batz
G.O.A.T.
Hey TMOP. Yep - I accept fully that they have similar styles, and that parallel with Wilander is interesting - but we've got guys on this thread saying Mecir was way more talented/better player - and that's just silly.
How similar is Murray to Miloslav Mecir?
- Thread starter Oceansize
- Start date
Hey TMOP. Yep - I accept fully that they have similar styles, and that parallel with Wilander is interesting - but we've got guys on this thread saying Mecir was way more talented/better player - and that's just silly.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Murray will definitely have a far better career than Mecir but it still doesn't take away from how gifted he was as a player. A number of experts in the late 1980's thought that where Mecir was on his game, he was better than anyone playing. That's an impressive statement considering Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, McEnroe among others were playing at that time. It's a shame his back problems ended his career.
Oceansize
Rookie
Good points, Murray should end up with a better career than Mecir results wise. From what i can tell though, partly this will be due to Mecir's injuries, in particular the back injury that affected him during 1989 onwards, when he was only 24/25 years old, and led to his early retirement. If Murray was to only have a couple more years, i think there is a chance that his slam record wouldn't be greatly superior to Mecir's.
Could it be that Mecir was more talented (perhaps not way more as others suggest), but Murray will have a better career due to having better mental strength, and being luckier with injuries? I only mention mental strength, as i've seen it mentionioned that Mecir suffered from nerves, whereas, Murray seems to have good self belief and is determined to win a slam.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Could be - but we all probably have different definitions of 'talent'. It is one of the most overused but ill-defined terms on TW. Some might argue that the ability to stay fit and mentally strong is as much a matter of talent as how well you move or how good your forehand is.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I would generally define tennis talent is considering the strokes and physical ability like speed, reflexes, hand/eye coordination is who has the highest level of play when they are playing their best. People assume if you can play at that level on occasion, there is no reason you can't play that way all the time.
Lew Hoad is often called the most talented player ever and he also is often in the running when people talk about those players who was the best on their best day. Many have said that of John McEnroe in his prime.
Of course tennis talent may vary from surface to surface.
Mecir was considered by a number of people (including an article in a well known tennis publication) to be the best when he was "on" his game. He was also considered by many to be the most talented. Unfortunately he was unable to fulfill that talent because of his back problems but it doesn't take away from his great skills at one point in his life.
In Major League Baseball here in the United States there was a pitcher called Sandy Koufax who was extremely gifted and talented. For a short period he was considered to be the best pitcher perhaps in history. He was that good and talented. He threw extremely hard and was virtually unhittable in those years.
There was also a pitcher on the same staff call Don Sutton. Sutton, while an excellent pitcher was not nearly as talented as Koufax but he won about double the amount of games Koufax won. Sutton lasted longer but at his best he wasn't as good as Koufax. But you can argue Sutton's career was superior to Koufax's career because he didn't have to retired early because of injury like Koufax did in 1966.
Last edited:
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
Thats just ridiculous. Murray is a lot better than Mecir-at everything.
borg number one
Legend
Yes sir, will email you now. Thanks.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
He was gifted, but not as gifted as Murray. Mecir gave non-powerful-baseliners trouble like Wilander etc because he played Wilanders game- but was obviously better at it then Wilander himself, when Mecir faced a powerful player such as Becker or Lendl he was often outplayed. Murray can handle most powerful players.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
But Murray often struggles when his opponent plays hard attacking tennis. Look how Federer has beaten him in 2 slam finals by playing more aggressive.
Mecir was far more gifted than Murray in the natural talent department. When Mecir was on, he would outplay anyone, including Lendl and Becker. He made Lendl look really silly in the 1987 Miami final. Becker himself said that when Mecir was playing well, you had to play more steady and drop your own playing standard in order to knock Mecir out of his rhythm and get on top of him again. If you responded to Mecir's brilliant play by trying even harder yourself, you would be tied up in knots. Wilander would always end up doing the latter if he didn't start well against Mecir.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
Impossible to tell, im sure if Fed started attacking Mecir like he does when he faces Murray it would be a nasty steamroll.
About natural talent, who knows? Its what you bring to the court that matters-talented or not.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
It would be a steamroll if that's how Federer starts while Mecir never gets going. But if Mecir is in the groove and Federer tries harder, it's the worst thing he can do. Federer would probably know that himself anyway and react accordingly. With Mecir, think Nalbandian. They are similar in many ways.
True.
Last edited:
batz
G.O.A.T.
Of course he won't. It's not like he's the only guy apart from Roger and Rafa to make semis or better in half of the last six slams (the point at which Murray entered the top 6); or the only guy apart from Roger to make 2 finals in the last 6 slams, or like he has a winning hardcourt slam head to head with JMDP or Rafa. Nope; you can't argue with facts like that - Murray will never win a slam.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
batz
G.O.A.T.
He will never do it.
Yeah OK. Write him off at 22 with his record. Good to see you're not actually trying to substantiate your viewpoint with anything like a coherent argument or anything, but fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
Pushers don't win slams these days. He is too passive and defensive. Plus he is british. Plus Fed knows how to beat him now. Plus he gets stage fright in slam finals.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Ah the pusher line. You would teach Murray thing or 2 if you could get him on court eh. How many points do you think you'd win aginst this pusher - 1? 2?
There's nothing funnier than messageboard been-nowhere-done-nothings slagging of top sportsmen.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
Ah the pusher line. You would teach Murray thing or 2 if you could get him on court eh. How many points do you think you'd win aginst this pusher - 1? 2?
There's nothing funnier than messageboard been-nowhere-done-nothings slagging of top sportsmen.
His defensive/passive tennis won't cut it at the slam finals vs Fed. Fed now has found the way to beat Murray. Murray not even taking a set off fed at the slams is telling. Compare that with Del Po's progression vs Fed at the slams. nuff said.
Similar threads
