Murray - I can win Roland Garros

Antonio Puente · Feb 5, 2013

If Rafa is Rafa, he's not winning it, but if he is slow on the comeback, Murray possibly can. From 2009-2011, Murray's results at the FO were better than at the USO, yet going into the 2012 USO he was considered a favorite while it is said he has no chance at the FO. Questionable logic at times. If you are making quarters and semis, you certainly have a chance to win it. Murray's performance at the FO to date is similar to Rafa's at the USO before he broke through and won it and made a F.

veroniquem · Feb 5, 2013

The Bawss said:
Raonic doesn't stand a chance. .

Why not? If Raonic beats Murray in Barcelona, he could beat him in RG as well.

Goosehead · Feb 5, 2013

go on ANDYYYYYYYY

DREAM IT..DREAM THE DREAM OF DREAMS....

........DREAM THE UNDREAMABLE DREEEEAM.

Hawkeye7 · Feb 5, 2013

We shall wait and see.

Would be pretty funny, for sure.

NadalAgassi · Feb 5, 2013

The Bawss said:
Almagro can win sets on clay vs Nadal and push Nadal to TBs at RG of all places.

What is your point. Nobody is questioning Almagro probably has the ability tennis wise to beat Murray on clay, Almagro's best surface and Murray's worst. What we are all saying is he would never have the balls to close the match out if he got in position to, and you know that too. Against Nadal he never got that close, but if he had no way he would have done so either. Proof of that is the one time ever he did have Nadal in that position, in late 2009 indoors when Nadal was in his worst slump ever and playing indoors on his worst courts, and Almagro blew a bunch of match points and lost.

Del Potro is a good clay player and I feel his clay game is maturing as evidenced by pushing Roger to 5 on two occasions at RG.

Del Potro in his comeback is the same story vs a top player. He either loses easily, or quite often he plays well for a set and half, then tires out and fades to defeat quietly. Exactly what happened vs Roger at RG last year. Djokovic and Murray are also the worst matchups on tour for Del Potro, much worse than Federer and Nadal.

Gasquet is: a) about to break through and b) capable of doing the following to Murray at RG:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGWkwaMWaDk

Murray has only gotten increasingly dominant vs Gasquet as the years go on. Their last 2 slam meetings were easy wins for Murray. Murray is 4-0 vs Gasquet in slams, 2-0 at RG (a relatively easy 4 set win last year), and Gasquet is lucky they havent met in a hard court slam where Murray would spank Gasquet silly, as opposed to Murray's worst surface (clay) and Gasquet's best (grass) where he can atleast be respectable.

rainingaces · Feb 5, 2013

No more threads batz. I can only block your posts, spare me your bs please. Murray has a 0.001% chance.

tennisdad65 · Feb 5, 2013

Fitness, patience, and mental strength is important for clay. He always had patience. His fitness is on par with Novak. Lendl will have him mentally ready.

I would rate the favorites for the French as:
1. you know who
2-3. Murray/Novak about the same
4. Fed

I think Murray is one bad knee (Nadal's) away from winning the French.

President · Feb 5, 2013

It's possible, Murray has very solid groundstrokes and great fitness. His footwork on clay can get a little spotty but when he's in good form he is definitely a top player on the surface.

raging · Feb 5, 2013

batz said:
I'm sure it's something that is under consideration - I think you're right.

Most certainly, if he is looking at staying on the clay in April, it won't just be practicing.

Antonio Puente · Feb 5, 2013

rainingaces said:
No more threads batz. I can only block your posts, spare me your bs please. Murray has a 0.001% chance.

You can manually block it by not clicking on it. Please do that so we're not forced to read a pointless response.

DropShotArtist · Feb 5, 2013

LOL, Murray wouldn't even be able to beat a PED free Nadal at FO.

Goosehead · Feb 5, 2013

I say folks..

wouldnt a RG final of Del Potro v Murray be a good laugh

Hawkeye7 · Feb 5, 2013

raging said:
Most certainly, if he is looking at staying on the clay in April, it won't just be practicing.

He will most likely play MC, Barcelona (not confirmed), Madrid and Rome.

*Sparkle* · Feb 5, 2013

Goosehead said:
I say folks..

wouldnt a RG final of Del Potro v Murray be a good laugh

Reading this board would be hilarious!

This is a direct quote from Murray in today's Telegraph

“I am not going in as the favourite – my results don’t justify that. But I have a chance. Stranger things have happened in tennis than a player in the top four or five winning the French Open. I might as well give myself a shot at it.”

It's a disappointingly sensible point of view.

Prisoner of Birth · Feb 5, 2013

He had better start believing it. Because from what I've seen, he can do anything as well as Djokovic right now.

Anaconda · Feb 5, 2013

Prisoner of Birth said:
he can do anything as well as Djokovic right now.

That's quite an insult to the guy who's dominated the last 2 years.

kishnabe · Feb 5, 2013

Murray winning RG would be an abomination. Better give it to McEnroe if that happens....he is a better clay courter than Murray.

Prisoner of Birth · Feb 5, 2013

Anaconda said:
That's quite an insult to the guy who's dominated the last 2 years.

I said "right now". Do you guys even read the posts you're responding to?

And sorry, Djokovic has in no way, shape or form dominated 2012. Not at all.

Hawkeye7 · Feb 5, 2013

Anaconda said:
That's quite an insult to the guy who's dominated the last 2 years.

Winning one slam in 2012 wasn't domination. And there is a difference between right now and the last 24 months.

But Djokovic is still clearly the better player on Clay.

veroniquem · Feb 5, 2013

Prisoner of Birth said:
And sorry, Djokovic has in no way, shape or form dominated 2012. Not at all.

Really? He's dominated the slams (3 finals), dominated the masters (3 titles, tied with Fed), won WTF and ended the year #1. There is a difference between being less dominant than 2011 and not being dominant at all. By any standard, Djokovic was the overall dominant male player on the tour in 2012.

Prisoner of Birth · Feb 5, 2013

veroniquem said:
Really? He's dominated the slams (3 finals), dominated the masters (3 titles, tied with Fed), won WTF and ended the year #1. There is a difference between being less dominant than 2011 and not being dominant at all. by any standard, Djokovic was the overall dominant male player on the tour in 2012.

You don't seem to know what "dominate" means. Winning 1 Slam out of 4 isn't being dominant. He hasn't even won the most Masters series. Sure, he was the best player of 2012, but dominant he was not. Dominance is McEnroe in 1984, Federer in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, Nadal in 2008, 2010, and yes, Djokovic in 2011. Not Djokovic in 2012.

Prisoner of Birth · Feb 5, 2013

veroniquem said:
Really? He's dominated the slams (3 finals), dominated the masters (3 titles, tied with Fed), won WTF and ended the year #1. There is a difference between being less dominant than 2011 and not being dominant at all. By any standard, Djokovic was the overall dominant male player on the tour in 2012.

Has Federer "dominated the Slams" in 2008? He had exactly the same performances as Djokovic in 2012. 1 Win, 2 Finals, and 1 Semifinal.

Anaconda · Feb 5, 2013

Prisoner of Birth said:
I said "right now". Do you guys even read the posts you're responding to?

And sorry, Djokovic has in no way, shape or form dominated 2012. Not at all.

Then why did Djokovic win the AO and Murray didn't? Oh yeah...because Djokovic was the better player.

Is this a joke? You call me out for not reading yet can't even acknowledge the fact I said 2 years? Since when does 2012 equate to being 2 years? As far as I'm concerned 2011 and 2012 (along with AO 13) has been pretty much about Djokovic

Hawkeye7 said:
Winning one slam in 2012 wasn't domination. And there is a difference between right now and the last 24 months.

But Djokovic is still clearly the better player on Clay.

I said two years not 1 year. Are people having a hard time understanding what two years actually is? 5 slams from the last 9 is domination seeing when the next best winner only has 2 French Open titles. It's obvious this next couple of years will be about Djokovic. Murray is very good but not in Djokovic's league.

Prisoner of Birth · Feb 5, 2013

Anaconda said:
Then why did Djokovic win the AO and Murray didn't? Oh yeah...because Djokovic was the better player.

Is this a joke? You call me out for not reading yet can't even acknowledge the fact I said 2 years? Since when does 2012 equate to being 2 years? As far as I'm concerned 2011 and 2012 (along with AO 13) has been pretty much about Djokovic

I said two years not 1 year. Are people having a hard time understanding what two years actually is? 5 slams from the last 9 is domination seeing when the next best winner only has 2 French Open titles. It's obvious this next couple of years will be about Djokovic. Murray is very good but not in Djokovic's league.

I said Murray could do anything as well as Djokovic. I never said he is doing them. Go back to school, child.

And by your silly logic, Federer has dominated the past 10000000 years. Because noone has had the success he's had in Tennis. Right? :lol:

If those number are too big for you, I'll play smaller. Federer has dominated the past 10 years. He has won 17 of the last 39 Slams. The next closest has won just 11. Djokovic is not even in discussions with a mere 6 :lol: What a joke! It's obvious the next 10 years will be about Federer. See how stupid that sounds? Yes, that's what you sound like.

jaggy · Feb 5, 2013

He has a shot but my moneys not on it

veroniquem · Feb 5, 2013

Prisoner of Birth said:
You don't seem to know what "dominate" means. Winning 1 Slam out of 4 isn't being dominant. He hasn't even won the most Masters series. Sure, he was the best player of 2012, but dominant he was not. Dominance is McEnroe in 1984, Federer in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, Nadal in 2008, 2010, and yes, Djokovic in 2011. Not Djokovic in 2012.

Dominant is relative to what other players do. 3 slam finals is not the most dominant one can do (of course) but it is dominant compared to what the other top players did in 2012: 2 finals for Murray and Nadal, 1 for Fed. Of course he won the most masters in 2012. You know any player who won more than 3 masters that year? I'm curious to hear about it. So he had the best perf in slams, best perf in masters (as many titles as Fed but twice as many finals), and best perf at WTF + # 1 ranking. That's not dominant? Yes it is my friend. FYI, there have been years when the #1 didn't have best perf in either masters or slams. 2012 is not one of them.

veroniquem · Feb 5, 2013

Prisoner of Birth said:
Has Federer "dominated the Slams" in 2008? He had exactly the same performances as Djokovic in 2012. 1 Win, 2 Finals, and 1 Semifinal.

Of course Fed didn't dominate the slams in 2008 because in 2008 Nadal won 2 slams. Dominating means outperforming other players over a season. Nadal dit that in 2008. In 2012, nobody did better than 1 title + 2 finals in slams. Nobody did as well either. Everybody did less well. Which is why Djokovic dominated the slams in 2012. Capice?

Prisoner of Birth · Feb 5, 2013

veroniquem said:
Dominant is relative to what other players do. 3 slam finals is not the most dominant one can do (of course) but it is dominant compared to what the other top players did in 2012: 2 finals for Murray and Nadal, 1 for Fed. Of course he won the most masters in 2012. You know any player who won more than 3 masters that year? I'm curious to hear about it. So he had the best perf in slams, best perf in masters (as many titles as Fed but twice as many finals), and best perf at WTF + # 1 ranking. That's not dominant? Yes it is my friend. FYI, there have been years when the #1 didn't have best perf in either masters or slams. 2012 is not one of them.

Djokovic is tied with Federer for Masters titles. The WTF isn't a Masters title. It's something more. You of all people, as a Nadal fan, should know that. That's not to say Djokovic wasn't the best player of 2012. He was, by some distance.

If being tied for most Slams, most Masters, and losing your #1 ranking to a 31 year-old is dominance for you, great!

Prisoner of Birth · Feb 5, 2013

veroniquem said:
Of course Fed didn't dominate the slams in 2008 because in 2008 Nadal won 2 slams. Dominating means outperforming other players over a season. Nadal dit that in 2008. In 2012, nobody did better than 1 title + 2 finals in slams. Nobody did as well either. Everybody did less well. Which is why Djokovic dominated the slams in 2012. Capice?

No capice. If being the best player of the year is being "dominant", you and I have very different definitions for the word, my friend. Losing your #1 ranking to a 31 year-old ******* isn't dominance. And you know it.

Hawkeye7 · Feb 5, 2013

veroniquem said:
Of course Fed didn't dominate the slams in 2008 because in 2008 Nadal won 2 slams. Dominating means outperforming other players over a season. Nadal dit that in 2008. In 2012, nobody did better than 1 title + 2 finals in slams. Nobody did as well either. Everybody did less well. Which is why Djokovic dominated the slams in 2012. Capice?

You have a weird definition of domination. Domination is at least winning half of the big titles on offer or better. Djokovic was the best player in 2012, but he wasn't dominating anything, just like Hewitt wasn't dominating 2001 or 2002.

Prisoner of Birth · Feb 5, 2013

Hawkeye7 said:
You have a weird definition of domination. Domination for me is at least winning half of the big titles on offer or better. Djokovic was the best player in 2012, but he wasn't dominating anything, just like Hewitt wasn't dominating 2001 or 2002.

Yes, that's my definition too. You win 2 Slams, you're dominant as long as you have reasonable success at the Masters/WTF. You win 3, you're dominant by default. You win 1, you're not dominant unless you pretty much win half of the other big tournaments.

Speranza · Feb 5, 2013

With his improved fitness and forehand over the last 12 months, and judging by the promise he showed playing Ralph last year on clay, I think he has a good a chance as any of the top 4.

Plus his improved mental attitude, I'd give him a good shot at it.

ellipticality_224 · Feb 5, 2013

Well, its not like he could have won with an attitude of "I can never win the french." you have to have a go-lucky attitude about it. Murray has a better chance at all the other slams, and this slam is probably the last one he will win, after Rafa burns out, fed retires and Nole is injured. But I like his attitude about it.

always_crosscourt · Feb 5, 2013

Aren't all of the top 10 (and some outside it) bigger favorites for RG than Murray?

Lavs · Feb 5, 2013

LOL.
Andy, half of the Spaniards & Argentinians from top 40 will destroy you on clay

oy vey · Feb 5, 2013

What a proclamation. Oy, Lord.

THE FIGHTER · Feb 5, 2013

nothing is impossible. except for murray winning RG

Mainad · Feb 5, 2013

That's fighting talk indeed from a guy who has never won a clay tournament or even made it to a clay final!

But stranger things have happened and there's no point going into anything with an "I can't possibly win this" attitude!

I admire his positive outlook. That's exactly what he needs to have.

THE FIGHTER · Feb 5, 2013

Mainad said:
That's fighting talk indeed from a guy who has never won a clay tournament or even made it to a clay final!

But stranger things have happened and there's no point going into anything with an "I can't possibly win this" attitude!

I admire his positive outlook. That's exactly what he needs to have.

hopefully he doesnt cry this time when he loses after believing he could win.

Sid_Vicious · Feb 5, 2013

Lavs said:
LOL.
Andy, half of the Spaniards & Argentinians from top 40 will destroy you on clay

Not a very strong claim. There are 2 Argentinians in the top 40 and 5 Spaniards in the top 40. And aside from Nadal, not a single one of those Spanish or Argentinian players can truly "destroy" Murray.

THE FIGHTER · Feb 5, 2013

Sid_Vicious said:
Not a very strong claim. There are 2 Argentinians in the top 40 and 5 Spaniards in the top 40. And aside from Nadal, not a single one of those Spanish or Argentinian players can truly "destroy" Murray.

he was talking about the other half. nadal, ferrer and del potro.

RF20Lennon · Feb 5, 2013

I mean he obviously cant go with the attitude "There is no way in hell i can dream of winning" so its good but let his racket do the talking

Mainad · Feb 5, 2013

THE FIGHTER said:
hopefully he doesnt cry this time when he loses after believing he could win.

Why, do you hate to see a man cry? ;-)

Sid_Vicious · Feb 5, 2013

THE FIGHTER said:
he was talking about the other half. nadal, ferrer and del potro.

No, he wasn't. If he was, he could have easily limited his claim to "top 10" rather than "top 40". He simply was oblivious to the fact that, while Murray is not elite on clay, he can play great tennis on clay. Just like Rome 2011, Murray came much closer to ending Djokovic's streak on clay than Nadal did.

THE FIGHTER · Feb 5, 2013

RF20Lennon said:
I mean he obviously cant go with the attitude "There is no way in hell i can dream of winning" so its good but let his racket do the talking

that's true. it may be a bit awkward, though.

Q. Andy, how do you feel your chances are at this year's FO?
Andy: I'm not sure. I'll have to consult with my radical pj.

THE FIGHTER · Feb 5, 2013

Sid_Vicious said:
No, he wasn't. If he was, he could have easily limited his claim to "top 10" rather than "top 40". He simply was oblivious to the fact that, while Murray is not elite on clay, he can play great tennis on clay. Just like Rome 2011, Murray came much closer to ending Djokovic's streak on clay than Nadal did.

stop, top ten is within the realm of top 40.

THE FIGHTER · Feb 5, 2013

Mainad said:
Why, do you hate to see a man cry? ;-)

it pains me. although his victory celebrations are less entertaining, tbh.

Sid_Vicious · Feb 5, 2013

RF20Lennon said:
I mean he obviously cant go with the attitude "There is no way in hell i can dream of winning" so its good but let his racket do the talking

Let Murray be confident. People were laughing at Federer after RG 2008 because he had the audacity to be positive about his future chances at RG after such a crushing loss to Nadal.

THE FIGHTER · Feb 5, 2013

Sid_Vicious said:
Let Murray be confident. People were laughing at Federer after RG 2008 because he had the audacity to be positive about his future chances at RG after such a crushing loss to Nadal.

federer has won multiple clay tournies prior and has beaten nadal on clay. not saying federer was more right than murray is now, and it's great murray believes, but at least federer had solid ground of which to base his claim.

Sid_Vicious · Feb 5, 2013

THE FIGHTER said:
stop, top ten is within the realm of top 40.

That is utterly moronic. No one would make the statement "Federer can only be stopped in GSs if he faces 1/5th of the spanish, 1/3 of serbian, and all of the british players in the top 40".

Murray - I can win Roland Garros

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Professional

NadalAgassi

Guest

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Banned

Legend

Professional

Professional

Banned

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Professional

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Professional

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads