Lendl: disregard the rankings , Murray is now the greatest

Buddha, Sutta Pitaka:

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."

Your question has a point, a my counter-question attacks your point. Now, you need to make counter-argument.



In 1975 it was likely that Borg would win at least one US Open by 1981 but we know what happened. So, I think Novak would not swap two slams for one FO.
Quoting Buddhist texts instead of answering the question just makes you look like you're obfuscating to avoid the issue. And your counter-question didn't "attack" my point, it avoided it. In fact all you did was repeat my question, but refocused on an irrelevant third variable (the French Open). If my argument [sic] was so worthy of attack, you shouldn't have used it yourself.

However, there's no need for you to procrastinate further. Your studious avoidance of my original question ~ especially when you're willing to answer your own ~ tells me what I want to know. ;)


Regards,
MDL
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Problem is, most players would still take an additional slam (especially Wimbledon) over a FO SF run, additional masters title and WTF, that's the reality.

Of course posters likening Novak to Wozniacki are completely clueless, Novak is a very deserving #1, there's no question about it but slams are still the ultimate measuring stick and Murray at the moments holds two compared to Novak's one.

We'll see how the USO goes, I think Novak will be extra motivated there, especially if he faces Murray.
yeah, I can see why people would chose Murray's previous 12 months over djokovic's.

I was just pointing out that djokovic has the edge on hard courts and why you could go the other way around for overall rating - considering novak has the edge on HC and clay, murray only on grass.

I was very surprised at djokovic's flat performance in the Wimbledon final. He'll be out for revenge the next time he plays Murray, that's for sure.
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
I was very surprised at djokovic's flat performance in the Wimbledon final. He'll be out for revenge the next time he plays Murray, that's for sure.
I'm sure Murray is quaking in his boots at the prospect :razz:
 

oy vey

Semi-Pro
My statement is this - across all surfaces, it is still Djokovic, simply because he is far superior to Murray on clay.

But, away from clay, I think Murray has overtaken Djokovic. In the past year, he has a slight edge over Djoker on the biggest stages. That said, I still think the 2013 USO is the tournament for one of these two guys to stamp their claim as the premiere player in tennis right now. If either guy wins it, it gives them 2 slams this year and that trumps everything else.

After the slams, I think the Olympics and WTF's are the two most significant events - they split those last year, so that's a wash basically.
Nole has an 11-6 h2h over Murray outside of Grass
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
Nole has an 11-6 h2h over Murray outside of Grass
I think Nole struggles against Murray on quick surfaces in general. He is 0-4 against Murray in US Open Series events, having lost to Murray in Canadia, Cincy (The Real Slam) twice, and New York.

Nole is the Boss on slower surfaces though.
 

Blocker

Professional
Meh, Murray is the Wimbledon champion. Who cares about a ranking calculated by a computer and determined by a man-made system when you have the biggest tournament in tennis in your hip pocket?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Murray will be fine I bet. Trying to pretend like he's "afraid" of Djokovic is just being stupid.
I never said he's afraid of djokovic. Just that djokovic will be out for revenge next time around and if murray isn't prepared for it, he'll have a very tough time.
 

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
TDK loves to pull/twist someone else words to fit his agenda. Lendl is smarter than that to make such a claim. Besides, greatest today means...what tomorrow? Nyet, if you get kicked out in the 1st round of the next tourney? Looks familiar to someone?
So whatever Lendl may have said, disregard his words. On one hand, he has to show some support for Murray. Would he have said that Murray is a weakling after the latter just won the Wimby? LOL. On the other hand, Lendl should know better about the motto "what have you done lately", no?
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
At the moment , however Djokovic has still had the better year, his hard court season this year was better and his clay court season this year was also better. Murray has been better than Djokovic for the past month - whilst Djokovic has been better than Murray for the past 7 years.










PS: In 2008 - 2010 people always thought Murray was better than Djokovic (although rankings and slam results didn't support this) and look what happened!
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
At the moment , however Djokovic has still had the better year, his hard court season this year was better and his clay court season this year was also better. Murray has been better than Djokovic for the past month - whilst Djokovic has been better than Murray for the past 7 years.










PS: In 2008 - 2010 people always thought Murray was better than Djokovic (although rankings and slam results didn't support this) and look what happened!

So over the last 12 months, Novak with his one slam has done better than Murray with his two slams?

All those years you told me that it was all about the slams. But now Murray is winning them, it isn't?

To reiterate, Lendl was talking about the last 12 months.

PS I see you are pulling things out of your arse again and presenting them as facts. Haven't we spoken about this before? Which people? How do you know what they always thought?
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
PS: In 2008 - 2010 people always thought Murray was better than Djokovic (although rankings and slam results didn't support this) and look what happened!
2008 - I don't think anyone sane or unbiased thought murray was better than djokovic, considering the whole year.

It was only in 09, 10 - that thought process began to pick up steam , especially on HC.

Novak still ended up having better years even though there were quite a few phases were murray seemed clearly more impressive .
 
Last edited:

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
So over the last 12 months, Novak with his one slam has done better than Murray with his two slams?
Yes. If we are talking about the last 12 months. Unfortunately it's quite a pointless thing to say as

A) Rankings don't simply work for 'last 12 months' Why not past 18 months?
B) Djokovic in the past 84 months has been better than Murray if we want to play that game.

All those years you told me that it was all about the slams. But now Murray is winning them, it isn't?

To reiterate, Lendl was talking about the last 12 months.

Even still without Djokovic's 5 other slams (which can't be disregarded), he has still posted better success than Murray in the WTF's as well as achieving a lot more success than Murray on clay.
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
Yes. If we are talking about the last 12 months. Unfortunately it's quite a pointless thing to say as

A) Rankings don't simply work for 'last 12 months' Why not past 18 months?
B) Djokovic in the past 84 months has been better than Murray if we want to play that game.




Even still without Djokovic's 5 other slams (which can't be disregarded), he has still posted better success than Murray in the WTF's as well as achieving a lot more success than Murray on clay.

Erm, rankings absolutely do work for 'the last 12 months' - given that they are a 52 week rolling view (that is possibly the dumbest thing you have ever posted BTW - and that's quite an achievement) - but the point that Lendl is making (and that you are doing such a sterling job of ignoring) is that rankings are only one measure of who has been the best player over the last 12 months. He would seem to prefer the measure of who has done better in the major - spookily enough, that was the measure that you once advocated too, but seem to have abandoned now that Murray is winning them.


Nobody is talking about who has achieved more in their respective careers - so please put away your usual strawman and don't rebuff arguments that nobody has made (how unlike you, eh mate).
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
Yes. If we are talking about the last 12 months. Unfortunately it's quite a pointless thing to say as

A) Rankings don't simply work for 'last 12 months' Why not past 18 months?
B) Djokovic in the past 84 months has been better than Murray if we want to play that game.




Even still without Djokovic's 5 other slams (which can't be disregarded), he has still posted better success than Murray in the WTF's as well as achieving a lot more success than Murray on clay.

Erm, rankings absolutely do work for 'the last 12 months' - given that they are a 52 week rolling view (that is possibly the dumbest thing you have ever posted BTW - and that's quite an achievement) - but the point that Lendl is making (and that you are doing such a sterling job of ignoring) is that rankings are only one measure of who has been the best player over the last 12 months. He would seem to prefer the measure of who has done better in the majors - spookily enough, that was the measure that you once advocated too, but seem to have abandoned now that Murray is winning them.


Nobody is talking about who has achieved more in their respective careers - so please put away your usual strawman and don't rebuff arguments that nobody has made (how unlike you, eh mate).


Murray has 2 slams Novak has 1 slam over the last year.

Murray has done better that Nole in slams over last 12 months. The Slams are all that matter (as you always told me). QED Murray has been better than Nole over the last 12 months.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Erm, rankings absolutely do work for 'the last 12 months' - given that they are a 52 week rolling view (that is possibly the dumbest thing you have ever posted BTW - and that's quite an achievement)
Uh, not in the middle of the year. Hence why Djokovic is still ahead in the rankings. Djokovic for the past 18 months has been better. It's easy to dress up your favourite players achievements by using a time-frame of their best success time and using it against someone elses.

- but the point that Lendl is making (and that you are doing such a sterling job of ignoring) is that rankings are only one measure of who has been the best player over the last 12 months. He would seem to prefer the measure of who has done better in the majors
Yet Djokovic has been the best player for the last 12 months - he currently still holds a huge lead over Murray. As for slams, yes, the past 12 months from Wimbledon yes Murray has done better. But why are we conveniently abandoning the AO and the FO from last season? Oh yes, because when we tot everything up, Djokovic has posted the better results.


spookily enough, that was the measure that you once advocated too, but seem to have abandoned now that Murray is winning them.

Nobody is talking about who has achieved more in their respective careers - so please put away your usual strawman and don't rebuff arguments that nobody has made (how unlike you, eh mate).

Murray has 2 slams Novak has 1 slam over the last year.

Murray has done better that Nole in slams over last 12 months. The Slams are all that matter (as you always told me). QED Murray has been better than Nole over the last 12 months.

I see that Murray being better than Djokovic means a lot to you Batz. He has been better slightly in the slams than Djokovic. By the way, slam results do matter in terms of legacy and greatness. Not about current form; For example, a past prime Sampras in 2002 was not better than Murray this year. But is greater. Do you not understand this? Murray recently might be fractionally better (although debatable because of the FO). You can go ahead and say for the past 12 months Murray has been better - Djokovic can say he was the only guy to stand up to Federer and Nadal in the slams and better than everyone the past 3 or 4 years pretty much.
 

thejoe

Hall of Fame
Murray's better on grass, Djoker's better on clay. The US hardcourt swing will separate them IMO.

Djoker's been fading mentally during big matches of late, though. I'd probably give Murray the slight edge. That boy is relentless at the minute, great to see.
 
Last edited:

thejoe

Hall of Fame
Uh, not in the middle of the year. Hence why Djokovic is still ahead in the rankings. Djokovic for the past 18 months has been better. It's easy to dress up your favourite players achievements by using a time-frame of their best success time and using it against someone elses.

Yet Djokovic has been the best player for the last 12 months - he currently still holds a huge lead over Murray. As for slams, yes, the past 12 months from Wimbledon yes Murray has done better. But why are we conveniently abandoning the AO and the FO from last season? Oh yes, because when we tot everything up, Djokovic has posted the better results.

I see that Murray being better than Djokovic means a lot to you Batz. He has been better slightly in the slams than Djokovic. By the way, slam results do matter in terms of legacy and greatness. Not about current form; For example, a past prime Sampras in 2002 was not better than Murray this year. But is greater. Do you not understand this? Murray recently might be fractionally better (although debatable because of the FO). You can go ahead and say for the past 12 months Murray has been better - Djokovic can say he was the only guy to stand up to Federer and Nadal in the slams and better than everyone the past 3 or 4 years pretty much.
If you want to argue that week-by-week form is more important than peaking for the majors, then good for you. But as far as I see it, the slams are the most important events and Murray currently holds half of them.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Djoker's been fading mentally during big matches of late, though. I'd probably give Murray the slight edge. That boy is relentless at the minute, great to see.
??? He's lost one epic match on clay to Nadal who happens to be the greatest clay courter ever. The guy beat JMDP (best match of the tournament) and has won a string of epic matches. He got beat on his worst surface against a very good grasscourter. Djokovic's mentality was not to blame for Sunday, he's made the most outrageous comebacks I've ever seen against the likes of Federer, Nadal and Murray.
 

thejoe

Hall of Fame
??? He's lost one epic match on clay to Nadal who happens to be the greatest clay courter ever. The guy beat JMDP (best match of the tournament) and has won a string of epic matches. He got beat on his worst surface against a very good grasscourter. Djokovic's mentality was not to blame for Sunday, he's made the most outrageous comebacks I've ever seen against the likes of Federer, Nadal and Murray.
Nadal is the greatest, but Djokovic was still in a position to put him away. I was surprised he didn't - as surprised as I was by his subdued performance during Sunday's final.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nadal is the greatest, but Djokovic was still in a position to put him away. I was surprised he didn't - as surprised as I was by his subdued performance during Sunday's final.
novak fought very well vs nadal in RG 13, nadal was considerably better considering the whole match. Considering that , nole taking him to 9-7 was just indicative of the level of fight that novak showed ,especially that he broke back when nadal was serving for the match in the 4th. Its not like nole choked the break in the final set away, nadal played better tennis and broke him.

I was much more surprised by his flat performance in the wimby final and his lack of fight in that match.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Nadal is the greatest, but Djokovic was still in a position to put him away. I was surprised he didn't - as surprised as I was by his subdued performance during Sunday's final.
But don't forget Nadal should have won that match before the fifth set; It was Djokovic's fighting qualities which saw him stay in the match let alone take the lead. Wimbledon, Murray was too good for Djokovic. The only match that bugs me was the US Open last year with the wind.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
We'll see during the American hardcourt swing, it's definately tight between them. Djokovic has more consistancy the past 12 months but Murray has won the biggest prizes e.g. the two slams.
Murray has won 1 slam and 1 master in 2013 (+ a slam final) just like Djokovic. He's also won 2 250 (Brisbane and Queen's) while Djoko won a 500: Dubai. They couldn't be more even except for RG and clay in general where Djoko earned more points.
In 2012, they weren't even close. They both won one slam, sure, but Djoko played 11 finals of which he won 6. Murray made only 7 of which he won 3 and one of the 3 was a 250.
Bottom line is: unless Murray becomes #1 or wins the USO this year, neither Lendl nor anyone else has any legitimacy claiming that Murray dominates the tour or is the greatest overall. I suspect this is not exactly what Lendl meant anyway, he's a pretty level-headed guy and would never use such grandiose hyperboles lightly.
Murray is gonna have to earn the "best player" distinction by winning more this season: 1 slam and 1 master is not gonna cut it. I believe he can do it but definitely not the right time to rest on his laurels at this point.
 
Top