Who has more weapons and versatility? Murray or Federer. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who has more weapons and versatility? Murray or Federer.

DorianGray7
01-27-2010, 06:47 PM
While watching the Murray-Nadal match I honestly got sick of all the British Eurospot commentators going "oo, ahh", "Murray has so many weapons this", "Murray has so many weapons that." Simon Reed esp. really was laying it on, but all the commentators were basically having a boner about Murray. Afterwards, I recall one of the commentators saying how Murray had the most weapons on tour.

Wait a minute, I though Federer was the master of versatility and multiple weapons. One year ago, everyone was still saying how Murray is a boring baseliner and while I am a Murray fan and he's improved immensely the idea that now he's even better than the World No. 1 in versatility and weapons seems like downright British media fanboy band wagoning.

It's like the British media at Wimbledon when they knew it was destiny for Murray to win his home slam. Then he loses to Roddick of all people. >_<

So who has more weapons? Murray or Federer.

EDIT, damn it spelled Murray wrong on the poll. (Obviously its not Murrat) forgive me guys can't edit it apparently.

Persimmon
01-27-2010, 06:53 PM
Federer by far.

Ivanatis
01-27-2010, 06:55 PM
Any Texan redneck.

SetSampras
01-27-2010, 06:58 PM
Obviously Federer. Hell I got a better 2nd serve than Murray. Im sure many others just on this board do as well. Its pathetic. Murray is one way or the highway.. Push Push Push return return until his opponent makes a mistake

abraxas21
01-27-2010, 07:01 PM
federer.

and to be fair, murray probably comes second in the top 10, imo. however he usually hides them and gives preference to his pushing style.

Arkulari
01-27-2010, 07:04 PM
Roger

dodo
01-27-2010, 07:12 PM
Obviously Federer. Hell I got a better 2nd serve than Murray. Im sure many others just on this board do as well. Its pathetic. Murray is one way or the highway.. Push Push Push return return until his opponent makes a mistake
to be fair, he CAN play proper tennis, even if he rarely chooses to do so. his match against Nadal was a decent example. he was pushing his first serve at 140 km/h against Isner because he felt it was enough. and it was. so, good on him.
as far as the poll, its no contest and everyone knows it.

syc23
01-27-2010, 07:12 PM
Obviously Federer. Hell I got a better 2nd serve than Murray. Im sure many others just on this board do as well. Its pathetic. Murray is one way or the highway.. Push Push Push return return until his opponent makes a mistake

You have a better 2nd serve than Murray? Go and prove it on the pro tour then.

I'd bet you'd struggle to beat Judy Murray never mind Andy :rolleyes:

scoobs
01-27-2010, 07:15 PM
Federer

Why does this question even need to be asked? Just because the commentators lose all sense of perspective when they push the TALK button on their microphone doesn't mean we must take them seriously.

Harmless
01-27-2010, 07:20 PM
Just one vote for Murray, hm.

So, Clydey, why exactly do you think Muzza is more versatile than Roger?

scarecrows
01-27-2010, 07:22 PM
Clydey

brithater
01-27-2010, 07:29 PM
Federer is the most talented player of all time.....period. End this nonsense. His game is nothing but weopons. People who say Murray have a better return of serve are even wrong. Watch Federer play Roddick at the US Open quarters a few years ago. Federer has a Devastating return of serve. He just decides not to use it and pushes it back.

DorianGray7
01-27-2010, 07:47 PM
Regardless of what we all think.

Watch the British Eurosport commentators during the Final (Murray and Federer) and they will probably still give him all weapons and praises his brilliance..

guga2120
01-27-2010, 07:47 PM
Federer is better at using them, but Andy has just as much if not more than Roger. Murray just can meltdown and big matches and get way too defensive.

Arkulari
01-27-2010, 07:52 PM
Federer is better at using them, but Andy has just as much if not more than Roger. Murray just can meltdown and big matches and get way too defensive.

do you really consider Murray's FH and serve are up there with Roger's? not to mention the net coverage and other aspects

BH, ROS, is Muzza all the way, but he's nowhere as versatile as Roger is IMO

DorianGray7
01-27-2010, 07:57 PM
Actually this begs the question I wondered about Roger.

Why does he use that slice backhand? Is there any tactical advantage to it at all? It seems that hitting the ball really flat and fast with 2 hands like the hardhitters on the court would suit Federer better.

Or does Federer just do it because its more smooth and elegant...

sammy01
01-27-2010, 07:57 PM
i wouldn't say murray is more versatile than federer, but what murray does have over most others against fed is he can counteract when fed mixes up the play. fed when playing most other top players uses the slice and net play to break things up and keep the other guy guessing, whereas murray isn't thrown by getting into slice rallies, or counteracting the drop shots, lobs ect. I feel this is why fed has a hard time beating murray as he feels to win he has to outhit him from the baseline, whereas say against davy he feels he needs to mix the play up more.

i think they are pretty even with fed edging it with a more varried serve and the ability to effectively use the forehand better.

GugaF1
01-27-2010, 08:03 PM
Murray is versitile in the sense of trow the sink at me and I will be able to react to whatever the opponenet is doing.

Federer is versitile in the way to be able to take the iniciative and create whatever play crosses his mind.

Quite distinct types of variety. One is creating the other one is mostly reacting. No need to mention which one is superior. Is there..

dodo
01-27-2010, 08:03 PM
Actually this begs the question I wondered about Roger.

Why does he use that slice backhand? Is there any tactical advantage to it at all? It seems that hitting the ball really flat and fast with 2 hands like the hardhitters on the court would suit Federer better.

Or does Federer just do it because its more smooth and elegant...
huh?
because it is an awesome shot. he plays it to protect his backhand from hard flat shots. if done right, it is very difficult to attack and either forces the opponent to play a very risky aggressive shot or a neutral one, at which point he can bring his own forehand into play. he can also leave it short and force the opponent forward with a weak approach.
pretty basic stuff..

DorianGray7
01-27-2010, 08:26 PM
huh?
because it is an awesome shot. he plays it to protect his backhand from hard flat shots. if done right, it is very difficult to attack and either forces the opponent to play a very risky aggressive shot or a neutral one, at which point he can bring his own forehand into play. he can also leave it short and force the opponent forward with a weak approach.
pretty basic stuff..

If its basic then why doesn't many players on the tour use the slice backhand at all?

Everyone seems to prefer hitting the ball flat and hard. Like Soderling.

Quadruple Tree
01-27-2010, 08:35 PM
If its basic then why doesn't many players on the tour use the slice backhand at all?

Everyone seems to prefer hitting the ball flat and hard. Like Soderling.

Because they were never coached on how to do it properly? It's easier to learn a two handed backhand, so that is what the coaches teach all the kids these days. The transition to a slice backhand is not as natural for someone playing with a two handed backhand.

brithater
01-27-2010, 09:32 PM
If its basic then why doesn't many players on the tour use the slice backhand at all?

Everyone seems to prefer hitting the ball flat and hard. Like Soderling.

Thats nothing. Whats really crazy is how all these players use two hands on a backhand when they can just use one. Seems kind of silly. Waste of effort for one hand. Maybe if Rafa, Murray, or Djokavich goes to one handed backhands they would save some energy and win more slams. I dont know why the tennis people on TV dont talk about this more. Seems kind of obvious.

:wavey:

chalkdust
01-27-2010, 09:35 PM
Well, there is the number of weapons but one must not forget the effectiveness of each weapon. Murray has an incredible variety of shots, some of them could even be called weapons but they are more like toy weapons compared with Fed's forehand and serve. I wish Murray had a really crushing forehand and an accurate, faster second serve. As for versatility, I'm not really sure what it means to be more versatile or what the point is, unless to win. Some players only need one way to win. Murray might need and have more ways than most so he is definitely up there.

SaFed2005
01-27-2010, 09:41 PM
oops I picked GOAT Murray because I thought this was a joke thread... I didn't even realize this was a serious thread.

dombrfc
01-27-2010, 09:43 PM
Non Topic.

Of course the BBC and British Eurosport would have you think that Murray is better than everyone else in every way :(

brithater
01-27-2010, 09:45 PM
oops I picked GOAT Murray because I thought this was a joke thread... I didn't even realize this was a serious thread.

The Mens Tennis Forum is not serious?



:wavey:

McAlistar
01-27-2010, 10:22 PM
Serve-Pretty even really, Federer serves at a higher percentage, Murray serves harder and about the same aces. Second serve though is a clear advantage to Federer.
Forehand-Federer by a long way
Backhand-Comfortably Murray
Speed-Murray
Movement-Federer
Passing shots- both equally good, Murray tends to tend to need to hit more though.
Mental Strength-Federer
Volleying-Equal, both excellent in this facet
Tactics-Murray

Goldenoldie
01-27-2010, 10:32 PM
Who was it said "If you've got the atom bomb you don't need tanks"?

tkr
01-27-2010, 10:50 PM
Are people really discussing this???

brithater
01-27-2010, 11:04 PM
Are people really discussing this???

Because its important.

Noleta
01-27-2010, 11:06 PM
It is a very common thing to big up local sport stars,specially in the UK,hell,i'm sure the queen will give him an MBE when he wins his 1st slam.

The answer is Roger Federer.

brithater
01-27-2010, 11:06 PM
Who was it said "If you've got the atom bomb you don't need tanks"?

Laver had my favorite...

"Why hit the million dollar shot when a nickles worth will do ya"

britbox
01-27-2010, 11:16 PM
15 slams > 0

That's your answer in a nutshell.

tkr
01-27-2010, 11:58 PM
Because its important.

Not asking why, but if people really are discussing it... 15 > 0...

NicolasKiefer44
01-28-2010, 12:21 AM
Fed. Conversation done.

Art&Soul
01-28-2010, 12:33 AM
Silly poll

Clydey
01-28-2010, 01:45 AM
Just one vote for Murray, hm.

So, Clydey, why exactly do you think Muzza is more versatile than Roger?

I didn't even vote. If I had, I would have voted Federer.

No idea why you'd assume it was me, given that I have never even suggested that Murray has more weapons than Federer.

Ibracadabra
01-28-2010, 03:02 AM
For god sake, it's obviously roger even del potro has more weapons than murray

DorianGray7
01-28-2010, 01:11 PM
Let's ask another question. I remember Simon Reed commenting on the Murray-Nadal game about how Murray is the most consistent player on tour right now.

Normally, against Fed I would disagree but Federer recent chokes and screwups at the US Open final, losing to Tsonga at Montreal, losing to Djokovic at his hometown (Basel), losing to Djokovic again at Bercy, then losing to Davydenko the last 2 times... well, I'm seriously doubting Federer consistency now. Federer basically been shit ever since the US Open, of course Rafa's been shit since Madrid but that's another story.

Who would you say is more consistent Murray or Federer?

Clydey
01-28-2010, 01:20 PM
Let's ask another question. I remember Simon Reed commenting on the Murray-Nadal game about how Murray is the most consistent player on tour right now.

Normally, against Fed I would disagree but Federer recent chokes and screwups at the US Open final, losing to Tsonga at Montreal, losing to Djokovic at his hometown (Basel), losing to Djokovic again at Bercy, then losing to Davydenko the last 2 times... well, I'm seriously doubting Federer consistency now. Federer basically been shit ever since the US Open, of course Rafa's been shit since Madrid but that's another story.

Who would you say is more consistent Murray or Federer?

It depends on what you're referring to. If you mean the slams, it's obviously Federer. If you mean throughout the year, it's Murray.

gusavo
01-28-2010, 02:04 PM
His game is nothing but weopons.
what weapons. what are we talking about here?

Federer is the most talented player of all time.....period.
proof?

People who say Murray have a better return of serve are even wrong. Watch Federer play Roddick at the US Open quarters a few years ago.
fantastic argument..

He just decides not to use it and pushes it back.
thats right, he decides to play badly.



Quite distinct types of variety. One is creating the other one is mostly reacting. No need to mention which one is superior. Is there..
lol, pathetic

Logical
01-28-2010, 04:25 PM
Both have weapons, but rendered useless by El Matador. :worship:

SheepleBuster
01-28-2010, 04:41 PM
You give people enough rope and they hang themselves. Have you heard that before? It's like me saying that Roger is taller than Del Potro. I mean come on people. Just because Murray has a chance to win the final doesn't mean he is more versatile or even the better player overall. Anyone who voted for Murray is either blind or just trolling. This question is so obvious it's just not funny and yet 17 votes for Murray already?

Sophocles
01-28-2010, 04:51 PM
Both are extremely versatile by today's standards, but Federer obviously has bigger weapons.

LaFuria
01-28-2010, 04:53 PM
Murray has great skill but I wouldn't call the biggest pusher on the tour someone with plenty of "weapons"

Even if Federer is sloppy and not as good as he once was he mixes his game up while Mugray just pushes and pushes some more.

TennisLurker
01-28-2010, 05:02 PM
I think his forehand is really week, if he ever makes it to numbe 1 in the world, he would have one of the weakest, if not the weakest forehand among number 1 players, at least among the ones who were baseliners, Edberg had an awful one.

I think even prime Connors, Wilander and Hewitt had a better forehand than Murray.

chalkdust
01-28-2010, 05:10 PM
Funny interview posted on the AO site with Fed after his match with Davy. Someone kept asking him if he could still improve his game!! Got short shrift. But anyway, Fed made the point that nobody really has much time to improve because the season is so long - so you basically stick with what you've got. Lucky for him, that is more than anyone else. Anyway, it made me wonder how much Murray can/will improve over the remainder of his career. I know some feel he has already started to regress!

A lot of the players are always talking about improving things but I don't often see much sign of it, except in the very beginning of players' careers, or maybe in marginal areas like a clay-courter finally making R3 of Wimbledon rather than R1/R2 because they finally just loosen up a bit.

Classic examples are Henman and Rusedski (sorry, I am a Brit so I remember the things they used to say). They were always "working on things" but basically just got worse and worse as time went on - but that might have been due to strengthening in the men's game overall. Ok, Tim did have that year when he made SF RG and USO but that was kind of an aberration.

brithater
01-28-2010, 05:17 PM
I think his forehand is really week, if he ever makes it to numbe 1 in the world, he would have one of the weakest, if not the weakest forehand among number 1 players, at least among the ones who were baseliners, Edberg had an awful one.

I think even prime Connors, Wilander and Hewitt had a better forehand than Murray.


+1 I agree that Edberg had the worst forehand of any #1 player but he was one of the best at covering it as a weakness and had one of the best all time backhands. He is argueably one of the top 3 movers of all time. The critical component for any #1 player seems to be movement. The critical component to win majors seems to be the ability to step it up and be aggresive.....to take it as both players are consistent at that point and one has to win it. Being #1 is entirely different for it is heavily based on consistent results over time.

Roamed
01-28-2010, 06:03 PM
Putting 'Murrat' in the poll is obviously confusing some people.

ApproachShot
01-28-2010, 06:11 PM
Serve-Pretty even really, Federer serves at a higher percentage, Murray serves harder and about the same aces. Second serve though is a clear advantage to Federer.
Forehand-Federer by a long way
Backhand-Comfortably Murray
Speed-Murray
Movement-Federer
Passing shots- both equally good, Murray tends to tend to need to hit more though.
Mental Strength-Federer
Volleying-Equal, both excellent in this facet
Tactics-Murray


Serve: I largely agree with that but would put Federer ahead of Murray on 1st serves.
Return of serve: Murray
Forehand: Federer is better at CC, DTL, in-out
Backhand: Murray's 2 hander is a better shot going CC or DTL - greater pace and accuracy
Speed: Murray - especially approaching the net
Movement: Federer - footwork is second to none
Passing shots: Murray hardly ever fails with his CC backhands, Roger is particularly good on the forehand side / backhand down the line (providing his backhand holds up)
Mental Strength: An area of the game in which Murray has improved a lot. However I would go for Federer against any opponent other than Nadal. Curious though that Federer has historically suffered from a low BP conversion rate.
Volleying: On par with each other (Federer could be an excellent volleyer - I just don't think he practices this part of the game enough)
Half-volleys: Federer - he can create unplayable angles even on half-volleys with a flick of the wrist
Drop shots: Federer on the BH side, equal on the FH
Slice: Federer
Topspin lob: Both play this very well
Tactics: Murray, but I think Federer is not given enough credit in this department
Running forehand: Federer
Defensive game: Murray
Unorthodox shots: Federer
Take a look at these...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPVbJcvg4Js
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M9_1GlHkSg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hZx8IwtW1o



A common feature is that they are very good at capitalising on their strengths - for Murray this is the backhand, for Federer this is the forehand. I must say that I have to give a lot of credit to Murray here. Federer is a tough player to be compared with and Murray has almost as many shots in his repertoire as the 15 times grand slam champion. Prior to 2009 I had always considered Djokovic to be a more versatile player than Murray but now I am beginning to change my mind. There are players who can demonstrate excellent versatility in patches (for example Tsonga vs. Rafa AO 2008) but on balance, Federer and Murray are probably the two most versatile players on tour.

rocketassist
01-28-2010, 06:11 PM
2004-07 Federer pisses this, but 2010 Federer is bereft of big weapons.

dodo
01-29-2010, 11:35 AM
Backhand: Murray's 2 hander is a better shot going CC or DTL - greater pace and accuracy

Defensive game: Murray




Federer's backhand gets a lot of flak, but it really isn't anywhere as bad as some would say. What he is poor at (and Murray particularly good at) is keeping long high-pace/spin rallies going. Given neutral balls, he is excellent at making aggressive shots and straight winners off that wing. The Hewitt match was a great example of this.
Similar story with the defensive game. Murray will run down two, three, four more extra balls than other (even top) players, Federer included, but in the end relies on either a passing shot opportunity or the opponent's mistake. And it wins lots and lots of points for him. Federer rarely tries to retrieve like that, but he is great at turning the rally neutral or straight to his advantage with good slice bh or sharp forehand.

Haelfix
01-29-2010, 12:05 PM
Serve: Federer on first and second
Forehand: Fed
Backhand: Edge to Murray for consistency, but a lot closer than people think.
Movement: Murray at this stage in their careers, but also close
Volley: Federer by a mile
Mental: Fed
Tactics: Murray
Passing shots: Tied
Return of Serve: Roughly tied on first serve return, Murray by a mile on the second.

ApproachShot
01-29-2010, 12:50 PM
Federer's backhand gets a lot of flak, but it really isn't anywhere as bad as some would say. What he is poor at (and Murray particularly good at) is keeping long high-pace/spin rallies going. Given neutral balls, he is excellent at making aggressive shots and straight winners off that wing. The Hewitt match was a great example of this.
Similar story with the defensive game. Murray will run down two, three, four more extra balls than other (even top) players, Federer included, but in the end relies on either a passing shot opportunity or the opponent's mistake. And it wins lots and lots of points for him. Federer rarely tries to retrieve like that, but he is great at turning the rally neutral or straight to his advantage with good slice bh or sharp forehand.

Spot on actually. Perhaps I was a little hasty in giving Murray the edge in these two departments without taking a moment to acknowledge that the differences are very subtle and small. The Federer backhand is not only a very beautiful shot but it is often effective at exploiting sharp angles. Nonetheless, it's well documented that he has at times found the high topspin shots to his backhand side a little difficult to counter.

About the defensive game, I would say that Federer is superior in turning around points where he is initially being forced around the court a lot by his opponents to a winning shot a few strokes later. Murray's ability to bring back into play certain balls that would normally have been fired as winners against lesser opponents is amongst the best.

dodo
01-29-2010, 01:33 PM
Return of Serve: Roughly tied on first serve return, Murray by a mile on the second.

second serve returns will be key on sunday. by all logic and reason, Fed SHOULD be good at attacking second serves, but for whatever reason rarely chooses to do so. this is particularly painfully evident in his matches against Nadal and Murray - the ones with the crummiest 2nd serves. and when he occasionally does go after them, he just goes for broke Gonzales-style and ends up missing more often than not. mystifying.

Quadruple Tree
01-29-2010, 01:42 PM
In his match against Davydenko, I noticed Federer started attacking the second serve more in the second set and after. He would start standing on the baseline as if he would make his normal chip return, but when Davydenko would go into his service motion, Federer would take a couple steps back and then come over the ball with his backhand. I think we will see this same strategy against Murray.

brithater
01-29-2010, 01:54 PM
In his match against Davydenko, I noticed Federer started attacking the second serve more in the second set and after. He would start standing on the baseline as if he would make his normal chip return, but when Davydenko would go into his service motion, Federer would take a couple steps back and then come over the ball with his backhand. I think we will see this same strategy against Murray.

+1. Fed will be slicing to Murrays forhand as well. This tactic may be a telling factor of this match.

Clydey
01-29-2010, 01:56 PM
Return of Serve: Roughly tied on first serve return, Murray by a mile on the second.

Murray by a mile on both first and second. I don't even think Federer finished in the top 10 for points won on first serve last year. Murray finished 1st or 2nd on all 4 return categories. He probably would have finished 1st on all 4, but Nadal's return stats get a bit of a boost from the clay.

Clydey
01-29-2010, 02:00 PM
Spot on actually. Perhaps I was a little hasty in giving Murray the edge in these two departments without taking a moment to acknowledge that the differences are very subtle and small. The Federer backhand is not only a very beautiful shot but it is often effective at exploiting sharp angles. Nonetheless, it's well documented that he has at times found the high topspin shots to his backhand side a little difficult to counter.

About the defensive game, I would say that Federer is superior in turning around points where he is initially being forced around the court a lot by his opponents to a winning shot a few strokes later. Murray's ability to bring back into play certain balls that would normally have been fired as winners against lesser opponents is amongst the best.

I think the biggest problem with the Federer backhand is that he finds it tough to generate his own pace off it while still retaining a lot of control. Murray has had most success by simply rallying to the Federer backhand. He's gone away from that strategy recently and has started playing more to the Federer forehand, for some unknown reason. And when Andy's goes forehand to forehand with Fed, he takes a beating.

Jaz
01-29-2010, 02:06 PM
I think the biggest problem with the Federer backhand is that he finds it tough to generate his own pace off it while still retaining a lot of control. Murray has had most success by simply rallying to the Federer backhand. He's gone away from that strategy recently and has started playing more to the Federer forehand, for some unknown reason. And when Andy's goes forehand to forehand with Fed, he takes a beating.

I think Federer is able to deal with alot more pressure on the backhand than ever before. I don't think it's a strategy that is as effective as Nadal did a few years ago.

The strategy totally won't work over the 5-sets.

He went to the forehand because a few of the matches that Andy played against Roger, roger's forehand kept breaking down and leaking errors - this unfortunately for Andy rarely happens now. (not seen Roger's forehand break down since before Madrid.. like it did in 2008/Early 2009).

Return of serve is really less relevant. Neither Murray nor Federer have massive Roddickeque serves, and not really weak enough to exploit a whole lot.

Clydey
01-29-2010, 02:48 PM
Return of serve is really less relevant. Neither Murray nor Federer have massive Roddickeque serves, and not really weak enough to exploit a whole lot.

I'm not so sure about that. I've seen them serve other players (and each other) off the court. Both have very effective first serves. Murray's flat serve has proven to be a bit of a nightmare for Federer. Equally, Murray has sometimes struggled with the Federer serve.

born_on_clay
01-29-2010, 02:51 PM
Roger

jcempire
01-30-2010, 02:00 AM
No matter what

6-4 7-5 6-7 6-0 Andy Murray AO CHAMPS

stebs
01-30-2010, 11:23 AM
Both very versatile players but actually I think Murray isn't even close to Federer in the department. Federer is the most versatile player I have seen in my lifetime.

If you look at it this way, Federer used to be the best defensive HC player in the world, he could soak up any pressure and rally at length with anyone and not be worried about it. For some time he has lost that ability, Federer can no longer feel totally secure with long rallies because he lost a fraction of timing on shots with super quick racquet head speed. Despite these options which historically got Roger through very tough periods of close matches, he has still been #1 for the majority of the time since he lost that ability.

Federer just has a seemingly unlimited resource of weapons and styles to play with. I think Murray has maybe got almost as many different shots to use and options in that regards bit actually as far as styles go, he doesn't have so many different 'strategies' to employ over a whole match. Murray is fantastic at mixing it up during a match and the way he did that vs Nadal for examnple was very impressive. However, if you look at agressiveness as a basic precursor for all strategic thinking on a tennis court Murray's options for employing a certain level of aggressiveness and succeding are not as broad as Federer's. He can do it vs Nadal who gives him high balls to a BH he loves to flatten out, however, I think it is fallacious to assume he even has the ability to apply that kind of game to a different opponent (Federer for example). On the other hand, I really feel like Federer can play more agressive or more defensive than almost anyone on almost any surface and still be comfortably better than them. That is the sort of thing that is not true about any other open era player really.

Sophocles
01-30-2010, 11:32 AM
On the other hand, I really feel like Federer can play more agressive or more defensive than almost anyone on almost any surface and still be comfortably better than them. That is the sort of thing that is not true about any other open era player really.

You could make a case for Laver (if you count him as open era).

stebs
01-30-2010, 12:11 PM
You could make a case for Laver (if you count him as open era).

For sure. I guess you cannot discount Laver because he acheived masses in the open era. However, since I haven't seen more than a few hours of Laver in action my discussing him would result in poor analysis more than likely.

Speed of Light
01-30-2010, 12:50 PM
Murrat who is actually to noone's surprise a very ugly vampire.