Murray accomplished something none of the other top 4 achieved

Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by Tennis_Maestro, Sep 10, 2012.

  1. PrinceMoron

    PrinceMoron Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,235
    Sorry for that but just interested to see if the replies were going to be in chronological order, or personal favour.

    For me Safin tops the list. He just always does. Maybe it is just the nutty thing, Goran had it too.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2012
  2. ClarkC

    ClarkC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,772
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA
    FACT: Murray won his first major on a Monday. The others won theirs on Sundays.

    FACT: Murray has six letters in his last name, which Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic do not.

    FACT: Those other three are from continental Europe, while Murray is from the British Isles.

    Isn't all this just amazing? That is three more ways in which Murray differs from the other guys in the current top four in the rankings.

    If anyone tries to reply that these facts are irrelevant and do not prove anything about the greatness of Murray's achievement, I am going to turn the OP loose on them and have him go ballistic.
     
  3. Legend of Borg

    Legend of Borg Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    8,034
    Location:
    Pazardjik, Bulgaria
    I think OP is trying to compensate for something.

    He's trying too hard and making a bunch of irrelevant grand threads on superficial BS.
     
  4. ubermeyer

    ubermeyer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,176
    Location:
    Texas
    A weaker era huh? Then why is it that 31 year old Fed still dominated 25 year old Djokovic and Murray at Wimbledon?
     
  5. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,633
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Surreal, unimaginable.. That is too good to be true
     
  6. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,575
    I guess the only plausible explanation is that this is a weakerer era... :roll:
     
  7. Tennis_Maestro

    Tennis_Maestro Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,075
    Location:
    England London
    Glad to see you are ignorant enough to think beating a Grand-slam champion to win your first Grand-slam has no depth of difficulty to it. "Superficial BS" .. Okay.

    The ironic factor in all of this is Andy Murray, the guy I am talking about and that has jus won the Grand-slam, himself stated .... "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=fxQCqJvjdoA&feature=player_detailpage#t=100s

    ^So yeah, Andy Murray, who has actually experienced it is in your very own words has made "a grand statement on superficial BS"

    Several pundits have said this too, but you know best because you have the legendary Bjorg in your avatar. Stop being a sheep and adding the cherry on the top to everyone who's posted so far's narrow minded view on this accomplishment.

    Anyone who feels this is an irrelevant / insignificant feat definitely has a blinkered understanding of tennis @ the top level.

    Amen.
     
  8. fps

    fps Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,437
    Location:
    Brighton, England
    To claim Djokovic is a better point constructor on hards than Federer is nonsense, just look at how quickly Federer finishes off points, from anywhere on court he has several ways to turn the screw and finish a point. Djokovic hits and hits and hits, it's very impressive, but he's not really point constructing for the most part.
     
  9. Tennis_Maestro

    Tennis_Maestro Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,075
    Location:
    England London
    So because Djokovic takes longer to construct a winning route to winning the rally, that makes him less of a good point constructor than Roger? Great argument.
     
  10. fps

    fps Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,437
    Location:
    Brighton, England
    My first point is that I don't see him as contructing points that well. I see him hit fairly similar shots fairly relentlessly, usually with a fairly low margin of error, and tough it out from the baseline, at his best when he turns things into a mano-a-mano sluggathon, usually resulting in his opponents being unable to keep up with the standard of ball-striking, and eventually lose their footwork and willpower as a result. Those things are not point construction.

    The fact that he takes longer to finish points suggests that one of his key strategies is wearing his opponent out, and also that he is not able (or chooses not) to manoeuvre his opponent well enough to create a winning shot earlier in the rally.

    Federer is able to finish the points so much more quickly, that leaves so much less to chance, in terms of his opponent being able to hit surprising shots or wrest control of the rally, and this is important because point construction in part is about taking control away from your opponent. It also suggests that Federer in the first instance is hitting more penetrating shots, therefore opening up the court in one direction or another, which is a key part of point construction, creating space to the other side, and secondly has a better idea of where his opponent is going to be hitting the ball, since he often seems to be in the right position to hit the next shot to finish the rally. Short points suggest more penetration and an ability more quickly to see where his opponent does not want the ball to go, and to exploit that, which is what excellent point construction is all about.

    I suggest you don't respond to this post with flippancy or sarcasm, as it will make you look like a fool.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2012
  11. fps

    fps Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,437
    Location:
    Brighton, England
    He did. Who wins Australia in light of this?
     
  12. Tennis_Maestro

    Tennis_Maestro Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,075
    Location:
    England London
    I disagree with all this post, in every bit of its entirety. Your way of looking @ point construction is wrong in my eyes, jus wrong. So let's jus leave it @ that.
     
  13. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Hard to argue with.
     
  14. Raging Buddha

    Raging Buddha Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    434
    To use the OP's logic:

    Murray had a much easier time winning his first GS. Since he had lost 4 finals in a row previously, he was already familiar with the setting, the atmosphere and the stakes that were at hand in a GS final. Federer and Nadal had won on their first finals, while Djokovic had won on his second, so they were much more likely to be overwhelmed by the occasion and choke when it mattered most. However, they did not whilst Murray did, so their achievements in their Grand Slams were much more worthy than Murray's, no ifs or buts about it.

    I shall now defend this point with capslocked remarks and vehement denouncement of any post that dares to lead off to a tangent, no matter how slight it would be.
     
  15. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,731
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    They WERE overwhelmed by the occasion and did their best to choke when it mattered most. It's just that their unseeded opponents were even more overwhelmed and choked even more. Poor Murray constantly had to face opponents who were dab hands at this sort of thing and had forgotten how to choke. So his first Slam victory is far more worthy! :)
     
  16. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    This is true, and you can say Murray's had it so tough, but Murray is older than Djokovic, he had the same chance as him. If he'd made the AO final in 2008 like Djokovic they'd both have taken out one of Federer and Nadal (Murray with the easier hardcourt opponent) and they'd both be fighting vs a non slam champ.

    So I'm not putting him down, and he's done really well, but it's not like he's been unluckier than everyone else. Also in 2011 Djokovic hadn't won a slam in 3 years and was seen as a one slam wonder and Murray had been doing better than him in the previous year or two, so in a way Djokovic didn't really have an advatage mentally and was probably under pressure to fulfill the promise of his first slam win. He also hadn't beaten Murray in ages, had lost several finals to him and had never met him in a slam.

    Another thing is in this slam final (USO 2012) Murray beat one top 4 player, just like Djokovic and Nadal did in their first slam. Ok it wasn't a final, but so what? They had to do it just to get to the final. Why do they lose kudos because they had a worse draw? Murray also only had to beat one top 4 player at Wimbledon this year and AO 2011. Only in the US Open 2008 and AO 2010 would he have had to beat 2 top 4 opponents.

    Also Djokovic in 2008 had to beat Tsonga who not only beat Murray but destroyed Nadal in the semis. Now of course playing a final must have been nerve wracking for Jo, but can you imagine playing nadal to GET INTO a final? Then you play no slams Djokovic and take the first set.Djokovic had to come back vs a guy who was pumped up in confidence (nadal also had to come back from a set down in his first win)
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  17. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,680
    Location:
    In The City
    Djokovic's journey to a slam title is underrated by many. People dismiss it by just looking at his final opponent (Tsonga), but on the way to the title, he stopped Federer from reaching his 11th straight grand slam final in straight sets. That is a massive achievement. SF of a major is no joke.

    Also, Djokovic faced Federer in his first slam final and he was going toe-to-toe with Federer almost the entire match (had major opportunities to win set 1 and 2) whereas Murray got outplayed by a huge margin by Federer in his first final. So, it is not just a case of Murray being a victim of strong opponents in the final. Djokovic simply had more game and mental fortitude than Murray did at a younger age.

