Career at AO (so far): Murray vs Wawrinka
- Thread starter serbiavic
- Start date
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
When did I say Murray is not competitive against Djokovic? The point is regardless of being competitive when it comes down to it in the end Nadal still wins those clay slam matches. Similarly in hard court slam encounters the evidence has shown a similar result with Murray vs Nole (all of the AO clashes) and hence a likely similar result at USO with ideal circumstances.
You don't "do" anything. I've already said Murray deserved to win the title and holding his nerve in that 5th set. It doesn't change the fact that you have to be cognizant of the circumstances when looking at in historical context. And its one thing for the rest issue to be a factor when a match goes 5 sets IN CONJUNCTION with weather, its another when the rest issue is minor and you get blown out in 3 sets like the USO final he lost to Fed. Also Fed has won 4 other USO titles, how many others has Murray won? Lends much more credence to the flukey feel.
Again how many other titles does Murray have at the USO and how many other IW titles does Nadal have? Its one thing to say a lucky break may have won you an additional title, but when its the ONLY title you have won at the event (and only 1 other final where you lost in straight sets) does that not give some credence to the position?
Part 1....
Last edited:
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
Part 2...
You don't think playing 8 sets in 24 hours vs 5 had ANY impact in Nole's 5th set performance in that final?
You are so busy being blinded by Murray fandom you can't even understand what I have said.
I said the Wimbledon 2013 title by Murray and AO 2013 title by Nole are analogous in that both were beneficiaries of some good fortune in regards to their opponent, but I would expect both to have won those matches even in ideal circumstances given the dominant displays they put on in the final.
The USO 12 situation is different because the rest issue was not just about a 5 setter vs a non-5 setter it was literally about consecutive days played, a weather issue, AND a 5 set final.
You clearly don't have the ability to either read or understand. I said its a huge anomaly for one finalist to have a day off and the other to play the day before the final and then for the final to go 5 sets. The Super Saturday was always equal conditions for both players. Nice try attempting to be clever.
Like I said you do exactly what I did. You acknowledge Murray did well for himself to win the title but don't discount the circumstances that went into it that was an anomaly among most slam winners.
People can overcome adversity. Case in point AO 2012. Despite 1 day less rest and a 5 hour match with Murray, Djokovic still beat Nadal in the final. I would contend on equal footing Nole finishes Nadal in 4 sets in that final and we never get a 6 hour epic.
The thing is when someone is not able to overcome the adversity you don't just cast aside the fact that it existed and deny it played a role.
Because we have an EXACT time stamp showing when Nadal hit the forehand that caused the back issue and it came after he was already a set and a break down?
And don't tell me who I favor and don't favor, you are just upset that my analysis does not agree with your favorite player in this regard. I saw you nowhere saying I just "favor Murray" when I made an entire thread with statistical evidence stating why he should be ranked above Hewitt all time and then continued to defend that position for about 900 posts.
I dunno how you can claim bias when you admit I am using facts to support my contention. I don't go around boldly stating Nole got robbed, I only mention it when something is stated about the subject and only with the caveat Murray deserves credit because he could have easily let a favorable circumstance slip (like Nadal did at AO 12), but he did not.
There are many Nole fans on this board who make excuses for all of his slam loses, I merely state there are no valid excuses for any of them save USO 12. The fact that Murray was the opponent means nothing and I have actually defended Murray's Wimb 13 win over Nole to other Nole fans. If you think doing that plus what I have done in regards to the Murray/Hewitt debate shows a "particular bias" against Murray then there is no reason we need to talk anymore. Put me on ignore and move on.
Like I said there are many slam wins that have had a positive break or two for players, but rarely significant enough for me to consider it having a fluky feel the way Murray's USO 12 did. Again it has nothing to do with Murray specifically as I have said time and again his Wimb 13 does not fit into the same category.
Calm down
You don't think playing 8 sets in 24 hours vs 5 had ANY impact in Nole's 5th set performance in that final?
You are so busy being blinded by Murray fandom you can't even understand what I have said.
I said the Wimbledon 2013 title by Murray and AO 2013 title by Nole are analogous in that both were beneficiaries of some good fortune in regards to their opponent, but I would expect both to have won those matches even in ideal circumstances given the dominant displays they put on in the final.
The USO 12 situation is different because the rest issue was not just about a 5 setter vs a non-5 setter it was literally about consecutive days played, a weather issue, AND a 5 set final.
You clearly don't have the ability to either read or understand. I said its a huge anomaly for one finalist to have a day off and the other to play the day before the final and then for the final to go 5 sets. The Super Saturday was always equal conditions for both players. Nice try attempting to be clever.
Like I said you do exactly what I did. You acknowledge Murray did well for himself to win the title but don't discount the circumstances that went into it that was an anomaly among most slam winners.
People can overcome adversity. Case in point AO 2012. Despite 1 day less rest and a 5 hour match with Murray, Djokovic still beat Nadal in the final. I would contend on equal footing Nole finishes Nadal in 4 sets in that final and we never get a 6 hour epic.
The thing is when someone is not able to overcome the adversity you don't just cast aside the fact that it existed and deny it played a role.
Because we have an EXACT time stamp showing when Nadal hit the forehand that caused the back issue and it came after he was already a set and a break down?
And don't tell me who I favor and don't favor, you are just upset that my analysis does not agree with your favorite player in this regard. I saw you nowhere saying I just "favor Murray" when I made an entire thread with statistical evidence stating why he should be ranked above Hewitt all time and then continued to defend that position for about 900 posts.
I dunno how you can claim bias when you admit I am using facts to support my contention. I don't go around boldly stating Nole got robbed, I only mention it when something is stated about the subject and only with the caveat Murray deserves credit because he could have easily let a favorable circumstance slip (like Nadal did at AO 12), but he did not.
There are many Nole fans on this board who make excuses for all of his slam loses, I merely state there are no valid excuses for any of them save USO 12. The fact that Murray was the opponent means nothing and I have actually defended Murray's Wimb 13 win over Nole to other Nole fans. If you think doing that plus what I have done in regards to the Murray/Hewitt debate shows a "particular bias" against Murray then there is no reason we need to talk anymore. Put me on ignore and move on.
Like I said there are many slam wins that have had a positive break or two for players, but rarely significant enough for me to consider it having a fluky feel the way Murray's USO 12 did. Again it has nothing to do with Murray specifically as I have said time and again his Wimb 13 does not fit into the same category.
Calm down
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
But the likely similar result at USO didn't happen did it? Murray beat Djokovic in the only encounter they have had there and the fact that he has already beaten Djokovic in hardcourt Masters finals gave him the confidence to think he could extend it to best of 5. That is a much more likely explanation of why Murray won that match than your rather sad and desperate attempt to explain it all away by appealing to wind and body clocks because it doesn't seem to fit your thesis about who should be beating whom at what tournaments.
If you had just stopped at that first sentence instead of all these qualifications and markers you seem so intent on applying, we would never have had to have this overlong and futile discussion in the first place. Forget the weather and how much sleep one extremely fit player might have had vis a vis the other and just try and accept that one player was better than the other and that player was the one who came home with the trophy. Neither you nor I can possibly speculate on what might have happened if Ashe Stadium had been bathed in tropical sunshine that day or both players had just taken a fortnight's holiday in the Bahamas. It's futile, pointless and a thorough waste of your time and mine and everybody else's.
You have got to be kidding me. You are now seriously arguing that just because a player hasn't won anything before, he is unlikely ever to do so? I think that's one of the strangest and most circular arguments I have ever heard. Murray had already made 1 final and 1 other semi-final at the USO. He was clearly knocking on the door and had the potential to go the distance. Eventually he did but it's something you seem to have particular difficulty in accepting and only in Murray's case despite your protestations of non-bias against him. All other first time winners are fine but there must be something fishy about Murray. Let's look at the weather and other factors and decide that must be the explanation for it. After all, according to you, Del Potro and Wawrinka can be allowed to be better players despite the curious fact that neither had ever beaten Federer or Nadal in a final before and neither of them have since but you must look for other explanations to account for Murray's success despite the fact that he had beaten Djokovic several times in tour finals prior to 2012 USO!
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Possibly. Possibly not. We just don't know do we? How can we? For the record, has Djokovic ever said that he wasn't really fit enough to play that USO final? If so, and he wasn't, why did he play it? If he had beaten Murray, as he had every opportunity to do given that he had just levelled the match at 2 sets all, would we be having any discussion about how the wind factor had given him an unfair advantage over Murray? Somehow, I suspect not!
Oh here we go. If you had ever taken the trouble to follow my posting history you would see that I am the very antithesis of fanboyism. Yes, I defend Murray and do so vigorously because I detest it when I see him being unfairly discriminated against, something that occurs far too often on these forums and the main reason why I joined them in the first place! But I have never been blind to his faults and failings and have called him out for them frequently.
This must be the best thing you have said so far. Finally we can agree on something!
So if you had been US Open director in 2012, what would you have done about this situation where you think one player was apparently being unfairly treated because of the scheduling and where adverse weather conditions were likely to be present on the day of the final? I'm assuming you would have taken action about it in some fashion or it would be rather hypocritical to let it go ahead knowing that one player would probably have an unfair advantage over the other?
But the Super Saturday was NOT always equal conditions for all players, was it? I've just tried to explain to you what happened in 2008 when bad weather forced Murray to play his semi against Nadal over 2 days (Saturday and Sunday) and then play Federer, who had finished his semi on the Saturday, in a Monday final! But you dodged that similar analogy because it favoured Federer and then tried to ignore it by asserting that Federer would probably have won anyway given that he had already won the tournament several times and Murray had not!
In other words, you want me to agree with you that it was a 'fluke' because that is what you really mean by 'special circumstances' and 'anomaly' isn't it, however much you try to deny it? Well, I won't because I don't believe in flukes. I believe that 2 players go out to play a match and both are fit enough to do so. If one of them is not fit enough, then he doesn't go out to play. Simple as that. The better man always wins. The only fluke that can possibly be allowed is if one opponent withdraws before the match can be played.
But it's not up to you or me to decide when and against whom adversity has struck, is it? We just don't know. You don't know how Djokovic was feeling in the 2012 AO final anymore than you do in the USO one. You are only speculating on some things you choose to perceive must be the case when in fact you don't know them to be the case at all and I still contend that you wilfully refrain from speculating about possible adverse variables where other players are concerned but seem intent on trying to prove that Murray is the unique and fluky beneficiary of a unique and fluky set of circumstances and I can't help but wonder why?
Okay. But how do you know that a healthy Nadal wouldn't have been able to come back from being a set and a break down? He did win that 3rd set after all. You don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. But it is a variable you cannot just dismiss out of hand if you wish to be consistent in arguing that some players benefit from these kinds of circumstances but only seem to want to argue the case against one particular player.
Yes, I am upset and more than a little irritated with your analysis. I've spent a great deal of time on here arguing against otherwise apparently fair-minded posters (I ignore the obvious trolls) who yet seem to hit a blind spot where Murray's playing abilities are concerned and can't quite seem comfortable with the notion that he might just win his matches because he is the better player as opposed to supposedly benefitting from sick or tired opponents and adverse weather conditions.
It is your interpretation of the facts that I call into question.
Do you think Murray could have won that match in windless conditions against a well-rested Djokovic? If not, why not? Del Potro and Wawrinka proved they could do it against Federer and Nadal, players they had never beaten in a final before but you seem to find it unlikely that Murray could have done it against Djokovic, a player he had actually beaten in finals before unlike the other 2. Do you think that they are inherently better players than Murray despite Murray having achieved so much more than either of them?
And if you DO think he could have beaten a well-rested Djokovic in windless conditions, then why are we wasting so much space on here arguing about things that probably don't have any bearings on the outcome at all?
There you go with that word 'fluky' again! We are clearly getting absolutely nowhere with this and have wasted far too much time and space in a futile attempt to try and convince each other when neither of us is the least bit persuaded by the other's position.
So let's just agree to disagree and move on!
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
I wouldn't have done anything and nor would anyone else in that situation. Obviously you are aware of this so don't be facetious.
Its innate in sports that sometimes you have unfair advantages and the playing field is not always level thats part of the game. In those circumstances you can both acknowledge the victor and also keep in mind that those advantages existed and played a part in that win.
I don't think there is anything wrong in saying Djokovic who lost in 5 tough sets would have been more likely than not to win if rest and playing conditions were equal. Certainly both had SOME impact on his play and he was close to winning the match inspite of it. Had Nole won the match I would absolutely be saying the same thing that the conditions were unfavorable to him, but he still overcame them (just like AO 12, but to an even greater degree since it was 0 days off vs 1 + the weather issue).
In regards to Wawrinka and Del Po vs Murray, Murray is the better player because of his consistency, but yes I believe Wawrinka and Del Po have reached higher peak levels of play than Murray ever has in his career.
