Andy Murray The Greatest and General Tennis Chat

[H_B]

I have said Gulbis will achieve more than Tsonga,

I'm with blue. I'm willing to bet at the end of their respective careers Tsonga will have achieved more than Gulbis.

Too inconsistent, mentally fragile and just not solid enough off the ground. I'd be surprised if he ever made the top 10.

[H_B]

When he retires the best players in order will be: Murray, Nadal,

[LiviCurryCider]

Something funny, H_B?

Nadal's knees cannot cope with the hard court. 2 of the 4 slams are on that surface, as well as the majority of the masters events. Murray, on the other hand is the best player in the world on the hard courts, and can only get better at his age, as he doesn't have the injury problems that Nadal does. I also believe that Murray can improve on the grass courts aswell. Nadal isn't going to get any better. In 2 years time, Nadal will dominate the clay court events, as that's by far his strongest surface, but Murray will be the dominant force on hard court. I think Murray can be a better player than Nadal, overall.

[Skyline Drifter]

Something funny, H_B?

Nadal's knees cannot cope with the hard court. 2 of the 4 slams are on that surface, as well as the majority of the masters events. Murray, on the other hand is the best player in the world on the hard courts, and can only get better at his age, as he doesn't have the injury problems that Nadal does. I also believe that Murray can improve on the grass courts aswell. Nadal isn't going to get any better. In 2 years time, Nadal will dominate the clay court events, as that's by far his strongest surface, but Murray will be the dominant force on hard court. I think Murray can be a better player than Nadal, overall.

That's not entirely without foundation to be fair.

Murray probably IS the best hardcourt player in the world. He certainly is not counting Federer who is clearly heading downwards now. On top of that Nadal isn't as good on hardcourts as he is on other surfaces.

I wouldn't go as far as to say Murray will be better than Nadal overall or even better than him on grass necessarily. But once Federer goes, and presuming Murray arrests his own poor form lately (this week apart), he ought to be winning the US and possibly Australia.

[H_B]

Something funny, H_B?

Yep, hilarious. Nadal is unbeatable on clay, has absolutely owned Murray on grass at two Wimbledons and has actually won hard court grand slams, unlike Murray.

I think Murray can be a better player than Nadal, overall.

The gems just keep coming. Nadal is already the second best player of all time in my book. Murray could play to the age of 100 and he wouldn't equal Nadal's number of Slams already in the back pocket.

We'll see in 10 years time just how many Slams Murray has won. My money is on 0.

[the jambo-rocker]

A very good week for Murray, he looked unstoppable against Nalbandian. I never saw any of the nadal game, and he did what he needed against federer. There is absolutely no doubt that a fully sharp federer would have slaughtered murray though. Even in the final there, he had the kind of shots that still made murray doubt himself, only for a abnormally large amount of unforced errors from federer stopping him from making it a far closer encounter.

Fair play to murray though, he's looking a bit more aggressive at last. Personally though I think his form has came about two or three weeks too early. I dont think he'll be able to maintain that kind of form that was produced against nalbandian and (from what I heard)nadal into three-set matches over two weeks. He couldnt even maintain it over two set matches over a week, as he clearly wasnt the same player against roger. Then there is of course that fact he doesnt have a coach to take into account.

It would be nice to be proved wrong, but i think the semi-finals will be a realistic target for him again. Personally i wouldnt be shocked at all if he went out again to another top 10 player hitting a purple patch in the last 16 or quarter finals.

[LiviCurryCider]

Yep, hilarious. Nadal is unbeatable on clay, has absolutely owned Murray on grass at two Wimbledons and has actually won hard court grand slams, unlike Murray.

The gems just keep coming. Nadal is already the second best player of all time in my book. Murray could play to the age of 100 and he wouldn't equal Nadal's number of Slams already in the back pocket.

We'll see in 10 years time just how many Slams Murray has won. My money is on 0.

I never said he was beatable on clay. Infact, previously, I said something along the lines of he will win the vast majority of clay court touraments and nobody will really challenge him, on that surface. As for the hard courts, once Murray wins one slam on this surface I thik more will follow. Murray has it in his game to be a much better player, and certainly able to give Rafa a run for his money.

I find the comment in bold insulting, you clearly don't have the tennis knowledge I have. Federer, Borg, Laver, Sampras and possibly even Jimmy Connors have all been better than Nadal, so far. Murray may not equal Nadal's amount, but he'll certainly overtake him in the rankings, eventually.

My money is on Murray to win 3/4 slams, by the end of his career.

[centralparker]

Murray is a fantastic player with many years ahead of him and we are all rightly proud of him. But he's a wee bit unlucky in the sense that he started his career while Federer - undoubtedly one of the greatest players of all time - was still at the top of his game and now the emergence of Nadal looks certain to deny Murray from picking up grand slam titles, although I do think he'll get a couple.

[H_B]

I thought against Nalbandian and Nadal Murray was as good as I've seen him. Certainly since he beat Nadal in the semis two years ago.

[the jambo-rocker]

I thought against Nalbandian and Nadal Murray was as good as I've seen him. Certainly since he beat Nadal in the semis two years ago.

From what I saw from the Nalbandian game, I completely agree with you. Even his forehand shots which most people would consider one of his biggest weaknesses looked very assured. He even looked not too bad on his second serve.

I really want to see how close a performance like that would run against a fully fit federer in a grand slam match, which is something we have still failed to see. I still think federer would win, but I'd like to think it would push 5 sets for a change rather than the straight sets victorys we ke

[blue4578]

Some bizarre posts on this thread. People with a fetish for Gulbis (I've no idea why?), people who think Murray is/will be better than Nadal.

It's always been the same with British tennis. We have so few good players, that when we do have a pretty good one (Henman or Murray), they get slaughtered for every loss in a big match, then if they happen to win a few matches suddenly they're the best thing since sliced bread. Clearly Murray is better than Henman ever was, but he needs to make the major breakthrough quickly or else it may pass him by (as I said up the thread amongst all the Gulbis nonsense). Multiple grand slam winners have almost always won their first one by the age of 22 (Murray was 23 in May). I firmly believe that when del Potro is fit again, he will be superior to Murray on hard courts and will be around throughout Murray's career. Murray does have a 4-0 hard court record against him before anyone points this out, but wait and see next year when del Potro is fit. Perhaps even Gulbis will start winning everything? The next top player may be in his teens and ready to emerge also.

Nadal is already one of the all time great players. Murray isn't and never will be. Don't forget that Murray won the Canadian Masters 1000 event last year, and following that up by losing 5-7 2-6 2-6 to Cilic in the US Open. The very best players know how to peak for the biggest tournaments. Murray has made two finals, but has admitted previously that he hasn't quite got it right yet.

Murray is a very, very good player playing in an era with two all time great players and several other very good ones. He might win a US Open or an Australian Open along the way, but Nadal is on another planet altogether.

[perthshirebell]

Some bizarre posts on this thread. People with a fetish for Gulbis (I've no idea why?), people who think Murray is/will be better than Nadal.

It's always been the same with British tennis. We have so few good players, that when we do have a pretty good one (Henman or Murray), they get slaughtered for every loss in a big match, then if they happen to win a few matches suddenly they're the best thing since sliced bread. Clearly Murray is better than Henman ever was, but he needs to make the major breakthrough quickly or else it may pass him by (as I said up the thread amongst all the Gulbis nonsense). Multiple grand slam winners have almost always won their first one by the age of 22 (Murray was 23 in May). I firmly believe that when del Potro is fit again, he will be superior to Murray on hard courts and will be around throughout Murray's career. Murray does have a 4-0 hard court record against him before anyone points this out, but wait and see next year when del Potro is fit. Perhaps even Gulbis will start winning everything? The next top player may be in his teens and ready to emerge also.

Nadal is already one of the all time great players. Murray isn't and never will be. Don't forget that Murray won the Canadian Masters 1000 event last year, and following that up by losing 5-7 2-6 2-6 to Cilic in the US Open. The very best players know how to peak for the biggest tournaments. Murray has made two finals, but has admitted previously that he hasn't quite got it right yet.

Murray is a very, very good player playing in an era with two all time great players and several other very good ones. He might win a US Open or an Australian Open along the way, but Nadal is on another planet altogether.

What are the odd's on murray becoming number 1 in the world?

Winning multiple Grand slams?

Not bets i would place as i don;t know loads about tennis but im interested. I do think the US is by far his best chance of a slam.

[Reynard]

I thought against Nalbandian and Nadal Murray was as good as I've seen him. Certainly since he beat Nadal in the semis two years ago.

He had opened up and attacked. And he showed that when he does that he has enough control over his shots that he should be doing it all the fucking time really. We all know he can defend. He is pretty much up thre with the likes of Nadal and Federer at being able to get the ball back against the odds but when he opens his shoulders and goes for his shots he proved that he can stand toe to toe with the best of them. He has ALL the shots required and he knows fine he can play that way. Maybe he has made a conscious decision to take the game to opponents a lot more instead of jsut wearing them down and depressing them into submission.

It was good to see especially as Nadal looked in reasonable nick as did Federer.

[McKee]

What are the odd's on murray becoming number 1 in the world?

Winning multiple Grand slams?

Not bets i would place as i don;t know loads about tennis but im interested. I do think the US is by far his best chance of a slam.

Unlikely, but it could happen, if it does it will be for a month max. He is never going to be a dominant force.

He'll win 1-3. No more than that.

