Murray accomplished something none of the other top 4 achieved

[Tennis_Maestro]

lol this newbie.

[Cesc Fabregas]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

Another person that makes his opinion but doesn't back it up.

IMO, Federer is the best Indoor hard-court player of all time, normal hardcourts? This a question that has yet to have been answered for me. I simply said Djokovic was the better point-constructor on hardcourts. There's a difference. You however, are still in clinical depression since your boyhood idol has been injured for going on 3 months now. Stop acting bitter.

Federer has won 5 US Open's and 4 Australian Open's on outdoor hardcourts plus Various Indian Wells, Miami, Canada and Cincy titles. It's not really up for debate, Federer is the best hardcourt player ever as it stands.

[Sky_Boy]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

Disagree....

U disagree without backing it up too... your a fool op

[Sky_Boy]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Federer has won 5 US Open's and 4 Australian Open's on outdoor hardcourts plus Various Indian Wells, Miami, Canada and Cincy titles. It's not really up for debate, Federer is the best hardcourt player ever as it stands.

IMO.. dun bother to try discussing anything with this poster.. his ego isn't open for discussing.. and to all readers, dun waste your time on this thread..OP ego just doesn't allow for any discussion

[Sky_Boy]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

lol this newbie.

Again i believe calling me a newbie is irrelevant to this thread something u emphasis on alot.. it's insulting and it seems your trolling

[Tennis_Maestro]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Federer has won 5 US Open's and 4 Australian Open's on outdoor hardcourts plus Various Indian Wells, Miami, Canada and Cincy titles. It's not really up for debate, Federer is the best hardcourt player ever as it stands.

Federer is 31 DJokovic is 25 ... Federer won the majority of those slams in a weaker era. Now you go....

[tank_job]

Originally Posted by 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.

Batz has been saying this forever, Tennis_Maestro - stop nicking other people's ideas and turning them into your own threads.

[Tennis_Maestro]

Originally Posted by tank_job

Batz has been saying this forever, Tennis_Maestro - stop nicking other people's ideas and turning them into your own threads.

LMFAO. Batz has never once said this. Batz is jus a huge Murray admirer, as am I. Nice try though.

[PSNELKE]

Don't see anything impressive there. Sorry

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

Federer is 31 DJokovic is 25 ... Federer won the majority of those slams in a weaker era. Now you go....

He was backing up his statement, and I believe he did so pretty well, with facts. Do you have any facts to support your opinion?

As for this thread, perhaps it is true that Murray had to beat a multiple slam champion (in the final) where the others did not, but it is pretty meaningless overall.

Djokovic and Nadal have done much more impressive things in general. Nadal was able to break through and get a stranglehold on the French and prevent the possible GOAT from winning RG when the goat was in his prime (and when Nadal was very young). Djokovic was able to stop Nadal from creating an era all for himself in addition to getting by a still formidable Fed.

So yes, Murray had to beat a multiple slam champion to get his first slam, but it was someone from his own generation who has had a much better career so far. Djokovic grabbed an early opportunity (that he created by beating Fed in the semi's) and then grabbed his second slam against Murray years after his first. That final was an excellent opportunity for Murray against a one slam Djoker who was not brimming with slam confidence at the time. Murray got steamrolled.

Perhaps if you would read through the other posts that are similar to this, you would realize that no one is disagreeing with such an obvious fact, they are only questioning its importance.

Originally Posted by PSNELKE

Don't see anything impressive there. Sorry

Not many people do, but the op isn't going to give up.

[Cesc Fabregas]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

Federer is 31 DJokovic is 25 ... Federer won the majority of those slams in a weaker era. Now you go....

You're a joke, so what if Djokovic is 25 there is no guarantee he's going to catch Federer's hardcourt slam count as of now Federer is the best. Federer's era wasn't great but this era is a joke as well.

[nevisben]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

He was backing up his statement, and I believe he did so pretty well, with facts. Do you have any facts to support your opinion?

As for this thread, perhaps it is true that Murray had to beat a multiple slam champion (in the final) where the others did not, but it is pretty meaningless overall.

Djokovic and Nadal have done much more impressive things in general. Nadal was able to break through and get a stranglehold on the French and prevent the possible GOAT from winning RG when the goat was in his prime (and when Nadal was very young). Djokovic was able to stop Nadal from creating an era all for himself in addition to getting by a still formidable Fed.

So yes, Murray had to beat a multiple slam champion to get his first slam, but it was someone from his own generation who has had a much better career so far. Djokovic grabbed an early opportunity (that he created by beating Fed in the semi's) and then grabbed his second slam against Murray years after his first. That final was an excellent opportunity for Murray against a one slam Djoker who was not brimming with slam confidence at the time. Murray got steamrolled.

Perhaps if you would read through the other posts that are similar to this, you would realize that no one is disagreeing with such an obvious fact, they are only questioning its importance.



Not many people do, but the op isn't going to give up.

Good points. I'm a Murray fan but the fact is Novak and Andy are direct contempories (Murray a week older). Novak managed to get to a slam final against a non slam winner. Where was Andy that year? If his road was harder it's because he made it harder for himself. No excuses.

I'm over the moon he's got there at last and here's hoping he gets a few more.

[tank_job]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Maestro

LMFAO. Batz has never once said this. Batz is jus a huge Murray admirer, as am I. Nice try though.

No, really, Batz has been saying it for ages that Murray has been unfortunate in that he's not been afforded the same luxury of the Big Three in facing slamless opponents in GS finals.

Wait till he pops into this thread and he'll tell you himself.

Good ol' Batz.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by nevisben

Good points. I'm a Murray fan but the fact is Novak and Andy are direct contempories (Murray a week older). Novak managed to get to a slam final against a non slam winner. Where was Andy that year? If his road was harder it's because he made it harder for himself. No excuses.

I'm over the moon he's got there at last and here's hoping he gets a few more.

I'm happy for Murray as well and I am hoping that all of the top guys will get their acts together at the same time next year. A slam is a slam no matter how long it takes for you to get one.

Unfortunately, a new addition to the slam club means more ***** that actually have a leg to stand on. It is getting hot in here.

[beast of mallorca]

Tennis Maestro, just admit it, you don't know the difference between feat and feet, lol

[tennisMVP]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

Tennis Maestro, just admit it, you don't know the difference between feat and feet, lol

That's quite a feat.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by beast of mallorca

Tennis Maestro, just admit it, you don't know the difference between feat and feet, lol

And piece and peace.

[roysid]

Originally Posted by 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.

Not their fault that they didn't get a GS champ in final. Doesn't make them any less than Murray or say Del Potro (beat Fed), Hewitt, Safin(beat Sampras) to win their first slam.

[RF-17-GOAT]

Call me when he beats Fed in a slam final tbh.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by roysid

Not their fault that they didn't get a GS champ in final. Doesn't make them any less than Murray or say Del Potro (beat Fed), Hewitt, Safin(beat Sampras) to win their first slam.

You're absolutely correct. You can only play against the opponent you're given.
It's never easy for anybody to win their first Slam (unless their final opponent were to pull out which has never happened). People are just putting Murray's win into some context to slap down the idiots who are always trying to say he must have had it 'easy' or got especially 'lucky' whenever he wins something big. That's all!