Hype-meter: Federer or Murray?

Which of these 2 was/is more hyped?


  • Total voters
    37

Blinkism

Legend
Ok, so some Murray fans claim that Federer, pre-2003, was hyped up in the same vain that Murray is hyped up to win a grand slam.

The idea is that Federer was tipped as a slam favorite before he ever won Wimbledon and was predicted as a future multiple slam winner and world #1.

So the question I pose to the population of TW who've been watching tennis for more than 5 years and can compare Fed hype to Murray hype is -

Who was/is more hyped and, also, which hype was/is more justified?

Roger Federer from the beginning of his career to before his 2003 Wimbledon win?

or

Andy Murray after his 2008 Wimbledon quarterfinal run until today?

Is Murray overhyped when compared to how Federer was hyped in his early days? Let us know what you think. Does Murray have room for improvement? Has he peaked? Is the Murray hype justified? What is the difference between early Fed and Murray these days?
 
Last edited:

Spider

Hall of Fame
Federer was way overrated when he beat Sampras and everyone expected him to dominate tennis. Then we saw what happened in 02, he performed really badly. He did pathetic in the first two slams in 03 and many started doubting whether he would ever win any tournament (let alone a slam). AND the rest is history ... we have the greatest player to play this sport in Federer.

Murray has been hyped to win a slam this year and end of last year. Perhaps in 2010 we have our next Federer in Murray :)
 

Blinkism

Legend
You have now created a thread in order to try and make a fool out of batz. Wow, i mean.....



WOW!
I have no intention of making a fool out of batz.

We're having a tennis discussion and I figured that we can get the whole board's perspective on the topic.

batz is one of the few logical posters on this forum and one of the least biased Murray fans. Atleast he listens to reason, unlike some banned posters who shall not be named.

This is not a flaming thread. It's a perfectly legit question to ask TW posters. Don't get all defensive about it.
 

murraymo

Banned
I have no intention of making a fool out of batz.

We're having a tennis discussion and I figured that we can get the whole board's perspective on the topic.

batz is one of the few logical posters on this forum and one of the least biased Murray fans. Atleast he listens to reason, unlike some banned posters who shall not be named.

This is not a flaming thread. It's a perfectly legit question to ask TW posters. Don't get all defensive about it.
We've been listening to your awful hatred and it's despicable. No logic in your arguments whatsoever. Just pure bashing at its best.
 

Blinkism

Legend
We've been listening to your awful hatred and it's despicable. No logic in your arguments whatsoever. Just pure bashing at its best.
First of all, mr. "murraymo" - You've been on, what... 2 days on TW? You've never heard my arguments..

If you want to hear the logic behind my argument, here it is -

I dislike Murray for the following reasons;

His game - I don't particularily like how defensive Murray's game is. Where Nadal can play defensively, he gets into offensive position once the point is neutralized and the opportunity arises to be aggresive. Murray, on the other hand, has the tools and ability to play aggresive but choses to play defensively because it is the easy way out. This style won't ever win him a grand slam. Also, Murray occasionally plays like something that we all know as a "pusher". He doesn't always play like this, but when he is bossed around and is losing badly enough (like he was in the last 2 sets with Cilic), Murray seems to lack any plan "B" and gets picked apart, strategically, by his opponent. Also, Murray's second serve leaves much to be desired and Murray's inability to adjust his game costs him not only against aggressive big hitters at the slams (like Verdasco, Gonzalez, and Cilic), but also against focused players willing to play aggressive despite the conditions (Wind in Indian Wells in the final match against Nadal this year)

This goes to my second point.

Overhyping - Despite the gaping holes in Murray's game, he is often referred to as a great "tactician", "brilliant", a "genius", and possesing "deft touch" and "great hands". He is often touted as the next best thing in tennis a multiple slam winner. Much of the hype behind Murray can be attributed to the British press, which is no fault of Murray's, but is annoying nonetheless. Murray himself does little to tone down the hype (unlike Nadal when managing hype - example: questions of winning Grand Slam at beginning of the year). Murray suggested that his goals this year included (at various points); reaching #1 in the world (he said this while at #4 in the midst of Rafa domination), winning Wimbledon, and winning the US Open. Murray also tipped himself as a potential upset to win the French Open title.

Attitude - despite claims of being a gentleman, it has become apparent, to all but ardent Murray fans, that Murray has an attitude problem. On court, when things aren't going his way, Andy can act very bratty and very annoying. A great example of this is the Wawrinka-Murray match at Wimbledon earlier this year when Wawa pushed Murray to the brink and Murray would yell "c'mon" as loud as he could in the face of any unforced error or double fault coming from Wawrinka's way. In Indian Wells, Murray acted like a complete brat when debris from the stands was flying around far from the court out of the umpire's view during a point. Murray argued for a "let" call, but it was not granted. Murray proceeded to act like a brat for the entire match, put on a sour face, and completely tank - this was contrasted by Nadal who was very focused, did not let Murray fase him, and dominated the match.

------------------------

Those are my reasons. Pick them apart as you wish, but don't write off my arguments and opinions as "hating" and "illogical" if you've got nothing better to say in response.

I didn't just wake up one day and say "hey I really dislike this guy Murray". I initially was neutral to him. You might even say I kind of liked him. But as I've seen more and more of him in 2009, I have to say I really dislike him and there are few players I dislike and have ever disliked like I do Murray. I am not generally a hater - as a Nadal fan, I resist the natural urge of most Nadal fans on TW to bash Federer.

So, please consider what I've said, if you will

Thanks
 
Last edited:

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
federer wasnt hyped as much as Murray for the simple reason that he himself came from a very laid-back nation.If you've noticed its in England that murray is hyped the most.Federer was considered very talented and they expected him to win a slam,but the hype around him was nothing like its been around Murray..but then again,who is to say he wont deliver?
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
To be clear, I have never said that Roger was as hyped or more hyped to win a slam than Murray has been.

What I have argued is that Roger was tipped to be multiple slam winner for several years before he won his 1st slam, and that he found it hard to live up to those expectations - as Murray is at the moment.

I hope that clarifies things.

I voted that Murray was more hyped - but marginally in my view, but that doesn't mean that Roger wasn't hyped - which is my position.
 

Blinkism

Legend
Maybe I should have made the question

"What hype was/is more justified?"

The spirit of what I'm asking is, basically - is Murray overhyped compared to how Federer was hyped?
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
First of all, mr. "murraymo" - You've been on, what... 2 days on TW? You've never heard my arguments..

If you want to hear the logic behind my argument, here it is -

I dislike Murray for the following reasons;

His game - I don't particularily like how defensive Murray's game is. Where Nadal can play defensively, he gets into offensive position once the point is neutralized and the opportunity arises to be aggresive. Murray, on the other hand, has the tools and ability to play aggresive but choses to play defensively because it is the easy way out. This style won't ever win him a grand slam. Also, Murray occasionally plays like something that we all know as a "pusher". He doesn't always play like this, but when he is bossed around and is losing badly enough (like he was in the last 2 sets with Cilic), Murray seems to lack any plan "B" and gets picked apart, strategically, by his opponent. Also, Murray's second serve leaves much to be desired and Murray's inability to adjust his game costs him not only against aggressive big hitters at the slams (like Verdasco, Gonzalez, and Cilic), but also against focused players willing to play aggressive despite the conditions (Wind in Indian Wells in the final match against Nadal this year)

This goes to my second point.

Overhyping - Despite the gaping holes in Murray's game, he is often referred to as a great "tactician", "brilliant", a "genius", and possesing "deft touch" and "great hands". He is often touted as the next best thing in tennis a multiple slam winner. Much of the hype behind Murray can be attributed to the British press, which is no fault of Murray's, but is annoying nonetheless. Murray himself does little to tone down the hype (unlike Nadal when managing hype - example: questions of winning Grand Slam at beginning of the year). Murray suggested that his goals this year included (at various points); reaching #1 in the world (he said this while at #4 in the midst of Rafa domination), winning Wimbledon, and winning the US Open. Murray also tipped himself as a potential upset to win the French Open title.

Attitude - despite claims of being a gentleman, it has become apparent, to all but ardent Murray fans, that Murray has an attitude problem. On court, when things aren't going his way, Andy can act very bratty and very annoying. A great example of this is the Wawrinka-Murray match at Wimbledon earlier this year when Wawa pushed Murray to the brink and Murray would yell "c'mon" as loud as he could in the face of any unforced error or double fault coming from Wawrinka's way. In Indian Wells, Murray acted like a complete brat when debris from the stands was flying around far from the court out of the umpire's view during a point. Murray argued for a "let" call, but it was not granted. Murray proceeded to act like a brat for the entire match, put on a sour face, and completely tank - this was contrasted by Nadal who was very focused, did not let Murray fase him, and dominated the match.

------------------------

Those are my reasons. Pick them apart as you wish, but don't write off my arguments and opinions as "hating" and "illogical" if you've got nothing better to say in response.

Thanks
Come on. Don't feel the need to go these lengths. :) You're a Murray hater(not in the true meaning of the word, rather in everday interet parlance). I'm sure most people get it. The average person doesn't take it that seriously.
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
Maybe I should have made the question

"What hype was/is more justified?"

The spirit of what I'm asking is, basically - is Murray overhyped compared to how Federer was hyped?
That's a toughie. I'll sit on the fence and say 'possibly' :)
 

Blinkism

Legend
Come on. Don't feel the need to go these lengths. :) You're a Murray hater(not in the true meaning of the word, rather in everday interet parlance). I'm sure most people get it. The average person doesn't take it that seriously.
Oh, for sure. In TW terms, I am a Murray hater.

I just figured I'd get all my opinions out so the artist-formerly-known-as-maximo gets off my case

and in case someone actually was interested in hearing the argument
 

murraymo

Banned
First of all, mr. "murraymo" - You've been on, what... 2 days on TW? You've never heard my arguments..

If you want to hear the logic behind my argument, here it is -

I dislike Murray for the following reasons;

His game - I don't particularily like how defensive Murray's game is. Where Nadal can play defensively, he gets into offensive position once the point is neutralized and the opportunity arises to be aggresive. Murray, on the other hand, has the tools and ability to play aggresive but choses to play defensively because it is the easy way out. This style won't ever win him a grand slam. Also, Murray occasionally plays like something that we all know as a "pusher". He doesn't always play like this, but when he is bossed around and is losing badly enough (like he was in the last 2 sets with Cilic), Murray seems to lack any plan "B" and gets picked apart, strategically, by his opponent. Also, Murray's second serve leaves much to be desired and Murray's inability to adjust his game costs him not only against aggressive big hitters at the slams (like Verdasco, Gonzalez, and Cilic), but also against focused players willing to play aggressive despite the conditions (Wind in Indian Wells in the final match against Nadal this year)

This goes to my second point.

Overhyping - Despite the gaping holes in Murray's game, he is often referred to as a great "tactician", "brilliant", a "genius", and possesing "deft touch" and "great hands". He is often touted as the next best thing in tennis a multiple slam winner. Much of the hype behind Murray can be attributed to the British press, which is no fault of Murray's, but is annoying nonetheless. Murray himself does little to tone down the hype (unlike Nadal when managing hype - example: questions of winning Grand Slam at beginning of the year). Murray suggested that his goals this year included (at various points); reaching #1 in the world (he said this while at #4 in the midst of Rafa domination), winning Wimbledon, and winning the US Open. Murray also tipped himself as a potential upset to win the French Open title.

Attitude - despite claims of being a gentleman, it has become apparent, to all but ardent Murray fans, that Murray has an attitude problem. On court, when things aren't going his way, Andy can act very bratty and very annoying. A great example of this is the Wawrinka-Murray match at Wimbledon earlier this year when Wawa pushed Murray to the brink and Murray would yell "c'mon" as loud as he could in the face of any unforced error or double fault coming from Wawrinka's way. In Indian Wells, Murray acted like a complete brat when debris from the stands was flying around far from the court out of the umpire's view during a point. Murray argued for a "let" call, but it was not granted. Murray proceeded to act like a brat for the entire match, put on a sour face, and completely tank - this was contrasted by Nadal who was very focused, did not let Murray fase him, and dominated the match.

------------------------

Those are my reasons. Pick them apart as you wish, but don't write off my arguments and opinions as "hating" and "illogical" if you've got nothing better to say in response.

I didn't just wake up one day and say "hey I really dislike this guy Murray". I initially was neutral to him. You might even say I kind of liked him. But as I've seen more and more of him in 2009, I have to say I really dislike him and there are few players I dislike and have ever disliked like I do Murray. I am not generally a hater - as a Nadal fan, I resist the natural urge of most Nadal fans on TW to bash Federer.

So, please consider what I've said, if you will

Thanks
i'm laughing soo hard at practically everything written. One of the most well balanced and wise posts i have ever read!
 
federer wasnt hyped as much as Murray for the simple reason that he himself came from a very laid-back nation.If you've noticed its in England that murray is hyped the most.Federer was considered very talented and they expected him to win a slam,but the hype around him was nothing like its been around Murray..but then again,who is to say he wont deliver?
I agree, Federer wasn't hyped as much as Murray. Maybe it depends on the country, but I know I did not really hear from Federer until Wimbledon 2003. I totally forgot about the Sampras match in 2001.
I think in every country people expected Murray to at least reach the final of the USO and possibly even win his first slam.
Thus he is more hyped. We now have to be more objective and put a question mark behind Murray name. I think he can win a slam, but he needs to improve and be more aggressive in his matches.
 

Dimitrov_Fan

New User
murrays been hyped for a while now but its been really bad this year, hopefully the fact he lost at flushing meadows means people rethink his chances for 2010 for more realistic chances
 
We have to distinguish between hype and attention from the media. Murry being Scottish is from the most powerful sporting media in the world. Therefore his name would always be brought up, players would be questioned about him. They key thing is how many people predicted he would be a multiple slam champion and a number 1? Did anyone predict he would become one of the sports greats?

Federer obviously was not given the same media fuss, but more was expected from him. Whenever people spoke about him they mentioned him as being an almost certain grand slam winner. Pre 2003 he was viewed as the heir apparent to Wimbledon and a perennial threat to win the French. Federer was regarded as the one of the favourites for Wimbledon 2002, Wimbledon 2003 and an outside chance for Aussie 2003. Finally Federer was a year younger than Murray when he was being dubbed the next Sampras.
 
Murray by far. Not saying it's his fault, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that he is British so the British press writes a lot of stuff about it. However, I certainly don't recall anybody claiming Federer was the favorite to win before he won Wimby 2003 like Murray was here (i.e. by serval analysts such as McEnroe, Wertheim, etc...).
 

Meaghan

Hall of Fame
federer wasnt hyped as much as Murray for the simple reason that he himself came from a very laid-back nation.If you've noticed its in England that murray is hyped the most.Federer was considered very talented and they expected him to win a slam,but the hype around him was nothing like its been around Murray..but then again,who is to say he wont deliver?
In UK i dont really see any Murray hype, infact not many people are interested in tennis at all.
One example of the headlines for Murray when he was beaten by Cilic was "Murray" the new Tim Henman?" This I may add was not a backpage headline it was nestled in between the horse racing and Rugby league which was after the Cricket and Football.

Im a Murray fan as Im patriotic as a sports fan but he really does let himself down.
In shanghai he got beat by Davydenko after a great and hardwearing win over Federer. He got beat cos his body language said "look how knackered I am" thus encouraging Davy's positive attitude. He beat himself.
Against all those big hitters, Verdasco he was winning very comfortably playing very attacking tennis, then....he started playing his loopy safe, let them make a mistake first tennis and he lost.
Gonzalez just out hit him as did Cilic in the end but in the first set he had 3 break points in one game before he lost his serve and instead of being positive and going for a winner he played lollipop tennis again and let Cilic hit three crackers to get himself out of trouble. Everything hinged on that game.
So as a supporter he does my head in! When aggressive I think he is one of the most exciting players around I dont really care about the hype, everyone knows that he is close and has all the tools.
It doesnt really matter to make comparisons, I think Murray just needs to go away this winter and not bulk up anymore and work on positive aggressive tennis and learn to apply it against the big boys.
 
Murray by far. Not saying it's his fault, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that he is British so the British press writes a lot of stuff about it. However, I certainly don't recall anybody claiming Federer was the favorite to win before he won Wimby 2003 like Murray was here (i.e. by serval analysts such as McEnroe, Wertheim, etc...).
I have already posted an article for Wimbledon 2002 where Wertheim picks Federer to win it. I have posted countless post from Mal Washington tipping Federer to win any slam he entered and even be as good as Sampras on grass.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
I have already posted an article for Wimbledon 2002 where Wertheim picks Federer to win it. I have posted countless post from Mal Washington tipping Federer to win any slam he entered and even be as good as Sampras on grass.
I dont think he was ever the top favourite to win it because most of the times he never went deep in slams and was losing to pretty much anyone.His winning Wimbledon actually came as a surprise for him.He wasnt even expecting it and all of a sudden he was the Wimbledon Champion.
I wont say he wasnt hyped because he was always considered to be extremely talented.
 
Last edited:
I dont think he was ever the top favourite to win it because most of the times he never went deep in slams and was losing to pretty much anyone.His winning Wimbledon actually came as a surprise for him.He wasnt even expecting it and all of a sudden he was the Wimbledon Champion.
I wont say he wasnt hyped because he was always considered to be extremely talented.
Wimbledon 2002 he was the absoloute top favourite in a lot of people's opinion. With others he was at the very least among the top 4 favourites. He had afterall beaten Sampras the year before and lost to Henman a tight match. This is the reason why his loss to Ancic was such a shock and led to him being labeled mentally weak. However, his talent was undeniable so for the next few slams he was always one of the favourite, but no longer the favourite till he could sort out his head.

By 2003 he was once again one of the top 4 favourites, but people were unsure of his mentality. It's difficult to pick a guy who was favourite last year and lost first round. Yet even then when he won it there was no surprise. More like Roger had finally realised his talen.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Wimbledon 2002 he was the absoloute top favourite in a lot of people's opinion. With others he was at the very least among the top 4 favourites. He had afterall beaten Sampras the year before and lost to Henman a tight match. This is the reason why his loss to Ancic was such a shock and led to him being labeled mentally weak. However, his talent was undeniable so for the next few slams he was always one of the favourite, but no longer the favourite till he could sort out his head.

By 2003 he was once again one of the top 4 favourites, but people were unsure of his mentality. It's difficult to pick a guy who was favourite last year and lost first round. Yet even then when he won it there was no surprise. More like Roger had finally realised his talen.
But unlike Murray he wasnt the favourite for 3 of the four slams.Wimbledon maybe..especially 2002 and 03 because he had done well against Sampras in 2001 and in 03 won Halle for the first time.His vctory was def.a surprise for him .He himself said it was very unexpected.Maybe the experts werent surprised but he was.
The problem is Murray reads into this hype.He's now been saying Roger won his first slam on his 17th attempt and that he's still on 15 or stg..I dont get this attitude.Why the comparison with Roger all the time? He says he dosent read into the hype but his interviews often tell a different story.IMO he does read into it much more than Roger did and he does seem to be caring a little too much about the rankings.
 
Last edited:
But unlike Murray he wasnt the favourite for 3 of the four slams.Wimbledon maybe..especially 2002 and 03 because he had done well against Sampras in 2001 and in 03 won Halle for the first time.His vctory was def.a surprise for him .He himself said it was very unexpected.Maybe the experts werent surprised but he was.
Fair enough he was not the favourite at 3/4 like Murray but that was in part, because he did so badly when he was the favourite.

Not sure he didn't expect to Wimbledon 2003 either or at least earlier on in the year. He had announced a couple of months beforehand he was gunning for No. 1 after Wimbledon. With the way the points were to be No. 1 he would have had to win Wimbledon. I think his expectations changed after his terrible Roland Garros and the back injury he had during Wimbledon 2003. He actually mentoned how he was thinking of retiring vs Lopez if he had not won the tie breaker.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Fair enough he was not the favourite at 3/4 like Murray but that was in part, because he did so badly when he was the favourite.

Not sure he didn't expect to Wimbledon 2003 either or at least earlier on in the year. He had announced a couple of months beforehand he was gunning for No. 1 after Wimbledon. With the way the points were to be No. 1 he would have had to win Wimbledon. I think his expectations changed after his terrible Roland Garros and the back injury he had during Wimbledon 2003. He actually mentoned how he was thinking of retiring vs Lopez if he had not won the tie breaker.
Well he wasnt going to be no 1 even if he won Wimbledon.And you'd have to show me where he said it because I never read about it.And it was just for one slam that he was the favourite in which he ended up doing badly.
Infact this is what he said even after winning the masters cup when many considered him to be better than Andy.R

. Although Andy starts the year as No. 1, I'm sure he's going to be looking over his shoulder from the word "go." Is that good for you in a sense that you've got that target to aim for?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, we're far away from each other in the draws; I'm all the way in the bottom, he's all the way to the top. It's a long way to always meet each other. But I think every time we play, we have great matches. Yeah, we'll see how the beginning of the year goes. I don't know what it takes, again, to become No. 1. But if he plays well, then he deserves to be. But I'll try to have a good start to the season because this season has been very long and very tough for me.
 
Last edited:
Federer Sets Sights on World No. 1 Spot
Wed March 5, 2003 10:19 AM ET

ZURICH, Switzerland (Reuters) - Switzerland's Roger Federer is aiming to become world No. 1 in 2003 but realizes that he must win his first grand slam to do so.
"I am getting closer to the No. 1," Federer said in an interview with Swiss daily Blick on Tuesday. "But I am conscious that I need to improve my results in the grand slam tournaments.

The 21-year-old, who has won in Marseille and Dubai this year, is ranked fourth in the world behind Australian Lleyton Hewitt, American Andre Agassi and Spaniard Juan Carlos Ferrero.

His quarter-final appearances in the French Open and Wimbledon in 2001 are his best results so far and he knows he must go further in the big tournaments to achieve his goal.

"I am working very hard and my dream will always be to be world number one, it is what I've always dreamt of. I think I can hold the position after Wimbledon."

There's the quote.


I do agree with you about Murray. It is worrying that he compares himself to Federer. He needs to realise that he is simply not as talented as Federer. Yes they may both have good movement, variety, touch and court intelligence, but Murray is not a top tier ball striker like Federer.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
^ that really does not compare to caring as much as Murray does.He keeps talking about the rankings.After RG he said had Roger lost Haas he'd have taken over the no.2 ranking..and I was like WTH?
BTW-I think by 'position' he meant the that he'd have a good shot at the ranking..because winning Wimbledon wasnt going to get him to the no 1 ranking.
Also,Roger speaks 3 languages,so its possible that the article was a little lost in translation.
 
Last edited:

Clydey2times

Hall of Fame
Murray by far. Not saying it's his fault, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that he is British so the British press writes a lot of stuff about it. However, I certainly don't recall anybody claiming Federer was the favorite to win before he won Wimby 2003 like Murray was here (i.e. by serval analysts such as McEnroe, Wertheim, etc...).
After his loss to Ancic in 2002, this is one of of questions he was asked:

Q. Roland Garros and now Wimbledon. Is there a problem with you being the favorite? Do you have a problem in Grand Slam tournaments?
He was considered a lock for a slam and a favourite before 2003.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Another thing that bothers me about Murray is him saying how Roger won his first slam on his 17th attempt and all that..like I said I dont get why he tries to compare himself with Roger at this point.
I think he's got a lot of talent and I do think he's going to win a slam.I just dont get his attitude.
 
No I never said he cared as much about the rankings as Andy. Federer had always outlined his goal was to win Wimbledon maybe the US and then get to No. 1. His goals had not changed much since he was 18.

I posted the comments about him being No. 1 after Wimbledon to show around March he expected he would win Wimbledon 2003. At this point he probably assumed he would do alright at the French so winning Wimbledon would very likely have given him No.1. Things obviously took a turn for the worse with his poor performances at the French and his back injury. Both of these robbed him of confidence at Wimbledon and made the win their then become a surprise.

As for Murray I am disappointed to see he said that about the French. The attitude he should have had was to focus on winning Wimbledon not relying on others slipping up.
 

Clydey2times

Hall of Fame
Another thing that bothers me about Murray is him saying how Roger won his first slam on his 17th attempt and all that..like I said I dont get why he tries to compare himself with Roger at this point.
I'm actually pretty sure he got that from reading these forums. :lol:

That is an argument I have used on 3 different forums, including one of his forums, and then Murray mentions that fact to the press. Think he got it slightly wrong, though. It was the 18th.

He either read it on one of the forums or he checked for himself. The former is easily more plausible.
 

Clydey2times

Hall of Fame
No I never said he cared as much about the rankings as Andy. Federer had always outlined his goal was to win Wimbledon maybe the US and then get to No. 1. His goals had not changed much since he was 18.

I posted the comments about him being No. 1 after Wimbledon to show around March he expected he would win Wimbledon 2003. At this point he probably assumed he would do alright at the French so winning Wimbledon would very likely have given him No.1. Things obviously took a turn for the worse with his poor performances at the French and his back injury. Both of these robbed him of confidence at Wimbledon and made the win their then become a surprise.

As for Murray I am disappointed to see he said that about the French. The attitude he should have had was to focus on winning Wimbledon not relying on others slipping up.
He just stated a fact. He didn't say he was relying on it. I love how these quotes are being twisted.

It's a fact that he would have gone to number 2. What's wrong with stating it?
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
I'm actually pretty sure he got that from reading these forums. :lol:

That is an argument I have used on 3 different forums, including one of his forums, and then Murray mentions that fact to the press. Think he got it slightly wrong, though. It was the 18th.

He either read it on one of the forums or he checked for himself. The former is easily more plausible.
I want him to win a slam and I want him to get rid of that passive play because he has so much variety and so many options! the Murray of last year's USO and onwards and the Murray of this year are different IMO.He was so much more agressive at last year's USO and through the indoor HC season.Even Cincy..I thought he was great.
 
Another thing that bothers me about Murray is him saying how Roger won his first slam on his 17th attempt and all that..like I said I dont get why he tries to compare himself with Roger at this point.
I think he's got a lot of talent and I do think he's going to win a slam.I just dont get his attitude.
The answer is probably Murray feels he is just as talented as Federer. I believe he is mistaken. There is no doubt Murray is very talented, but perhaps you are right and he IS buying into his hype too much. Though I am not sure if even the British media has ever said he was as talented as Roger.
 

Clydey2times

Hall of Fame
I want him to win a slam and I want him to get rid of that passive play because he has so much variety and so many options! the Murray of last year's USO and onwards and the Murray of this year are different IMO.He was so much more agressive at last year's USO and through the indoor HC season.Even Cincy..I thought he was great.
I have a theory that his improved fitness has turned him into even more of a retriever. He knows he can run all day, playing relatively risk free tennis, and win 90% of the time. He has formed a bad habit and can't seem to get out of it.
 
He just stated a fact. He didn't say he was relying on it. I love how these quotes are being twisted.

It's a fact that he would have gone to number 2. What's wrong with stating it?
It may be stating a fact, but it is the wrong kind of fact to be stating. The Federer match was not in his hands. He had no part in the outcome. In many ways its comparable to the way he plays. Murray places the ball in extremely difficult positions and waits for the opponent to miss.

In my opinion if Murray has said something like I would have been No. 2 had beaten Gonzalez it would have been better. In the first quote he is trusting his fate to Federer in the second he would be taking it upon himself.
 

Clydey2times

Hall of Fame
It may be stating a fact, but it is the wrong kind of fact to be stating. The Federer match was not in his hands. He had no part in the outcome. In many ways its comparable to the way he plays. Murray places the ball in extremely difficult positions and waits for the opponent to miss.

In my opinion if Murray has said something like I would have been No. 2 had beaten Gonzalez it would have been better. In the first quote he is trusting his fate to Federer in the second he would be taking it upon himself.
But that wouldn't have been true. It wasn't in his hands. He needed Federer to lose, plain and simple. It didn't matter if he beat Gonzo. He needed Fed to lose, so what he said was a simple fact.

Are you aware of the question or the context?
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
I have a theory that his improved fitness has turned him into even more of a retriever. He knows he can run all day, playing relatively risk free tennis, and win 90% of the time. He has formed a bad habit and can't seem to get out of it.
I thought so too because he looks a little bulky these days.Hopefully he'll shed off some the weight or do whatever it takes and start being more agressive because its going to help him.The day he cant run as well as he usually does he will suffer.
 
But that wouldn't have been true. It wasn't in his hands. He needed Federer to lose, plain and simple. It didn't matter if he beat Gonzo. He needed Fed to lose, so what he said was a simple fact.

Are you aware of the question or the context?
Yes I was aware of the situation. I know that Murray had to win the whole thing to gain Number 2 or have Federer go out a round before. My point about the Gonzalez was a way of showing what kind of quote I would appreciate.

I really think Murray should have just shut up about the No. 2 thing. If it was never in his hands then he should not have said anything. Djokovich in my opinion had a far more valid reason to talk about No. 2, because it was in his hands twice at the start of the year.

By the way I don't believe Murray can run all day long at slams. The only players who are capable of that were Hewitt and now Nadal. I don't believe Murray could go 4 sets, 5 sets, 5 sets 4 sets and having anything left for the final.
 

Clydey2times

Hall of Fame
Yes I was aware of the situation. I know that Murray had to win the whole thing to gain Number 2 or have Federer go out a round before. My point about the Gonzalez was a way of showing what kind of quote I would appreciate.

I really think Murray should have just shut up about the No. 2 thing. If it was never in his hands then he should not have said anything. Djokovich in my opinion had a far more valid reason to talk about No. 2, because it was in his hands twice at the start of the year.

By the way I don't believe Murray can run all day long at slams. The only players who are capable of that were Hewitt and now Nadal. I don't believe Murray could go 4 sets, 5 sets, 5 sets 4 sets and having anything left for the final.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Nothing is ever entirely in a player's hands. Your argument is logically flawed. For a player to improve, another player has to slip up somewhere along the way. For Djokovic to be in a position to take Nadal's number 2 spot in Hamburg, he had rely on on Nadal losing matches at other tournaments, as well as his own results.

You are focusing too much on what happened in the present, as though that is all that mattered. It's a bit like how Murray overtook Djokovic in the rankings, while Djokovic outperformed him at the tournament it happened at. People whined and cried, seemingly unable to look beyond what had happened in the last week.
 
We'll have to agree to disagree. Nothing is ever entirely in a player's hands. Your argument is logically flawed. For a player to improve, another player has to slip up somewhere along the way. For Djokovic to be in a position to take Nadal's number 2 spot in Hamburg, he had rely on on Nadal losing matches at other tournaments, as well as his own results.

You are focusing too much on what happened in the present, as though that is all that mattered. It's a bit like how Murray overtook Djokovic in the rankings, while Djokovic outperformed him at the tournament it happened at. People whined and cried, seemingly unable to look beyond what had happened in the last week.
Tennis is a knock out competition. If one player does not slip up then its up to you to beat them. You could over take someone in the ranking by constantly beating them in finals.

I had no problems with Murray taking the No. 3 from Djokovich at the time, because he had been better all year around.

You are right though we will have to agree to disagree on the topic.
 

crazylevity

Hall of Fame
Regardless of how hyped each was, one difference is clear: Federer never bought into it. He knew he had to win slams to be considered a good player, a legitimate no.1. He knew he had to win multiple slams, to be considered a great. He knew he had to break records, to be mentioned alongside the greatest of the game like Borg, Laver, Sampras.

And from day one, that is what he set out to do, regardless of what other people were saying about him or his talent.

Murray needs to understand that at the end of the day, the results will speak for themselves.
 
I don't get the hype about Murray. It's not like he's a top-tier ball striker. Junk-ball genius maybe gets the job done in best-of-3 events but the days of that winning in slams was 1988.
 

フェデラー

Hall of Fame
i think the difference here is that murray hyped himself, where as you can see any old Fed interview and he himself expected little from himself. Where as Murray was supposed to win Aussie open, or wimbledon, or the USO, and he himself said he could. It was also a very bad idea of the media saying he was going to be no.1 by the end of the year. Sorry brad gilbert.
 
Top