Andy Murray - One Slam Wonder?
- Thread starter Hawkeye7
- Start date
- Status
Do you not listen to the British commentary? Laughable to say the least; Although I'm not sure whether they are told to say the crap they do. The fact people say 'in any other era' he would win 'x' amount of slams etc is proof of this. Since you're a fan of 'facts', you would understand this is just wrong on so many levels.
Nadal was 19, Federer was 21 and Djokovic was 20, neither were at their peaks. Murray at the moment is in the best form of his life; It's no longer impossible to beat Federer now, nor is Nadal an unstoppable force on hard and grass (never was) and Djokovic is the only other player who is currently playing amazing (Federer has his days) .
Lastly, I've actually stated many, many times that I hope Murray does win more slams and I actually seem like his personality (although his game isn't my cup of tea). I've also stated in 2009 on this board that Murray COULD win slams if he plays aggressive, although I stated it's hardly unlikely he would (at that time it was hardly an ignorant thing to say). I stick by this; If Murray can play aggressive on a consistent basis - he should be able to win some more things. I think people think because I say Djokovic will dominate in the future it means Murray will win zilch.
Federer in 2008 was clearly effected by monoglandular fever. His movement declined - which, in turn, resulted to Federer shanking/misshitting a lot of groundstrokes - especially on his favourite wing. Was his level high? No. Federer benifited from the fact everyone else had dropped too; Only Nadal and Djokovic were better than good. Hell even Blake beat Federer at the olympics, Andreev nearly took Federer out at US Open. Even Roddick managed to beat Federer in Miami 2008 by hitting a grand total of what? 7 winners from the baseline? Whilst in 2004/05 he was making the likes of peak Roddick look a poor player at times (those guys at their peak weren't pooor)
Federer was losing to players left right and centre in 2008 get over it. Even to guys he would routinely beat in his sleep.
You mentioned Djokovic? He was good for the first half. Got a thumping from Safin at Wimbledon. Safin circa 2008. Yes, I love Safin and was pleased for him but he was not the force he was past horrific injury #2 in 2005. If you're great, you should be able to beat a past prime Safin on grass; Not get completely owned in straight sets. What was worse is that Safin played average that match also. After that year, Djokovic tweaked his serve which caused a lot of problems - and his second serve which was a feature for him became wta-esque all of a sudden. His FH was also erratic. He was fortunate to have joke draws. Then 2011 happaned.......
Nadal not hot on grass? Once again, Batz, you are not reading my posts. I said he wasn't unstoppable; Kendrick, Soderling, Gulbis, Djokovic, not to mention that Rosol match last year both showed that Nadal is attackable and beatable on grass. Nadal relied on choking from many players who were 'hot' until Djokovic and Rosol managed to beat him. His 2010 run, did Nadal actually play any top quality grass courter?
But some posters on the internet who probably hasn't even stepped out on court doesn't like what I say so they get p!ssy. Oh well
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
That was a weak counterargument. To sum up: even though they own 34 slams between them, they're not that great. Plus, Fed had mono.
Nice work.
It's annoying, isn't it? Everyone should defer to a player with tennis skills such as yours.
Last edited:
Anyone with half a brain knows the Monoglandular fever has negative effects on the body. I'm not a Federer fan but it was clearly obvious his illness effected his game and his decline in movement hindered his forehand. Anyone who watched Djokovic at Wimbledon 2008 onwards knew his level dropped. Hell a past prime Safin who looked bored even beat Djokovic, in fact, djokovic at times from 2009-2010 was downright terrible.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Your weak argument isn't masked by your trip to ad hom. Yet again, you pull a bunch of opinions out of your arse and present them as facts.
It's. What. You. Do.
You are a weak era poster. You can't s(troll) your way back here as if nothing has changed. Your old school assert and trolly game just doesn't cut it anymore. The game has moved on.
PS Does everybody know that monoglandular fever is as bad as mononucleosis?
Last edited:
The level of competition is the one reason I don't think it's a certainty that Murray will win another slam. Certainly, if he can keep playing consitently and knocking at the door, you'd think he'll get at least one more, but the reality is at this point, he's not the favorite at any of the 4 slams.
It has never been this tough at the top of the men's tennis game. I think the guys outside of the top 4 suffer for it. There are some really good players, a few of whom IMO, may very well have won slams pre-Federer. That's not taking anything away from the greats from that era like Sampras and Agassi, but the level of consistency at the top during that time from slam-to-slam and tournament-to-tournament was not like it is now. The top players are almost always in the SF's now, so you never get an "easy" matchup.
You have to beat some solid players to get deep in the tournament, then you're going to have to face the very best in the world when you get there almost every time.
It has never been this tough at the top of the men's tennis game. I think the guys outside of the top 4 suffer for it. There are some really good players, a few of whom IMO, may very well have won slams pre-Federer. That's not taking anything away from the greats from that era like Sampras and Agassi, but the level of consistency at the top during that time from slam-to-slam and tournament-to-tournament was not like it is now. The top players are almost always in the SF's now, so you never get an "easy" matchup.
You have to beat some solid players to get deep in the tournament, then you're going to have to face the very best in the world when you get there almost every time.
Ok then, please try to disagree that Federer's decline in his forehand was synonymous with his decline in movement? Do you not think this was to due with getting older + monoglandular fever?
Do you not disagree Djokovic's por tennis was a result from his change in serve mechanics and an erratic forehand?
But hey, I'm clearly not talking about tennis here. I'm talking nonsense. Djokovic didn't change anything to his game and was playing great from 2008-2010. Federer was moving better than ever and not missing with his forehand. The game simply got better didn't it. I'm starting to think no one here understands tennis.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Hawkeye7
Professional
Maybe it's time to call it a day. No one even bothered to answer your latest essay of a post, which is always a pretty good indicator that no one takes you seriously or cares for your opinion. One would assume that you aren't that ignorant and got the memo by now. Then again, I'm probably expecting too much as hypocrisy is pretty much all over this place.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Fed's movement declined around 2007, which is also when his forehand declined. It was obvious to everyone on here that he lost half a step and that he had past his prime. You can't really ask for more than 3-4 years of prime.
Ask Murray. His prime only lasted like 1-2 years. He isn't that good anymore.
I remember when Novak, Murray, Gasquet, Berdych, etc. were all up and coming; I expected Novak to win 5 slams, Murray to win 3, and the rest none. Novak is better than I figured he'd be and Murray is worse.
Ask Murray. His prime only lasted like 1-2 years. He isn't that good anymore.
I remember when Novak, Murray, Gasquet, Berdych, etc. were all up and coming; I expected Novak to win 5 slams, Murray to win 3, and the rest none. Novak is better than I figured he'd be and Murray is worse.
Last edited:
batz
G.O.A.T.
Trollology Exam Question 1.
Under his new coach, player x makes 3 slam finals in a row for the 1st time in his career - he's the only player in the known universe to have made the final of the last 3 slams.
Is player x
a) improving
b) declining
or
c) connors in 5
Ae you watching this Anaconda? That's what I'm talking about; strong era - this is the bar you need to get over now on here if you're going to be a Murray troll - think you can do it?
Eye of the tiger kid, eye of the tiger.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Proof no less. Wowzas.
Might be a weak era on court, but it's never been stronger for trollses.
Sometimes you've just got to stand back and admire the work of a genius.
*claps*
What is this rubbish?
and people think I troll.......................
Firstly, prime and peak are two separate things? Murray's prime started, let's say 2008 and is currently still in his prime, although his peak is right now - he's playing better than ever.
Batz, I'm willing to concede Murray if he plays his best can beat Djokovic playing well; Although you can't deny Djokovic would more than likely win the majority if this 'hypothetical' scenario occurred.
Now, let's get back to this post. This post is worse than anything Batz has said in this thread, and that's something since he didn't even answer my posts with any logic what so ever. Murray not good anymore? Of course he's good, he's a slam champion and one of the few players not beaten before he steps on court. He's currently playing at his highest level yet. results speak for themselves.
Lastly, did you actually think Murray would end up with more majors than Djokovic?
Homeboy Hotel
Hall of Fame
batz
G.O.A.T.
I don't. Novak is the best player in the world. He Boss - and would start favourite in any match they played - although I would give Murray a good chance if that match was at centre court, Wimbledon.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
My friend, there is no need to divert attention from yourself by calling me out. Keep it civil and stop trolling please.
I don't separate a player's level into arbitrary categories. Once you've noticeably declined, you're past your prime. No one talks about peak outside of TT.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
kalyan4fedever
Legend
Ok, waited waited waited ..... nadal out, federer out, supra windy nullifying djokers game and thats how u win a slam....no wonder he did not celebrate he knows 
Murray has noticeably declined? Pretty sure you're trolling. Maybe you should watch Murray's slam finals when he gets blown away and then watch his slam finals when he actually wins/makes it competitive.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Ok, waited waited waited ..... nadal out, federer out, supra windy nullifying djokers game and thats how u win a slam....no wonder he did not celebrate he knows
That's actually quite funny
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
No surprise that Murray is making it more competitive against a burnt out Novak, an old man (who isn't getting any younger), and presumably against a half-handicapped Nadal in the near future. But, from what I've seen, his pushing skills have declined.
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
Getting to 3 slam finals in a row does not indicate that Murray is a one slam wonder - there's more slam wins to come. Haters get your sick buckets at the ready
You think it matters? You think Murray will ever get the credit? I can already predict what will be said when he does win another slam.
The first didn't count - the wind.
The second - due to injuries and aging players.
No. Just no.
Invalid argument. We are talking about now not the future.
Pushing stops at 3.0 level.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
He would just become a Two Slam Wonder! :wink:
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
No it doesn't. They don't call him Pusher Murray for nothing.
batz
G.O.A.T.
batz
G.O.A.T.
The Voices?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Fact: Mere pushing won't win you a Slam or get you deep into big tournaments!
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
That was good.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
He's already a Golden Wonder!
Now come on Batz, you know it was just a fluke. They didn't close the roof so poor Roger didn't have a chance! :wink:
Um, yes it does. There is a difference between a junkballer, a chopper, a counter-puncher, a defensive base-liner and a pusher. Pushers don't even get past club level let alone on tour.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, and there's a difference between prime and peak. I get it.
I suppose that there are also differences between the words stupid, dumb, and idiotic, but, at the end of the day, we have to admit that the English language just provides many ways of describing the same thing.
Lets think of an umbrella term for this type of player. I vote 'coward.' Coward Murray has a nice ring to it. Why go for winners when you can take the easy way out? And lets not forget their poster boy, Rafael "The Coward" Nadal; the man so afraid to lose on hard courts that he fakes an injury to get out of it.
I said, there is pressure in playing Slam finals, PERIOD. YOU'RE the one who keeps prattling on about the opponent. If the 50th ranked player got to a Slam final against # 100, there would be pressure because he would be expected to win; if he was, instead, playing # 1, people say there's no pressure, no expectations. I don't agree with that at all, if you're one win away from a Slam, it doesn't matter WHO you are playing, there is pressure. Some people handle it better than others, and Murray, judging by his record against the Big 3 overall, in Slams prior to the Finals, and in the Finals, is NOT particularly good at handling it. Spin it all you like, but those are the facts, and they are not easily disputed.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Reuters feb 20th
The global network of ironymeters was forced to shut down tonight after it became overloaded. Scientists have traced the cause to a tennis messageboard where a keyboard hardman with the self awareness of a chair called other people cowards. A spokesman for the International Centre for Irony Research said "some people are just to stupid to post on the internet, something should be done"
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Maybe the mods should introduce a TTW IQ test which all prospective posters must pass before being allowed on the boards? Sample questions might include:
1. Do you actually know about the careers and backgrounds of the players you propose to talk about?
2. Do you understand the difference between liking or disliking a player and whether or not they can play or have played well?
3. Please give a written definition of the following words: Irony, Subtlety, Humour, Self-Awareness, Fairness, Objectivity, Impartiality.
Might be a good start!
;-)
Fedex
Legend
Fedex
Legend
Here's my opinion of Murray's main problem in slam finals.
I think he has slightly inferior natural physical strength and fitness. The other members of the top 4 just seem to be inherently almost super physically fit and strong and the recent AO final just confirmed that even more for me. As Bobby Jnr pointed out in another thread that's just in your genetic make up and luck of the draw type of thing excuse the pun.
Murray seems to have to work harder to get close to the same fitness and strength. He's very very fit and strong relative to most but not on the same level as freaks Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.
Correct me if wrong but out of the 6 slam finals he's been in only one of them gave him favoured scheduling eg playing the final with one days extra rest than his opponent and guess which final that was - USO 2012 the only slam final he won.
Bit of a correlation wouldn't you say?
I think Murray needs that little extra bit of scheduling luck a lot more than his main rivals but instead it almost always works against him, and because the others are stronger, the problem is only compounded. And you can see it.
In all other slam finals, I believe, Murray's opponent had the extra days rest.
Rewind to the final of AO 2013 - Murray wins the first set tie break, same pattern as USO 2012 final, then Murray is 1-0 up in the 2nd set and has Djokovic 0-40 and on the ropes. If Murray breaks chances are he wins that 2nd set and then...well who knows. I still have a feeling actually that Murray would have wained physically and lost it in 5.
Now give Murray just one extra days rest and I reckon Murray wins that final under the same circumstances.
Rewind to USO 2012 final - Murray with the extra days rest wins the 1st set 7-6, wins the next 7-5 and goes onto win the final in 5. Give Murray one days less rest there and I'd be pretty sure he loses that match.
Murray being inherently physically less strong IMO, I'm not saying less technically talented far from it, needs that extra days rest more than the others, Djokovic triumphing in two marathon back to back 5 set matches to win the 2012 Australian slam proves the point, but Murray has only had that scheduling advantage in just one of his six slam finals.
Or maybe 'have you ever lifted a racket?' :roll:
Fedex
Legend
Well that was my age when I first picked up a racket in earnest at club level and I can tell you the b1tching and nastiness of middle England... I mean middle Scotland was intolerable and not conducive to any budding young player keen on progressing their tennis skills.
I lost count of the times I had to stop myself wrapping my racket around the heads of bullying cliquey prats who remind me of many posters on this board.
Actually I know they're from the same mould cause I can smell a mile away the same irrational, intolerant, arrogant, bigoted attitudes and personality styles.
B!tching in society (especially work) will never stop. It's hard to concede this - because lots of people do it; They act as if they are your friend then the second you're not around they turn into someone who hates you. This is why I pretty much trust (and like no one) in reality (although my fellow college students and friends who have no reason to b!tch aren't subject to his). Tennis though the community in my area, although not very popular, isn't so bad. Made some pretty decent friends there in the process.
Fedex
Legend
A lot of it is an age thing as well.
Around about 14 year olds are the worst group which is how you can tell the age of a lot of posters on this forum.
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
Do unto others before they do unto you.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Irony is right. Too stupid to understand simple probability and yet here you are criticizing someone else's intelligence. The irony, my friend.
Hawkeye7
Professional
I don't think it's the physicality he's struggling with. The blisters he got during the AO final had nothing to do with his fitness levels. I don't believe that he's an inferior athlete in comparison to the other 3, an inferior Tennis player, yes (simply based on statistics, mentality etc.), but I don't believe for a second that the other 3 don't have to work just as hard on their fitness. Federer is not super-human in the fitness department by any means, but he plays a style that is a lot less taxing and more based on finesse and offence than defence, which made it easier for him to stay at the top for so long. Of course he lost a step or two in recent years, but he's still capable of playing good Tennis. And Djokovic wasn't really known for his great fitness until 2011. Before that he had quite a few health problems, so what makes you think he's more naturally gifted in that department?
I think it's undeniable that Murray is mentally weaker than the other 3. That doesn't just go for slam finals, but for all tournaments. He is often incapable of consolidating breaks or serving out sets/matches on the first attempt, or at all. He's lost a lot more matches than the other three while being in a winning position too. I'm not even saying this to criticise him, it's obviously not a good thing, but at the end of the day, he is still a champion and overcame those doubts in his head when it really mattered, at least once. That doesn't mean, he's never going to mentally struggle again in big moments, but it also doesn't make his win a fluke. We've seen multiple times that he's capable of beating the best. Who knows what's going to happen in the future? I don't like making predictions.
Just for the record, Andy played the first SF at the AO 2010 and at Wimbledon 2012 the SFs were both played on the same day, so he wasn't at a disadvantage scheduling-wise there either.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
