2015 Australian Open Final: Djokovic vs. Murray

[nehmeth]

Baby Stefan Djokovic watching hid daddy on the big screen

 

[TennisFanatic7]

2-8 in slam finals is a terrible ratio regardless of opposition. I mean if Novak had lost this match he would have been successful less than 50% of the times in slam finals, and that's unacceptable, so what does that say about Murray's record? It doesn't help Murray's case that many of the finals he's lost weren't super close matches and he almost always faded midway through.

That said, yes, he is facing stiff competition, but he's talented enough to where he should have won a couple more (no specific matches in mind, to be clear, but just as an absolute idea). However, I don't think the main issue is that he's spineless. I think he's fine in that regard, though not as mentally tough as the other 3 (as far as maintaining focus, approaching the match the right way, not getting too down on himself, etc...) and that has cost him. Still, for the most part, the reason for his slam count (which is pretty good mind you, better than most) is just that he's not as good as the other 3, as highlighted in separate threads.

I do think that we shouldn't be too harsh on the guy and kick him when he's down. He's had a great career so far. I mean, if Federer's entire generation gets a pass for not winning more due to playing Federer (which is fair to some extent), Murray should get leniency (but not a pass) for playing in a loaded era at the top. He's still been super consistent outside of clay and has reached every slam final (other than RG) more than once. I mean, let's keep things in perspective, he's a great player.

Precisely. A lot of people seem to believe that Murray either has to prove himself as a genuine part of the "Big Four" or he's a failure. There is in fact a middle ground!

 

[DarthFed]

If Murray was Roger's age he wouldn't have any slams. He sure as heck wouldnt have won Wimbledon or US Open. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Fiero425]

2-8 in slam finals is a terrible ratio regardless of opposition. I mean if Novak had lost this match he would have been successful less than 50% of the times in slam finals, and that's unacceptable, so what does that say about Murray's record? It doesn't help Murray's case that many of the finals he's lost weren't super close matches and he almost always faded midway through.

That said, yes, he is facing stiff competition, but he's talented enough to where he should have won a couple more (no specific matches in mind, to be clear, but just as an absolute idea). However, I don't think the main issue is that he's spineless. I think he's fine in that regard, though not as mentally tough as the other 3 (as far as maintaining focus, approaching the match the right way, not getting too down on himself, etc...) and that has cost him. Still, for the most part, the reason for his slam count (which is pretty good mind you, better than most) is just that he's not as good as the other 3, as highlighted in separate threads.

I do think that we shouldn't be too harsh on the guy and kick him when he's down. He's had a great career so far. I mean, if Federer's entire generation gets a pass for not winning more due to playing Federer (which is fair to some extent), Murray should get leniency (but not a pass) for playing in a loaded era at the top. He's still been super consistent outside of clay and has reached every slam final (other than RG) more than once. I mean, let's keep things in perspective, he's a great player.

Precisely. A lot of people seem to believe that Murray either has to prove himself as a genuine part of the "Big Four" or he's a failure. There is in fact a middle ground!

ITA; so BIG 4 is a misnomer these days! He overachieved and picked up 2 majors and a Gold medal at the Olympics, but he barely has the status of "elite;" around the level of a Del Po, Hewitt, or Safin! All have or had plenty of talent, but their true success was limited and couldn't be sustained! :nono

 

[GameSetAndMath]

He'd certainly have won a few more if he'd been lucky enough to face the likes of Mark Philippoussis and Mariano Puerta in some of his earlier major finals

Well, it all depends on what point of view one takes in these matters.

One could say that Murray won USO 2012 as he did not have to face Fed (who lost to Bird)
and Rafa (who did not play). Similarly, one could say he won Wimbledon 2013 as both
Rafa and Roger fell early that year.

Having provided the counterpoint do I think it reduces the values of the two slams won
by Andy? No.

If you are saying he was unlucky that he never got Phlippoussis or Puerta in the finals,
I could say that he got luck that he did not have to face Fed or Rafa in the two slams
which he happened to won so far.

 

[Kieran]

He'd certainly have won a few more if he'd been lucky enough to face the likes of Mark Philippoussis and Mariano Puerta in some of his earlier major finals

Well, it all depends on what point of view one takes in these matters.

One could say that Murray won USO 2012 as he did not have to face Fed (who lost to Bird)
and Rafa (who did not play). Similarly, one could say he won Wimbledon 2013 as both
Rafa and Roger fell early that year.

Having provided the counterpoint do I think it reduces the values of the two slams won
by Andy? No.

If you are saying he was unlucky that he never got Phlippoussis or Puerta in the finals,
I could say that he got luck that he did not have to face Fed or Rafa in the two slams
which he happened to won so far.

Not sure of your logic here, because he still had to face novak, who's a higher order than Puerta or Phillippoussus. Rafa did face Roger to win his first major, and so did Nole, but these were semi final matches. Roger faced whoever...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The most telling factor for Murray in this match was

1. Murray only converted 5/12 Break Points

2. Murray only won 14/41 2nd serve points which is 34%.

Besides all those break points, Murray had a lot of 2nd serves to jump on and he still wound up being routed! How is that possible when his fans keep giving him all this elite 'ability and skill?' As I said, Murray is not and will never be part of the elite top 3 without one of them injured or not playing that well! IMO, he's overachieved to get his Wimbledon, USO, and Olympic Gold! He and his fans s/b perfectly satisfied with what he's accomplished! :clap :angel: :dodgy:

Some people just don't like Murray @tall,i think you one of them,that's fair enough on your point of view.Murray's won Wimbledon, USO, and Olympic Gold,been in 8 Slam Finals.AO is looking like a lock for Nole,Stan beat him maybe like R/S beat Nadal.After Murrray's back Opp i think he should be given some time before being to hard on how he does.I bet Nole or any other tennis player would take just as long to get there game back.:cover

I don't want to thrash your man when he is down. However, he did not have his back operation
in 2014 October. He had it in 2013 October or so. It is now more than a full year since the op
happened. Don't you think it is time not to use that as an excuse anymore?

 

[Kirijax]

Muzzfuzz should be grateful that people have included him in the "Big Four". He's never been ranked number one, had one little hot streak, and usually goes home with a large silver plate. I wish people would drop the Big Four thing. It's the era of the Big Three. Murray doesn't belong there.

 

[Mile]

Muzzfuzz should be grateful that people have included him in the "Big Four". He's never been ranked number one, had one little hot streak, and usually goes home with a large silver plate. I wish people would drop the Big Four thing. It's the era of the Big Three. Murray doesn't belong there.

Agree, also did mention same, there were never Big 4, not with Muzza. Like there will never be time when Wilander will mention Djoker in positive aspect.

 

[nehmeth]

Djokovic 8 Slams > Wilander's 7 Slams

:nono Matts ain't happy.

 

[Fiero425]

Djokovic 8 Slams > Wilander's 7 Slams

:nono Matts ain't happy.

Wilander couldn't have even thought Nole would stay under 8 majors just so he would remain relevant! McEnroe has had to deal with his name falling on that list for a while and makes light of it when it's brought up! :angel: :dodgy: :ras:

 

[Billie]

Djokovic 8 Slams > Wilander's 7 Slams

:nono Matts ain't happy.

I guess I am happy that I don't have to listen to him. I thought that was just Serbs exaggerating about Wilander, but more and more I hear that from other people. Strange.uzzled

Did you see the celebratory photo? As if he knew what he was looking at:angel::heart:

 

[Kirijax]

Haha...love Mats. I don't think he's too concerned about players passing him by in the GS titles rankings. And he isn't shy about stating his opinion which always makes for fun viewing. One of my favorite commentators. Even if he is way off the mark sometimes.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

He'd certainly have won a few more if he'd been lucky enough to face the likes of Mark Philippoussis and Mariano Puerta in some of his earlier major finals

Well, it all depends on what point of view one takes in these matters.

One could say that Murray won USO 2012 as he did not have to face Fed (who lost to Bird)
and Rafa (who did not play). Similarly, one could say he won Wimbledon 2013 as both
Rafa and Roger fell early that year.

Having provided the counterpoint do I think it reduces the values of the two slams won
by Andy? No.

If you are saying he was unlucky that he never got Phlippoussis or Puerta in the finals,
I could say that he got luck that he did not have to face Fed or Rafa in the two slams
which he happened to won so far.

I see what you're trying to say and you've mentioned that you're not arguing to reduce the value of Murray's wins but this argument is still a complete non-starter. Djokovic will be seen as an all-time great in his own right when he retires, if not already, and was world number one ahead of Nadal and Federer anyway on both of those occasions, if memory serves.

P.S. I was just messing around with the Puerta/Philippoussis comment in case that wasn't clear!

 

[Billie]

Let's give Andy credit and be a bit more gracious to his fans, please!

 

[Denis]

Haha...love Mats. I don't think he's too concerned about players passing him by in the GS titles rankings. And he isn't shy about stating his opinion which always makes for fun viewing. One of my favorite commentators. Even if he is way off the mark sometimes.

Yeah, he's quite good to watch and I have not noticed too much negativity against Novak. If he's biased against him I would change my mind obviously, but generally I like his analysis of players.

 

[Kieran]

P.S. I was just messing around with the Puerta/Philippoussis comment in case that wasn't clear!

It was a good point though, because it's true...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic 8 Slams > Wilander's 7 Slams

:nono Matts ain't happy.

As someone who listens to Mats' commentary in pretty much every major (except for Wimbledon), I can assure you that while he sometimes has certain analysis that drives me crazy, his ego is almost non-existent. He always downplays his achievements, never talks about what he's accomplished, and is almost too complementary of today's players.

 

[Kieran]

Mats had his 7 done by aged 23. He was quite the early starter, and he won majors on all surfaces. I liked Mats, and typical of these cool icy Swedes, they know when to go Greta Garbo and leave the stage, more or less...

 

[Fiero425]

Djokovic 8 Slams > Wilander's 7 Slams

:nono Matts ain't happy.

As someone who listens to Mats' commentary in pretty much every major (except for Wimbledon), I can assure you that while he sometimes has certain analysis that drives me crazy, his ego is almost non-existent. He always downplays his achievements, never talks about what he's accomplished, and is almost too complementary of today's players.

OTTOMH, John McEnroe is the main one that PO's me with his constant fawning of Rafa for the last several years! It makes no sense with the limitations to go overboard speaking of his record! Nadal has never defended a title off of clay! He's not only losing earlier at Wimbledon, it's being done by a qualifier, junior, and a wild-card! These are things that wasn't and isn't happening to Roger and Nole! Even if he picks up 5 more FO's, he still won't be "my GOAT!" :ras: :cover :nono