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

[Emma]

Don't you also forget that Rafa turned pro in 2001 while Murray turned pro in 2006, therefore, Rafa had more chances than Murray so far at Wimbledon, which then allowed Rafa to win more. So you can say Rafa made these many finals and won that many times, but in reality, he also had more attempts than Murray.

Once their careers end, we can take everything into account and see who came on top. More than likely it will be Murray on grass.

 

[Kieran]

I'll take results over consistency any day of the week - and twice on Sunday!

By the way, I totally agree with you about the toughness of Andy's opposition. If Rafa's only truly great opponent up until 2008 was Federer, imagine how many truly great opponents Roger had before Rafa came along! :shy:

 

[Emma]

I'll take results over consistency any day of the week - and twice on Sunday!

By the way, I totally agree with you about the toughness of Andy's opposition. If Rafa's only truly great opponent up until 2008 was Federer, imagine how many truly great opponents Roger had before Rafa came along! :shy:

But that's your personal choice, innit. I'll take consistency because that's more important in tennis. It's not like Rafa doesn't have consistency because he does but it's not the same everywhere. For example, his results on clay. Supper consistent. Who's going to argue with that? And he has yet to miss one clay season. When he takes his time off or gets injured, it's usually around other seasons.

Federer definitely had it easy from 2003 to 2007 because Nadal was still coming into his own term and wasn't as lethal as he became starting from 2008. But Federer is still a great player and one of the best without a doubt.

 

[Kieran]

It's an interesting argument: consistency or results. For "results", I read "titles", which I'd much rather have. For instance, Nole has been in five US Open finals and two other semis.

He has 1 title.

Rafa has been in 3 finals and 2 semis.

He has 2 titles.

Which would you prefer? And which is better?

In both cases, Rafa's record...

 

[DarthFed]

Murray is not greater than Nadal on grass yet. If he gets another Wimbledon title you can definitely argue that. Rafa has failed 3 times in finals, you don't get credit for falling on the biggest stage in the sport. But 2 titles is greater than 1. Simple math ain't it?

 

[Emma]

It's an interesting argument: consistency or results. For "results", I read "titles", which I'd much rather have. For instance, Nole has been in five US Open finals and two other semis.

He has 1 title.

Rafa has been in 3 finals and 2 semis.

He has 2 titles.

Which would you prefer? And which is better?

In both cases, Rafa's record...

Consistency is fundamental therefore better. I don't think players can win stuff completely out of the blue. Sometimes, yes but not always. That's why it's risky to win 1 USO like Del Potro and nothing else in your entire career, because then you run the risk of looking a 'fluke win'. Federer, for example, is very consistent. Results followed.

And I don't think we can compare Nadal' career to either Nole or Andy's for reasons that the latter turned pro much later than Nadal; therefore, it's not a fair comparison to begin with.

 

[Emma]

Murray is not greater than Nadal on grass yet. If he gets another Wimbledon title you can definitely argue that. Rafa has failed 3 times in finals, you don't get credit for falling on the biggest stage in the sport. But 2 titles is greater than 1. Simple math ain't it?

I thought I made it very clear that I am not talking about in terms of results or H2H. Consistency-wise Murray has better results at Wimbledon and in general on grass as he's won more matches than Nadal and titles.

The argument is, who's the better and consistent player on grass. I am saying Murray because he's more consistent and had less time on grass to prove it since he turned pro 5 years after Nadal.

 

[DarthFed]

Murray is not greater than Nadal on grass yet. If he gets another Wimbledon title you can definitely argue that. Rafa has failed 3 times in finals, you don't get credit for falling on the biggest stage in the sport. But 2 titles is greater than 1. Simple math ain't it?

I thought I made it very clear that I am not talking about in terms of results or H2H. Consistency-wise Murray has better results at Wimbledon and in general on grass as he's won more matches than Nadal and titles.

The argument is, who's the better and consistent player on grass. I am saying Murray because he's more consistent and had less time on grass to prove it since he turned pro 5 years after Nadal.

So aside from the fact that Nadal has won 1 more Wimbledon and is 3-0 H2H you will take a bunch of small Queens tourneys, the Olympics and more consistent semifinal exits. Makes perfect sense

 

[Denis]

I think Emma is referring to the consecutive early round losses of the last years. Plus he didn't play in 2009 I think?

