D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Djokovic is simply more talented.
Novak had the mental advantage over Andy.Two players in Novak and Andy who have so many striking similarities, it's hard to believe.
Born a week apart (May 15/22nd, 1987), both stand around 6'2.5", both have outstanding backhands, both incredible movers and defensive players, both primarily baseliners, both amazing returners, both possessing incredible fitness and shot consistency. Both broke out and reached major finals in 2008, both prefer HC and have won Wimbledon, and both were members of the 'Big 4'.
In terms of two ATG level players, Andy and Novak to me are the most similar ever - and frighteningly were born just a week apart.
I've read many times on this forum that Murray even possesses some advantages over Novak: he has been called a better returner of big servers, a faster first serve, much better touch and slice, better volleys, and even better tactical awareness and tennis IQ. All of these are largely consensus if you read older threads such as this: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/ranking-the-big-4-in-each-department.605410/
He was even regarded to have more potential than Novak pre-2010, given his performances over Bo3 and finals runs in 2010 Australia and USO 2008.
There is no excuse of 'weak era' or 'technology difference' or 'match-up issues' - they played the exact same field at the exact same time in the exact same era of tennis. They are as comparable as any two players could possibly be.
So what makes the difference, between the 3 Slams for Andy and the 20 Slams for Novak? Or - if we want to exclude injury luck - the 3 Slams for Andy and 12 Slams for Novak before Andy's hip injury?
Peak becker and peak sampras never crossed paths. Watch becker matches in 1989. His serve and groundies were way bigger than when Sampras peaked in 1993.It's like the difference between becker and sampras. Difference between Novak and Andy is a bit wider than them.
murray is just upper middle class man's hewitt, nothing more than that.......djoko on the other hand is a GOAT candidate who can do many things so much better than murray on the court.......plus he is a mental giant, murray isn't.......
Let's make it simpler and look at their matches vs old Fed. Wimb 2015 is the prime example of what separates Djokovic from Murray.I always found the difference in ability (particularly offensively) between the two to be most obvious and pronounced when comparing their respective successes against Nadal, which is a match-up in which both men are forced to exploit their full shot-making repertoire in an attempt to hit through one of the best defenders the game has ever seen.
While Djokovic is capable of mixing up pace and spin on the forehand side i.e. hitting crosscourt with heavy topspin in order to exploit Nadal's relative weakness in movement towards his backhand side vs his forehand side and then blasting flat balls DTL when something short presents itself, in addition to his ability to redirect play and inject pace with his backhand DTL, Murray is often unable to find answers to Nadal's defensive capabilities and as a result he is forced into neutral rallying situations and attempting to beat Nadal at his own game.
Not only is Djokovic more proficient in the match-up against Nadal from an offensive standpoint with more weapons in his arsenal but it is also clear that he is extremely comfortable playing this aggressive brand of tennis (the match-up is mostly on Djokovic's racquet vs Nadal and the latter is forced to adapt, clay notwithstanding), while Murray is most definitely not (the match-up is on Nadal's racquet on all surfaces vs Murray and the latter is forced to adapt). Therefore, by comparing the respective successes and tactical outlooks of the two players in a match-up in which both men are required to display their full offensive arsenal from the baseline, it becomes clear that Djokovic's default setting is that of an aggressive baseliner, which is obviously more conducive to ATG level success, while Murray's is that of a counterpuncher/scrapper, in spite of the many surface level similarities between the two.
Even prior to Djokovic's breakthrough in 2011, all of this was already apparent, and as such it was clear that if Djokovic could overcome his serving/mental/fitness issues, he would be better placed to establish himself as an ATG than Murray.
Let's make it simpler and look at their matches vs old Fed. Wimb 2015 is the prime example of what separates Djokovic from Murray.
Fed was after revenge against Murray at 2015 Wimbledon. He admitted as much ahead of the match when he commented to an interviewer that their last meeting at Wimbledon had been in the 2012 Olympic final when Fed famously got a shellacking from Andy. He was keen to return the favour and played absolutely lights out to make sure he did.
Bottom line is that Djokovic was already in Fed's head in a way that Andy wasn't as soon proved to be the case in the final.
Roddick-Murray Wim 09 was a close 4 setter tbh.Except this Mainad fanatic, nobody in their right sense of mind would ever have felt that Murray and Novak were same level talents, the British media might have hyped Murray a lot as they are doing to Raducanu now (I hope this doesn't ruin her) but Novak was the first guy who started making slam finals and even stole a HC slam in 08 at a time when even established prodigies on the tour (like claydal) had not won a HC slam till then, that itself told us what was in store for the future, then Novak was losing to Nadal on clay and believed Nadal is beatable. Novak was losing to Fed at USO and later even won over Fed.
Murray was a weak submissive weakling in those days, Roddick thrashed Murray at 2009 wimbledon and showed him his place, had Murray been an ATG and in a league above Roddick then he would have beaten Roddick and played Fed later in the final...... but then Murray's level was never even close to ATG level, he has a low peak..
Excellent post.I always found the difference in ability (particularly offensively) between the two to be most obvious and pronounced when comparing their respective successes against Nadal, which is a match-up in which both men are forced to exploit their full shot-making repertoire in an attempt to hit through one of the best defenders the game has ever seen.
While Djokovic is capable of mixing up pace and spin on the forehand side i.e. hitting crosscourt with heavy topspin in order to exploit Nadal's relative weakness in movement towards his backhand side vs his forehand side and then blasting flat balls DTL when something short presents itself, in addition to his ability to redirect play and inject pace with his backhand DTL, Murray is often unable to find answers to Nadal's defensive capabilities and as a result he is forced into neutral rallying situations and attempting to beat Nadal at his own game.
Not only is Djokovic more proficient in the match-up against Nadal from an offensive standpoint with more weapons in his arsenal but it is also clear that he is extremely comfortable playing this aggressive brand of tennis (the match-up is mostly on Djokovic's racquet vs Nadal and the latter is forced to adapt, clay notwithstanding), while Murray is most definitely not (the match-up is on Nadal's racquet on all surfaces vs Murray and the latter is forced to adapt). Therefore, by comparing the respective successes and tactical outlooks of the two players in a match-up in which both men are required to display their full offensive arsenal from the baseline, it becomes clear that Djokovic's default setting is that of an aggressive baseliner, which is obviously more conducive to ATG level success, while Murray's is that of a counterpuncher/scrapper, in spite of the many surface level similarities between the two.
Even prior to Djokovic's breakthrough in 2011, all of this was already apparent, and as such it was clear that if Djokovic could overcome his serving/mental/fitness issues, he would be better placed to establish himself as an ATG than Murray.
Thank you picmun. Educate these Murray hatersLets face it, Murray is just a bin man bum - period.
Total rubbish, the fact he never won anything ever on the big stage confirms this.
He never beat peak Nedal on clay in Nedals' own back yard.
Or Federer, unless Fed just deliberately threw the match. ( And We all know Fed does this all the time )
And Murray certainly never ever thrashed Djokovic in straights at that meaningless little exho in SW19.
And Murray never ever ever beat Djoke and Fed back to back to win a worthless Olympic gold medal.
I mean come on ! What has the Bin Man actually ever acheived ever ?
He just a total loser really.
( Yes I'm a TTW contributor, and I talk continuous sh1te waffle )
![]()
Definitely, Fed had forgotten all about the Wimbledon final in 2014. All he cared about was avenging the Olympics loss from 2012![]()
Roddick-Murray Wim 09 was a close 4 setter tbh.
Still it was a close match and not a destroying.If he was an ATG then he would have won that match and the final vs Fed would have gone 4 sets or 5 sets.
The fact that he was operating at a lower level than Roddick to lose in 4 sets shows that at his absolute best (2013) that match would have maybe gone 5 sets, thats it.
Hardly ATG level if you are going 5 sets with Roddick at your best best, that is Roddick level and Roddick is no ATG
He certainly wanted to put Andy in his place as his pre-match comments indicated. Interestingly he started off the final against Djokovic in a similar vein making us all think he would get his revenge for the previous year's final too, then missed an easy put away which would have given him a break in the 1st set and then started to fall apart. I just knew then he wouldn't beat Djokovic. Although he managed to pull himself together enough to take the 2nd set breaker it was all one way almost inevitable traffic after that. Djokovic was already in his head and would stay that way whenever they met at Wimbledon, the infamous 40-15 being the final confirmation of that.
Still it was a close match and not a destroying.
I disagree a 4th setter cannot be close as well but okay.Perhaps we need to frame out definition of close matches.
For me only 5 setters are close.
4 Sets most of the time if stretched to 5th set would end in defeat for the same guy, better guy always wins in 4, if somebody failed to close a MP in 4th and went to 5th nd lost then it means he wasn't good enough, as simple.
I disagree a 4th setter cannot be close as well but okay.
Djokovic was in Fed's head because he was better. Simple as that.Fed was after revenge against Murray at 2015 Wimbledon. He admitted as much ahead of the match when he commented to an interviewer that their last meeting at Wimbledon had been in the 2012 Olympic final when Fed famously got a shellacking from Andy. He was keen to return the favour and played absolutely lights out to make sure he did.
Bottom line is that Djokovic was already in Fed's head in a way that Andy wasn't as soon proved to be the case in the final.
The Bin Man Bum buggered his back and then his hip. He'd have won more.Excellent post.
Thank you picmun. Educate these Murray haters
However the gap in achievements is undeniable. Why is this?
This.Djokovic has a much better forehand, and perhaps second serve too.
Complete Bollox. Utter tosh ! LOL ! You've clearly never watched Murray play ! LOL !I always found the difference in ability (particularly offensively) between the two to be most obvious and pronounced when comparing their respective successes against Nadal, which is a match-up in which both men are forced to exploit their full shot-making repertoire in an attempt to hit through one of the best defenders the game has ever seen.
While Djokovic is capable of mixing up pace and spin on the forehand side i.e. hitting crosscourt with heavy topspin in order to exploit Nadal's relative weakness in movement towards his backhand side vs his forehand side and then blasting flat balls DTL when something short presents itself, in addition to his ability to redirect play and inject pace with his backhand DTL, Murray is often unable to find answers to Nadal's defensive capabilities and as a result he is forced into neutral rallying situations and attempting to beat Nadal at his own game.
Not only is Djokovic more proficient in the match-up against Nadal from an offensive standpoint with more weapons in his arsenal but it is also clear that he is extremely comfortable playing this aggressive brand of tennis (the match-up is mostly on Djokovic's racquet vs Nadal and the latter is forced to adapt, clay notwithstanding), while Murray is most definitely not (the match-up is on Nadal's racquet on all surfaces vs Murray and the latter is forced to adapt). Therefore, by comparing the respective successes and tactical outlooks of the two players in a match-up in which both men are required to display their full offensive arsenal from the baseline, it becomes clear that Djokovic's default setting is that of an aggressive baseliner, which is obviously more conducive to ATG level success, while Murray's is that of a counterpuncher/scrapper, in spite of the many surface level similarities between the two.
Even prior to Djokovic's breakthrough in 2011, all of this was already apparent, and as such it was clear that if Djokovic could overcome his serving/mental/fitness issues, he would be better placed to establish himself as an ATG than Murray.
This.
I would even add a better backhand, even tho not by a lot.
But this adds a lot in aggressive rallies.
Some posters would argue that Djokovic was peak while Murray was barely prime in that series of matches though (not that I would necessarily agree with that assessment). I was trying to break down the underlying causes and specifics behind the discrepancy in achievements by analysing their performance vs an opponent that requires them to display their entire offensive arsenal, which is where the difference between the two players is ultimately most notable.Let's make it simpler and look at their matches vs old Fed. Wimb 2015 is the prime example of what separates Djokovic from Murray.
Djokovic was in Fed's head because he was better. Simple as that.
I knew someone would say this, but actually I would say Murray was very mentally strong against the tour in general. He turned into a mental midget vs the big 3 though (along with everyone else)One was mentally weak, the other wasn't.