Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by GuillermoR, Aug 16, 2009.
I think so. And he'll never win one.
me too, he will never win one, he will get close everytime though
I think he will definitely win the US open at some point.
Murray needs antother dimension to his game (he's likely not to add) if he's ever to defeat Federer in a GS final.
i think he'll win a few. high tennis IQ, strokes are strong and consistent, extremely fit, and a great server (with the exception of his 2nd). i can imagine him improving more, too.
I think he'll have trouble with more than just federer.
Yep. We can ignore the six times Murray has beaten Roger - it's like they never happened really. Instead we should focus on the one time Roger has played Murray in a slam and extrapolate all sorts of exotic conclusions from that match.
That seems a sensible approach.
It'll be a sad day for tennis if Murray ever wins a slam playing defensively, waiting for opponents' UEs.
Agree, 1-2 Us Opens and 1-2 Wimbledons.
I just hopped in to my time machine and made a short trip to 2098, and yes Murray is a zero slam wonder.
If you want to know about Federer and Nadal... Well, that's not for free.
This i can agree with 100%, but if it pays ur bills i wouldnt change it.
No he is not but his backboarding annoys me especially when he has so many weapons to his credit.
He's the world's best club player.
That's what he is.
Yes, because in your partisan desperation to pump Murray, you wish to gloss over the OP-relevant issue: the slams--which has to include a consideration of the USO result. It is no secret Federer has a history of turning up his levels of talent at the slams to win (proven at this year's FO & W), so it is more than dishonest to skip over the actual GS event evidence, Federer's gear-changing approach to the slams coupled with the high probability that Murray does not have the goods to defeat Federer in a slam final.
Until Murray beats him in a slam final, you are avoiding the facts in favor of personal desire. Nice display of fandom, but not realistic.
He doesn't attack enough, his attacking game is strong but he mainly plays defense, if he had a higher tennis IQ this would not be so
Until he starts attacking he's not going to win a slam. He gets way too defensive in the big situations. That's not how you win a slam. You take it from your opponent.
That's the other "dimension" I hinted at earlier; with his reach and height, there's in no sense in his not using that as an advantage all over the court; approach and cover the net (not suggesting he converts to pure S&V) and force errors out of other's attempts to pass him. Again, he has the reach and height, so he could "take the fight" to opponents instead of recieving/responding his way through matches. Imagine how that could change his game (and throw in the random element at those who expect the same strategy from him).
He can win one for sure, but with other talents like Del Potro ,Djokovic, Nadal and Federer for a few more years it is not going to be easy. He needs to be more consistent at slams if he wants to win. I am pretty sure other talents will emerge as well in a couple of years (3 to 4 years), if he hasn't won one by then it could become difficult for him to win one. It is a possibility that he will end up with none, but very unlikely for now.
yes, no, mabay... only time will tell
The guy is 22! He has plenty of time to win grandslams. You people are acting like hes 30 years old
There was one pure defender who won a slam recently (and that is a stretch). That was Michael Chang.
Hewitt, contrary to popular belief, actually was a very aggressive player during his peak years.
I hope not. I think he has at least 1 USO in him.
Now that Nadal is nearly out he may have a chance.
He needs to stop saying "come on" on opponent's UE.
he will win all 4 majors by the end.
I'm with you and Namranger on this one i think Murray was kind of lucky to win Del Potro really took it to Murray and in such situations like semis and finals of slam i have seen this defensive type of tennis come out. If he wants to stay number he has to step his game up a lot more.
I think playing best of 5 is actually very different to playing best of 3. Also playing in finals (especially slam finals) is different too. Didn't Fed beat Murray twice in finals?
He will have many chances to win one being Roland Garros his worst.The guy could face a hot guy -like He did in AO or Wimbledon this year for instance- and lose but I think he will be a force in slams for many years.
del potro isnt in the same class as murray.
Murray will win 5 slams or more. fed has 3 years left, nadal is always injured. del potro proved in the 3rd how unfit he is....
Good poast OP.
Well done this man! This was posted before 2009 US Open. 3 appearances (R4/R3/SF) later he wins this shindig.
yep, props to VVV.
USO junior trophy and he has always said it was his favourite slam.
FO is hard part.
What a good call.....plenty more now!
It's time to revive all those long lost threads about Murray.
Bring 'em on!
Separate names with a comma.