The Official Tennis Thread

Started by Doogie Browser, January 26, 2010, 11:25:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Minder

Quote from: BennyHarp on November 08, 2016, 10:39:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 08, 2016, 10:30:28 PM
I think only a fool would think that Sampras wasn't a great, granted clay wasn't his thing as was Wimbledon wasn't Lendl's thing still a great player and former number one.. Murray has to be congratulated for doing so well from a place not known for producing tennis greats!!

Murray is unfortunately up against Novak a lot and when he doesn't meet him he's got Federer !! Nadal's ship has flown, he would have won a lot more majors had he not been blighted by injures... though I've always a question mark over him relating to enhanced performances!

My point is not that Sampras wasn't a great player, of course he was. I was more replying to a comment that Murray wouldn't be in his league. Murray is a great player in a great era. Slightly behind two or three of the best ever. I think Sampras would most likely be behind those three too.

Slightly behind ?? He has three slams,  Federer has 17, Djokovic has 12 & Nadal has 14
"When it's too tough for them, it's just right for us"

gallsman

Each of them have won all four grand slams too. Murray has won two of them.

He's a great player but saying he's just behind that lot is ridiculous. In their primes, they battered him for fun.

Estimator

Easier comparing Murray with Wawrinka - both have 3 Grand Slams. Wawrinka has won French, US and Australian. Murray has won Wimbledon (2) and US.
Ulster League Champions 2009

Nanderson

Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2016, 09:34:26 AM
Each of them have won all four grand slams too. Murray has won two of them.

He's a great player but saying he's just behind that lot is ridiculous. In their primes, they battered him for fun.
Hardly fair to compare Murray to them in their primes when Roger was in his prime in 06/07 Murray was just a fresh faced teenager, similarly during Nadals prime in 08 and 10. The one person he was really competing with was Djockovic as they are the same age. Djockovic benefitted from getting that early major on the board in Aus Open 2008. Even during Novaks prime in 2011-2015 Murray looked like the only one who could compete with him. And now that Murray is in his prime he would batter at least Federer and Nadal for fun.

gallsman

How long will Murray's prime last? Hitting his prime at 29 doesn't bode well. And it's a very fair comparison:

03-09 Federer beats him now.
07-13 Nadal beats him now.
11-15 Djokovic beats him now.

I imagine djokovic will still be the favourite heading into the Australian.

screenexile

Quote from: Nanderson on November 09, 2016, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2016, 09:34:26 AM
Each of them have won all four grand slams too. Murray has won two of them.

He's a great player but saying he's just behind that lot is ridiculous. In their primes, they battered him for fun.
Hardly fair to compare Murray to them in their primes when Roger was in his prime in 06/07 Murray was just a fresh faced teenager, similarly during Nadals prime in 08 and 10. The one person he was really competing with was Djockovic as they are the same age. Djockovic benefitted from getting that early major on the board in Aus Open 2008. Even during Novaks prime in 2011-2015 Murray looked like the only one who could compete with him. And now that Murray is in his prime he would batter at least Federer and Nadal for fun.

Maybe not Federer but Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are the same age . . . Nadal has 14 Slams and Djokovic 12!

Murray has a long way to go to be compared in the same league!!

Tony Baloney

I'm hoping Benny's fever from last night has passed after some strong drugs and a good nights sleep!  ;D

nrico2006

Quote from: screenexile on November 09, 2016, 12:42:07 PM
Quote from: Nanderson on November 09, 2016, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2016, 09:34:26 AM
Each of them have won all four grand slams too. Murray has won two of them.

He's a great player but saying he's just behind that lot is ridiculous. In their primes, they battered him for fun.
Hardly fair to compare Murray to them in their primes when Roger was in his prime in 06/07 Murray was just a fresh faced teenager, similarly during Nadals prime in 08 and 10. The one person he was really competing with was Djockovic as they are the same age. Djockovic benefitted from getting that early major on the board in Aus Open 2008. Even during Novaks prime in 2011-2015 Murray looked like the only one who could compete with him. And now that Murray is in his prime he would batter at least Federer and Nadal for fun.

Maybe not Federer but Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are the same age . . . Nadal has 14 Slams and Djokovic 12!

Murray has a long way to go to be compared in the same league!!

Exactly, Murray is the same age as Nadal and Djokovic.  Murray would probably not even have his grandslams if Nadal hadn't had the injuries he has.  Djokovic has a great record v Murray as well, especially in Grand Slams and I would put my money on Djokovic winning the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals again and getting back to number 1.
'To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal, light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.'

