There was a time...

Ann

Hall of Fame
Why do Federer fans think anyone has to boost Murray in order to praise Djokovic? I've also just seen this posted over and over in another thread. This would make sense if Djokovic could only and was only winning when Federer was out of the picture but the last time I checked, Djokovic is 5-1 against Fedal at AO, 4-2 against them at Wimbledon, 4-5 against them at the USO. That's a record of 13-8 against them in those 3 Slams and he won 15 Slams while they were playing. At the end of the day, no one has to boost Murray if they want to praise Djokovic.
Djokovic fans obsession with their fairy tales regarding what Fed fans think is pathetic. News flash, I like Murray because I like Murray. Nothing in my life is about Djokovic. The obsession is entirely yours, move on with your life.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic fans obsession with their fairy tales regarding what Fed fans think is pathetic. News flash, I like Murray because I like Murray. Nothing in my life is about Djokovic. The obsession is entirely yours, move on with your life.
It's not a fairy tale when it's written out in plain letters for everyone to read. That becomes a reality. If nothing in your life is about Djokovic then why did you bother to respond to the comment since it didn't pertain to you?
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
It's not a fairy tale when it's written out in plain letters for everyone to read. That becomes a reality. If nothing in your life is about Djokovic then why did you bother to respond to the comment since it didn't pertain to you?
It's only a reality when you read it with a jaded perspective and try to dissect everything a Fed fan says to be about Djokovic. Try to understand, we don't care. Nothing in our existence is about Djokovic, we're not obsessed with him, we don't care. Stop reflecting your own emotions on us. It's not healthy.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
It's only a reality when you read it with a jaded perspective and try to dissect everything a Fed fan says to be about Djokovic. Try to understand, we don't care. Nothing in our existence is about Djokovic, we're not obsessed with him, we don't care. Stop reflecting your own emotions on us. It's not healthy.
So I guess I'm so jaded that I imagined that I just read this in another thread and my perspective was all wrong, not even including a comment I read in this thread.

Most folks here think Murray is vastly better than Wawrinka. Partly because there's a reasonable argument for it (consistency), and let's be honest folks, partly because it helps pump up the achievements of Mr. Djokovic. (To be clear, in my view his achievements don't need pumping up, it's unnecessary insecurity on the part of his fanbase).

People want to give Murray just enough credit to boost the achievements of Djokovic when Djokovic was playing well, but downplay Murray's achievements when Murray was playing at a higher level because they think Djokovic had dropped his level.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/if-wawrinka-wins-4th-major-will-people-still-talk-about-the-big-4-of-this-era.641693/#post-13278347

It's quite noble that you want to be the Federer spokesperson tonight or think you know what every Federer fans thinks and can speak for them, but maybe you should at least pay more attention. What's unhealthy is your reaction and insinuating that I said anyone was obsessed.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Slams 2008-2013:

Nadal - 10
Djokovic - 6
Federer - 5
Murray - 2
I wonder how different these numbers would be if Murray had won the 2008 USO final...Would there be a 4-year drought until the 2012 USO, or would winning have propelled Andy to greater heights.
 
So I guess I'm so jaded that I imagined that I just read this in another thread and my perspective was all wrong, not even including a comment I read in this thread.

Most folks here think Murray is vastly better than Wawrinka. Partly because there's a reasonable argument for it (consistency), and let's be honest folks, partly because it helps pump up the achievements of Mr. Djokovic. (To be clear, in my view his achievements don't need pumping up, it's unnecessary insecurity on the part of his fanbase).

People want to give Murray just enough credit to boost the achievements of Djokovic when Djokovic was playing well, but downplay Murray's achievements when Murray was playing at a higher level because they think Djokovic had dropped his level.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/if-wawrinka-wins-4th-major-will-people-still-talk-about-the-big-4-of-this-era.641693/#post-13278347

It's quite noble that you want to be the Federer spokesperson tonight or think you know what every Federer fans thinks and can speak for them, but maybe you should at least pay more attention. What's unhealthy is your reaction and insinuating that I said anyone was obsessed.
To be fair, Lew is definitely guilty of pumping up Murray on a regular basis to elevate Djokovic. Many of his big 4 stats would end up with Nadal leading if Murray was taken out of the picture. No shame in that, though.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
Murray is the best player in tennis history to never win 10+ slams.

*Equips flame shield and prepares for the onslaught*
 

axlrose

Professional
There was a time
when I was so broken-hearted
love wasn't much
of a friend of mine

Whenever I hear someone say There was a time... I immediately think of this song, my memories, my youth, my first love....

They don't write songs like this anymore.

 

Noletheking

Hall of Fame
Why do Federer fans think anyone has to boost Murray in order to praise Djokovic? I've also just seen this posted over and over in another thread. This would make sense if Djokovic could only and was only winning when Federer was out of the picture but the last time I checked, Djokovic is 5-1 against Fedal at AO, 4-2 against them at Wimbledon, 4-5 against them at the USO. That's a record of 13-8 against them in those 3 Slams and he won 15 Slams while they were playing. At the end of the day, no one has to boost Murray if they want to praise Djokovic.
Cause they have to boost Hewit in order to make Fed's weak era looks somewhat respectable .
 

Noletheking

Hall of Fame
What does 9-18 have to do with Hewitt and Murray? :unsure:

You've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder apparently. The cocky ones always do.
It's you who got the chip so trying hard to show fed era was strong. Why don't you show us players he beat for his slams?full of virgins and 1 or 2 timers .
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
So I guess I'm so jaded that I imagined that I just read this in another thread and my perspective was all wrong, not even including a comment I read in this thread.

Most folks here think Murray is vastly better than Wawrinka. Partly because there's a reasonable argument for it (consistency), and let's be honest folks, partly because it helps pump up the achievements of Mr. Djokovic. (To be clear, in my view his achievements don't need pumping up, it's unnecessary insecurity on the part of his fanbase).

People want to give Murray just enough credit to boost the achievements of Djokovic when Djokovic was playing well, but downplay Murray's achievements when Murray was playing at a higher level because they think Djokovic had dropped his level.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/if-wawrinka-wins-4th-major-will-people-still-talk-about-the-big-4-of-this-era.641693/#post-13278347

It's quite noble that you want to be the Federer spokesperson tonight or think you know what every Federer fans thinks and can speak for them, but maybe you should at least pay more attention. What's unhealthy is your reaction and insinuating that I said anyone was obsessed.
So, why don't you ask that question to whoever wrote what you are quoting?

:cool:
 
Top