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.
At the end of the day, Murray is champion and that's all that matters. That's all that he cares about at this moment and that's all that all his fans care about at this moment. It doesn't matter how he did it, his name will be on the winners list at Wimbledon forever.
Ha ha ha....I guess we all know how he did it (thank to some guy who took out Nadal early and Del Potro wearing out Djokovic in a exhausting 5 setter).
Your clutching at straws is hilarious, honestly! You are making yourself look stupid! Murrays here for good get used to it and stop kidding yourself!
I will try to make serious comparison to Djokovic and Nadal after Murray has three Grand Slams under his belt. Now, to me, he is close to the level of Andy Roddick and Michael Chang.
You can only beat the guys who are put in front of you. It is hardly Murray's fault that the aging Federer and the injury-prone Nadal went out early. Neither is it Murray's fault that Djokovic made heavy weather of his semi-final.
I don't think "aging" has much to do with Fed's most recent results. That's the simplest explanation for casual fans to comprehend, but I don't see it that way.
First, I think it's largely a commitment issue. Roger has a wife and twins now so he's not spending as much time on the court. The forehands he's missing by two to three meters, the backhands he's netting, and the poor returning is not an age issue. It's a practice issue. Tennis, perhaps more than any other sport, is all about timing and repetition. And I don't think he's getting enough practice in to maintain the form he had in 2006-07. In his mind, however, I think Fed believes he's a smarter player and can therefore generate the same results through "smarter" (read: less) practice, but that's simply not the case.
My second point dovetails with this "smarter" player thing. By hiring Paul Annacone, Sampras' old coach, Fed thinks he's being "smart" by learning to keep points short. And that's worked...he's keeping points short. But he's just not winning those points. Annacone preaches a lot of chip and charge attacking tennis that was tailor made for a guy like Sampras who had a ridiculously offensive game. But that's not Roger's game. He's more of a nimble, finesse counterpuncher who earned his way to 15 Majors (Pre-Annacone) through solid play from the baseline and a good return of serve that gave him a shot in every game. His return of serve nowadays has completely gone down the toilet, which is why he squanders so many break points.
If I were Roger, and I were really dedicated to winning more Slams, I'd hire Gil Reyes (Agassi's trainer). Gil would really make him work. Make him get back to the basics.
Andrew has never won the SAME Slam more than once.
Fed has multiple wins in all Slams except the French Open. Nadal has multiple wins at the French and Wimbledon. Joker has won the Aussie Open several times.
At this point, you could say that Andy is little more than a one-hit wonder...
OK, let's compare Andy Murray to a player from the past at the same age:
Andy Murray:
2 Grand Slam titles
7 Grand Slam finals (appeared in 3 of 4 Slam finals but had multiple appearances in those 3 Slams)
13 Grand Slam semifinals
16 Grand Slam quarterfinals
Player X (at age 26; U.S. Open from age 26 year excluded):
3 Grand Slam titles (single titles in 3 of the 4 Slams)
7 Grand Slam finals (did appear in all 4 Slam finals but only appeared in the Slam final multiple times in 2 of 4 Slams)
13 Grand Slam semifinals
17 Grand Slam quarterfinals
NOTE: Player X's birthday is within one month's of Andy Murray's, so excluding the U.S. Open results from Player X's age 26 year is appropriate.
Any guesses about who Player X is? I will note that Player X ended up winning 2 of the 4 Slam events multiple times.
To be honest, to call Andy Murray a one-hit wonder (especially when he's now won 2 Grand Slam titles and probably has a decent chunk of his career still in front of him) is shortsighted.
Ha ha ha....I guess we all know how he did it (thank to some guy who took out Nadal early and Del Potro wearing out Djokovic in a exhausting 5 setter).
Not Murrays problem. Its theirs. Murray can only beat who is put up against him. He deserved to win Wimbledon and no one can say otherwise.
They need to re-evaluate the ranking system. Players should get points for beating top players and not making to the quarters, semis, finals, or win due to luck. If they do that, I am sure Tsonga, Berdych, and Del Potro will be in the top 7 above Ferrer.
I checked this 1-2 weeks ago, but Ferrer has a winning record over del Potro, Tsonga, and Berdych. Actually, those 4 players align perfectly (i.e. each player has a losing record against the player above him and a winning record against the player below him). Ranked in that manner, the "Second Four" (as I like to call them) are ordered like this:
1) Ferrer
2) del Potro
3) Berdych
4) Tsonga
Ferrer also has a distinctly better record in terms of tournament titles and tournament finals than Berdych and Tsonga, especially in ATP 500 level events (i.e. the events the Big Four players have typically not entered in recent years). Ferrer's record is also better than del Potro's in that regard, but that's a function of Ferrer being 6+ years older than Delpo (and del Potro actually has a pretty impressive record in that regard, distinctly better than Berdych's or Tsonga's).
OK, let's compare Andy Murray to a player from the past at the same age:
Andy Murray:
2 Grand Slam titles
7 Grand Slam finals (appeared in 3 of 4 Slam finals but had multiple appearances in those 3 Slams)
13 Grand Slam semifinals
16 Grand Slam quarterfinals
Player X (at age 26; U.S. Open from age 26 year excluded):
3 Grand Slam titles (single titles in 3 of the 4 Slams)
7 Grand Slam finals (did appear in all 4 Slam finals but only appeared in the Slam final multiple times in 2 of 4 Slams)
13 Grand Slam semifinals
17 Grand Slam quarterfinals
NOTE: Player X's birthday is within one month's of Andy Murray's, so excluding the U.S. Open results from Player X's age 26 year is appropriate.
Any guesses about who Player X is? I will note that Player X ended up winning 2 of the 4 Slam events multiple times.
To be honest, to call Andy Murray a one-hit wonder (especially when he's now won 2 Grand Slam titles and probably has a decent chunk of his career still in front of him) is shortsighted.
Andre Agassi. Wimby '92, USO '94 and Aussie '95. What do I win???
Who knows if Andy will go on to win multiple Slams. I definitely see him winning another one. Not many guys can be compared to Agassi, though. It's more likely that Murray's career follows the trajectory of Yevgeny Kafelnikov's than Andre Agassi's.
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.
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.
