Andy Murray not at same elite level as Novak, Roger, Rafael

[Amelie Mauresmo]

The western media insist on saying Andy Murray is at the top of men's tennis but I disagree. The American and British press desperately want Murray to be a part of this group but he's not. I am talking about Murray's slam results and so far the guy's only won one he isn't as good as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic yet the western press keep on pushing this lie that he is.

But Murray's grand slam final losses are starting to pile up and that's the statistic that counts the most he just keeps on losing them.

Murray loses another grand slam final against one of the three best players of his generation Novak Djokovic. Murray is now 1-5 in grand slam finals that's terrible.

The western press want to squeeze Murray into this top group but only having one slam title and not reach number one in the world proves he's still unworthy.

Federer has 17 slams, Nadal has 11, and Djokovic has 6 slam titles, it isn't fair to these guys to be compared to Andy Murray he's a step below them. Those guys have six slams or more they are in a different universe than Andy Murray but the western media is going to continue pushing this lie Murray's a part of this group when he's not. And I don't care how many Masters titles Murray has won I am talking about slams and so far he's a one slam wonder.

Murray is certainly good but to only have one grand slam singles title proves he's not worthy to be mentioned with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

This year, Andy Murray needs to prove or within the next few years he needs to prove he can become a multiple slam champion.



At this moment Murray is definitely a step above players like David Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro but not by much.

I believe Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal are above Murray and they are the real gold standard of men's tennis. Murray hasn't reached the number one ranking either.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

murray is in their tier. three finals in a row and one grand slam win. What have the people done below him that equals that? (Bar Nadal, of course)?

 

[tudwell]

Lendl was 1-6 in slam finals, even worse than Andy Murray, before he turned it around to go 5-2 in his next seven finals. Now, I don't expect those kinds of numbers from Murray, but he could still win a few more slams and make his numbers look a little better. The important thing is that he's getting himself to the finals in the first place and putting himself in a position to have opportunities to win.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I predicted after his U.S Open win that Murray will end up with rbetween 4 to 6 slams. 1 Australian, 1 or 2 Wimbledons, and 2 or 3 (thus 1 or 2 more) U.S Opens. I am sticking with that. I feel for him as it looked like he had a good shot at winning this feel before the 2nd set tiebreak, but Novak is the best ever Australian Open player and always the one to beat there anyway. Still think Murray will win it one of the next three years though.

 

[tacou]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. He just beat Fed to get to the finals? 1-5 in finals is terrible? Explain to me how making six grand slam finals is terrible

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. He just beat Fed to get to the finals? 1-5 in finals is terrible? Explain to me how making six grand slam finals is terrible

1-5 is terrible it proves Murray is facing a huge resistance in these slam finals by superior players any way you slice it. Right now Andy Murray is a one slam wonder he obviously has a block against Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in these slam finals. He's losing not winning it shows he's not as good as they are.

 

[Mainad]

The western media insist on saying Andy Murray is at the top of men's tennis but I disagree. The American and British press desperately want Murray to be a part of this group but he's not. The western press want to squeeze Murray into this top group but only having one slam title and not reach number one in the world proves he's still unworthy.

You've got a real chip on your shoulder about 'the western press' haven't you? What the f**k does the US media care whether Murray wins a Slam or not? Grow up and get real!

Federer has 17 slams, Nadal has 11, and Djokovic has 6 slam titles, it isn't fair to these guys to be compared to Andy Murray he's a step below them. Those guys have six slams or more they are in a different universe than Andy Murray but the western media is going to continue pushing this lie Murray's a part of this group when he's not. And I don't care how many Masters titles Murray has won I am talking about slams and so far he's a one slam wonder.

Well okay. Murray is just a journeyman player who probably doesn't even deserve to be in the top 10. I mean, who would want someone as 'ugly' as Murray to be in their company anyway? There. Is that what you want to hear? Does that make you feel better? Can you sleep at night now??

Murray is certainly good but to only have one grand slam singles title proves he's not worthy to be mentioned with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

This year, Andy Murray needs to prove or within the next few years he needs to prove he can become a multiple slam champion.[/QUOTE]

Does he? Well, I'll contact him at once and ask him to read your well thought out post. I'm sure he'd never have thought of this otherwise. What a pleasure it must be for him to have you around to advise him! :twisted:

Murray loses another grand slam final against one of the three best players of his generation Novak Djokovic. Murray is now 1-5 in grand slam finals that's terrible.