Hard to say. HC is his best surface, but that is the same for the majority of the tour, and there isn't exactly a magnificent grass court field. In order of best chance to win I'd put it like this:

1. USO

2. Wimbledon

3. AO

.

.

.

.

.

.

4. FO

Close between USO and Wimby, I certainly wouldn't argue if someone put it first. AO comes third as it plays slower than USO. He will never, ever get anywhere near the FO. Ever.

[McKee]

It was good to see especially as Nadal looked in reasonable nick as did Federer.

I though both looked average. Nadal seemed quite rusty, and Federer was in shank mode the whole week, tons of UE's, backhand is now a total liability.

[perthshirebell]

Unlikely, but it could happen, if it does it will be for a month max. He is never going to be a dominant force.

He'll win 1-3. No more than that.

Hard to say. HC is his best surface, but that is the same for the majority of the tour, and there isn't exactly a magnificent grass court field. In order of best chance to win I'd put it like this:

1. USO

2. Wimbledon

3. AO

.

.

.

.

.

.

4. FO

Close between USO and Wimby, I certainly wouldn't argue if someone put it first. AO comes third as it plays slower than USO. He will never, ever get anywhere near the FO. Ever.

Interested in why you put last night at the proms before the aussie open?

Wimbledon seems to leave Murray no time to dictate points, where as he made the final at th Aussie open.

Agree that he is no nedal/fed.

[Skyline Drifter]

Unlikely, but it could happen, if it does it will be for a month max. He is never going to be a dominant force.

He'll win 1-3. No more than that.

Hard to say. HC is his best surface, but that is the same for the majority of the tour, and there isn't exactly a magnificent grass court field. In order of best chance to win I'd put it like this:

1. USO

2. Wimbledon

3. AO

.

.

.

.

.

.

4. FO

Close between USO and Wimby, I certainly wouldn't argue if someone put it first. AO comes third as it plays slower than USO. He will never, ever get anywhere near the FO. Ever.

He'll do well to reach the Quarters at Roland Garros to be honest. Anything further than that would be a major surprise (probably in a year where he gets lucky and avoids any specialist clay court players in his quarter of the draw).

I'm not sure I'd have Wimbledon splitting the Hard Court tournaments though. I'd have it 3rd behind Australia most likely. He's better on hard courts (though as you say better in the States than in Australia) and he also has additional pressure of media hype to deal with at Wimbledon. He might win it one day but I doubt it would be his first GS. He'd have to win elsewhere first I think.

The US will always be his best opportunity necause not only is it his best surface but it's fairly clearly Nadal's worst and that makes him a much easier prospect to deal with. As Federer's star starts to fade there will be opportunities there subject to Djokovic not hitting a stellar period again and Del Potro not making the advances some on this thread seem to think are inevitable.

[McKee]

Interested in why you put last night at the proms before the aussie open?

Wimbledon seems to leave Murray no time to dictate points, where as he made the final at th Aussie open.

Agree that he is no nedal/fed.

Wimbledon plays faster, which suits his game. He is also the 2nd best grass courter in the world, and would have won Wimbledon at a canter this year, if it weren't for an on fire Nadal, whom he narrowly lost to, whilst in the middle of a slump. Similar story in 2009, Roddick had to play some of the tennis of his career to beat Murray, in 4 very tight sets.

[McKee]

He'll do well to reach the Quarters at Roland Garros to be honest. Anything further than that would be a major surprise (probably in a year where he gets lucky and avoids any specialist clay court players in his quarter of the draw).

I'm not sure I'd have Wimbledon splitting the Hard Court tournaments though. I'd have it 3rd behind Australia most likely. He's better on hard courts (though as you say better in the States than in Australia) and he also has additional pressure of media hype to deal with at Wimbledon. He might win it one day but I doubt it would be his first GS. He'd have to win elsewhere first I think.

The US will always be his best opportunity necause not only is it his best surface but it's fairly clearly Nadal's worst and that makes him a much easier prospect to deal with. As Federer's star starts to fade there will be opportunities there subject to Djokovic not hitting a stellar period again and Del Potro not making the advances some on this thread seem to think are inevitable.

Murray is a great grass courter, second only to Nadal in my opinion. Take into account that Del Potro, Djokovic, Davydenko, Cilic, and Soderling + the majority of clay courters all have grass as their worst surface, and are never going to be genuine contenders. Federer was always a better clay and hardcourter as well, which helps. Murray has absolutely breezed through his last two Wimbledons, only being stopped by opponents playing some of the best tennis of their career. He has a very good chance of winning Wimbledon, as long as he can avoid Nadal.

Edited August 16, 2010 by McKee

[perthshirebell]

Murray is a great grass courter, second only to Nadal in my opinion.

IM sure you are aware of why im stopping you at this

What about Mr Fed?