tenniswriter
Banned
Awww. So what's there to discuss then? Yes, he has beaten a Grand Slam champion in the final for his first Grand Slam win. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic haven't. What's there to discuss?
Murray accomplished something none of the other top 4 achieved
- Thread starter Tennis_Maestro
- Start date
Awww. So what's there to discuss then? Yes, he has beaten a Grand Slam champion in the final for his first Grand Slam win. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic haven't. What's there to discuss?
powerangle
Legend
Why are you being so aggressive in your posts? I thought Clarky21 brought up a fair point earlier in the thread about Nadal beating Fed in the semis to win his first major, and Novak beating Fed for his first major.
It ISN'T that what you posted was incorrect...you are right, what Murray did was extremely commendable, and yes, you are correct, he is the only one out of the top 4 that defeated a slam winner in the finals. But what I DO disagree with, is this:
No one gets nervous in the semis of a major??? Really? Absolutely no pressure whatsoever?
I don't believe that somehow there is no pressure in beating a slam winner in the semis. Yes, the pressure is usually much greater in a final...but that doesn't mean there is absolutely NO pressure to do so in a semis.
Nadal and Djokovic didn't do it in a final...but they still did it in the semis...which still has to count for something, right? Better to beat a proven slam champ in the semis, than not having to face one at all en route to the title, right?
This is a forum, so we are free to discuss and comment as we like...sometimes we may offer a comment, counterpoint, or tangent based off the OP. Doesn't mean we are trying to derail your thread or have some other malicious intent. Yes, you stated "finals" in your original post, but why are you being so aggressive, just because someone dared to mention "semis"? Why are you so hyper-sensitive??
Last edited:
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Just how difficult it is to break your duck against someone who has already been there and bought the T-shirt.... and whether actually already having a slam under your belt gives you that inherent feeling of invincibility and strength in slam finals. Its also a lot of pressure of your shoulders once you've won it, you can play without fear. Nadal, Djoker and Fed never really had to do with the fear aspect of never winning a slam really. They all had considerably easy opponents in their respective first slam finals. Although Federer did experience a slight part of it @ French Open time after time ... "What if I can never win a French Open?"
He won his first slam, beating a player that had already won a slam.
Yet he achieved the same thing that Del Potro did in 2009? Its not amazing, its an accomplishment sure. But nothing to write home about, its been done. What is more amazing is he had to defeated both Nadal and Federer to capture the title.
My point is... so what?
PrinceMoron
Legend
tenniswriter
Banned
Exactly. Thank you
tenniswriter
Banned
Ssshh, don't bring up the Del Potro part. He'll get all aggressive and accuse you of bringing up irrelevant points, given Del Potro is not a part of the 'Top 4', which is mentioned in the title.
AnotherTennisProdigy
Professional
I just read 2 pages worth of nothing. I think I'm getting dry eyes.
PrinceMoron
Legend
That is another foot fault.
It is feat, not feet.
But then if you can spell separate you are streets ahead of everyone else. Auto correction and predictive text I guess the. Just looks odd.
Last edited:
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Ofcourse its nerve-wracking, but on the same degree, or even half way? No. The crowd are less "in your face" and the prize @ stake isn't really as striking in your mind.
Had she said I feel "beating a slam champion in a final is also commendable" that would have been fine, I never once disputed that! Its the fact she came in the thread and started off her post with "That isn't necessarily true" and then made her semi finals point. After that she went on to say my trophying of such a mammoth task was "fundamentally wrong" and it was so because Novak, Roger and Rafa met slam champions in the semi finals. < Anyone with any common sense would know it is a much tougher task to win your first slam final against a slam champion, because you are up against someone who by default 9 times out of 10 will not be as nervous as you!
I don't mind counter-arguments and debates but the way she came in and said the "fact" was not true and not a "fact" because these guys beat slam winners in slam semi's was both dumb and annoying. Sorry.
AnotherTennisProdigy
Professional
BTW everybody is trying to bring up the semi final matches because only looking at the finals is an ignorant way of determining how hard a slam win was. The point of your fact, I hope, was to show that Murray had the toughest first majors. Others countered by looking to the semis (which you proceeded to attack). They are right, winning a slam requires 7 matches, only looking at the final isn't looking at the whole picture.
If it was just a fun fact then this is silly as there is nothing to discuss.
If it was just a fun fact then this is silly as there is nothing to discuss.
tenniswriter
Banned
Are you really 25 years old?
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Are you really a tennis writer? Or a children's bedtime story writer?
tenniswriter
Banned
A tennis writer
AnotherTennisProdigy
Professional
Her argument was a legitimate argument and nothing in this post makes me think otherwise.
powerangle
Legend
Yup, pretty much this.
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
You are now twisting this and catering it so it looks as if I have dismissed the semi's quarter's and so on. I haven't. Once again, I will repeat myself, it is much harder to keep your calm and composure and ultimately your best tennis when closing out a match in a Grandslam final than any other point in a Grandslam. If you are coming up against a player who has been there, done it and bought the T-shirt, in other words, is more experienced than you in that situation, the likelyhood is is you are @ a natural default disadvantage.
Here's a classic example for you:
Azarenka versus S, Williams - Aza has one slam .. Serena, *** knows howmany.
5-4, Azarenka is serving for it. Serena made one good return winner of an Azarenka 2nd second, all the other points were unforced errors during rallies.
In a nutshell, she choked^
Federer lost to Berdych in the Quarter Finals this year @ the US Open, do you think he would have won had that been him up against Roger in the final? Be real...?
powerangle
Legend
She was never aggressive to you in her initial post. She posted her thoughts on the subject about the validity of Rafa and Novak's maiden slam wins. She even stated in her post that she knew those weren't in the finals. She just made a "counter-argument" that you yourself stated you don't mind. Yet, you went on the offensive...
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Yup, pretty much this.
tenniswriter
Banned
Azarenka also beat Sharapova in her first Grand Slam final. Just saying. And Clijsters in the semis before that
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Basically, what she was trying to do was undermine Murray's acheievment, by scraping the barrel / clutching at straws from the basis Rafa and Novak's opponents in the semi finals. Atleast this is the impression I got. I never once said winning a semi final against an already slam champion was easy, so I don't have a daffy duck as to why she felt she had to defend that notion.
Read the part in bold.
"This isn't exactly true." and follows that up with statements about their semi final opponents in their maiden slams. Are you telling me she wasn't arguing a fact with a separate fact here?
tenniswriter
Banned
NO ONE is undermining Murray's 'achievement' man, why are you so insecure? Yes, and she said 'this isn't exactly true', she didn't say 'Sorry, you're talking **** and here's why'.
AnotherTennisProdigy
Professional
Tell me what this discussion is about, because I have no idea where you're going with this. Is there more pressure in the final? Obviously. We agree on that, now what. You addressed my quote as if I disagreed with you on that.
Now that's settled, what is your point? You brought up a fact, now what? People assumed you were using it to show how difficult a slam was for him to win, but that isn't your point so what is it? Just so we are all clear.
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
I am JUST trying to make you see how NERVE WRECKING a final grandslam can be for a human being, a player with emotions and that it is a handicap when you put that player up along side someone who has more experience.
I am not saying it is always a handicap or it always results in the more experienced slam winner playing better on the big points. I am jus giving you an example that it matters.
You can always find another "one off occasion or two" that dismiss my theory but for the general part ... in terms of being able to keep your composure and play your best tennis @ the big moments, it matters.
Last edited:
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Why am I so insecure? Or do you mean why am I so insecure about people's thoughts on Murray's achievement? You cannot be a writer. :shock:
Saying "this isn't exactly true" can only mean one of two things.
1) Djokovic hasn't won a slam.
2) Djokovic, Nadal and Federer beat Sampras, Aggasi and Hewitt in their maiden slam finals.
Those are the only two things that could have made what I said "not exactly true" yet she said "that is not exactly true" and then said ... they beat slam winners in semi finals.
Am I jus going insane? Or can you guys jus not read what she typed? LOL
tenniswriter
Banned
AnotherTennisProdigy
Professional
We can read, you're just taking it to literally. She probably spent 5 seconds on that choice of words, you probably took 2 minutes writing a post about it.
Lol did you quote yourself for truth??? That's Lame.
AnotherTennisProdigy
Professional
powerangle
Legend
Probably so no one will miss that post of his.
While I agree that playing one of these top guys IN THE FINAL, to win it rather than in semis, has been a key part of the difficulty facing Murray, I could never call Novak a great point constructor. He is a brilliant, brilliant player though, this has been a very well-deserved win for Murray.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Seriously? And you're the one talking about slam finals only? :shock:
FYI, they met in only *one* slam final, '04 AO. I'll let you check the scoreline to see how "short" Federer came up in that match...
Last edited:
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
And Del Potro did in on the first try, Murray on the fifth (that's why the OP's premise is a bit skewed--he's talking about first slam finals for the others, not for Murray).
But anyway, you have to win the guy on the other side of the net, that's how tennis works. Granted, some opponents are more difficult to handle, but when all is said and done, it's the achievements that count, so good thing for Murray that he was able to get his first slam yesterday (and it would have been a great win too had he beaten Ferrer in the final).
Do people even think when making these posts? Federer had a tough 7-6, 7-6, 6-4 win over an emerging Djokovic at USO 07. Plus he went 4 sets with a 35 year old Agassi a few years before. Yeah, I agree prime Federer probably would've won over these guys, but not that easily.
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
OP is a clown.
ninman
Hall of Fame
Oh boy, you're calling a 27 year old Mark Philippoussis a rookie? He had already been in the 1998 US Open final, further, he was on the verge of taking out Sampras in the 1999 Wimbledon quarters I believe before withdrawing with an injury. He won the first set 6-4, and retired at 2-1 in the second. He was certainly no rookie.
RF20Lennon
Legend
I think the OP is trying to say Andy is the only one who won his first slam by beating the defending champ or a guy that won that tournament before in the final
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
A rookie in terms of WINNING Grandslams. Stop being pedantic.
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Well not that, but I suppose that is another stat. However I feel there is more significance to the one I pointed out.
ruerooo
Legend
He won his first slam, beating a player that had already won a slam.
To me, that is some feet.
Roger had philipousis.
Novak Tsonga
Nadal (Some rookie in the French)
Murray's had it so tough, every slam final it's either Roger or Novak.. Roger, arguably the best player ever and Novak, arguably the best hard-court point constructor ever.
Virtually every time he had reached a final in previous year's he's also had to get one of the top 4 in the semi finals, ofcourse that changed this year but once again a massive feet.
Well, Juan Martín did it too, but he's not technically in the "top 4" (even though at one point he was number 4 in the world) so I guess you're going to do some more screaming that that's also "irrelevant to your point".
:roll:
And, as someone else already pointed out, it's "feat", not "feet".
Well Fed Djoko and Rafa didn't have the opportunity to accomplish Andy's "feat" since they had no control of who they faced in their first GS finals, and all three won their first final. Of course later on they all also won finals over previous slam winners.
I guess if they'd all lost their first final, they might have achieved this "feat" - ahh well.
In seriousness, sure Murray has had it tough in terms of his final competition in GS's but he did OK w/ the draw this year's USO, and Novak isn't currently the player he was last year and hasn't had a really significant tournament victory in some time now (and no I don't count Montreal w/ the lame field it had).
I guess if they'd all lost their first final, they might have achieved this "feat" - ahh well.
In seriousness, sure Murray has had it tough in terms of his final competition in GS's but he did OK w/ the draw this year's USO, and Novak isn't currently the player he was last year and hasn't had a really significant tournament victory in some time now (and no I don't count Montreal w/ the lame field it had).
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
LOL!
Feliciano Lopez on a relatively fast hardcourt
Raonic
Cilic
Berdych
Djokovic
He's beaten Nadal @ the US Open, nothing to prove there. Only Roger he hasn't done the business against @ the US Open. :|
underground
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic was the only worthy opponent in the whole USO though. Think again and look at the pathetic joke draw Murray got, don't forget about the wind...
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
I give Del Potro a lot of credit indeed, but I refered to the top 4 as I don't place Del boy in the same class as any of the top 4, so I don't really feel he deserves to be part of the debate, despite his huge accomplishment.
I'll no doubt drag in a few Del Boy girls with heartthrobe crushes on the bloke now.
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Murray's draw was a joke? Are you in bloody sane?
Brian11785
Hall of Fame
Myopic. Of course, the way that the OP frames the accomplishment makes it look more impressive. That's fine. These kinds of threads are started all the time.
But then to shoot down (using misogynistic and overly caps-locked language along the way) everyone who responds to him? What's the point of even starting the thread, unless you want discussion/debate? Are you expecting us all to just respond with choruses of "Here! Here!" "Good job, OP!" "You da man!" "Greatest Thread of All-Time!"
Not going to happen.
Congrats Andy, though!
But then to shoot down (using misogynistic and overly caps-locked language along the way) everyone who responds to him? What's the point of even starting the thread, unless you want discussion/debate? Are you expecting us all to just respond with choruses of "Here! Here!" "Good job, OP!" "You da man!" "Greatest Thread of All-Time!"
Not going to happen.
Congrats Andy, though!
Clarky21
Banned
This is exactly what the OP was expecting,and when he didn't get the response he desired,he threw his toys out of the pram.
Similar threads
