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

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

Well, he's one of four players on tour who can consistently make major finals and win Masters events. I think you're getting upset at nothing here. I have no doubt in my mind that if a player from Iran had Murray's exact resume, he would still be considered part of the top four. People still talk of the Big Three when they want to distinguish Murray from the all-time greats, but at the same time there is a very clear big four that is far superior to all of the players ranked below them (and Ferrer, who is lucky to be above Nadal at the moment anyway).

Right now Murray is better than Nadal who doesnt even play professional tennis any longer (he has been gone long enough we can say this until he actually does come back), and IMO better than Federer now even if Federer has the edge on the computer points for the moment. Of course he will be talked about as part of the big 4, he is probably the 2nd best player right now, and still has a great shot at a #1 year in 2013, and I am not even a Murray the way I am a Nadal fan or to a lesser extent a Djokovic fan. As for his career, he is light years behind the big 3, but light years beyond anyone else currently playing (discounting corpses like Hewitt). Del Potro also has 1 major, but the other aspects of their career are in another universe.

In the last 5 years the dominance of the top few isnt just slams, it extends to Masters, where nobody outside those 4 has won more than 1, and scant few at that. Murray has managed to win 8 Masters since 2008. Also nobody outside those four has managed more than 2 slam finals (and I believe Soderling is the only one who did that), while Murray has 6 in the last year alone. He has been ranked above all of Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic at various points in time. He has been the bottom rung of that group for sure, but it also does seem he has been more a part of that group, then a part of the Berdych and friends one.

[gsharma]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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

In that case, I just hope they close the damn roof at Wimbledon this year. No one beats Fed with the roof closed.

[West Coast Ace]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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?

Yes. Tennis press doesn't care about country. Li Na is from China and is loved for her game and her great personality. So you're premise is a huge Fail.

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

I do agree with this. Although he is getting better. But his 1 win was Wind Aided - sorry Brits, it's true. His problem now is Djokovic and Nadal play a better brand of his game. Unless he can beef up his attack game to be more like Fed and take the play to them, he will lose more often than not, if not all the time, against Djokovic in SF and F of majors. His 2nd serve sucks too - Fed would have won the SF if he'd exploited it more; Djokovic would have won more easily in the F.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

western media this..western media that..blahblahblah..

whats with this 'western media' fetish you,ve got going on ??..where are you ?..north korea ?.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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?

Absolutely, yes.

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

But he did, just 4 months ago! He's done it once, he can do it again. He is the only player in the Open Era to have made the final of the next Slam following his first Slam win. Djokovic, Federer and Nadal never managed to do that!

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

Oh get over yourself! Exactly how many players on the tour have had 'this hot moment' you so casually refer to? I'm afraid you just like to keep posting anti-Murray threads whenever you have the opportunity. You are neither impartial nor fair. Would you like him any better if he came out as gay? Oh I forgot, you said you think he is ugly, so I guess even that wouldn't sway your opinion!

Why do you post about Murray at all? You said earlier that you think he is only a short step ahead of the lower ranked players so why don't you start some threads about Ferrer or Berdych or Tsonga, guys not from, in your definition, 'western nations'?

Until I see any such posts from you, you are just another sad, obsessive, delusional Murray-hating troll and anymore of those on here, we certainly don't need!

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

I do agree with this. Although he is getting better. But his 1 win was Wind Aided - sorry Brits, it's true.

So if Djokovic had won that match would that have been dismissed as 'wind aided'? You have to play in whatever conditions you find. You think Djokovic, Federer and Nadal won all their Slams in 'ideal' weather conditions?

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

His problem now is Djokovic and Nadal play a better brand of his game. Unless he can beef up his attack game to be more like Fed and take the play to them, he will lose more often than not, if not all the time, against Djokovic in SF and F of majors. His 2nd serve sucks too - Fed would have won the SF if he'd exploited it more; Djokovic would have won more easily in the F.