Anyway, OT: this thread is a bit of a troll thread. Murray won Wimbledon, seems to matter on the island he comes from even more than anywhere else. Wouldn't even compare to winning all masters since Lendl arrived.

 

[Emma]

Murray is not greater than Nadal on grass yet. If he gets another Wimbledon title you can definitely argue that. Rafa has failed 3 times in finals, you don't get credit for falling on the biggest stage in the sport. But 2 titles is greater than 1. Simple math ain't it?

I thought I made it very clear that I am not talking about in terms of results or H2H. Consistency-wise Murray has better results at Wimbledon and in general on grass as he's won more matches than Nadal and titles.

The argument is, who's the better and consistent player on grass. I am saying Murray because he's more consistent and had less time on grass to prove it since he turned pro 5 years after Nadal.

So aside from the fact that Nadal has won 1 more Wimbledon and is 3-0 H2H you will take a bunch of small Queens tourneys, the Olympics and more consistent semifinal exits. Makes perfect sense

Yes, of course. I don't want to see Murray going out in the 1st or 2nd round to nobody in his prime. Besides, he's more natural on grass and has more chances to surpass Nadal in terms of winning Wimbledon. That's together with the consistency. He also has the Olympic gold medal on grass. Of course Nadal is better right now in terms of results, but that's because as I have said a few times already, that he started 5 years earlier than Murray.

 

[Emma]

I think Emma is referring to the consecutive early round losses of the last years. Plus he didn't play in 2009 I think?

Anyway, OT: this thread is a bit of a troll thread. Murray won Wimbledon, seems to matter on the island he comes from even more than anywhere else. Wouldn't even compare to winning all masters since Lendl arrived.

Well, when you live in the era of Fedal, the chances are, most fair arguments will fall into deaf ears. After all, we live in the 'speculation' era where there's no other player is better than either Nadal or Federer in history of tennis. How dare one suggests anything otherwise.

And of course, results matter the most. It gives you the instant bragging right for one.

 

[Kieran]

Murray is only 1 year younger than Rafa, Emma. I know, people say Rafa peaked early, but he didn't really. He was about 21 or 22, the same age as Federer or Pete. Maybe Murray peaked late - but even still, Rafa won 2 slams this year. I think you're overselling Andy by comparing him to Rafa, who's one of the greatest players to ever hold a racket...

 

[DarthFed]

Murray is not greater than Nadal on grass yet. If he gets another Wimbledon title you can definitely argue that. Rafa has failed 3 times in finals, you don't get credit for falling on the biggest stage in the sport. But 2 titles is greater than 1. Simple math ain't it?

I thought I made it very clear that I am not talking about in terms of results or H2H. Consistency-wise Murray has better results at Wimbledon and in general on grass as he's won more matches than Nadal and titles.

The argument is, who's the better and consistent player on grass. I am saying Murray because he's more consistent and had less time on grass to prove it since he turned pro 5 years after Nadal.

So aside from the fact that Nadal has won 1 more Wimbledon and is 3-0 H2H you will take a bunch of small Queens tourneys, the Olympics and more consistent semifinal exits. Makes perfect sense

Yes, of course. I don't want to see Murray going out in the 1st or 2nd round to nobody in his prime. Besides, he's more natural on grass and has more chances to surpass Nadal in terms of winning Wimbledon. That's together with the consistency. He also has the Olympic gold medal on grass. Of course Nadal is better right now in terms of results, but that's because as I have said a few times already, that he started 5 years earlier than Murray.

As Kieran mentioned he is only 1 year younger than Rafa. If you are saying Murray right now is better on grass than Rafa right now then I might agree. Unfortunately the grass doesn't always play like week 1 which is where Rafa truly does suck. But if you say Murray for his career has shown to be better than Rafa on grass due to 2 early losses vs. consistent semi losses, then no way Jose. Titles are what matters most and not the baby tournaments at Queens...

 

[Emma]

Murray is only 1 year younger than Rafa, Emma. I know, people say Rafa peaked early, but he didn't really. He was about 21 or 22, the same age as Federer or Pete. Maybe Murray peaked late - but even still, Rafa won 2 slams this year. I think you're overselling Andy by comparing him to Rafa, who's one of the greatest players to ever hold a racket...

