Originally Posted by NamRanger
Except both Roddick and Schalken are better players on grass then their rankings show evidenced by their seeding. Just because Davydenko was ranked 4th at some point did not mean he was the 4th best player on grass now does it?
Until Murray shows up and beats Federer / Nadal in a slam, he still hasn't shown that he's gotten anywhere. He did it ONCE where he played very aggressive, and that was a very good match. I give credit where credit is due. However, he has not done that yet in recent times, and continues to fall short despite massive hype behind him.
Murray has beaten Nadal twice in slams. There has been no Murray hype this year. You are talking out of your arse if you are seriously arguing that Murray winning the AO would somehow be a lesser achievement because he didn't beat Nadal or Roger. You're not really
arguing that are you?
Look Nam, I am in no way trying to diminish Roger's first slam - quite the contrary. Nor am I saying that Murray winning the AO would be a mirror image of Roger winning Wimby 2003 - it wouldn't.
All I'm saying is that Murray winning the AO would be no more a 'default win' than Roger winning Wimby in 2003 - nor would it be any less of an achievement. You will be taking Murray hate to new heights if you think otherwise.