MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic

Thread: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
01-17-2013 08:28 PM
Alex999
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

keep trolling. life is good.
01-17-2013 07:48 PM
Slasher1985
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

MTF classic. This thread is again hurtling towards the same conversations that have been going for what it seems like thousands of years.
01-17-2013 07:36 PM
SliceAce
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hipolymer View Post
There is only a big one. The number one player in the world that is. Nothing else is relevant.
You mean the soon to be slamless #1?
01-17-2013 06:49 PM
SerialKillerToBe
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

There is only a big one. The number one player in the world that is. Nothing else is relevant.
01-17-2013 06:45 PM
xcom
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Even without his recent win at the USO he is superior to the other top 10 players (outside the top 4 obviously). A winner of 8 masters crowns and olympic gold. If Murray gets a good run going he can win any of the upcoming slams, bar Roland Garros of course. And I say this as a Nole fan.

So yes, he definitely is part of the big four.
01-17-2013 06:37 PM
EddceLLent
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

A thought - if it's a "big four" you're not necessarilly saying that Murray is as accomplished as any of the others. The implication is that these four guys are the main contenders to win majors. If you don't think Murray is a contender at majors then that's your opinion: an opinion that runs contrary to the views of most tennis experts, and to the views of betting companies who only make money by being able to accurately summise the probability of any given player being successful.
01-17-2013 03:49 PM
The Fearhand
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophocles View Post
Murray's H2H against Nadal is marginally worse than Fed's & significantly worse than Djoker's, but it is still better than most players' outside Davydenko, & H2H against Nadal is a relatively unimportant factor. My beef is with the "fools" who are trying to make out Muzza's H2H against Nadal debars him from any Top 4.
I think you are right on a lot of things but the way you went wasn't the correct one so people misunderstood you. Murrays H2H with the top 3 doesn't matter when it comes to top 4 discussion. Currently there are 4 players who could beat eachother at any given moment and Murray is part of that. His game is up there. H2H is important but more important is the talent look at Nole before 2011 his H2H wasn't so good and then he turns it around by working hard, improving and maximizing his talents. Murray has started to do it under Lendl. Just because he has a bad record against Nadal doesn't mean Murray doesn't belong in the top 4. Those H2H stats can be misleading because Murray hasn't played Nadal in nearly over a year and Murray only started to peak since then. In 2009 even when Djokovic was losing in finals, semis I could see him becoming no.1 same with Murray. Took him longer as he's not that strong mentally compared to Djo but it is happening. It's inevitable.
01-17-2013 02:30 PM
Roy Emerson
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimaoPancao View Post
Nope. He has to win at least 2 more Grand Slams and be number 1.
Not if there are 4 different slam winners in 2013 like in 2012. One slam would suffice.

If nobody in the top 4 is good enough to win multiple slams in 2013 then that means the top 4 are closer then ever. Like in 2012.
01-17-2013 02:26 PM
Sophocles
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SliceAce View Post
GSM Nadull is right (for once). Murray was semi-competitive with Nadal in the past, the problem is he's been going backwards and his game hasn't really improved, not has his mental strength. If he was ever competitive with Nadal, he isn't anymore and his making the Wimbledon and USO finals was all because of the hole Nadal left. In the past, you had to beat 2/3 of Nadal/Fed/Djokovic to win a slam which made it so difficult. Only Del Potro managed to do it and even then just barely (requiring Chokerer to show up). To make the Wimbledon final, he beat Tsonga after Nadal lost. To make the USO final he beat Berdych after Fed lost.

That's not to say his win wasn't legitimate (it wasn't legitimate for other reasons) but it does show he hasn't really had the chance to show improvement. He faced a dead tired Fed in the OG finals (who already had his gold and silver medals), he got crushed at Wimbledon, he actually got worse at MS events, and he choked as hard as he could after being given 2 sets in the USO final in unplayable conditions and Djokovic just ran out of gas. He has yet to show he has any chance against Nadal or that he improved after his USO, showing the same attitude and pushing at the WTF. Everybody goes on about Lendl, but Murray is playing the same and Lendl is probably a similar coach to Brad Gilbert who made no difference for Murray. Personally, I think Murray is uncoachable because of his bad attitude and mystifying pushing style despite his potential power.
I suggest we wait and see what happens in Murray's next match against Nadal. Before last year Murray wasn't beating Fed & Djoker in best-of-5 matches; Nadal has not been the only obstacle in the way of big titles.
01-17-2013 02:23 PM
Sophocles
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arm View Post
I'm sorry? Nole has played Nadal a total of 14 times on clay. and the H2H is 14-19...

Murray played him 4 times on clay and the H2H is 5-13.

How can you even comapre the H2H.

Only a fool would say Murray is not a part of the big 4. But I don't think you have a point with this H2H argument.
Murray's H2H against Nadal is marginally worse than Fed's & significantly worse than Djoker's, but it is still better than most players' outside Davydenko, & H2H against Nadal is a relatively unimportant factor. My beef is with the "fools" who are trying to make out Muzza's H2H against Nadal debars him from any Top 4.
01-17-2013 02:21 PM
Sophocles
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Typhoon20 View Post
Djokovic is the most competitive by far and Fed was also a good clay player not amazing but not bad by any means. I wouldn't be surprised if Djokovic wins RG within 2 years. If one player can outside Nadal it's Djo.
But that doesn't even matter. I just facepalm whenever people separate surfaces to get their points across in H2H statistics it's really a facepalm moment. That's just making lame excuses.
Remember Djokovic Nadal in 2011 ? Djokovic simply dominated. His H2H was what ? 10-0 ? I lost count how many times Nadal lost against Djokovic. At one point he won like 7 straight and most in important events and half of them in finals of a GS. Sometimes you have to take it like a man and accept it instead of making excuses. It would be lame for me to do what you did and go ''well his H2H is skewed because if we take out hardcourts bla bla bla....''.

My post isn't even about Andy it's the arguments people use when talking about H2Hs.
I like Andy a lot. I know people like to hate on this guy but outside of Fed, Rafa, Nole he is the only player that pushes the top 3 to their max. The more competitive players there are in the top 10 the better it is for tennis.
Nobody is competitive against Nadal on clay. Djoker is probably the most competitive given his 2 convincing wins in a row last year & his record is what? 2 wins & something like 13 losses, including the last 3. Fed has 2 wins in 14 matches. My point is not that clay should somehow be discounted or that we should disregard Nadal's domination of the surface. It is simply that it is irrelevant to the point at issue - whether there is a Big 4 including Muzza - because 0-4 isn't much worse than 2-13 or 2-12, so Murray's not that much worse than the other 2 against Nadal on clay. His H2H off clay is worse, being slightly behind when Djoker & Fed are slightly ahead, & there's no doubt that Murray's H2H with Nadal is the worst of any H2H between the Big 4, but so what? H2H with Nadal isn't the most important factor in assessing a player's status in the game, & in any case nobody doubts that if there is a Big 4, Murray is the 4th member. I really can't understand why people are allowing GSMNadull's extreme Nadulltardism to distract them.
01-17-2013 01:09 PM
SliceAce
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

GSM Nadull is right (for once). Murray was semi-competitive with Nadal in the past, the problem is he's been going backwards and his game hasn't really improved, not has his mental strength. If he was ever competitive with Nadal, he isn't anymore and his making the Wimbledon and USO finals was all because of the hole Nadal left. In the past, you had to beat 2/3 of Nadal/Fed/Djokovic to win a slam which made it so difficult. Only Del Potro managed to do it and even then just barely (requiring Chokerer to show up). To make the Wimbledon final, he beat Tsonga after Nadal lost. To make the USO final he beat Berdych after Fed lost.

That's not to say his win wasn't legitimate (it wasn't legitimate for other reasons) but it does show he hasn't really had the chance to show improvement. He faced a dead tired Fed in the OG finals (who already had his gold and silver medals), he got crushed at Wimbledon, he actually got worse at MS events, and he choked as hard as he could after being given 2 sets in the USO final in unplayable conditions and Djokovic just ran out of gas. He has yet to show he has any chance against Nadal or that he improved after his USO, showing the same attitude and pushing at the WTF. Everybody goes on about Lendl, but Murray is playing the same and Lendl is probably a similar coach to Brad Gilbert who made no difference for Murray. Personally, I think Murray is uncoachable because of his bad attitude and mystifying pushing style despite his potential power.
01-17-2013 01:07 PM
uxyzapenje
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Typhoon20 View Post
From a competitive standpoint - YES. Murray belongs in the top 4.
From a career standpoint - NOT YET. Not yet meaning he will. It's just a matter of time before he collects more slams.

I think the OP meant to say from a competitive standpoint.

But if he meant to to say from a competitive standpoint, then why would no. of Slams matter? I mean, then we should only look at level of play and partially their H2Hs, not # of Slams... But the # of Slams is contained in the thread title, so I would say it's the other way around. Or he just wanted to troll, that's the 3rd option...
01-17-2013 01:00 PM
The Fearhand
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

From a competitive standpoint - YES. Murray belongs in the top 4.
From a career standpoint - NOT YET. Not yet meaning he will. It's just a matter of time before he collects more slams.

I think the OP meant to say from a competitive standpoint.
01-17-2013 12:52 PM
uxyzapenje
Re: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida View Post
No. Before 2011 when Djokovic had a career like the one Murray has now nobody talked about a big 3, they talked about Fedal.

It wasn't untill Novak started dominating, reached N1, won multiple slams and defeated Federer and Nadal in multiple ocassions in the same year that people started talking about the BIG 3.

Murray needs a few more slams and some weeks at N1 (and a year end) for a TOP 4 to exist. The other 3 are clearly above him.
This is true. Still, it depends on how you look at it. In terms of being 'too hard for most opponents to beat' and being an (almost) equal opponent in most of their H2H matches, then yes, there is a big4.

If you look at it through achievements, then no. As BA said in the quoted post, nobody was talking about the 'big3' in 2009/2010 even tho Novak had 1 Slam + Slam final, bunch of Masters, WTF title, #2 career high ranking and many smaller titles... All of the Fedalovic (that's how you call it) had (shorter or longer) periods of absolute dominance and everybody knew that that one player was the best in the world. Murray was never best in the world, never the #1 favorite in any Slam...

Define what you mean by 'big4' and you'll have your answer.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome