Andy Murray: The Future King Of Tennis

[GameSetAndMath]

And his poor performances on clay make it hard for him to be called the best player in the game. Right now there's one player who can succeed everywhere, it's Djokovic. Andy (and Roger) have hard time on clay, Rafa struggles on fast surfaces.

Excuse me, are you equating Roger's performance on clay with
Andy's performance on clay?

Roger won FO once and made it to the finals of FO Five times.
Further he has about 10 titles on clay.

FYI, Roger does not have a clay problem, he has a problem
playing FONs (Freak of Nature) on Clay; that's all.

On the other hand, Andy has a real clay problem clearly
illustrated by his performance in FO thus far and lack of
any clay titles.

That's why I had Roger in parenthesis. Clay isn't a problem for him but still his worst surface.

Clay is indeed his weakest surface. I had done an extensive research on his performance on clay not so long ago, where I'd shown how most of this clay titles came winning the same tournaments year after year. In fact, he has only won 10/15% of his total titles on clay.

What logic is that? Almagro has won 100% of his titles on clay.
Does that makes him a better clay player than Rog?

Roger is clearly superior in HIS weakest surface than many
players in THEIR strongest surface.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

And his poor performances on clay make it hard for him to be called the best player in the game. Right now there's one player who can succeed everywhere, it's Djokovic. Andy (and Roger) have hard time on clay, Rafa struggles on fast surfaces.

Excuse me, are you equating Roger's performance on clay with
Andy's performance on clay?

Roger won FO once and made it to the finals of FO Five times.
Further he has about 10 titles on clay.

FYI, Roger does not have a clay problem, he has a problem
playing FONs (Freak of Nature) on Clay; that's all.

On the other hand, Andy has a real clay problem clearly
illustrated by his performance in FO thus far and lack of
any clay titles.

That's why I had Roger in parenthesis. Clay isn't a problem for him but still his worst surface.

Clay is indeed his weakest surface. I had done an extensive research on his performance on clay not so long ago, where I'd shown how most of this clay titles came winning the same tournaments year after year. In fact, he has only won 10/15% of his total titles on clay.

Here is the complete distribution of Federer's clay titles.

Hamburg ---- 4
Madrid ---- 2
Gstaad ---- 2
Munich ---- 1
R.G. ---- 1

Is this what you mean by winning the same tournament year
after year? I don't see such a statement corresponding with
facts listed above.

Also, while there are clay tournaments before IW and
after FO, Federer usually does not play in them as it does
not make much scheduling sense. In particular, Federer
has not won any South American Clay Tournaments because
he never played in them.

Finally, while it is true that Federer has not (yet) won
Rome or Monte Carlo, it is not due to anything intrinsically
difficult about the clay courts there. In fact, he was a
finalist in Rome three times and Monte Carlo three times
as well. It is just that a certain freak of nature was standing
across the net on most of these occasions.

 

[ClayDeath]

andy does not have to be a star on clay but he will probably do a little bit better there in 2014. he was hampered a bit by a bad back this year.


all andy has to do is win the u.s. open--- which he is going to--- then set his sights on doing some monster damage at the Australian open if possible.


I believe he defends his wimby crown next year.

he will just take it one step at a time. first he needs 2 more slams. 2 out of the next 4 will do but the next one is absolutely essential for him.

his goal has to be to overtake nole first and foremost. clay can wait.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

andy dominates zee vorld on grass..

 

[GameSetAndMath]

And his poor performances on clay make it hard for him to be called the best player in the game. Right now there's one player who can succeed everywhere, it's Djokovic. Andy (and Roger) have hard time on clay, Rafa struggles on fast surfaces.

Excuse me, are you equating Roger's performance on clay with
Andy's performance on clay?

Roger won FO once and made it to the finals of FO Five times.
Further he has about 10 titles on clay.

FYI, Roger does not have a clay problem, he has a problem
playing FONs (Freak of Nature) on Clay; that's all.

On the other hand, Andy has a real clay problem clearly
illustrated by his performance in FO thus far and lack of
any clay titles.

That's why I had Roger in parenthesis. Clay isn't a problem for him but still his worst surface.

It is his worst surface is not what you originally said. Moreover, talking about Fed's performance on clay
(even in parenthesis) in the same sentence in which you are mentioning Andy's performanceon clay is a cardinal sin.uzzled

 

[ClayDeath]

andy the grass monster.

 

[Mastoor]

Samson, I think your bet was better in your past life.

I mean guy beats half dead Fed to win Olympic gold and half dead No1e to win Wimbledon and suddenly he is the King of grass (coincidentally or not, on both occasions his opponents in finals were tired in semis by a match better grass court player - Del Potro).

So what do you think, how many more times something like that can happen to Murray and is that just enough to become King of tennis? I don't think it is.

 

[herios]

andy does not have to be a star on clay but he will probably do a little bit better there in 2014. he was hampered a bit by a bad back this year.


all andy has to do is win the u.s. open--- which he is going to--- then set his sights on doing some monster damage at the Australian open if possible.


I believe he defends his wimby crown next year.

he will just take it one step at a time. first he needs 2 more slams. 2 out of the next 4 will do but the next one is absolutely essential for him.

his goal has to be to overtake nole first and foremost. clay can wait.

All I have to say on this subject, when Novak is playing well, he is beating Andy Murray on HC. He will not just contemplate from here on, how Andy snatches all the titles you 'assume" he'll win.
And by the way, I thought you are a Nadal fan.Have you just given up on him because of his Wimbledon 'great" performances lately?

 

[britbox]

I think we're more likely to continue to see the big titles shared around over the next couple of years... primarily between Djokovic, Murray and Nadal. Hopefully, Del Potro will be able to gatecrash the party and grab another major. I think JMDP will become more relevant if he can keep fit, but I doubt he'll ever achieve the consistency of any of the other three.

Too early to put Murray head and shoulders above everyone else, and assuming he did get there... staying there is another matter. The next #1 is more likely to be Nadal than Murray - he's playing with house money in respect to racking up points at the moment.

I think Murray will at some point get to #1, but over the next two years, I'd still expect Djokovic to inhabit that position more often than anyone else.

 

[El Dude]

I agree with everything you say, britbox. If Andy were 21 or 22 right now, I'd agree with the idea of him being the "Future King of Tennis," but he's 26 - the future is now. Its unlikely that he's going to get better and, at best, he's roughly equal with Novak and Rafa. He still hasn't played Rafa this year and is 1-1 against Novak, both at Slam Finals. If he's strong from here on out he has a chance at year-end #1, but he'd have to win the US Open and the WTF.

 

[Emma]

And his poor performances on clay make it hard for him to be called the best player in the game. Right now there's one player who can succeed everywhere, it's Djokovic. Andy (and Roger) have hard time on clay, Rafa struggles on fast surfaces.

Excuse me, are you equating Roger's performance on clay with
Andy's performance on clay?

Roger won FO once and made it to the finals of FO Five times.
Further he has about 10 titles on clay.

FYI, Roger does not have a clay problem, he has a problem
playing FONs (Freak of Nature) on Clay; that's all.

On the other hand, Andy has a real clay problem clearly
illustrated by his performance in FO thus far and lack of
any clay titles.

That's why I had Roger in parenthesis. Clay isn't a problem for him but still his worst surface.

Clay is indeed his weakest surface. I had done an extensive research on his performance on clay not so long ago, where I'd shown how most of this clay titles came winning the same tournaments year after year. In fact, he has only won 10/15% of his total titles on clay.

Here is the complete distribution of Federer's clay titles.

Hamburg ---- 4
Madrid ---- 2
Gstaad ---- 2
Munich ---- 1
R.G. ---- 1

Is this what you mean by winning the same tournament year
after year? I don't see such a statement corresponding with
facts listed above.

Also, while there are clay tournaments before IW and
after FO, Federer usually does not play in them as it does
not make much scheduling sense. In particular, Federer
has not won any South American Clay Tournaments because
he never played in them.

Finally, while it is true that Federer has not (yet) won
Rome or Monte Carlo, it is not due to anything intrinsically
difficult about the clay courts there. In fact, he was a
finalist in Rome three times and Monte Carlo three times
as well. It is just that a certain freak of nature was standing
across the net on most of these occasions.

The main argument is, clay is Federer's weakest surface. It's not being compared to anyone else's but his own; hence the mention of 10/15%.

Federer has a total of 77 titles. He's won 10 of them on clay which is approximately 13% of his total titles. Given that ATP has more than 30% clay tournaments, it's not a significant achievement compared to his other accomplishments on hard and grass, thus making it his weakest surface.

And I did say 'by winning the same tournaments' - meaning he has won the same 3 tournaments 8 times out of his 10 titles on clay. Hamburg alone was won 4 times. And Madrid has always been a notorious and controversial tournament.

When you say "Federer has not won any South American Clay Tournaments because he never played in them." you are essentially making excuses. I could make the same argument and say, Murray has never played any 250 or 500 tournaments on clay and all the main tournaments on clay were dominated by Nadal - even Federer couldn't get a handle on any one of them. He basically won the left overs. The only time he won RG was when Nadal was taken out by Soderling in 2009. And now if you consider the fact that, since 2003 to now, Federer had 11 chances to win RG but he's won only 1 and that in the absence of Nadal, it does not scream out loud that he's a terrific player on clay.

And also, when you say "a certain freak of nature was standing across the net on most of these occasions" that's as bad not to mention a very lame an excuse as it gets. As I see it, there was another player that was far better than Federer on clay just like Federer was far better player than anyone in his time both on grass and hard.

And once again, I need to remind you that the main argument is, if clay is indeed Federer's weakest surface by his own standard and all the facts about his results on each surface is a sure indication of that.

 

[britbox]

I expect Novak to be the year end #1, but he might get surpassed by Nadal for a limited period next year.

Don't get me wrong, I expect Murray to have a stint at #1 at some point but it's going to be very tough for him to stay there with a weak clay game.

 

[tented]

If he's strong from here on out he has a chance at year-end #1, but he'd have to win the US Open and the WTF.

Would that be enough? Even if he defends the USO, he wouldn't gain any points, and Djokovic is ahead by 3,000+ points.

 

[britbox]

Dunno Emma, I'd subscribe to GSM's view. August highlighted issues with everyone's weaker surfaces.. Fed on clay, Nadal on faster courts, Murray on clay with the proviso Novak is proficient on all, on average above the others. It might be worth remembering Federer and Nadal have both won the career grand slam.

 

[Emma]

I agree with everything you say, britbox. If Andy were 21 or 22 right now, I'd agree with the idea of him being the "Future King of Tennis," but he's 26 - the future is now. Its unlikely that he's going to get better and, at best, he's roughly equal with Novak and Rafa. He still hasn't played Rafa this year and is 1-1 against Novak, both at Slam Finals. If he's strong from here on out he has a chance at year-end #1, but he'd have to win the US Open and the WTF.

But I think you are taking CD's statement at a face value. He probably means Andy will dominate the tour the next few years more so than anyone on tour. I don't think that is at all a far fetched possibility. I don't believe he is necessarily implying that he'd win more than Nadal or Federer. Let's have some genuine perspective on the matter.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Samson, I think your bet was better in your past life.

I mean guy beats half dead Fed to win Olympic gold and half dead No1e to win Wimbledon and suddenly he is the King of grass (coincidentally or not, on both occasions his opponents in finals were tired in semis by a match better grass court player - Del Potro).

So what do you think, how many more times something like that can happen to Murray and is that just enough to become King of tennis? I don't think it is.

stop crying..they weren't half dead, its not andys fault if federer is past it..andy had his sf after federers match, and the rest day he played 2 doubles matches while Federer had his feet up..

so give it a rest with the dismal whining and excuses.

and I thought djokovic was the iron man of tennis ?? :nono "the greater the challenge the bigger the glory in overcoming it"..clearly djokovic was lying according to you..and also djokovic had the 1st sf and had his feet up while andy was playing his sf.

