Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by lendlmac, Sep 11, 2012.
A prime Murray under Lendl!
Maybe, it was Chardy under Lendl.
Fed is 31 years old dummy. Leave that guy alone. Roddick just turned 30 and felt like he couldn't compete and he was ranked #20. Fed on the other hand is 31 and ranked #2 in the world. That is really impressive. And somehow 1 grandslam replaces all the results in prior events were fed beat murray handedly. If you're going to make a point, make it right and please think before you type. If it's not true or if it's biased, you shouldn't bother writing it down to waste space.
Because federer never slowed down until he didnt win a GS in two years, he was always federer 1.0 until his drought...... then He wins another in 2012 when everyone wrote him off to prove he is still playing at his highest leve ever by REACHING no. 1 ranking! Hence Federer 2.0 at age 31....-hence federer 2.0 and Murray 2.0 thrashed Federer on the world biggest stage in tennis giving federer his worse loss ever in his career at the olympics...thanks to Murray 2.0. Federer is No. 1 in the world! And murray 2.0 owns federer and joker, NOW. Nadal needs to get by lukas rosol before entering any equation anymore.... Rosol took care of nadals career for good.
I bet Murray is getting bumped to 2.5 next year on the computer.
Murray + Lendl = Finalist at best
Murray +Lendl + Wind = US Open Champion
Djoko seemed to fight 2 opponents: Murray and the wind. Still, he shanked at really bad times, missed some opportunities (especially in the 1st set TB), slipped a lot (what was up with that?), his movement was nowhere near as fluid as it can be and Murray is a difficult matchup for Djoko to begin with. It's not like this was the first hard court match he had ever lost to Murray and I can guarantee it won't be the last. Their record on that surface is as tight as can be: 6-6 overall and 2-2 this year. However, even with all those problems, I'm convinced Djoko would have won the match if he had not run out of gas completely in the 5th. He's a better fighter in general but the 5th is where those 3 days in a row of play kicked in and he simply had no physical energy left.
"I'm the grumpy old troll, who lives under the bridge" - Dora the Explorer.
a pre Lendlized Murray beat the Don 62 60 in 48 mins at the Thailand Open. Remember that.
Murray 2.0 would have double bagelled Young in 30 mins probably.
While I think maybe the pressure was on Murray when he was in his 2nd or 3rd GS finals to not lose I think by the time he was in GS final #4 and #5 there really wasn't as much pressure because at that point he was sort of expected to choke again. Only the media would hype it all up. It it were me and I was 0-4 in finals and now had my 5th chance, I'd sort of take it with a grin and just play hard with just normal pressure (ie, to win) but none of that carrying my whole country on my back pressure. I think that's why Murray came through. And even then he almost blew a 2-0 set lead. Who knows if it hadn't been so windy, Novak may have 1 or 2 of the first two sets and the whole complexion of the match would've changed. I don't think we're seeing a new Murray here. He made it to both of his last two GS finals without having to face any of the other big 4. I think his confidence is sky high right now, but frankly I don't think he won because he's playing like a new man.
While we're on this topic, I don't think Fed has been much of a new man in the last year either. He had an unlucky couple of years where he lost some close matches at the Slams (especially Wimby '11 against Tsonga, and USO '10 and '11 against Djokovic) and this year the wind of fortune has turned back in his favor. Djokovic, on the other hand, clearly raised his level of play in 2011. He played like a man possessed - but that's over now and he's back to Djokovic 1.0 more or less although can't deny he's having a great year making it to 3 GS finals.
Murray 2.0 > than Federer 2.0 & Djokovic 2.0 - in the USO 2012.
You're only as good as your last hit. Federer disembowelled him at Wimbledon and the Olympic final was skewed massively in Murray's favour by Del Potro. Let's see how Murray finishes the year before we get too carried away.
Substitute Novak for Murray, Nadal for Federer, and Federer for Djokovic in the OPs title, and you have
Novak 2.0>prime Nadal>Federer 'playing better than ever,'
or a thread title nearly identical to one which was created last year in the middle of Novak's awesome run before reality set in and we were reminded once again that such things as top form run not indefinitely but in cycles or bursts.
I'm a Murray fan but the OP is getting a bit carried away. Murray has just won his 1st Slam in 5 attempts and did it by beating the defending champion, Djokovic. Kudos to him for that.
But the other top 4 players are all multi-Slam winners and all have beaten each other in Slams many times. Murray has yet to beat Federer in a Slam (although he has come close with the Olympic win).
Murray has made a great start by finally finishing the year as a Slam winner but he has much work to do in order to consolidate it and repeat the feat and begin to match the achievements of the other top 4 players. Hopefully the USO win will have given him the necessary confidence to start doing so.
Just a reality check for ya.
5. DelPo Ferrero Murray
Sigh at Murraytards getting too carried away with their hero.
Wait... Where is Murray 1.0, first of all, to start with?
This IS Murray 1.0 -- he has just started... Let him win 3 more ocnsecutive GS to finish his 1.0 resume, then go down losing his 4th consecutive GS final to Roger Federer 2.5 (Or 3.0, however you want to version it) and then look at Murray 2.0
Ok, lets assume:
Early Federer was 0.5
Federer 2001 was 1.0
2003 was 2.0 then i'd assume
He improved in 2004, then in 05, then again in 06
Maintained his form in 07
Dipped slightly in 08
Resurged in 09/early 10
Dipped in form from then until USO 2011
Maintained good form since then even at 30+
So what number would you rank him?
The point is this 1.0 2.0 stuff is stupid.
Separate names with a comma.