Andy Murray not at same elite level as Novak, Roger, Rafael
- Thread starter Amelie Mauresmo
- Start date
What kind of joke is this? Federer played completely awful and Murray still couldn't put Federer away cleanly. Federer dragged it out and forced a fifth set despite playing very subpar tennis. If Federer had played at a pretty good level, I'm not sure if Murray could really win that match.
Either way, Murray still cannot consistently play offensive tennis when push comes to shove, and that's why he needs Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer to play subpar tennis to beat them in a big slam match.
Goosehead
Legend
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Lol... here we go again. Murray can only win when his opponent is sick, tired or depressed. He's beaten Federer ELEVEN times, Djokovic SEVEN times and Nadal FIVE times and that includes ATP finals and Slams. So on every one of those occasions, Fed, Djoker and Rafa were all too tired, too ill or too depressed to play their best tennis. Is that what you're trying to convince us?
Federer really must get out of the habit of playing subpar tennis when he plays Murray. I wonder. Is Murray ever going to be allowed the excuse that HE played a bit subpar now and again whenever he loses to these guys?
Nope, thought not!
ark_28
Legend
I never said that please do not misquote me I never said that
Amelie Mauresmo
Banned
I am talking about the English speaking western media and I already mentioned that in this thread. The Americans and those tacky Brits want Murray to be included but he doesn't deserve to be his accomplishments so far prove otherwise.
Murray is a defensive player and his results against the top 3 prove he's not on their level. He doesn't have the mental toughness or the offensive game as Roger and Novak and Rafael.
Of course, the USA media like EPSN and that loser Patrick McEnroe are going to hype Murray. American men's tennis is in the toilet but the USA media need to hype up an English language speaking player like Andy Murray because their players suck.
The real top 3 are Roger, Novak, and Rafael, Murray is excluded until he reverses his horrible record in slam finals 1-5 is terrible.
Lol... here we go again. Murray can only win when his opponent is sick, tired or depressed. He's beaten Federer ELEVEN times, Djokovic SEVEN times and Nadal FIVE times and that includes ATP finals and Slams. So on every one of those occasions, Fed, Djoker and Rafa were all too tired, too ill or too depressed to play their best tennis. Is that what you're trying to convince us?
Federer really must get out of the habit of playing subpar tennis when he plays Murray. I wonder. Is Murray ever going to be allowed the excuse that HE played a bit subpar now and again whenever he loses to these guys?
Nope, thought not!
In the slams Murray needs those three to play subpar tennis to win. This is pretty evident; when those three (particularly Federer and Djokovic) play even pretty average tennis by their standards, they put Murray into the ground quite easily. Even with subpar tennis, Murray struggled to put away both Djokovic at the USO and Federer at the AO (and mind you Murray is hitting his stride while Federer is going towards the tail end of his career).
Push comes to shove that's what it is, because Murray isn't in the same tier as these guys. Beating them at smaller tournaments and Masters is completely different from beating them at slams. Thus far, the only top 3 guy Murray has shown that he can beat when playing good tennis is Nadal, and he is by far the most vulnerable of the top 3 due to the way he plays.
Keep thinking that Murray has the goods to just simply outplay someone like Federer or Djokovic in a slam without them just playing bad tennis. Federer did EVERYTHING he could to allow Murray to win in straights, and Murray blew every chance he had to take the match early. Murray's problem again has always been his inability to front run properly and suppress and demoralize the opponent. Federer is best at this, Djokovic is pretty good at this, and Nadal is probably the weakest at this (him and Murray both let opponents hang around too much sometimes). This whole tournament is a good example of why Murray will likely never win a slam if he has to face two elite level opponents in a row like Federer and Djokovic, because he gets gassed trying to just beat one. By the time he reaches the second one, he runs out of gas. He needs to change the way he plays, become more aggressive and be more willing to get into the net to end points faster (it's not like he's awful up there or anything).
Last year at the USO, if Djokovic didn't start out playing such garbage tennis he probably would have beaten Murray. Murray nearly blew a two set lead, and was pretty lucky that Djokovic simply gassed in the end because all momentum was on his end. This final showed that if Djokovic doesn't give up a two set lead, he can beat Murray playing quite subpar tennis.
Last edited:
Relinquis
Hall of Fame
R-E-L-A-X ...
Three simple, non-conspiratorial, reasons to bring up Andy Murray when discussing* Federer, Nadal and Djokovic:
1 - He can beat them at important matches at times, including slams.
