How can Murray give Fed a lot of trouble? I didn't see the Cincy match between Fed and Murray but from i was told Fed had no gas in his tank to compete
I think he's more likely to beat Nadal or Fed in a major than he is to get through 6 other consecutive matches against "lesser" players, to be honest. The mental consistency still isn't there for him to be declared the next likely slam winner.I don't think too many people would be surprised if he is the next winner of a major (other than Federer or Nadal)
I think he's more likely to beat Nadal or Fed in a major than he is to get through 6 other consecutive matches against "lesser" players, to be honest. The mental consistency still isn't there for him to be declared the next likely slam winner.
That being said, I wouldn't be totally shocked if he wins one soon. He's certainly got the talent.
Aside from Federer and Nadal who already hold titles, who will be the next to win one?
Andy Murray is my vote. He has the most developed game, the best coach, and has already show that he can give Fed. and Nadal a lot of trouble. Beat Fed last year.
Andy Murray, Richard Gasquet, Marcos Baghdatis, Tomas Berdych, and maybe the french teenager whose name I forgot...
Nah, Gasquet will win one before Murray.
You think Roddick has a better shot of beating Roger than Murray?
Is it the fact that Murray is simply a more talented tennis player than Roddick or because Murray has a better record against Federer than Roddick?
Or perhaps it's Murray's absolute dismantling of Roddick at Wimbledon?
Putting personal nonsense aside, isn't it obvious Murray is a hugely talented tennis player? He uses his head. Guys like Federer don't have trouble with big hitters like Gonzo and Roddick. I'll take smarts over power any day.
Tell me who else currently who has recently challenged Federer more other then Roddick or Nadal?
Murray beat Federer once after he played over a week and a half of tennis against some of the toughest players in the world with no rest in between. That doesn't count. Did Murray beat Federer just after he pretty much demolished everyone at Wimbledon? No, he didn't. Roddick did.
Did Murray beat Federer just after he pretty much demolished everyone at Wimbledon? No, he didn't. Roddick did.
You mean 2003 Federer? Are you implying Roger was the same force in 2003 that he is today? I hope not.
Murray absolutely dismantled Roddick at Wimbledon, and I would say that grass was not a Murray strong point.
Murray has more variety than Roddick. Sure, power often puts pressure on even great players, but is it enough to beat them? Obviously not. Yeah, I know Roger was tired when Murray played him, but it's still Roger.
That's ridiculous. Murray didn't play Federer after he won Wimbledon that year, so I don't see your point. Roddick beat Federer once in a 2003 season that saw a much more vulnerable Roger Federer. Technically speaking, Murray beat a much better Roger Federer at Cincy who had just dominated Wimbledon, so your point is moot.
Murray has more talent. He has a better all court game and more variety. Murray also has the head-to-head record. Murray isn't consistent and isn't fit, but if he becomes so, he'll be a much larger threat to Roger than the other crop. Roddick has had plenty of time to beat Roger on the big stage and he hasn't done it.
I'd love to see Andy Murray against Roddick again. What happened last time they played? Oh, that's right, Roddick beat him soundly.
The only reason why Andy Murray won was because Federer had nothing left in the tank. He had no movement that day. The BIGGEST key to Federer's game is his movement. His strokes have EXACT timing, if he does not have it he frames the ball like nuts. Roddick would have won that match too, garunteed.
Federer is human.
I'd love to see Andy Murray against Roddick again. What happened last time they played? Oh, that's right, Roddick beat him soundly.
There is no doubt he is hugely talented but to be honest, i'm getting a bit bored of him losing matches that he should be doing better in. He lost again today in France to Soderling (who is a decent player but Gasquet should be beating him)
Murray generally wins the matches you would expect him to and then he goes on to really push (and sometimes even beat) the best players in the world.
I've seen Murray live a few times and i've seen Gasquet live at Nottingham on 5 different occasions and although they are both amazing to watch, i'll take Murray's touch and tactics over Gasquet's big backhand. In a slam you usually have one or two matches where you aren't at your best and it's how you deal with those matches that makes the player, it's all well and good destroying someone when your at the top of your game but I really don't feel like Gasquet has the ability to grind out matches. I really hope he gets it together in the end but at the moment I don't think he has the package to win a slam, neither does Murray but he is more of the way there.
I kind of agree with you about Gasquet. Hugely talented (he's beaten Federer before) but lacks the consistency to win slams. Murray is a little in the same boat at the moment but I was very impressed in that 5 setter he lost against Nadal in the AO. Has a bit of mongrel in him which I think you need against the big 2 (Federer/Nadal). Murray reminds me a lot of McEnroe, ranting to himself and playing the self vs world card.
By way Fena, England's getting it's act together in the one dayers. You must be disappointed it's a couple of months too late.
Jesuschrist, no. How many times does it need to be said?I would have to pick Gonzo, Roddick or Blake.
Federer is human.
I'd love to see Andy Murray against Roddick again. What happened last time they played? Oh, that's right, Roddick beat him soundly.
Federer in 2003 was hot off a Wimbledon victory. Although he is not the Federer of today, he was heavily favored to beat Roddick in the Rogers Master because of their head to head and how well Roger was playing. Roddick beat a Federer that was playing well that year (not as well as he is now, but better then what most of the top 10 of today can do). Mind you this is a Federer that has not played 2+ weeks of intense tennis either.
The only reason why Andy Murray won was because Federer had nothing left in the tank. He had no movement that day. The BIGGEST key to Federer's game is his movement. His strokes have EXACT timing, if he does not have it he frames the ball like nuts. Roddick would have won that match too, garunteed.
Murray's got talent, but he does not have a big weapon. Look at the people who win slams. They all have some sort of X-Factor. Federer has his forehand, Roddick has his serve, Safin has his impressive shot making abilities and his power game, Agassi with his returns, Sampras with his serves, the list goes on and on. What does Murray have? Even Nadal has a weapon, his forehand is one of the best in the game when it's on. Murray just plays solid tennis. He'll float around in the top 20 to top 10, but he will not win a slam, and he defintely won't beat Federer playing even anywhere remotely near his best.
Monfils' game is kind of blah to watch IMO.
I think Berdych has a real shot. That guy hits huge.
For all the people who must not watch tennis who thinks Andy Roddick could ever win a title again you should look at today's results. Roddick is awful and will never come close to winning a major. The days are over when a serve alone will win against top players. Now someone like Blake does have a great game, and Gonzo was on fire in Australia.
Poor Roddick
He gets a U.S. Open and since has been 'just another player'. I'm starting to think his day's are numbered. Federer has owned him in Finals and now Murray; isn't he 3 - 1 on him now ?
Is Roddick gonna be another Sabatini ? A Chang ? A One Slam wonder at the hands of Federer ?