Could Murray win his first slam this year?

First topic message reminder :

Where? Wimbledon or USO seem the places where it might happen.

banbrotam wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I wasn't accususing you of beiing Murray's biggest fan. Everyone knows that role belongs to CaladonianCraig...

That hurts Banbro....He thought he had that title.

[quote="banbrotam"]

legendkillar wrote:

socal1976 wrote:McEnroe had an ugly game all-round

Tell me you're joking

Did you miss 1984??!!!

Dodgy forehand yes, but that instintive touch game 'ugly'?????

Ugly indeed.

I doubt anyone would say his game in anyway was pretty or elegant.

Not only will he win a slam this year he will also cure every disease known on the planet and walk across the great wall of china in 42 min. 26 seconds.

2012 = Year of the Murrayites

Murray, yep, crap forehand. I've said it many times, I think tension and self-consciousness have been a big hindrance to him and that's something that's most evident in the shot that requires the most fluidity, I've almost never seen him looking flowing and relaxed. VS djokovic, that's the first time his forehand has looked good and like he believed in it. . . so lets see if that's the first step in an upwards trajectory.

Tenez wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I wasn't accususing you of beiing Murray's biggest fan. Everyone knows that role belongs to CaladonianCraig...

That hurts Banbro....He thought he had that title.

I'm afraid it is not exactly a weak era for Murray fans here on 606v2. When I think Murray fan the one that jumps immediately to mind is CaladonianCraig. I'm sure that even in his darkest moments he would never think or rather say out loud that Murray would "never ever" win a slam. banbrotam. You will just have to try harder. However I must warn you that in the world of tennis nothing ever stands still and a new crop of Murray fans is maturing fast. Have you seen the 8.31 comment by Josiah Maiestas? Even the number one Murray fan should feel threatened by that...

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Not only will he win a slam this year he will also cure every disease known on the planet and walk across the great wall of china in 42 min. 26 seconds.

2012 = Year of the Murrayites

Walking across the great wall of China is easy. Walking along it is the tough part.

Murray could have a better FH than he has. It's the same problem as teh serve. Good first serve....poor second serve....cause the fear of teh double fault which doesnt exist in teh 1st serve, makes him too cautious on the second serve. Likewise, pulling a winning FH when it really matters is the problem, cause it;s a risky shot. When it comes to take a risk, Djoko and Federer are mentally tougher.

Murray is tough mentally when it comes to street fighting. I mean by that long and gruelling exchanges. But as soon as he needs to pull a winner under pressure, the odds are against him.

Tenez wrote:Murray could have a better FH than he has. It's the same problem as teh serve. Good first serve....poor second serve....cause the fear of teh double fault which doesnt exist in teh 1st serve, makes him too cautious on the second serve. Likewise, pulling a winning FH when it really matters is the problem, cause it;s a risky shot. When it comes to take a risk, Djoko and Federer are mentally tougher.

Murray is tough mentally when it comes to street fighting. I mean by that long and gruelling exchanges. But as soon as he needs to pull a winner under pressure, the odds are against him.

you mean not TITANIUM....

Murray is tough mentally when it comes to street fighting. I mean by that long and gruelling exchanges. But as soon as he needs to pull a winner under pressure, the odds are against him.

Murray will prove you wrong he will PROVE YOU ALL WRONG!!!

noleisthebest wrote:you mean not TITANIUM....

No...just soft and hairy!

Nitb, please try to keep Novak's immense metal plated private areas from the discussion in large.

Murray's foreahand isn't as fluid and doesn't generate the torque of the other top 3 guys. But I think to say he doesn't have a killer shot is a bit much. The forehand when he is on is pretty good. And the backhand and return game is truely worldclass. The second serve is another area where he neads to solidify. I would be surprised if he didn't win at least one of the next few slams.

Djokovic is a great champion. It is a shame that some of his fans are not as classy. It's also a shame that some of that lack of class rubs off on Djokovic himself.

[quote="legendkillar"]

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

socal1976 wrote:McEnroe had an ugly game all-round

Tell me you're joking

Did you miss 1984??!!!

Dodgy forehand yes, but that instintive touch game 'ugly'?????

Ugly indeed.

I doubt anyone would say his game in anyway was pretty or elegant.

Er, at the time people drooled over McEnroe's elegance. I'm facinated though, I respect your opinions LK, but I think you're off beam with this - but please tell me who was 'elegant' at the time?

[quote="Veejay"][quote="banbrotam"]

Veejay wrote:Until he can actually take a set off Roger in a grand slam what else and I supposed to assume? He has never beaten Roger in a major before and the last time he beat anyone who is in this conversation in a major was almost 4 years ago.Of course theres always a first for everything and times have changed but you cant expect me to believe anything until he actually proves that he can do it,until that day comes,no amount of assumptions will change the fact that that he never has.Even if the last time they met was 50 years ago you still cannot expect me to believe anything until it actually happens.Thats all I can go on.Theres really no other way I can explain

Technically if he had won the semi final it would have been Nadal not Federer he would have had faced who I think he has lost to every time they met in a major since the 08 U.S open semi final,so I once again have to pick Nadal as the winner and Murray cannot make it past the second hurdle until the day comes where he proves he can
The first hurdle is to take 3 sets off one of the heavy weights in a semi final, so how can he make it past the second hurdle which is basically equates to 6 sets off 2 different heavy weights back to back if he cannot even take 3 sets off one heavy weight in the first hurdle?

Amazingly short sighted. For instance, because Nadal never took a Slam set off Agassi, we can safely assume that if the two met now Nadal wouldn't win - I suppose? I'm interested in the here and now, not using irrelevant form, that's why we have these discussions.

Also, I think you need to go back a little bit more recently. In 2009 Murray beat Nadal on the way to the final.It wasn't the SF - but technically he has beaten one of the big three, more than once

This Nadal beating was actually in Australia - so how can you be so certain that the outcome would be a repeat of 2011?

I'm not certain Murray would have won, but given the closeness of the four (4 to 6 hour matches in the Slams are now probably typical) I don't see how anything is certain other than perhaps Nole to keep winning

i.e. we have to keep looking at what's been happening in the last 6 months and intelligently look at that information - not make assumptions based on the past

hawkeye wrote:Djokovic is a great champion. It is a shame that some of his fans are not as classy. It's also a shame that some of that lack of class rubs off on Djokovic himself.

The Djoko fans on this site rock they exude class and sportsmanship. And are extremely physically attractive as well.

[quote="banbrotam"]

legendkillar wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

socal1976 wrote:McEnroe had an ugly game all-round

Tell me you're joking

Did you miss 1984??!!!

Dodgy forehand yes, but that instintive touch game 'ugly'?????

Ugly indeed.

I doubt anyone would say his game in anyway was pretty or elegant.

Er, at the time people drooled over McEnroe's elegance. I'm facinated though, I respect your opinions LK, but I think you're off beam with this - but please tell me who was 'elegant' at the time?

What people were drooling at the time? Names?

Hmmmm let me see. Wilander had elegance, though some would argue it was 'boring' but he was constructing points galore which were pleasant on the eye.

McEnroe is from the school of Connors "street fighter"

hawkeye wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I have but I'm realistic to know that a bit of "belief and mentality" won't be enough to help me win my first slam... unfortunately...

If you had Murray's tennis talent it might be . That is why it is more realistic for him than almost all other players though by no means a certainty.

Ha ha! How do you know I havn't got talent? I'll have you know my backhand has been likened to Federer's (believe it or not this is true) but I was also warned that I would find playing Nadal tricky... so far (believe it or not) he hasn't caused me any problems yet...

Fair enough Hawkeye, I'll look forward to watching you in the next Grand Slam.

Hope I don't get Nadal in the final... I might have to re-read that Aggasi book the night before if I do...

socal1976 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Djokovic is a great champion. It is a shame that some of his fans are not as classy. It's also a shame that some of that lack of class rubs off on Djokovic himself.

The Djoko fans on this site rock they exude class and sportsmanship. And are extremely physically attractive as well.

Not to mention modest...............

thanks carrie, just having a little fun. I am a firm believer that if others fail to recognize your brilliance then it falls to you. Call it self aggrandizement.

Legend, Mac's serve and volley game was delight. But your point that you can't reach pro-level with a technical hitch is just plain wrong. No self respecting coach would ever teach Mac's forehand or backhand today. Look at Stepanek a very technically weak forehand and he managed a number of top 20 finishes. No one doubts the beauty of Mac's touch and play in the forecourt. But his groundstrokes were hardly the stuff of beauty or technical brilliance. Please don't take my quotes of context, you pick out 4 words it hardly gets across the point I was making.

socal,

Your completely looking at this at the wrong angle.

Stepanek like Murray has a weak FH. Other strengths in their game mask that weakness as not being a massive issue. Take Djokovic. He has a weak net game, doesn't mean however it is a techinal flaw. Just means that their are other players better on the tour than him at the net. The same with the Murray FH and Stepanek FH. Please do not confuse 'technical' flaws to 'weaknesses'

For the record, would anyone teach the Borg BH? No.

Why?

Because the game has evolved!

carrieg4 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Djokovic is a great champion. It is a shame that some of his fans are not as classy. It's also a shame that some of that lack of class rubs off on Djokovic himself.

The Djoko fans on this site rock they exude class and sportsmanship. And are extremely physically attractive as well.

Not to mention modest...............

...sigh... socal. And I thought you were one of the classier Djokovic fans. It is totally up to others to recognise (or not) your brilliance. I shall be watching you carefully for any signs that you might be learning.

[quote="banbrotam"][quote="Veejay"]

banbrotam wrote:

Veejay wrote:Until he can actually take a set off Roger in a grand slam what else and I supposed to assume? He has never beaten Roger in a major before and the last time he beat anyone who is in this conversation in a major was almost 4 years ago.Of course theres always a first for everything and times have changed but you cant expect me to believe anything until he actually proves that he can do it,until that day comes,no amount of assumptions will change the fact that that he never has.Even if the last time they met was 50 years ago you still cannot expect me to believe anything until it actually happens.Thats all I can go on.Theres really no other way I can explain

Technically if he had won the semi final it would have been Nadal not Federer he would have had faced who I think he has lost to every time they met in a major since the 08 U.S open semi final,so I once again have to pick Nadal as the winner and Murray cannot make it past the second hurdle until the day comes where he proves he can
The first hurdle is to take 3 sets off one of the heavy weights in a semi final, so how can he make it past the second hurdle which is basically equates to 6 sets off 2 different heavy weights back to back if he cannot even take 3 sets off one heavy weight in the first hurdle?

Amazingly short sighted. For instance, because Nadal never took a Slam set off Agassi, we can safely assume that if the two met now Nadal wouldn't win - I suppose? I'm interested in the here and now, not using irrelevant form, that's why we have these discussions.

Also, I think you need to go back a little bit more recently. In 2009 Murray beat Nadal on the way to the final.It wasn't the SF - but technically he has beaten one of the big three, more than once

This Nadal beating was actually in Australia - so how can you be so certain that the outcome would be a repeat of 2011?

I'm not certain Murray would have won, but given the closeness of the four (4 to 6 hour matches in the Slams are now probably typical) I don't see how anything is certain other than perhaps Nole to keep winning

i.e. we have to keep looking at what's been happening in the last 6 months and intelligently look at that information - not make assumptions based on the past

UM..ok... Well I did mention Murray "beating" Nadal in 2009 but actually Nadal retired,so the last time he has beaten anyone of the 3 ahead of him in major was the U.S open semi final in 2008.Thats almost 4 years ago

Ok if you're so interested in whats happening right now and in the last 6 months..
In the last 6 months Murray hasn't beaten anyone of the 3 ahead of him in a major
In the last 6 months Murray hasn't made a final of a major
In the last 6 months Murray hasn't won a major
But I guess because Tommy Haas also hasn't done any of the above, Im too ""short sighted" too believe he can win a major

Your augment is ridiculous,you're telling me to look at the recent months.i.e the last 6 months,yet you want to use Murrays 2010 win over Nadal when he retired as proof that he can currently beat these players in majors!
If anyone is short sighted here its yourself,Murray cant even make it past one of the 3 players ahead of him in a major but yet here you are expecting me to believe he is going to beat 2 of them back to back to win a major
Murray has never come close to winning major before,even as a finalist he wasn't remotely close,not even winning a set proves the difference in class,look at Rogers 08 Wimbledon and 09 U.S open,you could be 2 points from victory and its still 2 mounts too far out of your reach, you could come so close to sealing the deal and still be so far away.Then look at Murray and realise how far away he is from winning a major
If you want to live in that world where you need to avoid being made aware of or reminded of the above to keep the dream alive,by all means go ahead...
But don't expect me to either..I will believe Murray can win a major when I see it

As usual Banbro makes no sense.

Roger may not be the player he was and Murray may beat him the next time the two meet at a slam, however, Banbro's basis for making Murray the favourite does not add up.

If we look at recent form, Roger has lost just one match since the USO and that was against Nadal who he is expected to lose to. In that period he's won a masters and the WTF. That's better than Murray's recent form.

In any case, to suggest that past history has no bearing on future matches is wrong. Don't you think Roger is affected by his past losses to Rafa whenever he steps onto the court to play him now? or Rafa against Novak? Of course they are, however small that effect may be, it is nevertheless still there and at this level it can make the crucial bit of difference, particularly if the matches are close.

Furthermore Roger's past accomplishments give him the confidence and the knowledge to know that he can seal the deal when it matters most. Murray has no such experience to fall back on vis-a-vis slams. We can all understand this point. Personally, I know that I have been in many situations where the experience of having been in a similar situation in the past has helped me pull through. I got through successfully before so I know I can do it again.

Until Murray actually beats Roger in a slam (or until Roger's form drops off like a cliff) and as long as they are both top contenders, Federer is the favourite. If they were to meet in the final of RG or W, both having reached there in similar fashion, I'm pretty sure I know who the bookies would have down as their favourite.



emancipator

I am looking forward to an article claiming Murray is the favourite for the French...

legendkillar wrote:socal,

Your completely looking at this at the wrong angle.

Stepanek like Murray has a weak FH. Other strengths in their game mask that weakness as not being a massive issue. Take Djokovic. He has a weak net game, doesn't mean however it is a techinal flaw. Just means that their are other players better on the tour than him at the net. The same with the Murray FH and Stepanek FH. Please do not confuse 'technical' flaws to 'weaknesses'

For the record, would anyone teach the Borg BH? No.

Why?

Because the game has evolved!

Here is where I disagree, yes the game has evolved. But even in his day nobody, nobody would say that Mac had a technically good forehand or backhand. He had virtually no backswing on his groundstrokes, how he managed to control them or generate power is a testament to his genius wrists and hands. Your point was that murray would not make it into the top 150 with a technical glitch in his game, well Stepanek made the top 10 with a very technically weak forehand. And of course the game has evolved. But, even when Step and Mac where coming up neither of their groundies were highly regarded among the pros of the time in terms of technique. And as for Borg's backhand it actually is very technically sound for a player who wants to generate spin off that wing, the shoulder tuck and more vertical plane of the swing was ahead of its time and players today in tennis camp are taught to tuck their shoulder closing the racquet face to force them to brush up on the two handed backhand. Borg simply had a more exaggerated version of that swing because of his desire to generate even more spin. But really nothing technically wrong with that backhand in fact it was ahead of its time if anything. Djoko and Nadal both use the same type of motion when they want a heavy baseline rally backhand, not however when they want to go for a winner off that wing. When they want to moonball a backhand as tenez would say they use a very similar swing to what Borg used 30 years ago.

[quote="Veejay"][quote="banbrotam"]

Veejay wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Veejay wrote:Until he can actually take a set off Roger in a grand slam what else and I supposed to assume? He has never beaten Roger in a major before and the last time he beat anyone who is in this conversation in a major was almost 4 years ago.Of course theres always a first for everything and times have changed but you cant expect me to believe anything until he actually proves that he can do it,until that day comes,no amount of assumptions will change the fact that that he never has.Even if the last time they met was 50 years ago you still cannot expect me to believe anything until it actually happens.Thats all I can go on.Theres really no other way I can explain

Technically if he had won the semi final it would have been Nadal not Federer he would have had faced who I think he has lost to every time they met in a major since the 08 U.S open semi final,so I once again have to pick Nadal as the winner and Murray cannot make it past the second hurdle until the day comes where he proves he can
The first hurdle is to take 3 sets off one of the heavy weights in a semi final, so how can he make it past the second hurdle which is basically equates to 6 sets off 2 different heavy weights back to back if he cannot even take 3 sets off one heavy weight in the first hurdle?

Amazingly short sighted. For instance, because Nadal never took a Slam set off Agassi, we can safely assume that if the two met now Nadal wouldn't win - I suppose? I'm interested in the here and now, not using irrelevant form, that's why we have these discussions.

Also, I think you need to go back a little bit more recently. In 2009 Murray beat Nadal on the way to the final.It wasn't the SF - but technically he has beaten one of the big three, more than once

This Nadal beating was actually in Australia - so how can you be so certain that the outcome would be a repeat of 2011?

I'm not certain Murray would have won, but given the closeness of the four (4 to 6 hour matches in the Slams are now probably typical) I don't see how anything is certain other than perhaps Nole to keep winning

i.e. we have to keep looking at what's been happening in the last 6 months and intelligently look at that information - not make assumptions based on the past

Ok if you're so interested in whats happening right now and in the last 6 months..
In the last 6 months Murray hasn't beaten anyone of the 3 ahead of him in a major
In the last 6 months Murray hasn't made a final of a major
In the last 6 months Murray hasn't won a major

Can I just point out that the same applies to Roger Federer. He qualifies for all three of those categories in the last six months. And if we are to take the last slam as the here and now form then Murray could take far more from the Australian Open than Roger Federer considering both mens standing in the game. Federer is GOAT and went down meekly in the end in four sets against the world No.2 in Rafael Nadal and let us all remember how unrated Nadal is by Fed fans. On the other hand Murray lost narrowly in five sets in a performance that showed promise considering he has only been with his new coach for three weeks to the world No.1 and a player tipped by many to dominate the slams this year and who went on to win the title beating Nadal who had beaten Federer. Now if people want to pin Federer's past form against Murray's current form then fine but first Federer has to rediscover that sort of form of two or three years ago but also Murray has to maintain his form from the Australian Open with improvements to serve.

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:socal,

Your completely looking at this at the wrong angle.

Stepanek like Murray has a weak FH. Other strengths in their game mask that weakness as not being a massive issue. Take Djokovic. He has a weak net game, doesn't mean however it is a techinal flaw. Just means that their are other players better on the tour than him at the net. The same with the Murray FH and Stepanek FH. Please do not confuse 'technical' flaws to 'weaknesses'

For the record, would anyone teach the Borg BH? No.

Why?

Because the game has evolved!

Here is where I disagree, yes the game has evolved. But even in his day nobody, nobody would say that Mac had a technically good forehand or backhand. He had virtually no backswing on his groundstrokes, how he managed to control them or generate power is a testament to his genius wrists and hands. Your point was that murray would not make it into the top 150 with a technical glitch in his game, well Stepanek made the top 10 with a very technically weak forehand. And of course the game has evolved. But, even when Step and Mac where coming up neither of their groundies were highly regarded among the pros of the time in terms of technique. And as for Borg's backhand it actually is very technically sound for a player who wants to generate spin off that wing, the shoulder tuck and more vertical plane of the swing was ahead of its time and players today in tennis camp are taught to tuck their shoulder closing the racquet face to force them to brush up on the two handed backhand. Borg simply had a more exaggerated version of that swing because of his desire to generate even more spin. But really nothing technically wrong with that backhand in fact it was ahead of its time if anything. Djoko and Nadal both use the same type of motion when they want a heavy baseline rally backhand, not however when they want to go for a winner off that wing. When they want to moonball a backhand as tenez would say they use a very similar swing to what Borg used 30 years ago.

Have tennis pundits or pro's spoken of a technical glitch with the Murray or Stepanek FH? No, why? Because if you ever see analysis they simply say 'weak' on the FH side!!!! I don't know why you persist with the notion that it is a 'techinal' flaw. Simply put Murray and Stepanek do not have strong FH's for them to rely on during matches. Hence why Murray relies on the BH and Stepanek on his S&V. Murray's FH is similar to Clijsters by where it does not have much of a physical impact on the execution of it. It relies more on the forearm section. Compared to say Soderling and Tsonga's FH which relies on the hips. Watch a Clijsters FH and watch Murray's FH and you will see similarities in how they swing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ps_MvYoqUs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObZlryiCNxU&feature=related


The Borg BH way ahead of it's time? Did you see his execution of it as it always looked like a SHBH when he has executed the shot.

Murray does not revert to his FH as he is not a player who can consistently hit 3 or 4 flat grounstrokes in a rally. Even with his BH he doesn't flatten it out 3 or 4 times in a rally like a Federer or Djokovic. Simply put, Murray cannot find the right length and hit it consistently to really be aggressive. If you watch Murray's rallies you tend to find similar to Nadal where he will play 1 or 2 strokes in a rally that force the opponent out of position and then clean up the point with a 1,2 punch.

If you want to talk technical glitch, take the serve. Post Gilbert Murray decided to change his service motion and base it on the Sampras motion where felt that a cleaner rotation through the hips would generate greater accuracy and power. If I am brutally honest, I think his serve has gotten worse as a result. At the AO this year, it looks as if he has worked on his service motion and uses less rotation.

I don't think I can explain it any clearer than that

[quote="CaledonianCraig"][quote="Veejay"]

banbrotam wrote:

Veejay wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Veejay wrote:Until he can actually take a set off Roger in a grand slam what else and I supposed to assume? He has never beaten Roger in a major before and the last time he beat anyone who is in this conversation in a major was almost 4 years ago.Of course theres always a first for everything and times have changed but you cant expect me to believe anything until he actually proves that he can do it,until that day comes,no amount of assumptions will change the fact that that he never has.Even if the last time they met was 50 years ago you still cannot expect me to believe anything until it actually happens.Thats all I can go on.Theres really no other way I can explain

Technically if he had won the semi final it would have been Nadal not Federer he would have had faced who I think he has lost to every time they met in a major since the 08 U.S open semi final,so I once again have to pick Nadal as the winner and Murray cannot make it past the second hurdle until the day comes where he proves he can
The first hurdle is to take 3 sets off one of the heavy weights in a semi final, so how can he make it past the second hurdle which is basically equates to 6 sets off 2 different heavy weights back to back if he cannot even take 3 sets off one heavy weight in the first hurdle?

Amazingly short sighted. For instance, because Nadal never took a Slam set off Agassi, we can safely assume that if the two met now Nadal wouldn't win - I suppose? I'm interested in the here and now, not using irrelevant form, that's why we have these discussions.

Also, I think you need to go back a little bit more recently. In 2009 Murray beat Nadal on the way to the final.It wasn't the SF - but technically he has beaten one of the big three, more than once

This Nadal beating was actually in Australia - so how can you be so certain that the outcome would be a repeat of 2011?

I'm not certain Murray would have won, but given the closeness of the four (4 to 6 hour matches in the Slams are now probably typical) I don't see how anything is certain other than perhaps Nole to keep winning

i.e. we have to keep looking at what's been happening in the last 6 months and intelligently look at that information - not make assumptions based on the past

Ok if you're so interested in whats happening right now and in the last 6 months..
In the last 6 months Murray hasn't beaten anyone of the 3 ahead of him in a major
In the last 6 months Murray hasn't made a final of a major
In the last 6 months Murray hasn't won a major

Can I just point out that the same applies to Roger Federer. He qualifies for all three of those categories in the last six months. And if we are to take the last slam as the here and now form then Murray could take far more from the Australian Open than Roger Federer considering both mens standing in the game. Federer is GOAT and went down meekly in the end in four sets against the world No.2 in Rafael Nadal and let us all remember how unrated Nadal is by Fed fans. On the other hand Murray lost narrowly in five sets in a performance that showed promise considering he has only been with his new coach for three weeks to the world No.1 and a player tipped by many to dominate the slams this year and who went on to win the title beating Nadal who had beaten Federer. Now if people want to pin Federer's past form against Murray's current form then fine but first Federer has to rediscover that sort of form of two or three years ago but also Murray has to maintain his form from the Australian Open with improvements to serve.

Why are you even comparing Murray to a 30 year old player? It doesn't help to suggest, just because Murray isn't doing as well as Roger we shouldn't be so harsh on Murray.Roger has proven himself,Murray hasn't and whether Roger does well or not cant be used to say,oh well if Roger ( the GOAT) isn't doing as well then its ok if Murray isn't either and excuse Murray failing to live up to expectations.The question here isn't if Roger can win another major,its if Murray can win a major at all.Murray is the subject,stop bringing Roger into it,but if you want to
Roger beat Djokovic in a major last season,and while Murray may have made the AO final,he never faced/beat any one of the 3 heavyweights to make the final,and then lost the final to 1 of the 3 heavy weights in straight sets again
Forgetting about the dirty trick Nadal played in the RG final,Roger still took at least a set off his biggest rival who he has a huge match up with
Going by some previous comments,Murray has the game to beat all these guys and supposedly matches up well but yet the old man is still showing more promise to win a major then Murray is.
Don't build Roger up to be the GOAT so you use his age and him slowing down against him,Murray is in his prime,Roger isn't,Murray doesnt have 16 majors and over 1000 matches in his legs,he should be doing better then the old man.No matter how close he came to taking Djokovic down at this years AO,the fact is he still couldnt
Add the WTF,it may not be a major,but its as close to one as they come,Roger at 30 still showed the ability to dominate the 8 best players in the world,Murray never has,not even made a final.

Not sure why Federer is always brought into this discussion. Yes it is easy to compare form, but let's be realistic. Does it really paint a true picture of what they have accomplished? Nope.

As a Murray fan it is always a discussion that rears it's head. It always generates different views. Some have lost hope, like me. Others never had it or believed he can or would ever win a Slam. There are those that seek out the positives and hope that Murray uses them to achieve Slam success.

I hope for strong finish to the HC season. A victory in Miami or Indian Wells will be most welcomed.

Well vvejay you are the one labouring the point of the vast superiority of Federer when, as we stand in the here and now I don't see it. I mean take the last slam semis and if Murray had of lost in the same fashion to Nadal it would havebeen slated as a thrashing and meek surrender as it has in the past. The same can't be said of Murray's defeat. And where Murray is still a bit away from winning a slam I equally think Federer is just as far away - sums up the task these guys are facing to win a slam.

As for age I don't see that it has a heck of a lot to do with it as players aged 30+ have won slams in the past and I believe Federer believes he can still do it otherwise he would have hung up his racquet by now as slam wins is what he lives for.

Legend you are just plain wrong this idea that anyone who becomes an ATP pro can't have a technically flawed shot is completely wrong. Maybe the reason Step's forehand is weak is because it is technically not a good shot. The fact of the matter is watch Fed's forehand it is smooth and techinically brilliant. That is why it is good. As I and others have pointed out Murray's forehand seems to lack the same fluiditiy. And there have been many successful top pros who have had technical problems with one of their shots. You are the one who in my opinion is holding on to an indefensible position. And as you have pointed out yourself you see a problem with his second serve.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well vvejay you are the one labouring the point of the vast superiority of Federer when, as we stand in the here and now I don't see it. I mean take the last slam semis and if Murray had of lost in the same fashion to Nadal it would havebeen slated as a thrashing and meek surrender as it has in the past. The same can't be said of Murray's defeat. And where Murray is still a bit away from winning a slam I equally think Federer is just as far away - sums up the task these guys are facing to win a slam.

When exactly did I do that?
YOU are the one constantly calling him the GOAT,not once did I ever say he was
Federer is closer to winning a major then Murray cause at least he has proven that he can beat the hottest player on tour in a major,his biggest threat comes from Nadal.Murray hasn't shown the ability to even beat a single heavy weight ahead of him
I will give Murray his dues for taking Djokovic the distance,its probably the best I have ever seen him play but whether he can consistently bring that kind of game to every match in major to be considered a realistic threat remains to be seen

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for age I don't see that it has a heck of a lot to do with it as players aged 30+ have won slams in the past and I believe Federer believes he can still do it otherwise he would have hung up his racquet by now as slam wins is what he lives for.

I don't even know how you can say something like that...
Yeah there have been player who have won majors over the age of 30,but the older you get the harder it becomes.Roger himself said its taking longer for his body to recover from tough matches.Navratilova said the same thing,you start having more bad days then good days.At that age you're not just trying to beat your opponents,you're fighting your body too
Stop using the excuse that because a 30 years old player cant win a major that Murray should be excused too,man up and admit that Murray cannot win a major because he isn't good enough to.End of story

Veejay wrote:Forgetting about the dirty trick Nadal played in the RG final,Roger still took at least a set off his biggest rival who he has a huge match up with.

What dirty trick?

As far as the OP is concerned, I think that Murray can win a Major this year, and I think his best chance now is probably the US Open, but in order to do so he will need to build on his form of the Aus Open big time. I can't see him winning RG on any basis because each of the top 3 are significantly superior to him on clay - that is despite his coming so close vs. Djoko last year in SF at Rome (or Madrid?).

barrystar wrote:

Veejay wrote:Forgetting about the dirty trick Nadal played in the RG final,Roger still took at least a set off his biggest rival who he has a huge match up with.

What dirty trick?

As far as the OP is concerned, I think that Murray can win a Major this year, and I think his best chance now is probably the US Open, but in order to do so he will need to build on his form of the Aus Open big time. I can't see him winning RG on any basis because each of the top 3 are significantly superior to him on clay - that is despite his coming so close vs. Djoko last year in SF at Rome (or Madrid?).

Calling a medical time out to upset Rogers serving rhythm before Roger was about to serve for the first set

Veejay wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for age I don't see that it has a heck of a lot to do with it as players aged 30+ have won slams in the past and I believe Federer believes he can still do it otherwise he would have hung up his racquet by now as slam wins is what he lives for.

I don't even know how you can say something like that...
Yeah there have been player who have won majors over the age of 30,but the older you get the harder it becomes.Roger himself said its taking longer for his body to recover from tough matches.Navratilova said the same thing,you start having more bad days then good days.At that age you're not just trying to beat your opponents,you're fighting your body too
Stop using the excuse that because a 30 years old player cant win a major that Murray should be excused too,man up and admit that Murray cannot win a major because he isn't good enough to.End of story

I can say something like that because it is true. After all we are forever being told by 'some tennis fans' on here that this is really quite a weak era so therefore if players in the past aged 30+ have won slams then surely the GOAT can in this so-called weak era. And believe you me if Roger felt he didn't have a good chance of winning another slam he would have retired by now. Slam wins is what he craves now and that is all and is why he is carrying on. Who is using it as an excuse for Murray not winning a slam? Not me. All I am doing is merely pointing out that in the here and now Federer on current form is no more a favourite for a slam than Murray. I could not give a stuff if he has won the most slams of all-time as that was over two years ago now so he needs to start proving himself all over again as far as I am concerned. Murray has to prove himself as well but going on the most recent slam performance in Melbourne there were better signs there for Murray in terms of improvement whereas Federer fell away tamely after winning the first set against Nadal - a flat end to the tournament for him.

Now Veejay I know you don't see Murray having a slam in him and I'm not sure either but even a non-fan in Y I Man himself admitted he saw improvement in Murray's performance. Can we say the same of Federer in Melbourne? No.

Federer played well at the AO. The semi final with Nadal was IMO the best match of the tournament. No way did he lose "meekly"! If the draw had been different I think he would have had a very good chance of beating Djokovic in a semi.

CaladonianCraig. I understand that you are a big Murray fan but that is no reason to underestimate Federer. It doesn't make Murray a better player if you try to show Federer is a "worse" player. Especially when Federer and Murray didn't even face each other in a match.

There you are calling this era weak again...who ever said so? Certainly not me.Why do you conveniently keep saying these things to "help" your argument?
Roger said he wants to continue playing for as long as he can,he wants his kids to be able to see him play before he retires..for a player to say that clearly indicates their love for the game rather then the glory for wining.Do you not think Roger is aware that if he continues to play till around he is 35,he will be losing more and more,possibly exiting majors in the first week,possibly the 2nd or 3rd round?
So how can you say he would have retired if he didn't think he stood a good chance of wining a major?
This is going no where,you continue to talk about Murray being more in the conversation then Federer,yet Murray to date hasn't ever even taken a set off Roger in a grand slam
If you want to keep comparing Murray to Federer to either excuse Murray or help keep you optimistic that Murray will win a major then by all means go ahead,but I will believe Murray can win a major win I see it

Veejay wrote:There you are calling this era weak again...who ever said so? Certainly not me.Why do you conveniently keep saying these things to "help" your argument?
Roger said he wants to continue playing for as long as he can,he wants his kids to be able to see him play before he retires..for a player to say that clearly indicates their love for the game rather then the glory for wining.Do you not think Roger is aware that if he continues to play till around he is 35,he will be losing more and more,possibly exiting majors in the first week,possibly the 2nd or 3rd round?
So how can you say he would have retired if he didn't think he stood a good chance of wining a major?
This is going no where,you continue to talk about Murray being more in the conversation then Federer,yet Murray to date hasn't ever even taken a set off Roger in a grand slam
If you want to keep comparing Murray to Federer to either excuse Murray or help keep you optimistic that Murray will win a major then by all means go ahead,but I will believe Murray can win a major win I see it

Scroll through various threads and it is 'certain' fans (not me) calling this a weak era. And I am certain that if the time comes when Federer starts losing in the Second or Third Round in slams regularly he'll call it a day. You keep harping back to the past for evidence of Federer's past glories which mean nothing in the here and now. The most recent form is all that matters. And by the way don't make me laugh hawkeye about underestimating anyone. However, to try to claim Federer's semi was a great performance in any way doesn't add up as he lost 3-1 in sets. Now Murray lost by the same scoreline to the same player at Wimbledon and the US Open last year in the semis and I never heard people call them great performances - more like a drubbing or tame defeat so let's be consistent here eh? Also Veejay I have no need to keep my optimism up as it is not the be all and end all for me if Murray wins a slam I am merely enjoying watching him play.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Veejay wrote:There you are calling this era weak again...who ever said so? Certainly not me.Why do you conveniently keep saying these things to "help" your argument?
Roger said he wants to continue playing for as long as he can,he wants his kids to be able to see him play before he retires..for a player to say that clearly indicates their love for the game rather then the glory for wining.Do you not think Roger is aware that if he continues to play till around he is 35,he will be losing more and more,possibly exiting majors in the first week,possibly the 2nd or 3rd round?
So how can you say he would have retired if he didn't think he stood a good chance of wining a major?
This is going no where,you continue to talk about Murray being more in the conversation then Federer,yet Murray to date hasn't ever even taken a set off Roger in a grand slam
If you want to keep comparing Murray to Federer to either excuse Murray or help keep you optimistic that Murray will win a major then by all means go ahead,but I will believe Murray can win a major win I see it

Scroll through various threads and it is 'certain' fans (not me) calling this a weak era. And I am certain that if the time comes when Federer starts losing in the Second or Third Round in slams regularly he'll call it a day. You keep harping back to the past for evidence of Federer's past glories which mean nothing in the here and now. The most recent form is all that matters. And by the way don't make me laugh hawkeye about underestimating anyone. However, to try to claim Federer's semi was a great performance in any way doesn't add up as he lost 3-1 in sets. Now Murray lost by the same scoreline to the same player at Wimbledon and the US Open last year in the semis and I never heard people call them great performances - more like a drubbing or tame defeat so let's be consistent here eh? Also Veejay I have no need to keep my optimism up as it is not the be all and end all for me if Murray wins a slam I am merely enjoying watching him play.

Yeah winning the WTF a few months back for a record 6th time to stand alone beating the worlds 8 best players proves "Feds past glory days mean nothing here and now"
You could have fooled me...constantly comparing Murray to Rogers ( the goat) performances to prove that if the GOAT isn't doing well then how can anyone expect Murray to,or if Murray does better then Roger is past his sell by date
If you had left Roger out of this then maybe I would believe you,but its clear you're beating around the bush to avoid admitting to yourself that Murray isn't good enough to beat these guys in majors,cause if he was he would be doing that

Caladonian Craig

The Federer Nadal semi was high quality and IMO beautiful tennis. The match was close and featured two tie break sets. 4 set matches can be superior to 5 set matches. Quality over quantity. Did you watch it or are you just judging it by the score?

I am not the one who started on this thread comparing the two. As for WTF I am sure Fed would swap that right now for the Australian Open. Nice try Veejay but no biting from me as I will just sit back, chill out and enjoy watching Andy play in the coming years. If a slam win eludes him so be it but it will have been a joy watching Andy play.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am not the one who started on this thread comparing the two. As for WTF I am sure Fed would swap that right now for the Australian Open. Nice try Veejay but no biting from me as I will just sit back, chill out and enjoy watching Andy play in the coming years. If a slam win eludes him so be it but it will have been a joy watching Andy play.

How do you know Fed would swap the WTF title for the AO title?
Can you read his mind? And then you want to tell me nice try?
This isn't about what Fed wants this is about you comparing Murray to Fed and now that I have mentioned Rogers WTF which completely makes Murray look out of depth in comparison you want to belittle the achievements and make it look insignificant by saying Roger would swap then for a major any day LOL
But if you think its fair for you to make such assumptions then Im going to make one too...I bet Murray would swap every single one of his titles for a single WTF title won in front of his home crowd,let alone the opportunity to hold the record at the tournament
A fan such as yourself wouldn't find it a joy to watch your idol enough for you,especially if he doesn't live up to your expectation,its nothing but frustration and disappointment getting your hopes up and continually having it shattered which is why you keep taking your frustration out on Roger

hawkeye wrote:Caladonian Craig

The Federer Nadal semi was high quality and IMO beautiful tennis. The match was close and featured two tie break sets. 4 set matches can be superior to 5 set matches. Quality over quantity. Did you watch it or are you just judging it by the score?

You didn't watch the Djokovic/Murray semi Hawkeye as you have admitted on another thread. Therefore how can you comment on it.

Veejay wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am not the one who started on this thread comparing the two. As for WTF I am sure Fed would swap that right now for the Australian Open. Nice try Veejay but no biting from me as I will just sit back, chill out and enjoy watching Andy play in the coming years. If a slam win eludes him so be it but it will have been a joy watching Andy play.

How do you know Fed would swap the WTF title for the AO title?
Can you read his mind? And then you want to tell me nice try?
This isn't about what Fed wants this is about you comparing Murray to Fed and now that I have mentioned Rogers WTF which completely makes Murray look out of depth in comparison you want to belittle the achievements and make it look insignificant by saying Roger would swap then for a major any day LOL
But if you think its fair for you to make such assumptions then Im going to make one too...I bet Murray would swap every single one of his titles for a single WTF title won in front of his home crowd,let alone the opportunity to hold the record at the tournament
A fan such as yourself wouldn't find it a joy to watch your idol enough for you,especially if he doesn't live up to your expectation,its nothing but frustration and disappointment getting your hopes up and continually having it shattered which is why you keep taking your frustration out on Roger

I don't take frustrations out on players and quite frankly if you think Federer wouldn't swap his WTF for the Australian Open title then you show a pretty low understanding of tennis. One is a treasured slam and the other an end of season tournament. Important yes but not in the same class of importance as a slam. Hopes and frustrations are all part and parcel of following a player/team in football however successful or unsuccessful they are at it. Still doesn't affect the enjoyment I get from watching Andy play.

LMFAO!!
I don't think someone who has had the career Roger has had even thinks the way you do..swapping titles..LOL
He would want to win both,no doubt but he isn't desperate to swap anything ...
Having a record and standing alone,setting himself apart from Sampras at the WTF would mean too much to want to swap a title like that for another major when he already has the record for majors...Of course Im not saying he wouldn't like a major but a record is a record,no player would swap a title that takes their record away for another title that wouldn't break a record
If you had a better understanding of tennis you would know that the WTF is considered the 5th slam in tennis and unlike majors a player has to qualify for them.Beating the 8 best players in the world means a lot especially for Roger at his age.
You can try to belittle the WTF as much as you like,no matter how much you try it won't ever take Rogers record away from him and it won't ever change the fact that Murray cant beat these players in majors

Veejay wrote:LMFAO!!
I don't think someone who has had the career Roger has had even thinks the way you do..swapping titles..LOL
He would want to win both,no doubt but he isn't desperate to swap anything ...
Having a record and standing alone,setting himself apart from Sampras at the WTF would mean too much to want to swap a title like that for another major when he already has the record for majors...Of course Im not saying he wouldn't like a major but a record is a record,no player would swap a title that takes their record away for another title that wouldn't break a record
If you had a better understanding of tennis you would know that the WTF is considered the 5th slam in tennis and unlike majors a player has to qualify for them.Beating the 8 best players in the world means a lot especially for Roger at his age.
You can try to belittle the WTF as much as you like,no matter how much you try it won't ever take Rogers record away from him and it won't ever change the fact that Murray cant beat these players in majors

For goodness' sake you need to calm down - Craig is not being half as one-eyed as you'd have it on this thread.

I am a firm Federer fan and whilst I cannot get into his mind I would think that winning the Aus Open 2012 would be a damn fine swap for the 2011 WTF. Having the record of 6 WTF's is great, but he already shared it at 5 just like he currently shares the Open Era Aus Open win record at 4; if he had won the Aus Open 2012 he'd have the record for Open Era Aus Opens at 5 and be the only man to have at least 5 wins in 3 slams as well as upping his slam tally to an amazing 17 leaving Nadal and pretty much anyone else an absolutely unsurmountable hurdle. It's also fair to suggest that the rest of the top 4 brought pretty good games to the Aus Open whereas they were not so hot at the WTF 2011 so a win at the Aus Open would have been qualitatively better too.

My gut feeling tells me it might happen at Wimbledon this year.