Does Murray have a greater potential than Djokovic?

[TTMR]

How does he have a more dynamic game? Please define the dynamic thing? Man I just watched the finals of W and USO again. I respect Murray so much but unfortunately he doesn't even come close to Novak, Rafa and Roger. I hope that he will improve his game but please don't give me this cr*p.

Novak vs. Nadal or Roger vs. Novak produced some amazing matches this year. Murray, as much as I really like him has been nowhere. Yeah, he won in Tokyo, big deal.

For the last point, see Murray vs. Djokovic in Rome. That was arguably the best match of the year. Murray was two service points away from defeating Djokovic, who was playing some of his best tennis this season. In 2011, Murray is at least on par with Federer, and prize money/points to date reflect that. Honestly, I'm under the impression you only watch slams and glean everything about a player from that. In fact, it is clearly the case if you think "Murray has been nowhere except Tokyo lulz". Do I have to list the number of Masters titles he won where he has beaten 'the big three'?

Again I ask, which is more likely? That Murray overachieves in lower level tournaments and has just skated by on luck and relative indifference of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic? Or that he underachieves in slams due to his mentality?

Murray is the more dynamic player because he can employ successfully a wider number of shots and tactics. I think for the same reason Federer, for instance, is a more dynamic player than Djokovic or Nadal.

Now, on topic - I believe a player's potential isn't only related to his natural shotmaking ability but rather to the whole package. While Murray *might* be more athletic and *might* be the better shotmaker (which his forehand begs to differ), the mentality is also a part of the game. Djokovic not only has a fighter's, but also a champion's mentality, which I'm not sure Murray has.

Before 2011, this forum was mocking and deriding Djokovic as a 'mental midget with the heart of a loser'. If you had claimed he had a 'champion's mentality' one year ago today, you would have been ridiculed. In 2010, Djokovic was essentially in the same position Murray is now. Sure, everyone forgets it now that the bandwagon has picked up full steam, but Djokovic was constantly derided for his racquet smashing, injury time outs and self-flagellation on the court. He had a slam under his belt, but he was usually dismissed as a one slam wonder.

 

[Lemoned]

Murray didn't have a single match point against Novak in Rome. Two points away from the win multiple times. He hit a double fault at 30-15, *5-4 and then made a forced error. Two deuces in the same game. That's it.

 

[abmk]

For the last point, see Murray vs. Djokovic in Rome. That was arguably the best match of the year. Murray had two match points vs. Djokovic playing some of his best tennis this season.

murray did not have two match points in Rome. He was two points away from winning the match IIRC.

djokovic played pretty crappily by his standards in that match after set1 . Best match of the year LOL, wut ?

excitement wise, was very good, but fed-djoker USO beat it even in that regard.

Quality wise it wasn't even close to fed-djoker at the FO semi

 

[TTMR]

Murray didn't have a single match point against Novak in Rome. Two points away from the win multiple times. He hit a double fault at 30-15, *5-4 and then made a forced error. Two deuces in the same game. That's it.

You're right, I misremembered it. He was serving for the match but never had match point.

 

[abmk]

In terms of tennis qua tennis (whatever that means), I think Murray's best is better than Djokovic's best. He has more weapons and more tactics at his disposal. His (first) serve is far better than Djokovic's and he gets many free points unlike Novak.

However, I think it is too late for Murray to have a better career than Djokovic. Barring career altering or ending injury, Djokovic is going to continue to be an obstacle for Murray, even if Murray resolves his psychological issues. Even if Murray is better from this point forward, the difference is too marginal for Murray to overtake Novak in achievements.

murray's first serve is far better than djoker's ?????? really ?

They are about even , with Djoker's being more consistent and murray's being more devastating when he gets it in. But then Djoker's second is quite a bit better.

 

[TTMR]

murray's first serve is far better than djoker's ?????? really ?

