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

[SempreSami]

Western this Western that.

Get back behind the iron curtain you commie pinko.

[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.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by 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.

Lol.. another one! You mean they only bring their A-game to the table when they beat him but mysteriously only bring their B and C games when they lose to him?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by mariecon

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.

Murray in the last year has made 3 slam finals, won one, and won the Olympics. Federer in the last year plus has made only 1 slam final (which he won), and won no other major events unless one considers Cincinnati. Murray has also won 3 of their last 4 matches. Based on that I would say Murray is the better player right now, despite the rankings. Obviously many agree with me, as in previewing the Australian Open final the ESPN continously referred to it as the two best players in the World right now. The rankings will follow suit soon enough in all likelihood.

[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.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by Mainad

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!



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.

There was no outgunning. Djokovic gave a 2 set lead by playing absolutely garbage tennis. Had he not done that, he probably wins that USO final. He demonstrated this AO final he can play practically terrible for a set and a half and still recover in time to beat Murray.

Murray doesn't get credit because his only slam win was in a favorable draw, in favorable conditions, and the opponent he was facing played awful tennis and gave up a two set lead. And still, Murray almost blew it, and had Djokovic not gassed (there was no outgunning; Djokovic was just tired) that match likely is another slam victory for Djokovic. He cannot possibly continue to play the way he does, otherwise he will just gas out in the end. If Murray doesn't become a more aggressive player, when he has to face two elite level opponents, he will lose out in the end because he simply does not have the stamina to beat back to back elite opponents. We've seen this many times in Murray's career where he has had to expend far too much energy to beat one opponent. Djokovic used to be the same way; he expended way too much energy beating one top guy only to lose to another elite player in the end.

[Xavier G]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

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.

Murray is not a legend of the game in my opinion, but he is at the top of the game today. He obviously has a lot to do to match up to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in terms of Majors won, but Andy is progressing now. He beat Djokovic in the US final, has beaten Federer in a Grand Slam tourney for the first time, and has now reached the last 3 GS finals, Wimbledon 12, US Open 12 and now AO 13. That's pretty consistent and I give him credit for it.

[batz]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

There was no outgunning. Djokovic gave a 2 set lead by playing absolutely garbage tennis. Had he not done that, he probably wins that USO final. He demonstrated this AO final he can play practically terrible for a set and a half and still recover in time to beat Murray.

Murray doesn't get credit because his only slam win was in a favorable draw, in favorable conditions, and the opponent he was facing played awful tennis and gave up a two set lead. And still, Murray almost blew it, and had Djokovic not gassed (there was no outgunning; Djokovic was just tired) that match likely is another slam victory for Djokovic. He cannot possibly continue to play the way he does, otherwise he will just gas out in the end. If Murray doesn't become a more aggressive player, when he has to face two elite level opponents, he will lose out in the end because he simply does not have the stamina to beat back to back elite opponents. We've seen this many times in Murray's career where he has had to expend far too much energy to beat one opponent. Djokovic used to be the same way; he expended way too much energy beating one top guy only to lose to another elite player in the end.

How about we dissect the draws and conditions of Pete Sampras and Roger Federer's slam wins and see if we shouldn't give credit to any or all of their slam wins?

You said Murray will never win a slam with that game of his - you were wrong. You're still spinning the same, tired pysh - and you'll be wrong again - because you generally are.

[Magnetite]

To be fair, the top four was labelled as the 'top 3+1' by many, until Murray won the Olympics and the U.S Open.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Murray in the last year has made 3 slam finals, won one, and won the Olympics. Federer in the last year plus has made only 1 slam final (which he won), and won no other major events unless one considers Cincinnati. Murray has also won 3 of their last 4 matches. Based on that I would say Murray is the better player right now, despite the rankings. Obviously many agree with me, as in previewing the Australian Open final the ESPN continously referred to it as the two best players in the World right now. The rankings will follow suit soon enough in all likelihood.

Federer won 6 tournaments in 2012: 3 MS1000's, 2 500's and Wimbledon. Murray won 3 tournaments last year: the USO, Olympics and a 250 event (zero MS1000's). Masters tournaments are actually very tough to win, just ask David Ferrer who, although #4 in the world, just won his first ever at Paris Bercy. And Federer does have a lot of points to defend going forward because he had a much better start to last year than Murray who went away after the AO, so yes it will be tough for him to hold onto his ranking if he can't defend those titles. But I still believe every time he and Murray play it's all on his racquet. If Federer has his A Game, Murray's in trouble.

[batz]

Originally Posted by mariecon

Federer won 6 tournaments in 2012: 3 MS1000's, 2 500's and Wimbledon. Murray won 3 tournaments last year: the USO, Olympics and a 250 event (zero MS1000's). Masters tournaments are actually very tough to win, just ask David Ferrer who, although #4 in the world, just won his first ever at Paris Bercy. And Federer does have a lot of points to defend going forwards because he had a much better start to last year than Murray who went away after the AO last year, so yes it will be tough for him to hold onto his ranking if he can't defend those titles. But I still believe every time he and Murray play it's all on his racquet. If Federer has his A Game, Murray's in trouble.

Indeed they are, but I'll bet a pound to a pinch of sh1t that you were saying they don't mean jack when Murray was winning 8 of them but losing the big best of 5 matches?


You are free to believe whatever you want, but even if you're right - the data shows that Roger only brings his A game around 45% of the times he plays Murray. That figure is unlikely to increase as he gets older.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by batz

Indeed they are, but I'll bet a pound to a pinch of sh1t that you were saying they don't mean jack when Murray was winning 8 of them but losing the big best of 5 matches?


You are free to believe whatever you want, but even if you're right - the data shows that Roger only brings his A game around 45% of the times he plays Murray. That figure is unlikely to increase as he gets older.

uh no I wasn't saying that because the most MS1000s that Murray has won in any year was 2!!! But nice try. 8? lmfao

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by mariecon

But I still believe every time he and Murray play it's all on his racquet. If Federer has his A Game, Murray's in trouble.

I think that (i.e. your first sentence) was true at the beginning of their match-up, but not so much anymore. When Federer went down 2-6 to Murray, he would usually start out by winning the first set and then dropping the next two in a blaze of unforced errors. Credit to Murray, of course, who never went away and kept getting balls back. More recently, though, Murray's gotten more aggressive and most of their recent meetings have been in straight sets, regardless of the winner. If Murray comes out swinging like at the Olympics, Federer's gotta be on his top game to have a chance, otherwise he loses, and vice versa. The Wimbledon final is the only recent match where I think both were playing at or near their best.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by tudwell

I think that (i.e. your first sentence) was true at the beginning of their match-up, but not so much anymore. When Federer went down 2-6 to Murray, he would usually start out by winning the first set and then dropping the next two in a blaze of unforced errors. Credit to Murray, of course, who never went away and kept getting balls back. More recently, though, Murray's gotten more aggressive and most of their recent meetings have been in straight sets, regardless of the winner. If Murray comes out swinging like at the Olympics, Federer's gotta be on his top game to have a chance, otherwise he loses, and vice versa. The Wimbledon final is the only recent match where I think both were playing at or near their best.

But you also have to take into account the draw and the fact that Federer had just played a very tough 5 setter against Tsonga. Murray coasted up to the SF. I'm not saying there should be an asterisk, just that if the draws were equal and both of them had only played 3 setters leading up to their match against similar opponents, Federer would have won. That's just my opinion. If you look at how Murray played against Djokovic, who is the same age as him, after playing a tough 5 setter against Federer you have to admit that the SF took something out of Murray, just as the QF took something out of Federer.

[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.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by mariecon

But you also have to take into account the draw and the fact that Federer had just played a very tough 5 setter against Tsonga. Murray coasted up to the SF. I'm not saying there should be an asterisk, just that if the draws were equal and both of them had only played 3 setters leading up to their match against similar opponents, Federer would have won. That's just my opinion. If you look at how Murray played against Djokovic, who is the same age as him, after playing a tough 5 setter against Federer you have to admit that the SF took something out of Murray, just as the QF took something out of Federer.

Well, of course it's harder to recover from a fiver-setter than a three-setter, but that's Federer's job. If his fitness isn't good enough to do so, then he doesn't deserve to win. It's like all those people complaining about Federer's win over Nadal in Madrid 2009 because of the four-hour semifinal. If Nadal wanted to win the title, he should've gotten through his draw more efficiently.

[Steve0904]

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 agree, although I don't think I would separate Federer from all others, but I understand you are only saying this to respond to another poster. I would draw the line as you would at separating Fedal from Djokovic. I think Federer and Nadal are on the same level simply because there are not that many people with say 10+ slams anyway, regardless of how many Fed leads Nadal by. Then if we are just talking about current players, Djokovic goes a level below them, and Murray a level below Djokovic. Obviously this is on an accomplishments/historical scale.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by tudwell

Well, of course it's harder to recover from a fiver-setter than a three-setter, but that's Federer's job. If his fitness isn't good enough to do so, then he doesn't deserve to win. It's like all those people complaining about Federer's win over Nadal in Madrid 2009 because of the four-hour semifinal. If Nadal wanted to win the title, he should've gotten through his draw more efficiently.

and that's exactly why Murray didn't win the final. see. it's all relative.

But you missed my point which is that all things being equal Federer would beat Murray. I wasn't saying Federer deserved to win just because he played a 5 setter, just as Murray didn't deserve to win the final.

[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.

[Govnor]

Current form of Murray makes him the easy No.2. I don't like Fed's chances of beating Murray at all this year.