Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Andy Murray is a better player in his era than Michael Chang was in his IMO. Actually, Murray is probably the best men's player ever to have won only one Grand Slam final. I expect he'll have 3-4 Grand Slam championships in his career by the time he's done.
I once saw Michael Chang warm up at the Maze Cup. A competition between the best Juniors in norcal versus socal. He warmed up hitting perfect, absolutely perfect 1 handed backhands. And then he played the match with his regular 2 hander. He destroyed the kid he played, I can't recall his name. It was a year or 2 before he won the French, he was playing U16's.
I think Murray is a little bit more offensive minded than Chang was. Though both were excellent scramblers and counter-punchers. Will have to see where Murray ends up at the end of his career for a full and fair competition.
Boy you are a child are you lol. Worry about the state of your own countries men's tennis. Why do you feel the need to tarnish the reputation of Murray to about a DOZEN people on an Internet forum? If you don't rate h why do you constantly post about him! Simple fact is Murray has been number two in the world twice in the best ever era of men's tennis.
I once saw Michael Chang warm up at the Maze Cup. A competition between the best Juniors in norcal versus socal. He warmed up hitting perfect, absolutely perfect 1 handed backhands. And then he played the match with his regular 2 hander. He destroyed the kid he played, I can't recall his name. It was a year or 2 before he won the French, he was playing U16's.
It may have been Pete Sampras. Chang was like 23-0 against Sampras or something ridiculous like that. He pwned him as a junior.
That success didn't translate so well on the pro tour, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HackeySack
I think Murray is a little bit more offensive minded than Chang was. Though both were excellent scramblers and counter-punchers. Will have to see where Murray ends up at the end of his career for a full and fair competition.
He's not a "little bit" more offensive minded than Chang. They are completely different players. Chang was a speedy, consistent counterpuncher that had slightly more offensive firepower than the average pusher. His game was about speed, consistency and mental tenacity. Chang just lacked the physical tools to win multiple slams. But boy did he have have the heart.
Murray is a shotmaker above and beyond all else. He's shown great mental fragility in the past though he has improved that aspect of his game dramatically. He's quick to tee off on second serves which Chang was never really known for. He's got a bit of variety to his game. In fact, the early criticism of Murray was that he had too much variety and could not make up his damned mind on the shots he wanted/needed to play. He's clearly gotten over this (or so it seems) and has also elevated his fitness game to get on par with Nadal and Djokovic.
Over the past two years, Murray has mimicked Djokovic more than anyone else. That's a bit unfortunate, imo, as we really don't see the full versatility of his game as much anymore.
But he has won a slam and the Olympics so he is doing something right. Federer said Murray is one of the toughest opponents he has come across, high praise from the best ever.
But he has won a slam and the Olympics so he is doing something right. Federer said Murray is one of the toughest opponents he has come across, high praise from the best ever.
First of all, comparing Murray to Chang is not an insult. Change was a very good player who reached Grand Slam finals and won one of them, so did Murray.
Secondly, tennis Olympics was no big deal back then. Many famous players didn't even bother participating in it. Furthermore, it's a three set kind of game, very similiar to non-Grand Slam tours. Big freaking deal.
Chang was also smaller than Murray.....Murray should have a more successful career with no excuses....he also only has the Joker and to a certain extent, Nadal to deal with....Fed is on the decline.....Chang played when there were better players on the tour too.
Chang was also smaller than Murray.....Murray should have a more successful career with no excuses....he also only has the Joker and to a certain extent, Nadal to deal with....Fed is on the decline.....Chang played when there were better players on the tour too.
So that means that a declining Federer is better than a peak Murray.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.