Time to stop talking about Murray being on Djokovic's level.....

[Federberg]

Sorry.. I should have been more clear.. by minor.. I meant NOT slams

Haha! Just because they're not "Majors" doesn't mean the Masters are minor.

Haha! You know what I mean. Don't quibble! :clap

 

[TennisFanatic7]

^not sure what relevance Raonic's h2h with Murray has? The comparison would be Raonic's h2h versus Rafa/Nole/Roger with Murray's record against the same..

It is meaningful in terms of Murray is more vulnerable when it comes to rest of the field, than the top 3.

You can cherry pick random individual H2Hs to back up your point if you want. Murray has a better record against Tsonga than Nadal, Federer or Djokovic, it doesn't mean anything though when you look at what actually matters - Grand slam wins, the H2Hs against each other etc.

Not that I wish to justify your use of a 3-2 losing H2H against an also-ran as a relevant point to this debate, but it's also worth mentioning that Andy has beaten Raonic in their only Grand Slam meeting and at the World Tour Finals, whereas Milos has won one Masters 1000 tie last year and a pair of minor events.

Murray's weakness isn't in being more vulnerable to the rest of the field. Quite the opposite actually. Dimitrov beat Andy at Wimbledon last year but he's still not been beaten before the quarters of a slam since 2010 and it has almost exclusively taken Djokovic, Nadal or Federer to wipe him out. On the other hand, Roger has lost to Stakhovsky, Robredo, Gulbis, Seppi in recent slams, Nadal has lost to a bunch of nobodies at Wimbledon and even Nole has been toppled by Stan and Cilic even though I'd still put him down as the most reliable of the four.

I'm not trying to argue that this makes Murray somehow better than Roger or Rafa, but I can't see the evidence for him being more vulnerable to lower opposition than those guys, certainly not in the majors.

 

[Federberg]

^not sure what relevance Raonic's h2h with Murray has? The comparison would be Raonic's h2h versus Rafa/Nole/Roger with Murray's record against the same..

It is meaningful in terms of Murray is more vulnerable when it comes to rest of the field, than the top 3.

You can cherry pick random individual H2Hs to back up your point if you want. Murray has a better record against Tsonga than Nadal, Federer or Djokovic, it doesn't mean anything though when you look at what actually matters - Grand slam wins, the H2Hs against each other etc.

Not that I wish to justify your use of a 3-2 losing H2H against an also-ran as a relevant point to this debate, but it's also worth mentioning that Andy has beaten Raonic in their only Grand Slam meeting and at the World Tour Finals, whereas Milos has won one Masters 1000 tie last year and a pair of minor events.

Murray's weakness isn't in being more vulnerable to the rest of the field. Quite the opposite actually. Dimitrov beat Andy at Wimbledon last year but he's still not been beaten before the quarters of a slam since 2010 and it has almost exclusively taken Djokovic, Nadal or Federer to wipe him out. On the other hand, Roger has lost to Stakhovsky, Robredo, Gulbis, Seppi in recent slams, Nadal has lost to a bunch of nobodies at Wimbledon and even Nole has been toppled by Stan and Cilic even though I'd still put him down as the most reliable of the four.

I'm not trying to argue that this makes Murray somehow better than Roger or Rafa, but I can't see the evidence for him being more vulnerable to lower opposition than those guys, certainly not in the majors.

I agree with this. I would actually argue that over the last 2 or 3 years, only Novak has been more consistent in getting deep in slams than Murray. He is better than the rest of the field. His problems come when facing the Big 3

 

[auto-pilot]

Murray beat Djokovic at the US Open and Wimbledon.
He's clearly good enough to beat Djokovic at slams, but Djokovic has always been way better at the Australian Open than at the other 3 slam events, so there is nothing surprising about Murray's AO loss.
Look at Djokovic's results versus Federer at the AO, clearly Djokovic has a really big edge at the AO (but only a slight edge versus Nadal at the AO obviously).

 

[Kirijax]

When Djokovic plays Murray, it's up to Djokovic whether he wins or not. Djokovic has to be playing badly or be affected by something for Murray to have a chance. If they are both playing well in ideal conditions, Murray has very little chance.

 

[auto-pilot]

The reason why Murray went from 1-set-all and 2-0 up in the 3rd set to losing all but one game for the rest of the match was more than just Djokovic lifting.

 

[Federberg]

The reason why Murray went from 1-set-all and 2-0 up in the 3rd set to losing all but one game for the rest of the match was more than just Djokovic lifting.

Agreed. It was more about Murray mentally and physically collapsing like a cheap tent