Murray should have more than one HC major by now

NatF said:
No but then again you're blaming the competition on why he hasn't won a boat load more HC slams. It's a two way street, if he had been better in the first place it wouldn't have mattered.
Click to expand...
Lmao, you refuse to budge an inch where Murray's concerned. No wonder you and Mainad have had so many tussles in recent times. :D
 
Rafa the King said:
Not in my opinion, look at how the guy played in the final. I think that from the 6 finals, he's played 2 good ones at most. Being poor in finals (the most important match) means that he wasn't really good enough. Although he faced 2 Tier 1 ATGs, his performances did indeed only deserve 1 title.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't think he should've necessarily won any of the finals he lost(after all it's not like any of them even went the distance), just that you'd expect a player with his HC resume to have won more than the one major by now. Kinda like if you knew nothing about tennis but you saw Djokovic's clay resume heading into last year's French Open, you'd probably be surprised that he'd never won it before.
 
Novak is better on clay than Murray on slow hard imo. Maybe than Murray on faster hard/ hard overall too.

Murray on grass however is in the ballpark of Novak on clay and fast hard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Djokovic2011 said:
Again, I don't think he should've necessarily won any of the finals he lost(after all it's not like any of them even went the distance), just that you'd expect a player with his HC resume to have won more than the one major by now. Kinda like if you knew nothing about tennis but you saw Djokovic's clay resume heading into last year's French Open, you'd probably be surprised that he'd never won it before.
Click to expand...

Yes but as a tennis fanatic I know he didn't deserve more. Nole had played awesome RG's and good enough finals to warrant wins against anyone else, Murray has played a couple of really ****ty finals. Yes, it's amazing, but if you've seen the matches, you know he never deserved one of the lost finals, bar Wimbledon 2012 maybe
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Lmao, you refuse to budge an inch where Murray's concerned. No wonder you and Mainad have had so many tussles in recent times. :D
Click to expand...

The difference between us is quite simple. I like Murray and therefore, for me, the cup is always half-full.

@NatF is the polar opposite: he dislikes Murray and therefore, for him, the cup is always half-empty. However he harbours a dark secret:

He is terrified his girlfriend will find out because she likes Murray! :p
 
Last edited:
AngryBirds said:
The scary part is Federer could play this 'excuse' game better than anyone. Without Nadal and Djokovic, Fed would be sitting at 25 slams with 4-5 Calendar Grand Slam and more.
Click to expand...
Definetly. For example, the "Rafa was sandwiched between Fed/Nole" is a common misunderstanding. I mean, how many slams did Federer stop Rafa from winning in Rafas prime 2008-2013? And Djokovic only stopped Rafa from winning 3 slams in those 6 years. Federer is by far the one who has suffered the most, still he has 17 slams:). 2010-2016 without Djoker/Nadal is quite comparable to Serenas wta-tour 2010-2016.
 
Jonas78 said:
Definetly. For example, the "Rafa was sandwiched between Fed/Nole" is a common misunderstanding. I mean, how many slams did Federer stop Rafa from winning in Rafas prime 2008-2013? And Djokovic only stopped Rafa from winning 3 slams in those 6 years. Federer is by far the one who has suffered the most, still he has 17 slams:). 2010-2016 without Djoker/Nadal is quite comparable to Serenas wta-tour 2010-2016.
Click to expand...
Fed only stopped Nadal once. I don't think Nadal would win 2006 Wimbledon even without Fed. He would have lost to Roddick. Djokovic really stopped Nadal 3 times(Wimb 2011, USO 2011, AO 2012). Fed indeed was hurt the most due to his inability to deal with his main rivals.
 
He is perhaps a little unlucky that he doesn't have an AO title yet, at least in the fact that Novak's dominant major is the AO. At the same time though, plenty of others better than Murray have lost multiple finals at a single major. Federer at RG, Djokovic at the USO, Borg at the USO, even Nadal has lost 2 AO finals. And when you look at how he played in said AO finals it's no shock why he doesn't have one.

2010- bad
2011- horrible
2013- distracted by a feather
2015- 4 sets with a bagel
2016- straight sets with a breadstick

In short, not good enough regardless of opponent. If I'm being nice I could even give him a pass on his 4 losses to Djokovic, but what some people don't remember now is that Murray was being picked to beat Federer in 2010 by a fair number of people. It was seen back then as basically a coin flip type match. Of course Federer played well and pretty much smoked him, but it's still not a good enough explanation where Andy is concerned and he'd probably tell you that himself. He screwed up his chance to get back into the match and make it a test of physical fitness (which may have favoured him had it gone on long enough) in the 3rd set.

Not much to say about the USO. He has a title, but some underwhelming losses when you consider he has 2 Cincy Titles and 3 Canada titles. Nishikori, Anderson, demolished by Wawrinka before he won a major even though he played well, straight setted by Cilic in 2009 (way before 2014), and beaten again by Wawrinka in 2010 (not one of Wawrinka's better years all told).

So again, not good enough. 1 USO title is about what he deserves right now, but I do predict he either ends up with 1 of each or 2 USO's.
 
AngryBirds said:
Fed only stopped Nadal once. I don't think Nadal would win 2006 Wimbledon even without Fed. He would have lost to Roddick. Djokovic really stopped Nadal 3 times(Wimb 2011, USO 2011, AO 2012). Fed indeed was hurt the most due to his inability to deal with his main rivals.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Still many people claim Rafa/Djoker had it tougher because of the big4 rivalry.
 
Djokovic 'should' have also won a 2nd RG and a 3rd USO by now,but he didn't ;)
Players from Federer's generation,Hewitt and Roddick should have more majors(even moreso than Murray)
Federer himself should have won at least one more AO,Wimby and 1-2 RG.
Steve0904 said:
2010- bad
2015- 4 sets with a bagel
Click to expand...
To be fair,I think Murray deserved to have won at least one of the two.
*2010 final was not bad,I have a good recollection of that match and at no point Murray was terrible.
1st set: He was into every Federer serve game,but not clutch enough to break,Federer raised his level in the last 2 games to claim the set
2nd set: Federer was at the top of his game,could have even breadsticked Murray,but he hold his own and made it a decent losing scoreline
3rd set: Murray played well and should have probably won the set,kind of choked the TB
*2015 final: Murray played great for 2 and a half sets and likely doesn't collapse against someone not named Djokovic
 
PMChambers said:
If Murray has one more HC Major, who has one less HC Major. The obvious call would be Djockovic at AO. But to say he should have mores requires you to state who should have less and that comes from a field of 6 players in his playing career. But he struggled to get through the Big 3.
Click to expand...

Cilic? Stan?
 
Rafa the King said:
Not in my opinion, look at how the guy played in the final. I think that from the 6 finals, he's played 2 good ones at most. Being poor in finals (the most important match) means that he wasn't really good enough. Although he faced 2 Tier 1 ATGs, his performances did indeed only deserve 1 title.
Click to expand...
Don't think anyone is suggesting he " deserves " anything, given his HC stats indicate he " should " have done more.
He didn't therefore it is what it is, what gets up my nose all this hype surrounding players is in the heads of a few internet warriors, the men themselves and in particular Andy and Stan know exactly where they are in the scheme of things and have vocalised this on many occasions, neither of these guys hype there own positions other than saying they feel confident going into a tournament ( if they didn't then the warriors would be on that too )
 
InsideOut900 said:
To be fair,I think Murray deserved to have won at least one of the two.
*2010 final was not bad,I have a good recollection of that match and at no point Murray was terrible.
1st set: He was into every Federer serve game,but not clutch enough to break,Federer raised his level in the last 2 games to claim the set
2nd set: Federer was at the top of his game,could have even breadsticked Murray,but he hold his own and made it a decent losing scoreline
3rd set: Murray played well and should have probably won the set,kind of choked the TB
*2015 final: Murray played great for 2 and a half sets and likely doesn't collapse against someone not named Djokovic
Click to expand...

Perhaps not bad, but not good enough at any rate. Federer wouldn't be at the top of his game if he was playing a guy who could pressure him, i.e Nadal or Djokovic. Murray fell back into his patented defensive shell as he was so fond of doing at that time.

And about 2015, I'm not so sure he doesn't collapse against Djokovic's SF opponent Wawrinka for example. I don't see any legitimate excuse (because Murray wasn't injured anyway) for getting bageled in the 4th set (not even the 5th where you could argue tiredness) to lose a major title. It's not even quite the same as getting bageled or breadsticked in the 3rd because you just "gave up."
 
AngryBirds said:
Fed only stopped Nadal once. I don't think Nadal would win 2006 Wimbledon even without Fed. He would have lost to Roddick. Djokovic really stopped Nadal 3 times(Wimb 2011, USO 2011, AO 2012). Fed indeed was hurt the most due to his inability to deal with his main rivals.
Click to expand...
LOL, Roddick was out early that Wimb edition. The only other player who could have reached the final would have probably been Ancic. And I don't think Ancic would have beaten Nadal in a GS final.
 
AngryBirds said:
Fed only stopped Nadal once. I don't think Nadal would win 2006 Wimbledon even without Fed. He would have lost to Roddick. Djokovic really stopped Nadal 3 times(Wimb 2011, USO 2011, AO 2012). Fed indeed was hurt the most due to his inability to deal with his main rivals.
Click to expand...
Yeah, how dare he lose GS finals to prime/peak Djokovic at age 33-34, while the great Sampras was getting destroyed by Hewitt-Safin in slams finals at 29-30? :rolleyes:
 
mike danny said:
Well IMO Agassi would also have far less than 6 HC slams (probably 2-3 tops) if he had Federer and Djokovic to compete against.

He wouldn't have 4 AO titles if he had to contend with a consistent 4 time winner and another consistent 6 time winner.

At the USO he would also have it very difficult, even if Djokovic isn't as good at the USO as he is at the AO.
Click to expand...
um Agassi did compete against Fed and he had to contend with 3 of the 4 (maybe the best 3) best fast HC players of all time whom he lost to 8 different times at the USO. On top of this you want to give him more competition?
 
mike danny said:
LOL, Roddick was out early that Wimb edition. The only other player who could have reached the final would have probably been Ancic. And I don't think Ancic would have beaten Nadal in a GS final.
Click to expand...

Back then that potential 2006 final would've probably been a toss up. If Ancic was going to win a slam anywhere it would've been at Wimbledon.
 
Steve0904 said:
Back then that potential 2006 final would've probably been a toss up. If Ancic was going to win a slam anywhere it would've been at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
Nadal in the 2006 final wasn't that bad really outside of the first set.

I still say it would have been 60-40 Nadal against Ancic. His experience would have helped a lot having already won 2 slams beforehand.
 
KINGROGER said:
I'd give him 2016 for sure. 2010 and 2015 50/50 between him and Tsonga, Wawrinka.

2012 Nadal. 2013 Wawrinka.

Probably 2 at most I think. Of course he'd have more Wimbledons though and a FO.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if Wawrinka would've won in 2013 even if he had beaten Djokovic. I think Murray would've been too much for him that year.
 
AngryBirds said:
Fed only stopped Nadal once. I don't think Nadal would win 2006 Wimbledon even without Fed. He would have lost to Roddick. Djokovic really stopped Nadal 3 times(Wimb 2011, USO 2011, AO 2012). Fed indeed was hurt the most due to his inability to deal with his main rivals.
Click to expand...

Federer destroyed his main rivals for the most part (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin) was tied with Nadal peak for peak, and dominated Djokovic prime for prime (07 - 10)

The only time Nadal got the better of Fed regularly was once his level dropped quite a bit, which is to be expected as he is 5 years old.

Djokovic2011 said:
I'm not sure if Wawrinka would've won in 2013 even if he had beaten Djokovic. I think Murray would've been too much for him that year.
Click to expand...

Not too sure as Wawrinka outplayed Djokovic, who is a much superior version of Murray but with more aggression. One bad line call and playacting cost him that match.
 
This thread is an obvious attempt by the OP to show how supposedly amazing Novak Djokovic is - i.e. "Murray should have loads of AOs but he's had to face the amazing Novak Djokovic year after year".
 
mike danny said:
By that premise, Hewitt and Roddick should have more USO titles too.
Click to expand...

I don't follow you here. By what premise should Hewitt and Roddick have more US Open titles? They had peak Federer to contend with, and under that premise, their chances for another title were nil. The chances for Murray, though, were excellent post 2012.
 
duaneeo said:
I don't follow you here. By what premise should Hewitt and Roddick have more US Open titles? They had peak Federer to contend with, and under that premise, their chances for another title were nil. The chances for Murray, though, were excellent post 2012.
Click to expand...
Well, 2013, he was struggling with back injury and likely wouldn't have won the tournament anyways. 2014 he was in bad form all year. 2015 he wouldn't have beaten Federer or Djokovic even if he hadn't mugged against Anderson. 2016 was a real chance yes.
 
He'd have had about 10 HC slams without Djokovic around. One slam or 10 slams, he is still one of the best HC players in history.
In other news if my auntie had been born a man, he'd be my uncle and bears do indeed **** in the woods.
 
The only reason Murray has only 3 slam titles is because he's consistently outclassed by the other big 3. His game style is too defensive for hard court. Much harder to grind out a win in best of 5 than it is in best of 3.
 
metsman said:
Well, 2013, he was struggling with back injury and likely wouldn't have won the tournament anyways. 2014 he was in bad form all year. 2015 he wouldn't have beaten Federer or Djokovic even if he hadn't mugged against Anderson. 2016 was a real chance yes.
Click to expand...

2013 was winnable. Murray won Wimbledon, and after the USO loss, won 2 DC matches. He simply sucked against Wawrinka. He was in bad form in 2014, but look at Cilic's record that year at the big tournaments. If he can win the USO, Murray definitely could.

Both Murray and Djokovic's record at the USO is confusing. With no young gun making his mark, the two of them alone should have won the last 6 titles.
 
duaneeo said:
2013 was winnable. Murray won Wimbledon, and after the USO loss, won 2 DC matches. He simply sucked against Wawrinka. He was in bad form in 2014, but look at Cilic's record that year at the big tournaments. If he can win the USO, Murray definitely could.

Both Murray and Djokovic's record at the USO is confusing. With no young gun making his mark, the two of them alone should have won the last 6 titles.
Click to expand...
I mean neither of them are really on the caliber of a truly elite medium/fast hard court player so expecting that many titles for them just won't happen. Even though you can say no one is there, you still need an elite player on that surface to clean up year after year. Both Djokovic and Murray are vulnerable in those conditions and it has shown with some of their losses there over the years.
 
metsman said:
I mean neither of them are really on the caliber of a truly elite medium/fast hard court player so expecting that many titles for them just won't happen.
Click to expand...

Well of course it won't happen, because it hasn't happened. What I'm saying is that it should have happened. Both may be vulnerable on medium/fast hard, but they're better on the surface than the players they've lost to at the USO. And, does the USO still qualify as medium/fast hard? It definitely doesn't at night.
 
It seems like the OP has a hidden agenda. By inflating Murray especially in last couple years it makes Djokovic's accomplishments look greater. It would be like me saying, "Roddick should have at least 3 grass majors and 6+ majors overall."
 
Druss said:
It seems like the OP has a hidden agenda. By inflating Murray especially in last couple years it makes Djokovic's accomplishments look greater. It would be like me saying, "Roddick should have at least 3 grass majors and 6+ majors overall."
Click to expand...
Is there a rule that says every thread I create has to be about my favourite player? Jesus Christ, some of you people will nitpick at anything. :rolleyes::oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nolefam_2024
Where does Medvedev rank all time on hc?
2
Replies
63
Views
3K
dking68
dking68
kragster
What makes Murray's game better for fast HC and Nole's for slow HC
Replies
44
Views
4K
Biscuitmcgriddleson
B
abmk
A comparision of Wawrinka vs Murray at HC slams
2
Replies
66
Views
4K
DjokoLand
D
WhiskeyEE
Is Nadal's HC success overrated?
2
Replies
85
Views
7K
insideguy
I
D
Is Federer v Djokovic the GOAT rivalry on HC?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Nachiket Nolefam
N
Back
Top