[Sham Kay]

Reality: One more slam, WTF and World number 1 (Safin is taken to the cleaners by one more slam IMO)

True fans of tennis on MTF: a time machine, a charisma upgrade and a facelift

[Caesar1844]

Originally Posted by Clydey

I guess you didn't watch Murray until recently, then.

My guess is you didn't watch tennis before Murray started playing.

[TigerTim]

Hewitt had a better career than Safin.

[Mountaindewslave]

achievement wise if he wins tonight he'll pass Safin, however Hewitt is quite a while to go. QUITE a while. over a year at #1, year end championships, etc. those just make quite a big gap.

in favor of Marat, at least Murray will never have anywhere near the talent, and the second post on this thread made me laugh, haha, nor will he have the looks, you sir are quite correct

[GugaF1]

Originally Posted by leng jai

Federer's decline began around 2010. Anything before that can be attributed to form fluctuation.

Safin and Hewitt peaked in conditions where upsets were much more prone to occur. Nowadays it's extremely difficult to beat a top 5 player even on a "hot" day because the conditions are simply too slow and conducive to defense.

This seems like a noticeable decline to me:

Yearly Win-Loss Federer

2004 74-6
2005 81-4
2006 92-5
2007 68-8
2008 66-15
2009 61-12
2010 65-13
2011 64-12
2012 64-12

The trend began in 2007 already not because of the losses, but look at the wins, Federer started to pick tournaments more and play less and even so his number of losses started to double from his peak years. Point in case, if you were a competitor it was a lot more certain to get stop by Federer in 2004-2007 than afterwords.

[nick the greek]

Invent a time machine and travel back to weak era(2004-2007).

[TBkeeper]

A second slam , ms. captain obvious

[SliceAce]

Originally Posted by Clydey

Yeah, Murray played prime Federer as well. The difference is that he actually earned a few wins, despite being a shadow of the player he is now.

Let's be clear. Federer's decline has been overstated. People were arguing that he was past his peak by the age of 25, simply because he started to lose because the top players improved.

And don't even get me started on how overrated Safin is.

Originally Posted by Clydey

I think Andy is an evolved version of Hewitt. Similar strengths, but he is more athletic and has more weapons.

The issue of surfaces is the one thing that prevents a proper comparison of the two eras.

Originally Posted by Clydey

Definitely can't agree on IQ. I think you'd be in the minority on that one. Mentality, yes. Passing shots? Maybe. That's very close, though. Second serve? That's the only major thing Hewitt has over Murray.



Murray is a better mover. Backhand is debatable, unless you're only talking about it as an offensive shot. The same goes for the forehand. There are far too many elements to consider when judging individual strokes.

For example, did Safin have a better slice, did he have a better defensive forehand, and so on? The issue of his consistency makes it almost impossible to compare him to other players, since we're talking about a player who was close to unplayable at his peak, but he so rarely hit that peak.

Fuck, missing UFC because of this discussion.

Clydey You've been hiding all this time as the #1 fangirl. Sadly you'll get away with this because most people here didn't watch Hewitt/Safin or even Federer in their primes, but a quick reality check. You're truly delusional.

[SliceAce]

1. Hewitt and Mugray have nothing in common. Hewitt is a counter-puncher, similar to Djokovic. They both are best controlling the baseline and redirecting the opponents shots DTL. Hewitt was more offensive and Djokovic has become more defensive since his miraculous stamina emerged, but comparing Mugray and Hewitt means you have no clue wtf you're talking about.

2. Mugray is a pusher and junkballer who occasionally is a shotmaker. It's tough to compare because his garbage game cannot exist except in the current era, but if I had to pick someone I would say he's a bit like Mecir (who was much more talented).

3. Mugray has no tennis IQ, that you think it's "debatable" (a word for I can't admit you're right) he's comparable to Hewitt is an insult to the senses.

4. Federer's decline started in 2007, it has nothing to do with results and everything to do with using your eyes to see his game. If you're only source is wikipedia your statements make sense. The only other explanation is Mugray's yellow teeth have blinded you and you're incapable of watching tennis. In that case I applaud the effort you must go through to post on a text-based internet forum.

5. Mugray has no forehand, poor passing shots, a horrible second serve, and a poor slice. It has nothing to do with flashiness and everything to do with consistency, and 9/10 his forehand is erratic or passive, his passing shots are predictable and have no follow up, his second serve gets worse as a match goes on if that's even possible, and his slice is only good if you've never seen a 1 handed player slice.

Hope this helps

[atennisfan]

If Murray wants to surpass Hewitt, he will need another slam, 2 YEC, and 60 weeks at #1.

[End da Game]

Originally Posted by Lestat

Safin? a FH? a BH? being handsome? charisma? born again

[Prodigy.]

Originally Posted by SliceAce

1. Hewitt and Mugray have nothing in common. Hewitt is a counter-puncher, similar to Djokovic. They both are best controlling the baseline and redirecting the opponents shots DTL. Hewitt was more offensive and Djokovic has become more defensive since his miraculous stamina emerged, but comparing Mugray and Hewitt means you have no clue wtf you're talking about.

2. Mugray is a pusher and junkballer who occasionally is a shotmaker. It's tough to compare because his garbage game cannot exist except in the current era, but if I had to pick someone I would say he's a bit like Mecir (who was much more talented).

3. Mugray has no tennis IQ, that you think it's "debatable" (a word for I can't admit you're right) he's comparable to Hewitt is an insult to the senses.

4. Federer's decline started in 2007, it has nothing to do with results and everything to do with using your eyes to see his game. If you're only source is wikipedia your statements make sense. The only other explanation is Mugray's yellow teeth have blinded you and you're incapable of watching tennis. In that case I applaud the effort you must go through to post on a text-based internet forum.

5. Mugray has no forehand, poor passing shots, a horrible second serve, and a poor slice. It has nothing to do with flashiness and everything to do with consistency, and 9/10 his forehand is erratic or passive, his passing shots are predictable and have no follow up, his second serve gets worse as a match goes on if that's even possible, and his slice is only good if you've never seen a 1 handed player slice.

Hope this helps

1. SliceAce is a pathetic poster.

/thread

[End da Game]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

I'm not sure. Hewitt in 2001-2002 was a beast. They play a similar style too, I think it would be close.

peak rusty would've eaten mugray alive

hewitt's a true counter-puncher who actually done his business back when the courts were suited against him in favour of servebots and ballbashers, to win 2 slams as well as utterly destroying sampras in one of the final is a GOAT-esque achievement

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by SliceAce

5. Mugray has no forehand, poor passing shots, a horrible second serve, and a poor slice.

Agree about the 2nd serve.

As for the rest:

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by ProdigyEng

1. SliceAce is a pathetic poster.

/thread

Your answer to sliceace's thoughful points is this?