Who's more talented player Murray or Novak? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who's more talented player Murray or Novak?

Pages : [1] 2

zcess81
10-19-2007, 11:16 AM
Now, to me raw talent is secondary. It's all about mental toughness and ability to compete when you're not playing well. Of course you have to have talent too, but most top 20 players are talented. There are so many talented players who can't get to top 10 (some even top 20), but I was just curious what other people think about Murray-Novak talent.

vamosnadal
10-19-2007, 11:22 AM
If you're asking who is the most talented player then I would say Murray, but as you are talking about mentality and winning ugly etc in your accompanying post, it sounds as if youare really asking who is the better/most complete player at the moment - I would then say Djokovic.

richie21
10-19-2007, 11:22 AM
Murray, without any doubt!

zcess81
10-19-2007, 11:24 AM
If you're asking who is the most talented player then I would say Murray, but as you are talking about mentality and winning ugly etc in your accompanying post, it sounds as if youare really asking who is the better/most complete player at the moment - I would then say Djokovic.

I'm still 50-50 on Novak-Murray talent. I don't think that there's anything Andy can do that Novak can't and vice versa.

Andi-M
10-19-2007, 11:27 AM
Murray's game is more unique than Novak's. So in that case Murray prob has more potential than Nole, and I do think if he stays healthy he will eventually end up having the better career.

Both will hopefully have great careers :hearts:

cmurray
10-19-2007, 11:27 AM
I'm still 50-50 on Novak-Murray talent. I don't think that there's anything Andy can do that Novak can't and vice versa.

for real? You don't think there is anything in the Murray repertoire that Djoko doesn't have?

NikolaBGD
10-19-2007, 11:29 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=D643&playernum2=MC10

Sure, Murray is most talented:)

Novak trashed him last two times, and this poll is a joke...

zcess81
10-19-2007, 11:31 AM
for real? You don't think there is anything in the Murray repertoire that Djoko doesn't have?

not anything significant, can you? Both have good forehands/backhands. Both have good serve, and both are great movers on court. Plus both have exceptional return of serve. From the baseline they both look very solid too, and BOTH use dropshots in excess at times.

Drunken
10-19-2007, 11:32 AM
Talent, schmallent. Djokovic has reached the final at the USO and the semis at the French and Wimbledon, Murray has yet to surpass a Grand Slam fourth round.

richie21
10-19-2007, 11:32 AM
not anything significant, can you? Both have good forehands/backhands. Both have good serve, and both are great movers on court. Plus both have exceptional return of serve. From the baseline they both look very solid too, and BOTH use dropshots in excess at times.

At the exception that Djokovic's backhand is "only" good whereas Murray's backhand is exceptionnal.....:o

NikolaBGD
10-19-2007, 11:34 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/pointsbreakdown.asp?player=D643

After this season you dare to say-Murray is more talented...

Guys, you are blind!

I like Murray, I like his game yesterday, but be honest one time-Nole is better!

zcess81
10-19-2007, 11:35 AM
At the exception that Djokovic's backhand is "only" good whereas Murray's backhand is exceptionnal.....:o

you really think so? Well, I don't but that's just an opinion. I don't think eather have EXCEPTIONAL back hand. Gasquet on the other hand...

G4.
10-19-2007, 11:35 AM
chokovic is a better player but murray has more talent

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 11:39 AM
it doesn't really matter until Murray actually does something worthwhile on the court, and gets his head straight. Then perhaps the question will have relevance.



Djoker by a landslide at the moment

scoobs
10-19-2007, 11:42 AM
In terms of raw talent then I give it to Murray without a doubt.

In terms of understanding how to play and win matches, Djokovic is clearly better at this point.

HNCS
10-19-2007, 11:43 AM
guys what's with bringing results into this thread. i think clearly, this poll is based only on talent. it's like comparing davydenko with safin. if i made a poll based on talent, i think most would agree that safin's the one with more talent, but doesn't mean this year safin had the better one. and with 'youngters' like murray and djoko' situtation this could be like the early days of hewitt and federer. hewitt making the earlier break. but i think even back then, people might have thought federer was the one with more talent.

so results don't necessarily mean talent. i think it's common sense.

and in answer to the poll, i think murray is the one to vote for.

chris whiteside
10-19-2007, 11:44 AM
Obviously there are a lot of "ifs" in tennis but in the long run i think Murray will prove to be the more talented.

cmurray
10-19-2007, 11:45 AM
not anything significant, can you? Both have good forehands/backhands. Both have good serve, and both are great movers on court. Plus both have exceptional return of serve. From the baseline they both look very solid too, and BOTH use dropshots in excess at times.

Absolutely, I do. Nole is stronger physically, certainly. And when it comes to sports, one cannot discount the edge that often gives. But strength isn't talent.

First of all, Djokovic's net game is an outright liability. Its getting marginally better, but its still awful. And I don't think you can count out point construction. Oh, and don't forget variety.

Just my opinion, of course.

elessar
10-19-2007, 11:47 AM
Like everybody said Murray is more talented you just need to watch his match against Chela to see that but Djoko is by far the better player at the moment

Apemant
10-19-2007, 11:49 AM
I'm still 50-50 on Novak-Murray talent. I don't think that there's anything Andy can do that Novak can't and vice versa.

You are confusing talent and skill/proficiency.

Skill is the ability to perform something; talent is something that helps you acquire that skill. So talent is 'meta-ability' - ability to gain ability. If someone practices a lot, though, he can outperform someone who is talented but doesn't work on it enough. Just consider Nalbandian for example. :sad:

zcess81
10-19-2007, 11:50 AM
Absolutely, I do. Nole is stronger physically, certainly. And when it comes to sports, one cannot discount the edge that often gives. But strength isn't talent.

First of all, Djokovic's net game is an outright liability. Its getting marginally better, but its still awful. And I don't think you can count out point construction. Oh, and don't forget variety.

Just my opinion, of course.

Actually, I think I'll have to agree with you about net game, Murray's is probably better.

zcess81
10-19-2007, 11:54 AM
You are confusing talent and skill/proficiency.

Skill is the ability to perform something; talent is something that helps you acquire that skill. So talent is 'meta-ability' - ability to gain ability. If someone practices a lot, though, he can outperform someone who is talented but doesn't work on it enough. Just consider Nalbandian for example. :sad:

So are you saying that Murray can perform like he does without much practice while Novak has to practice much more? If it was only that simple Murray would be world number 2 already cause I'm sure he practices a lot.

sawan66278
10-19-2007, 12:01 PM
If cheating is considered to be part of the "talent equation", Djokovic is BY FAR the more talented player.;)

zcess81
10-19-2007, 12:03 PM
If cheating is considered to be part of the "talent equation", Djokovic is BY FAR the more talented player.;)

So you voted for Novak then lol:)

Kolya
10-19-2007, 12:06 PM
Novak.

Murray doesn't seem consistent to me like Nole.

Apemant
10-19-2007, 12:12 PM
So are you saying that Murray can perform like he does without much practice while Novak has to practice much more? If it was only that simple Murray would be world number 2 already cause I'm sure he practices a lot.

Since the beginning of 2006 they have been jumping one over the another in rankings. It continued all the way to April this year, when a series of injuries pretty much removed Andy from the tour till August. Right now, any conclusions based on rankings are completely unfounded. Let's see what the future will bring.

zcess81
10-19-2007, 12:13 PM
Since the beginning of 2006 they have been jumping one over the another in rankings. It continued all the way to April this year, when a series of injuries pretty much removed Andy from the tour till August. Right now, any conclusions based on rankings are completely unfounded. Let's see what the future will bring.

Fair enough:)

cmurray
10-19-2007, 12:20 PM
So are you saying that Murray can perform like he does without much practice while Novak has to practice much more? If it was only that simple Murray would be world number 2 already cause I'm sure he practices a lot.

How about this explanation? (and Apemant, if I'm wrong, feel free to give me a virtual rap on the knuckles with a ruler ;) )

Djokovic has a game that suits his talents. Meaning that he took the things he's good at (strength and accuracy, for example), and he's tailored his game around them even if they are few. I believe Federer has made reference to this. Sometimes players become champions because they take their few gifts and they perfect them by hard work and understanding themselves and their limitations (and he was talking about Sampras here, so he REALLY meant champion)

Compare that with Murray, who has probably a greater variety of gifts to hone. It would stand to reason that a player like this would naturally take longer to develop his game fully. He and Djokovic may spend the exact same amount of time on the practice court (incidentally, i have NO IDEA how much time they spend each), but if Novak is working on a few things, and Andy a lot, Novak will seem the more advanced.

I believe this is the reason that it took Federer much longer than, say, Hewitt or Nadal to start hitting his stride.

zcess81
10-19-2007, 12:38 PM
How about this explanation? (and Apemant, if I'm wrong, feel free to give me a virtual rap on the knuckles with a ruler ;) )

Djokovic has a game that suits his talents. Meaning that he took the things he's good at (strength and accuracy, for example), and he's tailored his game around them even if they are few. I believe Federer has made reference to this. Sometimes players become champions because they take their few gifts and they perfect them by hard work and understanding themselves and their limitations (and he was talking about Sampras here, so he REALLY meant champion)

Compare that with Murray, who has probably a greater variety of gifts to hone. It would stand to reason that a player like this would naturally take longer to develop his game fully. He and Djokovic may spend the exact same amount of time on the practice court (incidentally, i have NO IDEA how much time they spend each), but if Novak is working on a few things, and Andy a lot, Novak will seem the more advanced.

I believe this is the reason that it took Federer much longer than, say, Hewitt or Nadal to start hitting his stride.

I completely agree with what you've said, but what I'm saying is that I don't think that Murray has "grater variety of gifts", like I've posted before.

cmurray
10-19-2007, 12:42 PM
I completely agree with what you've said, but what I'm saying is that I don't think that Murray has "grater variety of gifts", like I've posted before.

fair enough. We're all entitled to an opinion.

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 12:43 PM
fair enough. We're all entitled to an opinion.


not if Glenn has a say about it

Jaap
10-19-2007, 12:45 PM
Mental toughness is not a talent?

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 12:52 PM
Mental toughness is not a talent?


prob. is but I don't think that's what the OP is getting after...

Apemant
10-19-2007, 01:04 PM
Novak.

Murray doesn't seem consistent to me like Nole.

So if someone asked this question in 2001, who is more talented, Hewitt or Federer, you would have replied the above thing?

'Hewitt of course, he just thrashed Federer 6-2 6-4 (and generally owns him), and besides, Federer is way too inconsistent'

Apemant
10-19-2007, 01:24 PM
Djokovic has a game that suits his talents. Meaning that he took the things he's good at (strength and accuracy, for example), and he's tailored his game around them even if they are few.

I wouldn't say they are few, actually. He does strike me as similar to Nadal in many respects; they are both incredibly tough to crack, they never let go, they rarely crumble, and they play to their strengths. The difference is that Nole generally likes aggression and control, while Nadal is perfectly happy to defend (waiting for a chance to couterattack), and if he does assume control, he relies more on accurate placement, moving the opponent left-right, than on sheer power. While Nole relishes in blasting the opposition off the court. :devil: And of course, they have quite a few strong points in their game, Rafa has that crazy forehand which rarely misses, and surprisingly strong BH (not so surprisingly if you know he's right-handed actually) - while Novak is able to generate so much power on both wings, while still retaining high accuracy. Curiously enough they both have pretty damn good dropshots. :eek:

On the other hand, Murray does like to experiment a lot and vary his shots as much as possible. Sometimes I have a feeling he's trying to hit each possible shot in a single rally :devil: . I don't know what he will turn into eventually - you can never know that - but I sure hope he will find the balance and the way to maintain his focus. Drop his federesque snobism a bit, you know the thing, admiring your own shot you just executed, which cost you the next 2 points in a row, or even better, the same point in which you made that shot :mad:

Medina
10-19-2007, 01:29 PM
I would have to say Djoke, Murray will improve over the years, but i think Novak has already hit his peek and is playing excelent tennis. Talent wise i would also have to go with Novak, although he is extremly annoying when he plays his got alot of talent for a 20 year old.

rocketassist
10-19-2007, 01:33 PM
Like everybody said Murray is more talented you just need to watch his match against Chela to see that but Djoko is by far the better player at the moment

Chela???? Murray swept him far easier than Novak did last week.

ezekiel
10-19-2007, 01:35 PM
they are not in the same league, let Murray win one against Nole or at least win a good tourney , until then it's a void comparison

ezekiel
10-19-2007, 01:36 PM
Chela???? Murray swept him far easier than Novak did last week.

Yeah , let's give him an Oscar :devil:

rocketassist
10-19-2007, 01:37 PM
Yeah , let's give him an Oscar :devil:

Well it was a strange match to choose as a benchmark as why he's NOT going to do as well as Novak, because he beat him far easier. Last night's match was a better comparison, because Novak would have taken the chances Andy had.

Medina
10-19-2007, 01:39 PM
Chela???? Murray swept him far easier than Novak did last week.

That really doesnt mean anything, You see Gonzales beating Volandri, But does Gonzales beat Federer?

Apemant
10-19-2007, 01:43 PM
so results don't necessarily mean talent. i think it's common sense.

Obviously it's not so 'common' a sense, since as you can see for yourself, guys here insist on showing the results of both players & drawing conclusions about talent, based on those results.

There is no doubt that right now Nole is obviously a better player than Murray, and by some margin. But the question isn't who's better, but who is more talented. It is NOT the same. I consider Nalbandian, for example, to be quite more talented than some other guy who might have achieved a lot more than him. Roddick, for example.

Apemant
10-19-2007, 01:45 PM
Chela???? Murray swept him far easier than Novak did last week.

I have a slight feeling you didn't quite understand what elessar was saying. :devil:

bokehlicious
10-19-2007, 01:46 PM
Murray by miles...

rocketassist
10-19-2007, 01:48 PM
I have a slight feeling you didn't quite understand what elessar was saying. :devil:

Yeah but Murray played superbly against Chela. If she was going to look for a match that suggested he wasn't likely to fulfil much, then that surely wasn't it.

Apemant
10-19-2007, 01:51 PM
Yeah but Murray played superbly against Chela. If she was going to look for a match that suggested he wasn't likely to fulfil much, then that surely wasn't it.

How about you read his post again? ('Elessar' is Aragorn, so I assume it's a 'he', not 'she')

He was saying that Murray is more talented, and that precisely his match versus Chela is an indication of that.

(And then added that Novak is a better player overall, at the moment.) Anyway, your answer makes no sense as you are arguing against something elessar never said.

rocketassist
10-19-2007, 01:59 PM
They have deleted their post :lol:

Apemant
10-19-2007, 02:04 PM
They have deleted their post :lol:

No, they didn't. Here it is:

Like everybody said Murray is more talented you just need to watch his match against Chela to see that but Djoko is by far the better player at the moment

Obviously, a nice newline between 'see that' and 'but Djoko' (or at least a comma) would have avoided the confusion...

rocketassist
10-19-2007, 02:05 PM
I was mistaken. Therefore debate is null and void.

MaryX
10-19-2007, 02:20 PM
This thread is something like a comfort to Murray's fans and Nole's haters.

So, Murray is more talented and Gasquet's game is more artistic.

And Novak just knows how to win-he admitted before he didn't have any "big weapon", but his first coach taught him to play for a victory...:shrug:

Grunge
10-19-2007, 02:21 PM
Whole this discussion is pointless. I wonder how do you measure "talent"? If "talent" is not turned into results it worths nothing. It is unreasonable to compare "talent" of two players, because you cannot know how much they will improve in future. If you cannot measure something, then it is pointless to compare it. Only future will tell us who is better player, and at this moment it is Novak.
:wavey:

R.Federer
10-19-2007, 02:29 PM
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=D643&playernum2=MC10

Sure, Murray is most talented:)

Novak trashed him last two times, and this poll is a joke...

Sure, that's how it's measured. And that's why Youzhny is more talented than djokovic

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Youzhny%2C+Mikhail&player2=novak+djokovic

:)

Allure
10-19-2007, 02:30 PM
Murray. Djokovic like Nadal works very hard but I wouldn't say they have a lot of natural talent.

Mechlan
10-19-2007, 02:31 PM
Whole this discussion is pointless. I wonder how do you measure "talent"? If "talent" is not turned into results it worths nothing. It is unreasonable to compare "talent" of two players, because you cannot know how much they will improve in future. If you cannot measure something, then it is pointless to compare it. Only future will tell us who is better player, and at this moment it is Novak.
:wavey:

I sort of agree with this. You can have all the talent in the world and only occasionally display it and it doesn't mean shit. Having that will to win is far more important than the extra bit of talent at the top.

That said, Murray has more talent. We'll see if he can ever put it together like Djokovic has.

Apemant
10-19-2007, 02:33 PM
Whole this discussion is pointless. I wonder how do you measure "talent"? If "talent" is not turned into results it worths nothing. It is unreasonable to compare "talent" of two players, because you cannot know how much they will improve in future. If you cannot measure something, then it is pointless to compare it.

There are quite a few misconceptions in this short paragraph.

First, the idea that without 'measuring' something, you can't compare it. How do you measure beauty? You don't, right? But then tell me, is Michelle Pfeiffer more beautiful than Helen Mirren, or is she not? Or is it pointless to ask that question?

Second, the idea that 'without results' talent is worth nothing. How come? If anything is worthless, it's other people's results. Neither you or me get anything from anyone else's results; so what are they worth for us? To me personally, their results are worth just as much as the viewing pleasure I get from watching them play. And I enjoy watching talented people, whether they win multitudes of slams or not. So as far as I'm concerned, talent is worth on its own already, whether it is realized into a lot of success or not so much. Sure, it's sweeter when it's accompanied with results, I'm just arguing this 'worthless' bit.

Using similar logic you can argue that life itself is worthless just the same. Grand Slam champions and street janitors alike will be food for worms in a matter of hundred years. :shrug: There's your final and inescapable 'result' of our efforts.

jasmin
10-19-2007, 02:35 PM
Based on talent alone I think Murray is more talented but Novak is way more successful because he is mentally and physically stronger. Murray needs more time to work on both. Hopefully he will get there and soon.

There are some talented people in other sports but mentally they are not strong enough. Plus I know some of them don't have the work ethic.

R.Federer
10-19-2007, 02:36 PM
I sort of agree with this. You can have all the talent in the world and only occasionally display it and it doesn't mean shit. Having that will to win is far more important than the extra bit of talent at the top.

That said, Murray has more talent. We'll see if he can ever put it together like Djokovic has.

Correct. But then this year is hardly a year to measure how well Murray can string results.

Let me put it this way : if Murray sneaks a spot into Shanghai, even after being out for months on some of his best surfaces, the answer should be obvious even to the blind :cool:

Apemant
10-19-2007, 02:38 PM
Sure, that's how it's measured. And that's why Youzhny is more talented than djokovic

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Youzhny%2C+Mikhail&player2=novak+djokovic

:)


Good thinking, but not so good an example; all 3 matches were VERY tight. A better example would be claiming that Nadal is more talented than Federer, or that Edberg was nowhere near as talented as Becker.

Or that Blake is talented in ways Nadal can't even dream of being. :devil:

There are your typical H2H 'arguments' about someone being more talented.

Success-wise, Johansson (not to mention Roddick) is more talented than Naldbandian or Rios. That logic just kills me. :rolleyes:

Bascule
10-19-2007, 02:43 PM
There are quite a few misconceptions in this short paragraph.

First, the idea that without 'measuring' something, you can't compare it. How do you measure beauty? You don't, right? But then tell me, is Michelle Pfeiffer more beautiful than Helen Mirren, or is she not? Or is it pointless to ask that question?

Second, the idea that 'without results' talent is worth nothing. How come? If anything is worthless, it's other people's results. Neither you or me get anything from anyone else's results; so what are they worth for us? To me personally, their results are worth just as much as the viewing pleasure I get from watching them play. And I enjoy watching talented people, whether they win multitudes of slams or not. So as far as I'm concerned, talent is worth on its own already, whether it is realized into a lot of success or not so much. Sure, it's sweeter when it's accompanied with results, I'm just arguing this 'worthless' bit.

Using similar logic you can argue that life itself is worthless just the same. Grand Slam champions and street janitors alike will be food for worms in a matter of hundred years. :shrug: There's your final and inescapable 'result' of our efforts.

In fact, Helen Mirren is much more talented than Michelle Pfeiffer. Also, M.P has model looking and H.M. is more beautiful person inside. ...Or, maybe, you just wanted to insult Novak...

janko
10-19-2007, 02:51 PM
Monica Seles once said that in game of tennis talent = 10% and hard work 90% and I'd agree with that, talent is a base and it up to you what to do with it...

If talent doesn't produce a result it is meaningless...

Allure
10-19-2007, 02:54 PM
Everyone is getting riled up saying ''Who cares? It's about results. Blah blah....'' All the OP is asking is who has more talent. He/she is not saying so is a a better player. Geez.

Apemant
10-19-2007, 02:55 PM
In fact, Helen Mirren is much more talented than Michelle Pfeiffer. Also, M.P has model looking and H.M. is more beautiful person inside. ...Or, maybe, you just wanted to insult Novak...

Or, perhaps you are related to ezekiel?

I wasn't comparing those two actresses with our tennis players, but giving examples of how something that can't be measured can still be compared. you should abstain reading too much between my lines; THAT's pointless. Answer to what is written, my own thoughts are mine and mine alone.

And yes, Mirren is more talented actress than Pfeiffer, who is mostly 'just' a beautiful face. Does it mean you didn't quite comprehend what I was trying to say?

jasmin
10-19-2007, 03:00 PM
Exactly janko. To me saying Murray is more talented than Novak shouldn't make some feel so insulted. Novak is obviously more successful...now.

Mr. Magassi
10-19-2007, 03:13 PM
Talent wise, I'd say Murray BUT I enjoy watching Nole play more... Murray always looks listless and weak (kind of like Fish)... not very exciting to see that...

Jelena_78
10-19-2007, 03:14 PM
50:50

If Murray hadn't been so unlucky with his injuries,he would probably have been in top 5 now.

:worship: to both

Marek.
10-19-2007, 03:16 PM
Murray, but that doesn't mean he's better.

Bascule
10-19-2007, 03:20 PM
Or, perhaps you are related to ezekiel?

I wasn't comparing those two actresses with our tennis players, but giving examples of how something that can't be measured can still be compared. you should abstain reading too much between my lines; THAT's pointless. Answer to what is written, my own thoughts are mine and mine alone.

And yes, Mirren is more talented actress than Pfeiffer, who is mostly 'just' a beautiful face. Does it mean you didn't quite comprehend what I was trying to say?

No, I was joking with your own thoughts, but, anyway, don't know why you compare me with ezekiel? Prejudices,narrow mind, or what?!
I still think you are the kind of guy you can talk to on this forum.

NikolaBGD
10-19-2007, 03:20 PM
Mental toughness is talent also...

Murray's matches all pretty boring for watching(not yesterday), Nole is always good to watch!

Grunge
10-19-2007, 03:24 PM
There are quite a few misconceptions in this short paragraph.

First, the idea that without 'measuring' something, you can't compare it. How do you measure beauty? You don't, right? But then tell me, is Michelle Pfeiffer more beautiful than Helen Mirren, or is she not? Or is it pointless to ask that question?



I knew someone will say that :)
Actually, you can't compare talent or beauty and get reliable answer. Judging someone's talent (or beauty) is pretty subjective opinion. Michael Pfeiffer is maybe cute to you, but for someone else maybe she is ugly. Results can be measured in more precise way, so it is much more objective to compare results than "talent".
All I am trying to say is that talent is matter of taste, and more or less it cannot be predicted and measured (and thus it is pointless to compare it).
:wavey:

Apemant
10-19-2007, 03:25 PM
Talent wise, I'd say Murray BUT I enjoy watching Nole play more... Murray always looks listless and weak (kind of like Fish)... not very exciting to see that...

Great, finally a response which tries to be objective while still not denying his preferences.

Yes, some people like certain styles, for example, some posters enjoy watching Nadal and feel disgusted with Federer's 'ballet-dancing'. Others, quite the contrary. Similarly, it's true that Nole looks quite formidable when playing well, while Murray looks... kinda odd. But I like him anyway, or even perhaps just because of that.

Apemant
10-19-2007, 03:28 PM
No, I was joking with your own thoughts, but, anyway, don't know why you compare me with ezekiel? Prejudices,narrow mind, or what?!
I still think you are the kind of guy you can talk to on this forum.

Sorry. I do get a little trigger-happy at times. Why ezekiel? Guess because he tries to read between my lines all the time. I say one thing, he replies 'so you are saying...(something completely different, which he somehow 'read' from my post)'.

That's all, sorry for perhaps my overreaction. :)

jasmin
10-19-2007, 03:34 PM
Well Murray's match certainly has taken a toll on Nadal.

Apemant
10-19-2007, 03:36 PM
I knew someone will say that :)
Actually, you can't compare talent or beauty and get reliable answer. Judging someone's talent (or beauty) is pretty subjective opinion. Michael Pfeiffer is maybe cute to you, but for someone else maybe she is ugly. Results can be measured in more precise way, so it is much more objective to compare results than "talent".
All I am trying to say is that talent is matter of taste, and more or less it cannot be predicted and measured (and thus it is pointless to compare it).
:wavey:

You have a valid point somewhere in between, but overall, it's still wrong. If something can't be scientifically measured, it still doesn't mean that every guess or estimate is as good as any other. Or that it's meaningless to argue over it.

Take IQ for example. There is no way to scientifically measure someone's IQ. All tests only give an approximation. Therefore, using your logic, IQ is a matter of taste and whether someone is more intelligent than someone else is anyone's guess. Well, it's not. The whole point is that you don't need EXACT numbers to compare something.

Bascule
10-19-2007, 03:38 PM
Well, being Nole's fan makes me maybe a little bit subjective. I think Andy is great tallent, but Nole plays smarter, and I think talent you mean includes much more risk in game, what makes Andy looser compare to Djoko. I don't think talent ends with good shoots.

Bascule
10-19-2007, 03:43 PM
It seems everybody's gone on Nadal-Nalbadian thread. Much more interested at this moment:devil:

Tennis-Chick
10-19-2007, 03:51 PM
I don't now how Murray is winning this poll, Nole has trashed him twice, he obviously has more talent. Although Murray is still a good player

Grunge
10-19-2007, 03:55 PM
You have a valid point somewhere in between, but overall, it's still wrong. If something can't be scientifically measured, it still doesn't mean that every guess or estimate is as good as any other. Or that it's meaningless to argue over it.

Take IQ for example. There is no way to scientifically measure someone's IQ. All tests only give an approximation. Therefore, using your logic, IQ is a matter of taste and whether someone is more intelligent than someone else is anyone's guess. Well, it's not. The whole point is that you don't need EXACT numbers to compare something.


Why not look at it this way: IQ is aproximated based on results from solving different tests, and "who is better player" is aproximated based on players performance on tour during season. Being 13th on ATP list doesnt mean you are better than player who is 14th but it is best and most objective aproximation that we have.
I just think that we do not have basis which will give us objective enough aproximation of someones talent.

p.s. I just figured how absurd it is from my side to write all theese posts on topic that I consider pointless one :)
We probably won't agree, no matter how hard we try, so I will draw back from this thread. :)

ezekiel
10-19-2007, 04:05 PM
Sure, that's how it's measured. And that's why Youzhny is more talented than djokovic

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Youzhny%2C+Mikhail&player2=novak+djokovic

:)

Those were tight losses and Youzhny was hot, reaching 3 straight finals . Incomparable to the beatdowns Murray endured if that's what you imply

Forehander
10-19-2007, 04:07 PM
it's all about winning the game. To achieve victory you gotta do everything you can, even gamesmanship.

MCL
10-19-2007, 04:12 PM
Murray is more talented but Nole is (currently) the better player.

zcess81
10-19-2007, 04:12 PM
Chela???? Murray swept him far easier than Novak did last week.

Tennis is about match ups. Just because Murray crushed Chel while Novak struggled doesn't mean he's more talented. If you don't believe me ask Nadal about Blake and Berdych.

ezekiel
10-19-2007, 04:15 PM
Well it was a strange match to choose as a benchmark as why he's NOT going to do as well as Novak, because he beat him far easier. Last night's match was a better comparison, because Novak would have taken the chances Andy had.

How come no one said that Andy M. "beat" Federer much easier , everything else pales in comparison :p :rolleyes:

zcess81
10-19-2007, 04:17 PM
Everyone is getting riled up saying ''Who cares? It's about results. Blah blah....'' All the OP is asking is who has more talent. He/she is not saying so is a a better player. Geez.

You are right, that is precisely what I was asking.

NikolaBGD
10-19-2007, 04:19 PM
Stupid story about Chela:(

Nalby>Rafa>Murray...is this correct?!

Talent is excuse for lack of result!

Svetlana.
10-19-2007, 04:34 PM
Both are talented, but Andy's game is more enjoable to watch :)

Gustavkrklec
10-19-2007, 05:04 PM
This pool is only for those who doesn't have a mind. Did you remember that "****" from last two previous games?

Jozie
10-19-2007, 05:08 PM
Both talented, Novak has the edge. Right now cannot say why, but don't enjoy watching either.

TMJordan
10-19-2007, 05:09 PM
Novak Djokovic.

Tommy fan
10-19-2007, 05:13 PM
Equally, each one on different thigs..
Tennis- Murray
Mentally- Djokovic

R.Federer
10-19-2007, 05:14 PM
I don't now how Murray is winning this poll, Nole has trashed him twice, he obviously has more talent. Although Murray is still a good player

You need to stop looking at H2Hs to answer this question. In your esteemed logic, Blake is more talented than Nadal, and Davydenko is more talented than Safin.

Murray has way more talent/tennis skill and he has a brain.

rofe
10-19-2007, 05:29 PM
Obviously talent is in the eye of the beholder but if you ask me, my subjective opinion is that Murray is more talented.

Talent ≠ Results.

Farenhajt
10-19-2007, 05:31 PM
The thread will have a chance of becoming meaningful if someone finally defines what IS talent.

- The ability to convert lost balls into crazy winners?

- Having breathtaking ballet elegance jumping around and swinging?

- The ability to construct a point efficiently?

- Having extraordinary targeting abilities for hitting those challenge-happy lines and corners?

- The ability to scan your opponent's game on court and to find his weaknesses in time to profit on them?

- Mastering various techniques in order to make a better mix on court?

- Having attractive appearance which will make your fans say "Oh, you're so talented" when they actually mean "Boy, would I get nasty with you"? ;)

Seriously, as for all points but the last one, it's pretty obvious some of them might be connected with sheer luck, others are clearly refined through hard work, and some other ones are closer to natural intelligence and quick mind than to explicit tennis talent.

So, what is your definition?

Bascule
10-19-2007, 06:16 PM
The thread will have a chance of becoming meaningful if someone finally defines what IS talent.

- The ability to convert lost balls into crazy winners?

- Having breathtaking ballet elegance jumping around and swinging?

- The ability to construct a point efficiently?

- Having extraordinary targeting abilities for hitting those challenge-happy lines and corners?

- The ability to scan your opponent's game on court and to find his weaknesses in time to profit on them?

- Mastering various techniques in order to make a better mix on court?

- Having attractive appearance which will make your fans say "Oh, you're so talented" when they actually mean "Boy, would I get nasty with you"? ;)

Seriously, as for all points but the last one, it's pretty obvious some of them might be connected with sheer luck, others are clearly refined through hard work, and some other ones are closer to natural intelligence and quick mind than to explicit tennis talent.

So, what is your definition?
You have just answered your question and made some confusion here.:rolls: You seem to know our MTF buddies so well. I like especially answer no 2 and no 7.:devil:

DDrago2
10-19-2007, 06:41 PM
Murrays game is more flashy and unique, but Novak is without doubt a better player right now (and will remain a bad match-up for Murray).

R.Federer
10-19-2007, 09:08 PM
they are not in the same league, let Murray win one against Nole or at least win a good tourney , until then it's a void comparison

You're one to talk about leagues. You talk about djokovic as the future number 1 CONSTANTLY. Yet he has not won a slam. So by that standard he is just NOT in that league :lol:

He has to do at least as well as Number 2 before he can think of Number 1. Same league, my left toe :haha:

Apemant
10-19-2007, 09:37 PM
The thread will have a chance of becoming meaningful if someone finally defines what IS talent.

It has been defined before, but due to democratic nature of forums, stupid definitions appear equally frequently as meaningful ones.


Talent is to skill what intelligence is to knowledge. Just like intelligence allows people to learn, i.e. to gain knowledge, talent allows someone to acquire certain skills. Of course, all people are intelligent, and likewise all tennis players are talented. But, just like some people are more intelligent than others, some tennis players are more talented than others.

And just like intelligence on its own doesn't mean much if someone doesn't use it to gain knowledge, talent also doesn't mean much without practice (gaining skill). And just like intelligence cannot be estimated by giving people questions (because questions test someone's knowledge, not intelligence), talent cannot be estimated solely by looking at results, let alone H2H stats.

While I agree with ezekiel (as I already said) that Youzhny-Nole is not a good example as it's not that Misha 'owns' Nole (he just beat him once more in very tight matches), I simply disagree with the whole bunch of you who insist on looking at Nole vs. Murray H2H and drawing conclusions about their respective talents. Becker lead Edberg 25-10 and gave him some serious beatings along the way. Does it mean Becker was a league above Edberg in terms of talent? Do you consider Nadal more talented than Federer (who at one point lead him 6-1), or Blake more talented than Nadal? Those are all simple questions which I don't see any of you, who keep pointing at Nole-Andy H2H, have answered in any way. You just ignore it.

Shrinking Violet
10-19-2007, 09:38 PM
Talent is not the same as being the better all round player at the moment. I think if you are taking pure talent then Murray has the clear edge even though Nole is the better all round player just now. Nole's mental game is advanced and there is far less that can go wrong in his game since his game isn't based so much around finesse, touch and technique. Andy's game on the other hand is almost entirely based on touch and technique and that sort of game takes longer to refine. He may never bring it all together, but for pure talent I still think Murray is the clear winner.

Nole is the better player at the moment, without question - I just think in terms of talent that Murray has the edge. Head to head is not an accurate measure of who is the more talented player.

Allure
10-19-2007, 10:01 PM
Talent= the ability to do something
Skill= actually doing it

jcempire
10-19-2007, 10:25 PM
Tough to say who is better. Time will tell

DrJules
10-19-2007, 10:52 PM
Murray is more skilled with the racket and has better hand eye co-ordination.

However, Djokovic is physically much stronger and more impressive.

Farenhajt
10-19-2007, 11:53 PM
...I simply disagree with the whole bunch of you who insist on looking at Nole vs. Murray H2H and drawing conclusions about their respective talents.

Since that was in a reply to me, I take you count me in, which is simply false.

First, GOOD intelligence tests don't rely on your knowledge AT ALL as an indirect measure stick. (If it were the opposite, any dumb parrot with good memory abilites would be able to stuff encyclopedic volumes in his head and thus pronounced a genius. [Without dissing autistic people, I really don't think you can say they're extremely intelligent in spite of them being able to amass frightful amount of sheer facts in their heads.] Besides, what e.g. Mensa's visual tests have anything to do with any kind of knowledge/education?) So, your definition by analogy must be false and we'd have to find a more appropriate one. But let's stick to it for the time being: talent is an ability to acquire skills. The implication is: the more skills you acquire and the faster you acquire them, the more talent you have. (Or, if you dismiss such a conclusion, then you have to settle for "all more or less equally skilled players have more or less same amount of talent"). Since Nole's skills are clearly superior at the time (not ONLY by H2H but also by their respective results and performances during Murray's injury-free periods), Nole's got to be more talented, by that criterion.

Moreover, the ability to beat your opponent is one of the skills you should acquire, right? So, a very lopsided H2H must mean you're lacking something in that department.

Next, here on MTF talent is usually a comforting blanket for people who's favorite player just lost a big match or a title. Most frequent formula is "Oh, he got the beating, but he's got more talent than XY, he'll develop and start to retaliate" (or something of a kind).

cmurray
10-20-2007, 12:03 AM
Since that was in a reply to me, I take you count me in, which is simply false.

First, GOOD intelligence tests don't rely on your knowledge AT ALL as an indirect measure stick. (If it were the opposite, any dumb parrot with good memory abilites would be able to stuff encyclopedic volumes in his head and thus pronounced a genius. [Without dissing autistic people, I really don't think you can say they're extremely intelligent in spite of them being able to amass frightful amount of sheer facts in their heads.] Besides, what e.g. Mensa's visual tests have anything to do with any kind of knowledge/education?) So, your definition by analogy must be false and we'd have to find a more appropriate one. But let's stick to it for the time being: talent is an ability to acquire skills. The implication is: the more skills you acquire and the faster you acquire them, the more talent you have. (Or, if you dismiss such a conclusion, then you have to settle for "all more or less equally skilled players have more or less same amount of talent"). Since Nole's skills are clearly superior at the time (not ONLY by H2H but also by their respective results and performances during Murray's injury-free periods), Nole's got to be more talented, by that criterion.

Moreover, the ability to beat your opponent is one of the skills you should acquire, right? So, a very lopsided H2H must mean you're lacking something in that department.

Next, here on MTF talent is usually a comforting blanket for people who's favorite player just lost a big match or a title. Most frequent formula is "Oh, he got the beating, but he's got more talent than XY, he'll develop and start to retaliate" (or something of a kind).

By your theory, Rafael Nadal is more talented than Roger Federer.

Sunset of Age
10-20-2007, 12:07 AM
By your theory, Rafael Nadal is more talented than Roger Federer.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW, seriously, BOTH of them are very, very talented indeed. No wonder both of them respect each other as much as they indeed do. :worship:

Farenhajt
10-20-2007, 12:17 AM
By your theory, Rafael Nadal is more talented than Roger Federer.

Another "between the lines" moment? Do point out how that conclusion can be derived from my post.

Federer is unable to significantly harm Nadal on clay, so Federer's talent is limited in that department.

Nadal is unable to significantly harm Federer on fastcourts, so Nadal's talent is limited in that department.

Now please tell me how to compare apples and oranges.

cmurray
10-20-2007, 12:20 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW, seriously, BOTH of them are very, very talented indeed. No wonder both of them respect each other as much as they indeed do. :worship:

As you know, I loves me some Rafa. But it would be insane to argue that Roger isn't a more naturally gifted tennis player.

And of course Raf is talented too, but he just doesn't quite have what Roger has.

Corey Feldman
10-20-2007, 12:26 AM
Trick Question?

obviously we all know its Jamie.

ReturnWinner
10-20-2007, 12:29 AM
Trick Question?

obviously we all know its Jamie.

you are wrong, Jiri Novak is more talented.

cmurray
10-20-2007, 12:30 AM
Another "between the lines" moment? Do point out how that conclusion can be derived from my post.

Federer is unable to significantly harm Nadal on clay, so Federer's talent is limited in that department.

Nadal is unable to significantly harm Federer on fastcourts, so Nadal's talent is limited in that department.

Now please tell me how to compare apples and oranges.

I didn't read between the lines, I simply stripped away the rhetoric. Apemant said that head to head is not a good talent indicator. You said it was. I'm merely agreeing with Apemant.

Many things besides talent go into winning a tennis match. Match-ups, surface, location, one's ability to execute one's game plan. And if you're going to bring surface into the argument, it should be noted that Djokovic and Murray have only ever played on hardcourts, therefore their head to head data is incomplete.

Corey Feldman
10-20-2007, 12:32 AM
I see this thread is full of most of the Serbian army

in otherwords: 60% :bs: comments to read

i know what it'll be anyway, goes something like this "Let Muzza beat Nole, and be in a slam final, be no3, win 7 titles har har ................ btw Novak is the GOAT and better than Federer when Federer was his age, and now as well infact. 10 years of domination!! :worship: the holy GOAT :worship: "

leng jai
10-20-2007, 12:33 AM
Fakervic is far more talented in the annoying on court antics department.

Allure
10-20-2007, 12:35 AM
Fakervic is far more talented in the annoying on court antics department.

Never in doubt.

Farenhajt
10-20-2007, 12:36 AM
cmurray, I merely said it can't be neglected in the overall analysis (since we're sticking with indirect pointers, right?), and you people claim it can. I disagree with that - no point in taking only those things which favor the one you want to be favored.

cmurray
10-20-2007, 12:45 AM
cmurray, I merely said it can't be neglected in the overall analysis (since we're sticking with indirect pointers, right?), and you people claim it can. I disagree with that - no point in taking only those things which favor the one you want to be favored.

But that's where you're wrong. I would LOVE it if Nadal were more talented than Federer, considering I'm a Nadal fan. It simply isn't so and it goes some way to proving that I don't use "talent" as a way to dismiss poor results NOR to favor the player that I want to favor.

NYCtennisfan
10-20-2007, 12:59 AM
Mecir is terms ball-striking talent had more talent than almost anyone but he didn't win a Slam.

Murray is a more talented than Djoko, but Djoko I feel will win more Slams, become #1, and leave a bigger dent in terms of tennis history.

Murray, however, is a player that if and when he reaches his full potential and puts it all together can dismantle anyone. His first serve has a lot of pop to it, but he doesn't get enough in. He can do anything with the BH and the BH yanked CC from the middle of the court is a thing of beauty. Once he learns how to attack with the next FH he gets, a lot of points will end quickly. Then there is his return. He's a threat to break in any game unless you're Ivo. He can volley, has great hands, can play almost any shot.

Allure
10-20-2007, 01:01 AM
But that's where you're wrong. I would LOVE it if Nadal were more talented than Federer, considering I'm a Nadal fan. It simply isn't so and it goes some way to proving that I don't use "talent" as a way to dismiss poor results NOR to favor the player that I want to favor.

It can also be the other way around. People saying ''X has better results...'' to favor their idol who doesn't have as much talent as player Y.

cmurray
10-20-2007, 01:10 AM
It can also be the other way around. People saying ''X has better results...'' to favor their idol who doesn't have as much talent as player Y.

This is quite true. (did we just agree on something????)

Bascule
10-20-2007, 01:11 AM
It can also be the other way around. People saying ''X has better results...'' to favor their idol who doesn't have as much talent as player Y.

And, you're here cause your idol doesn't have as much talent as player N or player M (not mentioning the result)...:devil:

Corey Feldman
10-20-2007, 01:13 AM
Muzza ahead, MTF knows its stuff ;)

as we speak, Ezekiel is shouting and lecturing anyone that will listen, including his cat

:rolls:

Allure
10-20-2007, 01:14 AM
And, you're here cause your idol doesn't have as much talent as player N or player M.:devil:

Sure. Keep believing that. :angel:

At least my idol is not hated by players A, B, C, D, E, F, G...

NYCtennisfan
10-20-2007, 01:18 AM
Muzza ahead, MTF knows its stuff ;)

as we speak, Ezekiel is shouting and lecturing anyone that will listen, including his cat

:rolls:

:lol:

cmurray
10-20-2007, 01:20 AM
Muzza ahead, MTF knows its stuff ;)

as we speak, Ezekiel is shouting and lecturing anyone that will listen, including his cat

:rolls:

:lol:

Of COURSE Murray is ahead. Its the rightful place for a Murray. :angel:

Allure
10-20-2007, 01:21 AM
Djoke wish he can hit those shots Murray executed against Chela. ;)

Kitty de Sade
10-20-2007, 01:26 AM
:lol:

Of COURSE Murray is ahead. Its the rightful place for a Murray. :angel:

:lol:

Lovely then- agreed. :inlove:

cmurray
10-20-2007, 01:29 AM
:lol:

Lovely then- agreed. :inlove:

:kiss:

Bascule
10-20-2007, 01:29 AM
Sure. Keep believing that. :angel:

At least my idol is not hated by players A, B, C, D, E, F, G...

I agree. I don't even believe they hate each other. This hate is present on this forum thanks to you, guys.:worship:

Allure
10-20-2007, 01:30 AM
I agree. I don't even believe they hate each other. This hate is present on this forum thanks to you, guys.:worship:

No they really hate him. ;)

cmurray
10-20-2007, 01:31 AM
No they really hate him. ;)

Well, Feds does anyway.....:lol:

Bascule
10-20-2007, 01:38 AM
Well, Feds does anyway.....:lol:

Well, then he hated Rafa first.
So, Allure, you're pro or their coach or manager or what (their bitch, maybe?) so you know their thoughts?

Kitty de Sade
10-20-2007, 01:39 AM
Well, Feds does anyway.....:lol:

Federer hates who, Djokovic? No way...he said as much? He seems like a pacifist/genius type, not a hater. :p

cmurray
10-20-2007, 01:42 AM
Federer hates who, Djokovic? No way...he said as much? He seems like a pacifist/genius type, not a hater. :p

Well, considering we're talking about the guy who heaps mounds of bullshit praise on everyone and his brother, I figure that his calling Djokovic a cheater in the press, and then discounting him after Montreal pretty much made the case.

What about if we say "heartily dislikes"...:lol:

Bascule
10-20-2007, 01:46 AM
Sure. Keep believing that. :angel:

At least my idol is not hated by players A, B, C, D, E, F, G...

So, keep favoring loosers, they don't need to be hated by any player.:angel:

Allure
10-20-2007, 01:48 AM
Well, then he hated Rafa first.
So, Allure, you're pro or their coach or manager or what (their bitch, maybe?) so you know their thoughts?

He never called Rafa a joke. :shrug:

Allure
10-20-2007, 01:49 AM
So, keep favoring loosers, they don't need to be hated by any player.:angel:

Yeah loser. That's why Fed said he was his favorite player to watch and called his match at Wimbledon ''sublime.'' :angel:

Bascule
10-20-2007, 01:54 AM
He never called Rafa a joke. :shrug:

Really, but he humiliated his game last year, he also said he has one-
dimensional play, and some other things Rafa didn't like. But, I think Rafa showed some respect & friendship to Novak during this year, especially in Montreal. So, why Rafa doesn't hate him?

Aloimeh
10-20-2007, 01:58 AM
Yeah loser. That's why Fed said he was his favorite player to watch and called his match at Wimbledon ''sublime.'' :angel:

Who cares what that arrogant gasbag said?

Gasgay :o

Allure
10-20-2007, 02:00 AM
Really, but he humiliated his game last year, he also said he has one-
dimensional play, and some other things Rafa didn't like. But, I think Rafa showed some respect & friendship to Novak during this year, especially in Montreal. So, why Rafa doesn't hate him?

He called Rafa's game one dimensional not as an insult but as an objective observation. "Yes his game is one dimensional but it works.''

Allure
10-20-2007, 02:00 AM
Who cares what that arrogant gasbag said?

Gasgay :o

Go worship your Fakervic poster, cheater supporter. :wavey:

Bascule
10-20-2007, 02:04 AM
He called Rafa's game one dimensional not as an insult but as an objective observation. "Yes his game is one dimensional but it works.''

Yeah, it showed in papers, he didn't tell him that friendly head to head.:p

Allure
10-20-2007, 02:06 AM
Yeah, it showed in papers, he didn't tell him that friendly head to head.:p

Look what do you want. Even Nadal fans know his game is not with great variety. Roger stated the truth but he also said his game works for him and he is great at what he does. If you want to find something that shows Fed is as arrogant as Nole, sorry that won't happen.

Bascule
10-20-2007, 02:10 AM
Look what do you want. Even Nadal fans know his game is not with great variety. Roger stated the truth but he also said his game works for him and he is great at what he does. If you want to find something that shows Fed is as arrogant as Nole, sorry that won't happen.

Ok, Beavis, time for bed, you gotta stay cool.:wavey:

ezekiel
10-20-2007, 03:54 AM
chokovic is a better player but murray has more talent

and he has sexier hair too :p and on and on...

Alex999
10-20-2007, 03:56 AM
I think every single thread about Djokovic here should be locked or deleted. Do not even whisper his name.

ezekiel
10-20-2007, 04:03 AM
:lol:

Of COURSE Murray is ahead. Its the rightful place for a Murray. :angel:

Ahead in what , tard count. excuses, injuries ?

ezekiel
10-20-2007, 04:05 AM
I think every single thread about Djokovic here should be locked or deleted. Do not even whisper his name.

don't say that , that's like an encouragement for the agitators to continue

Allure
10-20-2007, 04:20 AM
Ahead in what , tard count. excuses, injuries ?

Don't worry. Djoke wins that hands down. ;)

Apemant
10-20-2007, 07:53 AM
Since that was in a reply to me, I take you count me in, which is simply false.

First, GOOD intelligence tests don't rely on your knowledge AT ALL as an indirect measure stick. (If it were the opposite, any dumb parrot with good memory abilites would be able to stuff encyclopedic volumes in his head and thus pronounced a genius.

Completely agree. Maybe I wasn't clear. When I talked about 'questions', I meant those questions from general knowledge. Like, who was the sixth president of blah blah etc. Such questions clearly don't test intelligence, but simply knowledge. Even a retard would in theory be able to answer a lot of such questions.

And like you said, good IQ tests try to avoid it and focus on things that aren't a matter of knowledge. Sadly, in a certain way it's almost impossible, which you can see from the fact that almost all IQ tests can be 'learned'. There are only so many ideas people who make IQ tests can come up with. Chances are that some people will have seen such things (or similar) before, or their profession might be linked to that type of problems etc. And thus their IQ will be inflated by that test.

But that's all besides the point. If you ask history questions, you won't find out how intelligent someone is. Likewise, if you look at results alone, you won't neccessarily find out how talented someone is. Because results come from skills, and skills are something like knowledge; something that is gained through practice. But intelligence is the means by which such knowledge is gained, and accordingly, talent is the means by which skills are acquired.

Here is the analogy:
intelligence * study = knowledge (*)
talent * practice = skills

in a rude mathematical formula.

(*) I mean real knowledge, with understanding, not just 'memory'. Computers have memory but they have zero knowledge.


Besides, what e.g. Mensa's visual tests have anything to do with any kind of knowledge/education?)

Mensa's tests are comparatively rather good, surely a lot better than some 'IQ tests' that can be found freely on the Net (esp. those with math questions; those are quite pointless). Their tests indeed have very little to do with actual knowledge, but they are still not perfect. Some professions require abilities such as pattern recognition which is a big part of Mensa's tests, and naturally they will have such abilities developed more than other people. Thus they will tend to have their scores a bit inflated, on Mensa's tests.


So, your definition by analogy must be false and we'd have to find a more appropriate one. But let's stick to it for the time being: talent is an ability to acquire skills.

I lost you here; what is false in my analogy? From what I can see you were actually agreeing with me so far. :shrug:


The implication is: the more skills you acquire and the faster you acquire them, the more talent you have. (Or, if you dismiss such a conclusion, then you have to settle for "all more or less equally skilled players have more or less same amount of talent"). Since Nole's skills are clearly superior at the time (not ONLY by H2H but also by their respective results and performances during Murray's injury-free periods), Nole's got to be more talented, by that criterion.

On the contrary. Your logic is right, but your false premises lead you to the wrong conclusion. If you remember correctly, up to the IW (and that includes a period of some 15 months from the beginning of 2006), they were dead-on in their chasing of top 10. I made a numerous posts about it last year, how they were cutely 'jumping' one over the another in rankings. Murray would jump from like 80 to 65, then Nole would go from 72 to 55, then Murray from 65 to 49 etc. So nothing in their respective careers suggested that Nole was better in that period, they were skyrocketing at about the same speed, all the way to IW-Miami, where Nole did get one F and one W, and Murray 'only' 2 SFs.

And why did I say 'on the contrary'. Because this very thing is a good indication that Murray is indeed slightly more talented. First, noone can deny that mentally, Nole is superior to Murray (and almost the entire tour in fact). His game is also somewhat simpler, which you can derive from the fact that his playing style is almost exactly the same on ALL surfaces. On the other hand, Murray can be a headcase, he can lose matches he should have won on paper etc, and he undeniably tries far more things than Nole. So if, during those 15 months I talked about, they were advancing on the rankings at about the same speed, what does it tell us? That Murray must have something to compensate for Nole's superior head and his superior toughness in terms of winning close matches. And my conclusion is that it's his talent.

By the way. I'm not a Nole hater. The difference between Nole and Andy certainly isn't big (talent wise). So perhaps I waste too much effort arguing over this which is practically a moot point. I guess I just get dragged on by discussion itself. That's how I am. :)


Moreover, the ability to beat your opponent is one of the skills you should acquire, right? So, a very lopsided H2H must mean you're lacking something in that department.

Yes, it IS an indication, and trust me, I AM taking it into account. I'm not just dismissing it if you thought so.

However, I also believe that you Nole fans get too carried away by those two IW-Miami back to back thrashings. While I myself consider their Madrid match a better example of their respective match-up. Unless you want to claim that in 4 months, Nole somehow improved so dramatically that he went from 1-6 7-5 6-3, to 6-1 6-0, even though Murray must have improved a bit himself, as well, right?

I consider those results from March to be a bit unrealistic, just like I consider unrealistic this beating Nalbandian gave to Nadal yesterday, or the beating Nadal gave to Nole in Rome. Or, for that matter, the beating Volandri gave to Federer in Rome. There are such days. Canas over Federer twice in a row? C'mon. :angel:


Next, here on MTF talent is usually a comforting blanket for people who's favorite player just lost a big match or a title. Most frequent formula is "Oh, he got the beating, but he's got more talent than XY, he'll develop and start to retaliate" (or something of a kind).

Yes, it is perhaps true for some people, but I myself most certainly am not one of those. For example, even though I'm also a fan of Ljubo, I'm quite positive I NEVER said 'oh well, he's more talented than X' after he received some beating. Quite the contrary, I'm always first to admit that Ljubo is not very talented (comparatively; of course he has talent when you compare him to a random guy, but for a #3 at one point, he definitely isn't so talented. Nole, for example, is quite obviously far superior in that respect).

So, just because there ARE some people who follow the pattern you explained, you simply can't apply that pattern to everyone's opinion which you don't share.

denisgiann
10-20-2007, 09:10 AM
To me things are more simple.You just have to ask me which one i see winning a slam in the future or capturing the no1 spot and frankly Murray doesnt come close to either of those.I believe that if Murray wasnt britith there wouldnt have been all this fuss around his name.Or better yet... if for example berdych was from the Uk everybody would talk about his talent and abilities...
So to cut a long story sort i dont see murray doing anything really big in his carrear.If he gets to a grandslam final i ll be very very surprised indeed:eek: .

horseman
10-20-2007, 09:54 AM
Really like this topic, pure philosophy...:D We heard some cool definitions by Apemant :worship:, but to be honest, I think it's impossible to say who is more talented at the moment.

I like to watch young players (switch your dirty minds off:angel: ), so I hope that Murray is going to show his talent as son as possible.:p

thrust
10-20-2007, 10:38 AM
If Murray is as talented as Novak, then he must be one serious head case in that he has nowhere near the accomplishments on court as Novak. Murray though, is a head case as is Gasquet.

zcess81
10-20-2007, 11:03 AM
Yeah loser. That's why Fed said he was his favorite player to watch and called his match at Wimbledon ''sublime.'' :angel:

It's funny how Roger likes to praise players he beats regularly (like Gasquet), he also said something similar about Lopez (he called him the best returner in the world after his win at Wimbledon). But as soon as someone beats him, or threatens his dominance (Novak and Rafa), he is the first one to dismiss them. I seem to remember on several occasions when Rafa beat him last year, Federer saying how Rafa was lucky and how he nearly won the game. Same with Novak when he beat him at Montreal. I will never forget his little girl hissy fit he threw at this year's Wimbledon Final against Nadal when hawk eye line call didn't go his way...it was freaking hilarious.

The rule of thumb is: the more time Federer trashes you the more he's gonna like you and your game.

elessar
10-20-2007, 11:16 AM
It's funny how Roger likes to praise players he beats regularly (like Gasquet), he also said something similar about Lopez (he called him the best returner in the world after his win at Wimbledon). But as soon as someone beats him, or threatens his dominance (Novak and Rafa), he is the first one to dismiss them. I seem to remember on several occasions when Rafa beat him last year, Federer saying how Rafa was lucky and how he nearly won the game. Same with Novak when he beat him at Montreal.

The rule of thumb is: the more time Federer trashes you the more he's gonna like you and your game.

Roger is always full of praise - sometimes way too much - for Hewitt and Nalbandian who have beaten him 6 or 7 times more than Djoko, same with Nadal... And for the last time : what in the world lead you to think that Federer only started to dislike Djoko after Montreal, we all know it started back in DC when Federer had just trashed him.... Plus after Montreal he never said Djoko was lucky, he said he deserved to win

Apemant
10-20-2007, 11:19 AM
Really like this topic, pure philosophy...:D We heard some cool definitions by Apemant :worship:, but to be honest, I think it's impossible to say who is more talented at the moment.

I would agree, it is impossible to be sure, all I was saying is just my honest opinion; we are not talking facts here. I'm not saying 'he IS this or that' but merely 'he strikes me as this or that'. I could be wrong.

zcess81
10-20-2007, 11:31 AM
Roger is always full of praise - sometimes way too much - for Hewitt and Nalbandian who have beaten him 6 or 7 times more than Djoko, same with Nadal... And for the last time : what in the world lead you to think that Federer only started to dislike Djoko after Montreal, we all know it started back in DC when Federer had just trashed him.... Plus after Montreal he never said Djoko was lucky, he said he deserved to win

You can't bring Hewitt and Nalbandian's wins against Federer as an example as most of their wins against him were long time ago (except Nalbandian at TMC) before Federer became what he is today.

Sunset of Age
10-20-2007, 12:54 PM
I will never forget his little girl hissy fit he threw at this year's Wimbledon Final against Nadal when hawk eye line call didn't go his way...it was freaking hilarious.
.

Did you even LOOK what happened over there? Fed's (indeed, childish!) fit was directed at the umpire c.s. the hawk eye call, NOT at all at Nadal.

If you can't even see the difference... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As for Fed's 'dislike' of Djoko - I wouldn't call it dislike myself, he just at times criticizes certain antics of Djoko (like his habit to call for the trainer with a so-called injury as soon as the game doesn't develop in the way Djoko would like to, for instance) - he's fully allowed to do so and have an opinion on things like this. To many, he's just telling the truth.

Allure
10-20-2007, 03:21 PM
It's funny how Roger likes to praise players he beats regularly (like Gasquet), he also said something similar about Lopez (he called him the best returner in the world after his win at Wimbledon). But as soon as someone beats him, or threatens his dominance (Novak and Rafa), he is the first one to dismiss them. I seem to remember on several occasions when Rafa beat him last year, Federer saying how Rafa was lucky and how he nearly won the game. Same with Novak when he beat him at Montreal. I will never forget his little girl hissy fit he threw at this year's Wimbledon Final against Nadal when hawk eye line call didn't go his way...it was freaking hilarious.

The rule of thumb is: the more time Federer trashes you the more he's gonna like you and your game.

That's why after Gasquet beat him in Monte Carlo he praised Richard's game. :rolleyes:

And he praised other players he beat but not like he praise Richard. There are countless times where he complimented Richard's game tennis newbie.

R.Federer
10-20-2007, 03:25 PM
Ahead in what , tard count. excuses, injuries ?
Do you mean injury-timeouts? Djokovic is ahead, way ahead. :)

Corey Feldman
10-20-2007, 05:23 PM
Same with Novak when he beat him at Montreal.He spoke the truth though...
i mean hadnt he blown a 40-love game in the first set he'd have beat Nole 7-5 6-2 that day... Nole was lucky as hell.

or are you another who just cries when you feel Novak doesnt get any Fed loving? if so... T.S.
players earn fed's respect >> wussy time outs against his best friend in a match is not the way to get it.

waterlily_021989
10-20-2007, 05:44 PM
I think Andy is more talented,but I like both of them equally!:worship::hug: :hearts: :kiss:

Farenhajt
10-22-2007, 04:50 AM
So if, during those 15 months I talked about, they were advancing on the rankings at about the same speed, what does it tell us? That Murray must have something to compensate for Nole's superior head and his superior toughness in terms of winning close matches. And my conclusion is that it's his talent.

Now YOUR logic is flawed. If such argument is correct, it would lead us to the conclusion that ALL of Federer's highly skilled peers are more talented than him, because they managed not to give him a significant edge over themselves till some 4-5 years ago. (Just as you propose that Murray's not yielding to Djokovic too early means he's more talented.)

So, if Federer is the least talented of the generation, then the definition of talent is truly and completely obscure to me. And if he is the most talented, then you (so far) have no case on Murray topping Djokovic in the department.

preNadal care
10-22-2007, 04:53 AM
Talent is useless if it is wasted or the player an attitude like Murray does at times. Murray probably has more talent than Novak, but Novak actually uses his talent and doesn't let it go to waste. Novak is the more talented player.

ExpectedWinner
10-22-2007, 05:13 AM
I'd say Murray is more talented. But most probably, Djoker's mechanical, solid game will be more effective over the years.

World Beater
10-22-2007, 05:27 AM
murray, novak and nadal all have the ability to win matches when playing like shi$. That is talent my friend.

gasquet and berdych dont have that kind of talent. Gasquet and berdman have flair for shotmaking but they dont have the talent to win pts consistently even when playing at a sub-par level. They are flashy and thus are amazing when playing well but downright terrible when "off".

gasquet and berdych can hit great shots but they are not efficient players. For every risk, there is not equal reward. They don't have a high percentage game plan to win consistently yet.

Talent stuff is bullshi$. At the end of the day, all that matters is what kind of standard you are able to maintain day-in day-out. It doesn't mean much if you play the match of your life once but suck every other time.

Federer is the best for that reason. Federer is the best not because he can hit unbelievable shots but because he can execute time and again. Those "genius" shots by themselves rarely actually win matches. But they can provide inspiration for the rest of the match.

Regarding the thread. Novak and murray are both very talented. I think murray is viewed as traditionally more "talented" because he comes to net and has nice touch etc. He can also return big serves, and hit big serves himself. He seems to have abilities to play a variety of shots, some shots that joker has not yet mastered. But i see novak is more secure in his shots and his game. I'm not sure whether this is confidence or better mechanics on groundstrokes but i feel novak is a safe bet to win slams.

Murray is more of an unknown. He seems to rely more on timing and precision to play well than joker does.

zcess81
10-22-2007, 10:20 AM
He spoke the truth though...
i mean hadnt he blown a 40-love game in the first set he'd have beat Nole 7-5 6-2 that day... Nole was lucky as hell.

or are you another who just cries when you feel Novak doesnt get any Fed loving? if so... T.S.
players earn fed's respect >> wussy time outs against his best friend in a match is not the way to get it.

Well, if you take it THAT WAY you can also say that Federer was lucky to beat Novak at NYC final (Novak was 40-0 and serving for the set). Had HE TAKEN THE 1st set...had he taken the advantage of his 4-1 lead in the second he would have probably won...but it doesn't work that way, does it? Federer winning in New York has nothing to do with luck, he played better under pressure and played BIG points well. Same as Novak did at Montreal.

When Novak beat him at Montreal Federer said that Novak was lucky...but when he beat Novak in New York he never said that he was lucky. He said that Novak probably deserved to get a set, but that's about it. Double standards if you ask me.

Halba
10-22-2007, 10:28 AM
daveeed nalbandian. now that is serious talent.

richie21
10-22-2007, 11:56 AM
murray, novak and nadal all have the ability to win matches when playing like shi$. That is talent my friend.

gasquet and berdych dont have that kind of talent. Gasquet and berdman have flair for shotmaking but they dont have the talent to win pts consistently even when playing at a sub-par level. They are flashy and thus are amazing when playing well but downright terrible when "off".

gasquet and berdych can hit great shots but they are not efficient players. For every risk, there is not equal reward. They don't have a high percentage game plan to win consistently yet.

Talent stuff is bullshi$. At the end of the day, all that matters is what kind of standard you are able to maintain day-in day-out. It doesn't mean much if you play the match of your life once but suck every other time.

Well,if you compare Gasquet's results(5 titles,2 MS finals,a GS 1/2 final at Wimbledon) to Murray's results(2 titles,no MS finals,GS 1/8 finals) so far,it's a bit rich to say that Gasquet's game is less efficient than Murray's game!

vincayou
10-22-2007, 12:03 PM
The rule of thumb is: the more time Federer trashes you the more he's gonna like you and your game.

Federer is 5-1 against Djokovic but hardly praise him. He has a losing record against Nadal but praises him quite often.

When will Djokotards will grasp reality : Federer doesn't like Fakovic because of his antics and personality, not because he fears him. Fakovic is 1-3 this year against Roger, and has only won sets in tie breaks. Compare that with Nadal.
Fed is fearing Nadal 10 times more than Fakovic.

And to answer the question, Murray is more talented.

zcess81
10-22-2007, 12:51 PM
Federer is 5-1 against Djokovic but hardly praise him. He has a losing record against Nadal but praises him quite often.

When will Djokotards will grasp reality : Federer doesn't like Fakovic because of his antics and personality, not because he fears him. Fakovic is 1-3 this year against Roger, and has only won sets in tie breaks. Compare that with Nadal.
Fed is fearing Nadal 10 times more than Fakovic.

And to answer the question, Murray is more talented.

Not on hard courts:)

MaryX
10-22-2007, 12:56 PM
When will Djokotards will grasp reality : Federer doesn't like Fakovic because of his antics and personality, not because he fears him. Fakovic is 1-3 this year against Roger, and has only won sets in tie breaks. Compare that with Nadal.
Fed is fearing Nadal 10 times more than Fakovic.

And to answer the question, Murray is more talented.

May be you are right-may be he's not afraid of him-may be Djokovic just annoys him in a way I would of been annoyed if someone wanted to seat in my first class leather chair from which I'm running some huge bussiness.I think it is a simple analogy-there is not any menager/leader who would like open competition and each of them would rather accept or like people who praise them and sneak up to them all the time.

And all other things are just sequent-it is easy to find other reasons for disliking someone if
you have that initial one.

About the thread, I think we could enlarge it by adding another categories.In that case, I will vote like this:

-Murray is more talented;
-Gasquet is better artist;
-PHM is more handsome;
-And David Nalbandian is real number 3;

Apemant
10-22-2007, 06:29 PM
Now YOUR logic is flawed. If such argument is correct, it would lead us to the conclusion that ALL of Federer's highly skilled peers are more talented than him, because they managed not to give him a significant edge over themselves till some 4-5 years ago. (Just as you propose that Murray's not yielding to Djokovic too early means he's more talented.)

So, if Federer is the least talented of the generation, then the definition of talent is truly and completely obscure to me. And if he is the most talented, then you (so far) have no case on Murray topping Djokovic in the department.

?
I don't follow your logic here. In fact, you are actually giving examples for my own claim: whereas Murray IS a bit of a headcase, at least he is not a choker. On the contrary, he often managed to win matches where he was on the brink of defeat. In that respect, Murray is similar to, say, Berdych, who is also a headcase but not a choker by any stretch of imagination. They are both just wild and sometimes can't get over something that irritates them.

On the other hand, Federer WAS a HUGE choker, who often couldn't close out matches already 'won'. Just compare him to Hewitt, a fighter of Nadal or Nole's caliber. He got to #1 and to peak of his game years before Federer. So it doesn't refute my logic in no way; it's obvious that talent doesn't need to be apparent from 'results', if your psyche impedes you in any way. But for ppl whose psyche is strong, like Hewitt, Nadal or Nole, they peak result-wise as soon as they reach their physical peak, because there is no mental aspect to slow them down, like it slowed down Fed (and hypothetically, Murray).

Everything points to the conclusion that early results are not neccessarily an indication of talent. To be more precise, they are, but not their consistency but rather their peak. Nole got so high because he's very consistent, he generally doesn't lose to mugs. Whereas Murray is known to lose a match he shouldnt lose by any logic. Thus his results are not as good as Nole's. (Let's also not forget he's been playing for only half of this year. If he wasn't injured, I'm quite convinced he'd be firmly into top 10, maybe even top 5.)

In other words, I judge someone's talent by looking their best game, not their average game (... of course, because your 'best' game might be once in a lifetime shot, I tend to look at, say, 5 best matches or so). Whereas results come mainly from your average game; you need to be constant to go high into a tournament. What use is to give a performance of your life in R1 and then lose in R2 to an inferior opponent?

So, to summarize: if two players have similar skills, the one who is mentally stronger will obviously have MUCH better results. Your Federer example doesn't refute it, it in fact supports it. He was more talented than Hewitt, but being a choker he was, Hewitt had tons of success more than him, in his earlier years. And who is mentally stronger between Murray and Nole? I think there's no doubt that it's Nole. So how did Murray keep up the pace with him last year? Can you answer it without trying to find counter-arguments (like bringing Federer into the discussion)? Just tell me what it was that enabled Murray to rise just as fast as Nole. A simple question.

World Beater
10-22-2007, 06:31 PM
Well,if you compare Gasquet's results(5 titles,2 MS finals,a GS 1/2 final at Wimbledon) to Murray's results(2 titles,no MS finals,GS 1/8 finals) so far,it's a bit rich to say that Gasquet's game is less efficient than Murray's game!

i am not basing my observations on results but more on play. Isn't gasquet older? He has been on tour for longer and is a more experienced player.

When i see matches of murray, i get the feeling he isn't playing all that great but he is still smart enough to win. He is tactically excellent. I don't get the feeling with gasquet. He rarely wins matches playing at a lower standard. He needs to improve this aspect of his game.

Murray has also been injured pretty much the entire year (after the AO). So its not a fair comparison when gasquet has achieved his best results this year.

richie21
10-22-2007, 07:53 PM
i am not basing my observations on results but more on play. Isn't gasquet older? He has been on tour for longer and is a more experienced player.
When i see matches of murray, i get the feeling he isn't playing all that great but he is still smart enough to win. He is tactically excellent. I don't get the feeling with gasquet. He rarely wins matches playing at a lower standard. He needs to improve this aspect of his game.

He is only one year older than Murray.....

Murray has also been injured pretty much the entire year (after the AO). So its not a fair comparison when gasquet has achieved his best results this year

Oh because you think Gasquet hasn't suffered himself from injuries(cf his elbow 1 year ago or the multiple injuries he's got after that)???
Also Gasquet has actually achieved his best results last year,not this year: last year,he won 3 titles and got to a MS final while this year,his best results are a GS 1/2 final and one title.

World Beater
10-22-2007, 09:17 PM
He is only one year older than Murray.....

Oh because you think Gasquet hasn't suffered himself from injuries(cf his elbow 1 year ago or the multiple injuries he's got after that)???
Also Gasquet has actually achieved his best results last year,not this year: last year,he won 3 titles and got to a MS final while this year,his best results are a GS 1/2 final and one title.

yes older by one year. But when he did turn professional? it was earlier than murray, i think.

gasquet has been unlucky with injuries, yes. But that's not the point. Gasquet recovered and posted good results this year. Give time for murray to recover and post good results next year.

richie21
10-22-2007, 09:36 PM
Wolrd Beater,
i would love to see Murray having good results,i really like his style of play and as i said it already ,i truly believe he'll have a better career than Djokovic.;)

World Beater
10-22-2007, 09:45 PM
Wolrd Beater,
i would love to see Murray having good results,i really like his style of play and as i said it already ,i truly believe he'll have a better career than Djokovic.;)

i hope the same for richie:D

Allure
10-22-2007, 09:46 PM
i hope the same for richie:D

That's one thing we can agree on. :yeah:

shaggy
10-22-2007, 10:17 PM
murray has more talent, but not sure he is going to have better career. result is only measure eventually. it is hard to say how is murray going to carry with pressure.people in england and especially their journalists have great expectations and that could be also challenge for andy.

saniapower
10-22-2007, 10:34 PM
Andy

Farenhajt
10-22-2007, 11:23 PM
Just tell me what it was that enabled Murray to rise just as fast as Nole. A simple question.

Which can't be answered, since it can be quite legitimately posted like this: Just tell me what it was that prevented Nole from going up faster than Murray.

It is known that Nole had not-exactly-the-best coaching in that period, plus I think he had recurring lower back problems (which he still sometimes suffers from, but not that seriously anymore), and also breathing problems which were resolved through a sinal surgery.

Therefore, it can clearly be substantiated ("proven" is too big a word) that Nole's rise was slowed down by the reasons having nothing to do with either his or Murray's talent - in the same fashion you're substantiating your claim that Murray's talent helped him keep up the pace.

So, finally this really seems as the clash of beliefs :) and unless someone finds some other, more ponderable argument, I don't think we'll manage to come across to one another.

Corey Feldman
10-23-2007, 12:42 AM
Hey Farenhajt :wavey:

when is Nole gonna hold a Grand Slam like both Muzza's do?

:D

Farenhajt
10-23-2007, 01:47 AM
when is Nole gonna hold a Grand Slam like both Muzza's do?

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Try to find another song if your mental capabilities surpass those of a parrot (not proven thus far though) - as far as I know, those are not indigenous to Scotland.

Corey Feldman
10-23-2007, 02:05 AM
Funny, you calling someone else a parrot :lol:

Apemant
10-23-2007, 01:35 PM
So, finally this really seems as the clash of beliefs :) and unless someone finds some other, more ponderable argument, I don't think we'll manage to come across to one another.

Fair enough. It sure IS a matter of belief, of opinion, and not hard facts. Time will tell (maybe).

Just let me add one final thing: I have absolutely no reason to be biased in favour of Murray. Whereas you, since you come from the same country as Nole, certainly do have a rather strong bias here. Am I not correct?

I guess you became a fan of Nole primarily because he's your countryman. But I started liking Murray precisely because he strikes me as very talented. That is not to say that I'm not biased at all, but I do believe I'm more objective than you. :) No hard feelings. :angel:

Farenhajt
10-23-2007, 02:51 PM
I guess you became a fan of Nole primarily because he's your countryman... I do believe I'm more objective than you.

Trying to diminish my motives? Implying anyone slightly objective can't root for Djokovic? Implying your infallibility estimating players' possibilities? Trying to say you're utterly detached from any personal involvement in the matter? Better not to go there...

Since I have only your word on "being objective towards Murray" and "not being his countryman", you'll have to stick to my word on "being objective towards Djokovic in spite of being his countryman" :angel:

(And the very wish to be "more objective" than me - with some out-of-the-blue conclusions which are mere prejudices - confirms you really feel very strongly about your pet winning this duel, which indeed significantly compromises your objectivity. No hard feelings :))

Jelena_78
10-23-2007, 03:10 PM
Some people here insist that all the fans should agree on who's more talented...
...and keep jumping into eachother's posts,trying to convince 'other side' that they're wrong.
One think it's Muzza:worship: ,other think it's Nole. :worship:
Personally,I think they're equally talented,and if someone thinks it's Andy,that's ok with me. Cause maybe he is.


F and some guys will keep this thread 'opened' until everybody agree:spit:

Farenhajt
10-23-2007, 03:59 PM
F and some guys will keep this thread 'opened' until everybody agree

I don't see anyone fiercely agitating either for Novak or for Andy here. Apemant started a kind of argumented discussion, and as far as we have arguments, we'll probably keep OUR conversation open. As for you, feel free to ignore this thread to your heart's content, you're not exactly being addressed here.

(And don't spit on people, some think it's not ladylike.)

Apemant
10-23-2007, 04:21 PM
Trying to diminish my motives? Implying anyone slightly objective can't root for Djokovic? Implying your infallibility estimating players' possibilities? Trying to say you're utterly detached from any personal involvement in the matter? Better not to go there...

Come on, I'm not going THERE, you are taking this way too far :devil:

I'm not 'diminishing' your motives - I find it completely understandable to root for your countrymen. Everyone does that at least sometimes, and some people do it always. It's natural. Didn't mean it in a negative way, just pointing out that such motives DO generate some bias. Am I wrong?

And I'm not at all implying that 'noone objective' can root for Djokovic. Well I'm objective and I root for Nole most of the time, except when he plays a few of my more favourite players. Don't you think you read too much between my lines? :)

Also, it's not that I'm 'utterly detached' (in fact, I admited even in that very post that it's not like that), but yes, I do tend to see things as objective as I can, and not let my preferences cloud my judgement. Again, that doesn't mean I'm 'infallible' - there are just two infallible people here, mediter and R=FK. :devil:


(And the very wish to be "more objective" than me - with some out-of-the-blue conclusions which are mere prejudices - confirms you really feel very strongly about your pet winning this duel, which indeed significantly compromises your objectivity. No hard feelings :))

Not really. I just get drawn into this sort of argument and can't let it go. I guess it has something to do with the fact that I always wondered how it is possible that people are so hard to be convinced (including myself). That curious fact always keeps me going on and on. Testing my own conviction as well as studying those of other people.

Farenhajt
10-23-2007, 05:59 PM
I'm not 'diminishing' your motives - I find it completely understandable to root for your countrymen. Everyone does that at least sometimes, and some people do it always. It's natural. Didn't mean it in a negative way, just pointing out that such motives DO generate some bias. Am I wrong?

And I'm not at all implying that 'noone objective' can root for Djokovic. Well I'm objective and I root for Nole most of the time, except when he plays a few of my more favourite players. Don't you think you read too much between my lines? :)

Also, it's not that I'm 'utterly detached' (in fact, I admited even in that very post that it's not like that), but yes, I do tend to see things as objective as I can, and not let my preferences cloud my judgement. Again, that doesn't mean I'm 'infallible' - there are just two infallible people here, mediter and R=FK. :devil:

Just as you claim you keep those "destructors of objectivity" well under control, in spite of recognizing their existence, I just ask for myself the same treatment - I strive to be as objective as possible given I must inherently be biased to certain extent (just as you are).

Jelena_78
10-23-2007, 08:05 PM
I don't see anyone fiercely agitating either for Novak or for Andy here. Apemant started a kind of argumented discussion, and as far as we have arguments, we'll probably keep OUR conversation open. As for you, feel free to ignore this thread to your heart's content, you're not exactly being addressed here.

(And don't spit on people, some think it's not ladylike.)

:lol: You just had to come back and add that last sentence ;)
That was just a remark,haven't said anything wrong. Kratak fitilj?:timebomb:

(necu ubuduce zabadati nos gde mu nije mesto,poz.)

<:secret: mozda sam samo htela da privucem Tvoju paznju,inace me ne bi primetio:aplot: >

:wavey:

ezekiel
10-23-2007, 10:32 PM
?
I don't follow your logic here. In fact, you are actually giving examples for my own claim: whereas Murray IS a bit of a headcase, at least he is not a choker. On the contrary, he often managed to win matches where he was on the brink of defeat. In that respect, Murray is similar to, say, Berdych, who is also a headcase but not a choker by any stretch of imagination. They are both just wild and sometimes can't get over something that irritates them.

On the other hand, Federer WAS a HUGE choker, who often couldn't close out matches already 'won'. Just compare him to Hewitt, a fighter of Nadal or Nole's caliber. He got to #1 and to peak of his game years before Federer. So it doesn't refute my logic in no way; it's obvious that talent doesn't need to be apparent from 'results', if your psyche impedes you in any way. But for ppl whose psyche is strong, like Hewitt, Nadal or Nole, they peak result-wise as soon as they reach their physical peak, because there is no mental aspect to slow them down, like it slowed down Fed (and hypothetically, Murray).

Everything points to the conclusion that early results are not neccessarily an indication of talent. To be more precise, they are, but not their consistency but rather their peak. Nole got so high because he's very consistent, he generally doesn't lose to mugs. Whereas Murray is known to lose a match he shouldnt lose by any logic. Thus his results are not as good as Nole's. (Let's also not forget he's been playing for only half of this year. If he wasn't injured, I'm quite convinced he'd be firmly into top 10, maybe even top 5.)

In other words, I judge someone's talent by looking their best game, not their average game (... of course, because your 'best' game might be once in a lifetime shot, I tend to look at, say, 5 best matches or so). Whereas results come mainly from your average game; you need to be constant to go high into a tournament. What use is to give a performance of your life in R1 and then lose in R2 to an inferior opponent?

So, to summarize: if two players have similar skills, the one who is mentally stronger will obviously have MUCH better results. Your Federer example doesn't refute it, it in fact supports it. He was more talented than Hewitt, but being a choker he was, Hewitt had tons of success more than him, in his earlier years. And who is mentally stronger between Murray and Nole? I think there's no doubt that it's Nole. So how did Murray keep up the pace with him last year? Can you answer it without trying to find counter-arguments (like bringing Federer into the discussion)? Just tell me what it was that enabled Murray to rise just as fast as Nole. A simple question.


Nole qualified for a first slam at 17, in fact he qualified for all 4 slams in 2005 USO directly while Murray needed only wildcards to play that year. Nole also had many injuries , retirements and weird losses in 2006 that are I guess part of being new on the tour not that Andy was all healthy

As for "mental toughness", it's a problematic topic as everyone chokes at times but it's a matter of getting back or rather how professional, hard working and thus confident one is .

As for "looking at their best game instead of their average game" , that is just part of being desperate for anyone can be great one time and there is too many variables including opponents play to make one better on any given day. In any real profession , people are judged on long time basis

As for "not looking at their early results" , well there is some truth to that as specialists who are somewhat limited like Hewitt and Nadal tend to peak early and they ride that while they can and eventually try to expand when people catch up . But Nole for one is not a specialist nor has he peaked as you insinuate , no I think he will continue to rise and he will be good throughout the season once he peaks . I am not sure whether Murray is specialist though

Apemant
10-23-2007, 10:42 PM
Just as you claim you keep those "destructors of objectivity" well under control, in spite of recognizing their existence, I just ask for myself the same treatment - I strive to be as objective as possible given I must inherently be biased to certain extent (just as you are).

All right, I consider the case closed, for now. Until we find some other issue to argue over :lol:

rocketassist
10-23-2007, 10:47 PM
Nole qualified for a first slam at 17, in fact he qualified for all 4 slams in 2005 USO directly while Murray needed only wildcards to play that year. Nole also had many injuries , retirements and weird losses in 2006 that are I guess part of being new on the tour not that Andy was all healthy

As for "mental toughness", it's a problematic topic as everyone chokes at times but it's a matter of getting back or rather how professional, hard working and thus confident one is .

As for "looking at their best game instead of their average game" , that is just part of being desperate for anyone can be great one time and there is too many variables including opponents play to make one better on any given day. In any real profession , people are judged on long time basis

As for "not looking at their early results" , well there is some truth to that as specialists who are somewhat limited like Hewitt and Nadal tend to peak early and they ride that while they can and eventually try to expand when people catch up . But Nole for one is not a specialist nor has he peaked as you insinuate , no I think he will continue to rise and he will be good throughout the season once he peaks . I am not sure whether Murray is specialist though

Murray qualified for USO 2005.

scoobs
10-23-2007, 10:56 PM
In fact, Murray didn't even play 2005 Australian Open or 2005 Roland Garros - I think he was ranked too low at that point to even make the qualifying draws. He received a wildcard at Wimbledon, which he more than justified, defeating Bastl and [15] Stepanek in straight sets before losing to Nalbandian in 5 sets. He received a wildcard into the US Open Qualifying tournament (earned, due to winning the Boys Juniors in 2004) and qualified, reaching Round 2, losing to Clement in 5 sets.

Corey Feldman
10-24-2007, 12:25 AM
In fact, Murray didn't even play 2005 Australian Open or 2005 Roland Garros - I think he was ranked too low at that point to even make the qualifying draws.He was choking his arse of Vs Cilic in the Semis of Junior Roland Garros that year.

ServeAlready81
10-24-2007, 04:49 AM
Murray is more talented, but Djokovic is a better player. Competing is much more than having skills...

ExpectedWinner
10-24-2007, 05:42 AM
As for "not looking at their early results" , well there is some truth to that as specialists who are somewhat limited like Hewitt and Nadal tend to peak early and they ride that while they can and eventually try to expand when people catch up .

What kind of specialist Hewitt is?

Gonzalez88
10-24-2007, 06:09 AM
The player with more talent is Murray but Djokovic is better than him

Puschkin
10-24-2007, 06:54 AM
I'd say Murray, he is less predictable. But so far Djokovic is clearly more efficient. Both are not my cup of tea, though. :p

vincayou
10-24-2007, 08:51 AM
What kind of specialist Hewitt is?

What kind of specialist Ezekiel is?

ExpectedWinner
10-24-2007, 02:48 PM
What kind of specialist Ezekiel is?

The average GM poster, not the sharpest tool in the drawer.

Allure
10-24-2007, 03:48 PM
The average GM poster, not the sharpest tool in the drawer.

He is definitely a tool though.

WatchOut
10-24-2007, 06:16 PM
Can't say.

They're both equally talented, only Novak made more of his talent :D

NinaNina19
03-07-2008, 11:30 PM
Says Roger Federer:

Roger Federer has said that he believes Murray is "more talented than Djokovic" and is surprised that he didn't make the big achievements before the Serbian.

The World No-1 also defended his controversial comments against Murray by saying he only meant them as "constructive criticism" and that he now understands the English term "sour grapes".

He beat me after all. Itís unfortunate, because thatís not what I meant at all.

Iíve always thought he was one of the most talented ones of the whole group, even more talented than Djokovic to be honest. I thought he would do the most first before Djokovic, but Djokovic played really well the last year and started this year unbelievably."

Clay Death
03-07-2008, 11:37 PM
Says Roger Federer:


who cares what he says anymore? he talks like he is a damn authority on everything that happens in the tennis world.

to be brutally honest, i am getting damn tired of his relentless propensity to run his mouth to no end.

bluefork
03-07-2008, 11:40 PM
who cares what he says anymore? he talks like he is a damn authority on everything that happens in the tennis world.

to be brutally honest, i am getting damn tired of his relentless propensity to run his mouth to no end.

Maybe the problem is that every little thing Federer says is posted and scrutinized to death on MTF.

Caerula Sanguis
03-07-2008, 11:41 PM
who cares what he says anymore? he talks like he is a damn authority on everything that happens in the tennis world.

to be brutally honest, i am getting damn tired of his relentless propensity to run his mouth to no end.

I'm sure if the reporter don't ask questions he won't say anything.

Oh and the reasons the reporters ask questions? Because people like you read about it.

Greenday
03-07-2008, 11:43 PM
who cares what he says anymore? he talks like he is a damn authority on everything that happens in the tennis world.

to be brutally honest, i am getting damn tired of his relentless propensity to run his mouth to no end.

Who are u to question to roger's authority to say something abt upcoming tennis players?....he earned it.......Now wat the heck gives u the authority to comment on roger's tennis knowledge...wat the heck have u acheived u in tennis???....wat is he going to do when reporters ask him to respond u moron...

Clay Death
03-07-2008, 11:48 PM
I'm sure if the reporter don't ask questions he won't say anything.

Oh and the reasons the reporters ask questions? Because people like you read about it.


i just read what is here. i couldnt care less about his interviews. he thinks the damn world revolves around him anyway.

i admire his mad skillz and his discipline but have no respect for him as a person. i think he is a crook.

roxannax
03-07-2008, 11:51 PM
This in fact only serves to prove that he is more afraid of Djokovic than Murray.

sawan66278
03-07-2008, 11:52 PM
Can't you see, Roger is giving Novak "constructive criticism"?

JediFed
03-08-2008, 12:10 AM
It's true. I'd be happy to put a bet that Murray will have a better career then Djokovic when all is said and done.

Clay Death
03-08-2008, 12:15 AM
It's true. I'd be happy to put a bet that Murray will have a better career then Djokovic when all is said and done.

they are both talented but djokovic is light years ahead of murray. djokovic has something murray can never have: its called movement. Djokovic is simply a better athlete.

and he can also play on all surfaces. murray has not shown that he can do that yet.

Pockit2006
03-08-2008, 12:15 AM
It doesn't matter who is more "talented" because talent doesn't always mean guaranteed success.
You can have all the talent in the world, it doesn't mean you are going to be the best.

NinaNina19
03-08-2008, 12:21 AM
they are both talented but djokovic is light years ahead of murray. djokovic has something murray can never have: its called movement. Djokovic is simply a better athlete.

and he can also play on all surfaces. murray has not shown that he can do that yet.

Murray is actually pretty fast.

adee-gee
03-08-2008, 12:26 AM
they are both talented but djokovic is light years ahead of murray. djokovic has something murray can never have: its called movement. Djokovic is simply a better athlete.

and he can also play on all surfaces. murray has not shown that he can do that yet.
Djokovic is ahead of Murray, but I wouldn't say the big differences is movement. Murray has wonderful anticipation, and as such his movement is very good, he gets to a lot of balls.

Djokovic is far stronger mentally, and has more weapons at his disposal at this current stage.

bluefork
03-08-2008, 12:28 AM
they are both talented but djokovic is light years ahead of murray. djokovic has something murray can never have: its called movement. Djokovic is simply a better athlete.

and he can also play on all surfaces. murray has not shown that he can do that yet.

Murray is deceptively quick, I think. I'm more inclined to think that his problems are between the ears. Maybe he'll become more mature and grow out his moping, but until then Djokovic will be more successful.

Kolya
03-08-2008, 12:29 AM
Talent means nothing.

Djokovic is more solid than Murray.

Clay Death
03-08-2008, 12:29 AM
Murray is actually pretty fast.


no doubt. murray has mad skillz. i do believe he will win Wibledon crown one day. Djokovic is just better. its just that simple. the next #1 is Djokovic.

i see nadal dropping to #3 before long. by the time 2008 comes to a close, Djokovic could occupy the top spot. he is likely to take the u.s. open crown away from Fed.

Murray can be top 3 in a year or so but he has some work to do.

platinum
03-08-2008, 12:32 AM
Nole has matured faster than Murray so who knows.... Eventually Murray could evolve into a better player or not......

Dusk Soldier
03-08-2008, 12:32 AM
Djokovic won the Australian Open, and Murray was knocked out in the first round. Let it go already.

Skyward
03-08-2008, 12:34 AM
Talent means nothing.

Djokovic is more solid than Murray.

Hewiit was more solid than Federer 8 years ago.

Farenhajt
03-08-2008, 12:37 AM
Hewiit was more solid than Federer 8 years ago.

And then Hewitt decided that "living life" is more important than improving his tennis to the utmost. Federer on the other hand patiently waited for all of his main rivals to sleep on their laurels, and got his moment.

Not likely we're gonna see the same scenario involving Djokovic and Murray.

Kolya
03-08-2008, 12:39 AM
Hewiit was more solid than Federer 8 years ago.

Its just the way Murray plays, I find it will be tough for him to a win a GS.

Nole's overall style is technically better, stronger and more consistent in the long term.

PS. I don't like Nole or Murray at all.

NinaNina19
03-08-2008, 12:41 AM
Its just the way Murray plays, I find it will be tough for him to a win a GS.

Nole's overall style is technically better, stronger and more consistent in the long term.

PS. I don't like Nole or Murray at all.I'm sure Murray won't improve a single bit over the next couple years:rolleyes:.

bluefork
03-08-2008, 12:45 AM
And then Hewitt decided that "living life" is more important than improving his tennis to the utmost. Federer on the other hand patiently waited for all of his main rivals to sleep on their laurels, and got his moment.

Not likely we're gonna see the same scenario involving Djokovic and Murray.

8 years ago you never would have thought that this scenario would have happened to Hewitt, so...:shrug:

And the Federer comment...well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you're a just a troll, not an absolute moron.

NYCtennisfan
03-08-2008, 12:49 AM
And then Hewitt decided that "living life" is more important than improving his tennis to the utmost. Federer on the other hand patiently waited for all of his main rivals to sleep on their laurels, and got his moment.

Not likely we're gonna see the same scenario involving Djokovic and Murray.

:lol:

Kolya
03-08-2008, 12:50 AM
I'm sure Murray won't improve a single bit over the next couple years:rolleyes:.

Tell him to stop being a pussy if wants to be the best.

Farenhajt
03-08-2008, 12:55 AM
And the Federer comment...well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you're a just a troll, not an absolute moron.

Please don't. I pride in being considered moron by Fedtards. (Always turns out to be a compliment.)

rofe
03-08-2008, 12:56 AM
Murray is more talented but that does not translate to match wins so I think Fed is right. :shrug:

bluefork
03-08-2008, 01:05 AM
Please don't. I pride in being considered moron by Fedtards. (Always turns out to be a compliment.)

Who said I'm a Fedtard? :shrug:

LoveFifteen
03-08-2008, 01:14 AM
let us know when you have finished sucking his nuts.

Mmm, Federer's nuts! :drool:

So delicate and furry. :slurp:

justClaudia
03-08-2008, 01:19 AM
no one cares about what has to Roger say anymore, yet everyone is still analysing his words.

LOL.

Chiseller
03-08-2008, 01:22 AM
i rather hear what federer says about other players than some wannabe like claydeath.

Clay Death
03-08-2008, 01:26 AM
no one cares about what has to Roger say anymore, yet everyone is still analysing his words.

LOL.

cool avatar by the way. that guy was just a monster in that movie " the gladiator". incredible actor.

justClaudia
03-08-2008, 01:29 AM
cool avatar by the way. that guy was just a monster in that movie " the gladiator". incredible actor.

mmm, thanks I guess.
he is indeed a fine actor, my favorite.

Now go back to topic, since you all were enjoying it so much.

Albop
03-08-2008, 01:31 AM
wise words fed

Clay Death
03-08-2008, 01:42 AM
i rather hear what federer says about other players than some wannabe like claydeath.

then stop reading my posts stinkweed.

and it is Mr. Clay Death to you.

Corey Feldman
03-08-2008, 02:06 AM
From now on

what Federer says, i listen to and believe

and of course he is right on this one

Nole has had more success so far, yes, but it can happen with the cupcake draws he got and Muzza has spent 40% of his career so far, injured.

wcr
03-08-2008, 02:45 AM
Murray is more talented but that does not translate to match wins so I think Fed is right. :shrug:

Roger offered some good advice to Murray a couple of years ago before he engaged Gilbert's services via the AELTC. There was a lot of noise in the press about what would happen to Murray and Roger simply pointed out he needed to decide for himself what course of action to take (hire a coach and/or a good fitness expert and/or both). Federer offered that it was the fitness training he undertook that made a difference in his results and the same would hold true for Murray who was losing 1 or 2 rounds after a big match win. Gilbert worked Murray hard when they first got together but has his training regime remained the same after dropping Gilbert?

Branimir
03-08-2008, 03:23 AM
Federer said that long time ago. He just doesn't want to admit that he is wrong. Anyway... Maybe Murray is more talented than Djokovic, who am I to question Federer's words, but talent is not something that is enough to be the best. I always thought and I still think that Tipsarevic had so much more talent than Djokovic, but where is Tipsarevic and where is Djokovic?

Johnny Groove
03-08-2008, 03:26 AM
I'd much sooner trust someone with 12 slams than some clown on MTF

Schu
03-08-2008, 03:30 AM
Murray is more talented but that does not translate to match wins so I think Fed is right. :shrug:

So true. Talent alone doesn't get you to the top - just ask Safin, Nalbandian and Baby Fed(aka Gasquet). The bigger the talent, the bigger the headcase (except for Fed Almighty). Time will tell which way Murray goes.

Clay Death
03-08-2008, 03:42 AM
So true. Talent alone doesn't get you to the top - just ask Safin, Nalbandian and Baby Fed(aka Gasquet). The bigger the talent, the bigger the headcase (except for Fed Almighty). Time will tell which way Murray goes.

good stuff. who had more talent than the might Safin and yet he never bothered to maximize it. Nalby too could have been a monster. pussy just comes first. cant say that i blame them. it comes first for me too.

Kolya
03-08-2008, 04:25 AM
At least Safin did reach the top.

dwynn10
03-08-2008, 05:10 AM
who cares what he says anymore? he talks like he is a damn authority on everything that happens in the tennis world.

to be brutally honest, i am getting damn tired of his relentless propensity to run his mouth to no end.

The same thing could be said about your ad nauseam exposition on Nadal's decline, O Wise One.

Komodo
03-08-2008, 05:46 AM
they are both talented but djokovic is light years ahead of murray. djokovic has something murray can never have: its called movement. Djokovic is simply a better athlete.

and he can also play on all surfaces. murray has not shown that he can do that yet.

Ok, this guy is not only a big fucking troll but now also exposed his tennis knowledge.
The difference between Djokovic and Murray is supposed to be MOVEMENT and athleticism?

The one thing Murray thrives on is his incredible movement and anticipation in the backcourt.
Has he ever even seen a Murray match or has he just missed which amazing balls Murray is retrieving?

The difference according to me mainly is on the level of coordination; when Murray tries to play faster with his forehand, it is a very floaty, insecure swing, that creates many errors.
Djokovic simply can play tennis faster on higher percentages.
Not counting his errorfest against Roddick yesterday.

/komodo

Clay Death
03-08-2008, 06:07 AM
Ok, this guy is not only a big fucking troll but now also exposed his tennis knowledge.
The difference between Djokovic and Murray is supposed to be MOVEMENT and athleticism?

The one thing Murray thrives on is his incredible movement and anticipation in the backcourt.
Has he ever even seen a Murray match or has he just missed which amazing balls Murray is retrieving?

The difference according to me mainly is on the level of coordination; when Murray tries to play faster with his forehand, it is a very floaty, insecure swing, that creates many errors.
Djokovic simply can play tennis faster on higher percentages.
Not counting his errorfest against Roddick yesterday.

/komodo

moron its best to keep your mouth shut and just let people wonder if you are complete moron than to open it and remove all doubt.

the key difference between the 2 is movement and it is there djokovic is now and always will be light years ahead of murray.

take a look at fed`s movement for instance. you either have it or you dont. Fed and Djokovic are the best movers in the game now. nadal is slipping as the injuries have taken their toll on him a little. he too is up there with his movement. the very best in the game are the very best movers and it is more so now than ever.

murray is very talented and moves well for a big guy but he is not in the same league with Djokovic and Fed.

i find the that the real trolls are the ones who spend their whole day calling other trolls. perhapes you are threatened by some people`s tennis knowledge.

its just a discussion for us. dont let it bother you too much. we are not even in the game.

Komodo
03-08-2008, 06:26 AM
I'm just annoyed by the way some idiots destroy almost every thread in this forum and in continuation the whole forum.
But don't worry, it was just for a very short moment.

Moreover, I get the impression that a lot of people here are just as annoyed.

The self-portrayal some people are using this forum for, in their imagination positively, but with the ignorance and stupidity dripping out of every perforated argument, can be unbearable.

It is a shame, because I love to read good, long posts by people who clearly understand tennis and/or have sound arguments.

/komodo

Bibberz
03-08-2008, 06:52 AM
Whether you're a Roger fan or not (I'm not), it's seems pretty clear that he's earned the right to say whatever the hell he wants on the subject of tennis. Besides, it's not like he convened a press conferences just to rag on Djokovic. I'm sure some interviewer or reporter asked him a related question.

I don't find his remarks remotely controversial. It seemed like Rogelio just said Murray had more natural talent. There is room for debate there, although it's abundantly clear that Djokovic can play the big points better and has a more aggressive game.

Clay Death
03-08-2008, 06:59 AM
I'm just annoyed by the way some idiots destroy almost every thread in this forum and in continuation the whole forum.
But don't worry, it was just for a very short moment.

Moreover, I get the impression that a lot of people here are just as annoyed.

The self-portrayal some people are using this forum for, in their imagination positively, but with the ignorance and stupidity dripping out of every perforated argument, can be unbearable.

It is a shame, because I love to read good, long posts by people who clearly understand tennis and/or have sound arguments.

/komodo

but you exhibit a very limited ability in understanding the true nature of the sport and its participants. all you really want to do is bitch. and if you cant bitch about something, you then are ready to bitch about that the fact that you cant bitch about it.

nobody is forcing you read any of these posts.

Apemant
03-08-2008, 07:05 AM
moron its best to keep your mouth shut and just let people wonder if you are complete moron than to open it and remove all doubt.

the key difference between the 2 is movement and it is there djokovic is now and always will be light years ahead of murray.

I missed you, R=FK :devil:

I see it's really hard to change; you still have such a firm belief in your own opinions, no matter how wrong are. Next time try to listen to your own advice from the first paragraph...

Murray likes defending; Nole is often on the attacking side and he rarely goes/needs to go defensive; in other words, movement is more important for Murray's style than Djokovic's. In fact, Murray defends quite well; so his movement is also very good (and his reflexes/anticipation are great) but he does indeed look funny, somehow clumsy, while running - which is obviously quite enough to fool someone like you. :devil:

The key differences, right now, are Nole's much better mental strength, consistency and power. Murray often resorts to junk balls - Nole rarely does this; what he often does is blowing people off the court. That's power; consistency and mental strength I believe need no explanation. Murray isn't exactly a mental midget himself either, of course, but he can be wild sometimes, while Nole usually finds ways to regain his calmness and focus.