Originally Posted by Murray Mint
And Roddick, how old was Murray when he routined him at Wimbledon early on? 18, 19? Yet the thread is full of disregard for Murray & Novak. Same old nostalgic shit on here.
And this makes what
of their 2009 encounter exactly? When Murray was an older, more well-developed, and established top player, but lost to Roddick in a tight four sets when both players were playing better than they did in '06 (arguably producing the match of the tournament in terms of quality).
And what of the fact that Murray has made it to all of one--yes, one--Wimbledon final wherein he lost to Olderer in four sets? Meanwhile, Roddick lost to prime Fed at the end of two weeks at Wimbledon on three separate occasions, and once more in 2009.
It's laughable that you're accusing people of basing their answers on nostalgia while you blatantly cherry-pick matches to suit your bullshit.
Originally Posted by Alex999
First of all, Nole won Wimbledon, Roddick and Murray didn't. I don't care about some of you thinking Nole is 'not that good' on grass, well he is is he won W and was in a couple of semis. Therefore anybody placing Roddick or Murray above Nole is not objective at all and know sh!t. the only objective list is this.
Lol, I love these "it's all about the slam" arguments.
Let me ask you a simple question: Do you think Gaudio is a better clay-courter than Nole?
After all, Gaudio has an RG title and Nole doesn't. He faced a very formidable clay courter, Coria, in the final of his title run. And let us not forget that he has multiple other clay accomplishments that suggests he knew how to play on the surface outside of those two weeks. So if you subscribe to the notion that Novak's Wimbledon clearly puts him over Roddick and Murray, you obviously must think Gaudio is better on clay than Novak.
Most people who put Roddick and/or Murray above Djokovic have reasons based on tennis and nuances of the game. Roddick and Murray both have aspects of their games that made them more naturally potent on the surface, while Djokovic, even a year after his phenomenal run at the title, continues to show a lack of aptitude for the surface.
Federer was not particularly phenomenal in his SF victory over Nole at Wimbledon; he relied on his expertise on the surface to exploit weaknesses in Novak's game that are really exclusive to the surface (his movement and shot-selection in particular).
It's actually a credit to Novak to suggest that he won Wimbledon due to his overall superiority over the field in 2011 despite his limitations on grass.