Jeffrey573639
Semi-Pro
I know that talent has no clear definition but even so there's a very clear consensus that Federer is very talented. So what's the general opinion about Murray's talent compared to other all time greats?
How talented is Murray?
- Thread starter Jeffrey573639
- Start date
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
more talented than Djokovic and Nadal
helloworld
Hall of Fame
This is hilarious. :lol:
Fedex
Legend
Murray is obviously extremely naturally talented if that's what you mean by talent.
This man thinks he is the most talented player he ever saw:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/13243702
Unfortunately, even bags of natural talent doesn't necessarily translate into trophies.
You could argue Murray has underachieved but then 1 slam and 9 masters titles isn't too bad in an extremely tough era of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.
Gasquet was recognised as being a huge natural talented at a young age, and much touted, but has won practically nothing.
This man thinks he is the most talented player he ever saw:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/13243702
Unfortunately, even bags of natural talent doesn't necessarily translate into trophies.
You could argue Murray has underachieved but then 1 slam and 9 masters titles isn't too bad in an extremely tough era of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.
Gasquet was recognised as being a huge natural talented at a young age, and much touted, but has won practically nothing.
Fedex
Legend
Not so hilarious when you read this is it?
"You can't go wrong with Murray. He's the best there is. He's a better player than Nadal and the other top guys."
quote from Pato Alvarez national coach for Spain for 16 years.
Have a think before jumping to quick conclusions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/13243702
Natural talent, as I said before, doesn't necessarily translate into titles.
djokovic2008
Hall of Fame
Its actually true he is the most talented in my opinion in the top four with more options in defence and attack but that does not automatically translate in to success.
The Bawss
Banned
That's an impressive troll.
My dislike of Murray aside, it's painfully obvious that he is the less talented than Fedal.
Last edited:
djokovic2008
Hall of Fame
Name one thing he cannot do, he has a great backhand and good first serve over 35mph which nadal does not, he does not shank backhands under pressure like fed does and can hang in 35 shot rallies no problem against nadal and djoker again unlike fed.
The Meat
Hall of Fame
Cormorant
Professional
This quote should probably be enshrined in your signature, for all to see. Give your fingers a rest!
I agree. As far as touch goes, Murray is the 2nd most talented player on tour, after Fed. Djoko and Nadal have other skills that Murray lacks though.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Murray has got ample talent. He's in the sort of Gilles Simon sort of league of tennis talent. They're both players with a innate and rare understanding of patterns, amazing anticipation, the ability to play the odds and not take unnecessary risks when a less flashy show is what is needed. That's why when they each win you often get the impression that nothing special happened in the match - their sort of talent is often not all that obvious.
Talent comes in many forms and just because Murray may not have close to the mind-blowing shotmaking abilities that someone like Federer was gifted with* doesn't mean he's not as talented.
(* which, in themselves, are often strongly related to technique anyway)
Talent comes in many forms and just because Murray may not have close to the mind-blowing shotmaking abilities that someone like Federer was gifted with* doesn't mean he's not as talented.
(* which, in themselves, are often strongly related to technique anyway)
Talent is hard to define. What type of talent? Talent comes in many forms.
Shotmaking, speed, mental toughness, discipline. Also chosing the right team, managing your schedule and also emotional intelligence.
A person with high iq can be a failure if he can't manage his emotions to work hard. So, he is not that much talented overall. Since emotional intelligence is 4 times more important in life than normal iq.
So, we have to assume that results show who has the most overall talent.
Anything else is speculation. This means a person found a way to solve most tennis problems to come on top.
djokovic2008
Hall of Fame
What...:shock:
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
How talented is Murray?
4.0 at best. Most TW players will double bagel him, on a bad day, with out even trying.
4.0 at best. Most TW players will double bagel him, on a bad day, with out even trying.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I think you're wrong. Yes. You're so wrong it's not even funny.
Fedex
Legend
How far can an average player with good physical attributes and stamina go in tennis with a great amount of practice on ground strokes technique?
