a more dignified stance once the maiden title was reached. Now it seems everyone owes Murray a love confession for his recent exploits.

I expect, especially Brits, to be above such things. Do your thing and your man (and you along with him) will reap what he deserves.

I have always said I enjoy the banter but this developing trend is a slight disappointment.

batz
09-15-2012, 01:42 AM
I think the exercise in reverse psychology that some Murray fans have entered into is a little disappointing. I expected there to be a more dignified stance once the maiden title was reached. Now it seems everyone owes Murray a love confession for his recent exploits.

I expect, especially Brits, to be above such things. Do your thing and your man (and you along with him) will reap what he deserves.

I have always said I enjoy the banter but this developing trend is a slight disappointment.

I'm not sure if this very subtle dig is directed at me or not, but just in case, please allow me to respond.

I haven't made any demands of anyone. I think most of the OTT outpourings of Murray love have came from guys who probably weren't sitting alongside me on the bandwagon prior to Monday (the Murray 2.0 stuff etc.).

What has developed (inevitably?) in parallel with the OTT Murray love is the post facto meme that 'Murray only won a slam because of (insert reason)'. The flavour that I find most annoying is the meme that seeks to hold Murray to a higher standard than others in order for his win to be valid; that because he didn't beat 2 of the top 3 to win his slam it has a little asterisk next to it.

I wouldn't mind if others are held to a similar standard - but they aren't. Have a look at the who the other members of the top 4 beat to win their 1st slam - none of them had to beat 2 GOAT contenders/baby GOAT contender - but nobody questions the validity of those wins.

I don't believe it is unreasonable to highlight this double standard, although I accept I could have done so in a less facetious manner.

sonicare
09-15-2012, 03:52 AM
Not quite. He played Cilic in the semis and Federer in the final so that wouldn't have been a 1/2 back to back win.

OK AO 2012 then. could have beaten djokovic and nadal back to back. no1 and no 2

Also USO 2008. beat nadal in the semis, failed against federer.

Russeljones
09-15-2012, 04:08 AM
I'm not sure if this very subtle dig is directed at me or not, but just in case, please allow me to respond.

I haven't made any demands of anyone. I think most of the OTT outpourings of Murray love have came from guys who probably weren't sitting alongside me on the bandwagon prior to Monday (the Murray 2.0 stuff etc.).

What has developed (inevitably?) in parallel with the OTT Murray love is the post facto meme that 'Murray only won a slam because of (insert reason)'. The flavour that I find most annoying is the meme that seeks to hold Murray to a higher standard than others in order for his win to be valid; that because he didn't beat 2 of the top 3 to win his slam it has a little asterisk next to it.

I wouldn't mind if others are held to a similar standard - but they aren't. Have a look at the who the other members of the top 4 beat to win their 1st slam - none of them had to beat 2 GOAT contenders/baby GOAT contender - but nobody questions the validity of those wins.

I don't believe it is unreasonable to highlight this double standard, although I accept I could have done so in a less facetious manner.

Wasn't aimed at any single poster. I just thought you'd know what to expect and we wouldn't have to see the 'wounded look' type prose some have produced. I mean Federer is overrated here, everything we read (and sometimes write) makes sense only here :)

batz
09-15-2012, 04:12 AM
Wasn't aimed at any single poster. I just thought you'd know what to expect and we wouldn't have to see the 'wounded look' type prose some have produced. I mean Federer is overrated here, everything we read (and sometimes write) makes sense only here :)

Yeah - there is that :) As you say, only on here could you read those words!

batz
09-15-2012, 04:15 AM
OK AO 2012 then. could have beaten djokovic and nadal back to back. no1 and no 2

Also USO 2008. beat nadal in the semis, failed against federer.

How many of Roger's slams involved beating 2 of the greatest players ever back to back? Rafa's? Novak's?

Why don't you hold others to the same standard you are holding Murray to? What difference does it make if Murray didn't beat 2 of the top 3?

kaku
09-15-2012, 04:20 AM
Federer didn't have to play Rafa at Wimbledon this year, so that shouldn't count too I guess.

sonicare
09-15-2012, 04:27 AM
How many of Roger's slams involved beating 2 of the greatest players ever back to back? Rafa's? Novak's?

Why don't you hold others to the same standard you are holding Murray to? What difference does it make if Murray didn't beat 2 of the top 3?

Not holding anyone to a standard,..just answering that poster. he claimed that murray never got the chance to beat 1 and 2 back to back so i am correcting him.

batz
09-15-2012, 04:36 AM
Not holding anyone to a standard,..just answering that poster. he claimed that murray never got the chance to beat 1 and 2 back to back so i am correcting him.

Apologies for my misunderstanding.

Mainad
09-15-2012, 06:31 AM
OK AO 2012 then. could have beaten djokovic and nadal back to back. no1 and no 2

Also USO 2008. beat nadal in the semis, failed against federer.

You're right, sorry. For some reason, I keep thinking Murray played Djokovic at the 2012 AO final rather than in the semis and I just plain forgot about '08 USO. :oops:

Other than that, I agree with Batz.

Paul Murphy
09-15-2012, 07:18 PM
He won a major.
Well done.
Now, what's next .....

Defcon
09-15-2012, 07:27 PM
Enough is enough! You'd think Muzza just solved world peace and rescued a million baby kittens while feeding the homeless from the reactions he's getting.

After being over hyped at nearly every slam for the past 5 years, having been laughingly declared the best player in the world a number of times, you think he deserves even more applause now?

Fedex
09-16-2012, 02:56 AM
Enough is enough! You'd think Muzza just solved world peace and rescued a million baby kittens while feeding the homeless from the reactions he's getting.

After being over hyped at nearly every slam for the past 5 years, having been laughingly declared the best player in the world a number of times, you think he deserves even more applause now?

The consensus here is that he was lucky, had wind, had to beat only one of the top 3, beat Berdych due to wind.
You call that over hyping?
Before Murray won his first slam, hypocrites like you were saying Murray is nothing without a slam and a slam means everything and DelPotro is god for winning a slam and the Olympics mean nothing only after Murray won gold.
You're a known hater so away with you you useless prck.
I'm really fed up of all the garbage for humans on this forum now.

Towser83
09-16-2012, 07:52 PM
Lol...how did his win against an absent Nadal go? Did he just hit balls against a cardboard cut-out of Rafa or something? :)

As for tired Djokovic. Well, I guess HE must have got lucky when he beat a tired Murray in the AO sem-final in January? :cool:

Agree with the first point. But how the hell was Murray tired in Australia? He only dropped one set on the way to the semis.

Don't get me wrong, Djokovic having to play the day before the final is unlikely to be the reason he lost, he wasn't exhausted or anything. Then again plenty of Murray fans moaned about him playing a set and a half the day before the final vs Federer in 2008 - both times had nothing to do with it. But anyway, I just think Djokovic played badly (so did Murray, probabaly down to the conditions) but having invested a lot of determination in trying to hold it together in the first 4 sets, had nothing to give in the 5th. Djokovic invested a lot into the first 2 sets he lost where as Murray got beaten easily in sets 3 and 4 and kind of switched off for a while. So he had more in the tank mentally after recharging in sets 3 and 4.

Towser83
09-16-2012, 08:02 PM
btw, I approve of this thread's diversion into a discussion about the Jam :)

bjsnider
09-16-2012, 09:49 PM
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.

It's not unusual that events unfold in the favour of the slam winner. Luck and uncontrollable factors play a significant role in who wins slams. Obviously, it's usually an all-time great, but there are often several of them active at one time or another.