2 - He is the highest ranking UK based player so they're obviously going to talk about him. The Americans are living vicariously through him in a way given their lack of top 10 players.
3 - He is ranked immediately below the multi-champion trio and has separated himself from the rest of the top ten.
* People usually discuss these guys in the context of a current tournament or slam, the press even more so. in this context you have to consider him even though he doesn't merit a dedicated chapter in the history of tennis yet.
Three simple, non-conspiratorial, reasons to bring up Andy Murray when discussing* Federer, Nadal and Djokovic:
1 - He can beat them at important matches at times, including slams.
2 - He is the highest ranking UK based player so they're obviously going to talk about him. The Americans are living vicariously through him in a way given their lack of top 10 players.
3 - He is ranked immediately below the multi-champion trio and has separated himself from the rest of the top ten.
* People usually discuss these guys in the context of a current tournament or slam, the press even more so. in this context you have to consider him even though he doesn't merit a dedicated chapter in the history of tennis yet.
Sreeram
Professional
Perfect logic, just adding to this logic, Federer has lost to him in semi who according to this awesome logic is a low level player than him. So Fed should retire now as it is a great shame.
Also Federer won only 1 slam after djoker came to this level hence he to is a 1 slam wonder. Why r u counting slams that he won when djoker was nobody?
Murray is just coming up under lyndel, he needs his time. He is not a 31 year grand pa. He has enough years to win slams. He has a greater chance in Wimbledon as he has now defeated his only rival in grass twice in best of 5 sets.there are positives for him to take from this AO.
tacou
G.O.A.T.
This kid was written off as hopeless after going 0-4 slam finals. "He'll never win a slam." What's he do? Win a slam. In the very next slam he again makes the final, making short work of an easy draw and then eliminating Federer. He went away mentally and physically against the best player in the world and the guy who is 4-1 at this tournament last five years. Where is the knock on him exactly..?
tacou
G.O.A.T.
It proves that Murray has been making slam finals and semi finals for a couple years now. He broke through and won beating Djokovic in the final, followed it up with another final and a win over Federer.
His 1-5 record proves he is the only player outside the top 3 in the past 7.5 seasons capable of making and winning slam finals. Federer is getting older, Rafa is a huge question mark. Murray is the #2 player right now.
"one slam wonder" you say? That one slam came 5 months ago, and he follows up with a final run at the next opportunity. Yeah he's definitely not elite.
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
Andy is definitely in the same class as the others. Lendl also lost a lot of slam finals. A lot of things have to go right for a player to win a slam. Andy had some bad luck at the back end of this one but externalities aside, Djoker and Murray are evenly matched on all surfaces. Murray is now at least even with Federer and, I'm sure, Nadal.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
The loss reminded me of his loss at Wimbledon.
We know what happened after that.
He got over the hump of Federer in a Major.
That is huge.
Truly feel if he did not have those blisters he would have taken it to a 5th set.
We know what happened after that.
He got over the hump of Federer in a Major.
That is huge.
Truly feel if he did not have those blisters he would have taken it to a 5th set.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Federer's 6th major final was 2006 AO, where he won his 6th major. Murray couldve been sitting in similar spot as Djokovic, but has overall been subpar to his final opponents. In contrast I believe Federer has lost a total of 7 finals, and Murray's already lost more finals than Djokovic, and the same amount as Nadal.
Not taking his opportunities, so to speak.
mariecon
Hall of Fame
This statement is ridiculous. What you are saying is a player is only as good as his last match. Taking the logic from your statement I guess we can say that Rosol is a better player than Nadal because he beat him the last time they played. Federer just beat Murray handily at the WTF's in November. Perhaps you forgot that. What a difference 2 months make huh.
Murray is getting up there, he's one of the elite now. He's finally won a Major and Olympic Gold and been in six Slam finals. I know he's 1-5 in GS finals, but Andy beat Federer in a Slam for the first time and went to five sets to do it, so he's progressing and getting it together. I still see Djokovic as fav over Andy to beat him in a big tournament and maybe still Federer too. I don't know if we'll see Nadal pose a major threat any more, but hopefully he can come back.
Amelie Mauresmo
Banned
The point is Murray isn't there his 1-5 record in slam finals is proof of this. Murray has a hot moment and some people on this board act like he's a tennis legend. Give me a break Andy Murray has a long way to go before he's in the same league as multiple slam champions such as Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Roger Federer.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Lendl went 1-6 in grand slam finals and finished with 8.
The Bawss
Banned
Lendl was more talented and stronger than Murray is. He also didn't have a joke forehand.
powerangle
Legend
If Murray is in a different universe from Djokovic, then Djokovic is in a different universe from Fedal (and Nadal quite a ways behind Federer). It's all relative. Why don't you say that Djokovic doesn't belong with Fed and Rafa then??
The Big 4 is being mentioned because their peak levels are way above the rest of the tour, they are all slam champs, and they are contesting in the big matches on the big stages. Murray is included because there is an obvious bar between Fedaljkovicray and the rest of the tour. If you want to raise the bar and separate Fed/Nadal/Djoko from Murray, then go for it. But then why not raise the bar again to separate Fedal from Djokovic? Or raise it yet again to separate Federer from all others?? Why do you conveniently draw the line so as to include Fed, Rafa, Novak and to exclude Andy?
Besides, sometimes the "Top 3" is mentioned as well, when the commentators/media/fans wants to exclude Murray anyway. You hear "Big 4" the most, but sometimes you hear "Big/Top 3" as well.
Last edited:
Achilles82
Professional
It's not terrible. No one says it's terrible. But it's different then winning 6 finals obviously.
In my book, there are top three guys, Andy, and the rest of players. Andy is definitely top guy, but not as good as Novak, Rafa, and definitely not as Rog.
Murray beating 31 year old Federer is really not that impressive. I can't wait to see how well will Andy play when he turns 31.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
I can't say I agree; Djokovic may not have the titles the other two do, but his 2011 already puts him in their group. They are the only 3 men since Laver to win 3 majors in a calendar year; this is the top tier of great players. They may not have the greatest resumes of the open era, but they contain 3 of the 4, (or 6 of the 7) most successful, slam-wise, seasons in the Open Era.
Murray is not among those men, not yet. He might do it, he might not.
powerangle
Legend
Well of course Novak is in their group in some respects (they are all all-time greats). Just like Murray can be in their group too, in some respects (they are all currently playing the best on the tour). It's how you want to define it.
However, Fed and Rafa are on the super short-list of GOAT contenders (Rafa may not be there quite yet...but then again that's why I said you could set the separation bar between Fed and Rafa as well)....while Novak is "only" on the all-time great list (not anywhere near GOAT contender yet).
For sure the biggest gap is between Murray and Djokovic right now (Novak is a bit closer to Rafa at this stage regarding accomplishments)...but there is still some distance between Novak and Rafa when we look at their resumes (obviously Novak is likely to continue closing in).
He won a slam under a very favorable setting for him. Del Potro's USO run was much more impressive; yes he did beat a crippled Nadal in the SF, but he had to play a healthy Federer that was playing well the whole year (2009 was a very good year for Federer; 4 slam finals, 2 wins, and a good year all around) and that tournament, and simply outgunned Federer in the final.
Unless Murray changes his game and plays much more aggressively (not just outright hitting the ball, but much more aggressive positioning, willing to take balls earlier, getting into the net, etc.), he's going to have alot of issues if Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic don't disappear anytime soon. Beating 2 out of the 3 playing the way Murray does is way too difficult. Only Nadal really has that kind of capability, and that usually burns him out and kills him physically; usually past Wimbledon Nadal is so banged him he's got almost no chance of winning the USO most years.
Wilander also did it in 1988.
powerangle
Legend
Jimmy Connors also did it in 1974. 5 men have done it since Laver: Connors, Wilander, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
I understand your point, but I disagree. We all know that Lendl struggled in slam finals early in his career. He was a late bloomer as far as learning to compete in Slam finals. He ended up doing pretty well.
At this point, Murray may not be at the level of the top 3. But he still has time to take his game to the next level. I wouldn't count him out.
SempreSami
Hall of Fame
Western this Western that.
Get back behind the iron curtain you commie pinko. :roll:
Get back behind the iron curtain you commie pinko. :roll:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Just as Murray played a healthy Djokovic who was playing well the whole year (3 Slam finals, 1 win, WTF, 2 Masters etc) and simply outgunned him in the 5th set of the final just as Del Potro did Federer and by exactly the same score!
You keep on believing Murray can only win when his opponent plays subpar. The rest of us will give him the credit he's due for actually winning his matches including those against Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Lol.. another one! You mean they only bring their A-game to the table when they beat him but mysteriously only bring their B and C games when they lose to him?
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
This statement is ridiculous. What you are saying is a player is only as good as his last match. Taking the logic from your statement I guess we can say that Rosol is a better player than Nadal because he beat him the last time they played. Federer just beat Murray handily at the WTF's in November. Perhaps you forgot that. What a difference 2 months make huh.
Murray in the last year has made 3 slam finals, won one, and won the Olympics. Federer in the last year plus has made only 1 slam final (which he won), and won no other major events unless one considers Cincinnati. Murray has also won 3 of their last 4 matches. Based on that I would say Murray is the better player right now, despite the rankings. Obviously many agree with me, as in previewing the Australian Open final the ESPN continously referred to it as the two best players in the World right now. The rankings will follow suit soon enough in all likelihood.
Fedex
Legend
I'm surprised at you Steve. You should recognise that the OP is just another sad bitter person with a massive chip on his shoulder spewing garbage and filth.
He's just another idiot who needs to be ignored apart from telling him that he's another very sad individual who needs to get a life.
Can you really not see where the OP is coming from? Blind prejudice and hate which you are encouraging.
If he wants to get into a debate about the west, evil empire, possibly he's a Serb bitter at NATO's involvement in Yugoslavia then that is a completely different other debate not for him to take out his extreme hatred on a tennis forum.
There was no outgunning. Djokovic gave a 2 set lead by playing absolutely garbage tennis. Had he not done that, he probably wins that USO final. He demonstrated this AO final he can play practically terrible for a set and a half and still recover in time to beat Murray.
Murray doesn't get credit because his only slam win was in a favorable draw, in favorable conditions, and the opponent he was facing played awful tennis and gave up a two set lead. And still, Murray almost blew it, and had Djokovic not gassed (there was no outgunning; Djokovic was just tired) that match likely is another slam victory for Djokovic. He cannot possibly continue to play the way he does, otherwise he will just gas out in the end. If Murray doesn't become a more aggressive player, when he has to face two elite level opponents, he will lose out in the end because he simply does not have the stamina to beat back to back elite opponents. We've seen this many times in Murray's career where he has had to expend far too much energy to beat one opponent. Djokovic used to be the same way; he expended way too much energy beating one top guy only to lose to another elite player in the end.
Last edited:
Murray is not a legend of the game in my opinion, but he is at the top of the game today. He obviously has a lot to do to match up to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in terms of Majors won, but Andy is progressing now. He beat Djokovic in the US final, has beaten Federer in a Grand Slam tourney for the first time, and has now reached the last 3 GS finals, Wimbledon 12, US Open 12 and now AO 13. That's pretty consistent and I give him credit for it.
batz
G.O.A.T.
How about we dissect the draws and conditions of Pete Sampras and Roger Federer's slam wins and see if we shouldn't give credit to any or all of their slam wins?
You said Murray will never win a slam with that game of his - you were wrong. You're still spinning the same, tired pysh - and you'll be wrong again - because you generally are.
mariecon
Hall of Fame
Federer won 6 tournaments in 2012: 3 MS1000's, 2 500's and Wimbledon. Murray won 3 tournaments last year: the USO, Olympics and a 250 event (zero MS1000's). Masters tournaments are actually very tough to win, just ask David Ferrer who, although #4 in the world, just won his first ever at Paris Bercy. And Federer does have a lot of points to defend going forward because he had a much better start to last year than Murray who went away after the AO, so yes it will be tough for him to hold onto his ranking if he can't defend those titles. But I still believe every time he and Murray play it's all on his racquet. If Federer has his A Game, Murray's in trouble.
Last edited:
batz
G.O.A.T.
Indeed they are, but I'll bet a pound to a pinch of sh1t that you were saying they don't mean jack when Murray was winning 8 of them but losing the big best of 5 matches?
You are free to believe whatever you want, but even if you're right - the data shows that Roger only brings his A game around 45% of the times he plays Murray. That figure is unlikely to increase as he gets older.
mariecon
Hall of Fame
uh no I wasn't saying that because the most MS1000s that Murray has won in any year was 2!!! But nice try. :twisted: 8? lmfao
I think that (i.e. your first sentence) was true at the beginning of their match-up, but not so much anymore. When Federer went down 2-6 to Murray, he would usually start out by winning the first set and then dropping the next two in a blaze of unforced errors. Credit to Murray, of course, who never went away and kept getting balls back. More recently, though, Murray's gotten more aggressive and most of their recent meetings have been in straight sets, regardless of the winner. If Murray comes out swinging like at the Olympics, Federer's gotta be on his top game to have a chance, otherwise he loses, and vice versa. The Wimbledon final is the only recent match where I think both were playing at or near their best.
mariecon
Hall of Fame
But you also have to take into account the draw and the fact that Federer had just played a very tough 5 setter against Tsonga. Murray coasted up to the SF. I'm not saying there should be an asterisk, just that if the draws were equal and both of them had only played 3 setters leading up to their match against similar opponents, Federer would have won. That's just my opinion. If you look at how Murray played against Djokovic, who is the same age as him, after playing a tough 5 setter against Federer you have to admit that the SF took something out of Murray, just as the QF took something out of Federer.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I was only partly agreeing with the premise that Murray, although he can compete with the top guys and win, achievements wise he is not there yet, so I can see why someone would say what the OP said in regards to their levels. None of that "western world" stuff. That's garbage I agree.
Murray can compete with the other top 3 and win. He's on their level in that sense, but he doesn't yet have that "aura" of invincibility that comes with straight up accomplishments for lack of a better term. In simple terms, I think the other 3 have done enough to make an opposing player believe that they have almost no chance when they walk out on court, but I think Murray is still a little susceptible in most opponents eyes. But to his credit he's coming along in time.
I'll try to say to you exactly what I said to batz. Federer is Federer and Nadal is Nadal. No words are needed because accomplishments speak for themselves. Djokovic had his 41-0 start where he looked invincible and has since backed it up, but Murray, as great as he is (and he is great) doesn't yet have an accomplishment like Djokovic's or the resume in the range of a Federer or Nadal (not many players do). This is all barring of course very subjective competition arguments. None of that other stuff. Sorry if I offended you because it was not my intention.
That's my position on Murray. He's a part of the "big 4" today. I don't separate Murray from the other 3, but historically he's not up there. At least not yet. Batz can vouch for my consistency.
Last edited:
Well, of course it's harder to recover from a fiver-setter than a three-setter, but that's Federer's job. If his fitness isn't good enough to do so, then he doesn't deserve to win. It's like all those people complaining about Federer's win over Nadal in Madrid 2009 because of the four-hour semifinal. If Nadal wanted to win the title, he should've gotten through his draw more efficiently.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I agree, although I don't think I would separate Federer from all others, but I understand you are only saying this to respond to another poster. I would draw the line as you would at separating Fedal from Djokovic. I think Federer and Nadal are on the same level simply because there are not that many people with say 10+ slams anyway, regardless of how many Fed leads Nadal by. Then if we are just talking about current players, Djokovic goes a level below them, and Murray a level below Djokovic. Obviously this is on an accomplishments/historical scale.
mariecon
Hall of Fame
and that's exactly why Murray didn't win the final. see. it's all relative.
But you missed my point which is that all things being equal Federer would beat Murray. I wasn't saying Federer deserved to win just because he played a 5 setter, just as Murray didn't deserve to win the final.
Fedex
Legend
No problem Steve. I know you're a good bloke.
What I'm saying is maybe look out for the real intent and motivation behind certain posters.
You can usually tell when someone's just having a laugh or just a bit mad, and you can indulge in good natured banter.
Certain other posters have genuine hate, prejudice and even racist undertones.
Their sole intent is to bring people down and take no pleasure in positive discussions and debate.
I hope the mods recognise who they are and do something about it because these people are using TW as a platform for hate, wrecking the forum and turning genuinely decent well informed posters off.
A lot of good people don't bother with TW anymore because the site has been so hijacked with hate.
If it continues, I'll join them and be off for good.
It's not fun anymore wasting time having useless arguments and reading the bile filled posts of bigots.
What I'm saying is maybe look out for the real intent and motivation behind certain posters.
You can usually tell when someone's just having a laugh or just a bit mad, and you can indulge in good natured banter.
Certain other posters have genuine hate, prejudice and even racist undertones.
Their sole intent is to bring people down and take no pleasure in positive discussions and debate.
I hope the mods recognise who they are and do something about it because these people are using TW as a platform for hate, wrecking the forum and turning genuinely decent well informed posters off.
A lot of good people don't bother with TW anymore because the site has been so hijacked with hate.
If it continues, I'll join them and be off for good.
It's not fun anymore wasting time having useless arguments and reading the bile filled posts of bigots.
Last edited:
Similar threads
