Is Murray a zero slam wonder?

[GuillermoR]

I think so. And he'll never win one.

[D_GOAT]

me too, he will never win one, he will get close everytime though

[VivalaVida]

I think he will definitely win the US open at some point.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by GuillermoR

I think so. And he'll never win one.

Murray needs antother dimension to his game (he's likely not to add) if he's ever to defeat Federer in a GS final.

[veritech]

i think he'll win a few. high tennis IQ, strokes are strong and consistent, extremely fit, and a great server (with the exception of his 2nd). i can imagine him improving more, too.

[Mansewerz]

I think he'll have trouble with more than just federer.

[batz]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Murray needs antother dimension to his game (he's likely not to add) if he's ever to defeat Federer in a GS final.

Yep. We can ignore the six times Murray has beaten Roger - it's like they never happened really. Instead we should focus on the one time Roger has played Murray in a slam and extrapolate all sorts of exotic conclusions from that match.

That seems a sensible approach.

[GuillermoR]

It'll be a sad day for tennis if Murray ever wins a slam playing defensively, waiting for opponents' UEs.

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Originally Posted by VivalaVida

I think he will definitely win the US open at some point.

Agree, 1-2 Us Opens and 1-2 Wimbledons.

[Sartorius]

I just hopped in to my time machine and made a short trip to 2098, and yes Murray is a zero slam wonder.

If you want to know about Federer and Nadal... Well, that's not for free.

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Originally Posted by GuillermoR

It'll be a sad day for tennis if Murray ever wins a slam playing defensively, waiting for opponents' UEs.

This i can agree with 100%, but if it pays ur bills i wouldnt change it.

[mandy01]

No he is not but his backboarding annoys me especially when he has so many weapons to his credit.

[Nadalfan89]

He's the world's best club player.

That's what he is.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by batz

Yep. We can ignore the six times Murray has beaten Roger - it's like they never happened really. Instead we should focus on the one time Roger has played Murray in a slam and extrapolate all sorts of exotic conclusions from that match.

That seems a sensible approach.

Yes, because in your partisan desperation to pump Murray, you wish to gloss over the OP-relevant issue: the slams--which has to include a consideration of the USO result. It is no secret Federer has a history of turning up his levels of talent at the slams to win (proven at this year's FO & W), so it is more than dishonest to skip over the actual GS event evidence, Federer's gear-changing approach to the slams coupled with the high probability that Murray does not have the goods to defeat Federer in a slam final.

Until Murray beats him in a slam final, you are avoiding the facts in favor of personal desire. Nice display of fandom, but not realistic.

[ubermeyer]

Originally Posted by Nadalfan89

He's the world's best club player.

That's what he is.

lol

Originally Posted by veritech

i think he'll win a few. high tennis IQ, strokes are strong and consistent, extremely fit, and a great server (with the exception of his 2nd). i can imagine him improving more, too.

He doesn't attack enough, his attacking game is strong but he mainly plays defense, if he had a higher tennis IQ this would not be so

[NamRanger]

Until he starts attacking he's not going to win a slam. He gets way too defensive in the big situations. That's not how you win a slam. You take it from your opponent.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Until he starts attacking he's not going to win a slam. He gets way too defensive in the big situations. That's not how you win a slam. You take it from your opponent.

THANK YOU!!!

That's the other "dimension" I hinted at earlier; with his reach and height, there's in no sense in his not using that as an advantage all over the court; approach and cover the net (not suggesting he converts to pure S&V) and force errors out of other's attempts to pass him. Again, he has the reach and height, so he could "take the fight" to opponents instead of recieving/responding his way through matches. Imagine how that could change his game (and throw in the random element at those who expect the same strategy from him).

[Fedfan1234]

He can win one for sure, but with other talents like Del Potro ,Djokovic, Nadal and Federer for a few more years it is not going to be easy. He needs to be more consistent at slams if he wants to win. I am pretty sure other talents will emerge as well in a couple of years (3 to 4 years), if he hasn't won one by then it could become difficult for him to win one. It is a possibility that he will end up with none, but very unlikely for now.

[gunnd5000]

yes, no, mabay... only time will tell

[OliverSimon]

The guy is 22! He has plenty of time to win grandslams. You people are acting like hes 30 years old