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

Lew II said:
Yes he is. Agassi said in his era Murray would have 3 time more Slams (i.e. 9 slams).
Click to expand...
In the 1880s I would also have won a couple of Wimblies, so what’s the point? You are measured by the era you compete in, on top, why is Agassi out of a sudden an authority, He states all kind of lies in his book.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Presentism...
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wilander had his own ATFs to contend with.
 
mike danny said:
Wilander had his own ATFs to contend with.
Click to expand...
He did but that is not equivalent to facing Fedalovic. Anyway this is a complete tangent. All I said it is possible for a player to have a very unattractive game and still be an ATG eg Wilander. Seems like it hurts the feelings of some Wilander fanboys that I didn't know existed.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
He did but that is not equivalent to facing Fedalovic. Anyway this is a complete tangent. All I said it is possible for a player to have a very unattractive game and still be an ATG eg Wilander. Seems like it hurts the feelings of some Wilander fanboys that I didn't know existed.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Wilander fanboy anyway, but while what you said is possible, Wilander still had the more impressive career and reached higher levels of dominance than Murray.
 
mike danny said:
I'm not a Wilander fanboy anyway, but while what you said is possible, Wilander still had the more impressive career and reached higher levels of dominance than Murray.
Click to expand...
I wasn't comparing their achievements, though. I only said Wilander too had an unattractive game like Murray, actually more so. I was drawing a parallel.
 
mike danny said:
Fair enough. Yeah, his game was 10 times more boring than Murray's.
Click to expand...

Yup. I was only responding to the other poster who said Wilander was beating his own Fedalovic. He didn't have any - that I maintain - but doesn't make him not an ATG. He was a great player and easily greater than Murray, no comparison.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
I wasn't comparing their achievements, though. I only said Wilander too had an unattractive game like Murray, actually more so. I was drawing a parallel.
Click to expand...

Don't think it's just a matter of attractiveness. For me Wilander comes off as a true chameleon type of player who's willing to try a variety of tactics to win while Murray mostly always stuck to one plan even when it was to his detriment. Often playing defensive tennis is being called smart but really it's just a game style and is not always the optimal choice.

In short what I'm saying is that IMO Wilander was a real tactician on court while Murray was more rigid in terms of his approach which got him into trouble not just against the top guys but also resulted in him often playing a needless 5 setter against an early round inspired opponent.
 
zagor said:
Don't think it's just a matter of attractiveness. For me Wilander comes off as a true chameleon type of player who's willing to try a variety of tactics to win while Murray mostly always stuck to one plan even when it was to his detriment. Often playing defensive tennis is being called smart but really it's just a game style and is not always the optimal choice.

In short what I'm saying is that IMO Wilander was a real tactician on court while Murray was more rigid in terms of his approach which got him into trouble not just against the top guys but also resulted in him often playing a needless 5 setter against an early round inspired opponent.
Click to expand...


This I agree with completely. I particularly like his resorting to S&V against Lendl at USO. Murray actually did have that S&V ability but did not exploit it enough even in the beginning and by the end, was hardly coming in at all. It was disappointing that he became a complete defensive grinder for he did have the variety to be a much more multi dimensional player than he was.
 
zagor said:
Don't think it's just a matter of attractiveness. For me Wilander comes off as a true chameleon type of player who's willing to try a variety of tactics to win while Murray mostly always stuck to one plan even when it was to his detriment. Often playing defensive tennis is being called smart but really it's just a game style and is not always the optimal choice.

In short what I'm saying is that IMO Wilander was a real tactician on court while Murray was more rigid in terms of his approach which got him into trouble not just against the top guys but also resulted in him often playing a needless 5 setter against an early round inspired opponent.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Wilander was easily one of the greatest tacticians the game has ever known, regularly dismantling players with better weapons than himself. I really like how he was able to reverse both 1982 and '85 RG finals against hitherto unstoppable Vilas/Lendl (both won 19 straight sets there including the first set of the final, then Wilander adjusts, snatches the second set and suddenly he's on top while they look helpless).
 
Nole Slam said:
@Mainad

original.gif
Click to expand...
Who's she now, sir??
 
You have the ATGs.

Then you have a bunch of players- Murray, Courier, Kuerten, Hewitt, Ashe, Vilas- who are not ATGs but get a special mention and are the cream of multiple slam winners five and below.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Murray's attitude on court is horrible
Replies
23
Views
5K
70後
70後
J
Andy Murray is not an "all time great"
2 3
Replies
139
Views
8K
BGod
BGod
B
Andy Murray is an ATG in the parallel universe?
Replies
17
Views
990
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
Maddamhussein
Andy Murray is an ATG.
2
Replies
87
Views
4K
Angrybirdstar
A
Elite
I just can't like Andy Murray.
2
Replies
72
Views
14K
Sentinel
Sentinel
Back
Top