Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Andy Murray not at same elite level as Novak, Roger, Rafael (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=452741)

Amelie Mauresmo 01-27-2013 07:54 AM

Andy Murray not at same elite level as Novak, Roger, Rafael
 
The western media insist on saying Andy Murray is at the top of men's tennis but I disagree. The American and British press desperately want Murray to be a part of this group but he's not. I am talking about Murray's slam results and so far the guy's only won one he isn't as good as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic yet the western press keep on pushing this lie that he is.

But Murray's grand slam final losses are starting to pile up and that's the statistic that counts the most he just keeps on losing them.

Murray loses another grand slam final against one of the three best players of his generation Novak Djokovic. Murray is now 1-5 in grand slam finals that's terrible.

The western press want to squeeze Murray into this top group but only having one slam title and not reach number one in the world proves he's still unworthy.

Federer has 17 slams, Nadal has 11, and Djokovic has 6 slam titles, it isn't fair to these guys to be compared to Andy Murray he's a step below them. Those guys have six slams or more they are in a different universe than Andy Murray but the western media is going to continue pushing this lie Murray's a part of this group when he's not. And I don't care how many Masters titles Murray has won I am talking about slams and so far he's a one slam wonder.

Murray is certainly good but to only have one grand slam singles title proves he's not worthy to be mentioned with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

This year, Andy Murray needs to prove or within the next few years he needs to prove he can become a multiple slam champion.



At this moment Murray is definitely a step above players like David Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro but not by much.

I believe Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal are above Murray and they are the real gold standard of men's tennis. Murray hasn't reached the number one ranking either.

Sabratha 01-27-2013 07:58 AM

murray is in their tier. three finals in a row and one grand slam win. What have the people done below him that equals that? (Bar Nadal, of course)?

tudwell 01-27-2013 08:08 AM

Lendl was 1-6 in slam finals, even worse than Andy Murray, before he turned it around to go 5-2 in his next seven finals. Now, I don't expect those kinds of numbers from Murray, but he could still win a few more slams and make his numbers look a little better. The important thing is that he's getting himself to the finals in the first place and putting himself in a position to have opportunities to win.

NadalAgassi 01-27-2013 08:11 AM

I predicted after his U.S Open win that Murray will end up with rbetween 4 to 6 slams. 1 Australian, 1 or 2 Wimbledons, and 2 or 3 (thus 1 or 2 more) U.S Opens. I am sticking with that. I feel for him as it looked like he had a good shot at winning this feel before the 2nd set tiebreak, but Novak is the best ever Australian Open player and always the one to beat there anyway. Still think Murray will win it one of the next three years though.

tacou 01-27-2013 08:12 AM

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. He just beat Fed to get to the finals? 1-5 in finals is terrible? Explain to me how making six grand slam finals is terrible

Amelie Mauresmo 01-27-2013 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tacou (Post 7171642)
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. He just beat Fed to get to the finals? 1-5 in finals is terrible? Explain to me how making six grand slam finals is terrible

1-5 is terrible it proves Murray is facing a huge resistance in these slam finals by superior players any way you slice it. Right now Andy Murray is a one slam wonder he obviously has a block against Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in these slam finals. He's losing not winning it shows he's not as good as they are.

Mainad 01-27-2013 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo (Post 7171585)
The western media insist on saying Andy Murray is at the top of men's tennis but I disagree. The American and British press desperately want Murray to be a part of this group but he's not. The western press want to squeeze Murray into this top group but only having one slam title and not reach number one in the world proves he's still unworthy.

You've got a real chip on your shoulder about 'the western press' haven't you? What the f**k does the US media care whether Murray wins a Slam or not? Grow up and get real!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo (Post 7171585)
Federer has 17 slams, Nadal has 11, and Djokovic has 6 slam titles, it isn't fair to these guys to be compared to Andy Murray he's a step below them. Those guys have six slams or more they are in a different universe than Andy Murray but the western media is going to continue pushing this lie Murray's a part of this group when he's not. And I don't care how many Masters titles Murray has won I am talking about slams and so far he's a one slam wonder.

