Would you consider Murray a late bloomer?

[clout]

I’ve heard people call Murray a “late bloomer” as he didn’t win his first slam until age 25, which is typically quite late to win your first slam, especially for someone who ended up winning 3 of them. He also didn’t win his first Olympics till 25 and it wasn’t until he was 29 that he reached number one and won the WTF (with some of the latter achievements attributed to Novak’s drastic decline).

However, I am sometimes reluctant to call Murray a late bloomer as he was a top 4 slam contender regularly yearsssss before he won his first major. He was stopped countless times from 2008 Wimbledon-2012 Wimbledon by the big three despite it being clear that this dude was clearly good enough to win. Someone like Wawarinka or even Rafter would fit the term late bloomer far better as they never looked like real contenders until they came outta nowhere and exploded in their mid/late 20’s, whereas Murray was one of the top players since he was 21, it just took him a while to officially breakthrough cuz he kept running into the 3-headed monster.

I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions

 

[Bukmeikara]

Murray was number 4 at 21 and number 2 at 22. How the hell is he a late bloomer? Not to mention that if he didnt get injuried in 2007 could have done all that a year earlier

 

[NatF]

No. Made his first slam final at 21. His ranking peaked in 2016 but as a player he was already there from his early/mid 20's.

 

[mbm0912]

did he ever bloom?

 

[BeatlesFan]

Murray was number 4 at 21 and number 2 at 22. How the hell is he a late bloomer?

Exactly. A late bloomer is Stan. If Dimitrov by some divine intervention wins 3 or 4 more majors, he will be the epitome of late bloomer.

 

[Mainad]

I guess you could call him that in respective of his Slam wins as he was 25 before he won his maiden Slam which is late compared to other Slam champions. Of the 7 active Slam winners, only Cilic and Wawrinka were older than Murray.

However, not so in respect of his overall career. He was 18 when he won his first ATP title, 21 when he made his first Slam final and won his first 2 Masters tournaments and was first ranked in the top 4.

 

[Mainad]

did he ever bloom?

What do you think?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

No, he took advantage from the weak era when most of the usual suspects were not there to stop him that is why his results spiked for a period. His performances have been pretty consistent otherwise.

 

[Bertie B]

There shouldn't have been a need for Wawrinka had Murray done his job - stop Novak.

Overrated underachiever!!

 

[Breakpointerer]

No.

 

[Breakpointerer]

No.

 

[BeatlesFan]

No, he took advantage from the weak era when most of the usual suspects were not there to stop him that is why his results spiked for a period. His performances have been pretty consistent otherwise.

Actually in the first 8 matches Andy played against Fed from 2005-2009, he held a 6-2 H2H edge. Was Fed one of the "usual suspects" you speak of?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Actually in the first 8 matches Andy played against Fed from 2005-2009, he held a 6-2 H2H edge. Was Fed one of the "usual suspects" you speak of?

Yet, Federer won every final between the two and every match on the biggest stage up until 2010 (the annus horribilis in Fed's career, along with 2013). I am speaking of the time when Murray's results spiked, which was way after the time you speak of. The fact that Federer comfortably owns him during/after he started winning Majors should say something about the whole "Murray got better" idea. Either Federer got so much more better than his best years that improved Murray was no match for him, or that idea is simply flawed.

 

[Jonesy]

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Not really. Nah, not at all.

 

[Mainad]

Yet, Federer won every final between the two and every match on the biggest stage up until 2010 (the annus horribilis in Fed's career, along with 2013). I am speaking of the time when Murray's results spiked, which was way after the time you speak of. The fact that Federer comfortably owns him during/after he started winning Majors should say something about the whole "Murray got better" idea. Either Federer got so much more better than his best years that improved Murray was no match for him, or that idea is simply flawed.

Federer did not reverse the H2H with Murray until after 2013 when Murray underwent his first surgery (on his back). Since then he won all 5 of their encounters. However, even now the H2H stands at 14-11 to Federer.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

No but he is the GOAT.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Federer did not reverse the H2H with Murray until after 2013 when Murray underwent his first surgery (on his back). Since then he won all 5 of their encounters. However, even now the H2H stands at 14-11 to Federer.

Are you pulling my leg, or you are seriously implying that the surgery was the culprit of the "reversal"? If the latter, let's remind ourselves when did Murray achieve his greatest success in tennis (the combined achievement of getting the Wimbledon title, #1 ranking and the YE #1).

 

[Mainad]

Are you pulling my leg, or you are seriously implying that the surgery was the culprit of the "reversal"? If the latter, let's remind ourselves when did Murray achieve his greatest success in tennis (the combined achievement of getting the Wimbledon title, #1 ranking and the YE #1).

I'm merely stating the facts. Prior to Murray's back surgery (towards the end of 2013) he was 11-9 v Federer. Since then Federer has retaken the lead which now stands at 14-11.

It took Murray a good 2 years to get back to anything like his top form and we've all seen what effect on his body his 2016 season has had.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I'm merely stating the facts. Prior to Murray's back surgery (towards the end of 2013) he was 11-9 v Federer. Since then Federer has retaken the lead which now stands at 14-11.

I see that Lew's influence is spreading. Sad.

 

[Mainad]

I see that Lew's influence is spreading. Sad.

Lew has got nothing to do with this (except that his stats will back up mine).

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Lew has got nothing to do with this (except that his stats will back up mine).

The choosing of facts and pointing at events without proper explanation how they are related, however, does. He will back up anything that will make Federer look bad, so I have no doubt that you are right. Both things won't matter one bit.

 

[Mainad]

The choosing of facts and pointing at events without proper explanation how they are related, however, does. He will back up anything that will make Federer look bad, so I have no doubt that you are right. Both things won't matter one bit.

At the end of the day, stats are just stats. We interpret them how we choose.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

At the end of the day, stats are just stats. We interpret them how we choose.

That assumes that there is more than one reality. I don't know about you, but I have not witnessed parallel realities .... yet.

 

[Mainad]

That assumes that there is more than one reality. I don't know about you, but I have not witnessed parallel realities .... yet.

You should read up on quantum physics.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You should read up on quantum physics.

I have, that is why I said that I haven't witnessed them yet, and not that they don't exist in theory. Luckily, I don't need to expand further, as that is a pretty trivial case of not having to deal with that situation.

 

[KINGROGER]

No he played some of his best tennis between 2008-2012 before winning his first slam. 2012-2013 is definitely his peak.

 

[megamind]

@TheIntrovert / Paolo Lorenzi is a late bloomer

 

[accidental]

Kyrgios is 25 in April and people still think he’s a young man of limitless potential

Murray is a victim of setting high expectations for himself at an early age

 

[borg number one]

I wouldn't consider him a late bloomer. He was a top player by the time he was in his early 20's and he stayed near the top for years. He did get even better by his mid 20's though.

 

[gullyfoyleisback]

Kyrgios is 25 in April and people still think he’s a young man of limitless potential

Murray is a victim of setting high expectations for himself at an early age

Murray did set high expectations of himself, but to imply that this is a negative is ridiculous.

 

[oldmanfan]

Federer did not reverse the H2H with Murray until after 2013 when Murray underwent his first surgery (on his back). Since then he won all 5 of their encounters. However, even now the H2H stands at 14-11 to Federer.

Are you pulling my leg, or you are seriously implying that the surgery was the culprit of the "reversal"? If the latter, let's remind ourselves when did Murray achieve his greatest success in tennis (the combined achievement of getting the Wimbledon title, #1 ranking and the YE #1).

It's reasonable to say that the back surgery contributed to 1 or 2 losses to Fedr. But it's not as if Fedr keeps getting younger as MuryGOAT keeps getting better.

The main reason is actually a change that gave Fedr a more leveled playing field; switching to the larger racquet. Since the switch that Fedr debuted in 2014, Fedr is 22-4 combined against Nadl/MuryGOAT/Stanimal, and 3 of those 4 losses were on clay (2 to Stan, 1 to Nadl). That really showed that Fedr has been playing with a handicap (an under-powered and less-forgiving racquet) throughout his best years (many consider Fedr leaving prime after AO 2010).

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It's reasonable to say that the back surgery contributed to 1 or 2 losses to Fedr. But it's not as if Fedr keeps getting younger as MuryGOAT keeps getting better.

The main reason is actually a change that gave Fedr a more leveled playing field; switching to the larger racquet. Since the switch that Fedr debuted in 2014, Fedr is 22-4 combined against Nadl/MuryGOAT/Stanimal, and 3 of those 4 losses were on clay (2 to Stan, 1 to Nadl). That really showed that Fedr has been playing with a handicap (an under-powered and less-forgiving racquet) throughout his best years (many consider Fedr leaving prime after AO 2010).

I agree with that, that is why I said that the events should be properly analysed, and not some half-baked stats being thrown in with little relevant events to explain them. The racquet change made the biggest impact, and I am glad that Federer also had the chance to do it while he still was in position to prove the said handicap (I doubt that he would have managed it, if he did it years later). It was a revelation that was even bigger than the effects of winning additional Majors, as it showed something about the dynamic of his rivalries throughout his career, and not only in the recent years. Many people tried to sweep that under the carpet (sadly, before it happened some knowledgeable people were speculating about that too, but they were put into their place by the events) and many continue to try to ignore it, but the eggs are scrambled and cannot be unscrambled now.

 

[oldmanfan]

I agree with that, that is why I said that the events should be properly analysed, and not some half-baked stats being thrown in with little relevant events to explain them. The racquet change made the biggest impact, and I am glad that Federer also had the chance to do it while he still was in position to prove the said handicap (I doubt that he would have managed it, if he did it years later). It was a revelation that was even bigger than the effects of winning additional Majors, as it showed something about the dynamic of his rivalries throughout his career, and not only in the recent years. Many people tried to sweep that under the carpet (sadly, before it happened some knowledgeable people were speculating about that too, but they were put into their place by the events) and many continue to try to ignore it, but the eggs are scrambled and cannot be unscrambled now.

Agreed, and when I came across that W/L stat when Fedr was on 17-3 or so, I was shocked. Now it's at 22-4. That's a 85% win rate against 3 of the other 4 dominant slam champs in the last decade, one of whom was his krytonite since Fedr was 23 yrs old, 15 yrs ago.