Murray 24- 22 vs Top 10 in last three years.

[Fastgrass]

Everybody knows there is huge difference in level for slams
and masters for nadal and federer at least .
They both always give their best in slams not in masters,
Specially USO series , nadal didn't want to get tired .
He beat Murray in 4 sets at uso.
MY POINT IS LEVEL IF FED , NADAL , NOLE IS MUCH BETTER
THAN MURRAY'S BEST LEVEL , SO DON'T INSULT THEM
COMPARING WITH THE PLAYER WHO IS JUST BETTER THAN
FERRER .

 

[NADAL2005RG]

OK.... Murray has twice beaten Nadal in slams.

And yeah Nadal has beaten him far more in slams, but nobody's arguing who's been the better player. I'm debating the stupid assumption that Murray can't beat Nadal in slams, when in fact he's done it twice.

Who said Murray can't beat Nadal at a slam? Anybody can beat anybody at a slam. Rosol beat Nadal at a slam. Soderling beat Nadal at a slam. Not news to me.

 

[DarthFed]

Nadal was getting tossed up in 2010 AO before he got injured. Of all the times people make excuses for him that is the one that is the most out there. Murray in 2011 was the same as Murray in 2009 and 2010, someone making it deep to majors more often than not but not coming close to breaking through. You can argue Murray's performances at 2011 AO, Wimbledon and USO were some of his biggest shortcomings on the big stage.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, Rafa wasn't going to win that match in Oz in 2010, regardless of any injury in the second set. After his time-out in 2009, he didn't beat another top 10 player until he defeated Federer in Madrid, I believe...

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK.... Murray has twice beaten Nadal in slams.

And yeah Nadal has beaten him far more in slams, but nobody's arguing who's been the better player. I'm debating the stupid assumption that Murray can't beat Nadal in slams, when in fact he's done it twice.

Who said Murray can't beat Nadal at a slam? Anybody can beat anybody at a slam. Rosol beat Nadal at a slam. Soderling beat Nadal at a slam. Not news to me.

Are you seriously comparing the Rosol and Soderling "fluking out" Nadal in a slam(I don't like using that term, but whatever), to Murray beating him?

 

[NADAL2005RG]

You shouldn't have used the word fluking, because Soderling's win over Nadal was clearly not a fluke, and neither was Rosol's win over Nadal. Both wins were a case of a player catching fire on the day and being too good. It was the same as when a very young Scud beat Sampras in straight sets at the Australian Open. No fluke. Simply better on the day.

The Soderling performance was especially brilliant. I rate the Soderling performance ahead of any match Murray has ever played on clay. And of course Soderling repeated that level of tennis vs Federer at 2010 Roland Garros. He couldn't reproduce it in the final however (in 2009/2010 Roland Garros). Its hard to play that well regularly, but its clearly no fluke.

I rate the Rosol performance better than most of Murray's performances on grass. To be honest, I can't think of a time Murray hit the ball as brilliantly as Rosol did that day, but I can't say for sure.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You shouldn't have used the word fluking, because Soderling's win over Nadal was clearly not a fluke, and neither was Rosol's win over Nadal. Both wins were a case of a player catching fire on the day and being too good. It was the same as when a very young Scud beat Sampras in straight sets at the Australian Open. No fluke. Simply better on the day.

The Soderling performance was especially brilliant. I rate the Soderling performance ahead of any match Murray has ever played on clay. And of course Soderling repeated that level of tennis vs Federer at 2010 Roland Garros. He couldn't reproduce it in the final however (in 2009/2010 Roland Garros). Its hard to play that well regularly, but its clearly no fluke.

I rate the Rosol performance better than most of Murray's performances on grass. To be honest, I can't think of a time Murray hit the ball as brilliantly as Rosol did that day, but I can't say for sure.

You still missed the point by a mile.

 

[DarthFed]

OK.... Murray has twice beaten Nadal in slams.

