Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
I'd like to know on what basis 2 of them would pick Murrary who hasn't even reached a W final yet but none of them picks Federer who's been in every final since 2002 except last year.
 

·
♥ eve ♥
Joined
·
40,985 Posts
Nobody picked Roddick? :confused: you'd think at least one of the SI baseball specialists would pick the American Hope...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,601 Posts
kind of bizarre. Federer should at the very least be a joint-favorite, I think. I guess with Nadal because of Nadal's track record, even though I truly don't believe Nadal is going to win. Djokovic is still a question mark on grass (as far as whether he can beat Federer, whether he can advance past the semis). Murray seems like a good underdog to bet on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
murray is the most overhyped and overrated sportsman of any sport in the world right now.

the guy is a nobody but is being treated like he is up there with federer and laver.

god i hope murray never wins a slam. EVER!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,601 Posts
I think your sig says all anyone needs to know about you, and how seriously to take your posts, careergrandslam.

Murray is not being treated like Federer or Laver. He's constantly getting criticized for not having won a slam. He's a nobody? I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of tennis players in the world would love nothing more than to be a nobody then.

most overhyped and overrated sportsman of any sport? humor me, how many sports do you actually follow?

I know you're either clinically insane or an awesome troll and I shouldn't even make futile posts like this, but whatever...I'm having my morning coffee and it seemed like the right moment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
I think your sig says all anyone needs to know about you, and how seriously to take your posts, careergrandslam.

Murray is not being treated like Federer or Laver. He's constantly getting criticized for not having won a slam. He's a nobody? I'm willing to bet that 99.9% of tennis players in the world would love nothing more than to be a nobody then.

most overhyped and overrated sportsman of any sport? humor me, how many sports do you actually follow?

I know you're either clinically insane or an awesome troll and I shouldn't even make futile posts like this, but whatever...I'm having my morning coffee and it seemed like the right moment.
this murray guy has not won a single slam, i repeat, NOT A SINGLE SLAM.

just a bunch of useless mickey mouse titles that no one will give a rats ass about in a few years. yet the guy is always put in the bunch with federer, nadal and djokovic. that is hype.

in my book he is a nobody until he wins a slam.

16 > 10 > 2 > 0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,601 Posts
how many players in the last 5 years have won a slam, I repeat, A SINGLE SLAM.
I understand you're a slam-whore but that doesn't mean everyone else is. Plus, Murray has been in three finals. And he just turned 24. It's not like he doesn't look like he'll ever win one. He might not, who knows? But what you're saying is idiotic. Mickey Mouse titles? So Masters, aka the biggest tournaments after slams, are mickey mouse tournaments? What the fuck are atp250 tournaments then?
Murray is put in a bunch with those other three only when the "bunch" is expanded to 4 players. Everyone that bunches them together realizes that he's not fully there since he hasn't accomplished as much...but he's a legitimate threat to them and he's certainly ahead of the rest of the pack (we'll see what Del Potro has to say about that in the future, but for now that's the situation)

your math, while being incredibly impressive, don't get me wrong, doesn't really address the point.

and the fact that everyone who hasn't won a slam is a nobody in your book....well, that's your book's fault. It would probably be a bestseller....but so was the Da Vinci Code.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
how many players in the last 5 years have won a slam, I repeat, A SINGLE SLAM.
I understand you're a slam-whore but that doesn't mean everyone else is. Plus, Murray has been in three finals. And he just turned 24. It's not like he doesn't look like he'll ever win one. He might not, who knows? But what you're saying is idiotic. Mickey Mouse titles? So Masters, aka the biggest tournaments after slams, are mickey mouse tournaments? What the fuck are atp250 tournaments then?
Murray is put in a bunch with those other three only when the "bunch" is expanded to 4 players. Everyone that bunches them together realizes that he's not fully there since he hasn't accomplished as much...but he's a legitimate threat to them and he's certainly ahead of the rest of the pack (we'll see what Del Potro has to say about that in the future, but for now that's the situation)

your math, while being incredibly impressive, don't get me wrong, doesn't really address the point.

and the fact that everyone who hasn't won a slam is a nobody in your book....well, that's your book's fault. It would probably be a bestseller....but so was the Da Vinci Code.
:facepalm:

u will NEVER convince me that murray is up there with federer, nadal and djokovic.

sorry but i just dont buy it.

i will repeat, murray is not in a 'big 4' unless he wins a slam.
federer, nadal and djokovic are multiple slam winnners.

to put murray in with those guys is disrespecting those 3 guys.

murray is all hype.
the british media is writing checks murray cant cash.
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top