 

[Emma]

Dunno Emma, I'd subscribe to GSM's view. August highlighted issues with everyone's weaker surfaces.. Fed on clay, Nadal on faster courts, Murray on clay with the proviso Novak is proficient on all, on average above the others. It might be worth remembering Federer and Nadal have both won the career grand slam.

That is the view now but since when the future is solely dependent on the past? As I see it, everything is subject to change and will change. Heck, I've come across a lot of people who were more than sure Andy would never win a Slam. Clearly they couldn't have been any more wrong.

Murray's weakest surface is clay but we should also keep in mind that his priorities had always been different and it was never clay. In fact, it was probably his least interest/priority. I agree though that his surface does not come naturally to him but hey, as good as Nole is on 'all surface', he has yet to beat Nadal at RG - got beaten twice instead. Not to mention, Federer got beaten a few times as well. So why Murray should even bother? Not at least when Nadal is around and still feeling strong. But who is to say all these clay tournaments won't be up for grab when Nadal slows down significantly which can happen in a year or two?

 

[britbox]

Samson, I think your bet was better in your past life.

I mean guy beats half dead Fed to win Olympic gold and half dead No1e to win Wimbledon and suddenly he is the King of grass (coincidentally or not, on both occasions his opponents in finals were tired in semis by a match better grass court player - Del Potro).

So what do you think, how many more times something like that can happen to Murray and is that just enough to become King of tennis? I don't think it is.

stop crying..they weren't half dead, its not andys fault if federer is past it..andy had his sf after federers match, and the rest day he played 2 doubles matches while Federer had his feet up..

so give it a rest with the dismal whining and excuses.

and I thought djokovic was the iron man of tennis ?? :nono "the greater the challenge the bigger the glory in overcoming it"..clearly djokovic was lying according to you..and also djokovic had the 1st sf and had his feet up while andy was playing his sf.

That's true also. Murray wasn't beating half-dead guys. He came of age.

 

[britbox]

Dunno Emma, I'd subscribe to GSM's view. August highlighted issues with everyone's weaker surfaces.. Fed on clay, Nadal on faster courts, Murray on clay with the proviso Novak is proficient on all, on average above the others. It might be worth remembering Federer and Nadal have both won the career grand slam.

That is the view now but since when the future is solely dependent on the past? AS I see it, everything is subject to change and will change. Heck, I've come across a lot of people who were more than sure Andy would never win a Slam. Clearly they couldn't have been any more wrong.

Murray's weakest surface is clay but we should also keep in mind that his priorities had always been different and it was never clay. In fact, it was probably his least interest. I agree though that his surface does not come naturally to him but hey, as good as Nole is on 'all surface', he has yet to beat Nadal at RG - got beaten twice instead. Not to mention, Federer got beaten a few times as well. So why Murray should even bother? Not at least when Nadal is around and still feeling strong. But who is to say all these clay tournaments won't be up for grab when Nadal slows down significantly which can happen in a year or two?

I guess it depends what you expect from him. He'll likely add to his tally of majors.. but a long term dominant number one? I think he'll make #1 at some point, but don't expect him to be ruling the position for any length of time like a Federer or a Sampras.

..and he doesn't really need to...sometimes we get spoiled and ask too much. Just enjoy the successes.

 

[Emma]

Samson, I think your bet was better in your past life.

I mean guy beats half dead Fed to win Olympic gold and half dead No1e to win Wimbledon and suddenly he is the King of grass (coincidentally or not, on both occasions his opponents in finals were tired in semis by a match better grass court player - Del Potro).

So what do you think, how many more times something like that can happen to Murray and is that just enough to become King of tennis? I don't think it is.

I seem to remember Murray beating a full of life Nole at the Olympics semi in straight sets just the year prior?

And why was Nole half dead? Andy played a 5 setter against Verdasco in the qtr where he was in fact 2 sets to love down. And then he played another 4 sets vs Janowicz. That's 9 sets as opposed to Nole's 8 sets (3 sets vs Berdych and 5 against Delpo). So I as I see it, Murray played 1 more sets than Nole in the qtr and semi. So why should Nole be half dead and Andy should be full fresh? what other excuses do you have?