Mr. Andy Murray have won just 1 maters after joining with Mr. Lendl ( Two years)

[Iona16]

As far as majors go in the last 2 years, it appears as if he has improved - winning 2, though he may have also benefited from some of other top players' misfortunes or decline.

Can you enlighten me?

He meant Federer decline and Nadal injury.....but you knew that already.

Ahh so I guess Federer's 2012 Wimbledon title is invalid as he didn't beat Nadal. We had better tell Djokovic that his Australian Open 2013 title doesn't count for much as he didn't beat Nadal or Federer to take that trophy. Tennis doesn't start or end with Nadal or Federer. Andy beat the world #1 to win BOTH his slams.

 

[huntingyou]

As far as majors go in the last 2 years, it appears as if he has improved - winning 2, though he may have also benefited from some of other top players' misfortunes or decline.

Can you enlighten me?

He meant Federer decline and Nadal injury.....but you knew that already.

Ahh so I guess Federer's 2012 Wimbledon title is invalid as he didn't beat Nadal. We had better tell Djokovic that his Australian Open 2013 title doesn't count for much as he didn't beat Nadal or Federer to take that trophy. Tennis doesn't start or end with Nadal or Federer. Andy beat the world #1 to win BOTH his slams.

uzzled

I answered your question, it's obvious where he is coming from. Never say I agree with him........you need to have some fun and maybe get a cat as well.

 

[Iona16]

As far as majors go in the last 2 years, it appears as if he has improved - winning 2, though he may have also benefited from some of other top players' misfortunes or decline.

Can you enlighten me?

He meant Federer decline and Nadal injury.....but you knew that already.

Ahh so I guess Federer's 2012 Wimbledon title is invalid as he didn't beat Nadal. We had better tell Djokovic that his Australian Open 2013 title doesn't count for much as he didn't beat Nadal or Federer to take that trophy. Tennis doesn't start or end with Nadal or Federer. Andy beat the world #1 to win BOTH his slams.

uzzled

I answered your question, it's obvious where he is coming from. Never say I agree with him........you need to have some fun and maybe get a cat as well.

I was running with the thought that you claim is obvious.

BTW please don't presume to know me just because I post a bit on a tennis forum.

 

[Moxie]

As far as majors go in the last 2 years, it appears as if he has improved - winning 2, though he may have also benefited from some of other top players' misfortunes or decline.

Can you enlighten me?

He meant Federer decline and Nadal injury.....but you knew that already.

Ahh so I guess Federer's 2012 Wimbledon title is invalid as he didn't beat Nadal. We had better tell Djokovic that his Australian Open 2013 title doesn't count for much as he didn't beat Nadal or Federer to take that trophy. Tennis doesn't start or end with Nadal or Federer. Andy beat the world #1 to win BOTH his slams.

uzzled

I answered your question, it's obvious where he is coming from. Never say I agree with him........you need to have some fun and maybe get a cat as well.

I have to hit the "dislike" button on this one. "…have some fun and maybe get a cat"?? Nice way to disparage a fair poster defending her player against another who is clearly anti-Murray. :nono

 

[nehmeth]

Tennis has officially gone into the "off-season" There are at least 4 ridiculous threads near the top of the boards here... Broken answered this badly misspelled thread in the second post. :cover

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

lol wut ?..have some fun and maybe get a cat as well ?.

not the comment you'd ever expect to see on a tennis forum..close season has gone all surreal maaaan.

 

[Fastgrass]

lol wut ?..have some fun and maybe get a cat as well ?.

not the comment you'd ever expect to see on a tennis forum..close season has gone all surreal maaaan.

lol wut ? Turttlllee Haed . #ssa leakers

 

[Emma]

As far as majors go in the last 2 years, it appears as if he has improved - winning 2, though he may have also benefited from some of other top players' misfortunes or decline.

Can you enlighten me?

He won't be able to enlighten you. Masterclass comes from the same family who tend to undermine Murray's effort every chance they get. And those who support him on this kind of notion belong to the same family. And a dysfunctional one I might as well add.

But if I am to bite on this then let me state that, Federer also benefited from a player who was unable to play his best in a Major final. I mean this very guy we call Murray had led him 10-7 outside GS and 8 of these meetings happened in Masters and the Olympics. So Murray knows how to beat Federer if we care to enlightened ourselves first.

After all, saying that "though he may have also benefited from some of other top players' misfortunes or decline" is no more a speculation than me saying, "I really think Murray would have beaten Federer 2 out of 3 occasions in the Slam finals including Wimbledon had he not had that mental block. And he got quite unlucky when he had to face a big server like Isner in the qtr before meeting with Nadal in the 2011 USO and also, the expectation of his own country or the mental block kind of stood in the way of him winning Wimbledon at least 2 out of 3 times against Nadal." And why not? Murray IS the better player than Nadal on grass.

