sam querrey save the whole tennis world in 16 wimbledon R3 ?

skypadq

Hall of Fame
sam querrey , this guy is total underrated player , seriously
this guy achieve that federer and murray couldn't
how sam querry , this guy wins the agianst freaking novak djokovic in major , 16 wimbledon R3
wins two tie break agianst , king of tie break novak djokovic
if sam querry lost this match
there 's 50 -50 chance that djokovic won 16 wimbledon
either lost murray in final or djokvoic won 16 wimbledon
i don 't think mahut , raonic , injuried federer can beat djokovic

so such a big win from sam querrey
 
sam querrey , this guy is total underrated player , seriously
this guy achieve that federer and murray couldn't
how sam querry , this guy wins the agianst freaking novak djokovic in major , 16 wimbledon R3
wins two tie break agianst , king of tie break novak djokovic
if sam querry lost this match
there 's 50 -50 chance that djokovic won 16 wimbledon
either lost murray in final or djokvoic won 16 wimbledon
i don 't think mahut , raonic , injuried federer can beat djokovic

so such a big win from sam querrey
Federer got injured in the 4th or 5th set in the semis, there is no guarantee he would have gotten injured had he player Djokovic in the semis.

Nor is there guarantee Novak would have beaten a healthy in-form Federer in the semis. He would have been favourite, but not by much.

Novak would have easily dismantled Murray in the finale. W13 was a Bermuda Triangle event.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
Utter crap of course. Novak has never taken a set off Murray at Wimbledon (in either of their 2 meetings). By that stage of the season Murray was rounding into form on his best surface.
Murray played two absolutely terrible finals in AO and RG, but he was going to beat Djokovic in the next slam final? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Utter crap of course. Novak has never taken a set off Murray at Wimbledon (in either of their 2 meetings). By that stage of the season Murray was rounding into form on his best surface.
While I very much doubt Djokovic would have "easily dismantled" Murray if he reached the final, the OG semi was 7-5 7-5, and the 2013 Final was after a grueling match against Delpo.

I think a final between them here would have been a 50/50 proposition
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray played two absolutely terrible finals in AO and RG, but he was going to beat Djokovic in the next slam final? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
On the contrary, he took a set off Djokovic at RG, his worst surface and you really think he would have been a walkover for Djokovic at Wimbledon, his best surface where he had never even lost a set to him before. I mean REALLY??? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
Utter crap of course. Novak has never taken a set off Murray at Wimbledon (in either of their 2 meetings). By that stage of the season Murray was rounding into form on his best surface.
No way Djokovic beats Murray in Wimbledon 16, unless in absolute top shape. And maybe not even then.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
On the contrary, he took a set off Djokovic at RG, his worst surface and you really think he would have been a walkover for Djokovic at Wimbledon, his best surface where he had never even lost a set to him before. I mean REALLY??? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
He took a set? Right, and then totally collapsed. One of the worst performances I have ever seen in a slam final. Truth is, every slam match between them in 2014-2016 (and most other matches as well) was a walkover for Djokovic. Of course Djokovic would destroy Murray in 3-4 sets in Wimbledon final. He is not Raonic.

And why are you comparing with 2012-2013 Murray who actually had more weapons? We are discussing 2016. I doubt 2012 Murray would collapse like that in AO and RG finals.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He took a set? Right, and then totally collapsed. One of the worst performances I have ever seen in a slam final. Truth is, every slam match between them in 2014-2016 (and most other matches as well) was a walkover for Djokovic. Of course Djokovic would destroy Murray in 3-4 sets in Wimbledon final. He is not Raonic.

And why are you comparing with 2012-2013 Murray who actually had more weapons? We are discussing 2016. I doubt 2012 Murray would collapse like that in AO and RG finals.
We've been here before. You're just a Murray hater and it's pointless discussing anything with you about him. You believe what you want. The rest of us know the truth. Cheerio!
 
Utter crap of course. Novak has never taken a set off Murray at Wimbledon (in either of their 2 meetings). By that stage of the season Murray was rounding into form on his best surface.
He barely beat Raonic, needed several tie-breaks against a Canadian who didn't play his best.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He barely beat Raonic, needed several tie-breaks against a Canadian who didn't play his best.
Raonic was at his peak in 2016 and was serving bombs and is always difficult to break when in that mood. Still, Andy broke him in the 1st set and dominated the last 2 tie-breaks. A straight sets victory hardly constitutes "barely" in anybody's book except to a biased observer like yourself. Andy never dropped a set in any of his 3 successful finals at Wimbledon, including in the Olympic final which was also a best of 5 set match held on the same court, a measure of just how good he became at the greatest of all the grass venues.
 
Raonic was at his peak in 2016 and was serving bombs and is always difficult to break when in that mood. Still, Andy broke him in the 1st set and dominated the last 2 tie-breaks. A straight sets victory hardly constitutes "barely" in anybody's book except to a biased observer like yourself. Andy never dropped a set in any of his 3 successful finals at Wimbledon, including in the Olympic final which was also a best of 5 set match held on the same court, a measure of just how good he became at the greatest of all the grass venues.
I am surprised you went there.

Played an exhausted Federer who had swiped the court with him a month earlier - when there wasn't a fitness advantage for Sir Mandy. A measure of how lucky he got a few times, which is only fair considering how often he had to play guys better and more clutch than himself i.e. RF and Novak.

Sir Mandy is a great champ. But usually only when stars line up. Very many stars.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I am surprised you went there.

Played an exhausted Federer who had swiped the court with him a month earlier - when there wasn't a fitness advantage for Sir Mandy. A measure of how lucky he got a few times, which is only fair considering how often he had to play guys better and more clutch than himself i.e. RF and Novak.

Sir Mandy is a great champ. But usually only when stars line up. Very many stars.
More stars than there are in the night sky seemed to have lined up for Murray to produce the kind of career that he has had according to you. Stop begrudging him his victories and learn to accept them without making all manner of excuses for his opponents. If you can't do that then stop talking about him as there is nothing further to discuss that adds anything meaningful to this latest non-conversation.
 

TennisFan3

G.O.A.T.
Excellent post by OP. Sam Querrey was Novak Djokovic in Wimb 2016 was one of the biggest matches of this decade.
Had SAM not beaten Novak, the Serb would have won that Wimbledon - of that there is little doubt.
Djokovic does NOT lose in a slam SF/Final unless his opponent plays the match of their lives. He would not have lost to Murray/Fed or anyone else IMO. The only way to stop Djokovic is to get him early.

Perhaps Novak would already be ahead/equal to Nadal in slams had Querrey not beaten him in Wimbledon. It was a freight train at that point.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Excellent post by OP. Sam Querrey was Novak Djokovic in Wimb 2016 was one of the biggest matches of this decade.
Had SAM not beaten Novak, the Serb would have won that Wimbledon - of that there is little doubt.
Djokovic does NOT lose in a slam SF/Final unless his opponent plays the match of their lives. He would not have lost to Murray/Fed or anyone else IMO. The only way to stop Djokovic is to get him early.

Perhaps Novak would already be ahead/equal to Nadal in slams had Querrey not beaten him in Wimbledon. It was a freight train at that point.
Seem to recall that Andy managed to stop Novak pretty late at Wimbledon a few years back.:cool:
 

TennisFan3

G.O.A.T.
Seem to recall that Andy managed to stop Novak pretty late at Wimbledon a few years back.:cool:
True. However in 2016 Murray wasn't the same player when he stopped Novak before. Again Novak in 2016 was a bigger monster than he was in 2013. So I would still favor Djokovic in a Murray vs Djoker SW19 match.
My point is that (2015/2016 and these days) Djokovic is/was just far superior to everyone else. He is practically unbeatable in the later stages of slams, so it is only possible to get him early. He is perhaps the mentally strongest player in the history of the game along with Pete Sampras.

I'm really sad that Murray's career derailed because of injury. We would've had the big 4 instead of the big 3.
The larger point is that Murray could have been more competitive vs Novak than Fed or Nadal have been. Why? Because Murray was Novak's contemporary. He had similar age, matches and mileage. Fed is too old. Nadal is one year older but has tons of mileage and a battered body. So older in tennis terms. Murray could have improved and challenged Djokovic in at least some of the slams - especially in Wimb and AO.

Now the situation is that Fedal are too old. The next GEN/lost gen is practically useless. So IMO Djokovic has a good chance to break almost every single tennis record and get into the 25+ slams uncharted territory.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
True. However in 2016 Murray wasn't the same player when he stopped Novak before. Again Novak in 2016 was a bigger monster than he was in 2013. So I would still favor Djokovic in a Murray vs Djoker SW19 match.
My point is that (2015/2016 and these days) Djokovic is/was just far superior to everyone else. He is practically unbeatable in the later stages of slams, so it is only possible to get him early. He is perhaps the mentally strongest player in the history of the game along with Pete Sampras.

I'm really sad that Murray's career derailed because of injury. We would've had the big 4 instead of the big 3.
The larger point is that Murray could have been more competitive vs Novak than Fed or Nadal have been. Why? Because Murray was Novak's contemporary. He had similar age, matches and mileage. Fed is too old. Nadal is one year older but has tons of mileage and a battered body. So older in tennis terms. Murray could have improved and challenged Djokovic in at least some of the slams - especially in Wimb and AO.

Now the situation is that Fedal are too old. The next GEN/lost gen is practically useless. So IMO Djokovic has a good chance to break almost every single tennis record and get into the 25+ slams uncharted territory.
Seems a bit odd that you say Murray wasn't capable of stopping Djokovic in 2016 when, in the latter half of that year, he started playing some of his best stuff. He stopped Djokovic in Rome and ended the season by beating him in London to take his #1 ranking from him. I feel sure that any Wimbledon encounter would have been unpredictable especially given Murray's past record against Djokovic there.
 

TennisFan3

G.O.A.T.
Seems a bit odd that you say Murray wasn't capable of stopping Djokovic in 2016 when, in the latter half of that year, he started playing some of his best stuff. He stopped Djokovic in Rome and ended the season by beating him in London to take his #1 ranking from him. I feel sure that any Wimbledon encounter would have been unpredictable especially given Murray's past record against Djokovic there.
Look this is all subjective. And Murray played well in the latter half of 2016.
However, you are ignoring the mental part of matchups. Novak just dominated Murray in the French Open - where Murray practically collapsed after winning set 1. That would have had a huge impact on a potential Wimb match a month later.
Also I did not think Murray was that impressive in Wimb 2016. He went to 5 sets vs Tsonga in the QF who wasn't playing all that great and obviously had Berdych and Raonic in the SF and final - which is an easy draw.
Murray obviously fully deserved Wimbledon 2016, but I feel that had Querrey not stopped Novak - Djokovic would have gone on to win Wimbledon. Novak tends to dominate the familiar opponents in big slam matches..
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Look this is all subjective. And Murray played well in the latter half of 2016.
However, you are ignoring the mental part of matchups. Novak just dominated Murray in the French Open - where Murray practically collapsed after winning set 1. That would have had a huge impact on a potential Wimb match a month later.
Also I did not think Murray was that impressive in Wimb 2016. He went to 5 sets vs Tsonga in the QF who wasn't playing all that great and obviously had Berdych and Raonic in the SF and final - which is an easy draw.
Murray obviously fully deserved Wimbledon 2016, but I feel that had Querrey not stopped Novak - Djokovic would have gone on to win Wimbledon. Novak tends to dominate the familiar opponents in big slam matches..
You may be right but I really don't think it's cut and dried at Wimbledon where Murray usually plays his best stuff once he gets past the earlier rounds. Djokovic hit his peak at RG that year and after finally clinching the CGS he wasn't quite the same mentally whereas Murray was gearing up for his run to the #1 ranking. It would have been an interesting encounter but the fact that a guy like Querrey could stop Djokovic, or even if Djokovic had managed to squeeze past him, kind of proves my point about where Djokovic's mood and focus were at that point.
 
Last edited:

powerangle

Legend
Federer got injured in the 4th or 5th set in the semis, there is no guarantee he would have gotten injured had he player Djokovic in the semis.

Nor is there guarantee Novak would have beaten a healthy in-form Federer in the semis. He would have been favourite, but not by much.

Novak would have easily dismantled Murray in the finale. W13 was a Bermuda Triangle event.
Novak was in such a mental funk at that time, that even if he somehow made it past Querrey, I doubt his form and mental state would have carried him all the way to the title. And even though won his previous round against Mannarino in straight sets, he was hardly in world-beater form. He looked a bit shaky when trying to close out the match, IIRC.
 
Raonic was at his peak in 2016 and was serving bombs and is always difficult to break when in that mood. Still, Andy broke him in the 1st set and dominated the last 2 tie-breaks. A straight sets victory hardly constitutes "barely" in anybody's book except to a biased observer like yourself. Andy never dropped a set in any of his 3 successful finals at Wimbledon, including in the Olympic final which was also a best of 5 set match held on the same court, a measure of just how good he became at the greatest of all the grass venues.
Trying to cheapen Murray's wins seems to be a popular theme. Why is beyond me. He isn't a toxic personality or an irritant you seemingly would be annoyed with at having success as some players are. Maybe some are annoyed some of the extra attention he gets for being British, as if that is his fault.

You would never see anyone try and cheapen Wawrinka's 3 slam wins the same way. Quite the contrary, they seem to be exagerrated by some and built up to the heavens as if the days he won nobody in the history of tennis including peak Federer or peak Nadal on clay would have defeated him.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
Don Budge was the only man capable to win more than 4 Majors in a row.
He, in fact, won 6 in a row.
Since Wimbledon 1937 to the US Open 1938 he completed that feat.
8-B
 
Top