Andy Murray - One Slam Wonder? - Page 6

Anaconda · 02-13-2013, 08:20 AM

Those 'Murray will win a slam this year' statements Cup8489 is writing are the primary reason Murray gets bashed. Murray isn't guaranteed anything in any year. People do tend to overrate Murray's chances quite a bit.

Mainad · 02-13-2013, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

It's horrible fashion. Especially when you are in prime and you couldn't challenge a post prime Federer on your favourite surfaces. His Djokovic match in 2011 was just as bad.

The 2011 AO final was a bad beat-down but then Djokovic had started goating at that point. There wasn't another player on the planet who could handle Djokovic for the next 6 months!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

Djokovic didn't play very well in the final. Conditions favoured Murray this time. Nothing really to argue about as Wimbledon 2012 was working against Murray so to speak. No doubt the wind screwed Djokovic though. Sets 3 and 4 were completely dominant.

But here we go again. If Djokovic lost 2012 USO because he didn't play well, how come Murray isn't allowed the same excuse for losing 2013 AO? After all, Djokovic won 2 sets at the USO final but Murray could only manage one at the AO! His level definitely dropped after losing the 2nd set tie-breaker. You can't keep making excuses for one and not the other. That's just treating them both by a different set of rules!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

I think it's because he was over-hyped for so long, being put ahead of Djokovic for quite a few years in the minds of others and being put into that elite status without winning a slam is the main reason people aren't really fans of Murray. His game isn't really that great to watch for someone who, let's face it, was/is/will be raved about for many years. I understand how some people feel when we hear 'Murray is one of the best players ever - fourth to the other three in front of him crap' and hypothetical nonsensical statements surround him like 'in other eras he is arguably the best' crap.

Well, I only joined the boards less than 2 years ago and in that time I have never ever seen this Murray-hype that is supposedly so rampant. If I had, I assure you I would have been one of the first to try and calm everybody down. I detest hype as much as I do unfair criticism. But all I've seen in the last 2 years are constant threads attacking, ridiculing and sneering at Murray with many posters absolutely refusing to give him credit for anything he's ever done. Over-hyped? Not on here, that's for sure!

My impression is that many of these Murray-haters fall into one of 2 main categories:

1. Disgruntled English football 'fans' who have never ever forgiven him for a jokey remark he once made in a good-humoured banter with Tim Henman about supporting anyone other than England after Henman had been taking the p1ss after Scotland got knocked out of the 2006 World Cup qualifiers (note no flack ever from Scottish fans against Henman)! This means they will take any opportunity to rubbish and disparage Murray on practically any forum they come across in which his name may appear!

2. Fanatical Federer fans (*******s) who cannot ever forgive any player who has had a consistently winning H2H against their great hero. Murray is currently 11-9 in that regard. (Nadal is the only other top player to hold a positive H2H against Federer). This means that Murray's wins could only have been 'flukes' caused by Fed's tiredness or ill-health and, for good measure, most of his wins against other players came about probably for the same reasons. Their logic: someone like Murray, who has only recently managed to win one 'flukey' Slam, could not possibly have ever beaten the GOAT so many times fairly and squarely!

Of course, there are doubtless a sprinking of other combinations like fanatical Djokovic supporters who weigh in with the same 'arguments' but it is my impression those are the 2 main categories by far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

Anyway I like Murray, I don't like his tennis. But I hope he wins. Let's not count chickens. It's taken him a while to win his first slam title since he got big in 2008.

I'm not counting any chickens. I've been a fan for the last 4 and a half years but I know his strengths and weaknesses only too well. I just keep hoping and keeping my fingers crossed that he will focus on his strengths and cut back on the weaknesses because I know what his strengths are capable of as do all other fair-minded and impartial tennis fans. No hype from me!

Anaconda · 02-13-2013, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mainad

The 2011 AO final was a bad beat-down but then Djokovic had started goating at that point. There wasn't another player on the planet who could handle Djokovic for the next 6 months!