Well okay. Murray is just a journeyman player who probably doesn't even deserve to be in the top 10. I mean, who would want someone as 'ugly' as Murray to be in their company anyway? There. Is that what you want to hear? Does that make you feel better? Can you sleep at night now??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo (Post 7171585)
Murray is certainly good but to only have one grand slam singles title proves he's not worthy to be mentioned with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

This year, Andy Murray needs to prove or within the next few years he needs to prove he can become a multiple slam champion.[/quote]

Does he? Well, I'll contact him at once and ask him to read your well thought out post. I'm sure he'd never have thought of this otherwise. What a pleasure it must be for him to have you around to advise him! :twisted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo (Post 7171585)
Murray loses another grand slam final against one of the three best players of his generation Novak Djokovic. Murray is now 1-5 in grand slam finals that's terrible.

So to lose a grand Slam final to one of "the best 3 players of this generation" is 'terrible' is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo (Post 7171585)
At this moment Murray is definitely a step above players like David Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro but not by much.

Not by much? He has won a Slam, has been in 5 other Slam finals, won an Olympic gold medal and won EIGHT Masters tournaments. Compare that to what the likes of Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro have achieved. The distance between them is VAST!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo (Post 7171585)
I believe Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal are above Murray and they are the real gold standard of men's tennis. Murray hasn't reached the number one ranking either.

Well, you wouldn't want him there anyway would you? After all, he's so ugly, isn't he?

tudwell 01-27-2013 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo (Post 7171644)
1-5 is terrible any way you slice it. Right now Andy Murray is a one slam wonder he obviously has a block against Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in these slam finals. He's losing not winning it shows he's not as good as they are.

Another way to look at it is that Murray went 37-5 in those six tournaments. That's way better than going 7-5 and having a perfect win percentage in finals.

Amelie Mauresmo 01-27-2013 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tudwell (Post 7171649)
Another way to look at it is that Murray went 37-5 in those six tournaments. That's way better than going 7-5 and having a perfect win percentage in finals.

I am talking about grand slam finals so why don't you focus on that? Yes, at the regular ATP level Murray does well but in the grand slam finals his game usually falls apart against the top 3 because he has a defensive game and his serve is garbage.

Murray is below Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic there is no disputing this fact. The results in the grand slam finals prove this he's lost three grand slam finals to Federer, and two to Novak.

NadalAgassi 01-27-2013 08:22 AM

Unless Nadal is back in great form I see Murray winning Wimbledon this year. He is a better grass courter than Djokovic, and it is unlikely Federer will repeat. He also has a good shot at defending his U.S Open so still could well end up with 2 slams this year. I predict OP will be eating some humble pie on this one, as many people tend to do over the years with Murray.

That said I was a bit disapointed in him today. He should have won that 2nd set and would have been in great position to win the final. He also did not respond when Djokovic raised his game in the 3rd and 4th sets. Still had a very good tournament though but he did blow a real opportunity all the same.

Steve0904 01-27-2013 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tacou (Post 7171642)
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. He just beat Fed to get to the finals? 1-5 in finals is terrible? Explain to me how making six grand slam finals is terrible

Come on now. Making six GS finals is great, but going 1-5 in them is not. They're completely different. I can see where the OP is coming from actually. He's definitely up there with the top guys, and he can beat them, but he doesn't have the results yet that the other guys do. I've always said that while Murray is indeed part of the top 4, he doesn't really have that "aura" of invincibility that comes with 17 and 11 GS respectively, or a 41-0 start for example. That's what's missing.

Talker 01-27-2013 08:27 AM

I put Murray in the top four.

He wasn't in the best of shape after a tough match and still held his own against a fully rested Djokovic on his best surface.

Amelie Mauresmo 01-27-2013 08:29 AM

The only reason Murray is included in this elite group is because he's from a western nation. Do you honestly believe if Andy Murray was from Russia or Iran he would be included in this top group by the western press?

1-5 in grand slam finals is terrible because it proves Murray has a block he just can't beat the elite players when it matters the most.

The only reason Murray is included is because the western media are desperate they want one their guys included when he doesn't deserve it. Murray needs to earn it and winning one slam isn't good enough to be a part of this elite group. To be a real champion a player needs to be a multiple slam champion someone that can rise and prove he is worthy. Murray's one slam only proves he had a hot moment that's it.

tudwell 01-27-2013 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo (Post 7171659)
I am talking about grand slam finals so why don't you focus on that? Yes, at the regular ATP level Murray does well but in the grand slam finals his game usually falls apart against the top 3 because he has a defensive game and his serve is garbage.

Murray is below Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic there is no disputing this fact. The results in the grand slam finals prove this he's lost three grand slam finals to Federer, and two to Novak.

Well, duh, he's not as good as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Very, very few are. But Murray is kind of unlucky to face such consistent elite opposition. Nadal, Djokovic, and especially Federer have all had far weaker opponents in slam finals than Murray has had to face. If Murray had played Berdych or Tsonga or Baghdatis in one or more of his slam finals, he'd no doubt have a better record than 1-5.

Talker 01-27-2013 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo (Post 7171687)
The only reason Murray is included in this elite group is because he's from a western nation. Do you honestly believe if Andy Murray was from Russia or Iran he would be included in this top group by the western press?

1-5 in grand slam finals is terrible because it proves Murray has a block he just can't beat the elite players when it matters the most.

The only reason Murray is included is because the western media are desperate they want one their guys included when he doesn't deserve it. Murray needs to earn it and winning one slam isn't good enough to be a part of this elite group.

I don't pay too much attention to the press. I look at the level of play.

Murray is right there with the other three, Fed, Djokovic and Nadal would say the same thing.

Amelie Mauresmo 01-27-2013 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tudwell (Post 7171690)
Well, duh, he's not as good as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Very, very few are. But Murray is kind of unlucky to face such consistent elite opposition. Nadal, Djokovic, and especially Federer have all had far weaker opponents in slam finals than Murray has had to face. If Murray had played Berdych or Tsonga or Baghdatis in one or more of his slam finals, he'd no doubt have a better record than 1-5.

Well duh, the only reason Murray is included in this group is because he's from the UK. If Murray was from Iran or Russia he would NEVER be included in this group. Don't try to act as though nationalism and western imperalism has nothing to do with this. The western world especially the English speaking western world just can't stand it that one of their own isn't as good but they have to squeeze Murray in their even though he's the worst out of the top 4. Murray doesn't deserve to mentioned in the same sentence as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic isn't fair to them to be compared to player that crumbles in slam finals.

RF20Lennon 01-27-2013 08:35 AM

Murray is Lendl the second. Make lots of finals but win very few. Give him time

Amelie Mauresmo 01-27-2013 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talker (Post 7171697)
I don't pay too much attention to the press. I look at the level of play.

Murray is right there with the other three, Fed, Djokovic and Nadal would say the same thing.

And I am talking about what matters the most results, not media hype, not English language media nationalism and imperalism BS. The results show Murray isn't good enough as Novak, Roger, and Rafael that's the facts. But do you see articles pointing this out. Of course, not and it is because Murray is from the UK and the English speaking countries want one of their own in this group even though he doesn't deserve it.

Talker 01-27-2013 08:38 AM

Murray is just recently coming into his own.
His losses from before Lendl doesn't mean much now.

As far as accomplishments he's way behind, but I'm looking at the current form of Murray.

He may even get a little better.

90's Clay 01-27-2013 08:40 AM

If Nadal doesn't return to top form for the French, I'm predicting Nole wins the French pretty easily (no one else can stop Nole there and its clearly his 2nd best surface), Nole will be going for the calendar this year.

Nole can play MUCH better then he did at the USO last year.. He didn't play well at all in the finals and it still went 5 dont forget.

Wimbledon, Murray could nab but I'm not entirely sure Murray is as good there as people think he is. He may be better then Nole on grass. But hes hardly a guarantee to win it there

Murray still also has confidence issues.. He gets down on himself with a few poor points played in a row, then next you thing you know someone like Nole has the clear lead


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse