Murray: #1 is my target

[Dutch-Guy]

World number two Andy Murray believes he is "not that far" from taking Roger Federer's number one ranking.
Fresh from his victory in the Montreal Masters, the 22-year-old said a couple of key defeats were the difference.

"If I had had a slightly better run at the Australian Open or [not lost] a tight one to Andy Roddick at Wimbledon then, who knows?" Murray said

Murray is the defending champion at the Cincinnati Masters where he faces Nicolas Almagro in the second round.

The Scot, who is due to start his campaign on Wednesday against world number 33 Almagro, added that he was not under extra pressure to defend the title ahead of the US Open.

"I would hope I would still be reasonably fresh," he said. "I think it's more mentally than physically that's important, because physically I think I'll be strong enough to compete in the Slam."

Although Murray's victory in Montreal saw him lift his fourth senior Masters title, he is yet to win a Grand Slam - something Federer, who beat Murray in last year's US Open final, has achieved 15 times.

Murray insists, however, that he has been consistent enough this year to deserve his position in the rankings.

"It's not that far. It's a matter of a couple of the matches," he said. "I know it's a long way from losing the semi finals [at Wimbledon] to winning but that would have made a huge difference.

"I would be very close to Roger in the rankings if I had won those two matches from the semis onwards.

"That's really the only difference - getting a Slam - between being number one and two. The other tournaments has been pretty similar."

He added: "Federer, I think, won his first Slam when he played his 17th Slam. I think I've only played 15.

"At 22 I'm still pretty young. I'd love to win a Slam, that's obviously one of my biggest goals, but to say that I'd be disappointed to not win one with the level of competition that's around now is a little bit disrespectful to the players.

"You've got some of best ever playing right now."

 

[fps]

i think it's been his target since he knew what a target was, so i'm not surprised!!

these next two slams, especially USO, are his best ever opportunities to win his first slam, which should take his subsequent slam play to a new level of confidence and power, which he'll need when nadal's fully fit and del potro's done an off-season of fitness work and "growing more huge".

with one in the bag it's a question of how long Federer and, incredibly, the 5 years younger Nadal, can continue to play at their best levels. big obstacles. if he doesn't make number 1 in the next 6 months he might have to wait 2 more years.

 

[wyutani]

i never heard a pro player said, "#2 is my target."

 

[Sentinel]

He added: "Federer, I think, won his first Slam when he played his 17th Slam. I think I've only played 15.

I didn;t know Federer was such a loser. ;-)

 

[batz]

He added: "Federer, I think, won his first Slam when he played his 17th Slam. I think I've only played 15.

I didn;t know Federer was such a loser. ;-)

Yep - Even Fed was a 'slamless wonder' at one time.

 

[dropshot winner]

He added: "Federer, I think, won his first Slam when he played his 17th Slam. I think I've only played 15.

I didn;t know Federer was such a loser. ;-)

The difference is that Federer was a late bloomer, Murray is not.

Of course Murray was unlucky with the wrist injury, but mentally he's been very solid for a long time.

 

[batz]

The difference is that Federer was a late bloomer, Murray is not.

Of course Murray was unlucky with the wrist injury, but mentally he's been very solid for a long time.

Murray made the top 5 at age 21 years and 4 months - same age as he made his 1st slam final. Wasn't Roger only a few months older?

And the fact that Roger was a late bloomer is something that can only be known in hindsight. Believe me, if this board had been around when Roger was emerging as a top player then he would have been called slamless wonder - just like Murray is.

 

[Fedex]

Don't argue with fact finder Batz.
You will always lose.
He is half man, half computer.

 

[dropshot winner]

Murray made the top 5 at age 21 years and 4 months - same age as he made his 1st slam final. Wasn't Roger only a few months older?

And the fact that Roger was a late bloomer is something that can only be known in hindsight. Believe me, if this board had been around when Roger was emerging as a top player then he would have been called slamless wonder - just like Murray is.

Federer's average level of play increased by a lot within a few months, Murray's rised consistently.

Federer could lose to pretty much everyone on every day before he won Wimbledon, even in the FO 2003 he lost first round. After Wimbledon, and even more after the Masters Cup 2003, he was a different player.

 

[batz]

Federer's average level of play increased by a lot within a few months, Murray's rised consistently.

Federer could lose to pretty much everyone on every day before he won Wimbledon, even in the FO 2003 he lost first round. After Wimbledon he was a different player.

That simply isn't true. Murray took off at this time last year - before that he'd won only 5 ATP titles, never been beyond a slam R4 or an MS semi. He'd been ranked 22 only 3 months before he won his first MS title. If you check out Roger and Murray's year by year records at the same stage of their respective careers, you'll see they are very similar.

Before anyone dives in - that's not to say 'and therefore murray will continue to mirror Roger's career' - only that their career profile over the first few years is very similar - therefore you can't say Roger is a late bloomer and Murray was not.

 

[batz]

HAHA, murray making comparisons with himself and federer when concerning grand slams is quite laughable

Why is that then? What is it that Murray said that was laughable? He hasn't implied that he will come near Roger's slam record or anything like that - he's merely stated that if it took Roger 17 attempts to win a slam then he's not going to beat himself up for not having won one after 15 tries - he's even saying that it would be disrespectful to Roger and Rafa to even think like that.

 

[batz]

^^^how do you know murray will play better tennis than what he is at the moment

I don't know he will. He might not, but I don't think many late developers peak at 22 years and 3 months.

How did anyone know Roger would go on to play better tennis after he faield to win a slam after 16 attempts?

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Why is that then? What is it that Murray said that was laughable? He hasn't implied that he will come near Roger's slam record or anything like that - he's merely stated that if it took Roger 17 attempts to win a slam then he's not going to beat himself up for not having won one after 15 tries - he's even saying that it would be disrespectful to Roger and Rafa to even think like that.

Yes, ive read it 2 times and i have to agree with this one, he didnt imply something like that imo.
However, the thing about "if i had won 2 more matches in Wi,by then"...that i find a bit ridiculous, its like, if my Dad didnt have a penis then he wouldnt be my dad. If Roger would have won in AO he would not get caught for ages...i dont like "if" this and "if" that.

 

[dropshot winner]

That simply isn't true. Murray took off at this time last year - before that he'd won only 5 ATP titles, never been beyond a slam R4 or an MS semi. He'd been ranked 22 only 3 months before he won his first MS title. If you check out Roger and Murray's year by year records at the same stage of their respective careers, you'll see they are very similar.

Before anyone dives in - that's not to say 'and therefore murray will continue to mirror Roger's career' - only that their career profile over the first few years is very similar - therefore you can't say Roger is a late bloomer and Murray was not.

Murray was ranked low because he had his injury, he was already very good at the Australian Open 2007 and then had the injury during the clay season, this threw him back.
It's true that both had mediocre results until around 21 , but for different reasons.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

I don't know he will. He might not, but I don't think many late developers peak at 22 years and 3 months.

How did anyone know Roger would go on to play better tennis after he faield to win a slam after 16 attempts?

I hate to tell you Batz but, counter-punchers take longer time to develop their game if they are ever gonna reach the very highest heights (Hewitt is an exception) The counter-punching is what makes Murray so goodm but it will not last for more than 2 years, then he have to develop another style of play and that will be hard at age 24-25 imo.

 

[batz]

Yes, ive read it 2 times and i have to agree with this one, he didnt imply something like that imo.
However, the thing about "if i had won 2 more matches in Wi,by then"...that i find a bit ridiculous, its like, if my Dad didnt have a penis then he wouldnt be my dad. If Roger would have won in AO he would not get caught for ages...i dont like "if" this and "if" that.

Agree with this. In Scotland we say to ifs like that ' if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle'.

 

[fantom]

Good interview snippet above. He sounds confident in his abilities and his fitness. He's definitely got a chance at reaching #1. He's been awesome on hard courts for the past year.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Agree with this. In Scotland we say to ifs like that ' if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle'.

Lol, i like that expression

 

[batz]

I hate to tell you Batz but, counter-punchers take longer time to develop their game if they are ever gonna reach the very highest heights (Hewitt is an exception) The counter-punching is what makes Murray so goodm but it will not last for more than 2 years, then he have to develop another style of play and that will be hard at age 24-25 imo.

Sorry TMOP - I'm missing your point. Are you saying that a counter-puncher will always have a short 'prime' period because it takes along time to develop their game and that once developed, they can only last a year or two?

I'm not sure I buy it mate. I also don't think Murray has stopped developing - but both are just my tuppence worth.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

well... what would people expect him to say?

"number 3 is my goal?"...

murray said what any player would...

of the many problems i can identify in Murray, bad pressers are not one of them.

 

[CountryHillbilly]

Didn't everyone take a dump on Djokovic for saying something similar last year?

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Sorry TMOP - I'm missing your point. Are you saying that a counter-puncher will always have a short 'prime' period because it takes along time to develop their game and that once developed, they can only last a year or two?

I'm not sure I buy it mate. I also don't think Murray has stopped developing - but both are just my tuppence worth.

Ill try again, to make it simpler, Murray is a better and more powerful version of Hewitt, who had a 2 year-prime where he won a couple of slams YEC and had huge wins on all surfaces except clay...do u see...the similarities?
Then the rest figured him out, caught up with him.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Didn't everyone take a dump on Djokovic for saying something similar last year?

I was about to write that, thats correct, dont remember when though? Might have been in Montreal last year?

 

[batz]

Murray was ranked low because he had his injury, he was already very good at the Australian Open 2007 and then had the injury during the clay season, this threw him back.
It's true that both had mediocre results until around 21 , but for different reasons.

Roger made R4 @ RG in 2000; QFs at RG and Wimbledon and R4 @ NYC in 2001, R4 @ AO and NYC in 2002, R4 @ AO 2003 - before winning his 1st slam.

Roger winning a slam didn't come out of nowhere - he just found it hard to win one and it took him a while. There is no doubt that he would have been called a slamless wonder on here by some.

 

[batz]

Ill try again, to make it simpler, Murray is a better and more powerful version of Hewitt, who had a 2 year-prime where he won a couple of slams YEC and had huge wins on all surfaces except clay...do u see...the similarities?
Then the rest figured him out, caught up with him.

Gotcha.

I take your point - but as you say, Murray isn't Hewitt. The additional power in Murray's game changes things. Murray can hit a winner if he chooses to. There's a difference between choosing not to use a tool and not having that tool available to you - that's why I don't think Hewitt and Murray is a perfect analogy.

My opinion is that Murray will be in his prime form 23 - 26. Just my tuppence worth though.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Gotcha.

I take your point - but as you say, Murray isn't Hewitt. The additional power in Murray's game changes things. Murray can hit a winner if he chooses to. There's a difference between choosing not to use a tool and not having that tool available to you - that's why I don't think Hewitt and Murray is a perfect analogy.

My opinion is that Murray will be in his prime form 23 - 26. Just my tuppence worth though.

No, he isnt. Well this is what makes it fun, the speculation, i would pay good money today to see the winner of the next 10 slams
Id say he entered his prime this year...and it will continue until 2011 imo.

 

[CountryHillbilly]

I was about to write that, thats correct, dont remember when though? Might have been in Montreal last year?

No. Just after AO08, of course.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

No. Just after AO08, of course.

Well yes i know, but i think also after winning Montreal last year, he was close to Fed and Rafa at that point i think, not sure though.

 

[dropshot winner]

Roger made R4 @ RG in 2000; QFs at RG and Wimbledon and R4 @ NYC in 2001, R4 @ AO and NYC in 2002, R4 @ AO 2003 - before winning his 1st slam.

Roger winning a slam didn't come out of nowhere - he just found it hard to win one and it took him a while. There is no doubt that he would have been called a slamless wonder on here by some.

Federer was called an underachiever, he played unreal tennis (like in Hamburg 02), and a few weeks later was suddenly unable to hit a few good shots in a row over the net.
Federer made two slam QF in 2001, in the next 7 slams he was unable to reach QF, despite beeing healthy pretty much all the time.

That's not the pattern of a player that steadily improves.

Murray is different, he'a been consistent for a while now, winning a bunch of titles, including a few masters.

Murray was playing great tennis in 2007 and would've gotten further at the Australian Open 2007 had he not met Nadal so early.
Then he got injured, had to skip FO and Wimbledon and lost the rythm.

In the beginning of 2008 he was a unlucky to draw Tsonga in the first round of the Australian Open. Still, except the FO 08, he didn't had a single bad loss in grandslams since then (1.5 years).

He got outplayed fair and square in every single slam-loss in the last 1.5 years by quality players playing great tennis (Nadal/Federer/Verdasco/Gonzalez/Roddick).

 

[batz]

Federer was called an underachiever, he played unreal tennis (like in Hamburg 02), and a few weeks later was suddenly unable to hit a few good shots in a row over the net.
Federer made two slam QF in 2001, in the next 7 slams he was unable to reach QF, despite beeing healthy pretty much all the time.

That's not the pattern of a player that steadily improves.

Murray is different, he'a been consistent for a while now, winning a bunch of titles, including a few masters.

Murray was playing great tennis in 2007 and would've gotten further at the Australian Open 2007 had he not met Nadal so early.
Then he got injured, had to skip FO and Wimbledon and lost the rythm.

In the beginning of 2008 he was a unlucky to draw Tsonga in the first round of the Australian Open. Still, except the FO 08, he didn't had a single bad loss in grandslams since then (1.5 years).

He got outplayed fair and square in every single slam-loss in the last 1.5 years by quality players playing great tennis (Nadal/Federer/Verdasco/Gonzalez/Roddick).

I'm still unconvinced. Murray made decent progress it's true, but Rog did too - winning MS etc. All of Murray's best slam performances have happened in the last 12 months. He's won 8 of his 13 titles and all 4 of his MS these last 12 months.

 

[mikro112]

Murray can only talk in "if" and "would" because he chokes on the big stages!

"If I hadn't lost to Roddick" blablabla. If Federer hadn't lost to Nadal in all those Finals, he wouldn't have to compete for the next two years, because he would be so far ahead in the rankings.

Murray is an idiot.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Murray can only talk in "if" and "would" because he chokes on the big stages!

"If I hadn't lost to Roddick" blablabla. If Federer hadn't lost to Nadal in all those Finals, he wouldn't have to compete for the next two years, because he would be so far ahead in the rankings.

Murray is an idiot.

I dont like Murray at all to be honest, but he is not an idiot. And he is very good at what he does.

 

[dropshot winner]

I'm still unconvinced. Murray made decent progress it's true, but Rog did too - winning MS etc. All of Murray's best slam performances have happened in the last 12 months. He's won 8 of his 13 titles and all 4 of his MS these last 12 months.

Federer failed to win a masters for 18months after he won Hamburg in 2002, Murray's been a contender in every single hardcourt masters since he won his first, that's the difference.

Murray has been able to play well day-in-day-out for a while now. His acension was steady and predictable, it only got delayed because he had the injury.

Federer was the inconsistent, talented player who often lost in the first few rounds of the slams until he won Wimbledon.

 

[fed_rulz]

Yes, ive read it 2 times and i have to agree with this one, he didnt imply something like that imo.
However, the thing about "if i had won 2 more matches in Wi,by then"...that i find a bit ridiculous, its like, if my Dad didnt have a penis then he wouldnt be my dad. If Roger would have won in AO he would not get caught for ages...i dont like "if" this and "if" that.

In all fairness, last yr Fed did mention that if a couple of points had gone differently in the wimby final (08), then he would not have lost the ranking.. or something to that effect. I don't find Murray's comments out of line at all. This reminds me of when Fed said his goal was to win Madrid.....

 

[Spider]

I don't think Murray and Federer are that much alike in their progress. Federer was considered an exceptional talent when people saw his abilities since the 4th round Wimbledon 01. People expected him to win a slam sooner rather than later. In 02 and the first two slams of 03, Federer just plain sucked and many people wrote him off as a talented player who may never achieve some great things. Then ofcourse the rest is history and we have one of the biggest icons this spot has ever seen.

Murray on the other hand, since US open, has performed exceptionally well and apart from the shocker at the AO this year, he has been the most consistent player even at slams (yes ahead of Nadal and below Federer).

US open this year will be a telling story and unfortunately for Murray the task is a lot more tougher then it was for Federer in 2003, since Federer didn't have to play someone with 15 slams under his belt, to win his first slam!!).

Murray would have one slam if it wasn't for Federer last year.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

In all fairness, last yr Fed did mention that if a couple of points had gone differently in the wimby final (08), then he would not have lost the ranking.. or something to that effect. I don't find Murray's comments out of line at all. This reminds me of when Fed said his goal was to win Madrid.....

You might be right, if so, i dont think Fed should have said that , noone should.

 

[satishnadal]

though murray is good but he needs to repect other players rafa and roger for their achievements and also for tsonga and delpotro both will be a huge threat for him in us open ,murray can win a grand slam but he is also negative minded all these talk shows he is deperate to be on top that will not work in favour for him i do believe delpotro vs nadal final at us .

 

[フェデラー]

what will he be saying if he loses the next few slams?

 

[batz]

what will he be saying if he loses the next few slams?

Probably the same as he's saying now - that it's very difficult to win slams when 2 of the best players ever are around.

 

[mandy01]

Its obviously going to be Murray's goal..just that I get a feeling that he's thinking too much about the rankings.
That said,he's about to do win a slam and its going to happen sooner than later-So if he gets there I wont be surprised at all.

 

[Fedex]

what will he be saying if he loses the next few slams?

There's a lot of great players and there can only be one winner.
Murray has already achieved a lot, especially for a Scot (Brit) so no disgrace if he even never wins a slam.
I think he'll be unfortunate if he doesn't pick up one in his career (who knows his chance may already have passed) but certainly no disgrace.

 

[Fedex]

Its obviously going to be Murray's goal..just that I get a feeling that he's thinking too much about the rankings.
That said,he's about to do win a slam and its going to happen sooner than later-So if he gets there I wont b surprised at all.

Mandy when it comes to slams there are no guarantees.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

There's a lot of great players and there can only be one winner.
Murray has already achieved a lot, especially for a Scot (Brit) so no disgrace if he even never wins a slam.
I think he'll be unfortunate if he doesn't pick up one in his career (who knows his chance may already have passed) but certainly no disgrace.

Right, Murray has achieved a lot, and he will win a GS imo, BUT...PLZ do NOT use the argument "for a Scot (Brit)" No one said of Federer that he has done much despite being a Swiss or Djokovic has done a lot despite being Serb, ok? As far as i know Brits and Scots have DNA,2 arms and 2 legs just like the rest of us.

 

[mandy01]

Mandy when it comes to slams there are no guarantees.

No there isnt but I see Murray only getting better.He's young and willing to improve ( though I'm not a fan of his game of late)

 

[Eviscerator]

The difference is that Federer was a late bloomer, Murray is not.

Of course Murray was unlucky with the wrist injury, but mentally he's been very solid for a long time.

I guess it depends on how you define a long time. He has had the talent for some time, but his conditioning and mental game have held him back for years. I'd say he has gotten his act together in just the past year.

 

[nfor304]

"If I had had a slightly better run at the Australian Open or [not lost] a tight one to Andy Roddick at Wimbledon then, who knows?" Murray said

"I would be very close to Roger in the rankings if I had won those two matches from the semis onwards.

"

If......

If I turned pro today and won my first 100 matches I would also be pretty close to being number 1.

 

[Fedex]

Right, Murray has achieved a lot, and he will win a GS imo, BUT...PLZ do NOT use the argument "for a Scot (Brit)" No one said of Federer that he has done much despite being a Swiss or Djokovic has done a lot despite being Serb, ok? As far as i know Brits and Scots have DNA,2 arms and 2 legs just like the rest of us.

Haha but Britain is a far worse tennis nation than Switzerland or Serbia or practically any nation in fact.
Murray is easily Britains best player ever in the modern era and already achieved a lot more at 22 years old than any other Brit.

No there isnt but I see Murray only getting better.He's young and willing to improve ( though I'm not a fan of his game of late)

He might do a Nadal. He does also have knee issues. Anything could happen. The field might get stronger with Murray. Who knows.
It does look good for him though and he probably will end up with a slam or two.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Haha but Britain is a far worse tennis nation than Switzerland or Serbia or practically any nation in fact.
Murray is easily Britains best player ever in the modern era and already achieved a lot more at 22 years old than any other Brit.



He might do a Nadal. He does also have knee issues. Anything could happen. The field might get stronger with Murray. Who knows.
It does look good for him though and he probably will end up with a slam or two.

Yes, but that shouldnt be taken under consideration when one looks at a certain players greatness, since the early 90`s basically every country in the civilized world has good tennisplayers! We are talking New Zealand, Marocko, Ecuador, Chile,Switzerland,Serbia,Bosnia,Isreal,Cyprus, i hope you see my point.

 

[Fedex]

Yes, but that shouldnt be taken under consideration when one looks at a certain players greatness, since the early 90`s basically every country in the civilized world has good tennisplayers! We are talking New Zealand, Marocko, Ecuador, Chile,Switzerland,Serbia,Bosnia,Isreal,Cyprus, i hope you see my point.

It does if you are British. It's all relative.
If you're British, anything that Murray wins is new territory and a bonus.
On the world stage though and on forums like this, the expectations and comparisons are far higher and nothing less than achieving and maintaining the very highest standards will prove that he can be classified as a great.
I think he's doing a pretty good job for an ungamely looking, gangly, skinny Scot.

 

[Rjtennis]

Those are a couple huge matches that he lost that make up that difference. Andy is such a defensive player that if he is going to win some slams he has the best chance while he is young and healthy. Murray just runs everything down and as he loses even just a little speed it negatively effect his game in a big way.