Also yes the Murray vs Nadal SF in 08 did give Federer a slight edge but again his dominant display in the final puts that win for me in the same vein as Nole's AO13 and Murray's Wimb 13, not into the fluke tier of Murray USO 12. You keep missing its not just the rest issue its the rest + the weather + the draw. There are many instances of 1 of the 3 coming together for a champion, but rarely all 3 at once and even rarer all 3 at once producing the only title for that player at that venue.
I won't take the time to go through each of your other replies since like you said its pointless, but I just wanted to address those couple topics.
Last edited:
Mayonnaise
Banned
:lol: at Murray's USO being "fluky". I'd love to see Spicy "fluke" his way through 7 rounds of best-of-5 matches against professional Tennis players.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Players don't fluke wins. They beat who is in front of them and battle past the conditions. It's apart of sport, and can actually be attributed to life (battling past unforeseen circumstances, beating others for a better place in your field of work).
Murray won USO 2012 and W 2013 fair and square, and these two trophies are forever embedded into people's minds as being Murray's, not Djokovic's.
I'd even say with rest that Djokovic would lose to Murray at the USO in 2012. He had way too much motivation and nothing was going to stop him, not even peak Djokovic. Same deal for Wimbledon 2013 except to a greater extent considering Murray stomped Djokovic in the final.
Murray won USO 2012 and W 2013 fair and square, and these two trophies are forever embedded into people's minds as being Murray's, not Djokovic's.
I'd even say with rest that Djokovic would lose to Murray at the USO in 2012. He had way too much motivation and nothing was going to stop him, not even peak Djokovic. Same deal for Wimbledon 2013 except to a greater extent considering Murray stomped Djokovic in the final.
Bukmeikara
Legend
I am the only one that would take the Murray resume 
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Some people don't understand what the term 'fluke' means and that particular poster is a classic example. There are no flukes in tennis whatsoever unless a player gets through a draw with several byes including the final.
It's really just one more example of how certain people on here disrespect Murray's game so much that they think he can only win against top players if they are tired or injured or cannot function under certain weather conditions and that only a unique set of circumstances can possibly account for his success.
This 'how can Murray possibly win so much with that game of his unless it is some sort of fluke' attitude is a real phenomenon on this forum and seems to scramble the faculties of otherwise quite intelligent posters (discounting the out and out trolls). It is the only thing that is genuinely unique about him and probably deserves a special thread devoted to discussing it.
I may well create this thread at some point....but not tonight! :wink:
Last edited:
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
Are you going to keep espousing this woe is Murray BS?
I literally just gave Murray full credit for the Wimbledon title and you still continue to spout off acting like I am saying Murray is incapable of winning against other top players OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Did you see me denigrating that win or the Olympic Gold win? No, the only one I said anything about was the USO win, so cut the crap please.
This has nothing to do with whether he is capable of beating top players, capable of winning big titles, or capable of winning majors, he has proven that. All I said was that PARTICULAR tournament Murray benefited heavily from the conditions and it played a huge role in his win and if circumstances were neutral, I feel a tight match Djokovic lost to him in 5 sets, would have gone the other way considering every other hard court slam match between them has.
I know you disagree with that position and thats fine, but stop acting like its a crime against humanity to have that position and its a "scrambling of the faculties of otherwise intelligent posters" and please stop harping off on this BS that no one gives Murray any credit. I have given him plenty of credit in various threads, maybe you could actually look into that before popping off about my bias against Murray?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=506785
go read this thread instead of being an ignorant crybaby and accusing me of hating Murray, because I said 1 title that your god has won occurred in highly favorable circumstances and feel he wouldn't have won it in neutral circumstances with ample evidence to which your only reply is "I disagree" and "We don't know".
Last edited:
Mayonnaise
Banned
1. It was windy for both players
2. Murray was similarly tired in the 2013 AO Final
If Murray's USO was "fluky", so was Djokovic's 2013 AO, particularly considering he would've probably lost had the lines judge not screwed Wawrinka on an important point. I see you make no mention of that, conveniently enough.
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
I actually did, but you don't take the time to actually read the entire thread and just jump in to attack any position I have.
Murray at AO 2013 was similarly tired compared to Djokovic at Wimbledon 2013 considering both had 5 setters in the SF with a day off in between. I mentioned how I'd have expected both to go 5 sets in optimal conditions with Murray winning Wimbledon and Djokovic winning AO.
