Who are your other favorites?

[DarthFed]

We've had this talk before. Beating Nole at AO is a lot more impressive than beating him at Wimbledon and USO. And the 2014 AO he beat Novak and was up a set and a break in that final. If you were waiting for Stan to give the match to Rafa you are mistaking him for the earlier version who didn't show up to big matches. It bears noting that every time you Rafa nuts bring up the injury you fail to mention he was getting taken to the cleaners before the injury. For proper context in the middle of your excuse-making the score should be mentioned.

And if we are talking circumstances it should be pointed out that the USO final Murray won was played in extremely windy conditions and Nole sucks in the wind. That was a great equalizer to say the least. Stan beat the world #1 in all 3 finals and went through 2 of the big 3 for his first two slams. And even the third wasn't a cakewalk as DP was hot going into that QF after the Olympics. DP, Nishikori, and Djokovic was the "easiest" of his 3 slams. There is no denying he had it tougher to win his slams but Murray has still had the better career clearly.

 

[Front242]

I still think that's rather more an aesthetic preference, and a bit of a prejudice against Murray. Both beat #1 Djokovic to win 2 of their 3 Slams. I think we all agree, though, that Murray v. Djokovic is a less interesting match-up to watch. To me, Stan's first was almost literally a "last man standing," since Nadal was injured early in that final. (I think I can say that, since we all saw it happen.) And Murray's most recent, Wimbledon '16 v. Raonic was also a bit of that, but he could have had Roger in the final, if Fed had beaten Raonic in the SF. Personally, I thought beating a rebounding Djokovic (down from 2 sets - 0) to take him in 5 was impressive, and his Wimbledon performance v. Djokovic was a good-looking win, even if Novak didn't play especially well. Plus, Murray had far more pressure to win all of those finals than Stan had to win any of his.

Murray's USO win was mostly just a case of him handling the wind way better than Djokovic. Now we all know that handling the elements is part of the game but he completely lost the plot and got pretty lucky that Novak went to crap again in the 5th having finally leveled the match. That match was not in any way comparable to Stan's wins against Novak, for example, which is what Federberg is saying and I, for one, completely agree. Murray doesn't ever make his opponent look helpless and rarely ever overpowers anyone except for a set here and there before he reverts back to his counter punching, grinding/pushing natural game. Being aggressive doesn't come naturally to him at all which is why his wins look like they take way more effort or, as mentioned, extremely strong wind to help his cause.

Murray's Wimbledon match was helped greatly by Novak being drained from his very tough match against Del Potro but, still, Novak had breaks in nearly all sets I believe but was just drained mentally and physically. This is not trying to take away from Murray's win, it's merely calling a spade a spade. He was in a far better position to win given the length of Novak's semi and, sure, he had the pressure of the nation on him to win and handled it well, but he still played a notably deflated opponent. It is what it is.

 

[Moxie]

That's kind of a lot of excuse-making for Djokovic when playing Murray, with none when playing Stan. You may not remember that Andy lost an IW final in a terrible wind v. Nadal, and subsequently learned to play very well in the wind. As you say, Front, it's part of the game. It wasn't as windy that Monday as it was on the Saturday, but, before they added the roof, the wind tended to swirl on Ashe in the best of cases. I've never really bought that Djokovic was impaired by the DelPotro SF at Wimbledon that year, given how he'd done at the AO after a long 5-set SF just the year before. I'd say the heat and the complete lack of crowd support were more likely factors there.

When he played Stan at RG in that final, he pulled back after winning the first set, and fed into Stan's confidence. I remember the live chat and even Djokovic fans were saying that. Surely Stan stepped up and stole that one from him, but the pressure to win it clearly got to Novak. He underestimated Stan, and waited for him to self-emolate, which he didn't do. He red-lined his game beautifully, in fact. And we can look at where Djokovic was by the USO in '16, too. Billie made a good comment at the time: Stan didn't play as well as he had v. Novak at RG in '15, but he played smarter. I think that's true. And Novak was more likely to capitulate at that particular stage of '16. So it works both ways, if you want to mitigate where Djokovic was in those finals.

Bottom line: as Federberg said, a win is a win. We can slice and dice them up a bit, but I do think that you guys just like the way Stan plays better. But it doesn't change their respective records. You can admire Stan more, as that is your choice. But it's still just a matter of opinion, not a quantifiable thing that Wawrinka's Major wins were more impressive than Murray's.

 

[Front242]

That's kind of a lot of excuse-making for Djokovic when playing Murray, with none when playing Stan. You may not remember that Andy lost an IW final in a terrible wind v. Nadal, and subsequently learned to play very well in the wind. As you say, Front, it's part of the game. It wasn't as windy that Monday as it was on the Saturday, but, before they added the roof, the wind tended to swirl on Ashe in the best of cases. I've never really bought that Djokovic was impaired by the DelPotro SF at Wimbledon that year, given how he'd done at the AO after a long 5-set SF just the year before. I'd say the heat and the complete lack of crowd support were more likely factors there.

When he played Stan at RG in that final, he pulled back after winning the first set, and fed into Stan's confidence. I remember the live chat and even Djokovic fans were saying that. Surely Stan stepped up and stole that one from him, but the pressure to win it clearly got to Novak. He underestimated Stan, and waited for him to self-emolate, which he didn't do. He red-lined his game beautifully, in fact. And we can look at where Djokovic was by the USO in '16, too. Billie made a good comment at the time: Stan didn't play as well as he had v. Novak at RG in '15, but he played smarter. I think that's true. And Novak was more likely to capitulate at that particular stage of '16. So it works both ways, if you want to mitigate where Djokovic was in those finals.

Bottom line: as Federberg said, a win is a win. We can slice and dice them up a bit, but I do think that you guys just like the way Stan plays better. But it doesn't change their respective records. You can admire Stan more, as that is your choice. But it's still just a matter of opinion, not a quantifiable thing that Wawrinka's Major wins were more impressive than Murray's.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that AO 2012 final was the pinnacle of drug abuse in tennis (cue world war 3 here but I dgaf because it was as plain as day obvious in that match) and re Stan vs Murray it's not to do with my preference for Stan. I'm merely pointing out he had a much tougher route to 2 of his slam titles and I can't really see how that's even debatable.

 

[El Dude]

I still think that's rather more an aesthetic preference, and a bit of a prejudice against Murray. Both beat #1 Djokovic to win 2 of their 3 Slams. I think we all agree, though, that Murray v. Djokovic is a less interesting match-up to watch. To me, Stan's first was almost literally a "last man standing," since Nadal was injured early in that final. (I think I can say that, since we all saw it happen.) And Murray's most recent, Wimbledon '16 v. Raonic was also a bit of that, but he could have had Roger in the final, if Fed had beaten Raonic in the SF. Personally, I thought beating a rebounding Djokovic (down from 2 sets - 0) to take him in 5 was impressive, and his Wimbledon performance v. Djokovic was a good-looking win, even if Novak didn't play especially well. Plus, Murray had far more pressure to win all of those finals than Stan had to win any of his.

No, we can't - because it is another variation on the old "If Rafa were healthy, he definitely would have won" saw that is oh-so-tedious for everyone but Rafa fans.

Even if we can say Rafa would have probably or at least maybe won if he hadn't gotten hurt, we can also now say--after watching Stan win two more Slam titles and a Masters--that Stan in Stanimal mode can beat just about anyone, including Rafa.

 

[Moxie]

Sorry to burst your bubble but that AO 2012 final was the pinnacle of drug abuse in tennis (cue world war 3 here but I dgaf because it was as plain as day obvious in that match) and it's not to do with my preference for Stan. I'm merely pointing out he had a much tougher route to 2 of his slam titles and I can't really see how that's even debatable.

An examination of their respective routes to their wins doesn't bear out completely your contention that Stan had a much tougher road to 2 of his titles. In fact, the one year they both won one, 2016, Andy had more top players to get past. You can look it up for yourself. But don't just claim things that aren't exactly true. On which note, 2012 AO was the "pinnacle of drug abuse in tennis"? Based on what? Your own personal opinion, as far as I can tell. You are unconscionable in terms of throwing that crap around. I noticed how little opinion you managed when the French court found against Nadal's accuser. You just want to live in your own belief system about that, proof be damned.

 

[Moxie]

No, we can't - because it is another variation on the old "If Rafa were healthy, he definitely would have one" saw that is oh-so-tedious for everyone but Rafa fans.

Even if we can say Rafa would have probably or at least maybe won if he hadn't gotten hurt, we can also now say--after watching Stan win two more Slam titles and a Masters--that Stan in Stanimal mode can beat just about anyone, including Rafa.

No, it's not. Christ, I really thought we watched that match together on a live chat, and even Darth admits that we saw Rafa's back go. I'm NOT saying this is why Stan won. What I'm arguing here is a different point: as to Stan v. Murray and "last man standing." In that sense, Stan was the last man standing. I'm sure you can understand that.

 

[Front242]

An examination of their respective routes to their wins doesn't bear out completely your contention that Stan had a much tougher road to 2 of his titles. In fact, the one year they both won one, 2016, Andy had more top players to get past. You can look it up for yourself. But don't just claim things that aren't exactly true. On which note, 2012 AO was the "pinnacle of drug abuse in tennis"? Based on what? Your own personal opinion, as far as I can tell. You are unconscionable in terms of throwing that crap around. I noticed how little opinion you managed when the French court found against Nadal's accuser. You just want to live in your own belief system about that, proof be damned.

The court case was about a silent ban and not doping allegations spanning his whole career. The outcome of the case was never in doubt because even if was actually a silent ban, there'd be no proof since the ATP have covered up previous bans such as Cilic's, (announced much later that he was banned) hence why I didn't bother making any comments.

Re 2012, based on them both running around in crazy heat for 6 hours and Novak played a crazy long semi too (around 5 hours). If you've ever played tennis in over 40c for even 30-40 minutes then you should really realize it's more than a bit suss to see 2 guys playing for 6 hours! I feel sorry for people who think that was a natural display of stamina and I'll leave it at that...

 

[Moxie]

The court case was about a silent ban and not doping allegations spanning his whole career. The outcome of the case was never in doubt because even if was actually a silent ban, there'd be no proof since the ATP have covered up previous bans such as Cilic's, (announced much later that he was banned) hence why I didn't bother making any comments.

That's very facile for you to say that now. But I made good arguments on the thread pointing the legalities out, and you were radio silent. And you were on other threads, at the time. (I was paying attention.) You don't get to pick and choose making comments, forcing others to reorganize points. You clearly chose not to comment when the argument when against you. Dragging it back now in the middle of another conversation is cheap and cowardly. You sling mud, but you won't own up to it when your argument goes weak.

 

[Front242]

That's very facile for you to say that now. But I made good arguments on the thread pointing the legalities out, and you were radio silent. And you were on other threads, at the time. (I was paying attention.) You don't get to pick and choose making comments, forcing others to reorganize points. You clearly chose not to comment when the argument when against you. Dragging it back now in the middle of another conversation is cheap and cowardly. You sling mud, but you won't own up to it when your argument goes weak.

Sure, feel free to try and tell the whole forum I ignored your post because "the argument went against me" if that makes you happy. The reality though as I said recently was I don't have the time to respond to everything and, in the case of your post where you claimed Fuentes was only linked to cyclists, I just gave up 'cos it was so factually wrong. It'd be nice for you Nadal fans if that were true but it's not.

"Fuentes continually denied having performed illegal operations. He said that he did not work exclusively with cyclists but had other athletes as clients such as footballers and tennis players.[4] In December 2010, a fellow inmate claimed Fuentes had told him, "If I would talk, the Spanish football team would be stripped of the 2010 World Cup".[5] Fuentes denied having said this in a 2013 interview"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eufemiano_Fuentes

 

[Moxie]

Sure, feel free to try and tell the whole forum I ignored your post because "the argument went against me" if that makes you happy. The reality though as I said recently was I don't have the time to respond to everything and, in the case of your post where you claimed Fuentes was only linked to cyclists, I just gave up 'cos it was so factually wrong. It'd be nice for you Nadal fans if that were true but it's not.

"Fuentes continually denied having performed illegal operations. He said that he did not work exclusively with cyclists but had other athletes as clients such as footballers and tennis players.[4] In December 2010, a fellow inmate claimed Fuentes had told him, "If I would talk, the Spanish football team would be stripped of the 2010 World Cup".[5] Fuentes denied having said this in a 2013 interview"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eufemiano_Fuentes

But you didn't respond to me. You were so interested in the outcome of that trial that you kept bringing it up, over the summer. Even I would have forgotten if you hadn't been so interested. But when the results came out, you had no response, and as I said, you were not absent from the forums at that time, only absent from responding to that. You like to quote Fuentes, but he's a criminal. And there is nothing that backs him up, only what he says. Normally one would look for substantiation of a claim, even if the one source weren't a criminal. With Fuentes, there is none.

 

[Front242]

But you didn't respond to me. You were so interested in the outcome of that trial that you kept bringing it up, over the summer. Even I would have forgotten if you hadn't been so interested. But when the results came out, you had no response, and as I said, you were not absent from the forums at that time, only absent from responding to that. You like to quote Fuentes, but he's a criminal. And there is nothing that backs him up, only what he says.

I had no interest in that stupid trial as I said already. I mentioned his trial still hadn't gone ahead in the summer. Big deal. I had no interest in it as I said 'cos it was only a silly trial about a silent ban claim and I already stated the ATP have already covered these up for lesser players so the outcome was never in doubt. I was traveling to work when I saw your post and my internet connection sucked at the time and trying to find links and copy and paste on your phone is a pain. Usually I post at home on my laptop. Hence why I posted maybe a few small things with no external links. Yes, Fuentes is a criminal and people who dope in sports are cheats too and he worked with tennis players.

 

[Moxie]

I had no interest in that stupid trial as I said already. I mentioned his trial still hadn't gone ahead in the summer. Big deal. I had no interest in it as I said 'cos it was only a silly trial about a silent ban claim and I already stated the ATP have already covered these up for lesser players so the outcome was never in doubt. I was traveling to work when I saw your post and my internet connection sucked at the time and trying to find links and copy and paste on your phone is a pain. Usually I post at home on my laptop. Hence why I posted maybe a few small things with no external links. Yes, Fuentes is a criminal and people who dope in sports are cheats too and he worked with tennis players.

You were the ONLY one that had an interest in it. You are absolutely walking that back. You did the same thing just a few days ago when I proved you wrong on Nadal and prophelactic knee braces. You just claim you're too busy when you get called out for talking out of your arse. We all can swing a little free in conversation, and I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't so willing to be accusatory about really serious things. You really think nothing about slagging certain players for drugging, etc., but then you're not available for the follow-up. That's not cool.

 

[DarthFed]

An examination of their respective routes to their wins doesn't bear out completely your contention that Stan had a much tougher road to 2 of his titles. In fact, the one year they both won one, 2016, Andy had more top players to get past. You can look it up for yourself. But don't just claim things that aren't exactly true. On which note, 2012 AO was the "pinnacle of drug abuse in tennis"? Based on what? Your own personal opinion, as far as I can tell. You are unconscionable in terms of throwing that crap around. I noticed how little opinion you managed when the French court found against Nadal's accuser. You just want to live in your own belief system about that, proof be damned.

Murray had a tough 4th round in Kyrgios but after that we are talking a comparison of Tsonga, Berd and Raonic vs. a confident DP, Nishikori, and Djoker. There is no comparison there.

 

[Moxie]

Murray had a tough 4th round in Kyrgios but after that we are talking a comparison of Tsonga, Berd and Raonic vs. a confident DP, Nishikori, and Djoker. There is no comparison there.

In what is sometimes your argument, you go by ranking, in which case Tsonga trumped delPo. And you thought Berdych was part of what made Fed's draw so terrible at the AO this year. So I don't get why there's no comparison. Del Potro seems to be a movable feast with some people...tough in the draw when you want him to be, but ranked below 28, or whatever, when Nadal beat him at the USO this year, thereby making Nadal's USO a cakewalk. He was ranked around 142 when Stan beat him at the USO in '16. And it took him 4. Either you're going to go by ranking, or how people are playing at the time. Pick your poison, but don't keep moving the goalposts.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I still think that's rather more an aesthetic preference, and a bit of a prejudice against Murray. Both beat #1 Djokovic to win 2 of their 3 Slams. I think we all agree, though, that Murray v. Djokovic is a less interesting match-up to watch. To me, Stan's first was almost literally a "last man standing," since Nadal was injured early in that final. (I think I can say that, since we all saw it happen.) And Murray's most recent, Wimbledon '16 v. Raonic was also a bit of that, but he could have had Roger in the final, if Fed had beaten Raonic in the SF. Personally, I thought beating a rebounding Djokovic (down from 2 sets - 0) to take him in 5 was impressive, and his Wimbledon performance v. Djokovic was a good-looking win, even if Novak didn't play especially well. Plus, Murray had far more pressure to win all of those finals than Stan had to win any of his.

Emphatic No! Typically one says something is a last man standing win, if it is a war of attrition or if it is a case of two injured players both of whom are playing bad due to injuries. Neither was the case in AO final. So, clearly it is not a case of "last man standing".

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Plain and Simple: Stan is the Man while Andy is a Crybaby.

 

[Moxie]

Emphatic No! Typically one says something is a last man standing win, if it is a war of attrition or if it is a case of two injured players both of whom are playing bad due to injuries. Neither was the case in AO final. So, clearly it is not a case of "last man standing".

You're going to need to read back to see what is meant by "last man standing" in this context, and that it was Federberg's phrase, defending your post contending that Stan went out and got his wins, whereas it didn't feel like Murray did. My follow-up question to you was, and still is: what Majors do you think just fell into Murray's lap, then?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I see both sides of the argument re: Stan and Andy. On one hand, Murray's major wins make sense because he constantly put himself in positions to win these slams with remarkable consistency. It wasn't a Davydenko type of thing either, where despite consistency, we knew he didn't have it in him. We all knew Murray's talent, he had won multiple Masters 1000 events, and had proven to be good enough to beat the top guys. With him being part of the "big 4" for so long (it was referred to as such way before he won his first major), despite being the odd man out, most of us figured he would win one at one point or another, and once he did win his first, we knew he'd win others.

On the other hand, I don't think Murray played exceptionally better when he won those majors than he did in pretty much every other major in which he reached the semis/finals. In other words, there was no noticeable leap in level that made you go "yeah, that's what he had to do to win it." It was more a case of him just putting himself in these positions regularly and eventually getting that win. That's not to say that there were no improvements. Because let's be fair, 2012 was a very crucial year in which we all saw some minor but potentially game-changing improvements in Murray's game after teaming up with Lendl... notably the aggression with which he was hitting his forehand. However, I'd say that change was much more evident at say, the Australian Open that year, where he should have beaten Novak in that epic semi final and played his most aggressive tennis in years, than the US Open when he actually won it.

Meanwhile, with Wawrinka, his first major win was obviously much more "out of nowhere," and even the subsequent two were somewhat surprising in the sense that we knew he could be a factor if he heats up, especially since he had done it before, but we didn't think it was necessarily all that likely. However, watching his level when he did heat up, and how unplayable he looked, I can totally see why many are sharing the above views, as Stan's wins were much more resounding and he just looked like the much better player on those occasions. Few people can handle him when he plays that level of tennis anyway. The 2015 French Open final remains the single greatest performance I've seen over the past 5 years.

With all that said, this is a bit of a case of Murray being a victim of his own success/consistency. If Murray's normal level was at Wawrinka's normal level (meaning on a day to day basis he was sort of a fringe top 10 player rather than a consistent top 4 player and a major threat), we would have looked at those majors he won as some exceptional leap in level and praised him for it.

PS: I'm aware Stan is a top 5 player caliber now, but that wasn't the case before his first Grand Slam win.

 

[mrzz]

Few people can handle him when he plays that level of tennis anyway. The 2015 French Open final remains the single greatest performance I've seen over the past 5 years.

Pretty rational post, Broken, but the phrases above pretty much end the discussion.