Poll: Whos a more talanted tennis player - Tsonga or Murray? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Poll: Whos a more talanted tennis player - Tsonga or Murray?

Pages : [1] 2

2003
08-26-2009, 12:31 PM
We all know Murray will have the more distinguished career although recently Tsonga beat Fed and Mugray choked to Fed in Cinci, maybe Tsonga is a dark horse for USO.

Both have 1 GS final appearance. Both took ages to actually reach a GS final. Tsonga managed to win a set in his final and take one to a TB, Mugray got schooled in his final by Fed, Tsonga actually played well against a player who beat Fed.

Mugray is a pusher where as Tsonga plays attacking solid tennis.

Both beat Nadal in GS semis on 08, Tsonga smashed Nadull where as Mugray made somewhat tougher work of it, a tiebreak and 4 sets.

Tsonga and Mugray both had disapointing AO 09, Tsonga needing 3 tiebreaks to beat Lubed up bitch whilst Mugray lost to Verdasco.

Mugray had a better Wimbleton but will Tsonga make it even steven in USO?

And finally, Tsonga sidestepping cross court thumb pointing at his head, vs Mugrays weak "come on

Epic battle.

HattonWBA
08-26-2009, 01:09 PM
You have got to be joking with this thread. Murray is way more talented than Tsonga, Tsonga is purely attack, which lost of guys are he just happens to do it better than most, the movement around court is a no contest, the variety is a no contest and so is the effectivness off the return, it is reflected in there careers to this point, Murray is just a far better player with a lot more talent, you have not got to be talented because you can smash winners from all over the court.

Iván
08-26-2009, 01:14 PM
Murray for sure, much more versatile and has a plan b and c

Tsonga has no plan b

Mateya
08-26-2009, 01:16 PM
Who votes for Tsonga is just a fan or a :retard:

Burrow
08-26-2009, 01:16 PM
Tsonga obviously, you have to be joking. Murray is just a pusher, did you even watch the Benneteau match, it was like under-14 juniors.

Certinfy
08-26-2009, 01:19 PM
Muzza

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 01:23 PM
This is a joke right? How can people seriously say Murray???

ballbasher101
08-26-2009, 01:27 PM
I like both players. Muzza will always get better results. Muzza is a better strategist which makes him better than Tsonga in my view. Tsonga is a better player to watch when he is at his best. So it is Murray for me.

scarecrows
08-26-2009, 01:28 PM
Murray but he's making bad use of his talent

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 01:28 PM
The question is who's more talented folks. TALENT.

Certinfy
08-26-2009, 01:29 PM
Jose :banghead:

jcempire
08-26-2009, 02:32 PM
Who votes for Tsonga is just a fan or a :retard:

not really

Tsonga is not bad. Does He make you exciting when he plays???

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 03:10 PM
Shit thread.

roberthenman
08-26-2009, 03:31 PM
Easily Andyyyyyyyy

duong
08-26-2009, 03:35 PM
You have got to be joking with this thread. Murray is way more talented than Tsonga, Tsonga is purely attack, which lost of guys are he just happens to do it better than most, the movement around court is a no contest, the variety is a no contest and so is the effectivness off the return, it is reflected in there careers to this point, Murray is just a far better player with a lot more talent, you have not got to be talented because you can smash winners from all over the court.

+1

mayagaller
08-26-2009, 03:48 PM
Tsonga and talented in one sentence... WOW...

Ichiban1920
08-26-2009, 04:03 PM
Murray has more skills but he plays like a mug pusher 90 percent of the time.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 04:59 PM
Tsonga, obviously.

Variety is only relevant if the player in question uses it, instead of just keeping with the usual moonballing, grinding charade.

Tsonga has a way better serve (that's talent too), better volleys, better forehand (by far). Murray only has a better backhand. Movement isn't a talent.

Deivid23
08-26-2009, 05:03 PM
Only clowns and idiots will answer Tsonga. Hope this helps

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 05:10 PM
We must have different conceptions of talent... tactics, movement, intelligence, mental strength, success... that's NOT what is normally understood under "talent".

Tsonga's head is a bit empty and Murray is superior to Tsonga in all those aspects and that's why he's a better player overall, but Tsonga is more talented than him.

Only clowns and idiots will answer Tsonga. Hope this helps

Classy. Very MTF.

Clydey
08-26-2009, 05:11 PM
Murray. Easily. Incredible that anyone would vote otherwise on the back of one tournament in which Tsonga played lights out tennis.

Clydey
08-26-2009, 05:12 PM
We must have different conceptions of talent... tactics, movement, intelligence, mental strength, success... that's NOT what is normally understood under "talent".

Tsonga's head is a bit empty and Murray is superior to Tsonga in all those aspects and that's why he's a better player overall, but Tsonga is more talented than him.



To be fair, you're not the brightest. Your vote for Tsonga further convinces people that Murray is the more talented player.

swann
08-26-2009, 05:19 PM
You have got to be joking with this thread. Murray is way more talented than Tsonga, Tsonga is purely attack, which lost of guys are he just happens to do it better than most, the movement around court is a no contest, the variety is a no contest and so is the effectivness off the return, it is reflected in there careers to this point, Murray is just a far better player with a lot more talent, you have not got to be talented because you can smash winners from all over the court.

I think you're making a confusion between "a better player" and a "more talented player": talent alone rarely is reflected in terms of rankings and results. Andy Murray is a very consistent player, a dogged and resilient opponent but that doesn't make him one of the great talents in ATP tour; for example, I consider Djokovic, Nadal, Santoro, Nalbandian, Gasquet (and maybe some other Spanish guys) being more gifted players than Andy. That being said, I only have admiration for Andy's attitude, kudos to him.

Regarding Tsonga's talent: did you notice his jaw-dropping volleys and smashes?

Ichiban1920
08-26-2009, 05:21 PM
Murray. Easily. Incredible that anyone would vote otherwise on the back of one tournament in which Tsonga played lights out tennis.

If Murray is so talented, why does he play like a mug pusher 90 percent of the time? How is that talent?

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 05:23 PM
To be fair, you're not the brightest. Your vote for Tsonga further convinces people that Murray is the more talented player.

Yeah, and you're the brightest, right? That's why you predicted Murray to school Roddick in London and he got his ass whooped? :scratch:

Ichiban1920
08-26-2009, 05:25 PM
How talented can someone be to get outpushed and outplayed by Andy Roddick? These murray fanboys are quickly become as annoying as Frauderer/Nadull fanboys.

rofe
08-26-2009, 05:29 PM
No doubt Murray is more talented but he doesn't use his talents the way I would like him to. :sad:

Clydey
08-26-2009, 05:29 PM
Yeah, and you're the brightest, right? That's why you predicted Murray to school Roddick in London and he got his ass whooped? :scratch:

So getting a prediction wrong somehow means that I'm stupid? Get a grip. You can do better than that.

Clydey
08-26-2009, 05:31 PM
If Murray is so talented, why does he play like a mug pusher 90 percent of the time? How is that talent?

That's his choice and that's the style he's most comfortable adopting. You seem to equate attacking tennis with talent. If that were the case, guys like Stepanek would be considered more talented than Murray.

Ichiban1920
08-26-2009, 05:32 PM
That's his choice and that's the style he's most comfortable adopting. You seem to equate attacking tennis with talent. If that were the case, guys like Stepanek would be considered more talented than Murray.

If pushing equated to talent, than guys like Simon, Rodmug and Nadull would be talented.

HattonWBA
08-26-2009, 05:33 PM
I think you're making a confusion between "a better player" and a "more talented player": talent alone rarely is reflected in terms of rankings and results. Andy Murray is a very consistent player, a dogged and resilient opponent but that doesn't make him one of the great talents in ATP tour; for example, I consider Djokovic, Nadal, Santoro, Nalbandian, Gasquet (and maybe some other Spanish guys) being more gifted players than Andy. That being said, I only have admiration for Andy's attitude, kudos to him.

Regarding Tsonga's talent: did you notice his jaw-dropping volleys and smashes?

Define talent then, you have said what it is not, say what it is. Either way Tsonga sucks, he is a one dimensional clown that had a fluke week and suddenly hes the most talented guys alive. How can Murray get to number 2 in the world with no talent, i dont care what you say fighting attitude and grinding only gets you so far.

The only reason this is being debated is given Murray's gamestyle and passive approach, and the fact that you all dislike him, because if it was not the case this dicussion is fairly laughable.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 05:34 PM
Serve- Tsonga
Forehand- Tsonga
Backhand- Murray
Volleys- hmm, close
Slice- Murray
Passing shots- Murray
Defence- Murray
Smash- Tsonga
Mental- Murray

Defence and mental don't amount to a player's natural talent as much as the others though, so it comes across as pretty even.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 05:35 PM
That's his choice and that's the style he's most comfortable adopting. You seem to equate attacking tennis with talent. If that were the case, guys like Stepanek would be considered more talented than Murray.

Steps and Zverev have been called pushers by the baseline-obsessed modern day tennis fan lately just because their winners don't come from behind the baseline. :retard:

HattonWBA
08-26-2009, 05:35 PM
I think you're making a confusion between "a better player" and a "more talented player": talent alone rarely is reflected in terms of rankings and results. Andy Murray is a very consistent player, a dogged and resilient opponent but that doesn't make him one of the great talents in ATP tour; for example, I consider Djokovic, Nadal, Santoro, Nalbandian, Gasquet (and maybe some other Spanish guys) being more gifted players than Andy. That being said, I only have admiration for Andy's attitude, kudos to him.

Regarding Tsonga's talent: did you notice his jaw-dropping volleys and smashes?

Smashes? ok Roddick is the most talented guy in the world then?
Volleys? Then the Bryans are more talented than Federer?

You dont know what talent is you just talk shit based on your dislikes of a specific player as opposed to analysing them from a neutral standpoint.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 05:36 PM
So getting a prediction wrong somehow means that I'm stupid? Get a grip. You can do better than that.

Shows that you're not as bright as you think you are if you can't understand Murray isn't as good as you think he is.

Ichiban1920
08-26-2009, 05:37 PM
How can Murray get to number 2 in the world with no talent, i dont care what you say fighting attitude and grinding only gets you so far.



Anyone can make it into the top 10 just by grinding, like Nadull, simon, Mugfils, and Murray. Doesn't mean they're talented though.

Clydey
08-26-2009, 05:37 PM
If pushing equated to talent, than guys like Simon, Rodmug and Nadull would be talented.

Pushing doesn't equate to talent either. You have a black and white view of talent, it seems. Talent has nothing to do with style of play. Everyone thinks Santoro is a major talent, but the reality is that he's a flair player, an entertainer. His style is only practical to a certain extent.

Talent comes in many guises and it is incredibly difficult to define. What do you define as talent? When I think of talent, I think of players who just "get" the game. It's innate. That's just one aspect of it, though.

Ichiban1920
08-26-2009, 05:40 PM
Talent comes in many guises and it is incredibly difficult to define. What do you define as talent? When I think of talent, I think of players who just "get" the game. It's innate. That's just one aspect of it, though.

Are you backpedalling now? You go from saying that Murray's easily more talented to now that the meaning of talent is ambiguous? One can easily say Tsonga is as talented as Murray by comparing forehands, backhands, serves, etc, which has already been done in this thread.

swann
08-26-2009, 05:41 PM
Define talent then, you have said what it is not, say what it is.
Well, maybe the only way to define talent is by negation (as in negative theology) :)
To make a football analogy (I presume you like footbal), Murray would be Paul Scholes or Wayne Rooney or Steven Gerrard, but he cannot be Zidane or Messi.

How can Murray get to number 2 in the world with no talent, i dont care what you say fighting attitude and grinding only gets you so far.
I didn't say he has no talent, I only think that are guys surpassing him in this field (not too many, some of them won't even make a GS final).

Clydey
08-26-2009, 05:42 PM
Serve- Tsonga
Forehand- Tsonga
Backhand- Murray
Volleys- hmm, close
Slice- Murray
Passing shots- Murray
Defence- Murray
Smash- Tsonga
Mental- Murray

Defence and mental don't amount to a player's natural talent as much as the others though, so it comes across as pretty even.

See, this is where the problem lies. There is no concrete definition of talent. Defence, for example, can be broken down further. It requires great athleticism, which is a talent. It also requires feel, particularly on the pass and defensive lobs, etc.

