Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Serendipitous, Nov 14, 2010.
I told myself not to get involved in this thread but I couldn't resist after reading some of the commenets above.
Djokovic has won a bronze medal and is in the finals of Davis wich he surely will win.
This is what seperates them:
- Djokovic has 1 grandslam and Murray has 0
- Djokovic has 1 WTF and again Murray holds the zero.
- 1 Bronze for Djokovic, 0 for Murray
- Davis Cup winner/final
You see its not only the grandslam what seperates them but there are a lot of other important tournies where Djokovic performed better.
So, just to make sure, you're saying that Djokovic has 1 grandslam and Murray has 0 .
Yes, I think thats what I've said. Djokovic has 1 grandslam and Murray has Zero
The formula of Murray's grandslam career: Zero=> 0=>nothing=>
Thought I'd weigh in. Got to give the edge to Djokovc; Slam win, plus been rated higher for longer.
This is a no-brainer; Novak has a slam and a WTF.
It appears that there is universal consensus about the fact that Djokovic has ONE grandslam while Murray has ZERO.
Since we've established this fact (i.e. that Djokovic has ONE granslam and Murray has ZERO), we have to ask ourselves "What were the 4 people who voted for Murray thinking?"
Oh I get it now. Rather than being a serious thread, this is just another vehicle for Murray bashing. Cool.
Have you seen the state of his teeth? Jeez, and that Mother of his! He hasn't even won a slam you know.
I disagree with this. Going by that logic, we could also say that Nadal is equal or even greater than Borg. After all, it it just one (or two) slam that separates Nadal from Borg, and when he wins it, they are (at least) equal. But in the same way that Nadal has to officially win another French Open, and in the same way that Federer had to win Wimby'09 to surpass Sampras, Murray needs to win a major.
Why is stating the the fact that Djokovic has ONE grandslam while Murray has ZERO
maybe they didn't know that Djokovic has 1 grandslam and Murray doesnt?
They'd have to be pretty new to tennis to not know that Murray has NIL grandslams...I'm sure they'd change their mind after reading the relevant information in this thread...
When it is repeated ad nauseam by the hard of thinking. So this hasn't become a Murray bashing thread then?
It's not really our fault that this thread has failed. The OP knew what was gonna happen and thats why he created it.
Who has a better career : Delpotro or Murray ?
Don't worry about it mate. If I can't take a joke, I shouldn't post on here. You're right - the OP knew what he/she was doing.
So has Thomas Johansson (sp), and anyone else who's won a slam, because in case you weren't aware - Murray hasn't actually won a slam.
Paul Lawrie also had a better golf career than Colin Mongomerie.
Look Sentinel is now doing the same thing. Murray will win a grandslam eventually but till then let us not be bored and take adventage of Murray's 0 grandslams.
These 4 folks clearly have been living under a cave and weren't aware of the fact that Djokovic has wonONE grand slam and Murray has wonZERO grand slam.
knock yourself out mate.
Remind me again, how many slams has Murray won?
This is a closer call. Murray has nearly doubled JMDPs money earnings. JMDP has a slam (big props), Murray x2 RUs. Both have been #4. But that slam still seems like a scale-tipper. JMDP by a nose.
Murray has been as high as number 2. Delpo has been number 4 for 2 weeks, Murray has been in the top 4 for over 2 years.
I am really confused right now. So Djoker has 1 slam while Murray has 0 slams right?
This question is really easy to answer. Imagine you could choose one of their career's. Wich one would you choose? I would go for the money...
I agree with Spider. Nadal will pass Borg. Murray needs a major if going against JMDP or Djokovic. Now when we talk Thomas Johansson he only won like 10 tourneys & reached 7 or 8 rank, so he's not quite in Murray's class, but that slam closes the gap enough to mention (and remember him) him. I forgot Murray was ranked #2 in 09:shock:
Yeah, sorry, corrected in prior post.
I know. That's why I've already answered it.
That is all...:twisted:
Quite. That's why I answered JMDP. I was only pointing out errors, not making a case for Murray.
Do you mean:
At this point Murray is more likely to win a slam than JMDP or Flukovic.
Grand Slams are totally overrated.
i mean like Roger has SIXTEEN of them, and yet is not the GOAT. Nadal with only a mere measly NINE is the GOAT.
Look at it this way: Đoković has only one slam more than Murray.
Djokovic has only one slam more than me too...
I see what you did there.
Tennis is getting boring. The same draw every year.... We need more GS meetings like:
Djokovic - Murray
Federer - Nadal
Nadal - Roddick
Djokovic - Tsonga
Have you made 2 slam finals, won 5 masters series titles and beaten Roger Federer 8 times? If not, your attempt at an argument by analogy would appear to be full of fail - as the kidz on the interwebs might say.
I still have the same number of slams as Andrew Murray, which is, of course ZERO
i second this!
Well done on your counting homework. Keep up the good work.
Thanks...I'm in the middle of an assignment entitled "101 reasons why you should never divide by the number of Andrew Murray's slams"
Đoković is just a puny quitter with stamina problems who could not defend his lone slam win. He has the career retirement grand slam on all surfaces and all continents.
Murray is a beast.
<insert haggis pic here>
I wish he had career grandslam on all surfaces. He needs US to complete it.
Separate names with a comma.