USO 12 was a match the DAY before with no time off compared to Murray having a day off PLUS the weather. I have already addressed how wind effects an offensive baseliner more so than a defensive baseliner so yes both players had to deal with it, but it clearly favors one style over the other.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Not the Wawrinka bad call, you didn't. Did you even read my post?
Oh, really? You'd expect a Murray 3-set beatdown to go to 5-sets, just like you would a match which Djokovic only won after Murray, who looked completely in control till midway through the second set, ran out of gas?
I don't care who the conditions favored. You're playing an outdoor tournament, and conditions will come into play. Murray was better equipped to deal with those particular conditions.
Either way, how is Murray's USO "fluky"? And if it is, what would you call Djokovic's 2013 AO that he only won because of a wrong call against Wawrinka? A mistake, perhaps?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
It's a very commendable thread and I appreciate all the work you put into creating it. I daresay I over-reacted in dismissing you as just another Murray-hater for which I apologise. But it still leaves me puzzled why you have this strange bugbear about the 2012 USO final. IMO your willingness to be fair and balanced towards Murray as a player still needs a bit of work!
Incidentally, and you'll no doubt think I'm being really perverse, but I'm not sure I fully agree with your findings here either! if you had read my posts about the Hewitt-Murray debate (either in your thread or one of the others) you will see that I fall on the side of those who think that Hewitt has had the greater career to date because of his #1 ranking.
So, while I admit I may have been a bit hasty in dismissing you as yet another Murray-hater, I'd ALSO hesitate if I were you before dismissing me as some kind of blind idol-worshipping Murray fanboy!
Mainad
Bionic Poster
By the way, to answer the OP's actual question:
I think Murray has been more consistent at the AO over the years but Wawrinka has definitely achieved more seeing as how he has actually won it!
Actually lifting the trophy will always beat holding up any number of runner-up plates!
I think Murray has been more consistent at the AO over the years but Wawrinka has definitely achieved more seeing as how he has actually won it!
Actually lifting the trophy will always beat holding up any number of runner-up plates!
Mayonnaise
Banned
Spicy generally gets angry and calls people blind fanboys. Once he calms down, he can be a reasonable poster
The text in bold sums it up nicely (and from a Murray fan - nice objectivity Mainad!).
Mayonnaise
Banned
As a Wawrinka fan, I'd take Murray's AO Career over Wawrinka's.
Are you surprised? There are a lot of Rafa/Sampras fans here, so of course consistency is not as popular with those fans as it is with Djokovic/Fed fans.
But I agree with you. For some people making 1000 dollars in one month is somehow better than making 800 dollars every month. That's why there is so few rich people in the world
.Are you surprised? There are a lot of Rafa/Sampras fans here, so of course consistency is not as popular with those fans as it is with Djokovic/Fed fans.
But I agree with you. For some people making 1000 dollars in one month is somehow better than making 800 dollars every month. That's why there is so few rich people in the world
This is a poor analogy, since in tennis there is no clear ratio of the values of different tournaments.
At the end of the day, whether it's fair or not, history will remember the player with more major titles more highly than others, even if they were more consistent and won more non-majors or had more major runner-ups.
As we discussed in the other thread, I think you're in the minority if you would pick several runner-ups and no title over a title, the reason being that in the former case you have the heartbreak of coming so close so many times, and in the latter you have the satisfaction of actually having won.
Murray is a better player overall, has won more matches at the AO, and I would bet on Murray if the two were scheduled to play.
Wawa's AO was a fluke, just like del Potro's USO. Sure they both beat world #1 and #2 and played amazingly well, but that is the very definition of a fluke.
Wawa's AO was a fluke, just like del Potro's USO. Sure they both beat world #1 and #2 and played amazingly well, but that is the very definition of a fluke.
Consistency does play a role in ranking players in all time great. Tennis experts often mentioned about Federer 237 consecutive weeks at #1. His 23 semifinals streak is one of the greatest feat among all sports. It ranks in the same league with:
• Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak in 1941 for the New York Yankees. Pete Rose's 44 games is second on the all-time list.
• Edwin Moses' 107 consecutive victories in 400-meter intermediate hurdles finals. The American went 9 years, 9 months and 9 days without a loss before falling to Danny Harris in 1987.
• Cael Sanderson's 159-0 wrestling career at Iowa State. He remains the only undefeated wrestler in college history, winning three NCAA titles at 184 pounds and one at 197.
• The Edmonton Oilers' Wayne Gretzky's streak of scoring at least a goal or an assist in 51 straight games in 1983-84.
• Orel Hershiser's run of 59 consecutive scoreless innings in 1988 for the Los Angeles Dodgers.
• Russia's Greco-Roman super heavyweight wrestler Alexander Karelin went 13 years without losing a match -- a full decade without surrendering a point -- before losing to Rulon Gardner at the Sydney Olympics.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen09/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=4458857
-snake-
Hall of Fame
Yeah right :roll:
It's not Wawa's fault if Murray is/was a mental midget In GS finals. Neither Delpo's.
Last edited:
AssaultJoker
Banned
Murray's US OPen Slam was a fluke, Wawrinka earned his AO.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
But Murray stopped being a mental midget for 1 more GS final than have Delpo and Stan. Of course it would help if Delpo and Stan could each manage to reach a second GS final so we can do a proper comparison!
Mainad
Bionic Poster
7 matches, 7 victories, both beat the number#1 player in the final, so that's even stevens and that means no 'flukes' of any kind in either case!
Mayonnaise
Banned
And I've already said, I know I'd be disappointed at the moment, but I'd still consider myself better for having Murray's results over Wawrinka's.
As for how history or people judge you, I really don't think people see Hewitt as a much better Wimbledon player than Roddick. Most people see them as near equals, if not equals.
Matthew Bance
Rookie
Yeah but if murray played an injured rafa he would've won
Mainad
Bionic Poster
I see. Two Slam finals including a win and 2 Masters finals including a win won't hack it but a semi at Toronto just might! :lol::
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Let's face it, there's not much to consider is there unless for some odd reason you prefer the less Slams, less Masters, less big titles, less titles altogether option!
Hewitt followed up his US Open victory with a Wimbledon win. Roddick didn't. As with Wawrinka v Murray at the AO, Roddick may have been the more consistent player at Wimbledon but Hewitt undoubtedly achieved more by being the one to hold up the trophy on final day!
Mayonnaise
Banned
I'm talking strictly about their AO results.
Again, I'm only talking about Wimbledon results. Do you consider Hewitt a much better Wimbledon player than Roddick?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Sorry, I keep forgetting this thread is about the AO what with all these people trying to divert it into discussions about Murray's 'fluky' win at the USO!
See my last answer. I think Roddick was the more consistent player (3 finals v 1) but Hewitt the greater achiever (1 title v 0).
Definitions of 'better' vary and have to fit themselves around those basic facts.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Sorry, I keep forgetting this thread is about the AO what with all these people trying to divert it into discussions about Murray's 'fluky' win at the USO!
See my last answer. I think Roddick was the more consistent player (3 finals v 1) but Hewitt the greater achiever (1 title v 0).
Definitions of 'better' vary and have to fit themselves around those basic facts.
According to your definition of better, who would you say was better at Wimbledon? Murray or Roddick?
Nadal is always injured.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Again, Roddick slightly better at getting through his draws (3 finals v 2). Murray better at getting the results (1 win v 0). That's all I can say.
Last edited:
Mayonnaise
Banned
Could you please answer the question?
According to your definition of "better", who was the better Wimbledon player between the two?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Could you please answer the question?
What do you mean? I've told you that definitions of 'better' vary according to whether you prefer consistency or actual results. I prefer actual results so will go with Hewitt and Murray but Roddick was more consistent in getting through his draws so does that make him better? YOU decide!
-snake-
Hall of Fame
Lol, Wawa is an old fart (almost) And Delpo's body is a train wreck. Murray with his consistency should've won 4/5 slams.
Mayonnaise
Banned
So you admit it's fairly close between Hewitt and Roddick?
That's all I wanted. I also think Hewitt is better, but only slightly so.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Do you really believe this Mainad? So if Wawrinka crashes out at the AO in the first round the next couple of years and Murray is a runner-up two more times, you'd still put Stan above him?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
In that eventuality, yes, because Stan can always say that he beat his opponent to win the trophy in his 1 and only final while Murray couldn't do it no matter how many finals he played! Murray will always be the much more consistent but Wawrinka will be the one who actually brought home the bacon!
Do you think differently about this?
conway
Banned
Can we cut the injured Rafa rubbish already. Wawrinka flat out kicked Nadal's *** that day. He was already dominating the match and up a set and up early in the 2nd when Nadal's "injury" (if there even was a real one) occurred. I thought it was shameful that irrelevance was allowed to taint Wawrinka's well deserved title to some.
That Wawrinka beat Djokovic playing his absolute best in the quarters, when Nadal on the same court playing his own absolute best couldn't even beat subpar Djokovic in 2012, also made it clear Wawrinka would probably be too good for Nadal.
That Wawrinka beat Djokovic playing his absolute best in the quarters, when Nadal on the same court playing his own absolute best couldn't even beat subpar Djokovic in 2012, also made it clear Wawrinka would probably be too good for Nadal.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I do. Personally I think 3 RU= 1 W which is why I voted 'equal'. As I've already stated, winning is the most important thing but consistency plays a huge part as well and it constantly amazes me how so many posters seem to have an all or nothing attitude when it comes to playing tournaments. This is why I feel Murray can't be above Wawrinka as Stan has won it but Wawrinka can't be above Murray either due to Andy's great consistency(3 RU, 1 SF, 1 QF). Just my opinion anyway.
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
You brought up the AO rest situation without realizing I had addressed it already and also left out the same exact situation at Wimbledon and chose to equate AO to USO, when Wimbledon is the more apt comparison. I did overlook the bad call point, my mistake.
I would agree that the bad call did play a maybe minor role, but I don't think 1 point across a 5 set, 5 hours match is nearly as impactful as systemic elements like weather and rest which drive several games and even sets.
I don't think that is really a fair representation of either situation.
Djokovic led in both the 2nd and 3rd sets of the Wimbledon final by a break and lost both sets by a single break. It was a very tight match (similar to Nole vs Del Po at USO 12) even if it was straights, I wouldn't call it a "beat down".
The AO match had the first two sets decided by tiebreakers with no breaks of serve the whole way. I don't really see how you can say Murray had "complete control." If anything the least competitive sets across both matches were the 3rd and 4th sets of the AO final.
The only difference was that Murray won a couple extra points to pick up a set at AO, while Nole failed to at Wimbledon, but the double break domination of the AO 4th set compensates for that. I think they were equally competitive matches where rest factored into the margin, so yes if the rest was equal I think both would have been 5 highly competitive sets with Nole winning AO and Murray Wimbledon.
But thats not what I am disputing. I have said Murray was better equipped for adverse conditions and as such deserved the title. How does that impact my reasoning that if conditions were neutral I feel Djokovic would have won that match?
I think its a bit disingenuous to say "he only won" it because of a bad call. Like I said that is 1 point compared to systemic elements that affect the whole match. Even if Wawrinka wins that point he still would have needed to hold to win the match and Djokovic did break after that point while Wawrinka didn't.
Also as I addressed Nole has already won 3 other AO titles so while there may have been some favorable conditions in play from him there, he has proven capable of winning at that venue multiple times already. Murray on the other hand has his only title (and only set won in a final) coming in this particular tournament and I feel the weather + rest + draw provided even more favorable conditions for him. As such I get a fluky vibe that leads me to believe had conditions been neutral he is more likely to have lost than won that match.
I don't think its unfair to acknowledge he was the better player on that day and that he deserved the title, but also consider that he was helped a lot by more circumstances than most GS champions in recent memory, and state that without them he wouldn't likely have won considering his record otherwise at the event.
Its interesting to hear you say this because I thought you agreed with my justification with why Djokovic > Nadal at Wimbledon based on win % (with similar sample size) having priority over finals appearances?
If you go by a barometer of saying any # of RU can actually compensate for a title win, you would have to say Nadal is clearly greater at Wimbledon than Djokovic.
I think this has to do with contextualization as well though. I don't think people really view them as near equals because 3 F = 1 W, I think its more that they see all 3 of his loses in the finals were to Federer in his prime and he lost one of them 16-14 in the 5th and hence think they are near equals.
If instead say Roddick had reached the same 3 Wimbledon finals and had lost to Ivanisevic, Hewitt himself, and Murray without any of the matches going to a 5th set, I don't think the similar perception of equality would be there.
I appreciate the apology and I believe you have displayed aptly you are not a Murray fanboy either and perhaps I insulted you in a manner you did not deserve either so my apologies as well.
In regards to your puzzled state, have you considered it a possibility for one to be fair and balanced towards Murray and still come to the conclusion that his title, while deserved, was helped greatly by circumstances and its reasonable to say he would have had a less than likely chance to win it if that was not the case considering his prior history at the USO, in hardcourt Bo5 vs Nole, and his prior slam final performances?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
