I don't like Andy Murray's forehand, attitude on court and 2nd serve and he's not an ATG.

[Zardoz7/12]

I said it, do I need to make loaded questions to obfuscate my dislike for certain elements of Andy Murray's game? And the fact he is not an All time great?

Why don't people stop massaging the areola and get to the pinching the nipple? IE Get to the point.

It's not I dislike Murray personally, why would I? I like his off court persona, he seems to be respectful to people and not an arrogant egocentric. I've followed his career from when he won the US Open juniors in 2004, he always possessed a great backhand, great slices, his net play remined me of Lleyton Hewitt, great lob too.

His on court attitude of whining and complaining is annoying, when he shouted at his box which included his pregnant wife when he played Kevin Anderson in the 4th round of the US Open in 2015 I found it disgraceful.

He is a top player but he never had the aura of a dominator, he didn't have "it", the "it" factor Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have, I put it down to mentality rather than skill or talent.

In regards of ATG's is Murray really in the same category as Federer, Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales ect? NO HE ISN'T, in the same vain as Agassi or Wilander? NO.

So how can he be an ATG? Or is it facts don't matter? If he converted 4 more slam finals into slams then I would say yes, he has a brilliant resume of titles and masters titles but it's the slams. To me he's on par with Courier and Kuerten, are those two players all time greats?

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[Deleted member 748597]

@Mainad

 

[Deleted member 775898]

Another user bites Mainad's ignore list hahah.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Murray didn't have "it", the "it" factor Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have.

If Djokovic had the "it" factor he would be extremely popular and he simply is not outside his home country and pockets in Asia. Very few players have the wow factor and most ATG's don't have it either.

Fed, Rafa, Borg, Agassi come to mind as rock stars of tennis. Expecting Andy Murray to have the wow factor of Roger or Rafa is setting a really high bar.

 

[Mainad]

@Mainad

Is OP a friend of your's or just one of your other aliases?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Is OP a friend of your's or just one of your other aliases?

I don't know who the OP is.

 

[Mainad]

I don't know who the OP is.

Maybe he just follows you?

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

So much original. Gods why do I login to this site. Damn me.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Maybe he just follows you?

Maybe.

 

[Swingmaster]

At least he’s aware that he acts like a dick on court. His people in the box don’t seem too phased by it since they know he’s probably going to apologize later.

 

[zagor]

I said it, do I need to make loaded questions to obfuscate my dislike for certain elements of Andy Murray's game? And the fact he is not an All time great?

Why don't people stop massaging the areola and get to the pinching the nipple? IE Get to the point.

It's not I dislike Murray personally, why would I? I like his off court persona, he seems to be respectful to people and not an arrogant egocentric. I've followed his career from when he won the US Open juniors in 2004, he always possessed a great backhand, great slices, his net play remined me of Lleyton Hewitt, great lob too.

His on court attitude of whining and complaining is annoying, when he shouted at his box which included his pregnant wife when he played Kevin Anderson in the 4th round of the US Open in 2015 I found it disgraceful.

He is a top player but he never had the aura of a dominator, he didn't have "it", the "it" factor Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have, I put it down to mentality rather than skill or talent.

In regards of ATG's is Murray really in the same category as Federer, Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales ect? NO HE ISN'T, in the same vain as Agassi or Wilander? NO.

So how can he be an ATG? Or is it facts don't matter? If he converted 4 more slam finals into slams then I would say yes, he has a brilliant resume of titles and masters titles but it's the slams. To me he's on par with Courier and Kuerten, are those two players all time greats?

Murray would have won 10+ slams in any other era but the one he actually competed in. I'd whip out some ELO ratings to prove this but it's self-evident enough, no need.

 

[skaj]

This is what, the 30th thread with this topic? For some reason some people here are very desperate to make Murray look like he can't be an all time great.

 

[Mainad]

This is what, the 30th thread with this topic? For some reason some people here are very desperate to make Murray look like he can't be an all time great.

Yep, they seem to feel the need to create thread after thread to try and persuade us he isn't. Sounds as if they're becoming increasingly desperate!

 

[Jaitock1991]

Murray would have won 10+ slams in any other era but the one he actually competed in. I'd whip out some ELO ratings to prove this but it's self-evident enough, no need.

On the surface, yes. But one could also argue of course, that he would never be pushed to be as good he became in this era without three GOAT candidates pushing him to his absolute limit(as proven by his body breaking down despite taking better care of it than the vast majority of athletes) to be good enough to even have a shot at any slam.

 

[zagor]

On the surface, yes. But one could also argue of course, that he would never be pushed to be as good he became in this era without three GOAT candidates pushing him to his absolute limit(as proven by his body breaking down despite taking better care of it than the vast majority of athletes) to be good enough to even have a shot at any slam.

Don't tell me you took my post seriously.

 

[Jaitock1991]

Don't tell me you took my post seriously.

Ooooops. Sorry. Misread your name. Thought it said Lew3

 

[zagor]

Ooooops. Sorry. Misread your name. Thought it said Lew3

My honest opinion is that there are eras in which Murray might end up winning more than 3 slams but there are also some periods where he could win less or none. That's without taking into account that you could start making similar what-if arguments for many players.

I also simply don't believe he's equal in terms of ability to guys like Becker of Agassi who were ridiculously talented tennis prodigies. At their best, they reached level that is IMO unattainable for Murray.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Yep, they seem to feel the need to create thread after thread to try and persuade us he isn't. Sounds as if they're becoming increasingly desperate!

Man, why did you leave my Andy Murray appreciation thread? It has over 650 posts so far.

 

[Legend of Borg]

Don't tell me you took my post seriously.

lmao

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Another user bites Mainad's ignore list hahah.

I knew that Mainad didn't put me on ignore. He knows that I like Murray.

 

[killerboss]

His attitude is irrelevant to judging how good a player he is. Fair enough about his second serve and forehand, though his forehand improved when Lendl became his coach.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

he's looking like johnny knoxxville here haha, remember? that funny show jackass on mtv in the early 00s it was very popular

 

[Poisoned Slice]

@zagor Do you think Murray could have won a Wembley Pro?

 

[victorcruz]

Wow why you gotta be so rude? Don't you know mainy's human too?

 

[Jonesy]

Agassi already said Murray would be an ATG had he played in the 90s.

It is known.

 

[Beacon Hill]

I said it, do I need to make loaded questions to obfuscate my dislike for certain elements of Andy Murray's game? And the fact he is not an All time great?

Why don't people stop massaging the areola and get to the pinching the nipple? IE Get to the point.

It's not I dislike Murray personally, why would I? I like his off court persona, he seems to be respectful to people and not an arrogant egocentric. I've followed his career from when he won the US Open juniors in 2004, he always possessed a great backhand, great slices, his net play remined me of Lleyton Hewitt, great lob too.

His on court attitude of whining and complaining is annoying, when he shouted at his box which included his pregnant wife when he played Kevin Anderson in the 4th round of the US Open in 2015 I found it disgraceful.

He is a top player but he never had the aura of a dominator, he didn't have "it", the "it" factor Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have, I put it down to mentality rather than skill or talent.

In regards of ATG's is Murray really in the same category as Federer, Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales ect? NO HE ISN'T, in the same vain as Agassi or Wilander? NO.

So how can he be an ATG? Or is it facts don't matter? If he converted 4 more slam finals into slams then I would say yes, he has a brilliant resume of titles and masters titles but it's the slams. To me he's on par with Courier and Kuerten, are those two players all time greats?

I think you might be mistaken about the difference between contributing a post and starting a thread.

 

[Keizer]

He's the fourth man of this era and will probably be forgotten, but honestly his attitude is one of the reasons he had as much success as he did. That second serve, on the other hand....

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

I should be mad at OP, but how can I not admire a gem like "Why don't we stop massaging the areola and get to pinching the nipple?"

 

[Rosstour]

If Djokovic had the "it" factor he would be extremely popular and he simply is not outside his home country and pockets in Asia. Very few players have the wow factor and most ATG's don't have it either.

Fed, Rafa, Borg, Agassi come to mind as rock stars of tennis. Expecting poor Andy Murray to have the wow factor of Roger or Rafa is setting a really high bar.

I also don't like the things don't like.

But Murray is an ATG. He's just not better than those top three guys. But you know what? Neither is any player outside of maybe Laver or Borg or Sampras...and even then, not sure.

 

[yokied]

I’m pretty sure that me, Sabratha and at least a few others would wear the thread title on a tshirt.

 

[beltsman]

I said it, do I need to make loaded questions to obfuscate my dislike for certain elements of Andy Murray's game? And the fact he is not an All time great?

Why don't people stop massaging the areola and get to the pinching the nipple? IE Get to the point.

It's not I dislike Murray personally, why would I? I like his off court persona, he seems to be respectful to people and not an arrogant egocentric. I've followed his career from when he won the US Open juniors in 2004, he always possessed a great backhand, great slices, his net play remined me of Lleyton Hewitt, great lob too.

His on court attitude of whining and complaining is annoying, when he shouted at his box which included his pregnant wife when he played Kevin Anderson in the 4th round of the US Open in 2015 I found it disgraceful.

He is a top player but he never had the aura of a dominator, he didn't have "it", the "it" factor Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have, I put it down to mentality rather than skill or talent.

In regards of ATG's is Murray really in the same category as Federer, Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales ect? NO HE ISN'T, in the same vain as Agassi or Wilander? NO.

So how can he be an ATG? Or is it facts don't matter? If he converted 4 more slam finals into slams then I would say yes, he has a brilliant resume of titles and masters titles but it's the slams. To me he's on par with Courier and Kuerten, are those two players all time greats?

Based. Murray is a loser.

 

[MichaelNadal]

he's looking like johnny knoxxville here haha, remember? that funny show jackass on mtv in the early 00s it was very popular

Yeah I used to think Johnny Knoxville was hot lol (and Chris Pontius lol)

 

[D.Nalby12]

@Mainad

Wow !

 

[D.Nalby12]

His style is similar to Hewitt's but I never found latter boring. He was rather exciting despite his lack of weapons. I found his game elegant and he had very strong mentality. So I pick Hewitt over Murray any day. Murray is greater player but not my choice.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Consider Mats Wilander. It's possible for a player to be boring and appear to lack an amazing forehand or serve and still be an ATG. With three slams, Murray is, for sure. Just not a high tier one and definitely doesn't deserve to be part of a Big Four grouping as if he is somehow the equal of Fedalovic.

 

[Lew II]

NO HE ISN'T, in the same vain as Agassi or Wilander? NO.

Yes he is. Agassi said in his era Murray would have 3 time more Slams (i.e. 9 slams).

 

[zagor]

@zagor Do you think Murray could have won a Wembley Pro?

Can't see why not.

 

[zagor]

Agassi already said Murray would be an ATG had he played in the 90s.

It is known.

Agassi also did meth.

 

[Lew II]

Agassi: Andy Murray would have had three times the career in my era

Andre Agassi has hailed Andy Murray, adding that the Briton's achievements are even more remarkable for the ear in which they were won.

www.tennis365.com

 

[Sport]

Murray would have won 10+ slams in any other era but the one he actually competed in. I'd whip out some ELO ratings to prove this but it's self-evident enough, no need.

Untestable, hence unacceptable.

I get your point, you think he would win more Slams in other eras, but... 10+ Slams? 10+? How do you know he would have won so many playing with wooden racquets against Borg or McEnroe? To say "Murray would have won 10+ more Slams in any other era" is so unacceptable as saying "Nadal would have won 30+ more Slams in any other era". You are just making untestable claims that cannot be disproven and thus should not be accepted.

Fact is, Murray has 3 Slams. No more, no less. Players' greatness is measured by how they perform during their era, not in hypotheticals about other eras.

Otherewise, people could make free untestable claims like "if Murray played in the 1960s he would dominate Laver and would win more Slams than him, ergo Murray is greater than Laver".

 

[Sport]

Agassi: Andy Murray would have had three times the career in my era

Andre Agassi has hailed Andy Murray, adding that the Briton's achievements are even more remarkable for the ear in which they were won.

www.tennis365.com

First, it is an untestable assumption. Second, Murray played in the 2000s and 2010s, not the 1990s.

Players' greatness is measured by how they perform during their era, not in hypothetical about other eras.

Otherwise, people could make free untestable claims like "if Murray played in the 1960s he would dominate Laver and would win more Slams than him, ergo Murray is greater than Laver."

 

[RS]

I said it, do I need to make loaded questions to obfuscate my dislike for certain elements of Andy Murray's game? And the fact he is not an All time great?

Why don't people stop massaging the areola and get to the pinching the nipple? IE Get to the point.

It's not I dislike Murray personally, why would I? I like his off court persona, he seems to be respectful to people and not an arrogant egocentric. I've followed his career from when he won the US Open juniors in 2004, he always possessed a great backhand, great slices, his net play remined me of Lleyton Hewitt, great lob too.

His on court attitude of whining and complaining is annoying, when he shouted at his box which included his pregnant wife when he played Kevin Anderson in the 4th round of the US Open in 2015 I found it disgraceful.

He is a top player but he never had the aura of a dominator, he didn't have "it", the "it" factor Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have, I put it down to mentality rather than skill or talent.

In regards of ATG's is Murray really in the same category as Federer, Nadal, Laver, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales ect? NO HE ISN'T, in the same vain as Agassi or Wilander? NO.

So how can he be an ATG? Or is it facts don't matter? If he converted 4 more slam finals into slams then I would say yes, he has a brilliant resume of titles and masters titles but it's the slams. To me he's on par with Courier and Kuerten, are those two players all time greats?

It was a bait thread.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Yeah I used to think Johnny Knoxville was hot lol (and Chris Pontius lol)

yea.. chris had been also cool and funny guy in that show, always loved to be naked, in some episodes representing himself aka the garbage man

 

[terribleIVAN]

To me he's on par with Courier and Kuerten, are those two players all time greats?

I would certainly put Kuerten above him.

Murray's a typical example of a player adopting a style of play not suited to his physical capacities.

How many times have we seen him reach the semis/finals of slams and getting destroyed there by the Trio because he had nothing left in the tank ?

He deserves all the credit in the world for winning 3 slams, but he's always been a mama's boy and an entitled, privileged prima dona.

 

[zagor]

Untestable, hence unacceptable.

I get your point, you think he would win more Slams in other eras, but... 10+ Slams? 10+? How do you know he would have won so many playing with wooden racquets against Borg or McEnroe? To say "Murray would have won 10+ more Slams in any other era" is so unacceptable as saying "Nadal would have won 30+ more Slams in any other era". You are just making untestable claims that cannot be disproven and thus should not be accepted.

Fact is, Murray has 3 Slams. No more, no less. Players' greatness is measured by how they perform during their era, not in hypotheticals about other eras.

Otherewise, people could make free untestable claims like "if Murray played in the 1960s he would dominate Laver and would win more Slams than him, ergo Murray is greater than Laver".

Duuuude...

 

[Enceladus]

Agassi already said Murray would be an ATG had he played in the 90s.

It is known.

But Wimbledon wouldn't win in the 1990s because of this great player:

Spoiler

 

[Winners or Errors]

Consider Mats Wilander. It's possible for a player to be boring and appear to lack an amazing forehand or serve and still be an ATG. With three slams, Murray is, for sure. Just not a high tier one and definitely doesn't deserve to be part of a Big Four grouping as if he is somehow the equal of Fedalovic.

Wilander beat his Fedalovic often enough to win slams. And then there was 1988.

 

[travlerajm]

Yep, they seem to feel the need to create thread after thread to try and persuade us he isn't. Sounds as if they're becoming increasingly desperate!

The more threads like this created, the greater Murray’s legend becomes.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Wilander beat his Fedalovic often enough to win slams. And then there was 1988.

No, there basically was no Fedalovic in that time. All three are incredibly complete players. Homogenisation gives a convenient pretext to gloss over this but it will become clear when they are gone that they have also been able to better adapt to the surfaces than the rest. Eg. Sir Andrew made just one RG final and Wawrinka never made one at Wimbledon. Messrs Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Delpo don't exactly have a shining all slam record either. It's just the Big Three. So why should that be if it got so easy all of a sudden to win anywhere and everywhere? It didn't.