If an average player with good coaching practiced say 8 hours per day for 10 years would he then have a chance of developing into a world class player, and, if he did, someone could then argue that he was naturally talented but how would anyone ever know?
I remember arguing with my father over this.
He coached me for a few years as a young lad and I would tell him I was going to win Wimbledon if I could only get the facilities and practice hard enough.
He warned me not to get too excited and that all the top players just had a special unteachable hand eye coordination natural gift that most people in the world simply did not have, including me.
There are tens of thousands of players in the world each equally as dedicated as your Federers, Djokovic's, Nadal's, Murray's and any player in the top 50 or so but they hardly ever get a sniff of a chance.
Jeffrey573639
Semi-Pro
You really think that Murray has more options in attack than Federer...?
djokovic2008
Hall of Fame
You prove my argument as Murray is all round not just attack he can play how he wants and get results not matter what style he decides to employ serve and volley, aggressive hitting or baseline grinding.
Jeffrey573639
Semi-Pro
I agree Murray is more 'all rounded' than Fed or Rafa but when on earth has he ever consistently SVed?
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
What do you mean by what? I explained what I meant in the sentence following the one you bolded. They are both cut from similar cloth in terms of their type of tennis talent. The comparison wasn't about their achievements or strokes - but what makes them special aside from their strokes. They are more similar than you'd think.
djokovic2008
Hall of Fame
He has done this as recently as his last grass court tournament vs becker at times etc, he has the touch and vollying skills to do this on grass.
djokovic2008
Hall of Fame
Simon does not hit serves at 135 mph, Simon is awful at net (I have seen him botch up the simplest volleys consistently) and he does not have the touch anywhere near as good as Murray's. Murray is a different level talent wise.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Clearly you completely failed to read what I wrote.
Go and read my post, and the later reply to you. It explained quite well what I meant and it has NOTHING to do with volleying, touch, or serve speed.
R
Rob31
Guest
He can miss volleys but he's not awful at net in good form anyway:
http://youtu.be/gst2oJpnH-E
http://youtu.be/NB9ONOL5hKk
http://youtu.be/7TVCVXKh9xk
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bawss
Banned
Yeah he can't hit 135mph serves yet can still get to #6 in the world. That's talent. Murray relies on his lucky genetics to win matches.
Amelie Mauresmo
Banned
Andy Murray is not that talented he's a lot like his coach Lendl he's very physically fit but his game is very mechanical. Murray is definitely a step below the top 3 that's for sure. Murray has a weak second serve, the commentators always complain about it he just spins in the second serve. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, have better serves than Murray. And of course the intangible the mental toughness aspect cannot be denied, mentally Murray is fragile. He has a 1-5 record in grand slam finals for a reason his mechanical game can only take him so far.
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Steady on Bawss, you'll be giving yourself a nasty turn if you keep going on this vein!
So, in your opinion, is Murray the most successful averagely talented player you've ever seen?
Last edited:
Bender
G.O.A.T.
He's not very talented in the mental department I guess...
Edit: I mean fortitude, not r3tardation
mike danny
Bionic Poster
federer still has better shotmaking
Many GS's I have watched with my father who has watched tennis for 25 years (like many of you here). He and I really believed Murray to be capable of being the best player in the world in this generation now. He moves unbelievably well, especially on grass; when playing aggressive has all the shots, variety, stamina. He is just a headcase IMO (I mean compared to the elite 3).
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes but players being of similar mold doesn't necessarily mean there still isn't a significant gap in the talent.
Murray has a better feel for the ball than Simon, has bigger firepower off the ground, volleys better, has a better slice, much bigger 1st serve etc.
Simon is a solid player while Murray is one of the most talented players of this generation.
President
Legend
Murray is very talented but I think there are quite a few less successful players who have/had just as much or more potential as him. Either they were unlucky with injuries and mentally weak or they just didn't put in the massive amount of work Murray puts in off court (their own fault, of course). Current players like Monfils, Gasquet, Gulbis, Verdasco, Haas, and Berdych are all on a similar or greater talent level than Murray IMO. Cudos to Andy for all the work he put in to be much more successful than them. That said, Murray is a lot more talented than some players who achieved a similar/higher level of success than him like Roddick, Courier, and Kafelnikov IMO.
Last edited:
R
Rob31
Guest
In their last encounter on clay in Madrid, i didn't see a huge difference of talent, you could see that Simon has a better FH dtl particularly, plus he choked a lead 6-2,2-0.
Otherwise, some highlights (when he's in good form, he's more aggressive, add more variety in his game and defends and counter punch very well):
http://youtu.be/0uiJ5NKK4ns
http://youtu.be/BA1oDo3soCg
http://youtu.be/44EJZ-qUwgs
http://youtu.be/be6eMF7pkEo
http://youtu.be/qxvoShZfB60
http://youtu.be/U26I4Xk1ino
http://youtu.be/tnL6bSDsmFk
http://youtu.be/nDMkJsieOvs
http://youtu.be/7sxMJ6bM9zA
http://youtu.be/wd5RFzOamxQ
http://youtu.be/NB9ONOL5hKk
Last edited by a moderator:
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I never said they had comparable levels of talent, I said "he's in the sort of Gilles Simon sort of league of tennis talent" - i.e. their talents are in similar areas. I couldn't have been any less vague in what I was talking about.
Simon may be a solid player but Murray is really just a solid player too - he's just much better at it than Simon. As you say, he's better at many shots than Simon but their basic template is down the same end of the spectrum of talents. They approach the game in very similar ways and are distinct from how guys like Federer, Tsonga, Ferrer, Nadal, Del Potro etc play.
Last edited:
coolschreiber
Hall of Fame
I think Murray is hugely talented. His only issue is mental... he's still a little too defensive, passive. But under Lendl, Murray seems to have gotten more aggressive, he plays closer to the baseline and goes for winners. Knowing when to attack and start controlling the point is a talent in itself, something Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are masters of. Once Murray masters that I think he can reach #1.
President
Legend
Then how do you explain Murray's abysmal 5-13 record against Nadal and his much better record against Federer and Djokovic?
Praetorian
Professional
Maybe because Nadal is better. Better doesn't necessarily mean more talented.
abmk
Bionic Poster
he was 0-5 vs nadal before he won his first masters title (cincy 2008 ) , since then its 5-8. not as lopsided as overall h2h of 5-13 would make you believe.
he is 2-4 vs nadal in majors since then
1-3 vs djoker
1-3 vs federer
federer's decline also played a part in the overall h2h. murray didn't meet djokovic much before cincy 2008 IIRC.
Last edited:
President
Legend
They are almost the same age, you can argue that if Nadal's wins before Murray hit his prime don't count because Nadal peaked earlier, then future Murray wins shouldn't count for the same reason. And aren't we only talking about talent here? Isn't it a talent that Nadal was able to peak much earlier than Murray and yet still maintain a very high level of play to this day, when most people thought he would be finished? My point was that Nadal is considerably more talented than Murray.
tennis_hack
Banned
Utterly hilarious how people think an 11 time Slam winner is less talented than a 1 time Slam winner. Ludicrious.
To me, you can really simplify it as much as this: grand slam totals = talent.
That's right, if Isner purely serve-botted his way to 18 grand slam trophies - you'd bet I be first in line to admit he's more talented than Federer.
Because having good genetics (i.e. being tall enough to abuse the serving system) is just as much of a talent as having amazing hand-eye-co-ordination, athleticism and shot-making.
To me, you can really simplify it as much as this: grand slam totals = talent.
That's right, if Isner purely serve-botted his way to 18 grand slam trophies - you'd bet I be first in line to admit he's more talented than Federer.
Because having good genetics (i.e. being tall enough to abuse the serving system) is just as much of a talent as having amazing hand-eye-co-ordination, athleticism and shot-making.
Similar threads
