I Could Be A Multi Slam Winning All Time Champion Says Murray

There are just a few people standang in his way preventing him from reaching his full potential reasons Murray in his recent interview. If only Roger, Rafa and Nole weren't about and if only he had taken up another sport such as boxing... (or maybe if Roger, Rafa and Nole had only taken up boxing instead. Sigh... )

If they hadn't have been around then I could have won seven or eight Grand Slams, but still not have been as good a player, so it just depends on how you view it. I've been in the top four now for five years and if that had been in another sport, say boxing, then I would have been world champion for all time.

http://sport.uk.msn.com/tennis/murray-i-couldve-won-eight-majors-in-a-different-era

Murray generous as ever is aware that other players could learn a lot from watching him play. From the same interview

Hopefully the other guys have also seen things from my game that they have tried to copy as well.

With thanks to Nore Staat for the link from another article. When there is no tennis to be played Murray is fast becoming my favourite player...

Wow, what an article!

.

Murray thinks too high about his game, it needs a severe reality check.

Murray needs to shut up quickly, he's making himself look like a fool.

Next time he opens his mouth I'd like to hear a thorough explanation about his urine-poor performances in his grand slam finals. Surely it was not because of Roger or Novak that he played like a baby.

Untill then, shut up and let your tennis do the talking, Andy.

Oh dear this really is ridiculous. Every player in history would have won more but for having competition and there's no evidence whatsoever that Murray would won anything in another era; for instance, he'd have been blown away on a 1990's Wimbledon court by about 20 players.

His grasp on history is summed up by declaring Djokovic 2011 as probably the greatest year in tennis history. Obviously never heard of McEnroe 1984, or various Federer years.

.

Apart from the top 3 this era is a waste. We can't say how good the top 3 really are, when you have dunces like Berdych and Tsonga sitting in the top 10, and former GS finalists.

Murray in the 90's would not ever be in the top 6, his ego needs a massage.

"I play against these guys every week and that's what you want - to test yourself against the best. I have a good record over all these guys, so I can say I've beaten two of the greatest players of all time and in Novak - he probably had the greatest year in tennis last year. So I think I've been lucky to be in this era."

He has clearly given credit to his peers.

He played well at AO 2012.

BB... there is now way to say that out of these, McEnroe 84 vs Federer 2005 vs Djokovic 2011, which is the 'greatest' year. Did you know Alice Marble, in 1940, had a 83-0 record. She did not have a single loss. I would say it is better than any of the male players who have played Tennis so far.

He is not being given credit for his achievements.

Without naming names, players get $h*t for being who they are on here. Every poster on 606v2 wants their 'favourite' player to be anointed the GOAT unanimously. Rather that a sport which provides hours of enjoyment to it's fans is also a source of bitterness and rancour between followers of different players.

laverfan

This article is not about tennis fans, pundits, other players or even posters on 606v2 giving Murray or not giving Murray credit.

hawkeye wrote:laverfan

This article is not about tennis fans, pundits, other players or even posters on 606v2 giving Murray or not giving Murray credit.

Correct.
It's another 'lets have a go at Murray for something he said in the press' article. Looking forward to tomorrow's one

Wouldn't you agree that some of the stick is a little deserved? I'm struggling to think of another sportsperson saying on the record that they would have won more if they weren't facing the currently high quality of opposition.

I don't see why anyone cares what any of the players say ambition wise, of couse they don't want to sound defeated as its perceived as a type of weakness, he does however deserve stick for allowing the lesser players to dictate play, nevermind when its just the big 3 doing it.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:he does however deserve stick for allowing the lesser players to dictate play, nevermind when its just the big 3 doing it.

Can you point out how many times this happens as a proportion of his total games?? Unless this is more than a 1 in 5 occurrence, why are you making it sound like the norm

Doesn't Murray have one of the best records against Top 20 players??

Do explain!! Because this is typical of the reasons why a lot of us dislike this Tennis forum. The constantly bullying of one of the world's best talents, where negatives are exaggerated and positives ignored

Of course the argument is dead. Everybody knows that Murray has done enough in the game to win a Slam as is witness by his nearly 4000 points gap to the World No.5.

What I mean is if that we compare it to 2006 and remember the 'typical comments' - "That sulky brat will never win anything of note"

or 2007, "He's no chance of ever getting in the Top 5"

or 2008, "He's too passive"

or 2009, "He's never going to beat Federer in a final"

or 2010, "He's never going to win a Slam"

Comments now that just assassinate is character - show that his critics can't lay a fig leaf on his undoubted talent

Ah well - there's always Nadal to 'bear bait' and I suppose if they're picking on Andy at least they're leaving Rafa alone

Bullying in any form, particularly from the safety of a lap-top is always despicable

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I don't see why anyone cares what any of the players say ambition wise, of couse they don't want to sound defeated as its perceived as a type of weakness, he does however deserve stick for allowing the lesser players to dictate play, nevermind when its just the big 3 doing it.

JM... Federer lost to Canas (twice), Karlovic (Cincy), Fish, Simon, Baghdatis, Berdych. Nadal lost to Dodig, Mayer, Melzer. Murray lost to Giraldo, Young.

As I said on another post, Alice Marble (1940, 83-0) should be the only player to be discussed, if we consider loses.

It just shows their human character. It makes them closer to us as mere mortals (as BanBro says) behind a computer keyboard.

We should appreciate what each of these players brings to the court. Our fondness for a specific player may be different, but respecting players on the other side of the net is the more civil approach. Hope you understand.

hawkeye wrote:
This article is not about tennis fans, pundits, other players or even posters on 606v2 giving Murray or not giving Murray credit.

So it is about showing your fondness (or lack thereof) for Murray?

laverfan wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I don't see why anyone cares what any of the players say ambition wise, of couse they don't want to sound defeated as its perceived as a type of weakness, he does however deserve stick for allowing the lesser players to dictate play, nevermind when its just the big 3 doing it.

JM... Federer lost to Canas (twice), Karlovic (Cincy), Fish, Simon, Baghdatis, Berdych. Nadal lost to Dodig, Mayer, Melzer. Murray lost to Giraldo, Young.

As I said on another post, Alice Marble (1940, 83-0) should be the only player to be discussed, if we consider loses.

It just shows their human character. It makes them closer to us as mere mortals (as BanBro says) behind a computer keyboard.

We should appreciate what each of these players brings to the court. Our fondness for a specific player may be different, but respecting players on the other side of the net is the more civil approach. Hope you understand.

People should 'listen' to laverfan as they could learn a lot about being better people

Incidentally as all of us know laverfan isn't even a card carrying Murray fan like me. But at least they respect his talent and can see that a player who can beat Nole twice in two consecutive Masters meetings and perform like he did in that Aus SF - shoud be applauded

Hawkeye, who sadly gives the impression of being some bitter ex-pro, you see around the parks telling anyone who lends a sympathetic ear that "I could have been a contender" would never understand

Nothing really wrong with anything Murray says in that link.

But of course that won't stop the keyboard warriors. Aren't you bored of this yet HE?

I recommended this site to a mate of mine who loves his tennis and likes a debate... He spent an hour or so looking through some of the articles and said he wasn't interested as "it's just like 606 was in the end, full of WUMs and b*tchy comments".

I said it's a shame because it's a great site, but it's also a shame that a few are giving people that impression.

Gave up posting here on a regular basis a while ago.

However its worth a look in now and again for a laugh especially when you have the likes of hawkeye churning out the usual I hate Murray/ but love Nadal articles which seem to be the mainstay of this forum, and knowing that most of the regular keyboard junkies will be attracted.

Keep them coming

How is it going banbro?

SL... Glad to see you, even if it is for a fleeting moment.

...

Gosh! I hope Murray doesn't say anything for a while. He's giving me a bad name...

hawkeye wrote:Gosh! I hope Murray doesn't say anything for a while. He's giving me a bad name...

HE can you write a positive article about any of your favourite players and show that your prolific writing skills can engender a good Tennis debate?

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Gosh! I hope Murray doesn't say anything for a while. He's giving me a bad name...

HE can you write a positive article about any of your favourite players and show that your prolific writing skills can engender a good Tennis debate?

Asking a bit much there laverfan, if Neil Harman Tweets it or the Times publishes something then you may stand a chance.

Anyway bedtime - keep up the good work laverfan - glad to see there are still some sensible posters left.

Danny_1982 wrote:Nothing really wrong with anything Murray says in that link.

But of course that won't stop the keyboard warriors. Aren't you bored of this yet HE?

Aren't you bored of Murray's such comments? He has this habit of blowing his trumpet all the time. You don't seem to be as you find nothing wrong with it. Aren't you bored of Murray pusher-wait-for-errors style of play? Aren't you bored of this hopeless hope that someday he will win a slam and even go on to be multiple slammer?

Murray made his comments, hawkeye read it and he wants to discuss about it. And thats it. If you don't like the keyboard warriors to do this, you can be the keyboard opera. You agree with Murray's words doesn't mean everyone has to. You are just feeling bad because your favorite player makes comments that that allows people to make a mockery of him and you feel ashamed to be on the side of such a player. And you trying to shut them off. Anyway who asked you to be on his side. If you feel bad, its your choice. You can always change it.

Danny_1982 wrote:
I recommended this site to a mate of mine who loves his tennis and likes a debate... He spent an hour or so looking through some of the articles and said he wasn't interested as "it's just like 606 was in the end, full of WUMs and b*tchy comments".

I said it's a shame because it's a great site, but it's also a shame that a few are giving people that impression.

Another useless pointless comment. Even I recommended this site to many work mates of mine and they ALL ( repeat ALL) love to read the discussions on this site, though they don't post often. Things don't become WUMs just because you say so.

Anytime anything is brought out which is not a song celebrating Murray's greatness, some people start to feel the heat in their bottoms. Cool it down.

Hmm........... It's been a while since I have posted but I see nothing has changed. Same article, different day from HE.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable interview if you aren't lifting individual lines out of context as in the OP (quite a habit for HE). At least we could see the full interview in the link and LF put it back into context nicely.

I'd like to know what the alternative to argument is. Endless threads reporting Davis Cup, or praising both players in a match? Or cod reporting attempts?

I'd be gone in a minute if that was all this place represented.

It's about opinions. We have different ones. We get to air them, we argue. We keep it civilised, and the mods touch the tiller when needed.

If you regard some posters as unbearable them use the ignore, but personally I think that's a sign that there's something they are saying that causes you discomfort. We all naturally tolerate and ignore bores, but to get upset means what they are saying matters to you. Maybe when a poster does that its time to conider why it hurts, and maybe reconsider your own position.

I agree that spirited debate would be a good thing, but surely there are a broader range of discussion points in tennis than the following:

1- Nadal's behaviour / knees / role in the downfall of tennis
2- Noleeeeeeeeee / Rafaaaaaa pointless fan girl thread
3- Fed is rubbish (we see a lot less of these after slam no 16)
4- Murray / Federer / Nadal will never win again
5- Insert name here is the GOAT
6- Womens pay is sooo unfair / all the surfaces are the same

I mean all valid subjects for discussion but the relevant points have been made over and over again, right?

Perhaps we could try having a quota of one per month (or stickies) for these topics and see if people come up with more original and interesting subjects to discuss? 606 used to have all these funny quirky articles - we've completely lost that spirit, IMO.

It seems to me that after years of anti-Fed WUM fodder on the old 606 certain posters are just rehashing the same stuff against Nadal - payback I guess but boring to read.

carrieg4 wrote:Hmm........... It's been a while since I have posted but I see nothing has changed. Same article, different day from HE.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable interview if you aren't lifting individual lines out of context as in the OP (quite a habit for HE). At least we could see the full interview in the link and LF put it back into context nicely.

Okay please share your opinion and its basis on the matter? Do you agree with Murray that he would have been a multi-slam winner with 7-8 slams if Roger, Nadal and Djo wouldn't have been around?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark"

"Aren't you bored of Murray's such comments? He has this habit of blowing his trumpet all the time"

No he doesn't. Unless you can show me where he called a press conference and started telling everyone who great he was. You seem to have no idea of context, i.e. it's amazingly naive to cherry pick a comment out of context


"Aren't you bored of Murray pusher-wait-for-errors style of play?"

You see this is the problem. Now we're actually debating his style of play, which is fine. You don't like it, which is fine. I actually think his style is brilliant and I would pray for another 100 Murray's before one more 'hit and hope' (as I see it) Del Potro - but that's me. Note, the fact that I dislike Del Potro's play does not result in me carrying out a character assassination (and like Andy he's not perfect). I've no interest in going "see I told you Player D was no good and here's my proof - he biggies himself up at press conferences!!". How pathetic of anyone to think that this might go down as mature debate!!


"Aren't you bored of this hopeless hope that someday he will win a slam and even go on to be multiple slammer?"

No. I'm a Tennis fan. I hope to see him and Nole dominate the next 5 years - just so fans of both players can have a wry smile on their face as they remember the constant 'bear baiting' both got up to January 2011


"Murray made his comments, hawkeye read it and he wants to discuss about it. And that's it. If you don't like the keyboard warriors to do this, you can be the keyboard opera. You agree with Murray's words doesn't mean everyone has to. You are just feeling bad because your favorite player makes comments that that allows people to make a mockery of him and you feel ashamed to be on the side of such a player. And you trying to shut them off. Anyway who asked you to be on his side. If you feel bad, its your choice. You can always change it"

What are you on? Hawkeye did a 'Sun' exclusive!! i.e. highlighted the bits that would make Murray look bad and you of course lapped it up


"Anytime anything is brought out which is not a song celebrating Murray's greatness, some people start to feel the heat in their bottoms"

Balderdash!! Lydian is no 'card carrying' Andy fan, neither is Bogbrush - but both manage to come across as professional in their criticism of them, i.e there is a constructive argument to Bogbrush's assertion that Andy struggles against the Top 3 at Slams. Plus both have the grace to acknowledge his good play.

No. None of us have the slightest issue with criticism of Andy that is based on good Tennis knowledge. What we don't like and I feel sorry for you if you think it's fair game, is the ridiculous words taken out of context that actually mean nothing in the fist place


Now if you can show me where Andy slates any of his three peers by suggesting that he is demonstrably better than them, I'll join in the criticism. Until then I suggest you and VMP "Cool it down"

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Hmm........... It's been a while since I have posted but I see nothing has changed. Same article, different day from HE.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable interview if you aren't lifting individual lines out of context as in the OP (quite a habit for HE). At least we could see the full interview in the link and LF put it back into context nicely.

Okay please share your opinion and its basis on the matter? Do you agree with Murray that he would have been a multi-slam winner with 7-8 slams if Roger, Nadal and Djo wouldn't have been around?

vitriolic much ROTLA??

As previously stated Murray gave reasonable answers to the questions asked giving clear credit to others as he usually does. As to whether he would have won seven or eight without the other three, who knows? He has consistently been fourth ranked for several years so is the obvious candidate without those three. In the context of the interview though he is saying that, although he could have won seven or eight without them, he is very happy to play against arguably the best players ever. A little thing called context.

banbrotam wrote:raiders_of_the_lost_ark"

"Aren't you bored of Murray's such comments? He has this habit of blowing his trumpet all the time"

No he doesn't. Unless you can show me where he called a press conference and started telling everyone who great he was. You seem to have no idea of context, i.e. it's amazingly naive to cherry pick a comment out of context

Yes he does. If you can't see/read/hear it, its not your fault... nor mine.

banbrotam wrote: "Aren't you bored of Murray pusher-wait-for-errors style of play?"

You see this is the problem. Now we're actually debating his style of play, which is fine. You don't like it, which is fine. I actually think his style is brilliant and I would pray for another 100 Murray's before one more 'hit and hope' (as I see it) Del Potro - but that's me. Note, the fact that I dislike Del Potro's play does not result in me carrying out a character assassination (and like Andy he's not perfect). I've no interest in going "see I told you Player D was no good and here's my proof - he biggies himself up at press conferences!!". How pathetic of anyone to think that this might go down as mature debate!!

I'm not debating any style of play. I'm just asking are you bored of it or not? That's all. If you are not, keep that with you.

banbrotam wrote: "Aren't you bored of this hopeless hope that someday he will win a slam and even go on to be multiple slammer?"

No. I'm a Tennis fan. I hope to see him and Nole dominate the next 5 years - just so fans of both players can have a wry smile on their face as they remember the constant 'bear baiting' both got up to January 2011

Oh.. so you trying to be a tennis fan by wishing that Nole and Murray to dominate for next 5 years so that their fans will have wry smile? Do you think you are a tennis fan because you are a fan of Nole and Murray?? Do you think everyone is a fan of Nole or Murray? What about fans of other players. I'm a Gulbis fan and I would love to see him beat Murray and Nole in all their future encounters.

banbrotam wrote: "Murray made his comments, hawkeye read it and he wants to discuss about it. And that's it. If you don't like the keyboard warriors to do this, you can be the keyboard opera. You agree with Murray's words doesn't mean everyone has to. You are just feeling bad because your favorite player makes comments that that allows people to make a mockery of him and you feel ashamed to be on the side of such a player. And you trying to shut them off. Anyway who asked you to be on his side. If you feel bad, its your choice. You can always change it"

What are you on? Hawkeye did a 'Sun' exclusive!! i.e. highlighted the bits that would make Murray look bad and you of course lapped it up

Just say what you have to say, don't try to put what others are up for. If you agree with Murray being a multi-slammer in another era, lets talk on that.

banbrotam wrote: "Anytime anything is brought out which is not a song celebrating Murray's greatness, some people start to feel the heat in their bottoms"

Balderdash!! Lydian is no 'card carrying' Andy fan, neither is Bogbrush - but both manage to come across as professional in their criticism of them, i.e there is a constructive argument to Bogbrush's assertion that Andy struggles against the Top 3 at Slams. Plus both have the grace to acknowledge his good play.

No. None of us have the slightest issue with criticism of Andy that is based on good Tennis knowledge. What we don't like and I feel sorry for you if you think it's fair game, is the ridiculous words taken out of context that actually mean nothing in the fist place


Now if you can show me where Andy slates any of his three peers by suggesting that he is demonstrably better than them, I'll join in the criticism. Until then I suggest you and VMP "Cool it down"

I'm not lydian nor BB nor do I want to be. I can be myself and happy to be myself. I didn't criticize Murray here for anything. I just think these comments are stupid and I love to mock at them because this is how such comments will always be taken. Counting chickens before they hatch will always make you a laughing stalk. If Murray can't understand it, why is it my fault. If you have a problem with people mocking it, I have already given the solution. Stop being such a ardent die-hard Murray fan, it will never be easy to defend such a big-mouth. Its your choice, after all.

If you want to use you tennis knowledge, good. Use it to answer this. Do you agree with Murray that he would have been a multi slam winner with 7-8 slams in another era? If yes which era would that be??

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

"Aren't you bored of Murray's such comments? He has this habit of blowing his trumpet all the time"

No he doesn't. Unless you can show me where he called a press conference and started telling everyone who great he was. You seem to have no idea of context, i.e. it's amazingly naive to cherry pick a comment out of context

Yes he does. If you can't see/read/hear it, its not your fault... nor mine.

I would also like to see clear evidence of this, if any exists.

carrieg4 wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Hmm........... It's been a while since I have posted but I see nothing has changed. Same article, different day from HE.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable interview if you aren't lifting individual lines out of context as in the OP (quite a habit for HE). At least we could see the full interview in the link and LF put it back into context nicely.

Okay please share your opinion and its basis on the matter? Do you agree with Murray that he would have been a multi-slam winner with 7-8 slams if Roger, Nadal and Djo wouldn't have been around?

vitriolic much ROTLA??

As previously stated Murray gave reasonable answers to the questions asked giving clear credit to others as he usually does. As to whether he would have won seven or eight without the other three, who knows? He has consistently been fourth ranked for several years so is the obvious candidate without those three. In the context of the interview though he is saying that, although he could have won seven or eight without them, he is very happy to play against arguably the best players ever. A little thing called context.

Don't beat around the bush trying to explain what he said, what he actually meant etc etc. These are the clear words "If they hadn't have been around then I could have won seven or eight Grand Slams".

So answer the question if you want to. So do you agree with it and what is your basis? And which era would that be?

carrieg4 wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
"Aren't you bored of Murray's such comments? He has this habit of blowing his trumpet all the time"

No he doesn't. Unless you can show me where he called a press conference and started telling everyone who great he was. You seem to have no idea of context, i.e. it's amazingly naive to cherry pick a comment out of context

Yes he does. If you can't see/read/hear it, its not your fault... nor mine.

I would also like to see clear evidence of this, if any exists.

Evidence exists. Just look for hawkeye's posts here on 606v2. Most of them would be about Murray's big talks. And he even shares links most of the time.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
"Aren't you bored of Murray's such comments? He has this habit of blowing his trumpet all the time"

No he doesn't. Unless you can show me where he called a press conference and started telling everyone who great he was. You seem to have no idea of context, i.e. it's amazingly naive to cherry pick a comment out of context

Yes he does. If you can't see/read/hear it, its not your fault... nor mine.

I'm not bothering reading the rest of your reply, simply becasue you've already misread my first comment. Are you really telling us that Murray called the press conference to tell us how much better he was than everyone else? If so can you tell me why it didn't even register on the Beeb's news radio network

Until you understand the point I'm making then it's pointless continuing as you obviously don't seem to get that comments like these are all about 'context'

No doubt you take any newspaper headline to form your opinions on people. Very worrying indeed - given that you are one of many who do this

ROTLA

HE has never managed to find an undisputable quote in context yet......Not for lack of effort in her part mind.

Where exacly in the interview does he say he could have won 7 or 8 in another era? He says he could have won them if the top three hadn't been around but is a better player because he is plays against them.

So I did answer the question.

"He says he could have won them if the top three hadn't been around but is a better player"

WOW!! What a conceited comment to make. How dare the multi-title winning Scot dare say this

He of course should be saying "I'm not really in the same league as the Top 3 and will never win a slam and never would have done even if they weren't around as I'm useless"

banbrotam wrote:"He says he could have won them if the top three hadn't been around but is a better player"

WOW!! What a conceited comment to make. How dare the multi-title winning Scot dare say this

He of course should be saying "I'm not really in the same league as the Top 3 and will never win a slam and never would have done even if they weren't around as I'm useless"

I know it is outrageous isn't it?

Hey guys that is one sad dude that really needs help judging by his posts!

sportslover wrote:Hey guys that is one sad dude that really needs help judging by his posts!

He certainly has a bee in his bonnet about Murray...............Oh well each to their own. I find it sad that some seem to expend so much energy trying to bash players (any players) and, certainly in this case, failing. If you don't like someone then fine but don't go on about it ad nauseum.

banbrotam wrote:
I'm not bothering reading the rest of your reply, simply becasue you've already misread my first comment. Are you really telling us that Murray called the press conference to tell us how much better he was than everyone else? If so can you tell me why it didn't even register on the Beeb's news radio network

I never said Murray called any press conference for say such things. But I think you seem to be trying to say that Murray didn't actually say those. I see a line in the interview that goes like this:

"If they hadn't have been around then I could have won seven or eight Grand Slams".

Now what did the interviewer ask Murray? Did the interviewer ask Murray would he have won any slams in absence of Roger, nadal and Djo? Did the interviewer ask him how many slams would he have won in their absence? No the question was simply this:

Are you pleased or do you feel unfortunate to be part of what is arguably the greatest era of tennis ever?

So why did he have to bring this 7-8 slams in here. He himself chose to blow out his trumpet in full throttle about winning 7-8 slams when the matter of fact is a guy 2 years younger than him, ranked always lower than him, won far less tournaments than him ( 0 masters level actually ) has actaully won a slam beating both Nadal and Roger on the way. Why would Murray think that just because Roger, Nadal or Djo (who even till now has only won 5 slams and not 7-8) wouldn't have been around such a player wouldn't be beating Murray. This is arrogance and foolish to think that just because he is ranked 4th, he would most certainly have beaten everyone below him. He seems to have forgotten his losses to some lower ranked players. He seems to have forgotten how he barely scarped out wins in many Slams against lower ranked players.

This is talking far too much and looks like an excuse for his failures. You may buy this excuse, I chose not to. You may not like to mock such a big mouth, I may like to. If you have a problem with my mocking Murray's comments, what can I do if Murray can't stop making such comments?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:what can I do if Murray can't stop making such comments?

Read them properly in context?? Just a suggestion that may save you a lot of time and typing.

sportslover wrote:Hey guys that is one sad dude that really needs help judging by his posts!

Not sad. Why should I be? I'm not a Murray fan.

carrieg4 wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:what can I do if Murray can't stop making such comments?

Read them properly in context?? Just a suggestion that may save you a lot of time and typing.

You too carrieg4. You too. And I don't mind typing. I enjoy it with some good music.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:what can I do if Murray can't stop making such comments?

Read them properly in context?? Just a suggestion that may save you a lot of time and typing.

You too carrieg4. You too. And I don't mind typing. I enjoy it with some good music.

I do ROTLA, it is you who appears unable read things in context. Oh well, enjoy the tennis.

carrieg4 wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:what can I do if Murray can't stop making such comments?

Read them properly in context?? Just a suggestion that may save you a lot of time and typing.

You too carrieg4. You too. And I don't mind typing. I enjoy it with some good music.

I do ROTLA, it is you who appears unable read things in context. Oh well, enjoy the tennis.

You too carrieg4

I'd enjoy it more if Fleming / Hutchins (Heming, Flutchins not sure there is a good concatenation of those two names) remembered that they are meant to be winning this match!

I'm glad someone posted this article!

I also came accross this a couple of days ago and couldn't quite believe what I was reading!

Of course Murray would have outclassed Pete Samprass on super fast surfaces, beaten Borg with a wooden raquet and would have been too much for Agassi on any surface if only he were around in the nineties!

They said the same about Henman and the fact he would have won two or three Wimbledons if it weren't for Sampras yet when Sampras waned in the early part of the century Henman could still not win it.

Having read what I did I really think Murray is losing it.

The question asked was:-

Are you pleased or do you feel unfortunate to be part of what is arguably the greatest era of tennis ever?

Andy replied:-

I think that it has definitely made me a better player. Hopefully the other guys have also seen things from my game that they have tried to copy as well. Roger obviously set the bar incredibly high and because of that Rafa improved a lot. And then Novak, was going through similar things as I've been going through and then he made his break. Hopefully one day it will be me setting the bar. But people do judge you on what you win and I've won 20-odd titles, and in that respect I could have won more.

If they hadn't have been around then I could have won seven or eight Grand Slams, but still not have been as good a player, so it just depends on how you view it. I've been in the top four now for five years and if that had been in another sport, say boxing, then I would have been world champion for all time. I play against these guys every week and that's what you want - to test yourself against the best. I have a good record over all these guys, so I can say I've beaten two of the greatest players of all time and in Novak - he probably had the greatest year in tennis last year. So I think I've been lucky to be in this era.

So where does he say he'd beat Borg, Sampras, Laver, Connors etcv etc etc?