What Murray has achieved is nearly incalculable

D

Danny_G13

Rookie
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.

Britain has never produced especially good tennis players, especially males. Murray has risen in a drought of tennis quality, made 4 slam finals against machines, then won Olympic gold against one of them before beating another to win a grand slam.

I don't really feel like the media have truly given Murray the full credit he deserves. They've certainly applauded his achievement courteously, but this double on his part honestly in this country deserves wild celebrations.

He's done something quite, quite incredible.

Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?
 
Matheson

Matheson

Semi-Pro
Nope, Murray has been lauded quite enough for his single slam win against an absent Nadal and tired Djokovic.
 
G

gmatheis

Hall of Fame
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Matheson said:
Nope, Murray has been lauded quite enough for his single slam win against an absent Nadal and tired Djokovic.
Click to expand...

Lol...how did his win against an absent Nadal go? Did he just hit balls against a cardboard cut-out of Rafa or something? :)

As for tired Djokovic. Well, I guess HE must have got lucky when he beat a tired Murray in the AO sem-final in January? :cool:
 
Zarfot Z

Zarfot Z

Professional
Er, no.

Federer's Wimbledon win should be lauded more.

He is 6-7 years older than his rivals, well past his prime yet manages to land a major and become #1.

On the other hand, Murray is in his prime and only had to go through Djokovic to win the US Open.
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Danny_G13 said:
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.
Click to expand...

I would. If you call bs on all that 'weak-era' nonsense (as I do), it stands to reason you would also call it on the 'strong-era' nonsense, as they are one and the same, only reversed. ;)

Oh, and what Murray has done is easily 'calculable'--he's won one of the four grand slam tournaments in any given year, more specifically the fourth one, ie the US Open--which, considering the recent (and not-so-recent) tennis history of his country, is quite a feat. Overhyping it seems to run rampant in a few posts, though... :)
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Zarfot Z said:
Er, no.

Federer's Wimbledon win should be lauded more.

He is 6-7 years older than his rivals, well past his prime yet manages to land a major and become #1.

On the other hand, Murray is in his prime and only had to go through Djokovic to win the US Open.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. In a sense, you're perfectly right. What a 31-year old Federer did at Wimbledon was admitedly harder than what a 25-year old Murray did at the US Open. But considering the pressure and the mental hurdles Murray had to overcome to win his first GS tournament (and he did his level best to lose it each time he was in a position to win in the first two sets, so it was anything but easy), his win is nothing to scoff at, quite the contrary. ;)
 
Zarfot Z

Zarfot Z

Professional
merlinpinpin said:
Yes and no. In a sense, you're perfectly right. What a 31-year old Federer did at Wimbledon was admitedly harder than what a 25-year old Murray did at the US Open. But considering the pressure and the mental hurdles Murray had to overcome to win his first GS tournament (and he did his level best to lose it each time he was in a position to win in the first two sets, so it was anything but easy), his win is nothing to scoff at, quite the contrary. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not underrating Murray's achievement. To win a Grand Slam is definitely deserving of applause. But the point that OP makes, that Murray isn't getting lauded enough I find completely ridiculous. I live in Australia, and Murray is all over the news. Heck, the BBC would probably replay the USO final for the next few weeks.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
gmatheis said:
#1 Nadal was not even there
Click to expand...

So what? Murray has beaten Nadal at the USO before.

gmatheis said:
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
Click to expand...

Well, silly old Fed and Berdych. By the way, Murray played sub-par against half of HIS opponents, probably including Djokovic, but HE managed to come through. Why couldn't they?

gmatheis said:
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won
Click to expand...

Oh the wind factor again. Like it only affected Murray's opponents and not him!

gmatheis said:
In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That's why he almost went out against Lopez and Cilic and could have lost to Berdych, wind or no wind. Yep, everything just fell into his lap, didn't it?

gmatheis said:
He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.
Click to expand...

Only time will tell with that one.

gmatheis said:
He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.
Click to expand...

So I guess both Nadal and Djokovic are also lucky to be 5 and 6 years younger than Fed?

gmatheis said:
But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.
Click to expand...