Even when you go on to speculate because, let's face it, we can't help ourselves - why not take into account the fact that, ever since Lendl's appointment in 2012, Murray did look mentally much stronger and was ready to take the next step? He WAS leading Nole 2 sets to none in the USO final and his final set victory over Nole was MORE than convincing which goes on to prove that he was ready. Did he not beat the likes of Lopez, Cilic, Raonic, Berdych and Nole to win it? And was Nole not No. 1 at that time? And he did beat Nole in straight sets at Wimbledon this year to take the title. I didn't see Nadal or Federer beating a prime Nole in straight sets in a Slam final. And Murray also beat Federer at the AO semi just this year and he was dominating Federer on every level in that match - just got unlucky a couple of times. And I am sure if that encounter hadn't happened, you would have "speculated" that Federer would have beaten him here too.

So let's not speculate. Let's present facts. Facts like how Nadal got beaten in the very first round of Wimbledon this year to even make that far to meet with Murray. And Federer followed suit in the 2nd round in the same venue. It's not like none of them weren't there at Wimbledon. They both were and they both got beaten by basically nobodies. And that's a fact.

 

[Kieran]

Murray is better than Nadal on grass? Really? I would say the opposite, and it isn't too close, either...

 

[Emma]

Who told you Murray has a goal to be No. 1? I don't remember him saying that. In fact, he said he'd like to win as many majors as possible from this point on. But he does need to be a bit more consistent in other tournaments just to stay in top 4, so that he can get a reasonable draws in Majors going forward.

He said it himself.

Sampras didn't have to deal with Djokovic and Nadal.............if Murray can't improve his performance on clay which account for a third of the season then he will never be #1 because both Nadal and Novak do perform on clay. Federer used to as well when he was #1. As you well know, Pete played in a era with clear separations between surface specialists; that's not the case today.

I'd like a very recent link to the first highlighted part.

As to your second highlighted comment, can you prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sampras wouldn't have dominated these two if he was a player of this era? Or whoever he dealt with it - be it from the likes of Edberg, McEnroe, Lendl to Becker, Agassi, Courier to Rafter, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Henmen, Guga, Muster etc and than later, the likes of Federer, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt etc. were simply not good enough? Because what you are saying implies exactly that. And the same statement applies to the surface comment as well. You need to prove that today's surface is much harder to deal with than yesterday's variety of surfaces. If you can't then it remains as pure speculation on your part. As far I can see, Nadal can't deal with indoors and that's more out there than what we tend to think in here.

So again, unless you can present facts and prove beyond the shadow of a doubt and can truly back up your statement, I have no reason to take you seriously.

And I bet you didn't see any of 90s because if you had, then not only you would have understood the dynamic that had in that era, you also would have had a lot of respect for it as well.

Here's a quote from one of my very old CNN a friends who started watching Edberg at the age of 11 in the 90s and later we became very good friends as we started posting at the same time at CNN back in 1998. I got this quote from Tenniswarehouse. He just posted it yesterday. It's taken from another stupid thread called "Would Sampras Have Won More Grand Slams If He Had More Rivals" that's trying to undermine Sampras' effort and glorify Federer's, as usual.

=======================================================

Quote:
Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist View Post
It is amazing to me that Sampras never had a season with three grand slams (Federer had three seasons). It also amazes me that he never had a season with a winning percentage over 88% (Federer had four seasons).

helterskelter: Contra your first paragraph, which I deleted, Sampras faced a far, far deeper field than did Federer. That explains the two facts. Having a whole host of excellent challengers is much more troublesome than having one, two, or very occasionally three rivals.
=========================================================

Now we both started following tennis almost at the same time and he is one poster I have admired the most, because not only he has very high IQ of tennis knowledge but he's also one of most fairest posters I have ever encountered. No nonsense from him.

 

[Emma]

Murray is better than Nadal on grass? Really? I would say the opposite, and it isn't too close, either...

Yes, of course. Not only Murray has more grass titles than Nadal, Murray is also more consistent on grass than Nadal. There's a stat out there on that. I had posted it on Murray's World as well not so long ago. Don't forget Nadal went out twice quite early at Wimbledon. You'd never see him going out of RG as early as he did at Wimbledon no matter what. This surface is not natural to him which it is for Murray. In other words, Murray was born to play on grass while Nadal looks uncomfortable. The only other player who is great on grass is of course Federer.

Murray also won the Olympics just last year played on grass. He beat both Nole and Federer in straight sets there to win the title.

 

[Kieran]

Rafa has five Wimbledon finals - and two wins.

That's better than Andy, no?

They've played each other three times at Wimbledon - and Andy has won a single set.

It's not even close...

 

[Emma]

If you look at the rivalry alone, then Nadal of course leads all their grass meetings (3) but then we are talking about a very prime Nadal back then vs not so prime Murray. Murray has taken the quantum mental leap in 2012 and these tow haven't met since 2011. Their last meeting was on hard in Tokyo and Murray won that meeting.

 

[Kieran]

If you look at the rivalry alone, then Nadal of course leads all their grass meetings (3) but then we are talking about a very prime Nadal back then vs not so prime Murray. Murray has taken the quantum mental leap in 2012 and these tow haven't met since 2011. Their last meeting was on hard in Tokyo and Murray won that meeting.

Let's not go H2H with any top players and Rafa. They don't really stack up too well.

2 Wimbledon titles and five Wimbledon finals is better than anything Andy has.

And of course, if "Murray was born to play on grass while Nadal looks uncomfortable", then Andy would have better than one set in three matches, no matter how young he was. I mean, Rafa won a set off Roger in 2006 - and two sets off him in 2007. Then 3 sets off him in 2008.

Andy is improving, but I wouldn't compare him to Rafa on any of the major stages of tennis. Not yet, anyway, but I have my doubts about ever making such a comparison...

 

[Emma]

Rafa has five Wimbledon finals - and two wins.

That's better than Andy, no?

They've played each other three times at Wimbledon - and Andy has won a single set.

It's not even close...

I don't think consistency and overall stats work that way.

Murray has made 3 semis, 1 final and won 1 Wimbledon. Won the Olympics and won 3 Queen titles. So he has 5 titles on grass.

He's never gone out as early as Nadal at Wimbledon starting from 2008. Pre-2008 Murray is still armature. Murray's consistency ratio on grass is higher than Nadal's.

But still, if you are keen, Murray went out in the qtr final in 2008. In 2007, he withdrew with a wrist injury therefore, didn't play. He turned pro in 2006 but still he made the 4th round at Wimbledon and lost to Baghdatis.

It's more than likely that he will win more Wimbledon in the near future.

 

[Kieran]

I don't dispute that he might win W in the future, but to hold Queens - a warm-up event - up as proof he's better than Rafa, who has two Wimbledon titles and five finals, beating Andy 3 times along the way, is stretching it. Yeah, Rafa went out early twice. Wait till Muzza has five finals there and two titles and let's see how early he goes out.

Anyway, I'm not here to knock Andy. I like the guy and hope he's back and fighting fit for oz...

 

[Emma]

Rafa has five Wimbledon finals - and two wins.

That's better than Andy, no?

They've played each other three times at Wimbledon - and Andy has won a single set.

It's not even close...

That's a mouthful btw. I don't think you can say it like that. You should say he made 3 finals and won 2. Otherwise it sounds he made the finals 5 times and won 2 times making it 7 times when in reality, it's altogether 5 times.

Might as well add that he only had to deal with Federer there, where the match up issue was more crucial than anything else. Whereas Andy had to deal with Nadal, Federer and Nole since 2006. That makes it tougher, no? I mean these days, Nadal doesn't even make the 3rd round at Wimbledon, no?

 

[Emma]

I don't dispute that he might win W in the future, but to hold Queens - a warm-up event - up as proof he's better than Rafa, who has two Wimbledon titles and five finals, beating Andy 3 times along the way, is stretching it. Yeah, Rafa went out early twice. Wait till Muzza has five finals there and two titles and let's see how early he goes out.

Anyway, I'm not here to knock Andy. I like the guy and hope he's back and fighting fit for oz...

Again you should say, he made the finals 3 times and won twice. That's more accurate.

I am talking about consistency and I am talking about who's more natural on grass. McEnroe already said a year or two ago that Murray was the 2nd best player on grass right after Federer. And just this year he said, Murray now has topped Federer as being the best player on grass. Come 2014, who will have the most potential to win Wimbledon? I ask you.

But again, that's not the point. The point is, which goes to my first post, Murray is more consistent on grass and a better player than Nadal. Nadal made the finals 3 times and won 2 other times but he also has history of going out in the 1st and 2nd round as late as in 2012 and 2013. That's not consistency. Doesn't make you a natural either.

 

[Kieran]

John McEnroe says more than his prayers, as me dear old mudder says.

Rafa has been in five finals - lost twice to Fed, lost once to Nole - and he won it twice. I'd rather have two victories there and the rest is first round loses, than just one title and a bunch of consistent semi-final losses (invariably to Rafa, uncomfortable though he is on the surface )...

 

[Emma]

John McEnroe says more than his prayers, as me dear old mudder says.

Rafa has been in five finals - lost twice to Fed, lost once to Nole - and he won it twice. I'd rather have two victories there and the rest is first round loses, than just one title and a bunch of consistent semi-final losses (invariably to Rafa, uncomfortable though he is on the surface )...

You are looking at the results; I am looking at the consistency. Murray started his journey at Wimbledon by making the 4th round in his first pro year. He ended up winning it in 2013. In between he kept his consistency very much alive there by constantly making the semi at the least. Therefore his ratio is higher than Nadal's. Nadal's only legitimate opponent up until 2008 was Federer; whereas Murray's is Nadal, Nole and Federer - since 2008. We should not overlook these facts while bragging.