Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Amelie Mauresmo, Jan 27, 2013.
But things are never equal, so there's no real point in making that point.
A thread that is titled "Andy Murray not at same elite level as Novak, Roger, Rafael" is a complete failure, considering he's been in the last 3 major finals and won one of them. It's been so long since a thread has been derailed to talk about trains, so here we go:
well have you never heard of a hypothetical situation? You're right though. Things are never equal where the draws are concerned.
Well called Sir!
That truly is lovely train Woodrow. Do you have favourite train colour? I like blue ones.
Personally I like blue or green ones. But there's nothing like a shiny silver train!
Now we're talking! That's a great shout - sliver trains are soooooooo cool. Silver is a possible GOAT train colour. FACT.
Steam or Electric?
This one looks pretty radical!
He won because of a massive amount of luck that basically cannot be seen. His game is not of an elite level player; that kind of play cannot be sustained at the top for very long because he simply isn't offensive enough with his court positioning, and as such has to use too much of his legs. I still don't see him as an elite level player, just like how I will never see Kafelnikov as an elite level player. Both are very fortunate.
Yeah I'm generally wrong. Just like how I called that Murray wasn't going to walkover Roddick in the Wimbledon semi-final years ago right? Or how I called that Del Potro was going to beat Federer in the USO final because of how hot he was going into the final. Or how I called many a match that it's going to be much closer than people think (such as the Robredo Djokovic match). Unless an elite level opponent in big slam matches just simply plays terrible for a large stretch of time, Murray basically has no chance. His inconsistent first serve, his weak forehand, and his inability to play consistent offense hurts him too much. We've seen time and time again that when someone has the offensive tools to step up and maintain pressure, Murray has no answer.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. You were wronger than a big bag of wrong things about your central prediction. Murray is a slam champion = your credibility shot.
But anyway, I refuse to point and laugh at you too much. This thread is about trains now. What do you think of this baby?
That is one serious train dude. Silver too.
I have to make do with these little blue numbers:
Predictions are meaningless unless you predict every game and do a statistical analysis of your right/wrong ratio. You can't just pick and choose the games you want and then remember only the times you got it right.
An aggressive Murray has the game to beat anyone, though mentally he fluctuates. There you go.
Ole' faithful. Those trains are always on time.
I was on one of these the other day. Cool fact: They have a speedo inside which lights up when it gets close to 300km/h.
All hostilities to one side - that is a fookin cool train! I would love to have a go on something like that. Speedo sounds brilliant!
Well obviously Nadal's and Federer's accomplishments are closer together on the historical scale, with Djokovic being farther from Nadal, and Murray even farther behind Novak (increasing gaps, respectively). My point was that the lines being drawn are arbitrary and that the OP should calm down.
What's with the trains? Is it a not-so-subtle attempt to get the thread closed?
(I'm new here, so just a little confused)
20 years from now, it doesn't matter how many times he may have beat Djokovic, Nadal, Federer or made x number of finals. How many 1x major winners do you remember?
Amelie Mauresmo should be taken quite seriously on this subject as she know intimately what it is like to be NOT ELITE.
It all depends where you draw the line. And there are some arguments to draw one.
1- (the main argument imo) FND (= Fed, Nadal, Djoko) have all been #1. Murray hasn't
2- FND are multiple slam winners. Murray isn't.
3- FND have won titles on every surface. Murray hasn't.
4- FND have all had seasons of winning titles in the double digits. Murray hasn't.
5- FND have made finals of all 4 slams. Murray hasn't.
6- FND have won masters in the double digits. Murray hasn't.
Other than that, the top 4 can all beat any player on any given day, including one another and there is no doubt Murray can (will?) win plenty more masters and slams. (And coming from a country where men wear kilts is pretty cool )
It's part of the process.
Why are all these Murray bashing threads popping up? He just won the US Open and followed it up be reaching the finals at the Australian, beating Fed along the way. Im not a fan of the guy, but he deserves his ranking and is playing well. He was playing as well or better than Djokovic for the fist 2 sets of the final. Who knows what would have happened if his movement hadn't gone away because of the blister. This easily could have been another 5 set dog fight.
Best post of this thread. Well said, sir/madam!
Yeah it's cool. I went from Lyon to Paris in 2hours flat. Unbelievable. I know the UK has plans for the "HS2" linking the south of the UK to the north. Sounds good to me. It's about time! Germany has the ICE, France has the TGV, Japan has the Shinkansen...it's about time the UK got its own high speed train service.
Nonsense, and what nonsense. When Murray gets another one you'll say "Yea but.....". I mean I'm no fan, but this is silly.
No doubt there'll be uproar amongst the snobs whining about the tracks spoiling the view from their country house. Hopefully they'll build right through their back gardens.
I see you and Batz haven't given up on these Murray debates. Can't get involved this time, debates with Murray got me banned in the first place. I'll just sit back and watch.
Just one question, because my pretty small brain can't quite grasp the concept of Western Tennis logic: Is losing before the final better than losing in the final?
Oh definitely not in Murray's case, because to the Murrayphobes on here (Amelie Mauresmo, NamRanger and co), Murray is just hopeless at anything he tries, has no skills, can't play tennis, only ever wins when his opponent is tired or ill blah blah blah. To them, he is pathetic if he loses in the 1st round or the 4th, the semi or the final because he only wins his matches by sheer good luck anyway! They just can't stand him (Mauresmo thinks he's disgustingly ugly to boot) and their blind prejudices will never ever allow them to give him credit for anything. It's a waste of time even trying to talk to them. They are simply shrink cases. Best to ignore!
Let's you and I stick with our 'pretty small brains' that protect us from the utter nonsense posted on here!
Actually those posters you mentioned never actually said Murray was useless; Only that Murray has to play more aggressive to win slams against the top elite players. You would be wrong not to think that. just because Murray isn't winning as much as Djokovic doesn't mean he isn't playing his best tennis. I think he is.
Pretty much as good as. The very nature and tone of their posts just scream out contempt for him. Murray is only ever spoken about because he is the darling of the so-called 'Western Press' or whatever the heck that means, or has no offensive skills that could possibly beat the Big 3 in Slams despite the fact that he has now beaten all 3 of them in Slams. But oh I forget, Nadal was sick and injured (twice), Federer too tired to hit a ball, Djokovic got blown away by a bit of wind bla bla bla. Silly me!
Don't get me wrong. There are one or two weaknesses in Murray's game which he''s yet to eliminate entirely (eg. the 2nd serve etc.) but that doesn't mean his game isn't there to beat the best when he plays his best because he's done it so he's proved it and anybody who tries to dismiss these victories as mere luck just because it doesn't fit their cosy little theories about his lack of tennis skills etc. are just plain trolling in my view and not very creatively either.
Do you honestly think Murray will be able to improve that though? We've been saying his 2nd serve and an inconsistent first delivery has been his Achilles heel for a number of years now and let's not underestimate the amount of time it actually takes to improve a serve. I think the main thing for Murray is too keep on attacking (especially on the BH where he is consistent) and come to the net more often, I noticed against Djokovic he fell into his comfortable style of play which is a lot of junk slices, which won't get the job done against Novak.
I honestly think Murray will get no better than his game is at at the moment, but that doesn't mean he won't achieve any more. He might need to play Djokovic on a bad day, but that's no shame - the only guy who can trouble/beat Djokovic on a good day on hard is Federer, that's not exactly anything to be ashamed about.
Frankly, I doubt his 2nd serve will ever get much better than it is now. But he is able to disguise it or place it quite cleverly when he puts his mind to it so his opponents are not always as able to attack it as often as they would like. His 1st serve percentage, on the other hand, has definitely improved lately. In the first 2 sets of the AO final, he was playing quite effectively and forcing errors from Djokovic who was trying to play too aggressively to counter. But his movement definitely slowed down by the start of the 3rd set probably due to foot/ calf issues for which he had taken the MTO and I could sense that his momentum had gone. Djokovic was not slow to sense it either and promptly began playing with more confidence and more controlled aggression. Unlike at the US Open final, he won the fitness contest this time round.
No indeed but, again, I can't quite agree with that analysis. Murray took Djokovic to 5 sets in last year's AO semi (playing better than he did in this year's final) whilst Nadal went 2 sets and a break up against Djokovic in the ensuing final. Both had chances to win those respective matches. Djokovic is great on HC but I've never had the sense he is unbeatable there except perhaps for a little while when he went on his tear in the first half of 2011.
Put it this way, Murray is a hell of a lot closer to Fed, Djok, and Nadal than he is to the rest of the field. He is many orders of magnitude superior to players like Ferrer and Berdbrain, he may be inferior to the other top players but he is worthy of being included in the big 4.
I can't believe this great thread about trains has been derailed to go back to talking about the failure of a thread title!?!?
Murray was gubbed by the start of the second set tie break which he practically threw away like the feather.
Murray lost the final before the final when Federer took him to two unnecessary extra tie break sets.
I thought at the time, and I also think Murray thought from his comments I'll try to recover for the final, that was the end of the road for him.
Murray will never get fitter and stronger than he is now so I think he needs an even or more favourable draw than his main rivals to beat them but I think that might be the case for his rivals. That's how close they are.
Apart from the odd occasion, Murray has always had less days rest. When he gets the favoured scheduling, guess what? Murray wins. We will see in time if the correlation is true because Murray has hardly ever had the extra days rest apart from USO and surprise surprise look what happened there.
At USO Murray had the extra rest - Murray won.
At AO Djokovic had the extra rest - Djokovic won.
That's all it seems to takes to swing the balance between these two.
All this sh*te about wind is just that - sh*te.
Murray took Djokovic to a close 5 sets at last year's AO, straight setted him at the Olympics, beat him at USO and had 4 match points to finish him off in the Shanghai final.
Separate names with a comma.