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

by hawkeye Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:25 pm

First topic message reminder :

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...

by CaledonianCraig Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:24 am

So the title in this topic straight away is mis-quoting Andy and sums up basically the OP.

by Super D Boon Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:28 am

CaledonianCraig wrote: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?

It doesn't but by saying he would have won 7-8 slams then it's pretty implicit that he believes he's better than any of the past greats as there have been great players in every era of the sport so at what point in history does Murray believe he's winning 7-8 slams? If he's winning this many slams he's beating the past greats and beating them often. He's also somehow found a way to not perform so poorly in Grand Slam finals as well by the sounds of it!

by Guest Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:42 am

Super D Boon wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote: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?

It doesn't but by saying he would have won 7-8 slams then it's pretty implicit that he believes he's better than any of the past greats as there have been great players in every era of the sport so at what point in history does Murray believe he's winning 7-8 slams? If he's winning this many slams he's beating the past greats and beating them often. He's also somehow found a way to not perform so poorly in Grand Slam finals as well by the sounds of it!

I dont understand. Murray isnt talking about playing in a different era and winning 7 or 8 slams. He says if Rafa, Nole & Federer were not around then he could have 7 or 8 slams. Unless im missing something?

by Guest Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:47 am

Its like Arsenal saying if there was no Man Utd & no Chelsea they could have won the premiership 4 or 5 times. What's wrong with saying that? Absolutely nothing in my book. But hey ho, if it keeps the Murray haters happy and something for them to pick fault at who am I to argue.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:50 am

No not at all. He is saying if the top three weren't around he could have won seven or eight. Now it is safe to assume that is like saying a player of 15 to 20 years ago (say the world No.4) could have been a multi-slam winner if there hadn't of been Sampas, Agassi and Becker around. Nothing ground-breaking or arrogant in that.

Just akin to Chelsea fans saying they could have won 5 or 10 league titles if Man. United or Arsenal hadn't been around lately.

by sportslover Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:59 am

Whatever next - It like saying if it wasn't for all the other tour players being available Goodall or Evans might even qualify for a tour event and possibly win a 250.

Still wouldn't happen Sad

by Super D Boon Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:10 am

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.

It depends how you interpret it but to me he's saying that Roger, Rafa, Nole are that good and have set the bar so high that they've made him a better player for it but if they weren't around he'd have been a multi-slam winning inferior player?? These are strange comments.

He seems to imply that the top 3 are the best ever so with him trailing slightly in fourth by definition he must be one of the best players ever as well, despite never winning a slam? This is why I deduce that Murray seems to think he would be a multi slam winning superstar at any other point in history.

Given that his game lacks any real attacking flare, he has no major weapons in his arsenal and he's found wanting on three occasions in slam finals I can't see how he gets the better of any of the recent great names such as Sampras, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Muster, Rafter etc etc .

It reminds me a lot of Henman's musings from the 90s where he felt time had dealt him a cruel blow to be born around the same time as Sampras yet when the opportunities arose to strike he failed to do so. Murray I feel would be placed around 4/5 at any point in recent history.

by reckoner Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:12 am

isn't this article just meant to be a bit of light hearted fun? Unless I'm missing something I haven't seen any hating going on?

by Guest Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:22 am

Super D Boon wrote:
He seems to imply that the top 3 are the best ever so with him trailing slightly in fourth by definition he must be one of the best players ever as well, despite never winning a slam? This is why I deduce that Murray seems to think he would be a multi slam winning superstar at any other point in history.

No, he is simply saying if there was no Rafa, Nole & Federer he would have multi slams. Its not that difficult to understand.

by Super D Boon Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:26 am

Judging by the comments on this thread and the articel's thread I am not the only one who interprets it as stated.

by reckoner Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:26 am

Yeah, Murray doesn't say anything like "I'm better than Laver" at all...

by Jahu Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:15 am

All you lot, get off Andy's back. Nothing to see here, move along.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:19 pm

Jahu wrote:All you lot, get off Andy's back.

Why? So that you can then climb on his back??? I know you love Andy more than anyone, but that doesn't mean you won't let others ride his back. ha ha ha Laugh

by Jahu Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:26 pm

Hihihi, no I don't love him, but there is too much riding on his weak back these days Laugh

by **laverfan** Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:05 am

Jahu wrote:Hihihi, no I don't love him, but there is too much riding on his weak back these days

Bit unfair, Jahu.

by Sponsored content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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