If Murray was as good as people said, he should have at least one a set against Djokovic. BTW at the time, Murray was rated far higher in the mindset of others from 2008-2010. Even though Djokovic had a slam to his name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mainad

But here we go again. If Djokovic lost 2012 USO because he didn't play well, how come Murray isn't allowed the same excuse for losing 2013 AO? After all, Djokovic won 2 sets at the USO final but Murray could only manage one at the AO! His level definitely dropped after losing the 2nd set tie-breaker. You can't keep making excuses for one and not the other. That's just treating them both by a different set of rules!

Because Djokovic is clearly the better player and can exceed Murray's highest level of play. Hard to say that any Murray can live with Djokovic playing at his best (only Federer can nowadays). It's not an insult, or I'm not trying to insult anyone when I say Djokovic's level, not just in that match, the whole tournament wasn't that great. Murray (no matter how well he plays) can not live with Djokovic at his best. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mainad

Well, I only joined the boards less than 2 years ago and in that time I have never ever seen this Murray-hype that is supposedly so rampant. If I had, I assure you I would have been one of the first to try and calm everybody down. I detest hype as much as I do unfair criticism. But all I've seen in the last 2 years are constant threads attacking, ridiculing and sneering at Murray with many posters absolutely refusing to give him credit for anything he's ever done. Over-hyped? Not on here, that's for sure!

I joined in 2009. Got banned for getting annoyed with Murray fans who didn't like the fact I said Djokovic would go on to better things although Murray was consistently favoured above him. Looks like I was right. I joined before you, I know what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mainad

I'm not counting any chickens. I've been a fan for the last 4 and a half years but I know his strengths and weaknesses only too well. I just keep hoping and keeping my fingers crossed that he will focus on his strengths and cut back on the weaknesses because I know what his strengths are capable of as do all other fair-minded and impartial tennis fans. No hype from me!

His weaknesses are really his forehand, which is definitely improved and his serve. Most likely his serve won't get better, and dare I say it, his game has peaked. I think this year will be his best chance to win a slam just because It looks like their is no end to Djokovic's ability right now and the field isn't exactly stacked with champions, let's not forget Federer isn't what he was.

batz · 02-13-2013, 09:34 AM

[quote=Anaconda;7211604]

Because Djokovic is clearly the better player and can exceed Murray's highest level of play. Hard to say that any Murray can live with Djokovic playing at his best (only Federer can nowadays). It's not an insult, or I'm not trying to insult anyone when I say Djokovic's level, not just in that match, the whole tournament wasn't that great. Murray (no matter how well he plays) can not live with Djokovic at his best. Period.

[quote]

You're entitled to your opinion - but please stop presenting it as fact. Putting 'period' after a period doesn't make an assertion any more true.

The argument that player x can only beat player y if player y is sick/injured/below par, when player x has won nearly 40 % of their matches is a puerile position that is not borne out by the data - in my opinion of course.

That's not to say that Nole isn't a better player than Murray - he's the world number 1 and as such he's better than Murray and every other tennis player on Earth.

BTW while you're patting yourself on the back about your predictions about Nole - weren't you one of the 'Murray will never win a slam' crew? So you were right about Nole - well done you. Now - how many times have you been wrong?

Anaconda · 02-13-2013, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

You're entitled to your opinion - but please stop presenting it as fact. Putting 'period' after a period doesn't make an assertion any more true.

Presenting what as fact? The fact that Djokovic's peak level of play trumps Murray's? I don't see why you are offended by that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

That's not to say that Nole isn't a better player than Murray - he's the world number 1 and as such he's better than Murray and every other tennis player on Earth.

So what is your problem?

No one is discrediting Murray's slam win, It's hard to really deny Djokovic was bad in the tournament as a whole. He sure as hell wasn't firing on all cylinders. That's what it takes for most players to beat Djokovic other than a guy with 17 slams to his name - play him on a bad day. That's what Murray did. I'm not knocking Murray in any way.

Hawkeye7 · 02-13-2013, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

Presenting what as fact? The fact that Djokovic's peak level of play trumps Murray's? I don't see why you are offended by that statement.

That's your opinion. Others might struggle to agree, let alone that we have never seen peak Murray vs. peak Djokovic, therefore your statement is nothing but speculation. I don't think batz was offended, he just disagrees with you.

batz · 02-13-2013, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

Presenting what as fact? The fact that Djokovic's peak level of play trumps Murray's? I don't see why you are offended by that statement.

So what is your problem?

No one is discrediting Murray's slam win, It's hard to really deny Djokovic was bad in the tournament as a whole. He sure as hell wasn't firing on all cylinders. That's what it takes for most players to beat Djokovic other than a guy with 17 slams to his name - play him on a bad day. That's what Murray did. I'm not knocking Murray in any way.

Of course you are. You are asserting that Murray only loses when Novak plays badly. Actually, you're asserting that Novak only loses to anyone when he plays badly - and that's just silly as it is predicated on the notion that Novak is solely responsible for how he plays and that his opponent has no influence on him.

I guess that for 40% of his matches with Murray he just couldn't be arsed.

It's the Nole equivalent of 'Rafa only loses if he's injured' or 'Roger only loses if he's tired'.

You've taken the reasonable premise that Novak is the best player in the world and made the quantum leap to the assertion that Nole has to play badly in order for someone to beat him.

It's an epic logic fail - but logic, reason, facts and stuff were never your strong points, were they mate.

Anaconda · 02-13-2013, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

That's your opinion. Others might struggle to agree, let alone that we have never seen peak Murray vs. peak Djokovic, therefore your statement is nothing but speculation. I don't think batz was offended, he just disagrees with you.

Who would struggle to disagree with the notion Djokovic at his maximum surpasses Murray at his maximum? Peak Djokovic has won 5 slams out of 9. Murray has won 1. It's obvious who is in the wrong here.

Anaconda · 02-13-2013, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

Of course you are. You are asserting that Murray only loses when Novak plays badly. Actually, you're asserting that Novak only loses to anyone when he plays badly - and that's just silly as it is predicated on the notion that Novak is solely responsible for how he plays and that his opponent has no influence on him.

What would you like me to do? Pretend that Djokovic was on fire but Murray was just too good? Not going to happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

I guess that for 40% of his matches with Murray he just couldn't be arsed.

Or the fact from the end of 2008-2010 Djokovic was playing mediocre, couldn't serve due to changing his mechanics and his forehand was just as bad. Since finding his motivation, improving his movement and service motion he has had Murray's number.

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

It's the Nole equivalent of 'Rafa only loses if he's injured' or 'Roger only loses if he's tired'.

No, because at least there is truth to what I'm saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

You've taken the reasonable premise that Novak is the best player in the world and made the quantum leap to the assertion that Nole has to play badly in order for someone to beat him.

Yes, unless you are Federer. Nowadays, in the slams, every other player except for Nadal at the FO will have to hope Djokovic plays good at best to beat him. Anything better from Djokovic and it's unlucky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

It's an epic logic fail - but logic, reason, facts and stuff were never your strong points, were they mate.

Yes. Just like I was wrong when I said in 2009 that Djokovic would go on to dominate and Murray would struggle to win slams due to his defensive style of play. As for my posts, they are far more informative than yours; Your strong points start and end with Murray.

Fiji · 02-13-2013, 10:15 AM

Del Potro is more likely to end up as a one slam wonder than Murray.

Hawkeye7 · 02-13-2013, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

Who would struggle to disagree with the notion Djokovic at his maximum surpasses Murray at his maximum? Peak Djokovic has won 5 slams out of 9. Murray has won 1. It's obvious who is in the wrong here.

Uhm... So Murray plays his best in every single match? Did he play his best or even anywhere near his best in his first 3 GS finals? You guys keep making excuses for the rest of the top 3, how all of them were sub-par whenever they lose to Murray, but Murray doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, ever. That is suggesting the outcome of his matches has nothing to do with Murray's level of play at all, which is just ridiculous to say the least. I've never seen a bigger beat down of a Top 10 player than Murray vs Nadal in Tokyo 2011. Name one other match of the top of your head, where a top 10 player only won 4 points in an entire set, I dare you. If anything it's people like you who are underestimating Murray, not the other way around. But don't let facts get in the way of your delusions.

No one suggested that Murray is a better player than Djokovic, but to say that Djokovic would just hit him off the court when both play their best is silly. I would agree that Djokovic's consistent level is higher than Murray's, at least at this moment in time, but I've seen Murray play some ridiculous Tennis and I dare say even Djokovic would struggle against him, when he's playing like that.

batz · 02-13-2013, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

Who would struggle to disagree with the notion Djokovic at his maximum surpasses Murray at his maximum? Peak Djokovic has won 5 slams out of 9. Murray has won 1. It's obvious who is in the wrong here.

As ever, you're meandering - so let's re-cap:

1. Is Novak the best player on the planet? Yes.

2. Does it follow that Novak must play badly to lose? No.

3. Is it possible to be the best player in the world, play at the top of your game, and lose to someone else? Yes - see Federer v Nadal for evidence and lots if it.

Still - it's nice to have you back.

kalyan4fedever · 02-13-2013, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiji

Del Potro is more likely to end up as a one slam wonder than Murray.

delp's is more legit he defeated nadal and federer to win it and did not play in super windy conditions with the absence of a key player (rafa) who has a trumping h2h against him(murray). unless murraa defeats rafa in a slam he is still a mug, no offense

batz · 02-13-2013, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

What would you like me to do? Pretend that Djokovic was on fire but Murray was just too good? Not going to happen.

Or the fact from the end of 2008-2010 Djokovic was playing mediocre, couldn't serve due to changing his mechanics and his forehand was just as bad. Since finding his motivation, improving his movement and service motion he has had Murray's number.

No, because at least there is truth to what I'm saying.

Yes, unless you are Federer. Nowadays, in the slams, every other player except for Nadal at the FO will have to hope Djokovic plays good at best to beat him. Anything better from Djokovic and it's unlucky.

Yes. Just like I was wrong when I said in 2009 that Djokovic would go on to dominate and Murray would struggle to win slams due to his defensive style of play. As for my posts, they are far more informative than yours; Your strong points start and end with Murray.

PMSL.

And you're so modest, too.

How unlike you to jump up and down like a spolied child screaming 'No! I'm right!' whenever your unjustifiable assertions are challenged.

I'll ask you again - apart from 'Murray will never win a slam' - what other absolutist assertions have you been completely and utterly wrong about?

batz · 02-13-2013, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalyan4fedever

delp's is more legit he defeated nadal and federer to win it and did not play in super windy conditions with the absence of a key player (rafa) who has a trumping h2h against him(murray). unless murraa defeats rafa in a slam he is still a mug, no offense

OK - if Delpo's wins are more legit than Murray's because of the standard of player he beat then many of Roger's are less legit than Delpo's also yes?

Murray has beaten Rafa in slams as many times as Roger has. If you knew the first thing about tennis you'd know this. No offence.

Anaconda · 02-13-2013, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

Uhm... So Murray plays his best in every single match? Did he play his best or even anywhere near his best in his first 3 GS finals? You guys keep making excuses for the rest of the top 3, how all them were subpar whenever they lose to Murray and that is suggesting that the outcome of Matches has nothing to do with Murray's level at all. Which is just ridiculous to say the least. I've never seen a bigger beatdown of a Top 10 player than Murray vs Nadal in Tokyo 2011. Name one other match of the top of your head, where a top 10 player only won 4 points in an entire set, I dare you. If anything it's people like you who are underestimating Murray, not the other way around. But don't let facts get in the way of your delusions..

Murray usually plays great against Nadal. This is normally because Nadal's ball allows Murray to take cracks on the FH side, which is slightly a longer motion than his BH side. If Murray can start attacking the opponent on the FH side he's pretty much got it sorted out, and against Nadal he is able to do this. That Tokyo beatdown was impressive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

No one suggested that Murray is a better player than Djokovic, but to say that Djokovic would just hit him off the court when both play their best is silly. I would agree that Djokovic's consistent level is higher than Murray's, at least at this moment in time, but I've seen Murray play some ridiculous Tennis and I dare say even Djokovic would struggle against him.

What? I've seen Djokovic at times kill Federer and Nadal (on clay no less). Players who are far superior to Murray. Please, Djokovic at his best is pretty unplayable for anyone other than Federer and maybe Nadal at the FO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

2. Does it follow that Novak must play badly to lose? No.

I've rarely seen Djokovic play a great match and lose, it's mostly down to Djokovic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

3. Is it possible to be the best player in the world, play at the top of your game, and lose to someone else? Yes - see Federer v Nadal for evidence and lots if it.

I've never seen either at their maximum and lose to each other. FO 2008 and the WTF match where neither match was close displayed each others best respectively. AO 2009 was ok until the moment Federer packed up and gave in.

Anaconda · 02-13-2013, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batz

I'll ask you again - apart from 'Murray will never win a slam' - what other absolutist assertions have you been completely and utterly wrong about?

I actually never said Murray wouldn't win a slam. I said he wouldn't win a slam if he continued his ultra defensive junk-balling style. Which again, I was right. Problem?

Hawkeye7 · 02-13-2013, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalyan4fedever

delp's is more legit he defeated nadal and federer to win it and did not play in super windy conditions with the absence of a key player (rafa) who has a trumping h2h against him(murray). unless murraa defeats rafa in a slam he is still a mug, no offense

It's not. Rafa was below par and came from a long injury lay off and Federer played a horrible match in the final and couldn't find his serve to save his life in the last couple of sets. There see, I can be a ***** as well.

batz · 02-13-2013, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

I actually never said Murray wouldn't win a slam. I said he wouldn't win a slam if he continued his ultra defensive junk-balling style. Which again, I was right. Problem?

You said plenty of times (unqualified) that Murray wouldn't win a slam. You were wrong.

No problem whatsoever.

batz · 02-13-2013, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaconda

I've rarely seen Djokovic play a great match and lose, it's mostly down to Djokovic.

.

Rarely or never? You're already trying to wriggle out of the absolutist rubbish you posted - it's what you do.

You haven't seen every one of Novak's losses therefore you are unqualified to judge.

He only needs to have lost once whilst playing at the top of his game for your assertion to be refuted.

02-13-2013, 08:20 AM	#101
Anaconda Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,956	Those 'Murray will win a slam this year' statements Cup8489 is writing are the primary reason Murray gets bashed. Murray isn't guaranteed anything in any year. People do tend to overrate Murray's chances quite a bit. __________________ 'Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth'.

02-13-2013, 09:34 AM	#104
batz G.O.A.T. Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 12,273	[quote=Anaconda;7211604] Because Djokovic is clearly the better player and can exceed Murray's highest level of play. Hard to say that any Murray can live with Djokovic playing at his best (only Federer can nowadays). It's not an insult, or I'm not trying to insult anyone when I say Djokovic's level, not just in that match, the whole tournament wasn't that great. Murray (no matter how well he plays) can not live with Djokovic at his best. Period. [quote] You're entitled to your opinion - but please stop presenting it as fact. Putting 'period' after a period doesn't make an assertion any more true. The argument that player x can only beat player y if player y is sick/injured/below par, when player x has won nearly 40 % of their matches is a puerile position that is not borne out by the data - in my opinion of course. That's not to say that Nole isn't a better player than Murray - he's the world number 1 and as such he's better than Murray and every other tennis player on Earth. BTW while you're patting yourself on the back about your predictions about Nole - weren't you one of the 'Murray will never win a slam' crew? So you were right about Nole - well done you. Now - how many times have you been wrong? __________________ "If Murray were always good, he would not be so good." MixieP - Philosopher Last edited by batz : 02-13-2013 at 09:50 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode