Can Andy Murray ever be the world's top ranked player? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Can Andy Murray ever be the world's top ranked player?

raahaat7
05-04-2010, 01:40 PM
I wud say yes and soon.

orangehat
05-04-2010, 01:41 PM
:spit:

Nice try for the thread of the year, but quite pathetic really.

out_here_grindin
05-04-2010, 01:44 PM
At least wait till grass season to discuss anything Murray related.

raahaat7
05-04-2010, 01:50 PM
At least wait till grass season to discuss anything Murray related.

Well, The beauty of a poll lies in predicting something in advance.

misty1
05-04-2010, 01:52 PM
i'll go with no and if he does make it he will have one of if not the shortest times at number 1 ever

orangehat
05-04-2010, 01:53 PM
The only way this will happen is if all the top players can't play for a year.

But he still won't win wimbledon because bogdanovic will win it :rocker2:

vn01
05-04-2010, 02:03 PM
Yes,he can

DJ Soup
05-04-2010, 02:10 PM
there's a difference between can and will

Another RogFan
05-04-2010, 02:19 PM
He can and he will be! Need to win a slam though, 'cause even №1 comes to nothing without a slam won.

Priam
05-04-2010, 02:20 PM
Probably when Fed and Nadal retire.

Corey Feldman
05-04-2010, 02:22 PM
why not

he's already kicked a healthy Nadal's ass in the one tournament that really matters in 2010

expect more of that in future, fanboys

Another RogFan
05-04-2010, 02:25 PM
He can cry like top player already so the ranking is just formality.

misty1
05-04-2010, 02:26 PM
lets see him do that on clay

Corey Feldman
05-04-2010, 02:28 PM
typical fanboys, hiding behind Nadal on a claycourt

wait till its real tennis on a fast surface

ChuckNorrisFan
05-04-2010, 02:30 PM
why not

he's already kicked a healthy Nadal's ass in the one tournament that really matters in 2010

expect more of that in future, fanboys

But he can't beat Fed when it matters nor win an important title. No number 1 until then.

misty1
05-04-2010, 02:32 PM
typical fanboys, hiding behind Nadal on a claycourt

wait till its real tennis on a fast surface

im not a nadal fan at all i hate him

Corey Feldman
05-04-2010, 02:32 PM
*handshake*

cocrcici
05-04-2010, 02:37 PM
yes

misty1
05-04-2010, 02:40 PM
like someone said though there is a difference between can he and will he.
yes he could but i dont think he will because he is not mentally strong enough in big situations.

Another RogFan
05-04-2010, 02:50 PM
like someone said though there is a difference between can he and will he.
yes he could but i dont think he will because he is not mentally strong enough in big situations.

He had only 2 big opportunities. Both of them against Roger, so we need more evidence - till then he was outplayed.Just. Like many others.

ossie
05-04-2010, 02:50 PM
not when federer and nadal are around

misty1
05-04-2010, 03:02 PM
He had only 2 big opportunities. Both of them against Roger, so we need more evidence - till then he was outplayed.Just. Like many others.

maybe but it didnt look like he learned anything after losing to roger in the final of a grand slam the first time.

and who's to say he wont crumble against other players in a final?

born_on_clay
05-04-2010, 03:11 PM
there's a difference between can and will

+1


I believe he can do it

gorgo1986
05-04-2010, 03:31 PM
typical fanboys, hiding behind Nadal on a claycourt

wait till its real tennis on a fast surface

Considering Nadal leads 4-3 on Hard, 2-0 on Clay and 1-0 on Grass I am not so worried.;)

Anyways I think Murray can as he definitely has the goods but he won't until he sorts himself out. Mentally he is not there.

Filo V.
05-04-2010, 03:45 PM
He can do it, will he do it? Questionable. Nadal, Nole, Del Potro have better chances to be consistent #1 players, and Roger is still around and will be for a while longer. Hard to be consistently dominant when you are as much of a pusher as Murray. He's also not mentally strong enough, and has (maybe not as much recently) had injury issues, plus a surface he has average-poor results on (clay). It will be tough for him, but it can happen.

Corey Feldman
05-04-2010, 03:47 PM
Considering Nadal leads 4-3 on Hard, 2-0 on Clay and 1-0 on Grass I am not so worried.;)

please dont forget Abu Dhabi final

:rolleyes:

gorgo1986
05-04-2010, 03:51 PM
please dont forget Abu Dhabi final

:rolleyes:

Statistics are Statistics, say what you want but you will have to live with it. ;)

Jills
05-04-2010, 03:55 PM
He can, but it would be a sad state of affairs if he does.

Commander Data
05-04-2010, 04:01 PM
not as long as Mr. Federer and Rafi are around in full force.

Orka_n
05-04-2010, 04:22 PM
If Murray reaches #1, I'll stop watching tennis. True story.

Noleta
05-04-2010, 04:26 PM
Sure,why not:)

jadey
05-04-2010, 06:27 PM
If Murray reaches #1, I'll stop watching tennis. True story.

so its not the game you love then , but certain players :confused:

I think he CAN , but like alot of others, not sure he will, depends if he can get that 1st major win in the next year or so.

DrJules
05-04-2010, 06:39 PM
He is one of a small group who could.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are the others for the next few years.

Persimmon
05-04-2010, 09:16 PM
Hard to tell..

tyruk14
05-04-2010, 09:24 PM
When Federer eventually falls from his perch at the Majors the number one ranking will shift between several players over the course of the coming years. A new number one might even come with the seasons, who knows?

Del Potro for slow hard; Nadal for Clay; Murray or Nadal for grass; Del Potro, Djokovic and Murray for fast hard; or anyone else. It's wide open for the next couple of years, the way I see it. At least until the next dominant player emerges, so Murray stands a slight chance of reaching number one, even if it's for a week or two.

tennishero
05-04-2010, 10:20 PM
no as long as nadal/fed/novak/delpo etc are still playing.

Vida
05-04-2010, 10:31 PM
I doubt it.

Abc Tennis
05-04-2010, 10:34 PM
He has been the first to break Fedal duopoly since 2005, so of course he can. If he will, only time will tell.

Vida
05-04-2010, 11:18 PM
He has been the first to break Fedal duopoly since 2005, so of course he can. If he will, only time will tell.

yes he was no 2 for a stretch, but number of slams is by far more important number than ranking position.

so andy with 0 slams didnt break anything significant.

Sham Kay
05-04-2010, 11:30 PM
He can. He will. I'm hoping before Fed retires, but best not to be greedy.

rocketassist
05-04-2010, 11:54 PM
no as long as nadal/fed/novak/delpo etc are still playing.

Because 'novak' and 'delpo' are sooooooo much better than him. :haha:

paseo
05-05-2010, 02:28 AM
He can and he will. The major obstacle after the Federer era ends, is that Nadal will always be a big contender for the #1 because of his clay results. Heck, even now Nadal's is a #1 contender with his sublime clay prowess.

tennishero
05-05-2010, 02:29 AM
Because 'novak' and 'delpo' are sooooooo much better than him. :haha:

yes they are...

they know how to play aggressive and not rely on UE's from opponent.

coonster14
05-05-2010, 03:07 AM
i think he has the potential to be a future world #1, but mentally he has not proven himself as of yet, that could change over time, but for now he needs to win a grand slam first.

andy neyer
05-05-2010, 03:07 AM
Yes and he will.

andy neyer
05-05-2010, 03:08 AM
i think he has the potential to be a future world #1, but mentally he has not proven himself as of yet, that could change over time, but for now he needs to win a grand slam first.

He might get to number 1 before or without winning a GS like Lendl and Ríos did.

collo1978
05-05-2010, 04:24 AM
He might get to number 1 before or without winning a GS like Lendl and Ríos did.

That a fair point, but even Andy is not picking up enough points during the smaller tournaments around the grandslams.

Mechlan
05-05-2010, 04:56 AM
Nadal will be the favorite for #1 for the next few years, but if Murray can put together a couple of good slams, he's got a shot at it.

enigma
05-05-2010, 05:06 AM
yes he CAN

JolánGagó
05-05-2010, 06:07 AM
No.

bokehlicious
05-05-2010, 07:04 AM
The kid doesn't care anyway, he did beat Fed at the YEC some year so he achieved more than expected already...

duong
05-05-2010, 08:14 AM
Well, The beauty of a poll lies in predicting something in advance.

in that case write "will", not "can".

I'm fed-up with these polls using "can", and even more when the poll is "can" and inside the text it's "will" (which is not the case here)

if the question is "can", you will answer yes even if the probability is quite small.

if the question is "will", you will answer yes if the probability is more than 50%.

"yes he can" : many CAN, I guess even Davydenko, even Söderling CAN. Moya, Ferrero were even number 1 :lol:

wackykid
05-05-2010, 08:25 AM
He ONLY had only 2 big opportunities. Both of them against Roger, so we need more evidence - till then he was outplayed.Just. Like many others.

corrected...

it's not just about winning roger... he needs to win more consistently to get MORE big opportunities before he can make it to the top...

in that case write "will", not "can".

I'm fed-up with these polls using "can", and even more when the poll is "can" and inside the text it's "will" (which is not the case here)

if the question is "can", you will answer yes even if the probability is quite small.

if the question is "will", you will answer yes if the probability is more than 50%.

"yes he can" : many CAN, I guess even Davydenko, even Söderling CAN. Moya, Ferrero were even number 1 :lol:

ditto... in fact i'll think that "can" means any decently small probability... perhaps something like 5% chance or more... and "will" means any decently small probability of not doing so -- in other words so unlikely that you will bend your backs and call it "will" -- more like greater than 95% chance...

5% and 95% are world of difference...


regards,
wacky

Abc Tennis
05-05-2010, 09:18 AM
yes he was no 2 for a stretch, but number of slams is by far more important number than ranking position.

so andy with 0 slams didnt break anything significant.

Winning slams helps you a lot to catch that #1, but as Lendl and Rios proved, it's not strictly necessary. And not having won a slam up to now doesn't guarantee you he won't win one in the future :shrug:
He has obviously the skills to do that (be #1) - no-one reaches #2 out of luck (and breaking first Fedal duopoly is not a slam, but we're speaking about ranking and that tells us something about his chances there) - if he will do that (or if any of the others current top-players that could - Nole and DelPo - will do that)... I'm not a fortune-teller :wavey:

Orka_n
05-06-2010, 03:27 PM
so its not the game you love then , but certain players :confused:What? It's the other way around. If murray grabs the #1 spot, tennis is dead. The game that I love will have lost to a defensive pusher without a personality. And I can't bear to watch that. Get it now?

Dougie
05-06-2010, 03:57 PM
Probably not. His game is too one-dimensional, he doesn´t have the tools to do well enough on all surfaces. Also, the pressure of winning a GS is getting bigger annd bigger for him, now that he´s missed a couple of opportunities. Sure, getting to no 1 doesn´t require winnig slams, but it helps, and probably winning a Slam is the biggest goal for Murray.
People have been talking about Murray as a future champion and multiple GS winner for a couple of years now, but it doesn´t seem like he´s improving that much. Considering his recent results, it looks like the opposite. Maybe he can pull it together, but time is starting to run out for him.

Silvester
05-06-2010, 04:30 PM
I used to think so, but i'm not convinced anymore. He really hasn't impressed me much since sometime last year. Sure he made the AO final this year, but he got man-handled by Fed. I think the only way he'll reach #1 is if the players around him ease off a bit, mostly Nadal.

Johnny Groove
05-06-2010, 04:39 PM
Only when he stops pushing and goes for some aggressive shots. Maybe even, dare we say it, a net close and a volley?

rocketassist
05-06-2010, 05:40 PM
yes they are...

they know how to play aggressive and not rely on UE's from opponent.

Del Potro bashes the ball down the middle which isn't really 'going for his shots', and Faker has been a pusher for ages. Both of them have won matches by simply pushing, I've seen this with my own eyes. That just points to how shit the tour is that no one can play proper tennis.

Murray has played both of them and beaten both of them several times including one of them in a GS- just cause he's faced NinjaFed twice in a Slam final doesn't mean he's a worse player than these two.

raahaat7
05-06-2010, 07:14 PM
in that case write "will", not "can".

I'm fed-up with these polls using "can", and even more when the poll is "can" and inside the text it's "will" (which is not the case here)

if the question is "can", you will answer yes even if the probability is quite small.

if the question is "will", you will answer yes if the probability is more than 50%.

"yes he can" : many CAN, I guess even Davydenko, even Söderling CAN. Moya, Ferrero were even number 1 :lol:
U r absolutely right. But unfortunately the mistake can not be rectified. See brother, There are people here at M.T.F from all corners of the world. It is not necessary that their first language be English. It is not my first language. So, please bear with any mistakes that may happen.

Vida
05-06-2010, 07:49 PM
Del Potro bashes the ball down the middle which isn't really 'going for his shots', and Faker has been a pusher for ages. Both of them have won matches by simply pushing, I've seen this with my own eyes. That just points to how shit the tour is that no one can play proper tennis.

Murray has played both of them and beaten both of them several times including one of them in a GS- just cause he's faced NinjaFed twice in a Slam final doesn't mean he's a worse player than these two.

actually that is exactly what it means. both fakervic and delmugtro beat fed en route to their slams, while murray didnt.

and if you think federer was considerably worse against those two than both times he played against murray (as an argument that murray was unlucky fed was that good against him), neglect fed and you will clearly see that both of them actually played better at the time than murray did when he lost to fed.

conclusion - murray sucks and that is why he didnt win a slam.

rocketassist
05-06-2010, 08:40 PM
actually that is exactly what it means. both fakervic and delmugtro beat fed en route to their slams, while murray didnt.

and if you think federer was considerably worse against those two than both times he played against murray (as an argument that murray was unlucky fed was that good against him), neglect fed and you will clearly see that both of them actually played better at the time than murray did when he lost to fed.

conclusion - murray sucks and that is why he didnt win a slam.

Not really, Fed played better by far in both finals. Nole played MonoFed in the semi finals after he got tired even more by his pal Janko.

The Fed who played Del Potro was the Fed who turns up in MMs/Masters + a serve + mental toughness- not enough here.

What I'm saying is Murray has little to fear from either, it's not like he's a worse player than them two, he's pretty close.

Djokovic has never beaten Nadal in a GS I might add, while Murray's done it twice and impressively twice. Does that mean anything, or does only wins over Fed count? :lol:

You and other delusional people think Faker and Del Mugtro are miles ahead when the three of them are pretty closely matched in terms of ability, results and consistency (when fully fit)

waka
05-07-2010, 02:02 AM
I think after winning a slam (getting the monkey off his back) he will play better than ever,then he can be No1.He plays so passive and seems to think like "I can't lose rather than I want to win".May be the pressue from UK media make him play like that :rolleyes:
If he gets his act together by this year's USopen he has a good chance there. Delpo is likely out,Rafa's weakest surface,Nole seems to be out of form,Fed might be less motivated after he breakes Pete's No1 record(I doubt Fed not motivated against Muzza though)Anyway he will be No1 as Fed said he is a too good player not to win a slam.:)

I_Dasco
05-07-2010, 02:49 AM
Not this time ...

UncleZeke
05-07-2010, 03:20 AM
Yes, he can.

tektonac
05-07-2010, 03:47 AM
Djokovic has never beaten Nadal in a GS I might add, while Murray's done it twice and impressively twice. Does that mean anything, or does only wins over Fed count? :lol:

Novak beat the hottest player at AO 2008 JWT who just annihilated Nadal to dust.

brent-o
05-07-2010, 03:50 AM
You know, I could see him never being number 1 in his career. I mean, look at Novak and how long he's been 2 or 3 ranked.

Ibracadabra
05-07-2010, 03:51 AM
For the good of tennis he should drop out of the top 5 and never get back in.

waka
05-07-2010, 04:18 AM
look at Novak and how long he's been 2 or 3 ranked.


Because Nole said "I was born in wrong era":p
Their time may come.:)

jadey
05-07-2010, 07:41 PM
What? It's the other way around. If murray grabs the #1 spot, tennis is dead. The game that I love will have lost to a defensive pusher without a personality. And I can't bear to watch that. Get it now?

oh I get it alright , your hatred of the guy would prevent you from watching the game you love :rolleyes:

Filo V.
05-07-2010, 09:30 PM
Djokovic and Del Potro are MUCH more likely to win multiple slams than Murray winning one, as has been already been shown. It has nothing even to do with talent level and everything to do with mentality and style of play. It's not even close.

Murray has some chance of being #1 but he will never be the favorite to get it for those reasons.

Mechlan
05-07-2010, 09:35 PM
Djokovic and Del Potro are MUCH more likely to win multiple slams than Murray winning one, as has been already been shown. It has nothing even to do with talent level and everything to do with mentality and style of play. It's not even close.

Not sure where you're getting that. Murray was a finalist at the last Slam he played.

Filo V.
05-07-2010, 09:37 PM
Not sure where you're getting that. Murray was a finalist at the last Slam he played.

Del Potro and Djokovic both beat Federer at their GS wins, and Murray did not when he had the chance. That's where I'm getting at.

Mechlan
05-07-2010, 10:37 PM
Del Potro and Djokovic both beat Federer at their GS wins, and Murray did not when he had the chance. That's where I'm getting at.

So Djokovic and Del Potro are much more likely to win slams in the future because they are more capable of beating Federer in a slam? Please. First of all, Federer played great in Australia, certainly a lot better than he did in either of the matches he lost. Not to mention in the future, Federer is not going to be the GS bar.

Orka_n
05-07-2010, 10:44 PM
oh I get it alright , your hatred of the guy would prevent you from watching the game you love :rolleyes:Amazing, you still don't understand. The day that Murray rises to #1, aggressive and entertaining tennis (that I love) will have obviously lost its effectiveness. What we are left with will be shit pusher tactics everywhere... and many young players will copy Murray's defensive style, since it's become the most successful. Before long we will have a generation of "counter-punchers" on the tour who will make my eyes bleed with their dullness. Hence, I will stop watching tennis.

Don't worry though, it's not that relevant since Mugray can't deliver in the long run.

DrJules
05-07-2010, 10:45 PM
Djokovic and Del Potro are MUCH more likely to win multiple slams than Murray winning one, as has been already been shown. It has nothing even to do with talent level and everything to do with mentality and style of play. It's not even close.

Murray has some chance of being #1 but he will never be the favorite to get it for those reasons.

Djokovic and Del Potro do seem to have too many health issues which can be a major problem for tennis players.

djb84xi
05-07-2010, 11:37 PM
I think it is possible, but not anytime soon. Who knows, he may not ever get to no. 1. His court attitude could use some serious adjusting, and his game needs to be more offensive, no matter what the surface is.

Filo V.
05-08-2010, 02:27 AM
So Djokovic and Del Potro are much more likely to win slams in the future because they are more capable of beating Federer in a slam? Please. First of all, Federer played great in Australia, certainly a lot better than he did in either of the matches he lost. Not to mention in the future, Federer is not going to be the GS bar.

No, it's that they came through when it counted, when they were in the limelight and having their opportunities to win their first majors, and Murray didn't. That's the difference. How well Roger played is pretty irrelevant in that Murray did not play great, and Roger performing at less than 100% is better than Murray at less than 100%. Also, Roger was beating up on Del Potro before losing that match.

Federer may not be the bar, but he will be here a while longer, and that's during Andy's prime. Murray is more at risk of losing early more than the top players also because of his style of play. And he will tire himself out more by the end of tournaments because of his style of play. So, the cards are against him really, but he may be able to sneak a couple of slams and the #1 rank for a bit.

Filo V.
05-08-2010, 02:29 AM
Djokovic and Del Potro do seem to have too many health issues which can be a major problem for tennis players.

True, but Murray also has had injury issues. Put those aside, on ability in general overall, Del Po and Nole are a cut ahead of Murray, because they dictate their own destiny on the court, and Murray really doesn't outside of playing Nadal. That's where his problems are, now and in the future.

Mechlan
05-08-2010, 05:24 AM
No, it's that they came through when it counted, when they were in the limelight and having their opportunities to win their first majors, and Murray didn't. That's the difference. How well Roger played is pretty irrelevant in that Murray did not play great, and Roger performing at less than 100% is better than Murray at less than 100%. Also, Roger was beating up on Del Potro before losing that match.

