Murray = Possible Slamless #1? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Murray = Possible Slamless #1?

Pages : [1] 2

FlameOn
08-15-2009, 12:18 AM
Do you think Murray could become #1 soon - without a slam?

Gaudio2004
08-15-2009, 12:20 AM
Nope, he would have to win The Masters Cup, win 2 ATP500 events, win at least 3 of the 4 upcoming ATP Master Series Shields (Montreal, Paris, Cincinnati, etc) and reach at least the SF's of the US Open.

If he does that and Fed has a disastrous US Open campaign, we will see a new #1 without a Grand Slam.

TMJordan
08-15-2009, 12:21 AM
Murray wins the USO this year. Hope this helps.

Clydey
08-15-2009, 12:23 AM
It won't happen. Relax.

Black Adam
08-15-2009, 12:28 AM
It'd be death of tennis. ATP would be just as awaful and disgusting as the WTA, and we all know how embarassing it's for women's "tennis" at the moment.

amonb
08-15-2009, 12:38 AM
It'd be death of tennis. ATP would be just as awaful and disgusting as the WTA, and we all know how embarassing it's for women's "tennis" at the moment.Don't panic!!! He's taking the us open this year!!!

Arkulari
08-15-2009, 12:40 AM
He won't be #1 this year, but maybe on 2010/11 when he has some slams under his belt :shrug:

Burrow
08-15-2009, 01:14 AM
"some slams" :lol:

This is Sparta
08-15-2009, 09:52 AM
Murray=the Safina of the ATP?

sunsfuns
08-15-2009, 10:34 AM
Unlikely, but mathematically it ought to be possible. How about Murray wins this tournament and loses in the final of Cincy and USO to del Potro. Federer and Nadal out in QF in both of those tournaments. Would that do it?

ballbasher101
08-15-2009, 10:35 AM
I truly hope Murray wins a major soon. Reaching number one without a major is not good in my opinion. I can't see anyone beating him at the US open this year so hopefully he will get his first major there.

sunsfuns
08-15-2009, 10:36 AM
I truly hope Murray wins a major soon. Reaching number one without a major is not good in my opinion. I can't see anyone beating him at the US open this year so hopefully he will get his first major there.

Are you from the same crowd which didn't see anyone beating him at AO or Wimbledon either?

ballbasher101
08-15-2009, 10:40 AM
Are you from the same crowd which didn't see anyone beating him at AO or Wimbledon either?


He does not enjoy playing on grass. At the OZ open he had a viral infection. Clay is his least favourite surface thus the loss to Gonzo.

severus
08-15-2009, 10:46 AM
He does not enjoy playing on grass. At the OZ open he had a viral infection. Clay is his least favourite surface thus the loss to Gonzo.

Murray will win...: "season 1.episode 4.The US Open "

orangehat
08-15-2009, 10:51 AM
Murray hype crashing GM again.... :spit: :haha:

ballbasher101
08-15-2009, 10:51 AM
Murray will win...: "season 1.episode 4.The US Open "


Don't worry Murray is gonna have the last laugh. I will be laughing with him.

scoobs
08-15-2009, 10:56 AM
This won't happen - it really is very tough to achieve this on the ATP tour with the rankings as they are now.

murray_2k8
08-15-2009, 11:11 AM
He wont. I do think if Murray wins a slam, his second will come fairly soon after with a slight pause following that, so if he does win the US my money is on him for the AO ;)

HattonWBA
08-15-2009, 11:30 AM
Hopefully he gets to number 1 soon, with or without a slam who cares, the ranking system is based on points and if he gets to number 1 he deserves it based on consistancy, although it would be preferable if the number 1 had won a grand slam.

Horatio Caine
08-15-2009, 11:33 AM
Possible, but I think that it's unlikely.

Don't see him getting to #1 until Fed goes into decline mode (in the Slams), and Nadal starts to lose earlier in the bigger events (Masters and Slams). Also, Muzza is looking good to possibly nail the US Open this year anyway, so that would effectively end the discussion right there if he does so!

murray_2k8
08-15-2009, 11:39 AM
Im just hoping he takes #2 and draws Djoko in the SF :devil:

Horatio Caine
08-15-2009, 11:49 AM
Im just hoping he takes #2 and draws Djoko in the SF :devil:

:lol: Yep, hopefully he gets the job done tonight, and it would be nice if he could hold onto #2 going into the US Open.

If he gets to the final, he will take world #2 with a lead of 185pts. Therefore means that Rafa would have to get to at least the SF next week (tough draw) to get the chance to seize it right back.

If he wins Montréal, he will take world #2 with a lead of 585pts. Meaning that Rafa would have to reach at least the final in Cincy, and most probably have to win the whole thing (bordering on impossible).


Pity that Djokovic can't drop to #5 yet. Hopefully should happen by AO though. :devil:

chenx15
08-15-2009, 12:17 PM
I truly hope Murray wins a major soon. Reaching number one without a major is not good in my opinion. I can't see anyone beating him at the US open this year so hopefully he will get his first major there.

i actually have a list of people that can beat him in US open even if we don't count Nadal and Federer.

Del Potro
Roddick
Lleyton Hewitt
soderling
wawrinka

there

Clydey
08-15-2009, 12:24 PM
i actually have a list of people that can beat him in US open even if we don't count Nadal and Federer.

Del Potro
Roddick
Lleyton Hewitt
soderling
wawrinka

there

Roddick hasn't beaten Murray on a hardcourt since 2006, as far as I know. Del Potro has never beaten Murray on a hardcourt. Hewitt has no chance now. Soderling could cause problems. Wawrinka gets owned when he plays Andy on hard now.

A couple of those guys can beat Murray, but whether they will is another matter entirely. The only one I'd be nervous about is Del Potro.

OrinUK
08-15-2009, 12:26 PM
He will win the US Open this year

Andi-M
08-15-2009, 12:27 PM
i actually have a list of people that can beat him in US open even if we don't count Nadal and Federer.

Del Potro
Roddick
Lleyton Hewitt
soderling
wawrinka

there
:spit: @ Hewitt swap him for Gonzo and Wawa for Verdasco maybe include Tsonga then we might be talking.

Of course Murray can lose to these players I listed cos they have big weapons that when are firing can be hard to live with esp Del Potro. But their games have to be at their absolute peak to beat Murray and therefore i'd make him favorite against every single one of them on a HC.

murray_2k8
08-15-2009, 12:52 PM
:lol: Yep, hopefully he gets the job done tonight, and it would be nice if he could hold onto #2 going into the US Open.

If he gets to the final, he will take world #2 with a lead of 185pts. Therefore means that Rafa would have to get to at least the SF next week (tough draw) to get the chance to seize it right back.

If he wins Montréal, he will take world #2 with a lead of 585pts. Meaning that Rafa would have to reach at least the final in Cincy, and most probably have to win the whole thing (bordering on impossible).


Pity that Djokovic can't drop to #5 yet. Hopefully should happen by AO though. :devil:

Me likey :devil: Its nice to have some good news for a change, especially after Anne's terrible injury! Take the title Andy, and back it up with another next week! I think Nadal will have quite the battle to seize it back, I hope I'm right ;)

scoobs
08-15-2009, 01:10 PM
i actually have a list of people that can beat him in US open even if we don't count Nadal and Federer.

Del Potro
Roddick
Lleyton Hewitt
soderling
wawrinka

there

Del Potro
Gonzalez
Tsonga
Davydenko
Verdasco
Soderling
Roddick perhaps

These are all players who, if they played at the top of their game could hit through Murray and beat him at the US Open, I think.

Clydey
08-15-2009, 01:18 PM
Del Potro
Gonzalez
Tsonga
Davydenko
Verdasco
Soderling
Roddick perhaps

These are all players who, if they played at the top of their game could hit through Murray and beat him at the US Open, I think.

That is contingent on Murray not playing well. If he plays well, he should beat every one of them on a hardcourt.

leng jai
08-15-2009, 01:22 PM
That is contingent on Murray not playing well. If he plays well, he should beat every one of them on a hardcourt.

Roddick in top flight at the US Open would be tough for Murray no matter how well he played. Gonzo is capable of playing ridiculous tennis, but the likelihood of that happening again is slim.

chenx15
08-15-2009, 01:27 PM
I love the mtf logic if murray plays well he wins if murrays opponent plays well the opponent wins. I wish I have the obvious attachment

Clydey
08-15-2009, 01:29 PM
Roddick in top flight at the US Open would be tough for Murray no matter how well he played. Gonzo is capable of playing ridiculous tennis, but the likelihood of that happening again is slim.

I think it would require an ultra-aggressive Roddick. That's the style that gives Murray problems, a player who is hitting huge and painting the lines. I'm hoping if that happens again, Murray won't just hope for errors.

The reason I think Murray will always be a heavy favourite against Roddick on hard is because of how well he returns, moves and passes. I was surprised by how much difficulty Murray had passing Roddick off the low balls at Wimbledon. He netted so many attempted passes, as though he couldn't get underneath the ball.

The problem Gonzo has on hard is that he doesn't have as much time to run around onto his forehand, unlike on clay. I think it would require a poor Murray performance or someone who can hit big consistently off both sides.

Clydey
08-15-2009, 01:30 PM
I love the mtf logic if murray plays well he wins if murrays opponent plays well the opponent wins. I wish I have the obvious attachment

Who said that?

chenx15
08-15-2009, 01:35 PM
Read most of the posts
Who said that?

tennishero
08-15-2009, 01:37 PM
i hope not.

Clydey
08-15-2009, 01:38 PM
Read most of the posts

I certainly didn't say it. I said that it's not enough for those guys to play well. For them to beat him on a hardcourt, Murray also has to be below his best. It's the same as Roger on grass or Rafa on clay. They can be beaten, but it requires them to put in a subpar performance.

scoobs
08-15-2009, 02:05 PM
That is contingent on Murray not playing well. If he plays well, he should beat every one of them on a hardcourt.
It's contingent on him not playing his best tennis. I can see him losing to these guys playing pretty well but not outstandingly.

felipe2004
08-15-2009, 02:35 PM
If Murray wins both Montreal and Cincinatti, and Federer loses in the QF in Cincinatti, Murray will have 10250 and Federer 11220, going into the US Open. Federer is defending 600 points more in the US Open, so his advantage would be 370 points. If Murray loses in the final and Federer in the semis, for example, Murray will be a slamless #1. This isn't a very unlikely scenario.

felipe2004
08-15-2009, 02:43 PM
And at least Safina would be a slamless #1 with a good slam record (F, F, SF, SF). Murray has F, SF, QF, R16.

mr_burns
08-15-2009, 03:04 PM
that would mean federer loosing early at a slam...don't see that coming at the open...

felipe2004
08-15-2009, 03:40 PM
that would mean federer loosing early at a slam...don't see that coming at the open...
I can see Federer losing in the semifinal to Nadal at the US Open, for example, if Nadal finds his form.

TipsyFan91
08-15-2009, 03:44 PM
I doubt Murray is gonna stay Slamless forever anyway.

chenx15
08-15-2009, 03:47 PM
I doubt Murray is gonna stay Slamless forever anyway.
Henman all over again

felipe2004
08-15-2009, 03:48 PM
This won't happen - it really is very tough to achieve this on the ATP tour with the rankings as they are now.

It's easier to do it in the ATP than in the WTA, because, in ATP, 2 Masters 1000 = 1 Grand Slam, and we have 9 Masters 1000 in the year. While in WTA, 2 Premier Mandatory = 1 Grand Slam, but we only have 4 Premier Mandatories in the year.

Forehander
08-15-2009, 04:08 PM
That'd be pretty funny but it's highly possible.

CmonAussie
08-15-2009, 05:19 PM
~~~
...
Marcelo Rios was #1 without a slam, but Muzza has a much better serve~ so he should be able to get enough opportunities to eventually win one (similar to Clijsters or Mauresmo who eventually broke through)...

AtoChansu
08-15-2009, 05:49 PM
Just because I pity Murray for having to literally carry the hopes of a desperate country, he deserves to win a few and reach #1. Hopefully he wins a GS first, so UK feel it's justified that he's the best British open era player.

Eliande
08-15-2009, 06:01 PM
Do you think Murray could become #1 soon - without a slam?

I sincerely hope not... for the sake of tennis!:mad:

Eliande
08-15-2009, 06:03 PM
[QUouOTE=tennishero;8964505]i hope not.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you!;)

rocketassist
08-15-2009, 06:49 PM
I sincerely hope not... for the sake of tennis!:mad:

Jump off a bridge if you can't take it.

Gasquet fans are the most bitter tards on the forum bar none!

oranges
08-15-2009, 07:27 PM
Jump off a bridge if you can't take it.

Gasquet fans are the most bitter tards on the forum bar none!

Oh come on, we're nowhere near the two main camps. Some of us just don't like Murray all on his own merits ;)

On topic, it seems extremely unlikely scenario in a while, not sure how he would make up over 2,500 points difference without actually winning a slam

Serenidad
08-15-2009, 07:40 PM
Clowns trying to bring down Murray.

Habibko is already shivering about Murray/Federer meetings.

Goldenoldie
08-15-2009, 07:48 PM
Probable: Murray does not win US Open and does not reach #1 this year.

Possible: Murray wins US Open and reaches #1.

Unlikely: Murray wins US Open but does not reach #1.

Very VERY unlikely: Murray does not win US Open but still reaches #1.

a_boy
08-15-2009, 07:50 PM
Just because I pity Murray for having to literally carry the hopes of a desperate country, he deserves to win a few and reach #1. Hopefully he wins a GS first, so UK feel it's justified that he's the best British open era player.

Hey, don't worry about us! We, or at least I, can cope just fine if Murray never wins a grand slam title.

Actually, I know that this might sound shocking :eek: but I might just be able to carry on living if he stopped playing tennis forever. I really think I could do it.

rocketassist
08-15-2009, 08:09 PM
Oh come on, we're nowhere near the two main camps. Some of us just don't like Murray all on his own merits ;)

On topic, it seems extremely unlikely scenario in a while, not sure how he would make up over 2,500 points difference without actually winning a slam

Yeah but everyone who likes Gasquet seems to hate him, it appears no one can like both ;)

He won't get to no 1 unless he wins one.

tangerine_dream
08-15-2009, 08:11 PM
If Murray gets to number one, with or without a slam, it will mark the beginning of the end of the golden age in men's tennis. Men's tennis will be the new WTA with Murray on top.

rocketassist
08-15-2009, 08:18 PM
If Murray gets to number one, with or without a slam, it will mark the beginning of the end of the golden age in men's tennis. Men's tennis will be the new WTA with Murray on top.

It's a weak era already.

Jimnik
08-15-2009, 08:22 PM
Sure it's possible. If Roddick or Del Potro defeat Murray in the US Open final, for instance.

Clydey
08-15-2009, 08:29 PM
It's a weak era already.

We potentially have the two players who may go down as the greatest of all time. It's a strong era.

Clydey
08-15-2009, 08:49 PM
Great forehand on setpoint.

Gaudio2004
08-15-2009, 08:49 PM
We potentially have the two players who may go down as the greatest of all time. It's a strong era.

Nadal as the GOAT? .... ? Really?

jonathancrane
08-15-2009, 08:51 PM
We potentially have the two players who may go down as the greatest of all time. It's a strong era.

:haha:

That's the biggest :bs: ever

Clydey
08-15-2009, 08:55 PM
:haha:

That's the biggest :bs: ever

I said potentially. And if Nadal's slam count gets into double digits, you won't have much of an argument.

rocketassist
08-15-2009, 08:58 PM
I usually agree with you Clydey with regards to Murray's tennis but not here. Fed had no groundstroke power in RG and Wimbledon and yet cruised to both titles, while Nadal is a player who should not be dominating fast courts...maybe winning the odd big title, but not the lot.

rocketassist
08-15-2009, 08:59 PM
If Gilles Simon and Tommy Boredo can be top 5 players than it's feeble never mind weak.

Gaudio2004
08-15-2009, 09:08 PM
I usually agree with you Clydey with regards to Murray's tennis but not here. Fed had no groundstroke power in RG and Wimbledon and yet cruised to both titles, while Nadal is a player who should not be dominating fast courts...maybe winning the odd big title, but not the lot.

Fed defeats Del Potro in 5 sets at RG.
Fed defeats Haas in 5 sets at RG.
Fed defeats Acasuso in 4 sets at RG, being down 1-4 in the second set.
Fed defeats Roddick in 5 sets at Wimbledon.

He didn't cruise to both titles and his groundstrokes were fine (not exceptional) except for the final against Roddick, where Roddick's serving gave Federer no rhythm.

Federer won Roland Garros because of his groundstroke tactics (the forehand and backhand drop shot won him a lot of points). His groundstrokes were just fine.

Why is Nadal a player who "should" not be dominating hard courts? Borg was a player who wasn't meant to dominate points with his weird backhand, but he did.

habibko
08-15-2009, 09:14 PM
I certainly didn't say it. I said that it's not enough for those guys to play well. For them to beat him on a hardcourt, Murray also has to be below his best. It's the same as Roger on grass or Rafa on clay. They can be beaten, but it requires them to put in a subpar performance.

you are putting Murray on hard on par with Federer on grass and Nadal on clay? :spit: :haha:

most of the players you and scoobs mentioned could still beat Murray even if he played his best if they also played their best.

ChinoRios4Ever
08-15-2009, 11:14 PM
I hope so, my man "Ch1no" R1os could have company being the only men #1 slamless :devil:

I don't know why, but i'm starting to think that Murray will claim the #1 in the WTF and will finish the year at the top.

This is Sparta
08-15-2009, 11:18 PM
If Gilles Simon and Tommy Boredo can be top 5 players than it's feeble never mind weak.

So true

Clydey
08-15-2009, 11:18 PM
If Gilles Simon and Tommy Boredo can be top 5 players than it's feeble never mind weak.

I don't think Simon was ever top 5. Also, Robredo has been out of the picture for a few years now. Has he ever been top 5? He's certainly nowhere near it now.

Also, Nadal doesn't dominate on hardcourts. He won 1 slam. He's not even close to being dominant. I think this is a very strong era, many orders of magnitude stronger than 2001-2006.

Clydey
08-15-2009, 11:20 PM
you are putting Murray on hard on par with Federer on grass and Nadal on clay? :spit: :haha:

most of the players you and scoobs mentioned could still beat Murray even if he played his best if they also played their best.

I was giving a comparison, not putting him on a par.

And no, they couldn't. His best is miles better than their best on hard. The only player who could beat Murray's best on hard is Federer.

Gaudio2004
08-15-2009, 11:35 PM
I was giving a comparison, not putting him on a par.

And no, they couldn't. His best is miles better than their best on hard. The only player who could beat Murray's best on hard is Federer.

What about Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, even Rafter? Could they beat Murray's best on hard?

Clydey
08-15-2009, 11:37 PM
What about Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, even Rafter? Could they beat Murray's best on hard?

I wouldn't compare a completely different era. It's practically a different game now. Sure, Pete could. He's recent enough. Murray is a bad matchup for him, though, because of his return.

Gaudio2004
08-15-2009, 11:59 PM
I wouldn't compare a completely different era. It's practically a different game now. Sure, Pete could. He's recent enough. Murray is a bad matchup for him, though, because of his return.

Your mistake is to assume that just because Murray is an excellent returner, he is a bad-match up for Sampras. Pete faced a lot of players who had a great return yet he beat most of them.

Another thing about returning, how do you classify a good returner? Federer is the best at returning when it comes to returning against big serves, Hewitt the best at defensive returning, Agassi the best at aggressive, what makes Murray the best?

EDIT: Cannot believe I am having this conversation, Murray, a player with NO Grand Slams, his "best" on hard would beat most players? When he doesn't have a Grand Slam himself? ...

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:03 AM
Your mistake is to assume that just because Murray is an excellent returner, he is a bad-match up for Sampras. Pete faced a lot of players who had a great return yet he beat most of them.

Another thing about returning, how do you classify a good returner? Federer is the best at returning when it comes to returning against big serves, Hewitt the best at defensive returning, Agassi the best at aggressive, what makes Murray the best?

EDIT: Cannot believe I am having this conversation, Murray, a player with NO Grand Slams, his "best" on hard would beat most players? When he doesn't have a Grand Slam himself? ...

Actually, Murray is the best when it comes to returning big first serves. Murray has broken Karlovic something like 11 times in 3 matches. Also, Federer is around 20th on the list of points won returning first serve this year. Murray is joint top with Davydenko. Murray is first or second on every return stat this year. Federer is nowhere to be seen. Even in 2006, Murray had better return stats than Federer. And that was Murray's first full year on tour.

And I wasn't even talking about players who are retired. I was talking about active players.

amonb
08-16-2009, 12:07 AM
Your mistake is to assume that just because Murray is an excellent returner, he is a bad-match up for Sampras. Pete faced a lot of players who had a great return yet he beat most of them.

Another thing about returning, how do you classify a good returner? Federer is the best at returning when it comes to returning against big serves, Hewitt the best at defensive returning, Agassi the best at aggressive, what makes Murray the best?

EDIT: Cannot believe I am having this conversation, Murray, a player with NO Grand Slams, his "best" on hard would beat most players? When he doesn't have a Grand Slam himself? ...Wait till murray has peaked!!! You think most players will be able to stick with him???

stzenit
08-16-2009, 12:09 AM
amazing how players achievements are so easily disregarded by "facts" on MTF.

Har-Tru
08-16-2009, 12:12 AM
he wouldn't be a true number one to me, just like Rios wasn't.

amonb
08-16-2009, 12:14 AM
he wouldn't be a true number one to me, just like Rios wasn't.us open's in the bag so don't worry son!!!!

Burrow
08-16-2009, 12:14 AM
US Open is far from in the bag.

amonb
08-16-2009, 12:16 AM
US Open is far from in the bag.

:haha:

Burrow
08-16-2009, 12:18 AM
I'll bump this when he doesn't win the US Open.

amonb
08-16-2009, 12:20 AM
I'll bump this when he doesn't win the US Open.I'm trying to figure out who can stop him????

Guga_fan
08-16-2009, 12:21 AM
I was giving a comparison, not putting him on a par.

And no, they couldn't. His best is miles better than their best on hard. The only player who could beat Murray's best on hard is Federer.
Among the active players, if they were playing their best Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic, Nalbandian, Safin and maybe Davydenko and Nadal could beat Murray at his best on hard IMO (I may be forgetting some players).

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:24 AM
Among the active players, if they were playing their best Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic, Nalbandian, Safin and maybe Davydenko and Nadal could beat Murray at his best on hard IMO (I may be forgetting some players).

Then why don't they do it?

amonb
08-16-2009, 12:26 AM
Among the active players, if they were playing their best Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic, Nalbandian, Safin and maybe Davydenko and Nadal could beat Murray at his best on hard IMO (I may be forgetting some players).Maybe Nadal??? You obviously don't have clue about tennis cos if you did you would know that he is probably the only player who can trouble him!!! And Safin.......... :haha:

Guga_fan
08-16-2009, 12:27 AM
Then why don't they do it?
I said playing their best, wich none of them are doing right now, not even Murray (but he is playing closer to his best then them), and Nalbandian did. :p

Guga_fan
08-16-2009, 12:28 AM
Maybe Nadal??? You obviously don't have clue about tennis cos if you did you would know that he is probably the only player who can trouble him!!! And Safin.......... :haha:
I said playing their best, not this clown that looks like Safin that plays nowadays.

stzenit
08-16-2009, 12:29 AM
Then why don't they do it?

He said if they are playing there best.
I think we may be in for a surprise in the USO this year someone will catch fire and go all the way.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:30 AM
I said playing their best, wich none of them are doing right now, not even Murray (but he is playing closer to his best then them), and Nalbandian did. :p

Nalbandian didn't beat Murray while he was at his best. That match in Paris was hardly Murray in full flow.

Not one of those guys you mentioned have beaten Murray playing great tennis. It's all very well stating that they'd beat Murray at his best, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it's true.

Murray's game doesn't get enough respect because he drags his opponent's level down most of the time. They don't attribute it to Murray. They simply think his opponent isn't playing well.

amonb
08-16-2009, 12:31 AM
I said playing their best, not this clown that looks like Safin that plays nowadays. Trust me what safin did in his career won't be a touch on what murray does!!!!

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:33 AM
He said if they are playing there best.
I think we may be in for a surprise in the USO this year someone will catch fire and go all the way.

Yeah, but I've yet to see any of them beat Murray's best. I think it's a silly statement to make, since there's no way to back it up. The rankings and results don't lie. Over the last 12 months, Murray has been better than all of them on hard.

Guga_fan
08-16-2009, 12:35 AM
Nalbandian didn't beat Murray while he was at his best. That match in Paris was hardly Murray in full flow.

Not one of those guys you mentioned have beaten Murray playing great tennis. It's all very well stating that they'd beat Murray at his best, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it's true.

Murray's game doesn't get enough respect because he drags his opponent's level down most of the time. They don't attribute it to Murray. They simply think his opponent isn't playing well.
I just said that Nalbandian beat him, and Dave's form was not even that good at the time. I respect Murray's game a lot, if I didn't my list would be much longer, and right now all of these guys are far from their best form.

By the way, when was Murray peaking in your opinion?

Burrow
08-16-2009, 12:37 AM
Trust me what safin did in his career won't be a touch on what murray does!!!!

Safin won and done everything by the age of 25, with multiple injury problems. Murray is in "mug era" and he still won't do anything.

Gaudio2004
08-16-2009, 12:37 AM
The stats show Murray is a great returner, but he has no Grand Slams? ... Yet Federer with his "nowhere to be seen" returning has won a Grand Slam without losing a set? ...

Could Murray at best lose to Agassi, as well?

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:38 AM
I just said that Nalbandian beat him, and Dave's form was not even that good at the time. I respect Murray's game a lot, if I didn't my list would be much longer, and right now all of these guys are far from their best form.

Irrelevant whether they are far from their best form. Only, what, 3 have achieved more than Murray on hard? And that is despite Murray only being 22. He has achieved more because he is a better player. It's not even debatable. If half of those guys could beat Murray at his best, they would have achieved more than him.

stzenit
08-16-2009, 12:40 AM
Yeah, but I've yet to see any of them beat Murray's best. I think it's a silly statement to make, since there's no way to back it up. The rankings and results don't lie. Over the last 12 months, Murray has been better than all of them on hard.

Yep he has but any statement on MTF is silly i mean we don't even know Murray's best. He has a good chance to win the USO but i simply don't believe he will just a personal opinion. As i said before i see someone catching heat and just going all the way.. who is that i don't know. :lol:

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:41 AM
The stats show Murray is a great returner, but he has no Grand Slams? ... Yet Federer with his "nowhere to be seen" returning has won a Grand Slam without losing a set? ...

Could Murray at best lose to Agassi, as well?

Federer wins because of his serve, not because of his return. You said that Federer was the best first serve returner. All I was doing was debunking that view. Sorry, but Murray having better returning stats than Federer for 4 years in a row isn't a coincidence.

And of course Murray could lose to Agassi. Why ask silly questions? I'm not even talking about retired players.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:42 AM
Yep he has but any statement on MTF is silly i mean we don't even know Murray's best. He has a good chance to win the USO but i simply don't believe he will just a personal opinion. As i said before i see someone catching heat and just going all the way.. who is that i don't know. :lol:

That's another problem. What is someone's "best"? Not committing errors and firing non-stop winners?

I have no problem with someone thinking Murray won't win a match or an event. It's when people make absurd statements that I roll my eyes.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:43 AM
I just said that Nalbandian beat him, and Dave's form was not even that good at the time. I respect Murray's game a lot, if I didn't my list would be much longer, and right now all of these guys are far from their best form.

By the way, when was Murray peaking in your opinion?

Murray started to peak around Cinci 08. I don't think he has peaked yet, but he started his rise around then.

Gaudio2004
08-16-2009, 12:43 AM
Never at one point did I say Murray is a worse/better returner than Federer, I said Federer is the best returner against "big servers", he can step in the court, with excellent hand-eye coordination (much like Agassi) and hit winners (mainly from his BH as all serves are aimed there). So Federer does win by returning, as well.

While Murray follows the more conventional method of just standing a couple of metres behind the baseline, this is just one of the reasons why Federer humiliated him at the 2008 US Open.

Guga_fan
08-16-2009, 12:44 AM
Irrelevant whether they are far from their best form. Only, what, 3 have achieved more than Murray on hard? And that is despite Murray only being 22. He has achieved more because he is a better player. It's not even debatable. If half of those guys could beat Murray at his best, they would have achieved more than him.
Not necessarily true, not all these players are consistent, but that doesn't mean their peak form isn't better than Murray's. Nadal has a Grand Slam on hard, Nalby doesn't, yet he murders Nadal on the surface.

Guga_fan
08-16-2009, 12:44 AM
Murray started to peak around Cinci 08. I don't think he has peaked yet, but he started his rise around then.
With peak I mean play his best so far.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 12:46 AM
Peaked at Cincy 08 where old man Moya should have dumped him out :rolleyes:

amonb
08-16-2009, 12:46 AM
Safin won and done everything by the age of 25, with multiple injury problems. Murray is in "mug era" and he still won't do anything.How old is murray??? You're telling me he won't win an oz and a us open by the time he's 25??? :haha: like i said b4... when a man wins 15 slams you know that we have been in continuous weak eras!!!!

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:48 AM
Never at one point did I say Murray is a worse/better returner than Federer, I said Federer is the best returner against "big servers", he can step in the court, with excellent hand-eye coordination (much like Agassi) and hit winners (mainly from his BH as all serves are aimed there). So Federer does win by returning, as well.

While Murray follows the more conventional method of just standing a couple of metres behind the baseline, this is just one of the reasons why Federer humiliated him at the 2008 US Open.

Yes, but you're wrong. There's a reason Murray has broken Karlovic 10 or 11 times in 3 matches. Federer can't touch that kind of success on the Karlovic serve. There's also a reason why Murray is joint first on returning first serves this year and why Federer is around 20th. Murray is a better return, on first serves (big or not) and second serves.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but you're wrong. You can't argue with 4 consecutive years of stats that favour Murray.

leng jai
08-16-2009, 12:48 AM
Another ridonkulous thread brought to by Clydey and Friends.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:49 AM
Not necessarily true, not all these players are consistent, but that doesn't mean their peak form isn't better than Murray's. Nadal has a Grand Slam on hard, Nalby doesn't, yet he murders Nadal on the surface.

That's a matchup issue. That doesn't mean Nalbandian is better. I could use your own logic against you. Presumably you don't think Murray is better than Federer, despite the H2H?

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:50 AM
Another ridonkulous thread brought to by Clydey and Friends.

Unlike those Haas threads that are filled with pearls of tennis wisdom.

stzenit
08-16-2009, 12:50 AM
Irrelevant whether they are far from their best form. Only, what, 3 have achieved more than Murray on hard? And that is despite Murray only being 22. He has achieved more because he is a better player. It's not even debatable. If half of those guys could beat Murray at his best, they would have achieved more than him.

Well he listed the following players
Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic, Nalbandian, Safin ,Davydenko and Nadal

Federer has achieved more
Djokovic has achieved more
Nadal has achieved more
Safin has achieved more

So thats 4/6 more then half have achieved more then him.

Unless you are comparing it to HC's .
Djokovic Career on Hard> Murray
Federer Career on Hard> Murray
Nadal Career on Hard>Murray
Safin Career on Hard>Murray

So 4

All Slam winners on Hard and better performances in Masters Series on Hard.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:52 AM
Peaked at Cincy 08 where old man Moya should have dumped him out :rolleyes:

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. he fact is that he didn't. You could bring up ifs and buts with regards to any match.

Besides, I didn't say that was Murray's peak. I said he started to peak around that time.

Gaudio2004
08-16-2009, 12:52 AM
Yes, but you're wrong. There's a reason Murray has broken Karlovic 10 or 11 times in 3 matches. Federer can't touch that kind of success on the Karlovic serve. There's also a reason why Murray is joint first on returning first serves this year and why Federer is around 20th. Murray is a better return, on first serves (big or not) and second serves.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but you're wrong. You can't argue with 4 consecutive years of stats that favour Murray.

Overall, yes, Murray is the better returner, but why hasn't his amazing return stat brought him a couple more Grand Slam finals, let alone a Grand Slam?

Would be interesting to see Federer's returning stat when he was around 20-25 years of age. Federer is well past his peak, at 28 years old, and he has still won the last 2 GS's.

Guga_fan
08-16-2009, 12:53 AM
That's a matchup issue. That doesn't mean Nalbandian is better. I could use your own logic against you. Presumably you don't think Murray is better than Federer, despite the H2H?
I'm not talking about being better players overall, I'm talking about just beating Murray. Nalbandian's best on hard is better than Nadal's anyway, not just against each other, even though Nadal has hardcourt GS.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 12:53 AM
Shoulda, coulda, woulda. he fact is that he didn't. You could bring up ifs and buts with regards to any match.

Besides, I didn't say that was Murray's peak. I said he started to peak around that time.

I'm not particularly basing much on that match, I just think Murray was playing the same level of tennis basically throughout 2008 and only in the later half he became more confident and experienced in winning big matches and I think that's what made the difference.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:54 AM
Well he listed the following players
Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic, Nalbandian, Safin ,Davydenko and Nadal

Federer has achieved more
Djokovic has achieved more
Nadal has achieved more
Safin has achieved more

So thats 4/6 more then half have achieved more then him.

Unless you are comparing it to HC's .
Djokovic Career on Hard> Murray
Federer Career on Hard> Murray
Nadal Career on Hard>Murray
Safin Career on Hard>Murray

So 4

All Slam winners on Hard and better performances in Masters Series on Hard.

I said 3 have achieved more. I forgot Djokovic. Either way, Murray is miles ahead of Djokovic right now based on the last 12 months. Safin is way past it, so there's no point in even having him in the discussion. That's not to mention that he's had a full career to achieve more.

leng jai
08-16-2009, 12:55 AM
Unlike those Haas threads that are filled with pearls of tennis wisdom.

Haas isn't ranked high enough to get any threads no made by me.

amonb
08-16-2009, 12:56 AM
Overall, yes, Murray is the better returner, but why hasn't his amazing return stat brought him a couple more Grand Slam finals, let alone a Grand Slam?So.... you're making out that slams are easy to come by??? You obviously don't know much about tennis!!!

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:56 AM
Overall, yes, Murray is the better returner, but why hasn't his amazing return stat brought him a couple more Grand Slam finals, let alone a Grand Slam?

Would be interesting to see Federer's returning stat when he was around 20-25 years of age. Federer is well past his peak, at 28 years old, and he has still won the last 2 GS's.

Because of his serve. Federer has always been serve dominant, while Murray has been a dominant returner. Murray gets broken a lot more than Federer.

I have the return stats from 2005-2009. The only area in which Federer even comes close to Murray is on first serve return and the only time he had better stats on first serve return was in 2006. That was Murray's first full year on tour (and he still finished 3rd on those returning stats).

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:57 AM
I'm not particularly basing much on that match, I just think Murray was playing the same level of tennis basically throughout 2008 and only in the later half he became more confident and experienced in winning big matches and I think that's what made the difference.

Murray sucked in early 2008. He dropped out of the top 20 just before the French last year.

Gaudio2004
08-16-2009, 12:59 AM
So.... you're making out that slams are easy to come by??? You obviously don't know much about tennis!!!

No GS is easy to come by, but I have been watching tennis for a long time, watching Michael Stitch win his only Grand Slam is a TOUGH GS to come by, but Federer's last 2 Slams show how easy it is to win a Grand Slam these days - Federer isn't anywhere near his peak level yet he has still won the last 2 Slams. Makes me wonder, why a FRESH and fit ANdy Murray cannot win them?

Clydey
08-16-2009, 12:59 AM
I'm not talking about being better players overall, I'm talking about just beating Murray. Nalbandian's best on hard is better than Nadal's anyway, not just against each other, even though Nadal has hardcourt GS.

Well, that's purely subjective. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on that one. However, I don't think Nadal is a natural hard courter. There are obvious exceptions, such as Johansson. Most of the time, you have to base these things on achievements. "Best" is such a subjective, inexact term.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:01 AM
No GS is easy to come by, but I have been watching tennis for a long time, watching Michael Stitch win his only Grand Slam is a TOUGH GS to come by, but Federer's last 2 Slams show how easy it is to win a Grand Slam these days - Federer isn't anywhere near his peak level yet he has still won the last 2 Slams. Makes me wonder, why a FRESH and fit ANdy Murray cannot win them?

To be honest, Federer didn't exactly have a rough draw in the last 2 majors. The USO win last year was a tough draw.

stzenit
08-16-2009, 01:01 AM
I said 3 have achieved more. I forgot Djokovic. Either way, Murray is miles ahead of Djokovic right now based on the last 12 months. Safin is way past it, so there's no point in even having him in the discussion. That's not to mention that he's had a full career to achieve more.

ok all good,
Just don't say Safin has had a "Full Career" he missed 2003 and Second half of 2005-Mid 2006. So that's a good 2 years missed between the age of 22-26 where he was playing his best tennis.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:03 AM
ok all good,
Just don't say Safin has had a "Full Career" he missed 2003 and Second half of 2005-Mid 2006. So that's a good 2 years missed between the age of 22-26 where he was playing his best tennis.

Most players miss chunks of time throughout their career. Even Murray was held back in 2007 with his wirst injury. Federer is one of the few who hasn't had a serious injury, as far as I remember.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:03 AM
Unlike those Haas threads that are filled with pearls of tennis wisdom.

:spit: I laughed.

Man Love Thread(not a bandwagon thread). Hasi, poor Hasi.

Guga_fan
08-16-2009, 01:04 AM
To be honest, Federer didn't exactly have a rough draw in the last 2 majors. The USO win last year was a tough draw.
On paper it was, but realistically, he played Muller in the quarters, a bad Djokvoic in the semis and an uninspired (maybe even tired) Murray in the final.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:05 AM
No GS is easy to come by, but I have been watching tennis for a long time, watching Michael Stitch win his only Grand Slam is a TOUGH GS to come by, but Federer's last 2 Slams show how easy it is to win a Grand Slam these days - Federer isn't anywhere near his peak level yet he has still won the last 2 Slams. Makes me wonder, why a FRESH and fit ANdy Murray cannot win them?

Fedal won't be winning many slams from now on I don't think due to burnout/decline of game, so you have a point.

Stich won his title in an era with Agassi, Sampras, Lendl, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Ivanisevic, Chang, McEnroe, Gomez, Bruguera and Muster, all champions of the game and all great diverse players on the different surface.

That makes his achievement better than Federer or Nadal's recent GSs, where all they've had to do is beat each other and the title is theirs, or let Murray or someone else kick the other out of the way and yep, the title's theirs.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:05 AM
Most players miss chunks of time throughout their career. Even Murray was held back in 2007 with his wirst injury. Federer is one of the few who hasn't had a serious injury, as far as I remember.

Most? Examples please.

Marat was injured 3 months during 2001 with his back, whole of 2003 with a shoulder problem then primarily the wrist, then played through the clay season and grass season with a knee injury before calling it quits after Cincinnati 2005.

Not many players have ordeals like that, certainly not most.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:07 AM
On paper it was, but realistically, he played Muller in the quarters, a bad Djokvoic in the semis and an uninspired (maybe even tired) Murray in the final.

Uninspired? Playing his first slam final against Roger Federer?

Do you know the meaning of the word?

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:08 AM
Most? Examples please.

Marat was injured 3 months during 2001 with his back, whole of 2003 with a shoulder problem then primarily the wrist, then played through the clay season and grass season with a knee injury before calling it quits after Cincinnati.

Not many players have ordeals like that, certainly not most.

I'm not saying that they all have it as bad as Safin. I said that most players miss chunks of their career because of injury. That's not me saying that they have missed more/less than Safin.

leng jai
08-16-2009, 01:09 AM
:spit: I laughed.

Man Love Thread(not a bandwagon thread). Hasi, poor Hasi.

:)

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:09 AM
Most? Examples please.

Marat was injured 3 months during 2001 with his back, whole of 2003 with a shoulder problem then primarily the wrist, then played through the clay season and grass season with a knee injury before calling it quits after Cincinnati 2005.

Not many players have ordeals like that, certainly not most.

I remember Safin handing Murray quite a lesson in experience in that 05 event.

2003, he was fave for the AO I'd have said, going in with a bit of confidence cause he already proved he could beat guys like Agassi and Roddick.

Mario Ancic would be one whos had it as rough as Marat perhaps, mono 3 times I think and really bad mono as well. I'm not sure he would win AMS shields or Slams, but he's never really had much opportunity.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:10 AM
Not any of the top players haven't missed much in the past 3-4 years.

amonb
08-16-2009, 01:10 AM
Uninspired? Playing his first slam final against Roger Federer?

Do you know the meaning of the word?I think he meant overwhelmed!!! You know as well as i do that result couldn't happen again!!!

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:11 AM
I remember Safin handing Murray quite a lesson in experience in that 05 event.

2003, he was fave for the AO I'd have said, going in with a bit of confidence cause he already proved he could beat guys like Agassi and Roddick.

Didn't Safin bitchslap Djokovic and not Murray?

leng jai
08-16-2009, 01:12 AM
Didn't Safin bitchslap Djokovic and not Murray?

Yep, it was Fakervic. A bagel was involved.

Gaudio2004
08-16-2009, 01:12 AM
To be honest, Federer didn't exactly have a rough draw in the last 2 majors. The USO win last year was a tough draw.

Tough draw? The average ranking for both of his last Grand Slams was lower than 20, it was 12 average ranking for the French Open - a very, very hard draw (in any era), not quite sure about Wimbledon, but he had Soderling, Karlovic, Roddick, Haas, all seeded players. Rough draw in this era yes - ten years ago that would have been a mug draw.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:13 AM
I'm not saying that they all have it as bad as Safin. I said that most players miss chunks of their career because of injury. That's not me saying that they have missed more/less than Safin.

Well then your point about Safin having a "full career to achieve more" is pointless, seeing as the knee injury was very serious and he was playing in pain from 2005-early 2008. He's done well in fact, to get back to close to the top 20 in 2006 and touch number 20 this year considering the doctor told him that it would be a "miracle" if he played professional tennis again.

It's not like he could've just came back from this injury and just rediscovered his top level of mobility again, his body wouldn't let him.

Guga_fan
08-16-2009, 01:13 AM
Uninspired? Playing his first slam final against Roger Federer?

Do you know the meaning of the word?
As far as I know I can use it meaning lack of creativity and will to play, and that's how Murray looked like in that final.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:14 AM
Didn't Safin bitchslap Djokovic and not Murray?

Cincinnati 05 (Safin def Murray 6-4 1-6 6-1) not AO 05. Safin played a blistering third set and Muzza got shown how good the big boys played (Safin was still among the big four of that era)

Gaudio2004
08-16-2009, 01:14 AM
Taken from TT Tennis, but should make you look at Federer in a different light.

This is based solely on the ranking of the opponents at the time of the match so it doesn't take anything else into consideration.

I only counted the third round on when they start playing seeded players. I averaged the rankings of their last 5 opponents and then ranked em. Here goes.....

Sampras US Open 1990: 12
Federer Australian Open 2007: 12.4
Federer Wimbledon 2007: 13.6
Federer US Open 2004: 14
Sampras US Open 2002: 16
Federer Wimbledon 2005: 17.4
Federer US Open 2005: 17.8
Federer Wimbledon 2009: 24
Sampras US Open 1993: 24.4
Sampras Australian Open 1994: 24.6
Federer French Open 2009: 27.6
Sampras US Open 1996: 28
Sampras Wimbledon 1994: 29
Sampras Australian Open 1997: 29.4
Federer Australian Open 2006: 31.8
Federer Wimbledon 2006: 32.4
Federer Wimbledon 2003 32.6
Federer US Open 2006: 37.2
Sampras Wimbledon 1997: 37.8
Federer US Open 2008: 38.4
Sampras US Open 1995: 39
Sampras Wimbledon 1998: 41
Federer Wimbledon 2004: 42
Sampras Wimbledon 1995: 50.2
Federer Australian Open 2004: 51.2
Federer US Open 2007: 51.2
Sampras Wimbledon 1993: 91.8
Sampras Wimbledon 2000: 98.2
Sampras Wimbledon 1999: 140.6


Overall average ranking of opponents in all Slam victories:
Federer: 26.3
Sampras: 47.3

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:15 AM
Well then your point about Safin having a "full career to achieve more" is pointless, seeing as the knee injury was very serious and he was playing in pain from 2005-early 2008. He's done well in fact, to get back to close to the top 20 in 2006 and touch number 20 this year considering the doctor told him that it would be a "miracle" if he played professional tennis again.

It's not like he could've just came back from this injury and just rediscovered his top level of mobility again, his body wouldn't let him.

Jesus, relax. Talking about taking someone far too literally. By "full career" I just meant that Safin is at the end of his, while Murray is still at the start. I wasn't suggesting that Safin didn't have any setbacks.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:15 AM
I remember Safin handing Murray quite a lesson in experience in that 05 event.

2003, he was fave for the AO I'd have said, going in with a bit of confidence cause he already proved he could beat guys like Agassi and Roddick.

Mario Ancic would be one whos had it as rough as Marat perhaps, mono 3 times I think and really bad mono as well. I'm not sure he would win AMS shields or Slams, but he's never really had much opportunity.

I had a feeling 2003 would have been a great year for Marat but there's no point thinking of that now, it's just people seem to slander him here as if he wants to play as bad as he is today, he's been through a lot.

The 2005 Cincinnati match was a horror show, Marat was clearly in pain and Murray was inexperienced, obviously.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:15 AM
Oh a three set lesson, dropped a breadstick in the middle. :retard:

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:16 AM
Murray won't be a slamless no.1 becuase he's winning the US Open. Hope this helps :D

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:16 AM
Jesus, relax. Talking about taking someone far too literally. By "full career" I just meant that Safin is at the end of his, while Murray is still at the start. I was suggesting that Safin didn't have any setbacks.

Trust me, I'm not jumping out my chair. I am relaxed :o

Man, I could've said the same to you, you've been trading comments in this thread like alcoholics drink beer.

I was only getting my point across. Don't worry.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:17 AM
Oh a three set lesson, dropped a breadstick in the middle. :retard:

Safin was hurt but still belted a few big backhands.

Federer, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt as big four >>>> Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic as big four.

leng jai
08-16-2009, 01:17 AM
Murray won't be a slamless no.1 becuase he's winning the US Open. Hope this helps :D

Just like how you said he was a shoe in for Wimbledon?

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:17 AM
Oh a three set lesson, dropped a breadstick in the middle. :retard:

You didn't even see the match for crying out loud.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:18 AM
Trust me, I'm not jumping out my chair. I am relaxed :o

Man, I could've said the same to you, you've been trading comments in this thread like alcoholics drink beer.

I was only getting my point across. Don't worry.

Yeah, but you were taking me far too literally and getting defensive as though I was being critical. I wasn't criticising Safin. I was just saying that it's pointless comparing someone at the end of their career to someone at the start of their's.

Gaudio2004
08-16-2009, 01:20 AM
Have a feeling that 2003 would be a good year for Safin? How do you have a feeling that Safin will win any match, let alone have a good year, full of matches? :drool:

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:20 AM
Safin was hurt but still belted a few big backhands.

Federer, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt as big four >>>> Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic as big four.

Couldn't disagree more with regards to Roddick and Hewitt.

Who exactly are Roddick and Hewitt supposed to be superior to in today's top 4, other than perhaps Djokovic?

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:21 AM
Safin was hurt but still belted a few big backhands.

Federer, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt as big four >>>> Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic as big four.

People seem to underrate Roddick, Hewitt and Safin back then.

Roddick was better than he is today, I have no doubt in my mind he was. Sure, he has tried to develop other parts of his game more but he played the better tennis in 03/04.

Hewitt recently made Wimbledon Quarters playing half as well as he did in 04 so :shrug:

And Safin was great, had everything with a suspect temperament.

>>>> Federmug, who is clearly not in his 04 form. Nadal who is good on clay and green grass. Murray is good on hard court but nothing that a big hitting in form player couldn't deal with if Murray was having an average day. And Djokovic is playing pretty shabby. :shrug:

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:21 AM
You didn't even see the match for crying out loud.

A win over Murray 4 years ago when he was nothing but an underling and Safin had a slam victory on his rankings. I don't need to see it.

Boy I didn't know Safin's career was so low you had to brag about a holding slam champion beating up on someone fresh out of juniors. He should have beaten Murray like that.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:21 AM
Yeah, but you were taking me far too literally and getting defensive as though I was being critical. I wasn't criticising Safin. I was just saying that it's pointless comparing someone at the end of their career to someone at the start of their's.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say Safin is greater because when you look at Fed getting older and Nadal possibly burning out, Muzza could clean up the rest of the clowns and end up winning about 8-10 slams whereas Safin actually did beat champions to win his Slams.

Gaudio2004
08-16-2009, 01:22 AM
Federer has 15 Grand Slams, Roddick has 1 Grand Slam plus 4 finals, Safin has 2 Slams, while Hewitt also has 2 Slams.

Federer has 15, Nadal has 6, Murray has 0, Djokovic has 1.

So yes, F,R,S,H > F,N,M,D. Federer was not as dominative against Roddick, Safin and Hewitt as he is against Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:24 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable to say Safin is greater because when you look at Fed getting older and Nadal possibly burning out, Muzza could clean up the rest of the clowns and end up winning about 8-10 slams whereas Safin actually did beat champions to win his Slams.

I didn't argue about Safin. In fact, I accepted him as one of the guys who could beat Murray if he played his best. I just said that it's silly to compare someone whose career is all but over to someone whose career is just starting.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:24 AM
Couldn't disagree more with regards to Roddick and Hewitt.

Who exactly are Roddick and Hewitt supposed to be superior to in today's top 4, other than perhaps Djokovic?

Roddick beat Muzza in the Wimbledon semi playing about 1/4 of his 2003-05 level where his forehand was a monster shot and only Fed or Hewitt (very much a similar player to Murray but perhaps physically and mentally stronger) could beat the guy.

I'd love to have seen Nadal try against these two guys in their prime. And Safin for that matter, he'd blow the pig away if he played like he did even in 04.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:24 AM
Have a feeling that 2003 would be a good year for Safin? How do you have a feeling that Safin will win any match, let alone have a good year, full of matches? :drool:

Because he played pretty well in 2002 apart from the fact things seemed to go wrong nearer the end of tournaments ala AO,RG. Came off the back of winning Paris and the Davis Cup.

He was injured when he played in Barcelona but still beat RG champ, Ferrero, he would've had a good chance to win RG. :shrug:

Agassi won the AO where Safin beat him the following year when Marat was ranked in the 80's :shrug:

And his favourite tournament in which he won thrice, Bercy, was won by Henman (who played very well) and Marat is a much better player than Tim.

And the US Open, you never know, so why couldn't he have had a good year?

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:25 AM
Federer has 15 Grand Slams, Roddick has 1 Grand Slam plus 4 finals, Safin has 2 Slams, while Hewitt also has 2 Slams.

Federer has 15, Nadal has 6, Murray has 0, Djokovic has 1.

So yes, F,R,S,H > F,N,M,D. Federer was not as dominative against Roddick, Safin and Hewitt as he is against Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.

Dude, how can you not see the flaw in that logic? Roddick and Hewitt are much older. If Murray and Djokovic have fewer slams than those guys in 6 years, you have a point.

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:26 AM
Just like how you said he was a shoe in for Wimbledon?
Yep, except this time he's the form player and it's on hardcourt. Care to have another go at thinking for once?

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:26 AM
Federer has 15 Grand Slams, Roddick has 1 Grand Slam plus 4 finals, Safin has 2 Slams, while Hewitt also has 2 Slams.

Federer has 15, Nadal has 6, Murray has 0, Djokovic has 1.

So yes, F,R,S,H > F,N,M,D. Federer was not as dominative against Roddick, Safin and Hewitt as he is against Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.

prime Federer 12 slams for the top group, shaky Federer 3 slams for the bottom. Not 15 for both.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:26 AM
Yep, except this time he's the form player and it's on hardcourt. Care to have another go at thinking for once?

Well why would you say he was a dead cert for Wimbledon? :retard:

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:27 AM
Roddick beat Muzza in the Wimbledon semi playing about 1/4 of his 2003-05 level where his forehand was a monster shot and only Fed or Hewitt (very much a similar player to Murray but perhaps physically and mentally stronger) could beat the guy.

I'd love to have seen Nadal try against these two guys in their prime. And Safin for that matter, he'd blow the pig away if he played like he did even in 04.

That's subjective. I think Roddick is playing better right now.

You and I aren't going to agree on this point. I find it astounding that you actually think that was a stronger era, but you're entitled to your opinion.

And as far as Murray and Hewitt are concerned, Murray does many things better. Hewitt physically stronger? Come on, mate.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:29 AM
Dude, how can you not see the flaw in that logic? Roddick and Hewitt are much older. If Murray and Djokovic have fewer slams than those guys in 6 years, you have a point.

Yeah but look at what the competition is going to be like in 6 years, I think it could be pretty awful, not many stars breaking through juniors it seems and Dimitrov is just a Youzhny clone.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:29 AM
A win over Murray 4 years ago when he was nothing but an underling and Safin had a slam victory on his rankings. I don't need to see it.

Boy I didn't know Safin's career was so low you had to brag about a holding slam champion beating up on someone fresh out of juniors. He should have beaten Murray like that.

You obviously didn't watch tennis then, to see Marat was playing with a knee injury from the clay season. He also skipped Montreal because of it. Do you really think Marat was at his best? :lol:

Marat beat peak Federer at the AO 2005, Muggay got fucked by 27 year old monofed at the 2008 US Open :lol:

leng jai
08-16-2009, 01:30 AM
Well why would you say he was a dead cert for Wimbledon? :retard:

Somehow that means I should have a go at thinking:confused:

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:31 AM
Yeah but look at what the competition is going to be like in 6 years, I think it could be pretty awful, not many stars breaking through juniors it seems and Dimitrov is just a Youzhny clone.

Peak Colonel or the worthless one?

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:31 AM
Well why would you say he was a dead cert for Wimbledon? :retard:
Uhh, because I thought he would win it? Why else :retard: You think I just like saying that randomly out of the blue? O.K then. Tsonga is going to win Australian Open, mark my words :silly:

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:32 AM
Somehow that means I should have a go at thinking:confused:

The guy shot himself in the foot and is looking like a dick, go easy on the infant.

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:32 AM
Somehow that means I should have a go at thinking:confused:
You might do very well at it, trust me.




LOL, just kidding around Adrian. You're a cool poster :yeah:

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:32 AM
You obviously didn't watch tennis then, to see Marat was playing with a knee injury from the clay season. He also skipped Montreal because of it. Do you really think Marat was at his best? :lol:

Marat beat peak Federer at the AO 2005, Muggay got fucked by 27 year old monofed at the 2008 US Open :lol:

Did I say Marat was at his best? No.

Regardless, at that time Marat had just won a slam that year and no one would have bet a penny on Murray winning and you're bragging about a 3 set win. :retard:

stzenit
08-16-2009, 01:32 AM
Cincinnati 05 (Safin def Murray 6-4 1-6 6-1) not AO 05. Safin played a blistering third set and Muzza got shown how good the big boys played (Safin was still among the big four of that era)

Yeah the guy meant Safin Def Djokovic Aus Open 05 6-0 6-2 6-1 ;)

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:33 AM
The guy shot himself in the foot and is looking like a dick, go easy on the infant.
Apparently according to you I've been analyzing tennis since 6 years old, because I said I watched one match at the Australian Open in 2002, and you didn't believe me. You = Super :retard:

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:33 AM
Did I say Marat was at his best? No.

Regardless, at that time Marat had just won a slam that year and no one would have bet a penny on Murray winning and you're bragging about a 3 set win. :retard:

I didn't bring it up, you donkey. I already said, it doesn't mean much. Marat was in pain and Muggay was inexperienced. Makes no difference.

On the other hand.

RG '98 - Safin over defending champion Kuerten and '99 champion Agassi :D:D

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:36 AM
Apparently according to you I've been analyzing tennis since 6 years old, because I said I watched one match at the Australian Open in 2002, and you didn't believe me. You = Super :retard:

You said you had been watching since Wimbledon 01 :haha:

And wouldn't that go to my point even more?

YOU DIDN'T SEE THE HAAS SAFIN MATCH!

Bit of a coincidence eh? All of a sudden, 6 year old Scot wants to see Haas vs Safin at the AO :rolleyes:

I call Bull dung.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:36 AM
That's subjective. I think Roddick is playing better right now.

You and I aren't going to agree on this point. I find it astounding that you actually think that was a stronger era, but you're entitled to your opinion.

And as far as Murray and Hewitt are concerned, Murray does many things better. Hewitt physically stronger? Come on, mate.

Murray better backhand, Hewitt better forehand, serve even (both could serve brilliantly and have off days) both similar in defence, both similar in terms of the lob, both have world class returns (though Hewitt's edges it for me) and Hewitt mentally has the edge as he has won many more big matches in cauldrons (Guga in Brazil, unreal) as well as come through long five setters. Murray has done that twice in big matches (Gasquet and Wawrinka)

Roddick may be playing cleverer percentage tennis than in 03 but he played far better attacking tennis in that period, belted his forehand, murdered Nadal so brutally in 04 and his serve was so unbreakable it was equal to playing Karlovic.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:36 AM
Who was that who said "Oh he showed him how to play big boy tennis." "He taught Murray a lesson."

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:37 AM
Peak Colonel or the worthless one?

A steady Youzhny playing his normal game and inside the top 30 probably. Forehand that can break down a bit, sexy single hander and good volleys.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:38 AM
Who was that who said "Oh he showed him how to play big boy tennis." "He taught Murray a lesson."

Go back and have a look, big boy.

stzenit
08-16-2009, 01:38 AM
Who was that who said "Oh he showed him how to play big boy tennis." "He taught Murray a lesson."

Antony Dupuis Def Murray 6-4, 6-1

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:39 AM
Who was that who said "Oh he showed him how to play big boy tennis." "He taught Murray a lesson."

Me you idiot. I'm a Murray fan as well :lol:

End of the day Burrow mentioned Cincy 05 and I recalled the match they played where Safin despite injury showed his experience in the third set.

He looked like he was on one leg next day against Ginepri.

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:40 AM
You said you had been watching since Wimbledon 01 :haha:

And wouldn't that go to my point even more?

YOU DIDN'T SEE THE HAAS SAFIN MATCH!

Bit of a coincidence eh? All of a sudden, 6 year old Scot wants to see Haas vs Safin at the AO :rolleyes:

I call Bull dung.
What's wrong with me watching tennis since 2001? Huh :rolleyes: I was 6 then, so I know what was going on and I understood it.

I did watch that Haas/Safin match. It was highlights, for as you said it was a night match, no? And I watched it, which means it had to be highlights or a repeat.

Oh and with you I call :retard:

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:40 AM
Me you idiot. I'm a Murray fan as well :lol:

End of the day Burrow mentioned Cincy 05 and I recalled the match they played where Safin despite injury showed his experience in the third set.

He looked like he was on one leg next day against Ginepri.

It was sad to watch but I :spit: when I seen that.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:41 AM
Antony Dupuis Def Murray 6-4, 6-1

:haha:

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:41 AM
Go back and have a look, big girl.


Fixed and...

If it wasn't you, then I was wrong.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:42 AM
Murray better backhand, Hewitt better forehand, serve even (both could serve brilliantly and have off days) both similar in defence, both similar in terms of the lob, both have world class returns (though Hewitt's edges it for me) and Hewitt mentally has the edge as he has won many more big matches in cauldrons (Guga in Brazil, unreal) as well as come through long five setters. Murray has done that twice in big matches (Gasquet and Wawrinka)

Roddick may be playing cleverer percentage tennis than in 03 but he played far better attacking tennis in that period, belted his forehand, murdered Nadal so brutally in 04 and his serve was so unbreakable it was equal to playing Karlovic.

Not sure how you can say serve is even. Murray has a much bigger serve than Hewitt and gets many more free points. Both have inconsistent first serves, but Murray's is much better when he gets it in. Return? Murray for me. Murray has been at the top of the return stats ever since he came on tour. He also makes mince meat out of the best first serve ever. Hewitt is generally a better returner against serve/volleyers. Overall? I'd never take Hewitt's return over Murray's.

Murray also has the benefit of being able to generate a lot more pace than Hewitt. And that includes off the forehand. Hewitt has always struggled to generate his own pace. Murray also has better touch. Murray, in my opinion, does everything as good or just a little better than Hewitt. More variety, too. I'm trying to score something in favour of Hewitt just to balance it out, but the fact is that the game has moved on since the early 00s.

As far as Roddick goes, you can't say that murdering Rafa in 04 is a huge achievement. Roddick is a different player now, but equally effective.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:44 AM
Equally effective now? Did you seriously watch tennis back then? (honest question)

stzenit
08-16-2009, 01:46 AM
Equally effective now? Did you seriously watch tennis back then? (honest question)

well we know Sapoed did he was 6 years old, so give him the benefit of the doubt because when you're 6 years old you remember tennis matches real good and can compare generations.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:46 AM
Equally effective now? Did you seriously watch tennis back then? (honest question)

Yes, I did. And when I say "equally effective no", I mean very recent form. I don't mean 08 form. I think Roddick has found a good balance now and has added more to his game. There's no doubt he was one-dimensional back then.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:47 AM
Not sure how you can say serve is even. Murray has a much bigger serve than Hewitt and gets many more free points. Both have inconsistent first serves, but Murray's is much better when he gets it in. Return? Murray for me. Murray has been at the top of the return stats ever since he came on tour. He also makes mince meat out of the best first serve ever. Hewitt is generally a better returner against serve/volleyers. Overall? I'd never take Hewitt's return over Murray's.

Murray also has the benefit of being able to generate a lot more pace than Hewitt. And that includes off the forehand. Hewitt has always struggled to generate his own pace. Murray also has better touch. Murray, in my opinion, does everything as good or just a little better than Hewitt. More variety, too. I'm trying to score something in favour of Hewitt just to balance it out, but the fact is that the game has moved on since the early 00s.

As far as Roddick goes, you can't say that murdering Rafa in 04 is a huge achievement. Roddick is a different player now, but equally effective.

Hewitt volleys better for me and a tad bit better lob, though the latter is arguable. Overall, however, I agree with your post. Murray does a lot of things better than Hewitt. I would like the mental gap between them to be a lot closer though.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:47 AM
:spit: Yes, Sapeod is very 'special'.

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:48 AM
Equally effective now? Did you seriously watch tennis back then? (honest question)
If you're asking me then yes, I did.

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:48 AM
:spit: Yes, Sapeod is very 'special'.
In the way you're implying I am about 0% special.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:49 AM
Yes, I did. And when I say "equally effective no", I mean very recent form. I don't mean 08 form. I think Roddick has found a good balance now and has added more to his game. There's no doubt he was one-dimensional back then.

Fire power from his serve/forehand and having electric speed around the court > slicing and coming to the net once every set on top of being less agile.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:49 AM
Equally effective perhaps but he still isn't playing anywhere near as well. Look at some Roddick youtube clips and you will see how big and hard he was hitting his forehand. Right now you wouldn't put Roddick in the top 20 forehands in the game, here he'd be no 3.

Hewitt hit less paceless junk off his FH than Andy does, he hit it cleaner and flatter, I'd have to go with Lleyton there, and serve has to be equal, I've lost count of how many times Hewitt would be bp down and hit an accurate clean ace.

Oh and Nadal in 04 still produced big displays in the DC SF and F, he wasn't exactly new to the occasion.

andylovesaustin
08-16-2009, 01:49 AM
So?

Rios never won a grand slam, but was #1 for a minute, right?

In fact, a lot of people think Rios is/was uber-talented--or so I've read. Didn't it take Lendl a while to win a grand slam?

Hey... if the numbers work-out for Murray... then they work-out.. Eventually he'll get his "grand slam."

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:49 AM
Hewitt volleys better for me and a tad bit better lob, though the latter is arguable. Overall, however, I agree with your post. Murray does a lot of things better than Hewitt. I would like the mental gap between them to be a lot closer though.

Off the backhand, they are probably amongst the best ever. Murray frams a lot of forehand lobs, so I'd give the forehand lob to Hewitt. I think Hewitt is a good volleyer, but I again have to give it to Murray. Neither use/d their volleys as much as they should have, though.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:49 AM
Yes, I did.

Did I quote you?

I don't think so, sunny Jim.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:51 AM
Off the backhand, they are probably amongst the best ever. Murray frams a lot of forehand lobs, so I'd give the forehand lob to Hewitt. I think Hewitt is a good volleyer, but I again have to give it to Murray. Neither use/d their volleys as much as they should have, though.

Oh I agree definitely with Hewitt. He should have started to incorporate coming in as soon as the first signs of the game "passing him by" showed up.

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:52 AM
Did I quote you?

I don't think so, sunny Jim.
Well, you didn't quote anyone :silly:

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:52 AM
The game hasn't passed him by :lol:

Do you think he is as good as he was back then? Unreal some people here.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:52 AM
Oh I agree definitely with Hewitt. He should have started to incorporate coming in as soon as the first signs of the game "passing him by" showed up.

The game didn't pass him by, it was more to do with his playing style which was all about endurance, high physical fitness and always being in peak condition and he had a mini burnout physically meaning he lost the firepower he had as well as the fitness after 2005.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:53 AM
Equally effective perhaps but he still isn't playing anywhere near as well. Look at some Roddick youtube clips and you will see how big and hard he was hitting his forehand. Right now you wouldn't put Roddick in the top 20 forehands in the game, here he'd be no 3.

Hewitt hit less paceless junk off his FH than Andy does, he hit it cleaner and flatter, I'd have to go with Lleyton there, and serve has to be equal, I've lost count of how many times Hewitt would be bp down and hit an accurate clean ace.

Oh and Nadal in 04 still produced big displays in the DC SF and F, he wasn't exactly new to the occasion.

Hewitt's serve was not a weapon. I'm sorry, but even the biggest Hewitt supporter would have to say that Murray has a much more potent first serve. Hewitt did not possess the ability to go on the all-out offensive. He simply did/does not generate enough pace. A big forehand then is not a big forehand now. Pretty much all of the experts and pundits say the same thing. The game has moved on.

Roddick doesn't attack as well now. That's not the same as not playing as well, particularly given that he has more experience now and his backhand is 10 times the shot it was then.

Nadal may not have been new, but 04 was still before Nadal was really Nadal.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:53 AM
Clydey was above me, you were about 5 posts above :shrug:

Sapeod
08-16-2009, 01:54 AM
Clydey was above me, you were about 5 posts above :shrug:
And? You do know people post when you are making you're posts as well, don't you?

Anyway, you weren't asking me do end of.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:54 AM
No, I love Hewitt, but the game passed him by.

If you disagree tell me where a 100% healthy Hewitt would be in the rankings and what slam results would he have?

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:55 AM
Yes, the game has moved on. The Robredo's and Simons of this world in top 10.

If the game has moved on so much then why was Gonzalez, for example, being bitch slapped and outclassed left and right back in 2002 and of recent, he has been top 10 and a regular player to go deep in tournaments beating the players he lost to years ago?

Players decline.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:56 AM
Hilarious this is with all this "the game has moved on" talk :lol:

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:56 AM
The game didn't pass him by, it was more to do with his playing style which was all about endurance, high physical fitness and always being in peak condition and he had a mini burnout physically meaning he lost the firepower he had as well as the fitness after 2005.

Any bastard with half a brain could tell you that but these people are wired to the moon.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:56 AM
Like I said if you disagree tell me what 100% healthy Hewitt wins these days?

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:57 AM
Yes, the game has moved on. The Robredo's and Simons of this world in top 10.

If the game has moved on so much then why was Gonzalez, for example, being bitch slapped and outclassed left and right back in 2002 and of recent, he has been top 10 and a regular player to go deep in tournaments beating the players he lost to years ago?

Players decline.

Robredo isn't top 10. Simon had one good patch in 2008. He'll be gone soon. And Gonzo was 22. He got better.

leng jai
08-16-2009, 01:57 AM
Hewitt is a better volleyer than Murray. Overhead and drop volleys especially.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:57 AM
Hewitt would beat Federer, as he did before Federer hit peak form. Who knows? Do you think I have some sort of special power?

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:58 AM
Any bastard with half a brain could tell you that but these people are wired to the moon.

Any chance of keeping it civil or are you hellbent on insulting anyone who disagrees with you?

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:58 AM
Robredo isn't top 10. Simon had one good patch in 2008. He'll be gone soon. And Gonzo was 22. He started to roll more balls in.

Fixed.

stzenit
08-16-2009, 01:58 AM
The game didn't pass him by, it was more to do with his playing style which was all about endurance, high physical fitness and always being in peak condition and he had a mini burnout physically meaning he lost the firepower he had as well as the fitness after 2005.
x2
http://yaroq.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/hammer-and-nail_web.jpg
nail on the head mate.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 01:58 AM
Hewitt's serve was not a weapon. I'm sorry, but even the biggest Hewitt supporter would have to say that Murray has a much more potent first serve. Hewitt did not possess the ability to go on the all-out offensive. He simply did/does not generate enough pace. A big forehand then is not a big forehand now. Pretty much all of the experts and pundits say the same thing. The game has moved on.

Roddick doesn't attack as well now. That's not the same as not playing as well, particularly given that he has more experience now and his backhand is 10 times the shot it was then.

Nadal may not have been new, but 04 was still before Nadal was really Nadal.

A big forehand then is not a big forehand now? You're right Federer's big forehand then is not a big forehand anymore :lol:

So you're telling me Bruguera and Berasategui's vicious forehands on the clay, Sampras's running forehand, Agassi's FH he used to dictate and Roddick's 03-05 forehand are all weaker than Federer's current shanky forehand, Murray's often junky FH and Djokovic's inconsistent FH?

Only Gonzalez has a truly big FH right now and maybe Nadal but that's like Bruguera's.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 01:59 AM
Any chance of keeping it civil or are you hellbent on insulting anyone who disagrees with you?

Who am I insulting? I'm just saying that you don't really know what you're talking about if you think the game has "moved on" :lol:

Clydey
08-16-2009, 01:59 AM
Hewitt is a better volleyer than Murray. Overhead and drop volleys especially.

It's not a point I'd argue about until I'm blue in the face. I'm not totally convinced who is a better volleyer one way or the other.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 01:59 AM
And still no one has said what 100% Hewitt wins these days.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:00 AM
A big forehand then is not a big forehand now? You're right Federer's big forehand then is not a big forehand anymore :lol:

So you're telling me Bruguera and Berasategui's vicious forehands on the clay, Sampras's running forehand, Agassi's FH he used to dictate and Roddick's 03-05 forehand are all weaker than Federer's current shanky forehand, Murray's often junky FH and Djokovic's inconsistent FH?

Only Gonzalez has a big FH right now and maybe Nadal but that's like Bruguera's.

:lol: Exactly.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:00 AM
And still no one has said what 100% Hewitt wins these days.

I told you, nobody knows. What does guesswork mean, nothing.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:01 AM
A big forehand then is not a big forehand now? You're right Federer's big forehand then is not a big forehand anymore :lol:

So you're telling me Bruguera and Berasategui's vicious forehands on the clay, Sampras's running forehand, Agassi's FH he used to dictate and Roddick's 03-05 forehand are all weaker than Federer's current shanky forehand, Murray's often junky FH and Djokovic's inconsistent FH?

Only Gonzalez has a big FH right now and maybe Nadal but that's like Bruguera's.

I'm saying the likes of Ferrero no longer have what you would consider a big forehand. They would be effective now, but you'd hardly marvel at them.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:02 AM
Who am I insulting? I'm just saying that you don't really know what you're talking about if you think the game has "moved on" :lol:

I guess most pundits and former players are clueless, too.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:02 AM
I'm saying the likes of Ferrero no longer have what you would consider a big forehand. They would be effective now, but you'd hardly marvel at them.

Yes, cause Ferrero is hitting his forehand as well as he did in 2003.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 02:02 AM
You can guess around about. I'm a Hewitt fan too, but reality is reality.

He needed to constantly make adjustments to compete and stay at the highest level. Every player needs to do that.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:03 AM
Yes, cause Ferrero is hitting his forehand as well as he did in 2003.

Players lose power when they get older, do they?

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:04 AM
You can guess around about. I'm a Hewitt fan too, but reality is reality.

He needed to constantly make adjustments to compete and stay at the highest level. Every player needs to do that.

He got older, he became a father, he had injuries.

I don't care if you're a Hewitt fan or not, you can tell me you're a fan another 10 times but it doesn't mean what you're saying is correct.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 02:05 AM
Doesn't mean you're right either. What 100% Hewitt can win in early '00s is different from what he can win here.

stzenit
08-16-2009, 02:06 AM
I'm saying the likes of Ferrero no longer have what you would consider a big forehand. They would be effective now, but you'd hardly marvel at them.

:retard::retard:

stzenit
08-16-2009, 02:07 AM
Doesn't mean you're right either. What 100% Hewitt can win in early '00s is different from what he can win here.

So then the purpose of the discussion is............................................... :lol:

































Murray won't win USO09

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:07 AM
stzenit, you do realise that posting smilies doesn't constitute an argument. It actually demonstrates a lack of an argument.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:07 AM
Players lose power when they get older, do they?

Are you saying some players haven't?

Do you know what else Ferrero has had to deal with?

Admit it, you didn't watch tennis even 3 years ago.

rocketassist
08-16-2009, 02:08 AM
If they aren't hitting the forehand as well, then generally it's probable they aren't playing as well and Roddick isn't playing as well as he did in 03-05.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:09 AM
Are you saying some players haven't?

Do you know what else Ferrero has had to deal with?

Admit it, you didn't watch tennis even 3 years ago.

Mate, I've been watching tennis since around 1990. Players do not lose power as they get older. Power is about the last thing to go.

Can't believe I've missed so much of the tennis because of this discussion.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:10 AM
If they aren't hitting the forehand as well, then generally it's probable they aren't playing as well and Roddick isn't playing as well as he did in 03-05.

We're not going to agree here. Pretty much every ex-player/pundit who comments on the subject says the same thing. That the game has moved on, the players have improved.

stzenit
08-16-2009, 02:13 AM
stzenit, you do realise that posting smilies doesn't constitute an argument. It actually demonstrates a lack of an argument.

Well you have constantly proven you lack in proving your point. Stating random things that come to your head is not an argument. By you're logic i can say "Well my forehand would probably match it with the best players in 2002 but it definitely won't be good enough in 2009 because in 2009 everyone's forehand is unbelievably better" ;) Stop getting cut up relax man.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:14 AM
Well you have constantly proven you lack in proving your point. Stating random things that come to your head is not an argument. By you're logic i can say "Well my forehand would probably match it with the best players in 2002 but it definitely won't be good enough in 2009 because in 2009 everyone's forehand is unbelievably better" ;) Stop getting cut up relax man.

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing I've been saying.

Also, this isn't just my argument. It's a pretty widely held view.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:17 AM
Mate, I've been watching tennis since around 1990. Players do not lose power as they get older. Power is about the last thing to go.

Can't believe I've missed so much of the tennis because of this discussion.

Yes cause Safin is hitting everything just as hard as he did in 04/05 even when he gets into position :rolleyes:

The man he beat in the 2005 AO final is also hitting just as hard :rolleyes:

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:17 AM
The players have improved :lol:

Another classic.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:19 AM
The players have improved :lol:

Another classic.

Pointless arguing. You'd rather remain convinced that Safin won majors in the toughest era ever.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:21 AM
Never said it was toughest, not by a long shot, but he beat the two GOATS and it certainly is a better era than this :spit:

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:23 AM
Never said it was toughest, not by a long shot, but he beat the two GOATS and it certainly is a better era than this :spit:

The match with Fed was great.

We're hardly talking prime Pete, though.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:25 AM
Not prime obviously, but he was the GOAT and he hadn't lost a slam final in a ages. Murray couldn't even beat Monofed.

Clydey
08-16-2009, 02:28 AM
Not prime obviously, but he was the GOAT and he hadn't lost a slam final in a ages. Murray couldn't even beat Monofed.

You're not being objective. Anyone who saw that final saw how well Federer played.

Burrow
08-16-2009, 02:30 AM
Played well in comparison to how the rest of his year went but he wasn't the man from 04-06.

leng jai
08-16-2009, 02:46 AM
The first set of the final was a forehand master class from Fedclown. The ensueing sets were just inevitable.

Gaudio2004
08-16-2009, 03:05 AM
Mate, I've been watching tennis since around 1990. Players do not lose power as they get older. Power is about the last thing to go.

Can't believe I've missed so much of the tennis because of this discussion.

Fed doesn't hit as hard as he used to, neither does Ferrero, neither does Safin. Players do lose power as they get older, silly.. otherwise you would see a 35 year old Sampras cracking backhand down the line with HUGE power time after time, something he did in his teens and prime.

Serenidad
08-16-2009, 04:23 AM
Now games just don't move on anymore according to this thread.

Hewitt missed his chance to be the GOAT then.