zagor
Bionic Poster
So the true measure of a player's greatness is his H2H with Federer? Than Gilles Simon must be better player than Roddick and Hewitt.
"Murray is a more complete player than Nadal, he seves better and volleys better"...
- Thread starter vanity
- Start date
So the true measure of a player's greatness is his H2H with Federer? Than Gilles Simon must be better player than Roddick and Hewitt.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Not just mental toughness,he has a MUCH better FH.As Wilander said it's hard to rack up slams with BH being your main weapon,that's just the way tennis is,FH is the more dominant shot(just ask Delpo who made his slambreakthrough before Murray).Not to mention that Nadal's BH is terrific as well and at his best it's maybe even debatable if Murray's BH is indeed better.
Murray's backhand is better imo. It has more variety, and can be more offensive. I agree with the rest. Federer probably is slower, proner to errors, has a worse backhand, a worse overhead, is weaker defensively, hasn't got a mental edge over Murray AND Djokovic. Everything can be worse, as long as your forehand and serve are among the best you are gonna win matches, and tournaments.
Murray just doesn't have the forehand. And I have a feeling he's not trying to cahnge it. He's willing to keep his game as defensive as it is. He def. has more variety than Nadal, but he really doesn't show it much, and the second serve and forehand are just below par for a multiple grandslam champion in the making.
Yes I forgot about talking about the forehand lol. To be honest, Murray's forehand is really quite weak out of the top 5, maybe even say top 8. It might be better than say, Roddick's or Davy's, but it's really quite inferior to everyone else's in the top 8. It's light years away from being even comparable to Rafa's, so, no, Murray's game is not more complete than Nadal's.
grafselesfan
Banned
As an objective bystander in this case as I dislike both Federer and Murray I can say I dont agree with your accessment. The only surface Murray might move as well or better than even the current arguably slightly slowed Federer is hard courts. He absolutely does not move as well as Federer on either grass or clay. Overall Defense wise I would probably say the same thing. Murray does not have a better overhead than Federer, I dont know where on earth you get that from. Roger puts away pretty much every overhead he gets, even tough ones. As for mental, Roger may not have a mental edge over Murray but he is mentally the tougher player by far as shown by Murray's weak mentality where it really counts in the slams. If Roger and Murray played in a slam I would heavily favor Roger still due to his superior mental toughness which tends to be more important in the slams than anywhere else. I find Roger's mental toughness overrated in terms of the very greatest, for example I consider Sampras and Nadal by far mentally tougher, but Murray definitely not.
Sorry, When I read my post it's really all wrong. What I meant was: That even if all those things are better for Murray, I still think Federer can beat him if he keeps his forehand and serve working. Those two shots in general decide a tennismatch.
grafselesfan
Banned
LOL Murray does not have a better forehand than Davydenko or even Roddick. If he did he would have won virtually every match he played with those guys, as other than Roddick's serve and possibly Davydenko's return, they are worse in every other area. Murray overall is still a superior player to both Roddick and Davydenko, but Davydenko has overpowered Murray with his forehand on several occasions, including last year, and Roddick did at Wimbledon.
grafselesfan
Banned
In that case I agree. Even worse for Murray though all those things are not better than Federer in his case.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
You are making some good points, although i would question Sampras`s mental toughness from time to time, how many times did he come back from 1-2 sets down or 0-2 sets down?
I remember in AO in 2000 where Agassi won the 4th set tiebreak vs Sampras and steamrolled him in the 5th set. That definetely was not mental toughness. Sampras just bent over.
Obviously there is no mention in your post of there last two meetings which have gone to Murray. Oh, and one of them was on clay fyi.
That wouldnt dispute the notion of GSF that Davydenko has given Murray trouble in the past. He clearly has and has outplayed him on many occasions. Of course no mention from you Davydenko was coming back from injury and clearly not back at his best, especialy at the time of that clay court meeting.
Nobody is saying Davydenko is the better player, but Murray would own him if he really had the better forehand. He doesnt and he doesnt.
Of course Davydenko won't be fit more than half way through the season when they last played. :roll:
grafselesfan
Banned
Between January 7th when Davydenko had to pull out of his 2nd round in Chennai with a heel injury, and between then and April 12th played only one small tournament (where he played 2 matches and found he was still too injured to play, missing another 2 months). His loss to Murray on clay in Monte Carlo was his first tournament back in this 3+ months away from injury, and returning to tour full time. Given that this injury was right at the start of the season it was basically his first complete tournament since last November. It is obvious you were clueless to this fact by your post. If you dont even follow tennis closely then you shouldnt argue with people smarter than yourself who actually do.
You are completely oblivious to the fact that there last meeting was in July, Montreal. He came back from injury in April which is three months before. Instead of spouting crap maybe you should make more sense.
grafselesfan
Banned
I am fully aware when their last meeting was, you are the fool who was completely clueless that Davydenko had been injured all year at the time they played on clay (and thinks mid April is halfway through the tennis season too, LOL!) in your desperate use of a single win on clay as the crux of your pathetic argument against Davydenko being a tough opponent for Murray. So Murray has had one win over Davydenko somewhat close to his normal on hard courts since then. Big deal, nobody said Davydenko was better than Murray, just that he is a tough opponent for him to the extent Murray doesnt completely dominate their head to head by any stretch, and that his forehand is better than Murray's which it clearly is. You are that Maximo idiot under another nic obviously, as evidenced by your fact-allergic Murray ass kissing posts. No worry, the ban hammer will hit your sorry ass soon enough.
I was referring the Montreal match. Comprehension fail much?
No, you are not aware when there last meeting was, you equally don't know which month is more than halfway through the season. You should go learn something, kid.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
This is how your sentences should read:
So the true measure of a player's greatness is his H2H with Federer in Grand slam finals? Then Gilles Simon must be better player than Roddick and Hewitt if he ever dominates them in Grand Slam finals.
correct
So the true measure of a player's greatness is his H2H with Federer in Grand slam finals? Then Gilles Simon must be better player than Roddick and Hewitt if he ever dominates them in Grand Slam finals.
correct
Blinkism
Legend
No, because Gilles Simon didn't defeat Federer in 5 slam finals and 1 slam semifinal!
And he didn't steal Wimbledon away from one of the greatest Wimbledon players ever in a match that is the greatest match of all time, in many people's opinions.
H2H is supplementary to accomplishments. Nadal has the accomplishments to bring meaning to the H2H.
Not only did he achieve all he has achieved, but he's actually achieved most of it in spite of playing against the GOAT.
This is why he's an all-time great, IMO. Even if he retired today.
Last edited:
ksbh
Banned
Brilliant post!
Many of the *******s on this forum lack a proper perspective because of their lack of historical knowledge of the sport but I'm certain they know why Rafa's winning H2H against Federer is much more significant than some of the other players' H2H against Federer or some players' H2H against other past greats. I don't see any other reason so I must assume they play dumb because it hurts to admit the fact!
Many of the *******s on this forum lack a proper perspective because of their lack of historical knowledge of the sport but I'm certain they know why Rafa's winning H2H against Federer is much more significant than some of the other players' H2H against Federer or some players' H2H against other past greats. I don't see any other reason so I must assume they play dumb because it hurts to admit the fact!
Great post Blink. I've been trying to explain this to Mandy01 over on the Everest thread but she insists it's just poor Federer's matchup problem
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Its confirmed..you lack comprehension skills.
Anyway,Nadal being a bad match-up for him dosent make him poor.
Last edited:
All of tennis is matchups. Federer had easy ones early on in his career, then Nadal came along. Nadal had to beat a lot of folks to win 6 slams. It's not like he's James Blake.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Nadal is an all-time great because of the 6 slams not because he beat Federer.
Really ,as long as you win slams thats all that really matters.Sure beating Federer makes his fans feel good but otherwise he himself said that he would like to win a slam against anyone.
Last edited:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
So where did I say he's James Blake?
And I know Nadal had to beat a lot of folks to win 6 slams.
grafselesfan
Banned
It is short sighted and foolish to really think head to heads between greats are completely irrelevant. No Nadal with 6 slams does not rank higher than Federer with 15, but to think that matters none in elevating Nadal and to some devalueing Federer is simply not true.
Here is one example. When you compare the careers of Navratilova and Evert, Chris has the edge in virtually every discinerable way before evaluating head to head play. Far more longevity (longevity of 13 years close to your best matters much more than 5 years close to your best and an added 15 of just pretty good play), miles better consistency, more versatility across the surfaces, while not the same 2-3 year level of dominance, similar dominance over a 5 year period. Chris also missed out on having many more slams than Martina, and likely more than Graf but the WTT commitments of the 70s. Yet nearly everyone now ranks Martina over Chris. Why? Martina dominated Chris for several years when Chris was still close to her best, and their careers are still close enough that this sways the favor to Martina in nearly everyones mind, despite that overall it is Chris who had the better career in singles.
Here is one example. When you compare the careers of Navratilova and Evert, Chris has the edge in virtually every discinerable way before evaluating head to head play. Far more longevity (longevity of 13 years close to your best matters much more than 5 years close to your best and an added 15 of just pretty good play), miles better consistency, more versatility across the surfaces, while not the same 2-3 year level of dominance, similar dominance over a 5 year period. Chris also missed out on having many more slams than Martina, and likely more than Graf but the WTT commitments of the 70s. Yet nearly everyone now ranks Martina over Chris. Why? Martina dominated Chris for several years when Chris was still close to her best, and their careers are still close enough that this sways the favor to Martina in nearly everyones mind, despite that overall it is Chris who had the better career in singles.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Its not completely irrelevant but its not as relevant as people make it out to be either.
Anyway,its mostly upto the relative fan base and peoples' mindset.
For me,I'd rather have a better career than a winning H2H.
Besides,people usually compare their H2H because their actual slam tally is similar.If I'm not mistaken both have 18 slams.
Last edited:
Cantankersore
Semi-Pro
I think he was showing Cash's argument to be invalid by showing that the premises may be satisfied with the conclusion being false.
THESEXPISTOL
Hall of Fame
This is clearly true.. but Nadal mind and his perseverance gives him matches.. The British brat often auto-destructs himself, even if, lately is not as much as it used to be before.
Similar threads