So to lose a grand Slam final to one of "the best 3 players of this generation" is 'terrible' is it?

At this moment Murray is definitely a step above players like David Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro but not by much.

Not by much? He has won a Slam, has been in 5 other Slam finals, won an Olympic gold medal and won EIGHT Masters tournaments. Compare that to what the likes of Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro have achieved. The distance between them is VAST!

I believe Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal are above Murray and they are the real gold standard of men's tennis. Murray hasn't reached the number one ranking either.

Well, you wouldn't want him there anyway would you? After all, he's so ugly, isn't he?

 

[tudwell]

1-5 is terrible any way you slice it. Right now Andy Murray is a one slam wonder he obviously has a block against Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in these slam finals. He's losing not winning it shows he's not as good as they are.

Another way to look at it is that Murray went 37-5 in those six tournaments. That's way better than going 7-5 and having a perfect win percentage in finals.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Another way to look at it is that Murray went 37-5 in those six tournaments. That's way better than going 7-5 and having a perfect win percentage in finals.

I am talking about grand slam finals so why don't you focus on that? Yes, at the regular ATP level Murray does well but in the grand slam finals his game usually falls apart against the top 3 because he has a defensive game and his serve is garbage.

Murray is below Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic there is no disputing this fact. The results in the grand slam finals prove this he's lost three grand slam finals to Federer, and two to Novak.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Unless Nadal is back in great form I see Murray winning Wimbledon this year. He is a better grass courter than Djokovic, and it is unlikely Federer will repeat. He also has a good shot at defending his U.S Open so still could well end up with 2 slams this year. I predict OP will be eating some humble pie on this one, as many people tend to do over the years with Murray.

That said I was a bit disapointed in him today. He should have won that 2nd set and would have been in great position to win the final. He also did not respond when Djokovic raised his game in the 3rd and 4th sets. Still had a very good tournament though but he did blow a real opportunity all the same.

 

[Steve0904]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. He just beat Fed to get to the finals? 1-5 in finals is terrible? Explain to me how making six grand slam finals is terrible

Come on now. Making six GS finals is great, but going 1-5 in them is not. They're completely different. I can see where the OP is coming from actually. He's definitely up there with the top guys, and he can beat them, but he doesn't have the results yet that the other guys do. I've always said that while Murray is indeed part of the top 4, he doesn't really have that "aura" of invincibility that comes with 17 and 11 GS respectively, or a 41-0 start for example. That's what's missing.

 

[Talker]

I put Murray in the top four.

He wasn't in the best of shape after a tough match and still held his own against a fully rested Djokovic on his best surface.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

The only reason Murray is included in this elite group is because he's from a western nation. Do you honestly believe if Andy Murray was from Russia or Iran he would be included in this top group by the western press?

1-5 in grand slam finals is terrible because it proves Murray has a block he just can't beat the elite players when it matters the most.

The only reason Murray is included is because the western media are desperate they want one their guys included when he doesn't deserve it. Murray needs to earn it and winning one slam isn't good enough to be a part of this elite group. To be a real champion a player needs to be a multiple slam champion someone that can rise and prove he is worthy. Murray's one slam only proves he had a hot moment that's it.

 

[tudwell]

I am talking about grand slam finals so why don't you focus on that? Yes, at the regular ATP level Murray does well but in the grand slam finals his game usually falls apart against the top 3 because he has a defensive game and his serve is garbage.

Murray is below Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic there is no disputing this fact. The results in the grand slam finals prove this he's lost three grand slam finals to Federer, and two to Novak.

Well, duh, he's not as good as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Very, very few are. But Murray is kind of unlucky to face such consistent elite opposition. Nadal, Djokovic, and especially Federer have all had far weaker opponents in slam finals than Murray has had to face. If Murray had played Berdych or Tsonga or Baghdatis in one or more of his slam finals, he'd no doubt have a better record than 1-5.

 

[Talker]

The only reason Murray is included in this elite group is because he's from a western nation. Do you honestly believe if Andy Murray was from Russia or Iran he would be included in this top group by the western press?

1-5 in grand slam finals is terrible because it proves Murray has a block he just can't beat the elite players when it matters the most.

The only reason Murray is included is because the western media are desperate they want one their guys included when he doesn't deserve it. Murray needs to earn it and winning one slam isn't good enough to be a part of this elite group.

I don't pay too much attention to the press. I look at the level of play.

Murray is right there with the other three, Fed, Djokovic and Nadal would say the same thing.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Well, duh, he's not as good as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Very, very few are. But Murray is kind of unlucky to face such consistent elite opposition. Nadal, Djokovic, and especially Federer have all had far weaker opponents in slam finals than Murray has had to face. If Murray had played Berdych or Tsonga or Baghdatis in one or more of his slam finals, he'd no doubt have a better record than 1-5.

Well duh, the only reason Murray is included in this group is because he's from the UK. If Murray was from Iran or Russia he would NEVER be included in this group. Don't try to act as though nationalism and western imperalism has nothing to do with this. The western world especially the English speaking western world just can't stand it that one of their own isn't as good but they have to squeeze Murray in their even though he's the worst out of the top 4. Murray doesn't deserve to mentioned in the same sentence as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic isn't fair to them to be compared to player that crumbles in slam finals.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Murray is Lendl the second. Make lots of finals but win very few. Give him time

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

I don't pay too much attention to the press. I look at the level of play.

Murray is right there with the other three, Fed, Djokovic and Nadal would say the same thing.

And I am talking about what matters the most results, not media hype, not English language media nationalism and imperalism BS. The results show Murray isn't good enough as Novak, Roger, and Rafael that's the facts. But do you see articles pointing this out. Of course, not and it is because Murray is from the UK and the English speaking countries want one of their own in this group even though he doesn't deserve it.

 

[Talker]

Murray is just recently coming into his own.
His losses from before Lendl doesn't mean much now.

As far as accomplishments he's way behind, but I'm looking at the current form of Murray.

He may even get a little better.

 

[90's Clay]

If Nadal doesn't return to top form for the French, I'm predicting Nole wins the French pretty easily (no one else can stop Nole there and its clearly his 2nd best surface), Nole will be going for the calendar this year.

Nole can play MUCH better then he did at the USO last year.. He didn't play well at all in the finals and it still went 5 dont forget.

Wimbledon, Murray could nab but I'm not entirely sure Murray is as good there as people think he is. He may be better then Nole on grass. But hes hardly a guarantee to win it there

Murray still also has confidence issues.. He gets down on himself with a few poor points played in a row, then next you thing you know someone like Nole has the clear lead

 

[tudwell]

Well duh, the only reason Murray is included in this group is because he's from the UK. If Murray was from Iran or Russia he would NEVER be included in this group. Don't try to act as though nationalism and western imperalism has nothing to do with this. The western world especially the English speaking western world just can't stand it that one of their own isn't as good but they have to squeeze Murray in their even though he's the worst out of the top 4. Murray doesn't deserve to mentioned in the same sentence as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic isn't fair to them to be compared to player that crumbles in slam finals.

Well, he's one of four players on tour who can consistently make major finals and win Masters events. I think you're getting upset at nothing here. I have no doubt in my mind that if a player from Iran had Murray's exact resume, he would still be considered part of the top four. People still talk of the Big Three when they want to distinguish Murray from the all-time greats, but at the same time there is a very clear big four that is far superior to all of the players ranked below them (and Ferrer, who is lucky to be above Nadal at the moment anyway).

 

[NadalAgassi]

Right now Murray is better than Nadal who doesnt even play professional tennis any longer (he has been gone long enough we can say this until he actually does come back), and IMO better than Federer now even if Federer has the edge on the computer points for the moment. Of course he will be talked about as part of the big 4, he is probably the 2nd best player right now, and still has a great shot at a #1 year in 2013, and I am not even a Murray the way I am a Nadal fan or to a lesser extent a Djokovic fan. As for his career, he is light years behind the big 3, but light years beyond anyone else currently playing (discounting corpses like Hewitt). Del Potro also has 1 major, but the other aspects of their career are in another universe.

In the last 5 years the dominance of the top few isnt just slams, it extends to Masters, where nobody outside those 4 has won more than 1, and scant few at that. Murray has managed to win 8 Masters since 2008. Also nobody outside those four has managed more than 2 slam finals (and I believe Soderling is the only one who did that), while Murray has 6 in the last year alone. He has been ranked above all of Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic at various points in time. He has been the bottom rung of that group for sure, but it also does seem he has been more a part of that group, then a part of the Berdych and friends one.

 

[gsharma]

If Nadal doesn't return to top form for the French, I'm predicting Nole wins the French pretty easily (no one else can stop Nole there and its clearly his 2nd best surface), Nole will be going for the calendar this year.

Nole can play MUCH better then he did at the USO last year.. He didn't play well at all in the finals and it still went 5 dont forget.

Wimbledon, Murray could nab but I'm not entirely sure Murray is as good there as people think he is. He may be better then Nole on grass. But hes hardly a guarantee to win it there

Murray still also has confidence issues.. He gets down on himself with a few poor points played in a row, then next you thing you know someone like Nole has the clear lead

In that case, I just hope they close the damn roof at Wimbledon this year. No one beats Fed with the roof closed.

 

[West Coast Ace]

The only reason Murray is included in this elite group is because he's from a western nation. Do you honestly believe if Andy Murray was from Russia or Iran he would be included in this top group by the western press?

Yes. Tennis press doesn't care about country. Li Na is from China and is loved for her game and her great personality. So you're premise is a huge Fail.

1-5 in grand slam finals is terrible because it proves Murray has a block he just can't beat the elite players when it matters the most.

I do agree with this. Although he is getting better. But his 1 win was Wind Aided - sorry Brits, it's true. His problem now is Djokovic and Nadal play a better brand of his game. Unless he can beef up his attack game to be more like Fed and take the play to them, he will lose more often than not, if not all the time, against Djokovic in SF and F of majors. His 2nd serve sucks too - Fed would have won the SF if he'd exploited it more; Djokovic would have won more easily in the F.

 

[Goosehead]

The only reason Murray is included in this elite group is because he's from a western nation. Do you honestly believe if Andy Murray was from Russia or Iran he would be included in this top group by the western press?

1-5 in grand slam finals is terrible because it proves Murray has a block he just can't beat the elite players when it matters the most.

The only reason Murray is included is because the western media are desperate they want one their guys included when he doesn't deserve it. Murray needs to earn it and winning one slam isn't good enough to be a part of this elite group. To be a real champion a player needs to be a multiple slam champion someone that can rise and prove he is worthy. Murray's one slam only proves he had a hot moment that's it.

western media this..western media that..blahblahblah..

whats with this 'western media' fetish you,ve got going on ??..where are you ?..north korea ?.

 

[Mainad]

The only reason Murray is included in this elite group is because he's from a western nation. Do you honestly believe if Andy Murray was from Russia or Iran he would be included in this top group by the western press?

Absolutely, yes.

1-5 in grand slam finals is terrible because it proves Murray has a block he just can't beat the elite players when it matters the most.

But he did, just 4 months ago! He's done it once, he can do it again. He is the only player in the Open Era to have made the final of the next Slam following his first Slam win. Djokovic, Federer and Nadal never managed to do that!

The only reason Murray is included is because the western media are desperate they want one their guys included when he doesn't deserve it. Murray needs to earn it and winning one slam isn't good enough to be a part of this elite group. To be a real champion a player needs to be a multiple slam champion someone that can rise and prove he is worthy. Murray's one slam only proves he had a hot moment that's it.

Oh get over yourself! Exactly how many players on the tour have had 'this hot moment' you so casually refer to? I'm afraid you just like to keep posting anti-Murray threads whenever you have the opportunity. You are neither impartial nor fair. Would you like him any better if he came out as gay? Oh I forgot, you said you think he is ugly, so I guess even that wouldn't sway your opinion!

Why do you post about Murray at all? You said earlier that you think he is only a short step ahead of the lower ranked players so why don't you start some threads about Ferrer or Berdych or Tsonga, guys not from, in your definition, 'western nations'?

Until I see any such posts from you, you are just another sad, obsessive, delusional Murray-hating troll and anymore of those on here, we certainly don't need!

 

[Mainad]

I do agree with this. Although he is getting better. But his 1 win was Wind Aided - sorry Brits, it's true.

So if Djokovic had won that match would that have been dismissed as 'wind aided'? You have to play in whatever conditions you find. You think Djokovic, Federer and Nadal won all their Slams in 'ideal' weather conditions?

His problem now is Djokovic and Nadal play a better brand of his game. Unless he can beef up his attack game to be more like Fed and take the play to them, he will lose more often than not, if not all the time, against Djokovic in SF and F of majors. His 2nd serve sucks too - Fed would have won the SF if he'd exploited it more; Djokovic would have won more easily in the F.

Well, he beefed up his game nicely to beat Fed in the semis and he wasn't that far off against Djokovic in today's final. He dominated the first 2 sets of that match. His level fell off after the 2nd set, no doubt about that. Not sure why but there may have been a finess issue with his foot.

He is a lot closer than you are willing to give him credit for?

 

[namelessone]

Andy Murray DEFINITELY belongs with the other top 4 as far as ability is concerned. In fact, IMO only Federer is more naturally talented than him out of the 4.

However, there is a pretty big gap still between Andy and the other guys in mental ability. Let's be clear, since Lendl has come on board, Andy has cleared some pretty big obstacles, won his first slam, won Olympics by humbling Fed, finally beat Fed in a slam etc.

But I still don't get that "true champion" vibe from Murray, that "you can't beat me today no matter what you do" aura that I got from Fed,Nadal,Djoko when they were on their A-games. Even in the slam that he did win, I felt that Murray could've lost even after being 2 sets up. IN THE FINAL. That's a feeling you wouldn't normally get if the other 3 guys are in that particular situation.

So on that front Murray still needs to mature.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Really? Guy has played in 3 consecutive GS finals and won Olympic gold

 

[Mike Sams]

So if Djokovic had won that match would that have been dismissed as 'wind aided'? You have to play in whatever conditions you find. You think Djokovic, Federer and Nadal won all their Slams in 'ideal' weather conditions?



Well, he beefed up his game nicely to beat Fed in the semis and he wasn't that far off against Djokovic in today's final. He dominated the first 2 sets of that match. His level fell off after the 2nd set, no doubt about that. Not sure why but there may have been a finess issue with his foot.

He is a lot closer than you are willing to give him credit for?

How did Murray dominate the first 2 sets of the match against Djokovic? Murray was fighting for his life in that first set, just trying to hold serve. Djokovic was the one applying the pressure.
There's a reason why Slams are best of 5. That's when your fitness and perserverance is tested. Murray better get his feet fixed up.

 

[Mainad]

How did Murray dominate the first 2 sets of the match against Djokovic?

Er...well, he won the first set and almost went a break up in the 2nd. So for the best part of those 2 sets, I would say he was the better player.

I could see nothing in Djokovic's play that Murray couldn't and shouldn't have been able to handle. IMO if he had played like he did in his semi against Fed he would have been holding up his 2nd Slam trophy tonight. But he didn't and so he isn't.

There's a reason why Slams are best of 5. That's when your fitness and perserverance is tested. Murray better get his feet fixed up.

Agreed. His fitness was suspect. Strange, considering he's supposed to be one of the fittest guys on tour. Djokovic definitely won the fitness battle out there today.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think murray has had a problem with minor injuries for a while, back at the french last year he had similar issues with his back, spasms and stuff and they seem to creep up every once in a while. nadal has issues with his knees and he has made the most of it, it is really just bad luck that stopped murray from making the final closer (maybe even won it as he was so close to being 2 sets to love against Djokovic on his best surface). murray has improved since his slam win. he took it to Djokovic for 2 sets on his best surface, a surface that doesn't favor murray as much. he had a chance to win, as i have said already and i feel that with age he will mature even more. Murray is, i feel, a future number one. he just matures slower than Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. he will peak eventually and i feel that it is coming, if not already started.

 

[mariecon]

I think murray has had a problem with minor injuries for a while, back at the french last year he had similar issues with his back, spasms and stuff and they seem to creep up every once in a while. nadal has issues with his knees and he has made the most of it, it is really just bad luck that stopped murray from making the final closer (maybe even won it as he was so close to being 2 sets to love against Djokovic on his best surface). murray has improved since his slam win. he took it to Djokovic for 2 sets on his best surface, a surface that doesn't favor murray as much. he had a chance to win, as i have said already and i feel that with age he will mature even more. Murray is, i feel, a future number one. he just matures slower than Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. he will peak eventually and i feel that it is coming, if not already started.

I think maybe Murray's already peaked. Lucky for him he had a bye to the SF. At least he was able to take a set off Djoker.

 

[kishnabe]

If Nadal doesn't return to top form for the French, I'm predicting Nole wins the French pretty easily (no one else can stop Nole there and its clearly his 2nd best surface), Nole will be going for the calendar this year.

Nole can play MUCH better then he did at the USO last year.. He didn't play well at all in the finals and it still went 5 dont forget.

Wimbledon, Murray could nab but I'm not entirely sure Murray is as good there as people think he is. He may be better then Nole on grass. But hes hardly a guarantee to win it there

Murray still also has confidence issues.. He gets down on himself with a few poor points played in a row, then next you thing you know someone like Nole has the clear lead

What about *******....he stop peak Novak in 2011.

 

[ark_28]

If we are talking short term and current form then he is right there with the elite! He's made the last three grand slam finals and won one of them!

If we are talking about the big picture then of course he has to win many more slams if he is to be mentioned alongside the other 3 when all their careers are over!

 

[SLD76]

Andy Murray DEFINITELY belongs with the other top 4 as far as ability is concerned. In fact, IMO only Federer is more naturally talented than him out of the 4.

However, there is a pretty big gap still between Andy and the other guys in mental ability. Let's be clear, since Lendl has come on board, Andy has cleared some pretty big obstacles, won his first slam, won Olympics by humbling Fed, finally beat Fed in a slam etc.

But I still don't get that "true champion" vibe from Murray, that "you can't beat me today no matter what you do" aura that I got from Fed,Nadal,Djoko when they were on their A-games. Even in the slam that he did win, I felt that Murray could've lost even after being 2 sets up. IN THE FINAL. That's a feeling you wouldn't normally get if the other 3 guys are in that particular situation.

So on that front Murray still needs to mature.

You are on fire today!

Cant believe Im agreeing with you so much. I agree with everything you said above.

Of course that bit about 'humbling Fed' is bs. It was clear from the start that Fed had nothing left in the tank after beating Delpo.

And the fact that Fed even made the semis at his age with the draw he had is no slouch either.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think maybe Murray's already peaked. Lucky for him he had a bye to the SF. At least he was able to take a set off Djoker.

Murray IMO is peaking, he is playing at his peak level right now. it was nearly enough to take the title away from Djokovic, and Djokovic is arguably the best Australian Open champion of all time. he had an easy road to the SF round, but even if he played Del Potro theres nothing much he could have done to stop murray. del potro does not have a good record at the australian open so i feel it would have been a straight set or four set loss to murray if they had met in the quarters. if you want to use that argument, if nadal was around and had a match against djokovic in the SFs, he might not have had enough in him to take it to murray.

luck played a big part in Djokovic winning this year and maybe if Murray makes the final next year it will be a different story

 

[ark_28]

Murray IMO is peaking, he is playing at his peak level right now. it was nearly enough to take the title away from Djokovic, and Djokovic is arguably the best Australian Open champion of all time. he had an easy road to the SF round, but even if he played Del Potro theres nothing much he could have done to stop murray. del potro does not have a good record at the australian open so i feel it would have been a straight set or four set loss to murray if they had met in the quarters. if you want to use that argument, if nadal was around and had a match against djokovic in the SFs, he might not have had enough in him to take it to murray.

luck played a big part in Djokovic winning this year and maybe if Murray makes the final next year it will be a different story

Sure Djokovic won by luck right? Not because he's amazingly good on those courts and has won it 3 times in a row something never done before sheer luck! You really have been on the rum pretty early old chap!

 

[Rjtennis]

I agree that Murray probably isn't as naturally gifted as fed, nole and Rafa. Those guys just have incredible raw talent. I think Murray's biggest problem is his defensive style of play. He has gotten more aggressive but he still is way more comfortable spending the match behind the baseline defending.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Sure Djokovic won by luck right? Not because he's amazingly good on those courts and has won it 3 times in a row something never done before sheer luck! You really have been on the rum pretty early old chap!

murray was nearly 2 sets to love against djokovic and after his foot injury it was all downhill from there, so yes, luck did play a part in the match. despite novak's infinitely superior record to murray on these courts i feel they are not that far apart in terms of talent and are relatively close in playing ability, it is always going to be a toss up between them from now on, almost every match they have played within the last year has been close, or even one sided on murray's part.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

He is not at the same level at the other 3 who have multiple slams and were N1 for a good amount of time, but he is the 4th best player in the world by some margin now.

I think he will end up with 3 slams.

 

[mariecon]

Sure Djokovic won by luck right? Not because he's amazingly good on those courts and has won it 3 times in a row something never done before sheer luck! You really have been on the rum pretty early old chap!

well Djoker was a little lucky, getting Ferrer in his half. Two slams in a row no less!!!!

 

[SLD76]

He is not at the same level at the other 3 who have multiple slams and were N1 for a good amount of time, but he is the 4th best player in the world by some margin now.

I think he will end up with 3 slams.

Agreed.

/thread

 

[Rjtennis]

So if Djokovic had won that match would that have been dismissed as 'wind aided'? You have to play in whatever conditions you find. You think Djokovic, Federer and Nadal won all their Slams in 'ideal' weather conditions?



There is absolutely no doubt the the wind helped Murray at the USO, especially in the first two sets. Murray was commonly hitting slice rally FH's and didn't even have to think about attacking. All he had to do was defend and it REALLY helped me. However, the wind did calm down by the latter sets and he won the 5th set in somewhat normal condition. I doubt he could have won that match without the help of the hurricane sandy winds in the first two sets,but who knows. He won the match and I could see him taking another win from Djokovic in a slam final.

 

[James Bond]

The western media insist on saying Andy Murray is at the top of men's tennis but I disagree. The American and British press desperately want Murray to be a part of this group but he's not.

The only reason Murray is included in this elite group is because he's from a western nation. Do you honestly believe if Andy Murray was from Russia or Iran he would be included in this top group by the western press?

........

The only reason Murray is included is because the western media are desperate they want one their guys included when he doesn't deserve it. Murray needs to earn it and winning one slam isn't good enough to be a part of this elite group. To be a real champion a player needs to be a multiple slam champion someone that can rise and prove he is worthy. Murray's one slam only proves he had a hot moment that's it.

But Novak is from Serbia, a non-western country.

Your argument is invalid.

 

[Dutch-Guy]

As far as ability is concerned Murray belongs to the top 4 but achievement wise he's YEARS behind Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[SLD76]

But Novak is from Serbia, a non-western country.

Your argument is invalid.

but there was talk of 'the big 4' after Nole won a slam and because of Murray's success in Master series events.

Really big 4 talk started like in 2009/10.

 

[bluetrain4]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. He just beat Fed to get to the finals? 1-5 in finals is terrible? Explain to me how making six grand slam finals is terrible

While I don't agree with thread, I don't think the poster is saying that 1-5 makes Murray a terrible player, just that it doesn't make him on the level of Fed, Nadal, or Djokovic.

IMO, he is on their elite level in terms of being a player of capable of winning a Slam right now.

He's not on their elite level in terms of accomplishment, though his accomplishments are still obviously great.

 

[Mainad]

There is absolutely no doubt the the wind helped Murray at the USO, especially in the first two sets. Murray was commonly hitting slice rally FH's and didn't even have to think about attacking. All he had to do was defend and it REALLY helped me. However, the wind did calm down by the latter sets and he won the 5th set in somewhat normal condition. I doubt he could have won that match without the help of the hurricane sandy winds in the first two sets,but who knows.

The wind blows on BOTH sides of the court and has to be dealt with by BOTH players. Do you think other players have not had to play Slams (and win them) in similar conditions?

He won the match and I could see him taking another win from Murray in a slam final.

I presume you meant to say Djokovic?

 

[Ginger ninja]

1-5 is bad but look who he played

Djokovic
Federer (and if roof had stayed open at wimbers, who knows about last year)

Djokovic won his first slam against Tsonga
Federer won finals against such legends as scud, a-rod (3), baggy and gonzo
Nadal won his first against puerta

No free lunches for muzza. He's pretty close to djokovic right now - I think he'll bag at least 5 slams.