    Nadal..What can you say? The guy won the FO at the age of 19 on the first attempt and outplayed world number 1, Federer, badly in the SF. Nadal's first slam title was much more impressive than Murray and Djokovic's (IMO, of course).
     
  18. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Yeah I know what you mean regarding Djokovic. Also Djokovic was on a run of 4 straight semis or better, only losing to Fed or Nadal each time (also lost in the 4th round of the AO2007 to Federer before the run started) so he was putting himself in the posistion where if he beat one of Fed or Nadal, he could win a slam maybe with the other player falling. Murray didn't do that at that stage, and later on he got to finals without playing one of the top 3 and in the same situation of having to beat just one top 4 player, it took 3 attempts.

    I'm not sure I'd say Nadal's was more impressive than Djokovic. He won at a younger age and Federer was a better plaer in 2005 than he was in 2008, but on the otherhand Djokovic won in straight sets vs Federer on HC at a slam where he was defending champ. Where as Nadal won in 4 sets on clay where Federer was not the best player and as it turned out Nadal was going to become the GOAT. But both impressive for sure. And Murray too.
     
  19. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,680
    Location:
    In The City
    Yeah you could be right. I just think there is something incredibly badass about winning a major in your teenage years. :)
     
  20. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    Andy is a whole whopping one week older than Cvac. He was born 5-15-87,and Cvac was born 5-22-1987. You make it seem like Andy is years older,when he is not.
     
  21. tennisbuck

    tennisbuck Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,052
    Look, I see it this way. Any grand slam champ completed a remarkable feat. They beat all the best players the world has to offer. So i dislike comparing draws and such to begin with. Aside from that though, i will agree that Murray had a tough draw having to face Federer(goat) and djokovic(like it or not, i don't like it-eventual all time great). But just because Federer beat guys like hewit and agassi and rodick in his finals doesn't make them any less of a great feat. So yes its a true point, about murray's opponents in finals, but i also think this is a dumb thread.
     
  22. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Everyone knows it's one week. The point is, even if they were born at the exact same time, he's had the same oprtunity given the age he is. If he was as good as Djokovic at the same age he could have done what he did.

    With Federer and Nadal you can say Federer was born into a time where he was better than his main rivals, Nadal was born slightly before Djokovic and Murray so had a chance to start winning titles with only Federer around in terms of a superb player (though didn't matter that much cos he was unbeatable on clay and a better player as a youngster than either Murray or Djokovic). Murray then had to deal with both Federer and Nadal, but so did Djokovic because they are basically the same age.
     
  23. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    yeah, not saying it isn't more impressive, I just can't actually make up my mind.
     
  24. Tennis_Maestro

    Tennis_Maestro Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,075
    Location:
    England London
    Towser you are forgetting that when Novak defeated Roger in that Semi final @ the Australian, Roger Federer, despite reaching 2 slam finals and winning one .. was playing some of the worst tennis he'd ever played. There's no question about this.
     
  25. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    I don't really agree. That match and the previous US Open final were very similar in that both players had chances to win the opening 2 sets but both matches went in straight sets. Federer may not have been his best, but he was the hardcourt king, AO champion, and Djokovic was a big underdog. To come through that in straight sets was big time. And when Murray played Federer in the US Open final, Federer's year that started in unpromising fashion with the loss to Djokovic, had spiralled into a year of total dissapointment at the hands of Nadal in MC, Hamburg, RG and Wimbledon. The US Open was his last chance to win a slam that year and was one of the best chances to take him out. If Murray had won one of the first two sets, Federer would have been doubting himself.

    But whatever, I mean Djokovic was playing some of his most error filled tennis in the US Open final this year. So guess they're even ;)
     
  26. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,292
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Plus early in the year fed did have mono in 2008 he was advised by his doctors not to play australia but he did anyway
     
  27. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Didn't he say he was OK at the AO but he was just a bit rusty because he missed some training? I still think it was a well deserved victory for Djokovic.
     

Share This Page