I think it’s stupid to reduce people’s careers to 4 tournaments but even if we’re going to do that Murray trounces those guys and Courier/Guga for what it’s worth and even if I thought it were true that Murray wasn’t close in any of those finals and didn’t play well in any of those finals he still made all those finals and the other guys didn’t.
Yes. You might be right.
I've heard that no.2 was a primarily a rivalry over a mysterious girl.
Would most likely still not deny prime Fed any slams even if he is better than all those other guys
Sinner doesn't seem to like Alcaraz's use of variety.
I still wouldn’t refrain from calling them evenly matched, similar to Fedovic.
I think he was a bit unlucky in his last 4 losses to Raz
Lmfao not even remotely the topic of conversation but you still had to sneak that one in there just in case I didn’t see it the other thousand times you’ve said this
To be fair Murray's competition has been brought up a lot in defense to him. It usually lead down all these spicy debates as a counter response as you know lol.
I know but still people always seem to lump him in with the other bottom tier HOF guys when he achieved so much more than them and did it in a very tough period. It's very rare that you see anyone even Murray defenders try to put him up with bottom tier ATGs (I don't even either) but he is on paper way closer to them and context only helps him.
wrt primarily OE non-GOAT ATGs: i think Murray slots in very nicely in the Edberg, Wilander, and Nastase range, below the Agassi and Becker range, and i think it's worth considering where exactly Newcombe, Vilas, and Ashe fall, while excluding oft-touted borderline candidates like Courier and Smith
I think you're right. Probably thinks he was more talented than Rios lol.
All those jumping backhands he was hitting to combat the high-bouncing Alcaraz forehand must've taken a toll, particularly when combined with blisters on the foot, because Sinner's movements were noticeably slower after the first set, I think that's why he became a bit sluggish with his net approaches and was missing volleys he would normally make.
Great point. That power differential Alcaraz has - being able to pummel the ball but also have great touch and soft hands - is really rewarded on a surface like clay.
Nadal was the daddy at RG only. He was denied anything at AO & WB after '11, and guess who denied him? Djokovic won AO 9 times and WB 7 times after '11. Nadal and Djokovic were tied at US with 4 apiece. Know your slam history when you're trying to pull anything over me!
I mean, you guys deviated from the topic of conversation a long tome ago
Little daddy is more like it, since '11, Nadal won 1 AO (while Djokovic was kicked out of Aussie), 0 WB and 4 US. Meanwhile, Djokovic has won 9 AO, 7 WB and 4 US; that's big daddy, for you! That's 20 AO+WB+US to 5!
Not the thread topic the topic of conversation. The fact that you felt the need to interject with well he wouldn’t beat prime Fed especially in a reply to me who you’ve said this to a million times just shows where your heads at.
I agree with the term borderline ATG for Murray.
Pound for pound, the greatest post I've read on talk tennis.
Yeah, there was a reason that Federer had trouble with Nadal. Federer & team solved it with the new backhand!
Very important stat, because it accounts for the fact that Murray was going as deep as Nadal, Fedr, Djokovic as consistently as they were to the extent that all four were seen as an entity unto themselves separate from the rest of the tour for a long time.
Alcaraz be like:
What I was referring to was The Big 4 moniker and the fact that it was imbued with deep meaning. It wasn't just a throwaway tag. It had substance and it came to be because for a long time Murray, Fed, Nadal and Novaxxx were completely separate from the rest of the tour. It was a mixture of excellence paired with consistency that distinguished them. @The Guru stat was a great one because it captured Murray's consistency and excellence in a nutshell by encapsulating how many deep runs he made in majors diring the Big 4's run. Granted he doesn't have the silverware to show for it, but he was the only one there hanging with Novaxxx, Fedr, and King Nadal for a long time.
Thats basically David Ferrer territory. I dont see Wawrinka beat peak Nadal or Pete either. Safin is not at all overrated IMO.
All good points well made. I love Peakwrinka, but goodness me he has some mystifying results for a guy with that much talent. He should have had far more siccess in clay masters in the 2014-2017 periodYes you are right about the Big 4 moniker, in 08-10 period they were the top 4 and above the tour. Djoker and Murray were the minor partners in this league while Federer and Nadal were a cut above them, this changed rapidly in 2011 when Djokovic burst like a volcano and now despite the Bi4 moniker still intact and it would continue to be until 2017 but now Novak was also a major partner along with Fedal, this ensured that Murray remained out of place. If Hewitt and Safin peaked in 04-06 with Roddick then even Federer-Roddick-Hewitt-Safin could have been a big 4 but they Federer would be the major partner here. Same is the case with Big 3 in the Big 4 narrative and thats why the Murray comparisons does not look very sound.
Safin cannot be overrated, he has beaten Sampras, Federer, Agassi, Djokovic all in slams, he has even beaten Agassi at the French Open. He is the only legit guy out there to bet on when in form, not even Wawrinka...Lets not forget Stan is 0-23 vs Federer outside clay
Where are you at on Sinner / Alcaraz / Rune? Do you like all three? Do you have a preference for one of them or an order in which you like them?
All good points well made. I love Peakwrinka, but goodness me he has some mystifying results for a guy with that much talent. He should have had far more siccess in clay masters in the 2014-2017 period
But at his absolute best, wow, wow, wow (everywhere except fast grass lol)
I like Sinner and Alcaraz equally, but for completely different reasons. Alcaraz is this this ripped monster with all kinds of energy and variety on the court. Sinner is this guy built like a pipe cleaner that is so nonchalant while playing. I like them both, even though they are polar opposites. I like Rune, but a little less than Sinneraz.
It's all the things that happen before typically. Scything slice, backhand and forehand of all sorts of height, spin, and pace and the insanity of his vertical movement and touch game that lend to the biggest weapon of his, the fatal forehand, appear all the more lethal.
