Andy Murray not at same elite level as Novak, Roger, Rafael

[Amelie Mauresmo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tacou

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.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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]

Originally Posted by tudwell

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.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

[Sreeram]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

Perfect logic, just adding to this logic, Federer has lost to him in semi who according to this awesome logic is a low level player than him. So Fed should retire now as it is a great shame.

Also Federer won only 1 slam after djoker came to this level hence he to is a 1 slam wonder. Why r u counting slams that he won when djoker was nobody?

Murray is just coming up under lyndel, he needs his time. He is not a 31 year grand pa. He has enough years to win slams. He has a greater chance in Wimbledon as he has now defeated his only rival in grass twice in best of 5 sets.there are positives for him to take from this AO.

[tacou]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

It proves that Murray has been making slam finals and semi finals for a couple years now. He broke through and won beating Djokovic in the final, followed it up with another final and a win over Federer.

His 1-5 record proves he is the only player outside the top 3 in the past 7.5 seasons capable of making and winning slam finals. Federer is getting older, Rafa is a huge question mark. Murray is the #2 player right now.

"one slam wonder" you say? That one slam came 5 months ago, and he follows up with a final run at the next opportunity. Yeah he's definitely not elite.

[Elite]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

It's part of the process.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by tacou

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.

[tacou]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

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.

This kid was written off as hopeless after going 0-4 slam finals. "He'll never win a slam." What's he do? Win a slam. In the very next slam he again makes the final, making short work of an easy draw and then eliminating Federer. He went away mentally and physically against the best player in the world and the guy who is 4-1 at this tournament last five years. Where is the knock on him exactly..?

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by tacou

This kid was written off as hopeless after going 0-4 slam finals. "He'll never win a slam." What's he do? Win a slam. In the very next slam he again makes the final, making short work of an easy draw and then eliminating Federer. He went away mentally and physically against the best player in the world and the guy who is 4-1 at this tournament last five years. Where is the knock on him exactly..?

He won a slam under a very favorable setting for him. Del Potro's USO run was much more impressive; yes he did beat a crippled Nadal in the SF, but he had to play a healthy Federer that was playing well the whole year (2009 was a very good year for Federer; 4 slam finals, 2 wins, and a good year all around) and that tournament, and simply outgunned Federer in the final.

Unless Murray changes his game and plays much more aggressively (not just outright hitting the ball, but much more aggressive positioning, willing to take balls earlier, getting into the net, etc.), he's going to have alot of issues if Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic don't disappear anytime soon. Beating 2 out of the 3 playing the way Murray does is way too difficult. Only Nadal really has that kind of capability, and that usually burns him out and kills him physically; usually past Wimbledon Nadal is so banged him he's got almost no chance of winning the USO most years.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

He won a slam under a very favorable setting for him. Del Potro's USO run was much more impressive; yes he did beat a crippled Nadal in the SF, but he had to play a healthy Federer that was playing well the whole year (2009 was a very good year for Federer; 4 slam finals, 2 wins, and a good year all around) and that tournament, and simply outgunned Federer in the final.

Just as Murray played a healthy Djokovic who was playing well the whole year (3 Slam finals, 1 win, WTF, 2 Masters etc) and simply outgunned him in the 5th set of the final just as Del Potro did Federer and by exactly the same score!

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Unless Murray changes his game and plays much more aggressively (not just outright hitting the ball, but much more aggressive positioning, willing to take balls earlier, getting into the net, etc.), he's going to have alot of issues if Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic don't disappear anytime soon. Beating 2 out of the 3 playing the way Murray does is way too difficult. Only Nadal really has that kind of capability, and that usually burns him out and kills him physically; usually past Wimbledon Nadal is so banged him he's got almost no chance of winning the USO most years.

You keep on believing Murray can only win when his opponent plays subpar. The rest of us will give him the credit he's due for actually winning his matches including those against Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.

[Fedex]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

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.

I'm surprised at you Steve. You should recognise that the OP is just another sad bitter person with a massive chip on his shoulder spewing garbage and filth.
He's just another idiot who needs to be ignored apart from telling him that he's another very sad individual who needs to get a life.
Can you really not see where the OP is coming from? Blind prejudice and hate which you are encouraging.
If he wants to get into a debate about the west, evil empire, possibly he's a Serb bitter at NATO's involvement in Yugoslavia then that is a completely different other debate not for him to take out his extreme hatred on a tennis forum.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by Fedex

I'm surprised at you Steve. You should recognise that the OP is just another sad bitter person with a massive chip on his shoulder spewing garbage and filth.
He's just another idiot who needs to be ignored apart from telling him that he's another very sad individual who needs to get a life.
Can you really not see where the OP is coming from? Blind prejudice and hate which you are encouraging.
If he wants to get into a debate about the west, evil empire, possibly he's a Serb bitter at NATO's involvement in Yugoslavia then that is a completely different other debate not for him to take out his extreme hatred on a tennis forum.

I was only partly agreeing with the premise that Murray, although he can compete with the top guys and win, achievements wise he is not there yet, so I can see why someone would say what the OP said in regards to their levels. None of that "western world" stuff. That's garbage I agree.

Murray can compete with the other top 3 and win. He's on their level in that sense, but he doesn't yet have that "aura" of invincibility that comes with straight up accomplishments for lack of a better term. In simple terms, I think the other 3 have done enough to make an opposing player believe that they have almost no chance when they walk out on court, but I think Murray is still a little susceptible in most opponents eyes. But to his credit he's coming along in time.

I'll try to say to you exactly what I said to batz. Federer is Federer and Nadal is Nadal. No words are needed because accomplishments speak for themselves. Djokovic had his 41-0 start where he looked invincible and has since backed it up, but Murray, as great as he is (and he is great) doesn't yet have an accomplishment like Djokovic's or the resume in the range of a Federer or Nadal (not many players do). This is all barring of course very subjective competition arguments. None of that other stuff. Sorry if I offended you because it was not my intention.

That's my position on Murray. He's a part of the "big 4" today. I don't separate Murray from the other 3, but historically he's not up there. At least not yet. Batz can vouch for my consistency.

[Fedex]

No problem Steve. I know you're a good bloke.
What I'm saying is maybe look out for the real intent and motivation behind certain posters.
You can usually tell when someone's just having a laugh or just a bit mad, and you can indulge in good natured banter.
Certain other posters have genuine hate, prejudice and even racist undertones.
Their sole intent is to bring people down and take no pleasure in positive discussions and debate.
I hope the mods recognise who they are and do something about it because these people are using TW as a platform for hate, wrecking the forum and turning genuinely decent well informed posters off.
A lot of good people don't bother with TW anymore because the site has been so hijacked with hate.
If it continues, I'll join them and be off for good.
It's not fun anymore wasting time having useless arguments and reading the bile filled posts of bigots.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by tacou

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

While I don't agree with thread, I don't think the poster is saying that 1-5 makes Murray a terrible player, just that it doesn't make him on the level of Fed, Nadal, or Djokovic.

IMO, he is on their elite level in terms of being a player of capable of winning a Slam right now.

He's not on their elite level in terms of accomplishment, though his accomplishments are still obviously great.