In tennis, both peaking and age is relative. Because it's a process and one needs to go through the process. And so whoever turns pro whenever, their process time begins then. Age doesn't come into place in this case. For example, Dimitrov is peaking late so he can't be judged right now. Federer didn't win his first Slam until he was 22; whereas Sampras won his first Slam in 1990 at age 19 and Nadal won his first in 2005 again at age 19 and still, it's Federer with the most Major wins.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just a quick reminder that Nadal made the Wimbledon final five times in a row (well, he didn't in 2009, because he didn't play, but you get the point).

 

[Kieran]

Just as a point of correction, Federer was 21 when he won his first slam.

Sure, Pete won the US Open aged 19, but he still had some learning to do. He didn't hit his peak until he was 21.

Now, my point on all this, regarding Andy is, that Rafa is still only one year older than Andy, but he's been winning slams for the last 9 seasons. Comparisons, in this matter, are futile...

 

[Emma]

Another thing is, I am not trying to sell Murray over Nadal. I am simply saying Murray looks better than Nadal on grass simply because he has better consistency than Nadal and he also looks more natural on grass. And so it's more than likely he'll surpass Nadal on grass. And given that they have a few years pro-time apart in between them, it's a most likely scenario.

It will be interesting to see if Murray can have better results than Nadal on hard. He has already won a ton of Masters and other small tournaments on hard. And 1 Slam and 3 Major finals. 2 more Majors on hard and he just might be right up there. Nole has already surpassed Nadal on hard but I don't see Nole surpassing Nadal on grass at all since he's not a natural either.

Nadal, of course on the other hand, holds all the cards on clay. Stats show 70% of Nadal's titles are on clay. 30% belong to hard and grass.

These are all great players.

 

[Emma]

Just as a point of correction, Federer was 21 when he won his first slam.

Sure, Pete won the US Open aged 19, but he still had some learning to do. He didn't hit his peak until he was 21.

Now, my point on all this, regarding Andy is, that Rafa is still only one year older than Andy, but he's been winning slams for the last 9 seasons. Comparisons, in this matter, are futile...

Wimbledon was Federer first Major and it starts end of June and ends first week of July. Federer turned 22 next month in August. Was he closer to 21 or 22?

I think you are missing the entire point, Kieran. Sampras wasn't sitting idly in between 1990 and 1992 after winning his first Major. He was growing as a pro-player and it plays a big part in becoming a great player.

Similarly, after Rafa turned pro, all those years in between when Murray still hadn't turned pro, he was growing as a player and it's crucial for any player in order to become great. Murray took his growing time much later. Whether he was 19 or 22 and whether he was only 1 year younger is completely irrelevant.

 

[Emma]

Just a quick reminder that Nadal made the Wimbledon final five times in a row (well, he didn't in 2009, because he didn't play, but you get the point).

It is also good to notice that at the time, the only contender Nadal had to truly deal with was Federer and it allowed him to make the final successive times. He isn't doing that right now. Hasn't done so since 2009.

We should also notice that Murray didn't play 2007 Wimbledon due to wrist injury so that should square things off.

 

[Kieran]

Wimbledon was Federer first Major and it starts end of June and ends first week of July. Federer turned 22 next month in August. Was he closer to 21 or 22?

He was 21, exactly. Not close to 21. He was 21.

I think you are missing the entire point, Kieran. Sampras wasn't sitting idly in between 1990 and 1992 after winning his first Major. He was growing as a pro-player and it plays a big part in becoming a great player.

Similarly, after Rafa turned pro, all those years in between when Murray still hadn't turned pro, he was growing as a player and it's crucial for any player in order to become great. Murray took his growing time much later. Whether he was 19 or 22 and whether he was only 1 year younger is completely irrelevant.

I agree with this, and this is why I think you're selling Rafa short. Players have to develop, but Rafa has still been an elite player since 2005, and he peaked in 2008. That's a long time of great tennis. Consistency too! Even taking seven months off injured, he still won more slams than either Murray or Novak over the last two seasons.

By the way, I'm not denigrating Andy and I hope he has a great career, but...you know what I mean!