Andy Murray The Greatest and General Tennis Chat

[McKee]

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

What about Mr Fed?

Yes, I think Murray is currently a slightly better grass courter than Federer. One of the reasons Federer was so dominant on grass was due to a fairly weak grass court field. Hardcourt has always been by far his best surface, followed by clay.

[xbl]

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

One of the reasons Federer was so dominant on grass was due to a fairly weak grass court field.

Is Nadal to be considered part of this fairly weak grass court field?

[blue4578]

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.

You can bet on year end number one at the start of the year with a few bookmakers (with Betfair all through the year, but there is no money in the market). Link to the market Obviously Nadal has 7045 points in the bank from Monte Carlo in April through to Wimbledon at the beginning of July, so unless he gets injured no one can realistically challenge him until the French Open next year.

Multiple grand slams, no one would offer this bet but you can ask for it (William Hill probably most likely to accommodate you, at awful odds).

Agreed, he has always said so himself. Got more chance at the Australian Open than Wimbledon also. Currently just short of 4/1 to win the US Open. I wouldn't back that price given the way he has bottled his two previous grand slam finals. He also needs to pretty much match Soderling's performance in Cincy this week, otherwise he could go into the US Open seeded fifth, which could mean playing one of the top players in the quarters.

Yes, I think Murray is currently a slightly better grass courter than Federer. One of the reasons Federer was so dominant on grass was due to a fairly weak grass court field. Hardcourt has always been by far his best surface, followed by clay.

:lol:

Federer loses one match to Berdych and suddenly he's not as good as Murray on grass? Federer won Wimbledon six times beating a load of no hopers did he? Federer is better on clay than grass? :lol: That is the most ludicrous statement I've ever read on this forum. Seriously, are you on the wind up or have you just never watched tennis before?

Federer's game (good first serve, big forehand, excellent at the net, generally a very attacking player) means he wants the courts as fast as possible so he gets full value for his shots, and he also wants the bounce to be as low as possible so that he can attack and use his skills at the net where possible. Now which surface would be the best for all that?

Here's a clue for you: his career winning percentage on grass is 87.2%, outdoor hard courts 81.9% and clay 76.6% . Given he is better on clay than grass , why is his career record against Nadal on clay 2-10, while his career record on grass against Nadal 2-1 (all Wimbledon finals)? Incidentally, the two clay wins against Nadal were on faster clay courts in Hamburg and Madrid, both of which came when Nadal was a long way short of 100% fitness.

I'm not even going to waste my time responding any more, carry on in your fantasy world.

[Reynard]

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.

I ony watched a couple of games with Nadal playing and he was alright. He had only lost one match out his last 36 until he played Murray as well. Federer was looking up for it in his semi final (thats the only game I saw him play) and I think it's a bit harsh to say he wasn't playing well against Murray either. Especially as Murray was on song in both the semi and in the final. His length of shot was almost Nadal like in the semi and that put Nadal right on the back foot. He wasn't handed either of those matches, not by a long shot.

[H_B]

Yes, I think Murray is currently a slightly better grass courter than Federer. One of the reasons Federer was so dominant on grass was due to a fairly weak grass court field.

[Reynard]

I just read the past couple of days posting here and I hadn't actually realised McKee was such point and laugh material.

Federer behind Murray as a grass court player? Uh huh. I suppose Murray is only a little bit behind Nadal as a clay court specialist too then

[#Gary]

Multiple grand slam winners have almost always won their first one by the age of 22 (Murray was 23 in May).

The very best multiple Grand Slam winner (Roger Federer) won his first at the age of 23 - which Murray will also achieve.

[dubs]

McKee

Come on man, you're better than this.

[blue4578]

The very best multiple Grand Slam winner (Roger Federer) won his first at the age of 23 - which Murray will also achieve.

Wrong.

Federer won Wimbledon in 2003 when he was 21. I'm all for people having opinions (even if they're ridiculous like McKee), but if you're going to argue facts at least get it right.

[McKee]

Is Nadal to be considered part of this fairly weak grass court field?

Nadal hadn't turned into an all round great player untill about 2008, so partly yes.

[blue4578]

Multiple grand slam winners have almost always won their first one by the age of 22.

The very best multiple Grand Slam winner (Roger Federer) won his first at the age of 23 - which Murray will also achieve.

Let's back this up with some facts since I'm not doing much this afternoon. Multiple male grand slam winners since 1980.

Name, total number of grand slam titles, age at first grand slam win

Bjorn Borg, 11 GS, age 18

John McEnroe, 7 GS, age 20

Johan Kriek, 2 GS, age 23 [won 2 Australian Opens when most of the top players didn't bother playing]

Mats Wilander, 7 GS, age 18

Jimmy Connors, 8 GS, age 22

Ivan Lendl, 8 GS, age 24

Stefan Edberg, 6 GS, age 19

Boris Becker, 6 GS, age 18

Pete Sampras, 14 GS, age 19

Jim Courier, 4 GS, age 20

Andre Agassi, 8 GS, age 22

Sergei Bruguera, 2 GS, age 22

Yevgeny Kafelnikov, 2 GS, age 22

Gustavo Kuerten, 3 GS, age 20

Patrick Rafter, 2 GS, age 24

Marat Safin, 2 GS, age 20

Lleyton Hewitt, 2 GS, age 20

Roger Federer 16 GS, age 21

Rafael Nadal, 8 GS, age 18/19 [birthday around the date of French Open final, can't be bothered checking]

So there you have it. Of the 19 multiple grand slam winners from the past 30 years, only 3 of them won their first one past the age of 22. Kriek doesn't really count as the Australian Open in 1981 and 1982 featured hardly any of the top players and was just another tournament in the eyes of most people at that time. Lendl and Rafter were 24 when winning their first grand slam - Murray is 24 in May. Lendl is the only player to have had massive success who didn't win a grand slam by the age of 22 (Rafter and Kriek "only" won 2). Time is ticking for Murray.

If you're going to argue this one garymcc1874, please make sure your facts are correct, thanks.

[McKee]

:lol:

Federer won Wimbledon six times beating a load of no hopers did he?

Absolutely, yes. Andy Roddick being his main rival says it all really. His only other rivals in his prime were Safin, who was awful on grass, and Hewitt. Both lacked variety against Federer, theydid the same old stuff, and got beat the same old way. I haven't said Murray wouldn't beat prime Federer on grass, not even close.

Federer is better on clay than grass? :lol: That is the most ludicrous statement I've ever read on this forum. Seriously, are you on the wind up or have you just never watched tennis before?

Yep, he most definitely is. Federer would have upward of 5 FO's if it weren't for the greatest clay courter of all time. Add in some other excellent clay courters like Corjetta, Moya, Coria, Bruguera, Nalbandian, Daydenko, Kuerten, Djokovic and all the Spanish and French clay speciallists. The clay court field was, and remains to be, immensely stronger than the grass court field, no doubt about it.

[dubs]

I'm no tennis expert although I do love the sport, but I think Federer just made everyone look gash on grass rather than everyone else WAS gash. To say he's better on clay is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

[#Gary]

Wrong.

Federer won Wimbledon in 2003 when he was 21. I'm all for people having opinions (even if they're ridiculous like McKee), but if you're going to argue facts at least get it right.

Fair enough that was wrong. It was actually one of the commentators that said it during the Rogers cup final the other night.

I still think Murray will win quite a few including Wimbledon, and I honestly think it'll start with the upcoming US Open.

Edited August 17, 2010 by garymcc1874

[blue4578]

Absolutely, yes. Andy Roddick being his main rival says it all really. His only other rivals in his prime were Safin, who was awful on grass, and Hewitt. Both lacked variety against Federer, theydid the same old stuff, and got beat the same old way. I haven't said Murray wouldn't beat prime Federer on grass, not even close.

Yep, he most definitely is. Federer would have upward of 5 FO's if it weren't for the greatest clay courter of all time. Add in some other excellent clay courters like Corjetta, Moya, Coria, Bruguera, Nalbandian, Daydenko, Kuerten, Djokovic and all the Spanish and French clay speciallists. The clay court field was, and remains to be, immensely stronger than the grass court field, no doubt about it.

If Federer had played Murray at Wimbledon this year, he would've been a massive favourite to win. Nadal has beaten Murray twice at Wimbledon in straight sets even though the surface doesn't suit his natural game; Federer's style of play is made for grass, Murray's isn't.

You will be the only person on planet Earth who thinks that Federer is better on clay than grass. No one can argue that there are more specialist clay court players than grass court ones. People in Spain and South America grow up on the surface, and there are dozens of clay court tournaments per year, while grass is only played on for only a few weeks each summer. Just because there are more people who like playing on clay, it doesn't automatically follow that because Federer may have a few slightly tougher matches early on in tournaments on clay, that he is better on clay than grass. That remains the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

[dubs]

There's a school of thought these days that the clay and grass are getting more and more similar in style, is this rubbish?

[blue4578]

There's a school of thought these days that the clay and grass are getting more and more similar in style, is this rubbish?

No, grass plays more like a hard court these days for various reasons. Hard courts are the half way point between clay and grass, so I suppose you can say grass is more like clay than it used to be. Nadal would never have even made a Wimbledon final if it played like it did in the 1980's or 1990's because there are many people with a better serve and he wouldn't be able to defend and hit with massive top spin like he does.

About 10 years ago, they changed the grass and the soil, which has meant that the ball bounces higher and more evenly. The balls are also now heavier at Wimbledon than they used to be because people were saying the points were over too quick, with serve being too dominant. A lot of the players say Wimbledon now plays slower than the US Open. Personally, I think that's the wrong way to go but they won't be going back.

[H_B]

I think a lot of it came from the whining bitchery of the clay courters with their "grass is for cows" approach in the 80s and 90s. Several used to skip Wimbledon, until their sponsors told them to get over there, then they lost in Round One and went back across the channel grumbling.

I too think it was a mistake. It's completely removed serve volleying as an artform.

[McKee]

If Federer had played Murray at Wimbledon this year, he would've been a massive favourite to win. Nadal has beaten Murray twice at Wimbledon in straight sets even though the surface doesn't suit his natural game; Federer's style of play is made for grass, Murray's isn't.

Of course he would of been a massive favourite, Federer is a massive favourite against anyone on grass, other than Nadal. Murray's loss to Nadal at Wimbledon 2 years ago is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. Murray wasn't the player he is now, and was still obviously gassed from his epic with Gasquet. This year, his match with Rafa was a very, very tight match, that could very easily have gone Murray's way.

You will be the only person on planet Earth who thinks that Federer is better on clay than grass. No one can argue that there are more specialist clay court players than grass court ones. People in Spain and South America grow up on the surface, and there are dozens of clay court tournaments per year, while grass is only played on for only a few weeks each summer. Just because there are more people who like playing on clay, it doesn't automatically follow that because Federer may have a few slightly tougher matches early on in tournaments on clay, that he is better on clay than grass. That remains the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

French Open champion: 2009

Hamburg Masters champion: 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007

Madrid Open champion: 2009

French Open RU x4 to Nadal

Monte Carlo Master RU x3 to Nadal

Rome Masters RU x 2, one loss being to Nadal

Only player to beat Nadal twice on clay since April 2005

The only player to bagel Nadal on clay

The second best clay-court record of the last 10 years. The facts don't lie. You can have whatever opinion you want, but if the grass court field was as strong as the clay, federer wouldn't have been as nearly dominant on grass as he was. Federer also has a better grass court record than he does on hardcourt, you're not going to try and tell me he is a better grass courter are you?

There's a school of thought these days that the clay and grass are getting more and more similar in style, is this rubbish?

There is some substance behind it. The Wimby grass plays far slower than it did during the Sampras days, whoch obviously suits baseliners much more. I think its due to it being Rye grass and being cut shorter and in a different method. It also seems to be worn out quicker, which would make it more clay-like.That's the opinion of some people anyway.

Edited August 17, 2010 by McKee

[H_B]

This year, his match with Rafa was a very, very tight match, that could very easily have gone Murray's way.

Nonsense. Murray was a bit unfortunate not to win Set Two arguably, but then he was furtunate to be 1-1 with Tsonga and not 2-0 down earlier in the tourney.

I never felt at any point that Nadal wasn't going to win that match. The fact he won 3-0, for the second time in 3 years, says it all.