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

[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..?

[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.

[bjsnider]

Andy is definitely in the same class as the others. Lendl also lost a lot of slam finals. A lot of things have to go right for a player to win a slam. Andy had some bad luck at the back end of this one but externalities aside, Djoker and Murray are evenly matched on all surfaces. Murray is now at least even with Federer and, I'm sure, Nadal.

[swordtennis]

The loss reminded me of his loss at Wimbledon.
We know what happened after that.
He got over the hump of Federer in a Major.
That is huge.
Truly feel if he did not have those blisters he would have taken it to a 5th set.

[Cup8489]

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

Federer's 6th major final was 2006 AO, where he won his 6th major. Murray couldve been sitting in similar spot as Djokovic, but has overall been subpar to his final opponents. In contrast I believe Federer has lost a total of 7 finals, and Murray's already lost more finals than Djokovic, and the same amount as Nadal.

Not taking his opportunities, so to speak.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

This statement is ridiculous. What you are saying is a player is only as good as his last match. Taking the logic from your statement I guess we can say that Rosol is a better player than Nadal because he beat him the last time they played. Federer just beat Murray handily at the WTF's in November. Perhaps you forgot that. What a difference 2 months make huh.

[Xavier G]

Murray is getting up there, he's one of the elite now. He's finally won a Major and Olympic Gold and been in six Slam finals. I know he's 1-5 in GS finals, but Andy beat Federer in a Slam for the first time and went to five sets to do it, so he's progressing and getting it together. I still see Djokovic as fav over Andy to beat him in a big tournament and maybe still Federer too. I don't know if we'll see Nadal pose a major threat any more, but hopefully he can come back.

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

Murray is getting up there, he's one of the elite now. He's finally won a Major and Olympic Gold and been in six Slam finals. I know he's 1-5 in GS finals, but Andy beat Federer in a Slam for the first time and went to five sets to do it, so he's progressing and getting it together. I still see Djokovic as fav over Andy to beat him in a big tournament and maybe still Federer too. I don't know if we'll see Nadal pose a major threat any more, but hopefully he can come back.

The point is Murray isn't there his 1-5 record in slam finals is proof of this. Murray has a hot moment and some people on this board act like he's a tennis legend. Give me a break Andy Murray has a long way to go before he's in the same league as multiple slam champions such as Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

Lendl went 1-6 in grand slam finals and finished with 8.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Lendl went 1-6 in grand slam finals and finished with 8.

Lendl was more talented and stronger than Murray is. He also didn't have a joke forehand.

[mistik]

Andy Murray is very good player and he is very talented but you have to be blind not see the reality that when ever the likes Fed,Nadal, Djokovic brings their A game to the table.He just cant match them.

[powerangle]

Originally Posted by 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.

If Murray is in a different universe from Djokovic, then Djokovic is in a different universe from Fedal (and Nadal quite a ways behind Federer). It's all relative. Why don't you say that Djokovic doesn't belong with Fed and Rafa then??

The Big 4 is being mentioned because their peak levels are way above the rest of the tour, they are all slam champs, and they are contesting in the big matches on the big stages. Murray is included because there is an obvious bar between Fedaljkovicray and the rest of the tour. If you want to raise the bar and separate Fed/Nadal/Djoko from Murray, then go for it. But then why not raise the bar again to separate Fedal from Djokovic? Or raise it yet again to separate Federer from all others?? Why do you conveniently draw the line so as to include Fed, Rafa, Novak and to exclude Andy?

Besides, sometimes the "Top 3" is mentioned as well, when the commentators/media/fans wants to exclude Murray anyway. You hear "Big 4" the most, but sometimes you hear "Big/Top 3" as well.

[Achilles82]

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

It's not terrible. No one says it's terrible. But it's different then winning 6 finals obviously.


In my book, there are top three guys, Andy, and the rest of players. Andy is definitely top guy, but not as good as Novak, Rafa, and definitely not as Rog.


Murray beating 31 year old Federer is really not that impressive. I can't wait to see how well will Andy play when he turns 31.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by powerangle

If Murray is in a different universe from Djokovic, then Djokovic is in a different universe from Fedal (and Nadal quite a ways behind Federer). It's all relative. Why don't you say that Djokovic doesn't belong with Fed and Rafa then??

The Big 4 is being mentioned because their peak levels are way above the rest of the tour, they are all slam champs, and they are contesting in the big matches on the big stages. Murray is included because there is an obvious bar between Fedaljkovicray and the rest of the tour. If you want to raise the bar and separate Fed/Nadal/Djoko from Murray, then go for it. But then why not raise the bar again to separate Fedal from Djokovic? Or raise it yet again to separate Federer from all others?? Why do you conveniently draw the line so as to include Fed, Rafa, Novak and to exclude Andy?

Besides, sometimes the "Top 3" is mentioned as well, when the commentators/media/fans wants to exclude Murray anyway. You hear "Big 4" the most, but sometimes you hear "Big/Top 3" as well.

I can't say I agree; Djokovic may not have the titles the other two do, but his 2011 already puts him in their group. They are the only 3 men since Laver to win 3 majors in a calendar year; this is the top tier of great players. They may not have the greatest resumes of the open era, but they contain 3 of the 4, (or 6 of the 7) most successful, slam-wise, seasons in the Open Era.

Murray is not among those men, not yet. He might do it, he might not.

[powerangle]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

I can't say I agree; Djokovic may not have the titles the other two do, but his 2011 already puts him in their group. They are the only 3 men since Laver to win 3 majors in a calendar year; this is the top tier of great players. They may not have the greatest resumes of the open era, but they contain 3 of the 4, (or 6 of the 7) most successful, slam-wise, seasons in the Open Era.

Murray is not among those men, not yet. He might do it, he might not.

Well of course Novak is in their group in some respects (they are all all-time greats). Just like Murray can be in their group too, in some respects (they are all currently playing the best on the tour). It's how you want to define it.

However, Fed and Rafa are on the super short-list of GOAT contenders (Rafa may not be there quite yet...but then again that's why I said you could set the separation bar between Fed and Rafa as well)....while Novak is "only" on the all-time great list (not anywhere near GOAT contender yet).

For sure the biggest gap is between Murray and Djokovic right now (Novak is a bit closer to Rafa at this stage regarding accomplishments)...but there is still some distance between Novak and Rafa when we look at their resumes (obviously Novak is likely to continue closing in).

[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.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

I can't say I agree; Djokovic may not have the titles the other two do, but his 2011 already puts him in their group. They are the only 3 men since Laver to win 3 majors in a calendar year; this is the top tier of great players. They may not have the greatest resumes of the open era, but they contain 3 of the 4, (or 6 of the 7) most successful, slam-wise, seasons in the Open Era.

Wilander also did it in 1988.

[powerangle]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

I can't say I agree; Djokovic may not have the titles the other two do, but his 2011 already puts him in their group. They are the only 3 men since Laver to win 3 majors in a calendar year; this is the top tier of great players. They may not have the greatest resumes of the open era, but they contain 3 of the 4, (or 6 of the 7) most successful, slam-wise, seasons in the Open Era.

Originally Posted by tudwell

Wilander also did it in 1988.

Jimmy Connors also did it in 1974. 5 men have done it since Laver: Connors, Wilander, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

[pjonesy]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand your point, but I disagree. We all know that Lendl struggled in slam finals early in his career. He was a late bloomer as far as learning to compete in Slam finals. He ended up doing pretty well.

At this point, Murray may not be at the level of the top 3. But he still has time to take his game to the next level. I wouldn't count him out.

[Agassifan]

Quoting GS final win % is simply the dumbest stat in tennis. Clearly, Pete Sampras has an undefeated record in French Open finals and is thus better than Fed.