Murray accomplished something none of the other top 4 achieved

[Tennis_Maestro]

He won his first slam, beating a player that had already won a slam.

To me, that is some feet.

Roger had philipousis.
Novak Tsonga
Nadal (Some rookie in the French)

Murray's had it so tough, every slam final it's either Roger or Novak.. Roger, arguably the best player ever and Novak, arguably the best hard-court point constructor ever.

Virtually every time he had reached a final in previous year's he's also had to get one of the top 4 in the semi finals, ofcourse that changed this year but once again a massive feet.

To sum it up I don't think anyone can ever say Andy Murray didn't deserve this slam, no lucky draws, injuries to top player's or anything. He battled and he battled and that inner strength is finally there with him now.

I was a little disappointed with his lack of a celebration, I feel he was too emotionally drained to celebrate to the level he probably felt like. The feeling was jus relief, massive weight off his shoulders now. Expect Novak and Andy to dominate the hardcourt slams now.

[Clarky21]

This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.


I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

[Colin]

I just finished watching the replay, and while it was great (because the competitors were equally matched) I definitely think it plays against those pushing for labeling this as the golden era.

Federer from 2004-2007 would have won that like 6-1, 6-3, 6-2. He would have made either of those guys look like fools.

[Tennis_Maestro]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.


I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

English comprehension skills?

They were not wins in the finals, that's what the thread is about, your post therefore is insignificant, irrelevant, pointless, uneeded, NOT REQUIRED, thanks.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.


I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

[Tennis_Maestro]

I can assure you it is much tougher to beat a player who has aleady won a grandslam in a grandslam final as opposed to a grandslam semi final.

A) They are more experienced, been there and done it and can control their emotions a lot better.

B) Its harder to play well under the most severest of pressure.

C) It is EXACTLY TRUE!

[Tennis_Maestro]

Originally Posted by tudwell

And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

He jus wanted to point out something irrelevant even though he clearly gets the idea of why I am glorifying such a feet.

[Tennis_Maestro]

Originally Posted by Colin

I just finished watching the replay, and while it was great (because the competitors were equally matched) I definitely think it plays against those pushing for labeling this as the golden era.

Federer from 2004-2007 would have won that like 6-1, 6-3, 6-2. He would have made either of those guys look like fools.

Such waffle with unproven and very unfounded assertions.

Roger Federer of 2004-2007 would have done bla bla bla ...

Fact is he had Roddick, an ageing Agassi and Hewitt in slam finals. When he met someone with real talent and in their peak, Safin, he came up short. Not knocking Federer, but don't demean Murray and Djokovic's performance today with subjective remarks based on the basis Federer played really pretty tennis during 2004-2007 and his opponents lacked the offensive, defensive skills to not look like they were being tormented and toyed with.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

English comprehension skills?

They were not wins in the finals, that's what the thread is about, your post therefore is insignificant, irrelevant, pointless, uneeded, NOT REQUIRED, thanks.

I know that they were not in finals(as I already said,so your English comprehension skills don't seem to be up to task yourself),but they still had to beat a multiple slam champ and the GOAT to even make the final at their first slam win. That counts for a lot no matter if you like it or not,Mr. Smart*ss.


Oh,and Nadal was barely even 19 when he won his first slam by having to beat Fed to do so. Keep pretending that doesn't mean anything if you like,but you're not very convincing while you have your head stuck in the sand.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

He jus wanted to point out something irrelevant even though he clearly gets the idea of why I am glorifying such a feet.

I am not a "he". Please get it right next time.

[Tennis_Maestro]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

I know that they were not in finals(as I already said,so your English comprehension skills don't seem to be up to task yourself),but they still had to beat a multiple slam champ and the GOAT to even make the final at their first slam win. That counts for a lot no matter if you like it or not,Mr. Smart*ss.

That is an insignificant point! It matters not! If that actually mattered, would I have made this thread? It does not even come within the same radar as "still had to beat them in the semi finals" .. no one gets nervous in the semi finals, to beat the best you have to play YOUR BEST and to play your best UNDER PRESSURE, where nerves are jangling is not easy.

It counts for jackshit in relation to this thread, absolute jackshit. The topic was BASED on WHO THEY HAVE BEATEN IN THE FINAL, IN THE FINAL, YES THE ACTUAL FINAL. You come in and make annoying remark about how it is not true and then say that is why? It is true. It's a fact. Semi final opponents do not stop it from being a fact and the statistic I was highlighting has no relevance to your pointless point which did not need to be said.

[Antonio Puente]

Yes, but he's 25 years old. Nadal was 18 when he won his first slam. Fed and Djoker, 21.

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

That is an insignificant point! It matters not! If that actually mattered, would I have made this thread? It does not even come within the same radar as "still had to beat them in the semi finals" .. no one gets nervous in the semi finals, to beat the best you have to play YOUR BEST and to play your best UNDER PRESSURE, where nerves are jangling is not easy.

It counts for jackshit in relation to this thread, absolute jackshit. The topic was BASED on WHO THEY HAVE BEATEN IN THE FINAL, IN THE FINAL, YES THE ACTUAL FINAL. You come in and make annoying remark about how it is not true and then say that is why? It is true. It's a fact. Semi final opponents do not stop it from being a fact and the statistic I was highlighting has no relevance to your pointless point which did not need to be made.

I was pointing out that you were actually wrong in saying that they didn't have to beat a slam winner to win their first slam because they did,and the GOAT at that. I know you were talking about in finals,but you were still fundamentally wrong,which is all I was trying to say. You immediately went on the attack and lost your sh*t over what I said. I think you should calm down before you open a vein.

[Tennis_Maestro]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Oh,and Nadal was barely even 19 when he won his first slam by having to beat Fed to do so. Keep pretending that doesn't mean anything if you like,but you're not very convincing while you have your head stuck in the sand.

Again, you are bringing up COMPLETELY irrelevant feets to this specific topic which is not about anything but the bloody player's who when winning their first Grandslam beat in the final.

I don't know how to break this down for you, I actually don't think it matters much @ all as its quite evident you're a girl with a huge crush on Nadal and hate to see him perhaps forgotten about in the midst of all this commotion about someone new.

[Colin]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

Such waffle with unproven and very unfounded assertions.

Roger Federer of 2004-2007 would have done bla bla bla ...

Fact is he had Roddick, an ageing Agassi and Hewitt in slam finals. When he met someone with real talent and in their peak, Safin, he came up short. Not knocking Federer, but don't demean Murray and Djokovic's performance today with subjective remarks based on the basis Federer played really pretty tennis during 2004-2007 and his opponents lacked the offensive, defensive skills to not look like they were being tormented and toyed with.

Roddick of 2006 would have beaten either of these dudes 7-6, 6-4, 6-4

[Tennis_Maestro]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

I was pointing out that you were actually wrong in saying that they didn't have to beat a slam winner to win their first slam because they did,and the GOAT at that. I know you were talking about in finals,but you were still fundamentally wrong,which is all I was trying to say. You immediately went on the attack and lost your sh*t over what I said. I think you should calm down before you open a vein.

I SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BEAT A SLAM WINNER IN THE FINAL, IN THE FINAL, I WAS NOT WRONG, I WAS TALKING IN REGARD TO THE BLOODY FLIPPING FINAL.

*SLAMS HEAD AGAINST MONITOR SCREEN REPEATEDLY* FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL! FINALLLLL!!!

Where are these people from?

I wasn't wrong read, I was articulate with my post and title, anyone with half a brain would know I was refering to the final alone, everyone obviously knows what you have pointed out and it has no single relevance to anything.

What do it have to do with the price of rice?

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

Again, you are bringing up COMPLETELY irrelevant feets to this specific topic which is not about anything but the bloody player's who when winning their first Grandslam beat in the final.

I don't know how to break this down for you, I actually don't think it matters much @ all as its quite evident you're a girl with a huge crush on Nadal and hate to see him perhaps forgotten about in the midst of all this commotion about someone new.

Omg,this is too funny. Newsflash: I WAS ROOTING FOR ANDY TO WIN. I don't really care if you think Nadal is "forgotten" in the midst about someone new(Andy isn't new anyway),because that's just pure bs. I was just pointing out that were not entirely accurate with what you said. Have you opened that vein yet? Lol.

[Tennis_Maestro]

There's nothing fundamentally wrong about anything as my point of discussion and what I rate so heavily is the fact he had to beat them in the final, which as I have expained with many reasons to that you have not even bothered attempting to contest, IS BLOODY HARD.

[tenniswriter]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

There's nothing fundamentally wrong about anything as my point of discussion and what I rate so heavily is the fact they had to beat them in the final, which as I have expained with many reasons to that you have not even bothered attempting to contest, IS BLOODY HARD.

Before getting so aggressive, please do note that it's 'FEAT' and not 'FEET'. I thought it was a typo in the first post but saw that you had 'mis-spelt' it a number of times.

[Tennis_Maestro]

Originally Posted by tenniswriter

Before getting so aggressive, please do note that it's 'FEAT' and not 'FEET'. I thought it was a typo in the first post but saw that you had 'mis-spelt' it a number of times.

Another insignificant and irrelevant post made in the thread, contributing nothing to the discussion @ hand.

Can we hear from some people that would actually like to discuss the point I've made in my opening post, rather than howmany pubic hairs Nadal had when he broke onto the tour and my spelling of the odd word being wrong?