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

[BauerAlmeida]

He is not at the same level at the other 3 who have multiple slams and were N1 for a good amount of time, but he is the 4th best player in the world by some margin now.

I think he will end up with 3 slams.

[mariecon]

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!

well Djoker was a little lucky, getting Ferrer in his half. Two slams in a row no less!!!!

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

He is not at the same level at the other 3 who have multiple slams and were N1 for a good amount of time, but he is the 4th best player in the world by some margin now.

I think he will end up with 3 slams.

Agreed.

/thread

[Rjtennis]

[quote=Mainad;7171955]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?



There is absolutely no doubt the the wind helped Murray at the USO, especially in the first two sets. Murray was commonly hitting slice rally FH's and didn't even have to think about attacking. All he had to do was defend and it REALLY helped me. However, the wind did calm down by the latter sets and he won the 5th set in somewhat normal condition. I doubt he could have won that match without the help of the hurricane sandy winds in the first two sets,but who knows. He won the match and I could see him taking another win from Djokovic in a slam final.

[James Bond]

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.

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?

........

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.

But Novak is from Serbia, a non-western country.

Your argument is invalid.

[Dutch-Guy]

As far as ability is concerned Murray belongs to the top 4 but achievement wise he's YEARS behind Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by James Bond

But Novak is from Serbia, a non-western country.

Your argument is invalid.

but there was talk of 'the big 4' after Nole won a slam and because of Murray's success in Master series events.

Really big 4 talk started like in 2009/10.

[bluetrain4]

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

While I don't agree with thread, I don't think the poster is saying that 1-5 makes Murray a terrible player, just that it doesn't make him on the level of Fed, Nadal, or Djokovic.

IMO, he is on their elite level in terms of being a player of capable of winning a Slam right now.

He's not on their elite level in terms of accomplishment, though his accomplishments are still obviously great.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Rjtennis

There is absolutely no doubt the the wind helped Murray at the USO, especially in the first two sets. Murray was commonly hitting slice rally FH's and didn't even have to think about attacking. All he had to do was defend and it REALLY helped me. However, the wind did calm down by the latter sets and he won the 5th set in somewhat normal condition. I doubt he could have won that match without the help of the hurricane sandy winds in the first two sets,but who knows.

The wind blows on BOTH sides of the court and has to be dealt with by BOTH players. Do you think other players have not had to play Slams (and win them) in similar conditions?

Originally Posted by ark_28

He won the match and I could see him taking another win from Murray in a slam final.

I presume you meant to say Djokovic?

[Ginger ninja]

1-5 is bad but look who he played

Djokovic
Federer (and if roof had stayed open at wimbers, who knows about last year)

Djokovic won his first slam against Tsonga
Federer won finals against such legends as scud, a-rod (3), baggy and gonzo
Nadal won his first against puerta

No free lunches for muzza. He's pretty close to djokovic right now - I think he'll bag at least 5 slams.

[BHud]

You do understand that Switzerland and Spain are generally considered western countries as well? Fail...

[NamRanger]

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. 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.

What kind of joke is this? Federer played completely awful and Murray still couldn't put Federer away cleanly. Federer dragged it out and forced a fifth set despite playing very subpar tennis. If Federer had played at a pretty good level, I'm not sure if Murray could really win that match.

Either way, Murray still cannot consistently play offensive tennis when push comes to shove, and that's why he needs Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer to play subpar tennis to beat them in a big slam match.

[Rjtennis]

[quote=Mainad;7172191]The wind blows on BOTH sides of the court and has to be dealt with by BOTH players. Do you think other players have not had to play Slams (and win them) in similar conditions?

I know it's the same for both players, but those were extremely windy conditions and it allowed Murray to just play slice and dice defensive tennis. Murray is pretty crafty and I think he enjoyed being able to play that way.

[Goosehead]

[quote=Rjtennis;7172273]

Originally Posted by Mainad

The wind blows on BOTH sides of the court and has to be dealt with by BOTH players. Do you think other players have not had to play Slams (and win them) in similar conditions?

I know it's the same for both players, but those were extremely windy conditions and it allowed Murray to just play slice and dice defensive tennis. Murray is pretty crafty and I think he enjoyed being able to play that way.

djokovic played rubbish in the u s open final..and murray owned him.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

What kind of joke is this? Federer played completely awful and Murray still couldn't put Federer away cleanly. Federer dragged it out and forced a fifth set despite playing very subpar tennis. If Federer had played at a pretty good level, I'm not sure if Murray could really win that match.

Either way, Murray still cannot consistently play offensive tennis when push comes to shove, and that's why he needs Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer to play subpar tennis to beat them in a big slam match.

Lol... here we go again. Murray can only win when his opponent is sick, tired or depressed. He's beaten Federer ELEVEN times, Djokovic SEVEN times and Nadal FIVE times and that includes ATP finals and Slams. So on every one of those occasions, Fed, Djoker and Rafa were all too tired, too ill or too depressed to play their best tennis. Is that what you're trying to convince us?

Federer really must get out of the habit of playing subpar tennis when he plays Murray. I wonder. Is Murray ever going to be allowed the excuse that HE played a bit subpar now and again whenever he loses to these guys?

Nope, thought not!

[ark_28]

Originally Posted by Mainad

The wind blows on BOTH sides of the court and has to be dealt with by BOTH players. Do you think other players have not had to play Slams (and win them) in similar conditions?



I presume you meant to say Djokovic?

I never said that please do not misquote me I never said that

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Originally Posted by BHud

You do understand that Switzerland and Spain are generally considered western countries as well? Fail...

I am talking about the English speaking western media and I already mentioned that in this thread. The Americans and those tacky Brits want Murray to be included but he doesn't deserve to be his accomplishments so far prove otherwise.

Murray is a defensive player and his results against the top 3 prove he's not on their level. He doesn't have the mental toughness or the offensive game as Roger and Novak and Rafael.

Of course, the USA media like EPSN and that loser Patrick McEnroe are going to hype Murray. American men's tennis is in the toilet but the USA media need to hype up an English language speaking player like Andy Murray because their players suck.

The real top 3 are Roger, Novak, and Rafael, Murray is excluded until he reverses his horrible record in slam finals 1-5 is terrible.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by Mainad

Lol... here we go again. Murray can only win when his opponent is sick, tired or depressed. He's beaten Federer ELEVEN times, Djokovic SEVEN times and Nadal FIVE times and that includes ATP finals and Slams. So on every one of those occasions, Fed, Djoker and Rafa were all too tired, too ill or too depressed to play their best tennis. Is that what you're trying to convince us?

Federer really must get out of the habit of playing subpar tennis when he plays Murray. I wonder. Is Murray ever going to be allowed the excuse that HE played a bit subpar now and again whenever he loses to these guys?

Nope, thought not!

In the slams Murray needs those three to play subpar tennis to win. This is pretty evident; when those three (particularly Federer and Djokovic) play even pretty average tennis by their standards, they put Murray into the ground quite easily. Even with subpar tennis, Murray struggled to put away both Djokovic at the USO and Federer at the AO (and mind you Murray is hitting his stride while Federer is going towards the tail end of his career).

Push comes to shove that's what it is, because Murray isn't in the same tier as these guys. Beating them at smaller tournaments and Masters is completely different from beating them at slams. Thus far, the only top 3 guy Murray has shown that he can beat when playing good tennis is Nadal, and he is by far the most vulnerable of the top 3 due to the way he plays.


Keep thinking that Murray has the goods to just simply outplay someone like Federer or Djokovic in a slam without them just playing bad tennis. Federer did EVERYTHING he could to allow Murray to win in straights, and Murray blew every chance he had to take the match early. Murray's problem again has always been his inability to front run properly and suppress and demoralize the opponent. Federer is best at this, Djokovic is pretty good at this, and Nadal is probably the weakest at this (him and Murray both let opponents hang around too much sometimes). This whole tournament is a good example of why Murray will likely never win a slam if he has to face two elite level opponents in a row like Federer and Djokovic, because he gets gassed trying to just beat one. By the time he reaches the second one, he runs out of gas. He needs to change the way he plays, become more aggressive and be more willing to get into the net to end points faster (it's not like he's awful up there or anything).

Last year at the USO, if Djokovic didn't start out playing such garbage tennis he probably would have beaten Murray. Murray nearly blew a two set lead, and was pretty lucky that Djokovic simply gassed in the end because all momentum was on his end. This final showed that if Djokovic doesn't give up a two set lead, he can beat Murray playing quite subpar tennis.

[Relinquis]

R-E-L-A-X ...

Three simple, non-conspiratorial, reasons to bring up Andy Murray when discussing* Federer, Nadal and Djokovic:

1 - He can beat them at important matches at times, including slams.

2 - He is the highest ranking UK based player so they're obviously going to talk about him. The Americans are living vicariously through him in a way given their lack of top 10 players.

3 - He is ranked immediately below the multi-champion trio and has separated himself from the rest of the top ten.

* People usually discuss these guys in the context of a current tournament or slam, the press even more so. in this context you have to consider him even though he doesn't merit a dedicated chapter in the history of tennis yet.

[Sreeram]

Originally Posted by Amelie Mauresmo

Murray is below Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic there is no disputing this fact. The results in the grand slam finals prove this he's lost three grand slam finals to Federer, and two to Novak.

Perfect logic, just adding to this logic, Federer has lost to him in semi who according to this awesome logic is a low level player than him. So Fed should retire now as it is a great shame.

Also Federer won only 1 slam after djoker came to this level hence he to is a 1 slam wonder. Why r u counting slams that he won when djoker was nobody?

Murray is just coming up under lyndel, he needs his time. He is not a 31 year grand pa. He has enough years to win slams. He has a greater chance in Wimbledon as he has now defeated his only rival in grass twice in best of 5 sets.there are positives for him to take from this AO.