And yeah Nadal has beaten him far more in slams, but nobody's arguing who's been the better player. I'm debating the stupid assumption that Murray can't beat Nadal in slams, when in fact he's done it twice.

Who said Murray can't beat Nadal at a slam? Anybody can beat anybody at a slam. Rosol beat Nadal at a slam. Soderling beat Nadal at a slam. Not news to me.

Are you seriously comparing the Rosol and Soderling "fluking out" Nadal in a slam(I don't like using that term, but whatever), to Murray beating him?

Not sure what your point is here either. How exactly were they flukes?

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK.... Murray has twice beaten Nadal in slams.

And yeah Nadal has beaten him far more in slams, but nobody's arguing who's been the better player. I'm debating the stupid assumption that Murray can't beat Nadal in slams, when in fact he's done it twice.

Who said Murray can't beat Nadal at a slam? Anybody can beat anybody at a slam. Rosol beat Nadal at a slam. Soderling beat Nadal at a slam. Not news to me.

Are you seriously comparing the Rosol and Soderling "fluking out" Nadal in a slam(I don't like using that term, but whatever), to Murray beating him?

Not sure what your point is here either. How exactly were they flukes?

Forget "flukes," let's call then "one-offs." Is that fair? Meaning that Rosol beating Nadal at Wimbledon or Soderling beating him at the FO is a once in a life time thing as far as those players are concerned. I think we'll agree.

Murray beating him at a slam is obviously a much different case, since he's good enough and close enough to Nadal's level to do it on more than one occasion in the future, so you can't compare him to those guys.

I thought the point was rather obvious.

 

[DarthFed]

OK.... Murray has twice beaten Nadal in slams.

And yeah Nadal has beaten him far more in slams, but nobody's arguing who's been the better player. I'm debating the stupid assumption that Murray can't beat Nadal in slams, when in fact he's done it twice.

Who said Murray can't beat Nadal at a slam? Anybody can beat anybody at a slam. Rosol beat Nadal at a slam. Soderling beat Nadal at a slam. Not news to me.

Are you seriously comparing the Rosol and Soderling "fluking out" Nadal in a slam(I don't like using that term, but whatever), to Murray beating him?

Not sure what your point is here either. How exactly were they flukes?

Forget "flukes," let's call then "one-offs." Is that fair? Meaning that Rosol beating Nadal at Wimbledon or Soderling beating him at the FO is a once in a life time thing as far as those players are concerned. I think we'll agree.

Murray beating him at a slam is obviously a much different case, since he's good enough and close enough to Nadal's level to do it on more than one occasion in the future, so you can't compare him to those guys.

I thought the point was rather obvious.

Well sure, Murray is better than those players but that doesn't guarantee he will start beating Rafa at slams, just that it can happen. Roger is better than Rosol and Sod too yet those two as well as Darcis have proven to be more a threat to Rafa in the past 5 years...

 

[Fastgrass]

Murray is bread and butter for rafa,!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger is better than Rosol and Sod too yet those two as well as Darcis have proven to be more a threat to Rafa in the past 5 years...

OKay... Flawed argument aside, I'm still not sure what that has got to do with Murray, whose game is nicely equipped to trouble Nadal pretty much except for clay and we know that. Also, who suggested that Murray WILL start beating Nadal at slams consistently? It would be foolish though, not to think that he's easily one of his biggest threats.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger is better than Rosol and Sod too yet those two as well as Darcis have proven to be more a threat to Rafa in the past 5 years...

OKay... Flawed argument aside, I'm still not sure what that has got to do with Murray, whose game is nicely equipped to trouble Nadal pretty much except for clay and we know that. Also, who suggested that Murray WILL start beating Nadal at slams consistently? It would be foolish though, not to think that he's easily one of his biggest threats.

Not to defend the likes of NadalRG but he obviously feels comfortable with Rafa vs. Murray and thinks he is going to win all those yet he agrees that Murray CAN beat Rafa and used Rosol and Soderling as examples of weaker players who have beaten him.

Basically it was one of the few comments he made that doesn't deserve to be jumped on and then you started talking about "flukes" and that was irrelevant. I'd argue it was also inaccurate in Rosol's case as Rafa got straight-setted by a bigger scrub this year.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger is better than Rosol and Sod too yet those two as well as Darcis have proven to be more a threat to Rafa in the past 5 years...

OKay... Flawed argument aside, I'm still not sure what that has got to do with Murray, whose game is nicely equipped to trouble Nadal pretty much except for clay and we know that. Also, who suggested that Murray WILL start beating Nadal at slams consistently? It would be foolish though, not to think that he's easily one of his biggest threats.

Not to defend the likes of NadalRG but he obviously feels comfortable with Rafa vs. Murray and thinks he is going to win all those yet he agrees that Murray CAN beat Rafa and used Rosol and Soderling as examples of weaker players who have beaten him.

That's exactly my problem. In a way, he's equating Murray's chances with those players. Or at least, putting a Murray win over Nadal in the same category. It's not. When you say, "sure, Murray can beat Nadal in a slam. Anybody can beat anybody. Darcis beat Nadal." Don't you see what's wrong with that statement when the guy in question is a two-time Grand Slam champion? The statement makes it sound like Murray is some scrub.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

You sure know how to put words in peoples mouths. "In a way" isn't a very convincing way to make an argument. The only thing that would make Murray sound like a scrub is if I said anything remotely similar to the word scrub. You are really reaching. What does it matter anyway what I think of Murray? So what if I have a different opinion to yours. We've both established our opinions. That's all that can be done. The likes of you seem hellbent on changing the opinion of others. Whereas I couldn't care less who thinks what of Nadal or Murray or anyone else.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You sure know how to put words in peoples mouths. "In a way" isn't a very convincing way to make an argument. The only thing that would make Murray sound like a scrub is if I said anything remotely similar to the word scrub. You are really reaching. What does it matter anyway what I think of Murray? So what if I have a different opinion to yours. We've both established our opinions. That's all that can be done. The likes of you seem hellbent on changing the opinion of others. Whereas I couldn't care less who thinks what of Nadal or Murray or anyone else.

I'm not trying to change your opinion nor do I care. I'm pointing out the flaws in your opinion. And please, don't act so sensible, lest we forget your "Murray is Nadal's best friend because he loses to him all the time" posts...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

You only see "flaws" in my opinion because it is a different opinion to your own. Whereas anyone can have an opinion on anything....and if the opinion is different to mine I would not say "your opinion is flawed". So-called facts can be flawed. Opinions, are just opinions. And you didn't even quote me. You used the word "scrub" in relation to Murray, which I never did. And even that last shot when you referred to Murray and Nadal, you still didn't direct quote me, you just made it up. I mean, if you are going to personally attack someone (which isn't what this forum is for) the least you can do is use direct quotes.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You only see "flaws" in my opinion because it is a different opinion to your own. Whereas anyone can have an opinion on anything....and if the opinion is different to mine I would not say "your opinion is flawed". So-called facts can be flawed. Opinions, are just opinions. And you didn't even quote me. You used the word "scrub" in relation to Murray, which I never did. And even that last shot when you referred to Murray and Nadal, you still didn't direct quote me, you just made it up. I mean, if you are going to personally attack someone (which isn't what this forum is for) the least you can do is use direct quotes.

How exactly did I personally attack you?

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Here's how-

I'm not trying to change your opinion nor do I care. I'm pointing out the flaws in your opinion. And please, don't act so sensible, lest we forget your "Murray is Nadal's best friend because he loses to him all the time" posts...

^ What does this post accomplish? It seems that you are focusing on me instead of the actual topic. I call it 'playing the man instead of the ball'.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^ I hope I'm not banned for this heinous offense...