Are Murray and Federer of the same standard? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Are Murray and Federer of the same standard?

MIMIC
11-16-2011, 11:25 AM
Just wondering. Does anyone else believe that Andy Murray, a 3-time slam finalist (who has a winning H2H over Federer) should be judged by the same standards of Roger Federer, a 23-time slam finalist (and 16-time slam winner)? Does Andy Murray's current achievements allow him to be judged (for better or for worse) on the same level as Federer? Do they represent the same benchmark?

Or should they be categorized separately in relation to their success?

merryploughbhoy
11-16-2011, 11:31 AM
This is Federer you're on about, there's no way Murray could be classed the same, don't be so stupid... I'm a Murray supporter but it's stupid to compare, Murray is a top draw player but he has a long way to go to be compared, he has the potential to equal Nadal maybe, not Federer.

dodo
11-16-2011, 11:33 AM
If you are planning to use this as some sort of convoluted ploy to demonstrate that Federer is still playing at his peak ability and his losses are down to the field - esp. Djokovic - catching up, then you should know that it will only end up making sense in your mind. Well, possibly also SdG's.

Time Violation
11-16-2011, 11:41 AM
They both play tennis at the same tournaments, so of course they can be compared, or am I missing something?

Chris Kuerten
11-16-2011, 11:43 AM
This is Federer you're on about, there's no way Murray could be classed the same, don't be so stupid... I'm a Murray supporter but it's stupid to compare, Murray is a top draw player but he has a long way to go to be compared, he has the potential to equal Nadal maybe, not Federer.What exactly did you have in mind when thinking Murray has the potential to equal Nadal, a 10-time Grand Slam champion :o?

janko05
11-16-2011, 11:44 AM
Clear attempt to lure Cabbage into a long meaningless discussion :o

dodo
11-16-2011, 11:45 AM
They both play tennis at the same tournaments, so of course they can be compared, or am I missing something?
OP is trying to prove that since Fed won 16 slams and still makes the semis, this season is indicative of Fed's best tennis abilities and Novak's wins over him this season prove Novak to be the better overall player, ignoring the age difference. Murray doesnt really have much to do with it.

Sophocles
11-16-2011, 11:56 AM
This is a stupid question based on a conflation of 2 different meanings of "standard", viz., an individual's level of attainment, & the measure of that level of attainment. If you don't apply the measure uniformly, you can't compare individuals. Murray clearly should be judged by the same standard as Federer - i.e., that of success in tennis tournaments - and when he is, we can say he's a lesser player.

I mean surely that's freaking obvious?

merryploughbhoy
11-16-2011, 12:02 PM
What exactly did you have in mind when thinking Murray has the potential to equal Nadal, a 10-time Grand Slam champion :o?

Well you take the clay factor out of it, thats what, 4/5 dirt rat slams away from his 10... Then the fact he peaked early and maybe murray will do so a bit later which is the way its looking just now. Throw in the fact nadal has a dodgey knee and that he's not going to get any better now than his prime ..... Its not impossible to say in 5 years Murray may have won a few slams and is then comparable to Nadal.

buzz
11-16-2011, 12:34 PM
I suppose you want to ask if there achievements from now on should be judged the same way? You might be right, wouldn't surprise me the will win about the same for the rest of their careers. Murray a little more titles, Federer some more important ones.

Wow, people thinking Murray to catch up to Nadal!I don't think so.

timafi
11-16-2011, 12:53 PM
Murray is NOT qualified to tie the shoelaces of Roger Federer;NEVER was;NEVER will!

Sham Kay
11-16-2011, 12:59 PM
Murray is NOT qualified to tie the shoelaces of Roger Federer;NEVER was;NEVER will!
He is however, qualified to beat him at tennis. Roger has Mirka to tie his laces for him.

Rodre Fegassi
11-16-2011, 01:15 PM
OP is trying to prove that h2h has nothing to do with the GOAT debate by suggesting that Murray is obviously not level with Federer in accomplishments, yet has a winning h2h against him - therefore h2h is meaningless as the inferior player has more often than not beat the superior player in their matches.

By extension of this logic, Federer is better than Nadal.

OP may also aim to create a Murray-bashing thread which he/she should leave to yours truly since it is my domain.

Deluded Fed-tard thinks people will not see beyond his amateur attempts at reverse psychology.

EliSter
11-16-2011, 01:18 PM
This is Federer you're on about, there's no way Murray could be classed the same, don't be so stupid... I'm a Murray supporter but it's stupid to compare, Murray is a top draw player but he has a long way to go to be compared, he has the potential to equal Nadal maybe, not Federer.

Lol not really :o

Chris Kuerten
11-16-2011, 01:18 PM
Well you take the clay factor out of it, thats what, 4/5 dirt rat slams away from his 10... Then the fact he peaked early and maybe murray will do so a bit later which is the way its looking just now. Throw in the fact nadal has a dodgey knee and that he's not going to get any better now than his prime ..... Its not impossible to say in 5 years Murray may have won a few slams and is then comparable to Nadal.Let's take the hardcourt factor away from Murray then.

tripwires
11-16-2011, 02:29 PM
Is this a serious poll?

asmazif
11-16-2011, 02:40 PM
awesome poll results

Saberq
11-16-2011, 02:51 PM
3 people know shit about tennis

Naudio Spanlatine
11-16-2011, 02:53 PM
This is Federer you're on about, there's no way Murray could be classed the same, don't be so stupid... I'm a Murray supporter but it's stupid to compare, Murray is a top draw player but he has a long way to go to be compared, he has the potential to equal Nadal maybe, not Federer.

:spit: :lol:

delboy
11-16-2011, 02:56 PM
At least no one has voted yes..:drink:

GOAT = Fed
11-16-2011, 03:02 PM
OVerall of course Murray can't be compared to the same standard of Federer's prime, but I feel at this stage in their respective careers, Andy Murray can be compared to the Federer standard of say, 2008-2009, just after his prime years.

paseo
11-16-2011, 03:29 PM
At least no one has voted yes..:drink:

What? Then I'll be the first one. Voting now.








EDIT : Damn you, Midnight Ninja.

Ibracadabra
11-16-2011, 03:36 PM
Potential to be equal to nadal lol

Sophocles
11-16-2011, 04:23 PM
3 people know shit about tennis

4 people understand the OP has conflated 2 meanings of the word "standard".

MuzzahLovah
11-16-2011, 05:08 PM
Well as teenaged Murray owned Fed at his peak, and has a maintained a winning head to head since then, they clearly aren't. :wavey:

Swiss_Bagels17
11-16-2011, 05:15 PM
People go onto the tennis court fearing Federer even now. Murray doesn't have that Murray hasn't even achieved 10% of Federer's career yet. Federer is still a much much bigger scalp than Murray.

Saberq
11-16-2011, 05:15 PM
Well as teenaged Murray owned Fed at his peak, and has a maintained a winning head to head since then, they clearly aren't. :wavey:

he owned Fed at his peak???he had 1 win in 2006 Cincy that's all

Swiss_Bagels17
11-16-2011, 05:16 PM
Murray now is still not as good as Federer Prime or Federer aged 28-30. Federer won a 1000 series event/WTF/Australian Open etc (in that time) and is in contention still at slams.

MuzzahLovah
11-16-2011, 05:24 PM
he owned Fed at his peak???he had 1 win in 2006 Cincy that's all

Ownage.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-16-2011, 05:33 PM
Ownage.
:spit:

one win over fed is ownage, you are seriously deluded my friend, really!:o

SetSampras
11-16-2011, 05:36 PM
Until Mugray wins a slam he may as well be of the same standard and Pushniaki. Similiar pusher game and similiar serve

shiaben
11-16-2011, 05:44 PM
He's capable of defeating him in the slams if he gets his things together. But in terms of accomplishments, uh no.

Saberq
11-16-2011, 05:49 PM
Murray now is still not as good as Federer Prime or Federer aged 28-30. Federer won a 1000 series event/WTF/Australian Open etc (in that time) and is in contention still at slams.

really?thanks for informing us

rocketassist
11-16-2011, 06:41 PM
Fed was so shit that day it was unreal. Only good match he played in defeat to Murray was Shanghai TMC 08.

Mateya
11-16-2011, 06:44 PM
Until Mugray wins a slam he may as well be of the same standard and Pushniaki. Similiar pusher game and similiar serve

:spit:

Muzza at least has a usefull and quite big 1st serve, while Caro's 1st and 2nd serves are both junk.

MuzzahLovah
11-16-2011, 07:15 PM
Fed was so shit that day it was unreal. Only good match he played in defeat to Murray was Shanghai TMC 08.

Fed plays shit quite often against Murray, no? Perhaps Murray's variety and exceptional defense give him fits? But teenage Murray wasn't as fit, and couldn't run as far or as fast, so he had to own peak Fed on pure talent.

buzz
11-16-2011, 08:07 PM
Fed plays shit quite often against Murray, no? Perhaps Murray's variety and exceptional defense give him fits? But teenage Murray wasn't as fit, and couldn't run as far or as fast, so he had to own peak Fed on pure talent.

To bad with all his pure talent he's still dreaming of a single slam

Saberq
11-16-2011, 08:22 PM
Fed plays shit quite often against Murray, no? Perhaps Murray's variety and exceptional defense give him fits? But teenage Murray wasn't as fit, and couldn't run as far or as fast, so he had to own peak Fed on pure talent.

Murray beat Fed a lot of times when Fed was solid but that day in 2006 he was shit....

Pirata.
11-16-2011, 09:24 PM
Clear attempt to lure Cabbage into a long meaningless discussion :o

He's got his end of term exams this week :lol:

atennisfan
11-16-2011, 10:16 PM
If you are planning to use this as some sort of convoluted ploy to demonstrate that Federer is still playing at his peak ability and his losses are down to the field - esp. Djokovic - catching up, then you should know that it will only end up making sense in your mind. Well, possibly also SdG's.


These tards (mimic, sdg) are so transparent, aren't they?
:rolls:

MIMIC
11-16-2011, 10:40 PM
If you are planning to use this as some sort of convoluted ploy to demonstrate that Federer is still playing at his peak ability and his losses are down to the field - esp. Djokovic - catching up, then you should know that it will only end up making sense in your mind. Well, possibly also SdG's.

If admitting that 1+1=2 meant that it would unequivocally prove that Federer is playing at his peak, you'd say it equals 3 just to save face :lol:

But it's just a simple question. :)

Mountaindewslave
11-17-2011, 04:27 AM
top dumb threads of 2011?? remarkable with the year almost over.

how in any manner could you consider Murray and Federer the same standard besides the fact that they have participated in the same tournaments over the last few years.

I am not sure if I am missing something or if MIMIC is just trying to stir up imaginary controversy

Kat_YYZ
11-17-2011, 04:33 AM
4 people understand the OP has conflated 2 meanings of the word "standard".

2.5 people know what 'conflated' means :D

paseo
11-17-2011, 04:48 AM
top dumb threads of 2011?? remarkable with the year almost over.

how in any manner could you consider Murray and Federer the same standard besides the fact that they have participated in the same tournaments over the last few years.

I am not sure if I am missing something or if MIMIC is just trying to stir up imaginary controversy

MIMIC lost an argument in the Federer decline thread. He/she got cornered there, no one agrees with his/her theory. So MIMIC made this thread to trick posters to unintentionally agree and support his/her theory, so he/she can comeback strong in the argument. Looking at the poll, seems like it's working. Watch her come back using that losing argument with a vengeance when he/she has enough support from tricked posters. Heck, it may even turn to be a winning argument after this scheme :D


I love MTF :devil:

Topspindoctor
11-17-2011, 04:56 AM
Well you take the clay factor out of it, thats what, 4/5 dirt rat slams away from his 10... Then the fact he peaked early and maybe murray will do so a bit later which is the way its looking just now. Throw in the fact nadal has a dodgey knee and that he's not going to get any better now than his prime ..... Its not impossible to say in 5 years Murray may have won a few slams and is then comparable to Nadal.

Another Mugraytard, wow. "Take away clay factor" - that line should qualify you for ACC, too bad you're a double account and have very few posts.

Mugray is a slamless pusher who should win 1 slam before being compared to the big boys. As of right now he's Wozniacki of ATP. Disgrace to the sport, hope he's out of top 10 next year.

rickcastle
11-17-2011, 05:10 AM
MIMIC lost an argument in the Federer decline thread. He/she got cornered there, no one agrees with his/her theory. So MIMIC made this thread to trick posters to unintentionally agree and support his/her theory, so he/she can comeback strong in the argument. Looking at the poll, seems like it's working. Watch her come back using that losing argument with a vengeance when he/she has enough support from tricked posters. Heck, it may even turn to be a winning argument after this scheme :D


I love MTF :devil:

At least MIMIC gets an A for effort :lol: Heck, if it means that much to him to go through all this trouble, I'd let him have the argument. It's too much effort on his part just to win an Internet argument. It reminds me of a cornered boxer who's throwing blind punches hoping to get a hit. I've added him to my ignore list anyway, after a while it gets tiring talking to a wall :shrug:

Jaz
11-17-2011, 07:09 AM
WTF is this shit? They are in different leagues. It's like comparing Tim Henman to Federer..

Rodre Fegassi
11-17-2011, 08:09 AM
MIMIC knows his thread title will get the Murray haters out

dodo
11-17-2011, 09:22 AM
If admitting that 1+1=2 meant that it would unequivocally prove that Federer is playing at his peak, you'd say it equals 3 just to save face :lol:

But it's just a simple question. :)
holy jumping to conclusions, batman.

IF conditions existed (they dont) that pointed to a fact (that, btw, is as provably false as sports statistics get) THEN you just ASSUME i would use some retarded nonsequitur (like, idunno, YOU?) to maintain my point? do you even realize the inherent irony in making such a statement?


b97zJxKEqAk

dodo
11-17-2011, 09:27 AM
WTF is this shit? They are in different leagues. It's like comparing Tim Henman to Federer..

MIMIC knows his thread title will get the Murray haters out
stop talking about murray. he has nothing at all to do with this thread. it is a question of whether federer's achievements give critics licence to apply whatever unreal expectations to him thereby opening a whole new approach for haters.
also ignore the word standard. its just an intentional ruse by op to trick people into voting for something he believes will prove a point (it wont). see posts by sophocles for explanation.

@Sweet Cleopatra
11-17-2011, 09:45 AM
The answer is no. What's wrong with you? Federer is the standard of tennis.

But Federer today isn't Federer in 2006, ce la vie.

@Sweet Cleopatra
11-17-2011, 09:52 AM
Well you take the clay factor out of it, thats what, 4/5 dirt rat slams away from his 10... Then the fact he peaked early and maybe murray will do so a bit later which is the way its looking just now. Throw in the fact nadal has a dodgey knee and that he's not going to get any better now than his prime ..... Its not impossible to say in 5 years Murray may have won a few slams and is then comparable to Nadal.

Take the clay factor?? RG is the hardest slam to win. Rafa is forever going to be a clay legend.

Any way, I wish Murray all the best. I wish he won a slam, he works so hard. I think the British media and fans are the problem as they want any British player to win any slam. The pressure is huge.

Egreen
11-17-2011, 11:32 AM
:lol: This thread.

Rodre Fegassi
11-17-2011, 12:09 PM
If I wanted to start some Djokovic-basing I could just write a thread titled;

'Does Djokovic have just as many Grand Slam titles as Federer?'

Simple.

@Sweet Cleopatra
11-17-2011, 12:48 PM
If I wanted to start some Djokovic-basing I could just write a thread titled;

'Does Djokovic have just as many Grand Slam titles as Federer?'

Simple.

Don't take it serious. :hug: Sense of humor is high in the forum. We respect all players cause they let us enjoy the best quality tennis. :worship::worship: This is just how we talk.
Thanks to them we don't have to only watch our grandparents playing what they call tennis in local clubs.

swisht4u
11-17-2011, 01:23 PM
Murray hasn't shown he can be the last man standing on the largest stage.

MIMIC
11-17-2011, 03:01 PM
MIMIC lost an argument in the Federer decline thread. He/she got cornered there, no one agrees with his/her theory. So MIMIC made this thread to trick posters to unintentionally agree and support his/her theory, so he/she can comeback strong in the argument. Looking at the poll, seems like it's working. Watch her come back using that losing argument with a vengeance when he/she has enough support from tricked posters. Heck, it may even turn to be a winning argument after this scheme :D


I love MTF :devil:

Yeah, and the moon is made of cheese :lol: Just because you say something and believe it, it doesn't make it true. This forum is full of posters who make a bunch of irrational statements and are at an absolute loss when it comes to backing them up. Hence this thread (as well as your ridiculously vague description of what is actually going on). Murray is of a higher standard than Federer? I don't think so. Maybe in ONE poster's mind he is, but this thread clearly proves otherwise.

And I'm a guy, BTW.

janko05
11-17-2011, 03:24 PM
Yeah, and the moon is made of cheese :lol: Just because you say something and believe it, it doesn't make it true. This forum is full of posters who make a bunch of irrational statements and are at an absolute loss when it comes to backing them up. Hence this thread (as well as your ridiculously vague description of what is actually going on). Murray is of a higher standard than Federer? I don't think so. Maybe in ONE poster's mind he is, but this thread clearly proves otherwise.

And I'm a guy, BTW.

So,the purpose of this thread is to prove one particular poster wrong?
But,are we right in the first place?...sure
Could this one or any other thread posted on the subject possibly convince him?...no way

Mountaindewslave
11-17-2011, 07:58 PM
Don't take it serious. :hug: Sense of humor is high in the forum. We respect all players cause they let us enjoy the best quality tennis. :worship::worship: This is just how we talk.
Thanks to them we don't have to only watch our grandparents playing what they call tennis in local clubs.

this is the cutest poster in the world hahha, the colored writing and style is highly interesting

MuzzahLovah
11-17-2011, 08:38 PM
Where did all the Nadaltards evaporate too? Just when I need a goon squad to assert a winning H2H = a better player, they go back into the woodwork.

Filo V.
11-17-2011, 10:52 PM
He will be when/if he wins a major.

leng jai
11-17-2011, 10:54 PM
Fedgimp is not fit to lick the Scot's toes.