Mental is a different kind of talent. It depends on what we're talking about. Are we talking strictly physical talent? If so, Murray certainly has a better feel for the game than Tsonga, at least in my view. It seems like the one thing Murray's opponents always focus on post-match is how "clever" he is on court.

rocketassist
08-26-2009, 05:42 PM
Federer would be Messi, Nadal would be Nadal (Miguel Angel),

Murray would be Gary Doherty (Norwich City)

Clydey
08-26-2009, 05:44 PM
Shows that you're not as bright as you think you are if you can't understand Murray isn't as good as you think he is.

How good do I think he is? I think he's the 3rd best player in the world.

I like how predicting that Murray would beat Roddick somehow lowers my IQ in your eyes. Crazy that I'd pick Murray, given that he straight-setted Roddick on grass and held a 6-2 H2H, and destroyed him the last time they played.

It was a logical prediction. I got it wrong. Shit happens.

HattonWBA
08-26-2009, 05:45 PM
Anyone can make it into the top 10 just by grinding, like Nadull, simon, Mugfils, and Murray. Doesn't mean they're talented though.

Like Clydey says surely how well you read the game is a talent and natural instics is also a talent, Consider Murray against big server he knows where they are going on the big points etc, because he reads the game so well, i watched Tsonga against Karlovic at Wimby and he was literally standing still like a tosser because he has no idea about the game, he could not even read Karlovic going out wide which was his pattern of play on 90% of big points, i dont know i guess talented is seeing the ball and hitting it as hard as you can.:retard:

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 05:46 PM
To be fair, you're not the brightest. Your vote for Tsonga further convinces people that Murray is the more talented player.

:sad: How can you be so cruel to me? :bigcry:

Oh and I never bother to vote on a MTF poll.

I think you're making a confusion between "a better player" and a "more talented player": talent alone rarely is reflected in terms of rankings and results. Andy Murray is a very consistent player, a dogged and resilient opponent but that doesn't make him one of the great talents in ATP tour; for example, I consider Djokovic, Nadal, Santoro, Nalbandian, Gasquet (and maybe some other Spanish guys) being more gifted players than Andy. That being said, I only have admiration for Andy's attitude, kudos to him.

Regarding Tsonga's talent: did you notice his jaw-dropping volleys and smashes?

This.

Smashes? ok Roddick is the most talented guy in the world then?
Volleys? Then the Bryans are more talented than Federer?

You dont know what talent is you just talk shit based on your dislikes of a specific player as opposed to analysing them from a neutral standpoint.

Roddick? The Bryans?? What the fuck are you talking about? :rolls:

Clydey
08-26-2009, 05:47 PM
Are you backpedalling now? You go from saying that Murray's easily more talented to now that the meaning of talent is ambiguous? One can easily say Tsonga is as talented as Murray by comparing forehands, backhands, serves, etc, which has already been done in this thread.

I'm not backpedalling. I'm giving my opinion. You don't have to agree. I'm basing my opinion on how I define talent. And the definition of talent is ambiguous, at least in this context. And on that last point, there is no ambiguity.

HattonWBA
08-26-2009, 05:47 PM
Well, maybe the only way to define talent is by negation (as in negative theology) :)
To make a football analogy (I presume you like footbal), Murray would be Paul Scholes or Wayne Rooney or Steven Gerrard, but he cannot be Zidane or Messi.


I didn't say he has no talent, I only think that are guys surpassing him in this field (not too many, some of them won't even make a GS final).

Fair enough but the thread is who has more talent out of Murray and Tsonga and i am struggling to belive the amount of people that have had Tsonga based on the fact i see nothing all that talented about him. Dont get me worng he is great to watch and his athletisism is awesome but nothing stands out to me personally. Just my opinion.

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 05:48 PM
Federer would be Messi, Nadal would be Nadal (Miguel Angel),

Murray would be Gary Doherty (Norwich City)

:haha:

Miguel Ángel Nadal was one hell of a centre-back BTW... loved him.

star
08-26-2009, 05:51 PM
My opinion is that they are both supremely talented. Their talents are simply different.

Murray is a tactical player and has great court sense. He's more of a chess player whose favorite ploy is to trap his opponent into a mistake. He likes the psychological game and he's good at it. Of course, his speed is simply :drool: It's insane. That is clearly talent. He's also a talented shot maker although he employs it more to put his opponent into an awkward position than he does to hit winners.

Tsonga has different talents. He is an attacker and has brilliant shotmaking abilities. When he is in the zone, it's amazing what he can do. His love is to hit spectacular shots.

They both have different approaches to the game and both have different strengths and weaknesses.

swann
08-26-2009, 05:52 PM
Smashes? ok Roddick is the most talented guy in the world then?
Volleys? Then the Bryans are more talented than Federer?

You dont know what talent is you just talk shit based on your dislikes of a specific player as opposed to analysing them from a neutral standpoint.

I don't dislike Murray and I didn't say Tsonga is a great talent (it was not mentioned on my talent list, was he?), I only said that he has some very good volleys.

HattonWBA
08-26-2009, 05:52 PM
:sad: How can you be so cruel to me? :bigcry:

Oh and I never bother to vote on a MTF poll.



This.



Roddick? The Bryans?? What the fuck are you talking about? :rolls:

The guy is basically saying Tsonga is more talented than Murray given his smashes and Volleys, thats only one part of how talented a guy is there are many more factors to consider. Let me guess you prefer Tsonga to Murray as do all of guys posting Tsonga is better here, theres no neutral opinion becasue if they are you know nothing about tennis. I am doing my best to be neutral and in my opinion Murray is nmore talnted, i have justified my reasons earlier in this thread, thats in my opinion but some of the responses are strange to say the least.

oranges
08-26-2009, 05:53 PM
The exciting one.

HattonWBA
08-26-2009, 05:55 PM
I don't dislike Murray and I didn't say Tsonga is a great talent (it was not mentioned on my talent list, was he?), I only said that he has some very good volleys.
Finally, you should restrain your insulting and abusive tone.

Abusive tone? Not abusive at all, we have differing opinions and thats it, i appreciate the fact that you have actually justified your reasoning behind your comments as opposed to some posters who say Tsonga is more talented and dont discuss purely for their dislike of Murray, a tone cant really be intepreted in text just becasue i cant be bothered to enter smiley faces, no abusive tone anyway :)

swann
08-26-2009, 05:56 PM
Good :)

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 05:57 PM
The guy is basically saying Tsonga is more talented than Murray given his smashes and Volleys,

No he isn't.

Let me guess you prefer Tsonga to Murray as do all of guys posting Tsonga is better here, theres no neutral opinion becasue if they are you know nothing about tennis. I am doing my best to be neutral and in my opinion Murray is nmore talnted, i have justified my reasons earlier in this thread, thats in my opinion but some of the responses are strange to say the least.

You guess wrong. I don't like any of them that much, but actually if forced I'd take Murray cause at least he has a brain.

And for the last time, this is NOT about Tsonga being better as you say. It's about who is more talented. What is so difficult to understand about it??

Oh and thanks for telling me I know nothing about tennis. Must be true if you say so. :shrug:

HattonWBA
08-26-2009, 06:06 PM
No he isn't.



You guess wrong. I don't like any of them that much, but actually if forced I'd take Murray cause at least he has a brain.

And for the last time, this is NOT about Tsonga being better as you say. It's about who is more talented. What is so difficult to understand about it??

Oh and thanks for telling me I know nothing about tennis. Must be true if you say so. :shrug:

Murray is better, Murray is more talented simple, how many times do i have to give my opinion. I understand its about who is more talented and i have made my decision and stated why, its a good trhead but a poorly structured thread to a certain extent also, because people obviously interpret talent in different ways therefore leading to lots of continuing arguments as opoposed to starting the thread with what guildlines the talent was being judged upon. I see talent as more of how well you read the game in regards to defending, movement and anticipation, returning and also feel such as drop shots, lobs and volleys, and give Murray the edge in all but volleys. Other people may be basing this comaprison on athletisism etc.:) An opinion is an opinion

murray_2k8
08-26-2009, 06:47 PM
Lets just say if they were both from the same country and I was DC captain, I would want Murray as my #1 singles player everytime.

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 06:53 PM
Lets just say if they were both from the same country and I was DC captain, I would want Murray as my #1 singles player everytime.

Which makes him the more talented player?

star
08-26-2009, 07:31 PM
Which makes him the more talented player?

See? It all depends on how you define "talent." The ability to have the mental fortitude and toughness to win under pressure is a talent too. There are wonderfully talented players who don't have the mental ability to win at the top level. Some of it is learned, but some of it is a natural instinct. Tennis is that way too. Some are just instinctually better, and others have had to work at it more. It's a little difficult to divide talent from hard work, i.e. learning.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 07:48 PM
Talent isn't definable, sorry.

Talent is inherent. It's the ability to do what others can't do. Murray is quite modest in that department. All the advantages attributed to him are more acquired than inherent. Most players can do what Murray does, but most of them cannot do them all. Practically none can do what Tsonga does - such a flashy game.

Florida
08-26-2009, 08:01 PM
Tsonga is much more talented, but Murray has the British media overhyping and exagerating his potential, when in fact he is just a slight better version than Tim Hanman. He may achieve more but when the media the media that created a moster realizes that he cannot deliver and portray the required image, they will dump him like a ball. Let him enjoy his glory together with the ones that created him, twisted media.

MacTheKnife
08-26-2009, 08:02 PM
I'm in the don't know anything about tennis category. Better raw natural talent for the sport, Tsonga. Better over all player with better results, of course, Murray.

Fed Express
08-26-2009, 08:18 PM
Gotta go with Murray in pure talent.

Tsonga is a lot more fun to watch though..

Chiakifug
08-26-2009, 08:36 PM
Tennis >>> Anti tennis. Success is not talent.

tea
08-26-2009, 08:45 PM
Murray is the second all-around player on tour after Federer. The only player who has all the shots in his arsenal. This is the talent, and if it's ugly for you to watch 90 percents of time, that's only your business. He's rational.

Tsonga is joy to watch a couple of times per year, yes. Cause of the courage at most. But don't you call that talent... Don't you compare at all... different league players.:cool:

Clydey
08-26-2009, 10:34 PM
Murray is the second all-around player on tour after Federer. The only player who has all the shots in his arsenal. This is the talent, and if it's ugly for you to watch 90 percents of time, that's only your business. He's rational.

Tsonga is joy to watch a couple of times per year, yes. Cause of the courage at most. But don't you call that talent... Don't you compare at all... different league players.:cool:

A fine post.

Vida
08-26-2009, 10:44 PM
good question and a good thread.

close call, both guys are loaded. very different players though. I go for Tsonga. when he is on its like a spell. kind of modern all-round attack/forward court game. not a typical S and V from past times, but more athletic (or acrobatic). what stands out are those touch volleys.

Murray's talent is more evident in his use of slice and general understanding of the geometry of the court (if that isn't talent, I don't know what is), positioning, anticipation, easiness on the eye.

Mjau!
08-26-2009, 10:50 PM
We must have different conceptions of talent... tactics, movement, intelligence, mental strength, success... that's NOT what is normally understood under "talent".

Tsonga's head is a bit empty and Murray is superior to Tsonga in all those aspects and that's why he's a better player overall, but Tsonga is more talented than him.

Do you think Murray's far superior anticipation, shot-selection and general tactical awareness is down to him being more disciplined and mentally stronger? I sure don't.

Movement has a lot to do with quickness and agility, which are also very much dependent on natural ability.

It's not like Tsonga is a choker... on the contrary, he seems quite strong mentally. The problem is his tennis IQ, which is pretty low...

Mechlan
08-26-2009, 10:55 PM
Murray, no question. A better tennis player, a better talent.

Tsonga may look awesome when he's on because of his power, but in terms of feel for the ball and overall great tennis instincts, Murray hands down. People have forgotten what Murray's capable of because he plays so safe these days.

Clydey
08-26-2009, 10:59 PM
Murray, no question. A better tennis player, a better talent.

Tsonga may look awesome when he's on because of his power, but in terms of feel for the ball and overall great tennis instincts, Murray hands down. People have forgotten what Murray's capable of because he plays so safe these days.

That's true. Murray rarely comes out of his shell nowadays. The only time he truly plays with abandon is when he plays Nadal, for the simple reason that he can't possibly outgrind Rafa. When Murray plays Rafa, that's when you see him go through his full repertoire. He's done the same against Fed a couple of times, but to a lesser extent.

I put up 4 compilation videos on youtube of Murray. They show what he is capable of when he plays with a bit of freedom, as opposed to worrying about errors.

NyGeL
08-26-2009, 11:02 PM
We are talking about talent. Murray has more to learn than Tsonga.

Bilbo
08-26-2009, 11:06 PM
joke and waste of a thread

Murray of course

Smoke944
08-26-2009, 11:09 PM
Murray is far from my favorite player, but he is an incredible talent. If you can't appreciate how well he moves around the court and how unbelievably he anticipates, then you don't know much of anything about the game of tennis. Add in a good all-around game and impressive consistency and you have a special player.

Bilbo
08-26-2009, 11:12 PM
46% voting for tsonga

good grief

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 11:20 PM
Murray is the second all-around player on tour after Federer. The only player who has all the shots in his arsenal. This is the talent, and if it's ugly for you to watch 90 percents of time, that's only your business. He's rational.

Tsonga is joy to watch a couple of times per year, yes. Cause of the courage at most. But don't you call that talent... Don't you compare at all... different league players.:cool:

Murray has every shot except for a serve and a forehand.

Ahhh, I forgot - those are the two most important shots in modern tennis! :sad:

Corey Feldman
08-26-2009, 11:22 PM
another thread which is a mecca for idiots wanting to bash Murray's tennis

Clydey
08-26-2009, 11:25 PM
Murray has every shot except for a serve and a forehand.

Ahhh, I forgot - those are the two most important shots in modern tennis! :sad:

Actually, Murray has both of those shots. In what way does he not have a serve? He has a big first serve. His second serve sucks, but he's still almost in the top 5 for points won behind second serve.

His rally forehand is shit. His flat forehand and running forehand are excellent.

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 11:30 PM
See? It all depends on how you define "talent." The ability to have the mental fortitude and toughness to win under pressure is a talent too. There are wonderfully talented players who don't have the mental ability to win at the top level. Some of it is learned, but some of it is a natural instinct. Tennis is that way too. Some are just instinctually better, and others have had to work at it more. It's a little difficult to divide talent from hard work, i.e. learning.

Talent has a distinct meaning, see post below.

Talent isn't definable, sorry.

Talent is inherent. It's the ability to do what others can't do. Murray is quite modest in that department. All the advantages attributed to him are more acquired than inherent. Most players can do what Murray does, but most of them cannot do them all. Practically none can do what Tsonga does - such a flashy game.

Do you think Murray's far superior anticipation, shot-selection and general tactical awareness is down to him being more disciplined and mentally stronger? I sure don't.

Movement has a lot to do with quickness and agility, which are also very much dependent on natural ability.

It's not like Tsonga is a choker... on the contrary, he seems quite strong mentally. The problem is his tennis IQ, which is pretty low...

I put IQ in the mental category. I never said Tsonga is a choker.

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 11:31 PM
Actually, Murray has both of those shots. In what way does he not have a serve? He has a big first serve. His second serve sucks, but he's still almost in the top 5 for points won behind second serve.

His rally forehand is shit. His flat forehand and running forehand are excellent.

Overall, his serve and his forehand are weak for a world number 2.

GlennMirnyi
08-26-2009, 11:36 PM
Actually, Murray has both of those shots. In what way does he not have a serve? He has a big first serve. His second serve sucks, but he's still almost in the top 5 for points won behind second serve.

His rally forehand is shit. His flat forehand and running forehand are excellent.

You just said it. He has a shit second serve. More often than not you'll play big points with a second serve, not a first. He's in the top 5 because he's consistent from the baseline, not because his second serve is good or reliable. Why am I saying this - you have said his serve sucks yourself.

Murray's forehand is good when he flattens it and when it goes in (he misses most of those forehands) - that means his forehand is good for about 2% of the time in a match.

Sorry, it doesn't cut it.

Clydey
08-26-2009, 11:37 PM
Overall, his serve and his forehand are weak for a world number 2.

Federer's backhand is weak for the greatest player of all time. :shrug:

As I suggested, there are different categories for each shot. Federer's aggressive backhand is terrible. He either shanks it or nets it. He cannot generate a lot of pace without sacrificing an inordinate amount of control. However, it's a fine rally shot and it's almost peerless on the pass.

It's the same with the Murray forehand. He has a great running forehand and an excellent flat forehand. His rally forehand is the problem. It's a liability a lot of the time. It has no pace and it often drops in the middle of the court.

I don't agree with the point on the serve. Second serve? Yes, it's awful. First serve? Absolutely not. He has an excellent first serve.

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 11:40 PM
Federer's backhand is weak for the greatest player of all time. :shrug:

As I suggested, there are different categories for each shot. Federer's aggresive backhand is terrible. He either shanks it or nets it. He cannot generate a lot of pace without sacrificing an inordinate amount of control. However, it's a fine rally shot and it's almost peerless on the pass.

It's the same with the Murray forehand. He has a great running forehand and an excellent flat forehand. His rally forehand is the problem. It's a liability a lot of the time. It has no pace and it often drops in the middle of the court.

I don't agree with the point on the serve. Second serve? Yes, it's awful. First serve? Absolutely not. He has an excellent first serve.

That's why I said overall. Overall, it's weak. This would be a lot more apparent if players learnt to attack his joke of a second serve like Federer did the other day.

Agreed on the Federer backhand. Does it enter into it? :shrug:

Ilovetheblues_86
08-26-2009, 11:43 PM
It doesn´t matter if the second serve is awful if enemies can´t dig on that. Mug era.

mark73
08-26-2009, 11:45 PM
Its hillarious reading MTF unable to define talent. For the sake of argumenr agree on one frigin definition. Words are our servants not our masters. If you want to use talent as it is used most frequently agree on a definition from a good dictionary. The OP is responsible in definig talent since this discussion can not procceed until he defines the concept as he intends too. Seriously most of you guys need to take a course in critical thinking.

Clydey
08-26-2009, 11:47 PM
That's why I said overall. Overall, it's weak. This would be a lot more apparent if players learnt to attack his joke of a second serve like Federer did the other day.

Agreed on the Federer backhand. Does it enter into it? :shrug:

I'm just saying that it's not necessarily a case of "you're only as good as your worst shot". The point I was making was that you can break the shots down further. Murray's forehand can be great or it can be a liability. It depends on various factors. The same applies to the second serve. If more opponents took a swing at it, his second serve would require immediate work (he actually is working on it, according to his blog). At the moment, he's in the top 10 on points won behind his second serve. Therefore, it's not a huge concern right now. Of more immediate concern, in my opinion, is his overly defensive attitude. It seems like getting stronger and fitter has only led him to become more defensive, and rely even more on his retrieving skills.

Har-Tru
08-26-2009, 11:52 PM
Seriously most of you guys need to take a course in critical thinking.

Oh yes a course would solve the issue.

Calidreth
08-26-2009, 11:54 PM
They're tied in terms of potential -- but Murray's making better use of his at the moment.

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 12:04 AM
Federer's backhand is weak for the greatest player of all time. :shrug:

As I suggested, there are different categories for each shot. Federer's aggressive backhand is terrible. He either shanks it or nets it. He cannot generate a lot of pace without sacrificing an inordinate amount of control. However, it's a fine rally shot and it's almost peerless on the pass.

It's the same with the Murray forehand. He has a great running forehand and an excellent flat forehand. His rally forehand is the problem. It's a liability a lot of the time. It has no pace and it often drops in the middle of the court.

I don't agree with the point on the serve. Second serve? Yes, it's awful. First serve? Absolutely not. He has an excellent first serve.

Yeah but the forehand is a more important shot than the backhand.

Mjau!
08-27-2009, 12:07 AM
I put IQ in the mental category. I never said Tsonga is a choker.

Of course, but how can you argue that it has nothing to do with talent? By your logic, no central defender in soccer is talented because their success is all about reading the game, positioning etc.
Think about why Murray's tennis IQ is much higher than Tsonga's. It comes down to natural ability.

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 12:25 AM
Of course, but how can you argue that it has nothing to do with talent? By your logic, no central defender in soccer is talented because their success is all about reading the game, positioning etc.
Think about why Murray's tennis IQ is much higher than Tsonga's. It comes down to natural ability.

Murray's tennis IQ isn't exactly higher.

rocketassist
08-27-2009, 12:33 AM
Murray's tennis IQ isn't exactly higher.

Agreed, that's something that's a little overrated about his game. I've seen him go into many matches with the wrong strategy such as Roddick at Wimbledon, PMK his retrieve and run tactics work 54% of the time as shown by the h 2 h, plus in the Tsonga AO match he was content to defend and run, thinking Tsonga is a ballbasher which he is not.

Har-Tru
08-27-2009, 12:37 AM
Of course, but how can you argue that it has nothing to do with talent? By your logic, no central defender in soccer is talented because their success is all about reading the game, positioning etc.
Think about why Murray's tennis IQ is much higher than Tsonga's. It comes down to natural ability.

One thing is positioning, anticipation etc., and another thing is movement, stability, tactics etc. The first are talent, the second are not.

In this case, Murray's positioning and reading of the game is better than Tsonga's, but not by a mile... it looks as if it's better cause he's such a great mover and Tsonga is so stupid and narrow-minded sometimes it's not funny.

abraxas21
08-27-2009, 12:37 AM
the fact that murray is leading this poll speaks tons about the level of fanboying of MTF.

Murray is a consistent pusher who happens to be in great physical shape (which allows him to cover the court really well) and an amazing strategist (probably the best i've ever seen). however, as far as talent goes, he seriously lacks a lot compared to all the guys in the top 10 right now. in fact, i'd dare say that murray is the least talented number 2 that i have ever seen.

Har-Tru
08-27-2009, 12:38 AM
Agreed, that's something that's a little overrated about his game. I've seen him go into many matches with the wrong strategy such as Roddick at Wimbledon, PMK his retrieve and run tactics work 54% of the time as shown by the h 2 h, plus in the Tsonga AO match he was content to defend and run, thinking Tsonga is a ballbasher which he is not.

Against Wawrinka at Wimbledon, he kept going to his backhand. Enough said.

green25814
08-27-2009, 12:39 AM
Tsonga is more naturally talented

Not to say Murray isn't talented as well

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 12:42 AM
the fact that murray is leading this poll speaks tons about the level of fanboying of MTF.

Murray is a consistent pusher who happens to be in great physical shape (which allows him to cover the court really well) and an amazing strategist (probably the best i've ever seen). however, as far as talent goes, he seriously lacks a lot compared to all the guys in the top 10 right now. in fact, i'd dare say that murray is the least talented number 2 that i have ever seen.

There's always Nadull in the unbeatable position of least talented player in any ranking position he occupy.

green25814
08-27-2009, 12:45 AM
Glenn said it best earlier tbh. Talent relates more to things few people can ever do, most people have aspects of Murray's game (though not the full package, or his feel for a tennis court), but Tsonga does things only a select few would be capable of mirroring.

Mechlan
08-27-2009, 01:07 AM
Murray has great feel, the ability to place the ball in spots other players wouldn't even think to, great variety, and ability to change ball direction. That's what I value as tennis talent.

His relative lack of offensive firepower, his great movement and fitness, his ability to think tactically, none of it really factors into the talent discussion.

Put it this way - If I were to put both players on court and ask them to hit a coin I place on the other side, I would be more surprised if Tsonga hit it than Murray.

selyoink
08-27-2009, 01:15 AM
Tsonga is so clearly more talented. Murray only pushes. Hardly a credible talent. Makes him more consistent but that's about it.

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 01:18 AM
I bet that if you make a thread exactly like this but with Hewitt and Safin instead of Murray and Tsonga, Safin would win by a landslide.

It's the same situation.

green25814
08-27-2009, 01:35 AM
Safin was obviously more talented than Tsonga though. Also Murray's game is bigger than Hewitt's.

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 01:37 AM
Not my point...

green25814
08-27-2009, 01:48 AM
-ergo, its not the same situation.

Bargearse
08-27-2009, 02:00 AM
This is a joke right? How can people seriously say Murray???

This.

Tsonga has more natural talent and flair for tennis but not the brain of Murray. Murray is a smarter player, not more talented.

ForehandWinner
08-27-2009, 03:00 AM
Murray

00923
08-27-2009, 03:02 AM
Tsonga, and it isn't really close.

habibko
08-27-2009, 03:11 AM
Pushing doesn't equate to talent either. You have a black and white view of talent, it seems. Talent has nothing to do with style of play. Everyone thinks Santoro is a major talent, but the reality is that he's a flair player, an entertainer. His style is only practical to a certain extent.

Talent comes in many guises and it is incredibly difficult to define. What do you define as talent? When I think of talent, I think of players who just "get" the game. It's innate. That's just one aspect of it, though.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Murray can only dream of being as talented as Santoro.

as for the thread, both are talented in different ways, Murray has more natural touch/feel of the ball and Tsonga has better awareness of fore-court positioning and when to go to the net, something Murray completely lacks.

those are the only two sides I want to touch upon since they are the most prominent for me in them, in the end they utilize differnt styles of play based on their own natural talents, Murray can't hope to bash that forehand like Tsonga does for winners, and Tsonga can't hope to pass as well as Murray off the backhand, how good a player is with a certain aspect of his game has a close correlation with his innate talent.

Murray has a better backhand because he has a talent to hit fine backhands, Tsonga has better volleys and able to hit those ridiculous stop volleys because he is talented in that department, and so on, it's not a black and white issue.

guga2120
08-27-2009, 03:22 AM
Murray, has more talent. The one thing he has clearly over Tsonga, is his eyes. He see's the ball earlier, and you can not teach that. They both have good touch at the net, but Murray's is better.

Clydey
08-27-2009, 03:36 AM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Murray can only dream of being as talented as Santoro.

as for the thread, both are talented in different ways, Murray has more natural touch/feel of the ball and Tsonga has better awareness of fore-court positioning and when to go to the net, something Murray completely lacks.

those are the only two sides I want to touch upon since they are the most prominent for me in them, in the end they utilize differnt styles of play based on their own natural talents, Murray can't hope to bash that forehand like Tsonga does for winners, and Tsonga can't hope to pass as well as Murray off the backhand, how good a player is with a certain aspect of his game has a close correlation with his innate talent.

Murray has a better backhand because he has a talent to hit fine backhands, Tsonga has better volleys and able to hit those ridiculous stop volleys because he is talented in that department, and so on, it's not a black and white issue.

Santoro has more talent than Murray? Absolute nonsense. His style isn't practical. The ability to draw gasps from the crowd after the occasional trick shot is not talent in the context of this discussion. That's like saying someone who can do the most incredible tricks with a football is more talented than, for example, Kaka. What Kaka can do with a football is more practical.

We are talking talent that is practical. Murray is a more talented tennis player than Santoro. His talents lead to more success on the tennis court. Santoro is more of a flair player. He's a trick shot artist. His talent is not as practical.

The string of :haha: emotes only makes you look like a idiot, quite frankly.

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 03:40 AM
Santoro isn't talented, c'mon. He has no technique at all. Santoro is the contrary, a guy who adapted an absolutely crap game to actual tennis.

Clydey
08-27-2009, 03:43 AM
Santoro isn't talented, c'mon. He has no technique at all. Santoro is the contrary, a guy who adapted an absolutely crap game to actual tennis.

I don't think he's particularly talented either. His game style isn't particularly practical. People think he's an immense talent because he pulls off the odd trick shot once in a while.

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 03:44 AM
-ergo, its not the same situation.

It is in the sense that both have kind of the same level of success - both have 2 GSs. Hewitt is more of Murray kind of player and Safin is more of a Tsonga kind of player.

Nobody will say that Hewitt's awesome movement, anticipation, court coverage, variety means he's more talented than Safin.

habibko
08-27-2009, 03:46 AM
Santoro has more talent than Murray? Absolute nonsense. His style isn't practical. The ability to draw gasps from the crowd after the occasional trick shot is not talent in the context of this discussion. That's like saying someone who can do the most incredible tricks with a football is more talented than, for example, Kaka. What Kaka can do with a football is more practical.

We are talking talent that is practical. Murray is a more talented tennis player than Santoro. His talents lead to more success on the tennis court. Santoro is more of a flair player. He's a trick shot artist. His talent is not as practical.

talent does not lead to success per se, talent can help you become successful but it's not the only thing you need, Santoro has better feel for the ball than Murray, which is supposed to be Murray's major talent, any neutral watching both playing tennis would directly say Santoro has more talent than Murray, he has other shortcomings that didn't allow him to be as successful as Murray (lack of power in his groundstrokes being the major one), doesn't mean he has less talent, anyway that's off-topic, just pointing out your extreme fanboyism in this thread.

The string of :haha: emotes only makes you look like a idiot, quite frankly.

what is idiotic about smileys? :retard: I use them to convey emotions, I was laughing as I was reading your post, if you don't have a talent to convey your emotions via internet forums using smileys it's your problem :angel:

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 03:47 AM
I don't think he's particularly talented either. His game style isn't particularly practical. People think he's an immense talent because he pulls off the odd trick shot once in a while.

He pulls tricks all the time, but if Santoro had real talent he'd be able to hit a one-handed forehand, c'mon.

He's awesomely entertaining and I have a lot of respect for him, especially because he goes to the net a lot for a guy his height, but yeah.

habibko
08-27-2009, 03:53 AM
Santoro isn't talented, c'mon. He has no technique at all. Santoro is the contrary, a guy who adapted an absolutely crap game to actual tennis.

I suppose it's ok to simply disagree here, talent is afterall a very subjective concept.

He pulls tricks all the time, but if Santoro had real talent he'd be able to hit a one-handed forehand, c'mon.

He's awesomely entertaining and I have a lot of respect for him, especially because he goes to the net a lot for a guy his height, but yeah.

there is a reason he doesn't hit a one-handed forehand and it has nothing to do with lack of talent, as you can see he is petit and when he was young he couldn't effectively hit the ball with one hand so he used both hands and never grew out of it, it has to do with his physique.

Clydey
08-27-2009, 03:59 AM
talent does not lead to success per se, talent can help you become successful but it's not the only thing you need, Santoro has better feel for the ball than Murray, which is supposed to be Murray's major talent, any neutral watching both playing tennis would directly say Santoro has more talent than Murray, he has other shortcomings that didn't allow him to be as successful as Murray (lack of power in his groundstrokes being the major one), doesn't mean he has less talent, anyway that's off-topic, just pointing out your extreme fanboyism in this thread.




Extreme fanboyism? Even Glenn doesn't think Santoro is all that talented and I guarantee he prefers watching Santoro to watching Murray.

No one in their right mind would think Santoro is more talented just because he pulls off some trick shots. He has a talent for flair. That isn't a talent for tennis. His talent is very specific and it isn't particularly practical. It has nothing to do with him not fulfilling his talent either. His talent is simply limited. It's fun to watch, but it's limited. He can do certain things better than most players. However, he does not excel when it comes to the basics. Who gives a toss if you can hit incredible lobs if your groundstrokes and your serve are subpar?

Santoro is a talented entertainer, not a talented tennis player. You seem incapable of making the distinction between the two. We're talking tennis talent. In other words, physical gifts that can be applied to the game of tennis. As a tennis player, Murray has more talent. The things he does well are more important. They more readily lend themselves to success as a tennis player. What is it that you're missing here?

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 04:02 AM
I suppose it's ok to simply disagree here, talent is afterall a very subjective concept.

there is a reason he doesn't hit a one-handed forehand and it has nothing to do with lack of talent, as you can see he is petit and when he was young he couldn't effectively hit the ball with one hand so he used both hands and never grew out of it, it has to do with his physique.

Talent isn't exactly as subjective as some people might think it is.

That's :bs:. He actually can't even hit a two-handed topspin forehand...

habibko
08-27-2009, 04:03 AM
Extreme fanboyism? Even Glenn doesn't think Santoro is all that talented and I guarantee he prefers watching Santoro to watching Murray.

No one in their right mind would think Santoro is more talented just because he pulls off some trick shots. He has a talent for flair. That isn't a talent for tennis. His talent is very specific and it isn't particularly practical. It has nothing to do with him not fulfilling his talent either. His talent is simply limited. It's fun to watch, but it's limited. He can do certain things better than most players. However, he does not excel when it comes to the basics. Who gives a toss if you can hit incredible lobs if your groundstrokes and your serve are subpar?

Santoro is a talented entertainer, not a talented tennis player. You seem incapable of making the distinction between the two. We're talking tennis talent. In other words, physical gifts that can be applied to the game of tennis. As a tennis player, Murray has more talent. The things he does well are more important. They more readily lend themselves to success as a tennis player. What is it that you're missing here?

I'm not missing anything here, you and many people in this thread are missing alot.

suppose Tsonga won his final against Djokovic in AO 2008, he would be the very same player he is now nothing changed about his game, but would you still say Murray is more talented than Tsonga as you are so sure now? would the poll still have more votes for Murray should Tsonga have been the GS champion now?

think about this for a minute and you'll see my point, actually let's open a thread right now: "who is more talented, Murray or Djokovic?" and look at the posts.

who do you think is more talented Clydey, Murray or Djokovic?

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 04:05 AM
Extreme fanboyism? Even Glenn doesn't think Santoro is all that talented and I guarantee he prefers watching Santoro to watching Murray.

No one in their right mind would think Santoro is more talented just because he pulls off some trick shots. He has a talent for flair. That isn't a talent for tennis. His talent is very specific and it isn't particularly practical. It has nothing to do with him not fulfilling his talent either. His talent is simply limited. It's fun to watch, but it's limited. He can do certain things better than most players. However, he does not excel when it comes to the basics. Who gives a toss if you can hit incredible lobs if your groundstrokes and your serve are subpar?

Santoro is a talented entertainer, not a talented tennis player. You seem incapable of making the distinction between the two. We're talking tennis talent. In other words, physical gifts that can be applied to the game of tennis. As a tennis player, Murray has more talent. The things he does well are more important. They more readily lend themselves to success as a tennis player. What is it that you're missing here?

You're undermining your own point.

Clydey
08-27-2009, 04:06 AM
I'm not missing anything here, you and many people in this thread are missing alot.

suppose Tsonga won his final against Djokovic in AO 2008, he would be the very same player he is now nothing changed about his game, but would you still say Murray is more talented than Tsonga as you are so sure now? would the poll still have more votes for Murray should Tsonga have been the GS champion now?

think about this for a minute and you'll see my point.

Of course I'd still think the same. Johansson won a major and he's far less talented than both.

Besides, we don't deal in ifs and buts. I could say the same about Murray in the USO final.

Clydey
08-27-2009, 04:08 AM
You're undermining your own point.

Uh, how exactly am I doing that?

That post sums up my feelings precisely. Murray's talents, in tennis terms, are more practical than Santoro's.

habibko
08-27-2009, 04:08 AM
Talent isn't exactly as subjective as some people might think it is.

That's :bs:. He actually can't even hit a two-handed topspin forehand...

no he can, just as Murray is capable of hitting flat penetrating forehands once in a blue moon, they both have the shot in the arsenal, they just don't prefer to use them alot and prefer other rally shots (loopy forehand for Murray, slice forehand for Santoro).

Clydey
08-27-2009, 04:10 AM
I'm not missing anything here, you and many people in this thread are missing alot.

suppose Tsonga won his final against Djokovic in AO 2008, he would be the very same player he is now nothing changed about his game, but would you still say Murray is more talented than Tsonga as you are so sure now? would the poll still have more votes for Murray should Tsonga have been the GS champion now?

think about this for a minute and you'll see my point, actually let's open a thread right now: "who is more talented, Murray or Djokovic?" and look at the posts.

who do you think is more talented Clydey, Murray or Djokovic?

I think Murray is more talented.

I know exactly where you're going with this and I've essentially answered it in a previous reply. Murray hasn't fulfilled his talent as yet. Santoro made the most out of his.

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 04:12 AM
no he can, just as Murray is capable of hitting flat penetrating forehands once in a blue moon, they both have the shot in the arsenal, they just don't prefer to use them alot and prefer other rally shots (loopy forehand for Murray, slice forehand for Santoro).

Not the same.

Santoro can't hit topspin forehands at a professional level.

habibko
08-27-2009, 04:14 AM
I think Murray is more talented.

I know exactly where you're going with this and I've essentially answered it in a previous reply. Murray hasn't fulfilled his talent as yet. Santoro made the most out of his.

and all Djokovic fans will say Djokovic is more talented, there is no point in this really.

Clydey
08-27-2009, 04:20 AM
and all Djokovic fans will say Djokovic is more talented, there is no point in this really.

Not necessarily. You seem to think that being a fan removes all trace of objectivity. I have no problem conceding Murray's shortcomings. When I say that Federer is a more physically gifted tennis player than Murray, I don't do so through gritted teeth.

I think Djokovic has squeezed a hell of a lot out of his game. I don't see him as an incredibly talented player. It's tough for me to call a player talented if they lack variety or "feel". He has other physical gifts that lend themselves to tennis, but I don't think feel for the game is something he possesses.

habibko
08-27-2009, 04:23 AM
Not the same.

Santoro can't hit topspin forehands at a professional level.

tI8gxsQnvQw

just watch the second point from 0:32, two topspin forehands right there, yes they are not exactly spectacular shots as he lacks power, but he can still hit it.

he actually uses it for his passing shots most of the time when players approach the net on his forehand side.

Clydey
08-27-2009, 04:26 AM
tI8gxsQnvQw

just watch the second point from 0:32, two topspin forehands right there, yes they are not exactly spectacular shots as he lacks power, but he can still hit it.

he actually uses it for his passing shots most of the time when players approach the net on his forehand side.

He said "at a professional level".

I can fucking hit topspin forehands, too. It doesn't mean they'd be even remotely effective at that level.

GlennMirnyi
08-27-2009, 04:28 AM
Are you dumb or you're not gettin' what I mean, mate?

I mean they're not in a professional level - he can hit it, but it's not in high level - if he depended on it, he'd be murdered out there.

habibko
08-27-2009, 04:29 AM
Not necessarily. You seem to think that being a fan removes all trace of objectivity. I have no problem conceding Murray's shortcomings. When I say that Federer is a more physically gifted tennis player than Murray, I don't do so through gritted teeth.

I think Djokovic has squeezed a hell of a lot out of his game. I don't see him as an incredibly talented player. It's tough for me to call a player talented if they lack variety or "feel". He has other physical gifts that lend themselves to tennis, but I don't think feel for the game is something he possesses.

there is a talent for feel, and there is a talent for hitting penetrating groundstrokes with sound technique, one for Murray one for Djokovic.

there is a talent for speed, and there is a talent for stretching and bending for your shots, both are different physical attributes, and I can go on and on, there are certain aspects that each player excel than other players, you can't just simply say A player is more talented than B player, unless it's as obvious as Federer and Karlovic of course..

habibko
08-27-2009, 04:31 AM
He said "at a professional level".

I can fucking hit topspin forehands, too. It doesn't mean they'd be even remotely effective at that level.

Are you dumb or you're not gettin' what I mean, mate?

I mean they're not in a professional level - he can hit it, but it's not in high level - if he depended on it, he'd be murdered out there.

lol ok I misunderstood it for a moment >_> well they are pretty effective as passing shots though :sad: :o

mark73
08-27-2009, 04:47 AM
What is the definition of talent you have in mind 2003?

tea
08-27-2009, 06:00 AM
Murray has every shot except for a serve and a forehand.

Ahhh, I forgot - those are the two most important shots in modern tennis! :sad:
Well, you have some point. But look at this from another angle. Even serving 50% first serve throughout the match Andrew owns 95% of the tour easily. First serve is killing. Isn't he young enough to improve the second?:p Can you compare his forehand two years old version and the current one? See the progress? Believe me, it's just the beginning.:D

Turquoise
08-27-2009, 09:27 AM
I love both players and I am fascinated by their contrasting strengths and weaknesses.

I think that Tsonga has instinctive, explosive talent. He’s able to produce spectacular shormaking because he’s geared into offensive mode from the start, and because of his quick, reactive skills. Unfortunately, if something goes out of sync in his game, it tends to have a domino effect.

Murray’s talent is more innate and strategic – his ability to read the game, to adapt to different players and conditions, to always think one shot ahead. His athleticism and speed are important aids in executing his game plan. Sometimes complacency kicks in, and he wastes unecessary effort and energy going into recovery mode.

By the way, talent does not necessarily translate into results – look no further than Safin…

FlavorNuts
08-27-2009, 09:30 AM
They're both horribly one dimensional. Who cares.

kooties
08-27-2009, 10:07 AM
Tsonga

FairWeatherFan
08-27-2009, 10:11 AM
Tsonga

2003
08-27-2009, 10:20 AM
All of you keep saying Murray has better results, sure in the ATP events, he didn't get to world no 2 just by playing jigsaw puzzles.

But;

If you compare their Grand Slam Performance since say, 2007 AO when Tsonga first came onto the scene (with that epic tiebreak win over A-Rod), their record is actually very similar, infact Tsonga may have done better in GS so far.

Write off most of 07 as Murray was injured, AO 08he did miles better, lets not forget he smashed Muzza in that tournament in the first round!

Tsonga actually doesn't have a too shabby GS record. He could use another GS semi but that may come in New York in a week or two. My point being I don't think a flashy game alone gets you as far as Tsonga has.

In terms of Grand Slams, the moments that really count, the two have very similar records.

Clydey
08-27-2009, 11:04 AM
All of you keep saying Murray has better results, sure in the ATP events, he didn't get to world no 2 just by playing jigsaw puzzles.

But;

If you compare their Grand Slam Performance since say, 2007 AO when Tsonga first came onto the scene (with that epic tiebreak win over A-Rod), their record is actually very similar, infact Tsonga may have done better in GS so far.

Write off most of 07 as Murray was injured, AO 08he did miles better, lets not forget he smashed Muzza in that tournament in the first round!

Tsonga actually doesn't have a too shabby GS record. He could use another GS semi but that may come in New York in a week or two. My point being I don't think a flashy game alone gets you as far as Tsonga has.

In terms of Grand Slams, the moments that really count, the two have very similar records.

Their GS record since 2007? There's no contest. Murray has a far superior record.

And Tsonga did not "smash" Murray. In fact, it was his toughest match in the entire tournament until he lost in the final. He beat Murray in 4 sets and won fewer points than Murray. He was well worth his win, but you're twisting the facts by saying that he "smashed" Murray.

Goldenoldie
08-27-2009, 11:38 AM
The only way of comparing chalk and cheese is to look at which is the most successful product. Mick Jagger v Placido Domingo perhaps.

2003
08-27-2009, 12:27 PM
Murray is the more successful product but thats only because the british media ride him because he is the great british hope of winning a slam. If the French cared more about tennis Tsonga would be marketable, particulary given the Ali resembelance.

Yeah Murray didn't get smashed but still. It was a huge upset at the time. He was a relative unkown (but those of us who saw his potential in 07 against roddick knew better).

Anyway the poll is neck and neck after a strong comeback from Tsonga! They were tied earlier.

ShotmaKer
08-27-2009, 01:17 PM
If the French cared more about tennis Tsonga would be marketable, particulary given the Ali resembelance.



I prefer Tsonga by a thousand miles. But I have to go with Murray here. It has nothing to do with marketing. Murray is world #2 and closer to winning a slam than Tsonga.

Lopez
08-28-2009, 02:57 PM
Clydey, you are overrating Murray's serve here.

Thing is, can you distinguish why his second serve sucks? It's because his first serve technique is essentially pretty weak; he blasts flat serves down the tee mostly, some wide serves to the ad court. If you look at the greatest servers, Sampras, Federer, Roddick, they hit their first serve with varying spins and use almost the same technique.

Murray's problem with the second serve stems from his technically weak first serve. Sure he gets service winners and aces, but at crucial times it can be very unreliable. It's pretty hit and miss since he hits it so flat, and because it's flat, it messes up his second serve because it's essentially a different shot.

Another player with a similar "problem" with the serve is Jarkko Nieminen. Can you see the resemblance there?

Clydey
08-28-2009, 03:08 PM
Clydey, you are overrating Murray's serve here.

Thing is, can you distinguish why his second serve sucks? It's because his first serve technique is essentially pretty weak; he blasts flat serves down the tee mostly, some wide serves to the ad court. If you look at the greatest servers, Sampras, Federer, Roddick, they hit their first serve with varying spins and use almost the same technique.

Murray's problem with the second serve stems from his technically weak first serve. Sure he gets service winners and aces, but at crucial times it can be very unreliable. It's pretty hit and miss since he hits it so flat, and because it's flat, it messes up his second serve because it's essentially a different shot.

Another player with a similar "problem" with the serve is Jarkko Nieminen. Can you see the resemblance there?

I don't think it's technically weak. I think he has an excellent, smooth motion.

Putting that aside, you are putting far too much emphasis on what you think the "right" technique is. Do you think anyone would teach someone Roddick's service motion or Marin Cilic's service motion (fuck me, that's an ugly motion). Every player is different and they use what works for them. I can't say I've ever heard someone say that Murray has a technically weak first serve. That's a new one on me.

I guarantee that I've seen a lot more of Murray than you. He hits with slice out wide (deuce side) and up the middle (ad side) frequently. His favourite serve is certainly the flat serve, since that tends to end the point right there and then. However, he uses the slice serve a lot.

NadalSharapova
08-28-2009, 03:10 PM
Consistency and results goes to murray, but in terms of aesthetically pleasing tennis murray is not fit to tie tsonga's laces.

rocketassist
08-28-2009, 03:33 PM
Murray's first serve is great, 2nd serve is average. I seen many times in Wimbledon his first serve would dig him out of any hole he got in to.

Lopez
08-28-2009, 04:43 PM
I don't think it's technically weak. I think he has an excellent, smooth motion.

Putting that aside, you are putting far too much emphasis on what you think the "right" technique is. Do you think anyone would teach someone Roddick's service motion or Marin Cilic's service motion (fuck me, that's an ugly motion). Every player is different and they use what works for them. I can't say I've ever heard someone say that Murray has a technically weak first serve. That's a new one on me.

I guarantee that I've seen a lot more of Murray than you. He hits with slice out wide (deuce side) and up the middle (ad side) frequently. His favourite serve is certainly the flat serve, since that tends to end the point right there and then. However, he uses the slice serve a lot.

I think you misunderstood me on the technique part. What I meant is that Murray's problem is that since he really isn't a good server, he needs to alter his technique drastically on the second and first serves. This is something that Federer for example doesn't have to do. Sure Murray can serve bombs on the first one (sure slice as well but other than that his spin repertoire is somewhat limited), my point is that that doesn't make him a great server.

The way to fix the problem can be easy or difficult depending how you look at it. He should start practicing hitting the first serve with more spin. This will give him more variety, his serve will be more difficult to read and, most importantly, then his second serve will improve drastically.

Thing is, I'm not sure if he can really "unlearn" his current 1st serve mentality and technique.

Sapeod
08-28-2009, 04:50 PM
:haha: I'm voting for all the people who voted for Tsonga in ACC :retard:

It's Murray by a mile, and what is this that I hear that Murray's serve is weak? Utter bullshit. 25 aces against Roddick at Wimbledon this year says otherwise. His first service is a bomb when on :worship:

GlennMirnyi
08-28-2009, 05:11 PM
Well, you have some point. But look at this from another angle. Even serving 50% first serve throughout the match Andrew owns 95% of the tour easily. First serve is killing. Isn't he young enough to improve the second?:p Can you compare his forehand two years old version and the current one? See the progress? Believe me, it's just the beginning.:D

No he's not young to improve. At his age, all his strokes' development is complete.

The only way of comparing chalk and cheese is to look at which is the most successful product. Mick Jagger v Placido Domingo perhaps.

Placido Domingo is a much better singer, what's your point again?

Clydey, you are overrating Murray's serve here.

Thing is, can you distinguish why his second serve sucks? It's because his first serve technique is essentially pretty weak; he blasts flat serves down the tee mostly, some wide serves to the ad court. If you look at the greatest servers, Sampras, Federer, Roddick, they hit their first serve with varying spins and use almost the same technique.

Murray's problem with the second serve stems from his technically weak first serve. Sure he gets service winners and aces, but at crucial times it can be very unreliable. It's pretty hit and miss since he hits it so flat, and because it's flat, it messes up his second serve because it's essentially a different shot.

Another player with a similar "problem" with the serve is Jarkko Nieminen. Can you see the resemblance there?

Good observation.

I don't think it's technically weak. I think he has an excellent, smooth motion.

Putting that aside, you are putting far too much emphasis on what you think the "right" technique is. Do you think anyone would teach someone Roddick's service motion or Marin Cilic's service motion (fuck me, that's an ugly motion). Every player is different and they use what works for them. I can't say I've ever heard someone say that Murray has a technically weak first serve. That's a new one on me.

I guarantee that I've seen a lot more of Murray than you. He hits with slice out wide (deuce side) and up the middle (ad side) frequently. His favourite serve is certainly the flat serve, since that tends to end the point right there and then. However, he uses the slice serve a lot.

Shows how much you overrate Murray. It is a weak serve. Technique is different from style, mate. Technique is the right way to do anything. Roddick may have an unusual service motion, but its technique is good, otherwise he wouldn't serve so well. He does what's supposed to be done concerning bringing the racket behind his head and everything else.

Murray has a predictable and weak serve. Doesn't matter how much you've seen him. It's amazing how skewed is your analysis of Murray. Don't take it in a wrong way.

:haha: I'm voting for all the people who voted for Tsonga in ACC :retard:

It's Murray by a mile, and what is this that I hear that Murray's serve is weak? Utter bullshit. 25 aces against Roddick at Wimbledon this year says otherwise. His first service is a bomb when on :worship:

Did he win? :lol:

When on, even my serve is a bomb. When on, even Rochus' serve is a bomb. What matters is how it is day in day out. Murray's serve is weak.

Sapeod
08-28-2009, 05:16 PM
Did he win? :lol:
Did Karlovic win his match against Hewitt at RG. No, and he served 55 aces. So, I guess according to your logic that means Karlovic's isn't a bomb :rolleyes: It doesn't matter whether you win or not. Murray's first serve is almost always hard to return when it goes in. His second serve, however is fairly average.

GlennMirnyi
08-28-2009, 05:21 PM
Did Karlovic win his match against Hewitt at RG. No, and he served 55 aces. So, I guess according to your logic that means Karlovic's isn't a bomb :rolleyes: It doesn't matter whether you win or not. Murray's first serve is almost always hard to return when it goes in. His second serve, however is fairly average.

:lol:

Thanks for helping my point.

Karlovic didn't win because even though his first serve is really good, his second serve wasn't enough, as in the most important moments you'll end up having to play with a second serve.

Every first serve is hard to return when it goes in. It's a tautology. :rolleyes:

Ichiban1920
08-28-2009, 05:22 PM
Most first serves are hard to return when they go in. That's why they're first serves. Murray's first serve isn't really that great of a first serve. It's decent, but that's about it.

Sapeod
08-28-2009, 05:25 PM
:lol:

Thanks for helping my point.

Karlovic didn't win because even though his first serve is really good, his second serve wasn't enough, as in the most important moments you'll end up having to play with a second serve.

Every first serve is hard to return when it goes in. It's a tautology. :rolleyes:
Every 1st serve you say? What about Monaco's, Rochus', Cipolla's, Nadal's etc. Not all 1st serves are hard to return. Murray's is a weapon though, no matter what you say :)

Commander Data
08-30-2009, 06:07 PM
Anyone can make it into the top 10 just by grinding, like Nadull, simon, Mugfils, and Murray. Doesn't mean they're talented though.

So why don't you fucking grind your way into the top 10 and collect a couple million $.:retard:

Ichiban1920
08-30-2009, 06:09 PM
So why don't you fucking grind your way into the top 10 and collect a couple million $.:retard:


:lol:

Truth hurts doesn't it, Frauderer fanboy.

Talentless grinders/pushers/moonballers making it to the top 10=mug era.

KostyaTszyu
08-30-2009, 06:22 PM
Tsonga more talented, Murray better player.

dusan1610
08-30-2009, 06:23 PM
Murray

Mateya
08-30-2009, 06:32 PM
I cannot believe that more than a half of MTF voted for Tsonga :confused:

Murray is WAY more talented than onedimensional Tsonga.

Commander Data
08-30-2009, 06:37 PM
:lol:

Truth hurts doesn't it, Frauderer fanboy.

Talentless grinders/pushers/moonballers making it to the top 10=mug era.

As I see you even missed the argument. No surprise there.

...anyway, you are just a coward, bashing players but not standing straight and say who you support. I have no respect for you whatsoever.

Basic Boy
08-30-2009, 06:51 PM
Tsonga obviously, you have to be joking. Murray is just a pusher, did you even watch the Benneteau match, it was like under-14 juniors.

worst match this year, what a clownfest.

Sapeod
08-30-2009, 06:54 PM
worst match this year, what a clownfest.
The only clown that was in that match was Benneteau. Murray wasn't playing too well, but he wasn't a clown. He just did what he had to win. He isn't called the Tradesman for nothing.

Matt01
08-30-2009, 08:34 PM
Murray more talented, Murray better player.

NadalSharapova
08-30-2009, 08:43 PM
Lets wait and see who wins a slam first. One fact I do know is Tsonga plays more attractive tennis but Murray is ranked higher.

Huey84
08-30-2009, 08:46 PM
Tsonga has more talent, Mugay is just a (poo)pusher.

Sapeod
08-30-2009, 09:31 PM
Tsonga has more talent, Mugay is just a (poo)pusher.
I lol @ you're retardation.

Burrow
08-30-2009, 10:02 PM
Did I mention yet, the answer is indeed, Tsonga. :)

Much more proficient.

Ichiban1920
08-30-2009, 10:27 PM
As I see you even missed the argument. No surprise there.

...anyway, you are just a coward, bashing players but not standing straight and say who you support. I have no respect for you whatsoever.

What argument?

Who do I support? Safin, Tsonga, Fatbandian, Davydenko, Murray (:lol:), Soderling, Gonzalez, Hewitt.

angry1
08-30-2009, 10:46 PM
Lets wait and see who wins a slam first. One fact I do know is Tsonga plays more attractive tennis but Murray is ranked higher.

That fact looks a lot like an opinion to me.A widely held opinion still isn't the same as a fact.

Burrow
08-30-2009, 10:55 PM
I agree, angry1.

My eyes say thank you to Andrew Murray, for that wonderfully almighty, dazzling cross-court forehand!

And let's not forget about that thunderbolt of a second serve! He surprises me every time with this unbelievably unpredictable shot.

angry1
08-30-2009, 11:26 PM
I agree, angry1.

My eyes say thank you to Andrew Murray, for that wonderfully almighty, dazzling cross-court forehand!

And let's not forget about that thunderbolt of a second serve! He surprises me every time with this unbelievably unpredictable shot.

Ignoring the sarcasm,do you think someone's opinion can qualify as a fact if it's stated forcefully enough?

Tsonga's game appeals to me less than Simon's or Murray's, I do realise I am in the minority.An opinion still isn't a fact.

Burrow
08-30-2009, 11:28 PM
Ignoring the sarcasm,do you think someone's opinion can qualify as a fact if it's stated forcefully enough?

Tsonga's game appeals to me less than Simon's or Murray's, I do realise I am in the minority.An opinion still isn't a fact.

No.

Tell me what you think is more appealing in both Simon and Murray's games over Tsonga.

Just out of interest.

Sapeod
08-30-2009, 11:30 PM
No.

Tell me what you think is more appealing in both Simon and Murray's games over Tsonga.

Just out of interest.
Different people like different styles.

angry1
08-30-2009, 11:41 PM
No.

Tell me what you think is more appealing in both Simon and Murray's games over Tsonga.

Just out of interest.

I've tried below at great length but, I just do is probably a better answer.

I prefer that they try different things,to work out how to win whether a particular shot is or isn't working that day.I prefer changes of pace,using which they can,when they're playing well,lull the opponent then unleash.FWIW I found Murray more often entertaining before he broke the top 3.

Tsonga's straight ahead whacking doesn't appeal to me.His touch shots close some but not all of the gap.I find a ball blasted miles out of court so irritating that it undoes the good his great shots do.His reliance partly on luck to break while losing return games regularly easily leads to serve dominated matches,where I always tend to support good returners as they avoid that.

Murray vs Simon is a worse match up than either vs Tsonga for entertainment IMO.

straitup
08-30-2009, 11:49 PM
No.

Tell me what you think is more appealing in both Simon and Murray's games over Tsonga.

Just out of interest.

I don't mind watching Tsonga, but his style doesn't exactly appeal to me...he's definitely a basher and while he is trying to add touch to his game, I just don't like the idea of hitting harder and harder and harder...probably why the women's game is in such a poor state at the moment.

I'm not a huge Murray fan either, but I like watching him. To me, spinning in a 60 mph second serve and being able to remain on top of the rally is impressive to me. Same with Simon...and I'd rather watch someone who is really fast rather than someone who hits the ball really fast.

superslam77
08-31-2009, 12:11 AM
Define talent or this is useless.

Burrow
08-31-2009, 12:12 AM
I don't mind watching Tsonga, but his style doesn't exactly appeal to me...he's definitely a basher and while he is trying to add touch to his game, I just don't like the idea of hitting harder and harder and harder...probably why the women's game is in such a poor state at the moment.

I'm not a huge Murray fan either, but I like watching him. To me, spinning in a 60 mph second serve and being able to remain on top of the rally is impressive to me. Same with Simon...and I'd rather watch someone who is really fast rather than someone who hits the ball really fast.

I've always thought Gonzalez was a bit of a mindless hitter. :confused:

Clydey
08-31-2009, 12:17 AM
No.

Tell me what you think is more appealing in both Simon and Murray's games over Tsonga.

Just out of interest.

They actually think about what they're doing?

Burrow
08-31-2009, 12:22 AM
They actually think about what they're doing?

Yes, correct, in today's game it is better to just roll the ball back.

Too bad Tsonga is oblivious to this!

Clydey
08-31-2009, 12:31 AM
Yes, correct, in today's game it is better to just roll the ball back.

Too bad Tsonga is oblivious to this!

Tsonga would be a much better player if he did engage his brain. It seems there's no middle ground. And I include Murray in that. Players either go all out attack or retreat into a defensive shell. Tsonga doesn't know how to be patient. He just whacks the ball as hard as he can and then rushes the net.

Murray said he's going to be more aggressive at the USO. Saying it is one thing. Doing it is something else entirely. He doesn't even use as much variety as he used to. In a weird sort of way, becoming fitter and faster has caused him to become more defensive. It's an area of concern.

Burrow
08-31-2009, 12:33 AM
Where is all of this variety? He stays at the back of the court pretty much all of the time?

straitup
08-31-2009, 12:34 AM
I've always thought Gonzalez was a bit of a mindless hitter. :confused:

Maybe, but he's also got a bit of a strategy to his own game. Yes Gonzo does try for outrageous winners sometimes, but his forehand has so much spin that it's a consistent weapon, and his slice has become a tough shot to play against as well on the backhand side. Anyway, I just like Gonzo because he's fun to watch and good on clay, and I have a thing for people who are good on clay.

Clydey
08-31-2009, 12:37 AM
Where is all of this variety? He stays at the back of the court pretty much all of the time?

Like I said, he doesn't use it as much as he used to. He's so fit and durable now that he has become even more defensive and less reliant on changes of pace.

Burrow
08-31-2009, 12:38 AM
Maybe, but he's also got a bit of a strategy to his own game. Yes Gonzo does try for outrageous winners sometimes, but his forehand has so much spin that it's a consistent weapon, and his slice has become a tough shot to play against as well on the backhand side. Anyway, I just like Gonzo because he's fun to watch and good on clay, and I have a thing for people who are good on clay.

Insert facepalm poster here

Burrow
08-31-2009, 12:39 AM
Like I said, he doesn't use it as much as he used to. He's so fit and durable now that he has become even more defensive and less reliant on changes of pace.

He has never came forward to the net regular enough to say that he has good variety. For someone to have good variety, the need to be good at the net.

Even Tsonga comes to the net more.

Clydey
08-31-2009, 12:45 AM
He has never came forward to the net regular enough to say that he has good variety. For someone to have good variety, the need to be good at the net.

Even Tsonga comes to the net more.

Murray is good at the net. He has never come as forward as much as he should. He's a fantastic volleyer and he wastes it by retrieving so often.

Murray has plenty of variety. As I said, he doesn't use it as often as he used to. He used to extract errors by changing the pace constantly, never giving his opponent the same look. He uses that tactic much more sparingly now.

Even someone who hates Murray as much as you can't look at this video and say that he can't play some incredible all court tennis.

AG8jdpmCaVE

malisha
08-31-2009, 12:51 AM
He has never come as forward as much as he should.
He used to extract errors by changing the pace constantly, never giving his opponent the same look. He uses that tactic much more sparingly now.



why ?

you said that hes more fit now but i doubt that you belive thats the reason..as when he needed to change his tactic he was clueless

Clydey
08-31-2009, 12:52 AM
why ?

Why what?

malisha
08-31-2009, 12:55 AM
Why what?

yes he used to change pace but do it rarely these days
there are matches that cannot be won with fitness and where he needs to be agressive..yet he cant do it when the situation says so

Clydey
08-31-2009, 12:58 AM
why ?

you said that hes more fit now but i doubt that you belive thats the reason..as when he needed to change his tactic he was clueless

I do believe that's the reason. I don't think it's a conscious thing. I don't think he sat down and thought, "Fuck it, I'm going to use less variety". I think he got into a comfort zone. I think he'll be successful either way, but I think he'll be more successful if he gets back to using a lot of variety. The irony is that he uses the slice more than ever. He needs to put two-hands on the racquet more often.

Clydey
08-31-2009, 01:00 AM
yes he used to change pace but do it rarely these days
there are matches that cannot be won with fitness and where he needs to be agressive..yet he cant do it when the situation says so

He can do it. He just chooses not most of the time. I think the guy is terrified of making errors. It's clear that he hates nothing more than just handing his opponent a point.

Everyone knows he can do it. There are times when he's forced to do it. The most obvious example is when he plays Nadal, an opponent he can't outgrind. Whenever he plays Nadal, he plays spectacular all-court tennis.

Burrow
08-31-2009, 01:03 AM
Murray is good at the net. He has never come as forward as much as he should. He's a fantastic volleyer and he wastes it by retrieving so often.

Murray has plenty of variety. As I said, he doesn't use it as often as he used to. He used to extract errors by changing the pace constantly, never giving his opponent the same look. He uses that tactic much more sparingly now.

Even someone who hates Murray as much as you can't look at this video and say that he can't play some incredible all court tennis.

AG8jdpmCaVE

This is the only video I ever see of Murray fans, losing to Nadal and scraping by a hurting Federer.

Clydey
08-31-2009, 01:05 AM
This is the only video I ever see of Murray fans, losing to Nadal and scraping by a hurting Federer.

There aren't that many compilations out there. I made a few compilations, but it's mostly just single match highlights on YouTube. That's probably why you usually see my videos.

Here's a different one.

ZOB6MJvjH9U&feature=related

Burrow
08-31-2009, 01:12 AM
None of this makes any difference, highlights are highlights. They don't tell the whole story.

Clydey
08-31-2009, 01:16 AM
None of this makes any difference, highlights are highlights. They don't tell the whole story.

They are relevant to the point I'm making. And the point is that he's capable of it. I am not suggesting that those clips are representative of his normal style of play.

malisha
08-31-2009, 01:16 AM
He can do it. He just chooses not most of the time. I think the guy is terrified of making errors. It's clear that he hates nothing more than just handing his opponent a point.

Everyone knows he can do it. There are times when he's forced to do it. The most obvious example is when he plays Nadal, an opponent he can't outgrind. Whenever he plays Nadal, he plays spectacular all-court tennis.

i hope hell do it more in future:yeah:

Allez
08-31-2009, 06:40 AM
Muzza by a mile

ReturnWinner
08-31-2009, 01:50 PM
Murray by far, Dumbnga winning the poll as expected in this fanboy/fangirl forum :rolleyes:

shmeeko69
08-31-2009, 03:17 PM
Being Scottish I'll be biased & say Murray.

Tsonga has more power & his technique is on a

par with Murray's, but Murray is one of the most

improved player's on the circuit, If not the

most improved player & has a better all round

game & his first serve is now much faster.

Mark:wavey:

Burrow
08-31-2009, 03:20 PM
Better all round game? :lol:

Nidhogg
08-31-2009, 07:02 PM
I can think of easier tasks than comparing two stylewise quite different players to each other and rank them in some sort of linear talent-o-meter when we can't even agree on the definition of talent.

Sapeod
08-31-2009, 08:43 PM
Better all round game? :lol:
Murray is good and consistant of the ground, good serve, except the second, good slice, good volleys, comfortable defending and attacking. All round game. Has to get better on clay though.

Overall Murray>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tsonga

Sapeod
08-31-2009, 08:44 PM
Also it's pathetic that Tsonga is winning this poll. Wishfull thinking and severe idiocy at its best :rolleyes:

Lopez
08-31-2009, 08:58 PM
Murray is good and consistant of the ground, good serve, except the second, good slice, good volleys, comfortable defending and attacking. All round game. Has to get better on clay though.

Overall Murray>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tsonga

Funny how people think that the first and second serves are as different as the forehand and the backhand for example.

Andy Murray isn't a good server. Sure, he can fire some flat bombs and get the aces but that isn't enough to make him a great, or even good, server.

Sapeod
08-31-2009, 09:07 PM
Funny how people think that the first and second serves are as different as the forehand and the backhand for example.

Andy Murray isn't a good server. Sure, he can fire some flat bombs and get the aces but that isn't enough to make him a great, or even good, server.
He is a good server, at least on the 1st service. He can do very well with that serve. If you can't see that then you are blind. The second serve isn't good though.

oranges
08-31-2009, 09:15 PM
Did the junkballer get his votes on the fabled variety, which is talked about a lot, but no one seems to see it on court or is it because of the superior serve, FH and volleys? It's not a who has a better BH lob/pass poll FFS.

Clydey
08-31-2009, 09:24 PM
Did the junkballer get his votes on the fabled variety, which is talked about a lot, but no one seems to see it on court or is it because of the superior serve, FH and volleys? It's not a who has a better BH lob/pass poll FFS.

Because that's the only thing Murray does better than Tsonga?

How the hell are you going to fangirl now? You going to turn up at court with a Croatian flag?

scoobs
08-31-2009, 09:31 PM
What is the point of this thread? It's just a p roxy question for "how stupid and biased are MTF posters?"

oranges
08-31-2009, 09:31 PM
Because that's the only thing Murray does better than Tsonga?

How the hell are you going to fangirl now? You going to turn up at court with a Croatian flag?

Pretty much, add the return. If he had the Tsonga talent, perhaps the obnoxious personality would be somewhat easier to swallow.

As for the second part, I hope it's the result of some heavy partying. That would be both the most pleasant and complimentary interpretation for you :)

simplet
08-31-2009, 10:09 PM
What is the point of this thread? It's just a p roxy question for "how stupid and biased are MTF posters?"

What does that even mean? Do you think someone would have to be stupid to try to rank players in terms of "talent" or are you just angry Tsonga is winning?

scoobs
08-31-2009, 10:30 PM
What does that even mean? Do you think someone would have to be stupid to try to rank players in terms of "talent" or are you just angry Tsonga is winning?
No, I just suspect what many people are answering is not "how talented" but "which do I like better".

As for who's winning, no surprises there.

Har-Tru
08-31-2009, 10:57 PM
No, I just suspect what many people are answering is not "how talented" but "which do I like better".

As for who's winning, no surprises there.

NID

Ichiban1920
08-31-2009, 11:02 PM
I'll take the big serve, big forehand, outstanding volleys anyday of the week over mug pushing. Murray can be ranked #2 and win those clown tournaments all he wants, he still doesn't have a slam so he is no different than tsonga. Tsonga>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Murray. And I like Murray.

2003
09-01-2009, 04:05 AM
Murray is good at the net. He has never come as forward as much as he should. He's a fantastic volleyer and he wastes it by retrieving so often.

Murray has plenty of variety. As I said, he doesn't use it as often as he used to. He used to extract errors by changing the pace constantly, never giving his opponent the same look. He uses that tactic much more sparingly now.

Even someone who hates Murray as much as you can't look at this video and say that he can't play some incredible all court tennis.

AG8jdpmCaVE

YES. I remember staying up all night to watch that match. That was the first time I saw Murray, and I became a huge fan of him. It was nothing but a fluke that Nud all won that match, Murray certainly deserved it. It showed what an absolute clown Nadal was back then on HC.

Unfortunately after he came back after being injured for half the 2007 year, he changed. He became a big time pusher mug. Maybe it was the fitness work, but I swear that version of Murray in the above clips could win GS titles all day. This new Murray, well, Tsonga will win a GS before him quite frankly. Maybe hes been hanging with Simon too much?

straitup
09-01-2009, 04:10 AM
YES. I remember staying up all night to watch that match. That was the first time I saw Murray, and I became a huge fan of him. It was nothing but a fluke that Nud all won that match, Murray certainly deserved it. It showed what an absolute clown Nadal was back then on HC.

Unfortunately after he came back after being injured for half the 2007 year, he changed. He became a big time pusher mug. Maybe it was the fitness work, but I swear that version of Murray in the above clips could win GS titles all day. This new Murray, well, Tsonga will win a GS before him quite frankly. Maybe hes been hanging with Simon too much?

Of course back then when he played like this frequently, his stamina was a concern...especially in this match, where he lost the last 2 sets 3 and 1. Now it almost seems that he's trying to prove he is more fit than anyone else by playing safer and using his speed more. He just needs to find a better balance. Tsonga certainly needs to find some kind of balance because he'll hit a ball 10 feet out and then try the same thing again. They both are talented in different ways, I just think Murray's touch and his speed and mind put him above Tsonga

simplet
09-01-2009, 10:56 AM
YES. I remember staying up all night to watch that match. That was the first time I saw Murray, and I became a huge fan of him. It was nothing but a fluke that Nud all won that match, Murray certainly deserved it. It showed what an absolute clown Nadal was back then on HC.

Unfortunately after he came back after being injured for half the 2007 year, he changed. He became a big time pusher mug. Maybe it was the fitness work, but I swear that version of Murray in the above clips could win GS titles all day. This new Murray, well, Tsonga will win a GS before him quite frankly. Maybe hes been hanging with Simon too much?

Those videos are pretty weird. There's this match against Nadal, and after that about 80% of the points shown are either Murray hitting return winners or scrambling all over the place. And then almost all of the 20% remaining points are long drawn-out back-and-forth that end with Murray counter-punching. We know Murray can return, as for the rest, it isn't really helping that much the case the maker of those videos is trying to defend.

As for the thread question, I'm a Tsonga fan but I'd be tempted to say Murray. Murray's volley are better than he gets credit for, even though he doesn't touch Tsonga on that front. Tsonga's touch is often overlooked, for example I've never seen him lose a point when he breaks a string, because he gets away with crazy drop shots each time (I've seen him do that 5 or 6 times at least). But he's not as consistent as Murray doing that, and he can have brain farts when he goes for those kind of shots. I think I'll consider this a tie, because Murray seems more of a natural, but he lacks the guts. After all those guys are entertainers, it's part of their job.

Clydey
09-01-2009, 11:27 AM
Those videos are pretty weird. There's this match against Nadal, and after that about 80% of the points shown are either Murray hitting return winners or scrambling all over the place. And then almost all of the 20% remaining points are long drawn-out back-and-forth that end with Murray counter-punching. We know Murray can return, as for the rest, it isn't really helping that much the case the maker of those videos is trying to defend.

As for the thread question, I'm a Tsonga fan but I'd be tempted to say Murray. Murray's volley are better than he gets credit for, even though he doesn't touch Tsonga on that front. Tsonga's touch is often overlooked, for example I've never seen him lose a point when he breaks a string, because he gets away with crazy drop shots each time (I've seen him do that 5 or 6 times at least). But he's not as consistent as Murray doing that, and he can have brain farts when he goes for those kind of shots. I think I'll consider this a tie, because Murray seems more of a natural, but he lacks the guts. After all those guys are entertainers, it's part of their job.

I made those videos. You seem to equate defending with pushing. The point of the videos is to show Murray's variety, not show him ballbashing at every opportunity

simplet
09-01-2009, 12:21 PM
I made those videos. You seem to equate defending with pushing. The point of the videos is to show Murray's variety, not show him ballbashing at every opportunity

Fair enough, but what variety though? In the first two videos (I didn't watch the third one, maybe it was different), excluding the first Nadal match at the beginning, he hit a whole 6 volleys (including 3 put-aways where he just pushed the ball in the open court), and 1 drop-shot (and I thought that was his specialty?). That's 15 minutes of Murray's best shots, spanning apparently more than a year. He hit a few nice lobs, maybe 10 total, and I'm counting the points where he pretty much couldn't do anything else and those where he had already shot a passing to get a short ball and just had to put the ball over the other guy's head.

I just don't think those videos make a good case, but all right.

Clydey
09-01-2009, 12:40 PM
Fair enough, but what variety though? In the first two videos (I didn't watch the third one, maybe it was different), excluding the first Nadal match at the beginning, he hit a whole 6 volleys (including 3 put-aways where he just pushed the ball in the open court), and 1 drop-shot (and I thought that was his specialty?). That's 15 minutes of Murray's best shots, spanning apparently more than a year. He hit a few nice lobs, maybe 10 total, and I'm counting the points where he pretty much couldn't do anything else and those where he had already shot a passing to get a short ball and just had to put the ball over the other guy's head.

I just don't think those videos make a good case, but all right.

So is that how you define variety, going to the net? The videos show Murray winning points in a variety of ways. Attacking and defending. The goal isn't to show how often he goes to the net. It's to demonstrate what he's capable of. I don't know how anyone can deny that Murray is capable of fantastic attacking all-court tennis after watching his matches with Nadal in Australia and at the USO.

Also, those are just from the videos I have on this computer. Those highlights do not span more than a year's worth of matches. Those are select points from, what, 10 or 11 matches? I didn't go through each match and note down the points I wanted to include. I skimmed through them in order to find points that I remembered. It's not an exhaustive list of his best points.

You should check out 3 and 4, too.

rocketassist
09-01-2009, 02:29 PM
Burrow would probably laugh at me, but Murray's tennis in those Nadal matches reminded me of a certain Russian!

Har-Tru
09-01-2009, 02:36 PM
He is a good server, at least on the 1st service. He can do very well with that serve. If you can't see that then you are blind. The second serve isn't good though.

Good 1st serve + pathetic 2nd serve = no good serve.

Burrow
09-01-2009, 02:36 PM
Burrow would probably laugh at me, but Murray's tennis in those Nadal matches reminded me of a certain Russian!

http://humanprovince.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/simpsons_nelson_haha2uwr.jpg

rocketassist
09-01-2009, 02:39 PM
http://humanprovince.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/simpsons_nelson_haha2uwr.jpg

That was coming, although Safin is easily the better player.

Clydey
09-01-2009, 03:07 PM
That was coming, although Safin is easily the better player.

We can make that judgement when Murray's career is over.

Kworb
09-01-2009, 03:10 PM
Tsonga is more talented for sure. I can't believe the poll is this close. Through hard labor Murray has become a super defensive player. His plans A, B and C are all to return the ball without risk. He didn't need a lot of talent to accomplish this, just grueling physical conditioning and basic tennis lessons. Now he is super fast and can be anywhere on the court in less than a second which frustrates the vast majority of his opponents into giving away the match to him.

Tsonga on the other hand is full of talent. He understands the court much better than the average player. Every ball he hits has a purpose and with it he is already imagining how the point will end in his favor. He relies only on himself and not his opponent's self implosion. He does stuff on court that you can't teach. Tsonga is for sure more talented than Murray, much much MUCH MUCH more talented.

bizzle
09-01-2009, 03:16 PM
:lol: What a ridiculous thread

I see all the Murray haters are out in force :inlove: :rolls:

straitup
09-01-2009, 03:19 PM
Tsonga is more talented for sure. I can't believe the poll is this close. Through hard labor Murray has become a super defensive player. His plans A, B and C are all to return the ball without risk. He didn't need a lot of talent to accomplish this, just grueling physical conditioning and basic tennis lessons. Now he is super fast and can be anywhere on the court in less than a second which frustrates the vast majority of his opponents into giving away the match to him.

Tsonga on the other hand is full of talent. He understands the court much better than the average player. Every ball he hits has a purpose and with it he is already imagining how the point will end in his favor. He relies only on himself and not his opponent's self implosion. He does stuff on court that you can't teach. Tsonga is for sure more talented than Murray, much much MUCH MUCH more talented.

To me, making an opponent self-implode is a talent and art in itself. Sure, you can make an opponent mad by playing well against them, but it's another thing to annoy them with all kinds of chipping, excellent returning, and variety. Tsonga certainly has talent, but I still think he's a little wild sometimes when he plays.

Commander Data
09-01-2009, 03:33 PM
Of course Murray is more talented then ballbasher Clownga. Clownga is like a weak version of Safin without Slam.

Burrow
09-01-2009, 03:56 PM
We can make that judgement when Murray's career is over.

Safin had basically 4 years of good health. Didn't play in an era as shit as this.

Safin >>> Muggay.

angry1
09-01-2009, 04:31 PM
Safin had basically 4 years of good health. Didn't play in an era as shit as this.

Safin >>> Muggay.

What about Safin and Tsonga.

mcnasty
09-01-2009, 05:06 PM
Tsonga is the greater athlete, but Murray is the better tennis player.

Sapeod
09-01-2009, 05:08 PM
What does that even mean? Do you think someone would have to be stupid to try to rank players in terms of "talent" or are you just angry Tsonga is winning?
The only reason Tsonga is winnng is because most of MTF hate Murray and so they vote for Tsonga :rolleyes: Pathetic :o

Sapeod
09-01-2009, 05:09 PM
Safin had basically 4 years of good health. Didn't play in an era as shit as this.

Safin >>> Muggay.
Nah. Murray>>>>>>>Mugfin.

Will have a way better career than Mugfin.

jcreback
09-01-2009, 05:24 PM
Murray will have a better career than Safin because of his mental game.

Safin had more raw, physical tennis talent in his pinky than Murray does in his whole body, which isn't really a knock on Murray. I can count on one hand the number of guys who have had more talent than Safin since 1990.

Myrre
09-01-2009, 05:25 PM
Would have to go with Murray. His feel for the ball, ability to vary his game, sudden change of pace and anticipation are exceptional. You just don't see that to such a degree very often. He's well and truly gifted. Tsonga's talents are not so obvious. Of course he's got fantastic hand eye coordination as all pros have, but I think Tsonga's abilities can easier be acquired by training than Murray's.

Ichiban1920
09-01-2009, 05:52 PM
Nah. Murray>>>>>>>Mugfin.

Will have a way better career than Mugfin.


Murray fanboys are about as delusional as Nadull fanboys.
:lol:

Ichiban1920
09-01-2009, 05:53 PM
The only reason Tsonga is winnng is because most of MTF hate Murray and so they vote for Tsonga :rolleyes: Pathetic :o

Because most of MTF aren't fanboys of a player that's completely overrated and overhyped by the British media.

Ichiban1920
09-01-2009, 05:53 PM
Tsonga is the greater athlete, but Murray is the better tennis player.

Being a better pusher doesn't mean you're a better tennis player.

Ichiban1920
09-01-2009, 05:54 PM
Of course Murray is more talented then ballbasher Clownga. Clownga is like a weak version of Safin without Slam.

And Murray is a weak version of Nadull without a slam, so they're both equal in my eyes. Clown.

Sapeod
09-01-2009, 06:05 PM
Murray fanboys are about as delusional as Nadull fanboys.
:lol:
In a few years Mugfin will look like a midget when he in contrast with Murray's achievements.

Anywa, I'd rather be a Muzzatard than a retard like you.

Sapeod
09-01-2009, 06:05 PM
Because most of MTF aren't fanboys of a player that's completely overrated and overhyped by the British media.
No, because most on here only vote for whoever they like more, not for the most talented.

And if someone is as hated as Murray, he's not gonna be voted. FFS, he had the least votes in the polls where he is the clear favourite.

Langers
09-01-2009, 06:08 PM
Murray.

Tsonga's talent is overrated because of his athleticism.

Commander Data
09-01-2009, 07:15 PM
And Murray is a weak version of Nadull without a slam, so they're both equal in my eyes. Clown.

Difference being, Clownga will never win a Slam. Murray will.

oranges
09-01-2009, 07:38 PM
:lol: How on earth is Tsonga any version of Safin. Priceless.

Ichiban1920
09-01-2009, 08:37 PM
Difference being, Clownga will never win a Slam. Murray will.

As long as Frauderer and Nadull are healthy and playing neither will be winning any slams.

Ichiban1920
09-01-2009, 08:42 PM
No, because most on here only vote for whoever they like more, not for the most talented.

And if someone is as hated as Murray, he's not gonna be voted. FFS, he had the least votes in the polls where he is the clear favourite.

The same amount of people hate Tsonga as there are that hate Murray you clown. All the Mugray/Frauderer/Nadull retards coming in here calling him "Clownga". And how is he the clear favorite in this poll? You're seriously a blind fanboy so there is no reasoning with the likes of you.

Har-Tru
09-01-2009, 09:53 PM
Tsonga is the greater athlete, but Murray is the better tennis player.

that.is.not.the.question

ChampionshipPoints
09-01-2009, 10:16 PM
When Tsonga's game is on, he's waaay better than Murray: he has got talent, not a pusher.

CR3WLFC
09-01-2009, 10:54 PM
Tsonga is more talented..

Clydey
09-05-2009, 11:37 AM
Clydey, you are overrating Murray's serve here.

Thing is, can you distinguish why his second serve sucks? It's because his first serve technique is essentially pretty weak; he blasts flat serves down the tee mostly, some wide serves to the ad court. If you look at the greatest servers, Sampras, Federer, Roddick, they hit their first serve with varying spins and use almost the same technique.

Murray's problem with the second serve stems from his technically weak first serve. Sure he gets service winners and aces, but at crucial times it can be very unreliable. It's pretty hit and miss since he hits it so flat, and because it's flat, it messes up his second serve because it's essentially a different shot.

Another player with a similar "problem" with the serve is Jarkko Nieminen. Can you see the resemblance there?

Was reading some of the ATP stats and was reminded of the above post.

Murray is in the top 10 in 5 out of the 6 service stats.

He is number 8 on the aces count.

He's number 10 on points won behind first serve.

He's number 6 on points won behind second serve. Oh, the irony.

He's number 5 on the list of percentage of BPs saved.

He's number 10 on the list of percentage of service games won.

What makes those stats all the more impressive is the one category he fails to break the top 10: first serve percentage. He's in 41st place in terms of average first serve percentage. Despite that, he breaks the top 10 in all other categories.

It's pretty clear that you're underrating his serve, rather than me overrating it.

angry1
09-05-2009, 01:41 PM
Was reading some of the ATP stats and was reminded of the above post.

Murray is in the top 10 in 5 out of the 6 service stats.

He is number 8 on the aces count.

He's number 10 on points won behind first serve.

He's number 6 on points won behind second serve. Oh, the irony.

He's number 5 on the list of percentage of BPs saved.

He's number 10 on the list of percentage of service games won.

What makes those stats all the more impressive is the one category he fails to break the top 10: first serve percentage. He's in 41st place in terms of average first serve percentage. Despite that, he breaks the top 10 in all other categories.

It's pretty clear that you're underrating his serve, rather than me overrating it.

The 2nd serve points won shows how much more talented Tsonga is.Apparently his is great,Murray's is dreadful,yet Tsonga wins a marginally lower%.

Look at points won on opponent's 2nd serve Tsonga 60/65 Murray 2nd.

Half the game is played when you're not serving.The gap betwenn the 2 makes it ludicrous to pretend Tsonga's better,just because he is much less superior in the other half.

2003
09-10-2009, 10:41 PM
It would be safe to say that Tsonga aquitted himself better than Mugraygaybo Andy Murray, although again both reached 4th round again so tied, so no closer to understanding whose a better player.

But at least Tsonga got a set and a tiebreak from a player wayyyy better than Cilic. And at least he lost to a player whos not going to get almost bagled by Nadal.

We will have to wait till TMC or AO to be any closer to solving this debate.