Well, he beefed up his game nicely to beat Fed in the semis and he wasn't that far off against Djokovic in today's final. He dominated the first 2 sets of that match. His level fell off after the 2nd set, no doubt about that. Not sure why but there may have been a finess issue with his foot.

He is a lot closer than you are willing to give him credit for?

[namelessone]

Andy Murray DEFINITELY belongs with the other top 4 as far as ability is concerned. In fact, IMO only Federer is more naturally talented than him out of the 4.

However, there is a pretty big gap still between Andy and the other guys in mental ability. Let's be clear, since Lendl has come on board, Andy has cleared some pretty big obstacles, won his first slam, won Olympics by humbling Fed, finally beat Fed in a slam etc.

But I still don't get that "true champion" vibe from Murray, that "you can't beat me today no matter what you do" aura that I got from Fed,Nadal,Djoko when they were on their A-games. Even in the slam that he did win, I felt that Murray could've lost even after being 2 sets up. IN THE FINAL. That's a feeling you wouldn't normally get if the other 3 guys are in that particular situation.

So on that front Murray still needs to mature.

[Gonzo_style]

Really? Guy has played in 3 consecutive GS finals and won Olympic gold

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by Mainad

So if Djokovic had won that match would that have been dismissed as 'wind aided'? You have to play in whatever conditions you find. You think Djokovic, Federer and Nadal won all their Slams in 'ideal' weather conditions?



Well, he beefed up his game nicely to beat Fed in the semis and he wasn't that far off against Djokovic in today's final. He dominated the first 2 sets of that match. His level fell off after the 2nd set, no doubt about that. Not sure why but there may have been a finess issue with his foot.

He is a lot closer than you are willing to give him credit for?

How did Murray dominate the first 2 sets of the match against Djokovic? Murray was fighting for his life in that first set, just trying to hold serve. Djokovic was the one applying the pressure.
There's a reason why Slams are best of 5. That's when your fitness and perserverance is tested. Murray better get his feet fixed up.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

How did Murray dominate the first 2 sets of the match against Djokovic?

Er...well, he won the first set and almost went a break up in the 2nd. So for the best part of those 2 sets, I would say he was the better player.

I could see nothing in Djokovic's play that Murray couldn't and shouldn't have been able to handle. IMO if he had played like he did in his semi against Fed he would have been holding up his 2nd Slam trophy tonight. But he didn't and so he isn't.

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

There's a reason why Slams are best of 5. That's when your fitness and perserverance is tested. Murray better get his feet fixed up.

Agreed. His fitness was suspect. Strange, considering he's supposed to be one of the fittest guys on tour. Djokovic definitely won the fitness battle out there today.

[Sabratha]

I think murray has had a problem with minor injuries for a while, back at the french last year he had similar issues with his back, spasms and stuff and they seem to creep up every once in a while. nadal has issues with his knees and he has made the most of it, it is really just bad luck that stopped murray from making the final closer (maybe even won it as he was so close to being 2 sets to love against Djokovic on his best surface). murray has improved since his slam win. he took it to Djokovic for 2 sets on his best surface, a surface that doesn't favor murray as much. he had a chance to win, as i have said already and i feel that with age he will mature even more. Murray is, i feel, a future number one. he just matures slower than Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. he will peak eventually and i feel that it is coming, if not already started.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

I think murray has had a problem with minor injuries for a while, back at the french last year he had similar issues with his back, spasms and stuff and they seem to creep up every once in a while. nadal has issues with his knees and he has made the most of it, it is really just bad luck that stopped murray from making the final closer (maybe even won it as he was so close to being 2 sets to love against Djokovic on his best surface). murray has improved since his slam win. he took it to Djokovic for 2 sets on his best surface, a surface that doesn't favor murray as much. he had a chance to win, as i have said already and i feel that with age he will mature even more. Murray is, i feel, a future number one. he just matures slower than Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. he will peak eventually and i feel that it is coming, if not already started.

I think maybe Murray's already peaked. Lucky for him he had a bye to the SF. At least he was able to take a set off Djoker.

[kishnabe]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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

What about Olderer....he stop peak Novak in 2011.

[ark_28]

If we are talking short term and current form then he is right there with the elite! He's made the last three grand slam finals and won one of them!

If we are talking about the big picture then of course he has to win many more slams if he is to be mentioned alongside the other 3 when all their careers are over!

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by namelessone

Andy Murray DEFINITELY belongs with the other top 4 as far as ability is concerned. In fact, IMO only Federer is more naturally talented than him out of the 4.

However, there is a pretty big gap still between Andy and the other guys in mental ability. Let's be clear, since Lendl has come on board, Andy has cleared some pretty big obstacles, won his first slam, won Olympics by humbling Fed, finally beat Fed in a slam etc.

But I still don't get that "true champion" vibe from Murray, that "you can't beat me today no matter what you do" aura that I got from Fed,Nadal,Djoko when they were on their A-games. Even in the slam that he did win, I felt that Murray could've lost even after being 2 sets up. IN THE FINAL. That's a feeling you wouldn't normally get if the other 3 guys are in that particular situation.

So on that front Murray still needs to mature.

You are on fire today!

Cant believe Im agreeing with you so much. I agree with everything you said above.

Of course that bit about 'humbling Fed' is bs. It was clear from the start that Fed had nothing left in the tank after beating Delpo.

And the fact that Fed even made the semis at his age with the draw he had is no slouch either.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by mariecon

I think maybe Murray's already peaked. Lucky for him he had a bye to the SF. At least he was able to take a set off Djoker.

Murray IMO is peaking, he is playing at his peak level right now. it was nearly enough to take the title away from Djokovic, and Djokovic is arguably the best Australian Open champion of all time. he had an easy road to the SF round, but even if he played Del Potro theres nothing much he could have done to stop murray. del potro does not have a good record at the australian open so i feel it would have been a straight set or four set loss to murray if they had met in the quarters. if you want to use that argument, if nadal was around and had a match against djokovic in the SFs, he might not have had enough in him to take it to murray.

luck played a big part in Djokovic winning this year and maybe if Murray makes the final next year it will be a different story

[ark_28]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

Murray IMO is peaking, he is playing at his peak level right now. it was nearly enough to take the title away from Djokovic, and Djokovic is arguably the best Australian Open champion of all time. he had an easy road to the SF round, but even if he played Del Potro theres nothing much he could have done to stop murray. del potro does not have a good record at the australian open so i feel it would have been a straight set or four set loss to murray if they had met in the quarters. if you want to use that argument, if nadal was around and had a match against djokovic in the SFs, he might not have had enough in him to take it to murray.

luck played a big part in Djokovic winning this year and maybe if Murray makes the final next year it will be a different story

Sure Djokovic won by luck right? Not because he's amazingly good on those courts and has won it 3 times in a row something never done before sheer luck! You really have been on the rum pretty early old chap!

[Rjtennis]

I agree that Murray probably isn't as naturally gifted as fed, nole and Rafa. Those guys just have incredible raw talent. I think Murray's biggest problem is his defensive style of play. He has gotten more aggressive but he still is way more comfortable spending the match behind the baseline defending.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by ark_28

Sure Djokovic won by luck right? Not because he's amazingly good on those courts and has won it 3 times in a row something never done before sheer luck! You really have been on the rum pretty early old chap!

murray was nearly 2 sets to love against djokovic and after his foot injury it was all downhill from there, so yes, luck did play a part in the match. despite novak's infinitely superior record to murray on these courts i feel they are not that far apart in terms of talent and are relatively close in playing ability, it is always going to be a toss up between them from now on, almost every match they have played within the last year has been close, or even one sided on murray's part.