They are about even , with Djoker's being more consistent and murray's being more devastating when he gets it in. But then Djoker's second is quite a bit better.

Yes, his first serve is much better. Murray has 449 aces in 61 matches, contrasted with Djokovic's 297 in 67 matches. In fact, Murray has more aces than Federer per match this year; Roger has 421 in 61 matches. Murray is also 17th in first service points won, while Djokovic is 22nd, which is admittedly not a gigantic spread, but it is telling in conjunction with the above.

Djokovic clearly has the better second serve, no one would deny that.

This thread is not about who is the better player. Obviously the answer to that question is Djokovic. It is about who has greater potential. Ask this question prior to USO 2010 and I guarantee a majority of people on TW say Murray. Nobody predicted this year from Djokovic; it was not even on the radar.

 

[Lemoned]

To me,

in 2007-2008
Andy's 1st > Novak's 1st, Andy's 2nd << Novak's 2nd

in 2009 and 2011
Andy's 1st >> Novak's 1st, Andy's 2nd < Novak's 2nd

 

[PSNELKE]

I hope he wins a major one day, when he gets his head together.

Though I have to say that Djokovic has definately greater potential.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

The way Murray was returning serve and crushing backhands against Nadal in the third set of the tokyo final reminded me of Djokovic's game against Nadal this year. Murray has the game to really bother Nadal and could be the guy who stops Novak.

 

[falkenburg]

Yeah, because Murray always plays his best in slam finals. That was totally my point.

It all comes back to Slams, doesn't it? Yes, Del Potro, Gaudio, Johansson, Ferrero, all better than Murray.

Winning percentage, Masters titles, head to head records against top players? No, those kinds of peripherals don't indicate a player who underperforms relative to his talent in Slams. We dare not examine tennis beyond the most superficial of facts.

I'll admit, what I said about Murray's best being better than Djokovic's best was a reach, and typed in haste. However, Murray does have a more dynamic game, and given the fact that he frequently beats the best players on the tour in non-slam events, what do you think is more likely? Murray overachieves in these events or underachieves when faced with the pressure in slam finals?

"Potential" frequently means you simply haven't done it yet, and unfulfilled potential is often a close cousin to wasted talent, for which I can hardly think of a greater "crime." As far as M having a more "dynamic" game? That's a pretty subjective phrase, to be sure, but how do you figure that? Murray is often content to kind of float the ball deep down the middle, that will beat 99% of the players in the world, but seems to come up short when it comes to winning Slams (something Wozny has found out, as well, to her chagrin), no matter how much you'd like to skirt the issue. Until Murray gets that head rack that sits on top of his shoulders together, he ain't winning JACK, IMO. I've said this before, but the 15-30 point in the 3rd game of the 1st set vs Nadal at Wimbledon this year kind of sums up Murray: with the chance to get a double break point, he chokes on a floater that a weekend hacker could've put away, literally, then broods about it for the next 13 or so gmes and wins two of them. To say that he shrinks under the glare of the spotlight is an understatement, and his 9 consecutive sets lost in GS finals will attest to. Sometimes things change-Lendl, for example-and sometimes they don't.

 

[TTMR]

for god's sake. I'm a tennis addict. I have seen so many tennis matches. I simply love tennis and you dare to tell me that I watch only majors, lol. Please.

Don't tell me anything about this board. I don't give a ****. When it comes to Novak he won 4 slams. Deal with it. If you don't like it it's too bad. I've been watching tennis since late '70s. You are just another id!ot. I couldn't care less. You know nothing about tennis.

And once again you don't respond to any of my arguments and resort to the always-vaunted 'you're an idiot' gambit. Great work, Socrates.

As for as Djokovic goes, I've been a fan of his for years and stood up for the guy when he was being thrown to the wolves by the people here. Yes, you don't care, I know. Nevertheless, I still think Murray had more potential than Djokovic. It is too late for him to realize it completely, as at his age he'll be playing catch-up to the other three.

"Potential" frequently means you simply haven't done it yet, and unfulfilled potential is often a close cousin to wasted talent, for which I can hardly think of a greater "crime." As far as M having a more "dynamic" game? That's a pretty subjective phrase, to be sure, but how do you figure that? Murray is often content to kind of float the ball deep down the middle, that will beat 99% of the players in the world, but seems to come up short when it comes to winning Slams (something Wozny has found out, as well, to her chagrin), no matter how much you'd like to skirt the issue. Until Murray gets that head rack that sits on top of his shoulders together, he ain't winning JACK, IMO. I've said this before, but the 15-30 point in the 3rd game of the 1st set vs Nadal at Wimbledon this year kind of sums up Murray: with the chance to get a double break point, he chokes on a floater that a weekend hacker could've put away, literally, then broods about it for the next 13 or so gmes and wins two of them. To say that he shrinks under the glare of the spotlight is an understatement, and his 9 consecutive sets lost in GS finals will attest to. Sometimes things change-Lendl, for example-and sometimes they don't.

But that is kind of my point. Murray has all the potential in the world, and it's his mind that is interfering with success at high pressure moments.

The comparison with Wozniacki only goes so far. Yes, Murray's forehand is not world class relative to his peers, but Wozniacki has probably the worst forehand of the top 50, maybe 100 in the WTA. Murray can and often does hit winners (huge ones at times) with his forehand. Wozniacki cannot hit winners, especially with her forehand. When Wozniacki faces the best players (eg. Serena), she gets slaughtered regardless of tournament. Her success relies on consistency when stronger players are eliminated early. When Murray faces the best players, he tends to play well, and has a winning record against some (Federer, Djokovic since entering the top 10). That is what makes him such an enigma. At lower level tournaments he can and often does beat the absolute best players in the world, it's not a one-time, one-off win, as he's done it time and time again. This suggests to me has the physical tools necessary to beat the top 3 in a grand slam.

 

[NamRanger]

No. Djokovic has far more weapons than Murray does and as a result has far more potential at winning slams. You don't win slams with pure defense except at the French Open, which we all know Murray is likely to never win since it is by far his worst surface.



For all of Murray's ability to change pace and use different shots, he still doesn't have an x-factor shot that the other players do. Federer despite the fact that he possesses all the shots in the game, still has a lethal weapon that he can rely on when under pressure. Murray has no such thing, and as such will likely come up short. No elite level weapon = likely no slams.

 

[Mainad]

No. Djokovic has far more weapons than Murray does and as a result has far more potential at winning slams. You don't win slams with pure defense except at the French Open, which we all know Murray is likely to never win since it is by far his worst surface.

IMO there are only two physical things that Djokovic does better on the court than Murray. His forehand down the line and his second service. Mentally, he has shown himself more resilient and tougher as well especially in slams.

For all of Murray's ability to change pace and use different shots, he still doesn't have an x-factor shot that the other players do. Federer despite the fact that he possesses all the shots in the game, still has a lethal weapon that he can rely on when under pressure. Murray has no such thing, and as such will likely come up short. No elite level weapon = likely no slams.

It strikes me you haven't been watching many Murray matches or not the same ones as I have anyway. Murray's 'x-factor' shot is his backhand down the line and cross court. Nadal was repeatedly on the receiving end of it during their match in Tokyo with the result that he managed to win only 4 points in the deciding set. Incidentally, Murray set up match point with a devastating forehand down the line, a shot he produces only too rarely but is evidently well capable of when he puts his mind to it!

 

[Crazy man]

No. Djokovic has far more weapons than Murray does and as a result has far more potential at winning slams. You don't win slams with pure defense except at the French Open, which we all know Murray is likely to never win since it is by far his worst surface.



For all of Murray's ability to change pace and use different shots, he still doesn't have an x-factor shot that the other players do. Federer despite the fact that he possesses all the shots in the game, still has a lethal weapon that he can rely on when under pressure. Murray has no such thing, and as such will likely come up short. No elite level weapon = likely no slams.

Whilst I agree with what your first paragraph, I do believe Hewitt, although had world class footspeed and footwork and a good all-round game (it's true) he bagged 2 slams. All be it Hewitt is a much better player than Murray, the 0 weapons = 0 slams is false. Blake 3 weapons = 3 slam Qf's.

 

[falkenburg]

And once again you don't respond to any of my arguments and resort to the always-vaunted 'you're an idiot' gambit. Great work, Socrates.

As for as Djokovic goes, I've been a fan of his for years and stood up for the guy when he was being thrown to the wolves by the people here. Yes, you don't care, I know. Nevertheless, I still think Murray had more potential than Djokovic. It is too late for him to realize it completely, as at his age he'll be playing catch-up to the other three.



But that is kind of my point. Murray has all the potential in the world, and it's his mind that is interfering with success at high pressure moments.

The comparison with Wozniacki only goes so far. Yes, Murray's forehand is not world class relative to his peers, but Wozniacki has probably the worst forehand of the top 50, maybe 100 in the WTA. Murray can and often does hit winners (huge ones at times) with his forehand. Wozniacki cannot hit winners, especially with her forehand. When Wozniacki faces the best players (eg. Serena), she gets slaughtered regardless of tournament. Her success relies on consistency when stronger players are eliminated early. When Murray faces the best players, he tends to play well, and has a winning record against some (Federer, Djokovic since entering the top 10). That is what makes him such an enigma. At lower level tournaments he can and often does beat the absolute best players in the world, it's not a one-time, one-off win, as he's done it time and time again. This suggests to me has the physical tools necessary to beat the top 3 in a grand slam.

As Yogi Berra famously said, 90% of (sports) is half mental.:wink: For a guy who is so clueless that he has been known to scream at his friends' box when he is WINNING, to getting it together to remain calm during GS finals and not stink out the joint is too big a leap of faith, IMO. He, like Lebron James, and probably Wozny, too, needs a good sports shrink, IMO.

 

[NadalAgassi]

The fact Djokovic is able to have a year like this where he dominates Nadal on all surfaces is proof his potential is higher than Murray. Even if Murray put it all together mentally there is no way he would have a year he dominated Nadal so completely everywhere, keep in mind this would include clay and grass both as well. For all we know Djokovic might never have another year to quite match 2011 (in fact the odds of this are pretty decent) but the odds are also about nil Murray will ever have even one year like this one, even if he finally maximized his still unfulfilled potential.

Murray's potential is a 4 slam winner possibly at most, and possibly someday a clear but fairly slight #1 who best case scenario might have a 2 slam year with a few Masters. If he had more potential than that a few years ago, well it is already too late for that, and irrelevant to the discussion unless we are speaking potential in past tense. Djokovic is already a 4 slam winner so obviously has much higher potential than just being a 4 slam winner.

Keep in mind once again that even in late 2009-2010 when Djokovic was possibly the biggest underachiever and underperformer of the top 5, and was dissapointing most everyone with his underachieving performances, still ended both years ranked above Murray. That in itself is telling.

 

[NadalAgassi]

IMO there are only two physical things that Djokovic does better on the court than Murray. His forehand down the line and his second service. Mentally, he has shown himself more resilient and tougher as well especially in slams.

Breaking down shots doesnt give the whole picture. Even here I would disagree, every aspect of Djokovic's forehand is consistently better than Murray's which is unreliable and is only sometimes a decent weapon, let alone a great one. Djokovic has the extra gear in power and ability to hit stringes of cold winners vs anyone that Murray doesnt have to the same extent. Also Djokovic who used to be on a similar level with Murray as far as defensive skills (both were always excellent), has now improved his defense further to the point he has even surpassed Nadal, the same Nadal who many believe is the best defensive player ever, so clearly has surpassed Murray.