No wides

Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2016, 12:01:29 PM
How long will Murray's prime last? Hitting his prime at 29 doesn't bode well. And it's a very fair comparison:

03-09 Federer beats him now.
07-13 Nadal beats him now.
11-15 Djokovic beats him now.

I imagine djokovic will still be the favourite heading into the Australian.

Yeah imagine only becoming world number one in a sport at 29 - loser!

No wides

Quote from: nrico2006 on November 09, 2016, 01:47:28 PM
Quote from: screenexile on November 09, 2016, 12:42:07 PM
Quote from: Nanderson on November 09, 2016, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2016, 09:34:26 AM
Each of them have won all four grand slams too. Murray has won two of them.

He's a great player but saying he's just behind that lot is ridiculous. In their primes, they battered him for fun.
Hardly fair to compare Murray to them in their primes when Roger was in his prime in 06/07 Murray was just a fresh faced teenager, similarly during Nadals prime in 08 and 10. The one person he was really competing with was Djockovic as they are the same age. Djockovic benefitted from getting that early major on the board in Aus Open 2008. Even during Novaks prime in 2011-2015 Murray looked like the only one who could compete with him. And now that Murray is in his prime he would batter at least Federer and Nadal for fun.

Maybe not Federer but Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are the same age . . . Nadal has 14 Slams and Djokovic 12!

Murray has a long way to go to be compared in the same league!!

Exactly, Murray is the same age as Nadal and Djokovic.  Murray would probably not even have his grandslams if Nadal hadn't had the injuries he has. Djokovic has a great record v Murray as well, especially in Grand Slams and I would put my money on Djokovic winning the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals again and getting back to number 1.

What a bullshit statement made with no prove and just a dislike for the brit I assume?

nrico2006

Quote from: No wides on November 09, 2016, 01:52:54 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on November 09, 2016, 01:47:28 PM
Quote from: screenexile on November 09, 2016, 12:42:07 PM
Quote from: Nanderson on November 09, 2016, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2016, 09:34:26 AM
Each of them have won all four grand slams too. Murray has won two of them.

He's a great player but saying he's just behind that lot is ridiculous. In their primes, they battered him for fun.
Hardly fair to compare Murray to them in their primes when Roger was in his prime in 06/07 Murray was just a fresh faced teenager, similarly during Nadals prime in 08 and 10. The one person he was really competing with was Djockovic as they are the same age. Djockovic benefitted from getting that early major on the board in Aus Open 2008. Even during Novaks prime in 2011-2015 Murray looked like the only one who could compete with him. And now that Murray is in his prime he would batter at least Federer and Nadal for fun.

Maybe not Federer but Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are the same age . . . Nadal has 14 Slams and Djokovic 12!

Murray has a long way to go to be compared in the same league!!

Exactly, Murray is the same age as Nadal and Djokovic.  Murray would probably not even have his grandslams if Nadal hadn't had the injuries he has. Djokovic has a great record v Murray as well, especially in Grand Slams and I would put my money on Djokovic winning the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals again and getting back to number 1.

What a bullshit statement made with no prove and just a dislike for the brit I assume?

I actually like Murray, but going by Nadal's grand slam record before injury hit him I would say that he would have encountered Murray in one of his 3 grand slams wins and more than likely have won.  But due to injury Nadal has missed a lot of tournaments and even the dlams he has been involved in have seen only a shell of the former Nadal.
'To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal, light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.'

BennyHarp

Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 09, 2016, 01:45:03 PM
I'm hoping Benny's fever from last night has passed after some strong drugs and a good nights sleep!  ;D

I was never really comparing Murray and the three modern greats and people have jumped on a fairly flippant comment about him and Sampras being slightly behind them. Yes he's behind them in grand slams and will never reach their level but has been knocking on the door and competing with these lads for years. Age isn't the only determinant on a players development and Murray has been beating Federer and to a lesser extent Djokovic on an increasingly more regular basis in recent years. I was more concerned with your comment about him not being in the same league as Sampras, who in my view is also behind the three lads from the most modern era and also in my view would be winning a similar number of grand slams as Murray has had he been around then. Yes, its hypothetical but I think Murray's game is more rounded than Sampras. 
That was never a square ball!!

Walter Cronc

Box seats for the ATP at the o2 next Tuesday. Sure I'll let ya's know who is better  8)

No wides

Quote from: nrico2006 on November 09, 2016, 02:41:56 PM
Quote from: No wides on November 09, 2016, 01:52:54 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on November 09, 2016, 01:47:28 PM
Quote from: screenexile on November 09, 2016, 12:42:07 PM
Quote from: Nanderson on November 09, 2016, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2016, 09:34:26 AM
Each of them have won all four grand slams too. Murray has won two of them.

He's a great player but saying he's just behind that lot is ridiculous. In their primes, they battered him for fun.
Hardly fair to compare Murray to them in their primes when Roger was in his prime in 06/07 Murray was just a fresh faced teenager, similarly during Nadals prime in 08 and 10. The one person he was really competing with was Djockovic as they are the same age. Djockovic benefitted from getting that early major on the board in Aus Open 2008. Even during Novaks prime in 2011-2015 Murray looked like the only one who could compete with him. And now that Murray is in his prime he would batter at least Federer and Nadal for fun.

Maybe not Federer but Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are the same age . . . Nadal has 14 Slams and Djokovic 12!

Murray has a long way to go to be compared in the same league!!

Exactly, Murray is the same age as Nadal and Djokovic.  Murray would probably not even have his grandslams if Nadal hadn't had the injuries he has. Djokovic has a great record v Murray as well, especially in Grand Slams and I would put my money on Djokovic winning the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals again and getting back to number 1.

What a bullshit statement made with no prove and just a dislike for the brit I assume?

I actually like Murray,but going by Nadal's grand slam record before injury hit him I would say that he would have encountered Murray in one of his 3 grand slams wins and more than likely have won.  But due to injury Nadal has missed a lot of tournaments and even the dlams he has been involved in have seen only a shell of the former Nadal.

Murray won US Open 2012, runner up in Australian Open 2013, won Wimbledon 2013 in same years Nadal won French Open 2012 / 2013, won US open 2013 and runner up Australian Open 2012, bet loads wish they had that injury!

SLIGONIAN

Quote from: No wides on November 09, 2016, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on November 09, 2016, 02:41:56 PM
Quote from: No wides on November 09, 2016, 01:52:54 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on November 09, 2016, 01:47:28 PM
Quote from: screenexile on November 09, 2016, 12:42:07 PM
Quote from: Nanderson on November 09, 2016, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2016, 09:34:26 AM
Each of them have won all four grand slams too. Murray has won two of them.

He's a great player but saying he's just behind that lot is ridiculous. In their primes, they battered him for fun.
Hardly fair to compare Murray to them in their primes when Roger was in his prime in 06/07 Murray was just a fresh faced teenager, similarly during Nadals prime in 08 and 10. The one person he was really competing with was Djockovic as they are the same age. Djockovic benefitted from getting that early major on the board in Aus Open 2008. Even during Novaks prime in 2011-2015 Murray looked like the only one who could compete with him. And now that Murray is in his prime he would batter at least Federer and Nadal for fun.

Maybe not Federer but Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are the same age . . . Nadal has 14 Slams and Djokovic 12!

Murray has a long way to go to be compared in the same league!!

Exactly, Murray is the same age as Nadal and Djokovic.  Murray would probably not even have his grandslams if Nadal hadn't had the injuries he has. Djokovic has a great record v Murray as well, especially in Grand Slams and I would put my money on Djokovic winning the upcoming ATP World Tour Finals again and getting back to number 1.

What a bullshit statement made with no prove and just a dislike for the brit I assume?

I actually like Murray,but going by Nadal's grand slam record before injury hit him I would say that he would have encountered Murray in one of his 3 grand slams wins and more than likely have won.  But due to injury Nadal has missed a lot of tournaments and even the dlams he has been involved in have seen only a shell of the former Nadal.

Murray won US Open 2012, runner up in Australian Open 2013, won Wimbledon 2013 in same years Nadal won French Open 2012 / 2013, won US open 2013 and runner up Australian Open 2012, bet loads wish they had that injury!
Exactly Some rubbish spouted on here, federer nadal and Djokovic all faced easier opponents when they won the first slam, that is a huge break to get which Murray never had that luxury, also Murray always had the weight of a nation on his shoulders and Fred Perry legacy to break which is harder especially with the English media, Murray has a great record against federer 11-14 also beat him in 2012 Olympics final and Djokovic, remember too federer has huge crowd support which helps and gives an advantage, his record against nadal and Djokovic not as good, remember too Murray had operation in 2013 and after that rehab to come to this level is testamount to Murray, Murray has a tougher draw than Novak in the atp finals but should go very close and I expect him to break his Australian hoodoo in January, 3 slams , 2 golds singles , 1 Davis cup is an unreal achievement, and should be celebrated, I reckon he will win 2 slams next year and win at least 8 like Lendl
"hard work will always beat talent if talent doesn't work"