theentomologist Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I loved cheering on Timbo but let's face it Murray is on a different planet. planet winning rather than planet losing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 This'll probably come back to haunt me, but I can't see Nadal even being in the running for the US Open this year. Hard courts are his least favourite surface as it is, but I don't see his fitness holding up in the long 5 set matches in the August heat of New York. As long as Murray avoids Gonzalez, and maybe even Tsonga, I don't see any real problems for him to at least reach the final. I wouldn't write him off just yet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWeb Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 As long as Murray avoids Gonzalez, and maybe even Tsonga, I don't see any real problems for him to at least reach the final. Don't forget about the Gulbinator...that slayer of top seeds 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Henman had a relatively short period when he was one of the worlds best, he developed late, although Murray has Federer and Nadal, as was said, Henman had Agassi and Sampras, every bit as good as Federer at his peak. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Henman had a relatively short period when he was one of the worlds best, he developed late, although Murray has Federer and Nadal, as was said, Henman had Agassi and Sampras, every bit as good as Federer at his peak. Federer is a different level to what Sampras ever was. Agassi was arguably as talented, but had nothing like the consistency that Federer has/had. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Federer is a different level to what Sampras ever was. Agassi was arguably as talented, but had nothing like the consistency that Federer has/had. Nonsense, Federer gets beaten the same way Sampras did at times, but was unbeatable on certain surfaces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Nonsense, Federer gets beaten the same way Sampras did at times, but was unbeatable on certain surfaces. Federer has a far better all round game than Sampras ever had. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Federer has a far better all round game than Sampras ever had. Sampras was dire on clay. Federer would have won 4 French Opens if Nadal hadn't been about. I think Sampras was marginally better than Federer on grass. He had a better level of competition to play against. On hard court I think Federer is better by a decent margin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I think Sampras was marginally better than Federer on grass. He had a better level of competition to play against. You reckon? I think that's debatable. He beat Cedric Pioline in the final one year, and also beat that horrendously one dimensional goon Ivanisevic in another two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 You reckon? I think that's debatable. He beat Cedric Pioline in the final one year, and also beat that horrendously one dimensional goon Ivanisevic in another two. Ivanisevic was murder to play against on grass though. Admittedly as they have fucked Wimbledon totally by making the courts too good and the balls too heavy/furry it isn't like real grass court tennis any more. Sampras was a better server and a better volleyer I think in his prime. It's hard to say as it's been so long since that was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Federer has a far better all round game than Sampras ever had. Sampras won more majors in a row than Federer, its horses for courses really. Its hard to know as they played in different era's for the most part, they played at Wimbledon in 2001 and had an epic game, but Sampras was fading by then, while Federer was improving rapidly. Its hard to know at their peaks who would be better overall though, i think without question they are the greatest two players of all time, but then you wonder how Borg, McEnroe and Connors would fare with modern equipment against these guys. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 The thing is, neither McEnroe nor Connors were any use on clay either. Just as you have many clay court specialists who are honking on other surfaces. In recent times, I can only think of Federer and Agassi who are/were world class on all four surfaces. Possibly Nadal, although for some reason, he seems to be a notch or two behind on the hard courts. (A bit like Borg) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Possibly Nadal, although for some reason, he seems to be a notch or two behind on the hard courts. (A bit like Borg) I always think that too but he did win the Australian Open earlier in the year, whats the difference between that and the surface at the US Open? I'm not too clued up on it, I always assumed it was pretty much the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I always think that too but he did win the Australian Open earlier in the year, whats the difference between that and the surface at the US Open? I'm not too clued up on it, I always assumed it was pretty much the same. It is different, but I think the main problem with the Aussie Open is where it is in the schedule. It's traditionally attracted some dubious winners and finalists. Apart from this year, due to sprogging, Federer's training schedule is always geared to the US Open being arguably the major he is in best shape to win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 After Nadal won in Australia I always assumed the reason Federer started to cry was because it was just occuring to him 'shit, he's beaten me on all surfaces in Slam finals now, can I ever win one again' but I take it he will still be the man to beat at the US. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I always think that too but he did win the Australian Open earlier in the year, whats the difference between that and the surface at the US Open? I'm not too clued up on it, I always assumed it was pretty much the same. The bounce on the courts in Melbourne is a bit slower than it is for many of the other hard court surfaces, which is why you see a lot of clay courters doing well there. And as HB says, because it's so early in the schedule, it throws up some weird winners. Thomas Johansson anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 You would hope Murray will again have a good run at the US but there's always this nagging feeling that when he comes up against someone right at the very top of their game, he will come a cropper. I can't remember watching Murray lose in a Slam and thinking, 'christ, he was unlucky to lose that one' since probably Nalbandian at Wimbledon back in the day. It's a bit of a nit-picky viewpoint of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I was thinking this morning that there is a decent argument that Murray is favourite for the US Open, now that Federer has kiddie problems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 I was thinking this morning that there is a decent argument that Murray is favourite for the US Open, now that Federer has kiddie problems. I said as much a few posts ago. I think it all depends how up for it Federer is. Crucial that Murray has a decent week in Cincinnati to cement the number 2 seeding for New York. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnash Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Question for the stattos - how would the current rankings look if the slams were excluded? I'm guessing Murray would be miles ahead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.