Endearing.
Maybe that's why it took him 5 attempts to win his first slam title. All of Fed, Djoko and Rafa won their first slam at 1st attempt (1st slam final). Actually it was 2nd attempt for Djoko, sorryHe won his first slam, beating a player that had already won a slam.
.
He won his first slam, beating a player that had already won a slam.
To me, that is some feet.
Roger had philipousis.
Novak Tsonga
Nadal (Some rookie in the French)
Murray's had it so tough, every slam final it's either Roger or Novak.. Roger, arguably the best player ever and Novak, arguably the best hard-court point constructor ever.
Virtually every time he had reached a final in previous year's he's also had to get one of the top 4 in the semi finals, ofcourse that changed this year but once again a massive feet.
To sum it up I don't think anyone can ever say Andy Murray didn't deserve this slam, no lucky draws, injuries to top player's or anything. He battled and he battled and that inner strength is finally there with him now.
I was a little disappointed with his lack of a celebration, I feel he was too emotionally drained to celebrate to the level he probably felt like. The feeling was jus relief, massive weight off his shoulders now. Expect Novak and Andy to dominate the hardcourt slams now.
He was backing up his statement, and I believe he did so pretty well, with facts. Do you have any facts to support your opinion?
As for this thread, perhaps it is true that Murray had to beat a multiple slam champion (in the final) where the others did not, but it is pretty meaningless overall.
Djokovic and Nadal have done much more impressive things in general. Nadal was able to break through and get a stranglehold on the French and prevent the possible GOAT from winning RG when the goat was in his prime (and when Nadal was very young). Djokovic was able to stop Nadal from creating an era all for himself in addition to getting by a still formidable Fed.
So yes, Murray had to beat a multiple slam champion to get his first slam, but it was someone from his own generation who has had a much better career so far. Djokovic grabbed an early opportunity (that he created by beating Fed in the semi's) and then grabbed his second slam against Murray years after his first. That final was an excellent opportunity for Murray against a one slam Djoker who was not brimming with slam confidence at the time. Murray got steamrolled.
Perhaps if you would read through the other posts that are similar to this, you would realize that no one is disagreeing with such an obvious fact, they are only questioning its importance.
Not many people do, but the op isn't going to give up.
LMFAO. Batz has never once said this. Batz is jus a huge Murray admirer, as am I. Nice try though.
And piece and peace.
He won his first slam, beating a player that had already won a slam.
To me, that is some feet.
Roger had philipousis.
Novak Tsonga
Nadal (Some rookie in the French)
Murray's had it so tough, every slam final it's either Roger or Novak.. Roger, arguably the best player ever and Novak, arguably the best hard-court point constructor ever.
Virtually every time he had reached a final in previous year's he's also had to get one of the top 4 in the semi finals, ofcourse that changed this year but once again a massive feet.
To sum it up I don't think anyone can ever say Andy Murray didn't deserve this slam, no lucky draws, injuries to top player's or anything. He battled and he battled and that inner strength is finally there with him now.
I was a little disappointed with his lack of a celebration, I feel he was too emotionally drained to celebrate to the level he probably felt like. The feeling was jus relief, massive weight off his shoulders now. Expect Novak and Andy to dominate the hardcourt slams now.
Well make your thread clearer next time...
