Jump to content

Australian Open


Saintandy666
 Share

Recommended Posts

was he or was he not comfortably beaten as he usually is when gets to a final?

 

He was beaten by the better player today. And there is no shame in losing to Djokovic. You can't judge pre 2012 Murray against this Murray. He's a totally new and improved player.

 

And he has a Slam. Which he had to beat Djokovic in the final for. And an Olympic gold, which he had to beat Federer in the final for. Men's tennis is all about Murray and Djokovic atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was beaten by the better player today. And there is no shame in losing to Djokovic. You can't judge pre 2012 Murray against this Murray. He's a totally new and improved player.

 

And he has a Slam. Which he had to beat Djokovic in the final for. And an Olympic gold, which he had to beat Federer in the final for. Men's tennis is all about Murray and Djokovic atm.

 

5 final losses. 1 final win. Always the bridesmaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20% grand slam final win record. Poor.

 

It's actually 1/6, so less than that percentage. But that's beside the point, to even be competing up there you have to be the world class athlete he is, but there was little he could do today against Djokovic in the end.

 

As for you quantifying that his Grand Slam record his poor... he is consistently in the latter stages and has presently made 3 finals in a row now, and if he ends up with 2-3 grand slams at the end of his career(which he will do imo), that is an achievement.

 

Also, for comparison to your 'poor' jibe... in comparison to whom - Federer or Nadal?!(where are your stats for people at similar times in their careers) I don't think anyone here is trying to claim Murray is an all-time great... just that he is a world-class tennis player, but you seem too blinded by your own biased views to admit that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlucky fed. If you were a few years younger you would have destroyed him.

 

That is an excellent point. Federer should be allowed to go through to the final because he was better than Murray three years ago.

 

When we lose to Man Utd on Wednesday, we should be allowed to have the three points because in a few years time our team will be a lot better. Saying that, United were better when they had Schmeichel and Cantona so maybe they should just be awarded the points because their team were a lot better than ours fifteen years ago and we don't need to bother playing the game at all.

 

As for the Euro referendum, it's a load of horse-****, isn't it? At the end of the day, we were better than Germany over two legs seventy years and more ago, so basically we should get to decide what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually 1/6, so less than that percentage. But that's beside the point, to even be competing up there you have to be the world class athlete he is, but there was little he could do today against Djokovic in the end.

 

As for you quantifying that his Grand Slam record his poor... he is consistently in the latter stages and has presently made 3 finals in a row now, and if he ends up with 2-3 grand slams at the end of his career(which he will do imo), that is an achievement.

 

Also, for comparison to your 'poor' jibe... in comparison to whom - Federer or Nadal?!(where are your stats for people at similar times in their careers) I don't think anyone here is trying to claim Murray is an all-time great... just that he is a world-class tennis player, but you seem too blinded by your own biased views to admit that.

 

He's been lucky to play at a time when Federer is in decline and Nadal has had injury after injury. He only has one real challenger. He should make every final at the moment if he gets a decent draw and avoids Djokovic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's been lucky to play at a time when Federer is in decline and Nadal has had injury after injury. He only has one real challenger. He should make every final at the moment if he gets a decent draw and avoids Djokovic.

or he has been unlucky to play when federer was in his peak and nadal was not injured...?

 

those two would probably dominate any era

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or he has been unlucky to play when federer was in his peak and nadal was not injured...?

 

those two would probably dominate any era

 

This is nonsense Jamie, there have alwasy been great players. Just in my years of watching tennis there has been McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Lendell, Becker, Agassi, Samprass, Effenburg. Federer has been a fantastic player, maybe the best ever and is a real gentlemen but he's in his 30's now. Whatever era Murray had played at he'd have had to beat great players. No conincidence that his run of finals has come when Nadal has been out and Federer getting on a bit. I do laugh at the Murray lovers claims that he's just been unlucky to play at a time when there were players better than him. :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nonsense Jamie, there have alwasy been great players. Just in my years of watching tennis there has been McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Lendell, Becker, Agassi, Samprass, Effenburg. Federer has been a fantastic player, maybe the best ever and is a real gentlemen but he's in his 30's now. Whatever era Murray had played at he'd have had to beat great players. No conincidence that his run of finals has come when Nadal has been out and Federer getting on a bit. I do laugh at the Murray lovers claims that he's just been unlucky to play at a time when there were players better than him. :lol::lol:

im not a murray lover...just think he is a bloody good player

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not a murray lover...just think he is a bloody good player

 

He is a good player and i'm starting to warm to him a bit, you're not the first person to say he's been unlucky to play at at time where there were better players aroud though. There have alwasy been great players around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is a good player and i'm starting to warm to him a bit, you're not the first person to say he's been unlucky to play at at time where there were better players aroud though. There have alwasy been great players around.

agree..but not as great as these two....nadal alone would be better than most...

 

anyway, murray was the first to say that he would not have pushed himself as much as he has if there was no fed or nadal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree..but not as great as these two....nadal alone would be better than most...

 

anyway, murray was the first to say that he would not have pushed himself as much as he has if there was no fed or nadal

 

It's impossible to compare different eras of players. Murray lovers say if he'd played in any other era he'd have won more, it's impossible to say, the Andy Murray that plays today might have but Andy Murray in 1985 wouldn't have had access to all the things Andy Murray in 2013 has to improve his fitness and ability. Same as if you took Bjon Borg and gave him all the things Murray has access to today, of course he'd be fitter, stronger,better because the training, diet, technology and sports science today is far better than when he played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...