The OP was over the top in his comments. But that's still no excuse for putting down Murray's achievement with these kind of clicheed,tired and ultimately invalid arguments.
 
tennisMVP

tennisMVP

Banned
Imagine if Murray had won Wimbledon to go along with Gold and US Open. He would have done a Serena Williams. And Murray was fairly close to being 2 sets to 0 up over Federer in that Wimbledon final. Although I wouldn't be sure of Murray winning the match even if he had won that 2nd set.
 
Seventeen

Seventeen

Rookie
gmatheis said:
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truthacity.
 
tennisMVP

tennisMVP

Banned
It was a calm day/night at the Australian Open, and Murray took Djokovic to 7-5 in the fifth set. The wind isn't the main factor in a match between Djokovic and Murray. Murray has had some awful performances in the wind by the way (including a 6-1 6-2 loss at Indian Wells vs Nadal).
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Danny_G13 said:
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.
I think you might be surprised on this count.

Britain has never produced especially good tennis players, especially males. Murray has risen in a drought of tennis quality, made 4 slam finals against machines, then won Olympic gold against one of them before beating another to win a grand slam.
He won a final against a 31 year old man who'd played a 4+ hour marathon vs an inspired Del Potro. The conditions under which the USO final was played are unprecedented and clearly (to some) cast a shadow of doubt over the actual progress in Murray's game that has allowed him to break his duck.

I don't really feel like the media have truly given Murray the full credit he deserves. They've certainly applauded his achievement courteously, but this double on his part honestly in this country deserves wild celebrations.
I think the media have gone well over board, you only have to look at Mats Wilander and Pat Cash predicting him to dominate men's tennis.

He's done something quite, quite incredible.
No argument from me here. :)

Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?
This whole thread is so over the top it's nearly incalulable to use your own words
Click to expand...

Pretty much.
 
Last edited:
D

Danny_G13

Rookie
It does seem that opinions around here, when others disagree with them, are rather chided.

There's a real lack of respect around on this forum.

Why?
 
M

Magnetite

Professional
It's definitely a good excuse for wild celebrations.

In fact, most intelligent people find any excuse possible to wildly celebrate.

I'm not a big Murray fan, but if someone is throwing a wild celebration, count me in.
 
OTMPut

OTMPut

Hall of Fame
I am not a big fan of Murray. However win is a win. You still have to get to the finals and take 3 sets off a #2 player. He nearly lost it and in the end he seemed to have overcome his familiar demons.

Good for him.
 
Sentinel

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
gmatheis said:
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.
Click to expand...

1. Like Nadal mattered. What if he had gone out in round 2 to some Rosol ? If Murray won WO, would we have still said he didn't face Nadal ?

2. That often happens. Even Nadal played a subpar Berdych who had beaten Fred (IIRC).

Tsonga beat Fed two years back and then played "subpar". So what ? These things happen.

3. The wind favoring - subjective. And even then we don't really know if Murray would have lost without the wind. It's hypothetical.

All your points are things that generally happen. Sorry but your congratulations in the end have no value after totally discrediting his win.

Going by the above, Murray should wish he had just lost again. He's getting it worse by winning than losing, lol. :rolleyes:
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
Its started, indeeds started it has. The OP is jus a more articulate version of a troll in my eyes.

If you think winning your first major against a reigning Grand-slam Champion is easy, how about asking the guy who did so himself, only half an hour after the event...???....

"I don't mean to mean disrespectful to any other players, but you know when Federer won his first slam , it was against Philiposous who never one won, Rafa against Courtia who had never won one and Novak against Tsonga, you know and when I had played in the slam finals, it was against Roger who is the greatest player ever and against Novak."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQCq...ailpage#t=100s

Now, we all know Andy Murray, he is not insincere or dishonest about how he is feeling, ever, unlike (And I'm sorry to bring this up, its not through hate) but unlike Nadal, who very much plays it candid in interviews. Murray says exactly what he is thinking/feeling. Never will he compromise or make statements simply made to "sound good". I also have no doubt in my mind that Murray has more credibility when talking about how "hard" and "difficult" the route to Olympic Gold and US Open double glory is, than lets say, you.

So keep dissecting his draw's in both competitions and talking about how a bloke that never sweats, relies on amazing fitness or suffers serious injuries was fatigued. Keep doing this for the next few months and if Murray loses in the Semi or Final of the Australian Open, you can do it again until Wimbledon. (And again, and again) .. because that's what you trolls specialise in.
 
Last edited:
The-Champ

The-Champ

Legend
Matheson said:
Nope, Murray has been lauded quite enough for his single slam win against an absent Nadal and tired Djokovic.
Click to expand...

BS. Even if Nadal was there, he probably would have lost to Murray. Andy is a better HC player. Djokovic has spent less time on court than Murray. Murray was tired, not Djokovic.
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
The-Champ said:
BS. Even if Nadal was there, he probably would have lost to Murray. Andy is a better HC player. Djokovic has spent less time on court than Murray. Murray was tired, not Djokovic.
Click to expand...

This X the amount of slams the top 4 have put together with nought's on the end of it.
 
The-Champ

The-Champ

Legend
Zarfot Z said:
Er, no.

Federer's Wimbledon win should be lauded more.

He is 6-7 years older than his rivals, well past his prime yet manages to land a major and become #1.

On the other hand, Murray is in his prime and only had to go through Djokovic to win the US Open.
Click to expand...

And Rafa's final opponent on his first major was the legendary Puerta, and federer had the inconsistent Philippousis.
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
gmatheis said:
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.
Click to expand...

You are too much of a casual follower of tennis to ever understand entirely what Murray has achieved, despite your final statement.
 
tacou

tacou

G.O.A.T.
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.

Murray worked through his draw, handled extremely difficult conditions in the SF and battled elements, a near mental collapse of epic proportions, and the best hard court player in tennis/defending USO champion to finally win a slam.

There are no asteriks for this win. In fact, Murray was close to elimination in the QF. Down a set and 5-1 just a few hours before Roger was eliminated, this tournament was very nearly Novak's for the taking.
 
tennisMVP

tennisMVP

Banned
tacou said:
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.

Murray worked through his draw, handled extremely difficult conditions in the SF and battled elements, a near mental collapse of epic proportions, and the best hard court player in tennis/defending USO champion to finally win a slam.

There are no asteriks for this win. In fact, Murray was close to elimination in the QF. Down a set and 5-1 just a few hours before Roger was eliminated, this tournament was very nearly Novak's for the taking.
Click to expand...

Nadal was embarrassed? 6-4 in the 5th set, vs a player who hit the ball harder than anyone who's ever played Nadal. That's a good loss in my book. It shows it took something special to beat Nadal. And even then, it was a very narrow loss. If Murray played like Rosol, he might have beaten Nadal too in the past at Wimbledon.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
tacou said:
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.

Murray worked through his draw, handled extremely difficult conditions in the SF and battled elements, a near mental collapse of epic proportions, and the best hard court player in tennis/defending USO champion to finally win a slam.

There are no asteriks for this win. In fact, Murray was close to elimination in the QF. Down a set and 5-1 just a few hours before Roger was eliminated, this tournament was very nearly Novak's for the taking.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. Great post and absolutely spot on! :cool:
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
tacou said:
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.

Murray worked through his draw, handled extremely difficult conditions in the SF and battled elements, a near mental collapse of epic proportions, and the best hard court player in tennis/defending USO champion to finally win a slam.

There are no asteriks for this win. In fact, Murray was close to elimination in the QF. Down a set and 5-1 just a few hours before Roger was eliminated, this tournament was very nearly Novak's for the taking.
Click to expand...

Who is the 1 time slam finalist?
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
tennisMVP said:
Nadal was embarrassed? 6-4 in the 5th set, vs a player who hit the ball harder than anyone who's ever played Nadal. That's a good loss in my book. It shows it took something special to beat Nadal. And even then, it was a very narrow loss. If Murray played like Rosol, he might have beaten Nadal too in the past at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

I love how you have to put cherries on the top of everything you say mate. "harder than anyone who's ever played Nadal?" You can't be much of a Nadal fanatic. Tsonga, Australian Open Semi Finals. Soderling, French Open 3rd or 4th Round? Okay then.
 
tennisMVP

tennisMVP

Banned
Tennis_Maestro said:
I love how you have to put cherries on the top of everything you say mate. "harder than anyone who's ever played Nadal?" You can't be much of a Nadal fanatic. Tsonga, Australian Open Semi Finals. Soderling, French Open 3rd or 4th Round? Okay then.
Click to expand...

I saw all those matches. And Rosol has them beat, no doubt about it. Ask anyone else who saw the Rosol-Nadal match. Rosol was in the zone and going for broke, more than anyone I've ever seen on a tennis court. He also had the right surface.
 
D

Danny_G13

Rookie
Tennis_Maestro said:
Its started, indeeds started it has. The OP is jus a more articulate version of a troll in my eyes.
Click to expand...

A troll posts something incendiary specifically to get a reaction and to cause pain.

Hardly my intention at all - it was just a valid observation of how the press has portrayed his victory.

But I am glad you view me as an 'articulate troll' - I try to make sure I attract a novel insult daily. Good for the glands.

That said, the rest of your post appears to be agreeing with me, or is really strangely composed.

So, if that's the case, I'm confused as to the troll moniker.
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
gmatheis said:
#1 Nadal was not even there
#2 Federer was beat by Berdych who then played sub par against Murray
#3 The wind obviously favored Murray in the finals, had it been a nice calm day I seriously doubt he would have won

In the grand scheme of things, the events unfolded very much in Murray's favor to help him win this.

He's a good player but more on par with Roddick, not in play style or anything but in the sense that he might win a major or two and even hold the #1 ranking for a short time but he will never be the dominant player of his era.

He's lucky he's 6 years younger than Fed as well or he may not have been able to get any.

But I still congratulate Murray for getting a major title and a gold medal. Something 99% of tennis players will never get.
Click to expand...

This is the person my post was aimed @. Apologies to the opening post.

Tennis_Maestro said:
Its started, indeeds started it has. This dude is jus a more articulate version of a troll in my eyes.

If you think winning your first major against a reigning Grand-slam Champion is easy, how about asking the guy who did so himself, only half an hour after the event...???....

"I don't mean to mean disrespectful to any other players, but you know when Federer won his first slam , it was against Philiposous who never one won, Rafa against Courtia who had never won one and Novak against Tsonga, you know and when I had played in the slam finals, it was against Roger who is the greatest player ever and against Novak."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQCq...ailpage#t=100s

Now, we all know Andy Murray, he is not insincere or dishonest about how he is feeling, ever, unlike (And I'm sorry to bring this up, its not through hate) but unlike Nadal, who very much plays it candid in interviews. Murray says exactly what he is thinking/feeling. Never will he compromise or make statements simply made to "sound good". I also have no doubt in my mind that Murray has more credibility when talking about how "hard" and "difficult" the route to Olympic Gold and US Open double glory is, than lets say, you.

So keep dissecting his draw's in both competitions and talking about how a bloke that never sweats, relies on amazing fitness or suffers serious injuries was fatigued. Keep doing this for the next few months and if Murray loses in the Semi or Final of the Australian Open, you can do it again until Wimbledon. (And again, and again) .. because that's what you trolls specialise in.
Click to expand...
 
syc23

syc23

Professional
We'll just have to wait and see when Murray beats either Fed/Djokovic/Rafa back-to-back to win his next slam to shut all the haters up. Until then, Murray is the 2012 USO champion and no of you haters can change it ;)

Vamos.
 
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
tacou said:
some people's interpretation of competition is so strange. Nadal (whom I love) was embarrassed by ROSOL at Wimbledon and hasn't played tennis since. Federer (whose having an unbelievably good year not simply for his age, but for his spectacular pedigree) got annihilated by a mentally weak, 1-time slam finalist.
Click to expand...

You know what it is, it's posters being pedantic about the "name". Too-many people on this board are obsessed with the name, if its not a big name that the tennis globe are immediately aware of, it doesn't count. It wouldn't matter a jot if Monaco came out and played tennis to the standard of a Djokovic and knocked Del Potro out in a Grand-slam, people would undermine Del Potro and start writing him off.
 
Last edited:
Tennis_Maestro

Tennis_Maestro

Banned
syc23 said:
We'll just have to wait and see when Murray beats either Fed/Djokovic/Rafa back-to-back to win his next slam to shut all the haters up. Until then, Murray is the 2012 USO champion and no of you haters can change it ;)

Vamos.
Click to expand...

No, we won't, he's beaten Rafa in slams on hard-courts in the past and regularly beats him in Masters Series. Djokovic he jus beat and he beat the bloke that beat Federer. End of discussion. Or else we can start igniting the debate about how Federer had it easy to win the French Open. Making him lucky to carry all 4 Grand-slams.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
syc23 said:
We'll just have to wait and see when Murray beats either Fed/Djokovic/Rafa back-to-back to win his next slam to shut all the haters up. Until then, Murray is the 2012 USO champion and no of you haters can change it ;)

Vamos.
Click to expand...

Lol....don't you believe it. Even if Murray were to take out Fed/ Djok/ Rafa back to back to win all 4 Slams in one calendar year, many on here would say he just got lucky because:

a) He had an easy draw.
b) Nadal was injured.
c) Federer was sub-par.
d) Djokovic was too tired.
e) It was just too windy for any of his opponents since, as we all know, Murray is the only player that can handle windy conditions.

:)
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Danny_G13 said:
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.

Britain has never produced especially good tennis players, especially males. Murray has risen in a drought of tennis quality, made 4 slam finals against machines, then won Olympic gold against one of them before beating another to win a grand slam.

I don't really feel like the media have truly given Murray the full credit he deserves. They've certainly applauded his achievement courteously, but this double on his part honestly in this country deserves wild celebrations.

He's done something quite, quite incredible.

Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?
Click to expand...

I don't think Britain not having champions for a long time is directly related to this. Probabilities don't work that simply, and Britain is not some place with no tennis infrastructure. It is not like a child succeeding in spite of poverty. The real reason for his win is that his window opened with Nadal's injury and Fed's aging.
 
Legend of Borg

Legend of Borg

G.O.A.T.
Danny_G13 said:
I don't think there's a poster on here who'd disagree this is the strongest era in the history of mens' tennis.

Britain has never produced especially good tennis players, especially males. Murray has risen in a drought of tennis quality, made 4 slam finals against machines, then won Olympic gold against one of them before beating another to win a grand slam.

I don't really feel like the media have truly given Murray the full credit he deserves. They've certainly applauded his achievement courteously, but this double on his part honestly in this country deserves wild celebrations.

He's done something quite, quite incredible.

Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?
Click to expand...

Over the top for sure.

Reality will hit you in the next 6 months.
 
J

JMR

Hall of Fame
Danny_G13 said:
Am I being over the top here or has he perhaps not been lauded as much as he should have?
Click to expand...

Yes, you're being over the top. Winning a slam is not an "incalculable" achievement; it's winning a slam. It's happened many times in the past and will happen many time in the future. Great, but not rare.

Any player who wins the U.S. Open deserves a lot of credit. But he does not deserve extra credit simply because other players around him have won more slams than he has. Why isn't he the one who's won more slams?
 
Fedex

Fedex

Legend
JMR said:
Yes, you're being over the top. Winning a slam is not an "incalculable" achievement; it's winning a slam. It's happened many times in the past and will happen many time in the future. Great, but not rare.

Any player who wins the U.S. Open deserves a lot of credit. But he does not deserve extra credit simply because other players around him have won more slams than he has. Why isn't he the one who's won more slams?
Click to expand...

A British player winning a slam is a very big deal.
And the manner in which he won it having lost 4 finals, being aware of countless morons saying he will never win one or when will he win one, and then to lose the Wimbledon final and follow it up by straight setting Djokovic and Federer to win Olympic Gold then follow that up by fighting his way through a very tough draw with some tough matches and on top of that have to overcome Djokovic in a grueling 5 sets, to me that is a quite remarkable achievement.
To do all that, with that pressure and competition and previous bad fortune, and at the end of it all lies the first British player in 76 years to win a slam.
The effect on British sport and tennis could actually be almost incalculable.
Maybe not for a pile of bitter ***** who can't hack it but for normal people, it is quite fathomable.
 
J

JMR

Hall of Fame
Fedex said:
A British player winning a slam is a very big deal.
Click to expand...
Primarily to the British. To the rest of the world, that fact is just an attractive historic sidebar (i.e., more than a footnote, but not the lead story) to the U.S. Open result. Many other recent slams have had historic features as well: Federer's record-tying seventh Wimbledon; Nadal's record-breaking seventh French Open (and denial of Djokovic's attempt at a NCYGS). As a general tennis fan, I certainly wouldn't say that the end of British slam futility is a more significant story than these all-time records. If it is to the British, of course that's fine.

And the manner in which he won it having lost 4 finals
Click to expand...

Lendl lost his first four finals. Stolle lost his first five finals. Agassi lost his first three finals. Clijsters lost her first four finals. All were denigrated and abused for their failures.

Murray's finally coming through was great, for both himself and his country, but not unprecedented, nor "incalculable."

Maybe not for a pile of bitter ***** who can't hack it but for normal people, it is quite fathomable.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem. Surely you can do better than that.
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
JMR said:
Primarily to the British. To the rest of the world, that fact is just an attractive historic sidebar (i.e., more than a footnote, but not the lead story) to the U.S. Open result. Many other recent slams have had historic features as well: Federer's record-tying seventh Wimbledon; Nadal's record-breaking seventh French Open (and denial of Djokovic's attempt at a NCYGS). As a general tennis fan, I certainly wouldn't say that the end of British slam futility is a more significant story than these all-time records. If it is to the British, of course that's fine.



Lendl lost his first four finals. Stolle lost his first five finals. Agassi lost his first three finals. Clijsters lost her first four finals. All were denigrated and abused for their failures.

Murray's finally coming through was great, for both himself and his country, but not unprecedented, nor "incalculable."



Ad hominem. Surely you can do better than that.
Click to expand...

Fedex can be 'over the top' (to keep in line with the spirit of the OP's first post) but he is at heart a good guy. At least so it seems. Some people feel so strongly about something they cannot see the obvious, it's almost like love. ;)
 
Fedex

Fedex

Legend
Thing is people keep trying to compare Murray to Federer and Nadal and say he's nothing compared to them so his slam is no big deal.
Players of that calibre are way out and we don't expect Murray to ever get near that success.
We and I'm sure he is more than happy with the one and that one is massive for Britain especially the way he achieved it.
If Murray ever attains more well that's a bonus.
We don't expect him to have the success of Federer or Nadal or even Djokovic.
And Russell yes I am a good guy but some of the *****, yes ***** JMR (not referring to yourselves) sometimes drive me round the twist with their blinkered views. It's a forum with people I don't know so why?
And I've been one of Murray's biggest critics over the years and always strived to see things with an objective eye so my 'love' is not blind.
 
M

monfed

Guest
I agree. It's nearly incalculable how past-his-prime Federer aka ******* is #1 in the strongest era of men's tennis. Truly remarkable. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Has a slam ever been more deserved than this?
Replies
45
Views
4K
ktid
K
Mainad
Is Lendl bad for Murray?
2
Replies
83
Views
10K
Monsieur_DeLarge
Monsieur_DeLarge
comegetsome
  • Poll
Andy Murray is Genius
2
Replies
88
Views
17K
jaggy
jaggy
M
What is up with Federer and Murray?
Replies
46
Views
3K
cknobman
cknobman
T
Murray comes of age
Replies
25
Views
3K
Torres
T
Top