Federer may not be the bar, but he will be here a while longer, and that's during Andy's prime. Murray is more at risk of losing early more than the top players also because of his style of play. And he will tire himself out more by the end of tournaments because of his style of play. So, the cards are against him really, but he may be able to sneak a couple of slams and the #1 rank for a bit.

Bullshit, how Federer plays has everything to do with it. This is Federer. When he plays well, there are very few people that can beat him, and I put Djokovic, Del Potro and Murray having about the same chances of beating him (i.e. not likely). And Federer played exceptionally well in that final in Australia. So to say that Murray didn't do it and the others did is misleading. Credit to Del Potro and Djokovic, they have the Slam to their name, but just because they got the win against Federer doesn't mean they will be more successful in the future.

You have a better point about Murray playing defensively, he can't play that way and expect to have long term success. But he's shown that he is capable of playing aggressively, he has loads of talent and he certainly has the results against just about everybody. We'll see if he recovers from his current issues and plays more aggressively. In terms of potential, I think he's got at least as much upside as the others right now.

Heners
05-08-2010, 07:42 AM
Have to wait and see, only time will tell now :)

rocketassist
05-08-2010, 09:55 AM
Bullshit, how Federer plays has everything to do with it. This is Federer. When he plays well, there are very few people that can beat him, and I put Djokovic, Del Potro and Murray having about the same chances of beating him (i.e. not likely). And Federer played exceptionally well in that final in Australia. So to say that Murray didn't do it and the others did is misleading. Credit to Del Potro and Djokovic, they have the Slam to their name, but just because they got the win against Federer doesn't mean they will be more successful in the future.

You have a better point about Murray playing defensively, he can't play that way and expect to have long term success. But he's shown that he is capable of playing aggressively, he has loads of talent and he certainly has the results against just about everybody. We'll see if he recovers from his current issues and plays more aggressively. In terms of potential, I think he's got at least as much upside as the others right now.

Exactly. Some clowns want their opinion (that those two are like waaaay superior) to be right but it isn't.

Fed turned up in the Murray finals, his game was like the MM events against Del Pony and against Djokovic he had mono (wouldn't have lost without it) and had been made worse by Tipsarevic taking him the distance.

Vida
05-08-2010, 10:48 AM
rocket you really should not hand around that much with P.Antonius, it is affecting your brains.

djokovic, against federer in australia, played MUCH better than murray played against federer. in fact, murray didnt play bad at all this year in AO, he simply isnt good enough.

I know it is very difficult for you to realize that, and it hurts. so just stop fighting it and deal with the facts. be real.

it doesnt mean murray wont win a slam at all, or even reach no.1, he can be very consistent. but ultimately he is a lower league player compared to fed, rafa, yes djoko.

he is there with tsonga, delpo and such. only he is way smarter and probably works a lot harder.

Dougie
05-08-2010, 11:03 AM
Murray was scared shitless in that AO final, Federer played good, but he didn´t need to play great because Murray practically pissed his pants. And that´s the problem, no one is going to give him a GS, he needs to go and take it, and he wasn´t even close. He won´t get many more opportunities, and next time his approach needs to be radically different. If he won´t get his first GS title soon, chances are he never will.

Jaffas85
05-08-2010, 12:09 PM
Murray shouldn't be talked about as a future #1 until he at least wins a major.

I would think that Murray will win a major at some point (any of them are possible except for the French). I just hope he doesn't have to wait until federer is on the verge of retirement at 32 or 33 before he's able to take one.

Would be great if Murray could win Wimbledon as his first major however with Nadal being healthy once more and Federer saving his best for the majors I don't think Murray's first major title will come this year (nadal will probably win French Open, Federer or Nadal will probably win Wimbledon and Federer will probably win the US Open).

Del Potro was able to beat Federer in the final of the US Open because he hit the ball through Federer which is not Murray's style.

Matt01
05-08-2010, 12:41 PM
rocket you really should not hand around that much with P.Antonius, it is affecting your brains.


:lol:

:yeah: