What if Murray's first slam final opponent was a non-slam winner like Philippoussis? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What if Murray's first slam final opponent was a non-slam winner like Philippoussis?

Start da Game
11-18-2011, 05:34 PM
if murray played a fading player of the previous era in his first slam final, what do you think his career would have looked like by now? would he still been a slamless player or would he have built on his first slam win and been a different force by now? sometimes one win is all it takes and maybe murray would have liked an easier opponent in his first couple of slam finals......vote and discuss......

Sophocles
11-18-2011, 05:35 PM
Or Puerta.

_Chaz
11-18-2011, 05:36 PM
Or Tsonga.

Start da Game
11-18-2011, 05:41 PM
Or Puerta.

Or Tsonga.

the problem with that type of argument is that, nadal and djokovic did gun down the no.1 player in the semis in the respective tournaments......

asmazif
11-18-2011, 05:41 PM
...then he would have had a better chance to win the slam.

Rodre Fegassi
11-18-2011, 05:42 PM
Stop giving the guy excuses.

We all know that Murray would have lost in the final if he was playing Oprah Winfrey.

He is not a champion unlike Nadal and Djokovic, and if you have never won a Grand Slam before, chances are you never will no matter how many finals you may or may not make.

alter ego
11-18-2011, 05:44 PM
"What if" thread, we need more of these.

Start da Game
11-18-2011, 05:46 PM
Stop giving the guy excuses.

We all know that Murray would have lost in the final if he was playing Oprah Winfrey.

He is not a champion unlike Nadal and Djokovic, and if you have never won a Grand Slam before, chances are you never will no matter how many finals you may or may not make.

i am not even close to being his fan but i think he is slightly unfortunate to be playing in this strong era......

he had the challenge of overcoming two all time greats back to back at us open 2008 and AO 2010......that is simply a very tough ask......

Sophocles
11-18-2011, 05:48 PM
Or for that matter, Agassi (in 1990).

Rodre Fegassi
11-18-2011, 05:48 PM
i am not even close to being his fan but i think he is slightly unfortunate to be playing in this strong era......

he had the challenge of overcoming two all time greats back to back at us open 2008 and AO 2010......that is simply a very tough ask......

Same all-time great. Federer.

Mountaindewslave
11-18-2011, 05:54 PM
i am not even close to being his fan but i think he is slightly unfortunate to be playing in this strong era......

he had the challenge of overcoming two all time greats back to back at us open 2008 and AO 2010......that is simply a very tough ask......

tough to say but this era is not better than any other so that excuse goes out the window. He has not played that great in Grand Slam finals but he did have some very tough opposition in Federer and Djokovic.

honestly who knows if it would make a difference. we have no idea if the reason Murray has failed is more because of himself or his opponents at this point, but I'm sure we'll figure this out in the future.

Start da Game
11-18-2011, 05:56 PM
tough to say but this era is not better than any other so that excuse goes out the window. He has not played that great in Grand Slam finals but he did have some very tough opposition in Federer and Djokovic.

honestly who knows if it would make a difference. we have no idea if the reason Murray has failed is more because of himself or his opponents at this point, but I'm sure we'll figure this out in the future.

correct.....2002-2006 was filled with dog fighters at the top of the rankings.....

Rodre Fegassi
11-18-2011, 05:58 PM
Why do people on here talk like it's a great shame that he has not won a slam.

For everyone else in the world it's a huge shock that he even made it past the 4th round of a Slam once, let alone made 3 Slam finals with a non-existent forehand, no second serve and no weaponry at all.

Surely everything else Murray achieves from now is just gravy because he has already done WAY more than his talent should have allowed already.

xdrewitdajx
11-18-2011, 06:38 PM
Stop giving the guy excuses.

We all know that Murray would have lost in the final if he was playing Oprah Winfrey.

He is not a champion unlike Nadal and Djokovic, and if you have never won a Grand Slam before, chances are you never will no matter how many finals you may or may not make.

my brain hurts

EliSter
11-18-2011, 06:48 PM
He would find way to lose.

fsoica
11-18-2011, 07:09 PM
Every word comin' from SdG keyboard screams "I hate Fed". Why would anyone take this tardish-trollin' thread seriously?

DrJules
11-18-2011, 07:15 PM
Depends on how they match up.

Murray probably would have enjoyed playing a serve-volley player with his return and passing shots so would have probably won.

tennis2tennis
11-18-2011, 07:23 PM
if murray played a fading player of the previous era in his first slam final, what do you think his career would have looked like by now? would he still been a slamless player or would he have built on his first slam win and been a different force by now? sometimes one win is all it takes and maybe murray would have liked an easier opponent in his first couple of slam finals......vote and discuss......

You beat whose ever in front of you! End of!

fmolinari2005
11-18-2011, 07:25 PM
Where is Clay Warrior?! Someone is needy ...

SetSampras
11-18-2011, 07:55 PM
Well if it was faster grass then what we have today for instance, Phillipousis blows the pusher off the court

Start da Game
11-18-2011, 08:02 PM
Well if it was faster grass then what we have today for instance, Phillipousis blows the pusher off the court

yes that could be a possibility but i meant an opponent like philippoussis, not necessarily him......somebody like arnaud clement(clement already made one final before that right?) in 2008 us open final? how would he have done? he already did the hard part of taking nadal out in the semis......even though nadal was tired in that match, we still give him credit for staying tough and doing the job......

Rodre Fegassi
11-18-2011, 08:08 PM
no, he's trying to pull out a tiny worm called rodre fegassi which has been bugging him in there since 2005......if not for that worm, he would have won every slam since 2005......

I don't understand.

Whatever.

Anyway, I one of the guys who thinks that if Nadal can get the edge over Djokovic again, he'll cruise to a cool 30 slams.

Start da Game
11-18-2011, 08:39 PM
Depends on how they match up.

Murray probably would have enjoyed playing a serve-volley player with his return and passing shots so would have probably won.

what do you think murray's career would have been like had he faced players of the standard of philippoussis, safin and hewitt in his first 3 slam finals? maybe his confidence would have grown after a slam win and would have entered a couple more finals?

fsoica
11-18-2011, 08:45 PM
secondly i don't get your finger shaking comment

It was just an innocent joke, and you are overreacting as usually.

Actually I like to think I am not blinded by anything, although I must admit I was, by love, for some time.

I am one of those who repeatedly criticised Fed's ego, unsportsmanship handshaking after losing and bad comments in press conferences.

But it all faded away, my love, my criticism...All it remained is the style of play of the guy, the one that noone can take away from him...I can enjoy now his 2 or 3 tournament wins per year every now and then, without asking too much. I think I also got old a little bit, not only olderer.

And, to indulge you, I think Muzza would have won his first slam final vs a lower raked opponent. Would he achieved at Fed's level if he would have played in 2002-2006 era, as you call it? I doubt it...

His 3 losses, though, will only make his first win, which i think will come in 2012, more sweet and valuable, history-wise...

fsoica
11-18-2011, 08:53 PM
What I would have loved to know, if I'd be a master of alternate timelines, it's what a Muzza type of player having Roger's stature and aura in 2004-2005-2006 would have done against a rising Nadal on clay. Would have he fared better and would have he handled better the Spaniard on the red dirt or he would have crumbled mentally and physically, like Fed, to the running machine?

Mae
11-18-2011, 08:53 PM
I do think Murray has the talent to win a slam, but I think mental toughness comes in to play. Murray gets mad on court and lets things upset him which only hurts his tennis. When has anyone seen Roger show real anger on the court during a Match?

rocketassist
11-18-2011, 09:03 PM
Philippoussis gets stick for being 'shit', but in 2003 grass actually WAS grass, so the specific grass guys were doing well (Grosjean, Schalken, Henman, Roddick as well) I'd like to have seen if this Nadal or Djoker could go back to then, on a grass much faster than the snail 2011 speed, and got through the lawn lovers, I somehow doubt it.

r2473
11-18-2011, 09:11 PM
Philippouss would have no longer been a non-slam winner.

fsoica
11-18-2011, 09:13 PM
and yeah, my posts get deleted , too :)

Lurking
11-18-2011, 09:38 PM
the problem with that type of argument is that, nadal and djokovic did gun down the no.1 player in the semis in the respective tournaments......

Like Murray did to reach his first Slam final?

It wouldn't make a difference.

philosophicalarf
11-18-2011, 10:04 PM
correct.....2002-2006 was filled with dog fighters at the top of the rankings.....

Yeah, like Blake at number 4, and Robredo at number 5 (and winning a masters!).

Oh, wait.....

Fedex
11-18-2011, 10:07 PM
i am not even close to being his fan but i think he is slightly unfortunate to be playing in this strong era......

he had the challenge of overcoming two all time greats back to back at us open 2008 and AO 2010......that is simply a very tough ask......

Del-po did it. Djokovic has done it.

Fedex
11-18-2011, 10:10 PM
what do you think murray's career would have been like had he faced players of the standard of philippoussis, safin and hewitt in his first 3 slam finals? maybe his confidence would have grown after a slam win and would have entered a couple more finals?

LOL

You mean two multiple slam winners and former number one players?

decrepitude
11-19-2011, 12:08 AM
Stop giving the guy excuses.

We all know that Murray would have lost in the final if he was playing Oprah Winfrey.

He is not a champion unlike Nadal and Djokovic, and if you have never won a Grand Slam before, chances are you never will no matter how many finals you may or may not make.

In my more than 6 years on this and other boards, I have seen many stupid posts but this one has to take the biscuit.

There have been many slam winners, past and present: and none of these were ever in the position that they had never won one before? They were born with them, were they?

atennisfan
11-19-2011, 12:25 AM
Stop giving the guy excuses.

We all know that Murray would have lost in the final if he was playing Oprah Winfrey.

He is not a champion unlike Nadal and Djokovic, and if you have never won a Grand Slam before, chances are you never will no matter how many finals you may or may not make.


+10000000

StevoTG
11-19-2011, 12:35 AM
Of all the 'what if' threads, this one is actually interesting to discuss. At least in my very drunk opinion. Anyhow, I might cast an opinion after work tomorrow (how the hell will I make it through that slog?!), but in reality it doesn't matter what I say - because, no matter how interesting, this is still a 'what if' question, meaning that it's all basically worthless in the end. What if my aunt had balls, and all of that.

MuzzahLovah
11-19-2011, 12:43 AM
Honestly though- Murray's always had a winning head to head against Fed, and before he lost the final against Djokovic, he'd beaten him 3 straight times. He should be winning some of these Grand Slam finals, even if they have more experience.

Fedex
11-19-2011, 02:16 AM
Honestly though- Murray's always had a winning head to head against Fed, and before he lost the final against Djokovic, he'd beaten him 3 straight times. He should be winning some of these Grand Slam finals, even if they have more experience.

Beating Federer in the finals of Dubai is only slightly less challenging than beating him in say, the Australian Open final.

Chirag
11-19-2011, 02:28 AM
Murray really crumbles in slam finals .If its current murray in a slam final with Mark .He would be blowen off the court because he really has no attacking weapon right now .He cant finish points quickly .If this Murray shows up ,he wont be winning a slam on any non clay surface against anyone .He definately wont beat Safin and Hewitt too

Start da Game
11-19-2011, 04:03 AM
LOL

You mean two multiple slam winners and former number one players?

why are federinatards so dumb?

the first finalist would be of the standard of philippoussis instead of a supposed "goat", that changes the picture a lot - murray won't be so shitscared going into his second final and the second finalist would be of the standard of a severe headcase like safin and once again not the supposed "goat"......

Start da Game
11-19-2011, 04:05 AM
Beating Federer in the finals of Dubai is only slightly less challenging than beating him in say, the Australian Open final.

hahaha.....

rocketassist
11-19-2011, 04:07 AM
why are federinatards so dumb?

the first finalist would be of the standard of philippoussis instead of a supposed "goat", that changes the picture a lot - murray won't be so shitscared going into his second final and the second finalist would be of the standard of a severe headcase like safin and once again not the supposed "goat"......

Philippoussis on grass in 2003 was actually tough. Read my post. Faster grass, big serve, cheap points, guaranteed tie break. Take Nadal and Djokovic back there and they'd struggle to beat him and the other lawn guys.

Of course, take them forward where the grass is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay slower and they probably beat them all but still.

Murray wasn't unlucky with the third GS final either as Djokovic had been a mental clown since Hamburg 08 when it counted.

Start da Game
11-19-2011, 04:12 AM
for the benefit of those who are still struggling to it,

what would murray be today had his first slam final opponent been a finals nobody like philippoussis than somebody like the then 12 slams winner fed? surely murray wouldn't be so much under the pressure and i think he is somewhat unlucky to have played his first two finals against a 12 slams holder and 15 slams holder, that too on the back of facing and beating a fighter like nadal(although injured once and slightly tired once, it still was a praiseworthy effort)......

waiting for a murray fans to chip in and tell us what they feel......

Start da Game
11-19-2011, 04:17 AM
Philippoussis on grass in 2003 was actually tough. Read my post. Faster grass, big serve, cheap points, guaranteed tie break. Take Nadal and Djokovic back there and they'd struggle to beat him and the other lawn guys.

Of course, take them forward where the grass is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay slower and they probably beat them all but still.

Murray wasn't unlucky with the third GS final either as Djokovic had been a mental clown since Hamburg 08 when it counted.

is it that hard to read and comprehend rocketassist? i said somebody of the standard of philippoussis......that doesn't mean it must be a serve and volleyer and doesn't mean the grass has to be fast......grass was slowed down in 2002......

also laughing at your comments that djodal would struggle to beat philipoussis.......philippoussis with almost zero ground game from the back would be so clueless against them that it would almost be hilarious......a young 17 year old nadal gunned down mario ancic in 2003 wimbledon on that so called fast grass and ancic is the one who took your idol to school the previous year......nadal saved your idol from a second successive embarrassment in that tournament, keep hating though.....

rocketassist
11-19-2011, 04:49 AM
is it that hard to read and comprehend rocketassist? i said somebody of the standard of philippoussis......that doesn't mean it must be a serve and volleyer and doesn't mean the grass has to be fast......grass was slowed down in 2002......

also laughing at your comments that djodal would struggle to beat philipoussis.......philippoussis with almost zero ground game from the back would be so clueless against them that it would almost be hilarious......a young 17 year old nadal gunned down mario ancic in 2003 wimbledon on that so called fast grass and ancic is the one who took your idol to school the previous year......nadal saved your idol from a second successive embarrassment in that tournament, keep hating though.....

That same fast grass Gilles Muller and Srichaphan beat him on, yeah ok. The same that Grosjean took Novak out. Not happening on slower grass. It wasn't 2001 fast, but it was fast enough for players like Philippoussis to consistently guarantee tie breaks.

I'd love to know who my idol is BTW, go and check out the DC threads when I'm bagging Fedtards left right and centre.

On your Murray comment, USO SF is the best he's ever played and he probably won't reach that again. Occasion got to him in the F. Choked the third set in 2010 when had he won it there was a chance of a Fed implosion. Third final was poor as I said as since Hamburg 08 Djokovic had lost every huge match he played in (mostly to either Fedal but also to some lesser lights). In fact beating another slamless finalist was the catalyst to the Serb's season.

tektonac
11-19-2011, 04:54 AM
He would find way to lose.

blame on the seagulls :lol:


he would've had 1 GS most likely.

Topspindoctor
11-19-2011, 04:59 AM
if murray played a fading player of the previous era in his first slam final, what do you think his career would have looked like by now? would he still been a slamless player or would he have built on his first slam win and been a different force by now? sometimes one win is all it takes and maybe murray would have liked an easier opponent in his first couple of slam finals......vote and discuss......

Mugray would still be slamless because he's a clown of the highest order.

MIMIC
11-19-2011, 06:34 AM
Stop giving the guy excuses.

We all know that Murray would have lost in the final if he was playing Oprah Winfrey.

This made me burst in to a fit of laughter :spit: :spit: :rolls:

TBkeeper
11-19-2011, 08:26 AM
correct.....2002-2006 was filled with dog fighters at the top of the rankings.....

One of that dog fighters BITE very hardly NADULL :D :D

LawrenceOfTennis
11-19-2011, 10:04 AM
Mugray would still be slamless because he's a clown of the highest order.

:facepalm:

dodo
11-19-2011, 10:59 AM
hilarious amounts of desperate hate ITT by tard da brain. cant quite get others on the hate-train, but does not give up.
thread delivers, as usual, looking forward to future installments of your fed-hate anthology.