Are you F'ing kidding me? So anytime a non-#1 player wins a tournament where the #1 player wasn't in the match, the win deserves an asterisk every time?OCO, there will be an asterisk on this win by Murray! It's just the way it is when a top player is absent, another upset, and the last near "the end" and past it!![]()
![]()
Are you F'ing kidding me? So anytime a non-#1 player wins a tournament where the #1 player wasn't in the match, the win deserves an asterisk every time?OCO, there will be an asterisk on this win by Murray! It's just the way it is when a top player is absent, another upset, and the last near "the end" and past it!![]()
![]()
Are you F'ing kidding me? So anytime a non-#1 player wins a tournament where the #1 player wasn't in the match, the win deserves an asterisk every time?OCO, there will be an asterisk on this win by Murray! It's just the way it is when a top player is absent, another upset, and the last near "the end" and past it!![]()
![]()
Crazy talk. There was only one break of serve this whole match, two sets which went into a breaker. How was this not a tough match? It was only couple points either way of going to Raonic.I personally believe muzza would still have won. He better on grass, but it will have been tougher, Murray in 5!
Despite being such a good returner Murray failed to break Federer last year?Djokovic of last year's final wins...no doubt. Murray was clearly better in 12-13
Crazy talk. There was only one break of serve this whole match, two sets which went into a breaker. How was this not a tough match? It was only couple points either way of going to Raonic.
Crazy talk. There was only one break of serve this whole match, the other two sets which went into a breaker. How was this not a tough match? It was only couple points either way of going to Raonic.I personally believe muzza would still have won. He better on grass, but it will have been tougher, Murray in 5!
The breaker scores were 7-3 / 7-2, that's only a couple points either way for both breakers. This was a great match, Raonic has absolutely nothing to be disappointed about today and I certainly don't think playing Djokovic would make it tougher.couple of points?
more like several
he get destroyed in the tiebreaks, it wasn't even close
murray had a several points lead in the two breakers
Murray's final display was clean and I think he would have beaten Novak.
So, no weak draw theories for Murray's success
Novak's yet to win a set off Murray on grass, so I see no reason to even speculate about possible asterisks/upsets. Either way, he beat who he had to beat and congrats to him for that.Come on now. Joker does things that make murray uncomfortable. Murray still has to prove he can beat him.
I'm not a Djokovic fan, but he would have won easily today.
Djokovic would have won in 4, maybe 5. But congrats to Murray.Murray's final display was clean and I think he would have beaten Novak.
So, no weak draw theories for Murray's success
Djokovic would have won in 4, maybe 5. But congrats to Murray.Murray's final display was clean and I think he would have beaten Novak.
So, no weak draw theories for Murray's success
guy beats tsonga, berdych and raonic (his favorite pigeons to stomp on) suddenly he's straight setting the world number 1 in imaginary finals and even being touted as one of the best grass court players of all time
L M F A O
Djokovic in 4.I personally believe muzza would still have won. He better on grass, but it will have been tougher, Murray in 5!
Raonic served mediocre. Not to mention that Murray still somehow lost 71% of second serve return points when Federer in his condition did far better the last round. Milo's first serve was very predictable and not accurate at all. Any half decent returner would have had a field day with 135-140 right into the hitting zone.After what Murray did to Raonic's serve and the number of BPs he had, I would never say that Novak's peak on grass is better.
agreed...those kind of comments come from people who have no clue what grass court tennis is. In no way shape or form did Raonic play a good match and he never even sniffed a lead or an opening. Taking it to a tiebreak means nothing when you blow the tiebreak in teh first 3 points with the most trivial UE and everyone and their grandma knows who will win.couple of points?
more like several
he get destroyed in the tiebreaks, it wasn't even close
murray had a several points lead in the two breakers
I think Murray would have beaten Djokovic today and the last two years if he'd made the final. He is a horrible matchup on grass for Djokovic. Essentially the same player with more power and a bigger serve - somewhat nullified on hard courts but not grass. That said, it's a ridiculous question intent on casting shade on murray's win.
In other news, if my uncle was a woman, he'd be my auntie.
No,I think Murray would have won whether the final opponent was Djokovic or Federer,deserved champion
No,I think Murray would have won whether the final opponent was Djokovic or Federer,deserved champion
I think Murray would have beaten Djokovic today and the last two years if he'd made the final. He is a horrible matchup on grass for Djokovic. Essentially the same player with more power and a bigger serve - somewhat nullified on hard courts but not grass.
Murray has more power? Umm no. He has a bigger first serve and that's it. You need to look at the stats in their matches and see who constantly hits more winners. Can't we just let Murray have his moment and quit with the hypotheticals? And you can't possibly think Murray would have had a chance in hell last year in that Wimbledon final against Djokovic in the form he was in. Djokovic would have torn him to shreds.
I think Murray would have beaten Djokovic today and the last two years if he'd made the final. He is a horrible matchup on grass for Djokovic. Essentially the same player with more power and a bigger serve - somewhat nullified on hard courts but not grass.
Their head to head record for oneAny particular reason?
Their head to head record for oneAny particular reason?