Just Imagine If Murray Had 5 Slams And Djokovic Had None

Murray and Djokovic are so close in age. I think Djokovic is just two weeks younger. Djokovic won his first slam way back in 2008 at the age of 20 but for a few years this achievement was downplayed by the British media. We were told that Murray was the superior talent and that it was only a question of time before Murray would win multiple slams. If Djokovic maintained a ranking of 3 ahead of Murray that was just a number. All the talk was of the "Big Four" and Murray was considered equally if not more entitled to be there as Djokovic. In fact I often got the impression that to the British media Djokovic was just an inconveniance and they sort of wished he would just disappear. They wanted to talk about Federer, Nadal and Murray. In fact it used to make me laugh when I saw promotional photographs with just these three players. They really did make Djokovic disappear...

Move on to 2011 and 2012 and it's impossible to make Djokovic disapear! Now we hear more about their similarities. If Djokovic can win slams of course that means Murray can. Still the talk is of the "big four".

But imagine if it had been Murray who had won a slam at 20 and then another 4 over the last year or so. Imagine if Murray had been number three all those years and was now a clear number one. Imagine if the Serbian Djokovic was in Murrays place in the rankings.

Would we be talking about "big four" or "big three"? Or maybe we would be talking about the greatest player of all time....? I doubt we would be seeing much of Djokovic.

What about if Dale Winton had won 5 slams, Peter Andre 7 golf majors and Lancashire Cricket Club had won the superbowl?

What would we be talking about then?

Thats British media for you, can't help it.

If murray had won 5 slams at the stage in this career I think he would be regarded as the greatest sportsman in britain. Either way I always believed and still do that Novak is qualitatively better than murray eventhough stylistically they have a number of similarities to their game. I think the biggest difference between the two is mentality. Not that murray is weak or lacks game or mentally is deficient. Novak always struck me as more confident and assertive player and person than murray. He is maybe just a little bit tougher of competitor than murray, although i don't think Andy is the basket case that a lot of his critics try to make him. He would not have accomplished all he has in the game if he wasn't tough and mentally strong.

I cannot disagree with any of that socal.

Yeah Craig, Murray is there in terms of talent and game, and it isn't like he is weak. But right now he has to contend with 3 very special competitors. And Andy to me strikes me as a more private and low key guy. Maybe that tiny bit of hunger and belief is the difference between the two.

Exactly socal. Which is what I have been saying for years. The analogy people make with Murray is that he has failed for not winning a slam and that is akin to calling Arsenal a rubbish or average football team despite being consistent challengers for the Premier League, or Jimmy White a flop in snooker even though he is regarded as a legend of the game without winning a world title.

Tennis is very unfair like that everyone ranked number 2 on down has some sort of terrible deficiency according to the online peanut gallery. At this point in time murray is close but just fighting some serious competition for the slams. I don't think any three players have monopolized slams to this extent for such an extended period of time. I think Fed, nadal, and Djoko have won 32 of the last 36 slams that doesn't leave a lot of trophies out there for other players.

Lots of comparison with Djokovic in this Murray interview by Frost here

Don't think it contains any startling revelations, and the main headline is oddly outdated in as much as it relates to the scenario of around 12 months ago (shock horror.... tabloid paper uses misleading headline )

But then again, is there really that much new to be said or learnt in these sort of 'generalised' interviews with Murray....??

The final - and very honest - quote from Andy himself is
"Your performances in the Grand Slams are how guys are judged now".

Which pretty much sums it all up I guess.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2135693/Andy-Murray-Why-I-gone-playing-best-tennis-life-worst.html

Imagine all the people.....

Not only do I wish Murray to win a Slam, but I hope he can leave a legacy which will inspire youngsters not choose football, but tennis. I think a lot of fans are not encouraged by the discipline that Murray imposes on himself. I just think that sometimes he does not get the praise he deserves for his professionalism and commitment to the sport and his performance levels.

I agree somewhat Socal. However, to boil it down to just the mental aspect and hunger/desire is do Novak an injustice whilst heralding Murray more than he deserves.

The truth is that Murray has a couple of significant weaknesses in his game that can be taken advantage of; the second serve and the flaky FH.

I agree on the serve side of things but not so sure about the forehand.

At the beginning of the clay season I was convinced that Murray was able the build on the progress shown during the past year, especially in Rome and MC where he got very close to challenge Djokovic and Nadal. I am now very much less so. Not only did show up the old Murray, a passive and inconclusive player who struggles to dictate points and rely mainly on UEs gifted by his opponents, but even the level of belief in himself seems not really great to say the least.

It just strikes me as rather odd that the commentators still insist on the "big 4".

Murray might have it within him to win at least one slam and, if he does, then it is the big 4. Otherwise it's the top 3 with Murray leading the pack to try and pick up the scraps they leave behind. Whether or not that generousity includes a slam or two is debatable though. Doesn't make Andy poor; more a case of the top 3 being consistently better when it counts.

Agree newballs...at the end of the day "water finds its own level"...and for Murray its a case that he's just not as good as the top 3...no disgrace there as they have 31(!) majors between them. When the others dont take events like Masters as seriously he gets a shout (...won 8) but in slams the others tend to have his number. But the odds are that surely the stars will align in 1 major to come where a couple of top seeds fall earlier, or injury, or they just play badly...he's going to be unlucky if he finishes his career major-less given there have been many players before him who were lesser players but won majors (e.g. Thomas Johansson).

However...at the moment I'm not convinced Lendl is adding much to Murray...if nothing else I thought he might make Murray mentally stronger but not seen any case of that so far. He should have better chances at the faster clay courts of Madrid and Rome though...if he loses before quarters there then you really start to wonder whats going on.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:At the beginning of the clay season I was convinced that Murray was able the build on the progress shown during the past year, especially in Rome and MC where he got very close to challenge Djokovic and Nadal. I am now very much less so. Not only did show up the old Murray, a passive and inconclusive player who struggles to dictate points and rely mainly on UEs gifted by his opponents, but even the level of belief in himself seems not really great to say the least.

I'm surprised that anyone would have high hopes of Murray on clay, and even more surprised that anyone would think his clay performances in any way reflect how good he is as a player on the rest of the tour. Do people forget that in his 6 or 7 years on the ATP that he's NEVER reached a clay final, let alone won one? This is not his surface, never has been and never will be. Last year was about as good as it will ever get IMO.

I agree with socal's comments above, whilst Murray has the tools he does seem to lack the mentality of the other 3. I guess that steely belief comes from the fact they have won slams. They also had the 'luxury' of beating Philippoussis, Puerta and Tsonga to get their first. Good players, but the likelihood is that Murray will have to beat a great player in the final to win his first.

It's been said many times before, but nonetless newballs is absolutely right to point again to consistency as a key factor here.

Murray undeniably deserves his place at number 4 ; in that sense the rankings don't lie. But the fact remains, there is a significant gap between him and the other 3. And it shows perhaps in the type of losses he has suffered in the last couple of years or so.

Nobody would ever imagine that Murray can somehow begin to start collecting Slams at the same rate the others have been doing. But Slams titles apart, he does need to find the sort of consistency they show when meeting the less experienced guys outside the very top tier

Even Federer, the old man of the quartet, has (IIRC ?) suffered just one loss in almost two years to a player outside the top 20. I'm not sure of Andy's comparative stat but I would imagine it's into double figures, or close to.

Andy had a very impressive series of results in the latter part of 2011 and that continued with a fine showing at the AO. So perhaps he's not that far off the pace. But time is marching on .... he's not really a youngster any more.

Emancipator, I agree Novak has the better forehand and second serve when compared to Andy. I think technically I would rate Novak as a bit better overrall but Andy is very close. I don't think his forehand is as much as a liability now, in my mind it is actually gotten to the point where it is a weapon although it is not as reliable as Nadal or Novak's forehand in anyway.

The thing to remember about Murray is that clearly he is by a country mile the best player to never win a slam. I would frankly rate murray higher than a lot of players that have even won two slams. This level of consistent domination of the slams by 3 players has really been unprecedent. That is why I think murray hasn't won, he hasn't had a Johannsson type draw. I don't think anyone who has watched the two would favor Johannsson over murray as a player yet one has a slam and the other doesn't. Murray simply is playing in an era that is the hardest ever to win a slam in.

The biggest technical difference between them is in the serving area...Murray's 2nd serve is still a liability to him against top players. On the other side he's a better volleyer than Novak...but the serve is a more important shot for obvious reasons. I would also say Novak's shots are more solid than Andy's under pressure...Novak doesnt really use stretch shortening cycles on his shots so there's less to break down (one of the reasons he has remarkable consistency off both wings) whereas Andy's uses more SSC, partic. on his FH.

But he's close....if his 2nd serve was alot stronger he would be much harder to beat for the top 3 but as it is they can really attack his service games...so Andy has to hope to have a very high 1st serve % match when facing them or else he's generally in trouble just off that alone.

yes for me as well it is Murray's second serve that is his biggest weakness. The forehand usually he hits pretty well, it will break down in some bad moments though. But the second serve is the biggest thing that his opponents look to attack. Novak has a better second serve for sure.

Still I think Murray would probably have a slam or two already in another era. But unfortunately 3 players have won basically every slam for nearly a decade.

I like Murray but his standard is overrated. That 2nd serve, the technically deficient forehand; these are weaknesses that would have been torn open by many players in the past. There is simply such a dearth of decent #5-20 players on the whole that he gets by.

Look at Ferrer: a guy aged 30 who never won a thing yet pushes Nadal all the way yesterday and is deep into the top 10. It's ridiculous.

Raonic showed what a clean heavy hitter does to Murray, and on clay. There may be hope for something other than ping pong in the future.

Think that's a little harsh on Ferrer BB, he's won 3 titles this year, 4 times finalist at Barcelona and in any other era might have had 4 titles there if not for likely greatest ever player on clay facing him. He's gone deep at most majors and won a lot of titles....a thoroughly decent top 10 player to me in any era. It's a credit to him, not a negative to Nadal, that Ferrer pushed him hard yesterday and probably played the clay match of his life...but still came up short on the key moments - no disgrace, beating Nadal on clay is probably the toughest challenge in sport.

Yes Raonic showed Murray...but he couldn't show Ferrer
I for one don't want to see clay speeded up but accept other surfaces have slowed a little too much.
And I wouldn't assume Raonic will suddenly start raking up titles if they created faster surfaces...it's a double edged sword...the faster the surface, the faster movement that's needed...and big guys at 6'5 haven't tended to win that much at majors or Masters in the 90s.

bogbrush wrote:I like Murray but his standard is overrated. That 2nd serve, the technically deficient forehand; these are weaknesses that would have been torn open by many players in the past. There is simply such a dearth of decent #5-20 players on the whole that he gets by.

Look at Ferrer: a guy aged 30 who never won a thing yet pushes Nadal all the way yesterday and is deep into the top 10. It's ridiculous.

Raonic showed what a clean heavy hitter does to Murray, and on clay. There may be hope for something other than ping pong in the future.

Hmm so his standard is over-rated but then doesn't that equally make Federer et al standards over-rated then? The fact that Ferrer is 30 and not won anything proves how tough an era this is to play in and win notewrorthy tournament titles. Also noted how you seemingly don't rate Murray or feel he is over-rated yet here you are sticking the boot into him when he has already achieved so much more than he should of if he lacks talent.

Danny_1982 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:At the beginning of the clay season I was convinced that Murray was able the build on the progress shown during the past year, especially in Rome and MC where he got very close to challenge Djokovic and Nadal. I am now very much less so. Not only did show up the old Murray, a passive and inconclusive player who struggles to dictate points and rely mainly on UEs gifted by his opponents, but even the level of belief in himself seems not really great to say the least.

I'm surprised that anyone would have high hopes of Murray on clay, and even more surprised that anyone would think his clay performances in any way reflect how good he is as a player on the rest of the tour. Do people forget that in his 6 or 7 years on the ATP that he's NEVER reached a clay final, let alone won one? This is not his surface, never has been and never will be. Last year was about as good as it will ever get IMO.

I agree with socal's comments above, whilst Murray has the tools he does seem to lack the mentality of the other 3. I guess that steely belief comes from the fact they have won slams. They also had the 'luxury' of beating Philippoussis, Puerta and Tsonga to get their first. Good players, but the likelihood is that Murray will have to beat a great player in the final to win his first.

I see that the favourite game: find a good excuse for Murray is on again. Now you tell me: why should Murray, who is according to most of his fans so close to Djokovic, be such a great players on the hard courts and such a shame on the slow courts ......

lydian wrote:Think that's a little harsh on Ferrer BB, he's won 3 titles this year, 4 times finalist at Barcelona and in any other era might have had 4 titles there if not for likely greatest ever player on clay facing him. He's gone deep at most majors and won a lot of titles....a thoroughly decent top 10 player to me in any era. It's a credit to him, not a negative to Nadal, that Ferrer pushed him hard yesterday and probably played the clay match of his life...but still came up short on the key moments - no disgrace, beating Nadal on clay is probably the toughest challenge in sport.

Yes Raonic showed Murray...but he couldn't show Ferrer
I for one don't want to see clay speeded up but accept other surfaces have slowed a little too much.
And I wouldn't assume Raonic will suddenly start raking up titles if they created faster surfaces...it's a double edged sword...the faster the surface, the faster movement that's needed...and big guys at 6'5 haven't tended to win that much at majors or Masters in the 90s.

You clearly demonstrate with your comments that you have follow little or no tennis before Nadal. Competition on clay has been weak all over these past 10 years and the fact Ferrer is the official N.2 clay challenger is just another evidence to that statement. Would you be saying that Ferrer is better player on clay than most of the past great specialists in the open era? Better than Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Courier, Agassi, Guga, Muster or even Moya, Rios, Gomez??
I personally rate Ferrer in the class of Mantilla and Sanchez, although his career is far less shining. Not certainly a Coria or Costa or Berasategui.....

JK, what are you talking about? Yes of course I'd rate Ferrer above Borg, Lendl (a clay specialist?), Moya, Rios, Agassi...

Have you stopped to wonder why clay court tennis has been different these past 10 years? (besides Nadal dominating the surface)
Have you considered the prospect that slowing courts have homogenised the game and almost made the change to clay less relevant than previous years?
I have news for you...clay court specialists at the top of the game are an extinct species unless you get down to challenger/futures level, along with grass-court players as a specialty.
The top pros take their game to just about any surface now. This isnt the 80s or 90s when the clay guys competed on their own mini-circuit, ignoring the non-clay slams and events but dominating the French (for obvious reasons).
All the players today have to be able to compete on all surfaces due to homogeniety of speeds...its why the top 4 is so stable. And Ferrer has been a solid top 10 player for a long time now.

Lets not get carried away...but Ferrer has pushed some of these top guys really hard across all surfaces...more than Mantilla and Co. ever did with their 1-dimensional games. Ferrer got to the final of the WTF in 2007 and SF last year...point being he's not a clay-specialist! But then who is these days? Nadal? When he has won 2 grass slams, 2 HC slams? The term "clay court specialist" is a mis-nomer now...so comparisons to the 90s/80s are irrelevant. The game has moved on (or not...).
By the way....I think you'll find Federer has been just about #2 challenger on clay these past 10 years.
The point is that clay court tennis as a player speciality at top level is dead...its just a matter of who dominates slow court tennis these days....and Ferrer is playing his part in pushing the top guys across all surfaces including Nadal on clay yesterday.

lydian : good point (in fact one of many good points in your last post) that Federer - and not Ferrer - has been the most consistent challenger to Nadal's clay supremacy for several years. It's Fed who's been making all the RG Finals after all - even though, once there, he has then found the waiting Rafa a bridge too far.

Novak has just overtaken Fed in terms of clay W/L ratios (marginally) but it's interesting to note that, even after Novak's stellar 2011, Fed still has more clay titles to his name than him (and indeed than Ferrer too). But of course time is very much on Novak's side as regards collecting further titles in the months + years to come.

I agree with you that Ferrer has been a great performer on clay within the context of today's game, but also that comparisons to the 80's and 90's are inconclusive (and, ultimately, pointless even) for all the reasons you have given.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I like Murray but his standard is overrated. That 2nd serve, the technically deficient forehand; these are weaknesses that would have been torn open by many players in the past. There is simply such a dearth of decent #5-20 players on the whole that he gets by.

Look at Ferrer: a guy aged 30 who never won a thing yet pushes Nadal all the way yesterday and is deep into the top 10. It's ridiculous.

Raonic showed what a clean heavy hitter does to Murray, and on clay. There may be hope for something other than ping pong in the future.

Hmm so his standard is over-rated but then doesn't that equally make Federer et al standards over-rated then? The fact that Ferrer is 30 and not won anything proves how tough an era this is to play in and win notewrorthy tournament titles. Also noted how you seemingly don't rate Murray or feel he is over-rated yet here you are sticking the boot into him when he has already achieved so much more than he should of if he lacks talent.

I don't see what Federer has to do with Murray being over-rated.

Some confusion here......

@ Lydian and Lags: I would suggest to make up own opinions rather than take what Simon Reed and Barry Cowel say for granted.

- The fact Lendl and Wilander, two of the best clay courtes in their age won so much on hard courts should tell something to whom insists tennis is now radically different, totally changed or maybe a completely different sport nowadays. Also seems to remember Borg won at Wimbledon and RG, wasn't Borg a clay courter? The fact that the great defensive players could adapt to other surfaces is not new, it seems. On the contrary many attacking players found it hard to win on clay, especially at RG, like it seems to me, it happened to Fed during his whole career.

The fact that a non-clay specialist like Federer has performed even better than Ferrer on clay says it all.

CC - I have a lot of respect for Murray, but I'm really not sure it helps your argument and (understandable) defence of him to drag Federer into a discussion as to whether Murray may (or may not) be 'over-rated', as though Federer's own particular standards offer some sort of parallel comparison.

When all said & done, these are two very different players. I think the question of whether Andy is over-rated or not is open to debate, there are views on both sides. But equally it's fair to say that it's a lot, lot harder to over-rate a player whose CV includes a total of 16 Slams and several years spent at World No. 1 .......

JK - a lot more confusion on your part than mine methinks !

I'm more interested in actual achievements as evidenced by performance on court and accurately recorded stats than the opinion of pundits

You do yourself an injustice in imagining for one moment that I somehow show anything but the most casual attention to comments made by the likes of Simon Reed and Barry Cowan. (not 'Cowel' by the way - I think you might be mixing him up with the X Factor man....). But interesting to note that these are the names on the tip of your tongue Perhaps you're a big fan of theirs..... ?

lags72 wrote:CC - I have a lot of respect for Murray, but I'm really not sure it helps your argument and (understandable) defence of him to drag Federer into a discussion as to whether Murray may (or may not) be 'over-rated', as though Federer's own particular standards offer some sort of parallel comparison.

When all said & done, these are two very different players. I think the question of whether Andy is over-rated or not is open to debate, there are views on both sides. But equally it's fair to say that it's a lot, lot harder to over-rate a player whose CV includes a total of 16 Slams and several years spent at World No. 1 .......

lags72 wrote:JK - a lot more confusion on your part than mine methinks !

I'm more interested in actual achievements as evidenced by performance on court and accurately recorded stats than the opinion of pundits

You do yourself an injustice in imagining for one moment that I somehow show anything but the most casual attention to comments made by the likes of Simon Reed and Barry Cowan. (not 'Cowel' by the way - I think you might be mixing him up with the X Factor man....). But interesting to note that these are the names on the tip of your tongue Perhaps you're a big fan of theirs..... ?

Well, sort of, I listen to them for a good laugh, similarly................

@ JK....I cant even recall one of Reed or Cowan's opinions as I dont pay them credence.

So just what are you arguing about here? We all know how good Lendl, Borg and Wilander are...legends of the game. So whats your point here - that great talent transcends surface type...well yes it does. But how many guys on tour in Open Era win 7+ slams? They're rarities. No one in their right mind would be comparing Ferrer to them. That's a given.

But then again why do you label Lendl a claycourter when he's the HC and Indoor king? Similarly Borg had an amazing career on grass and carpet. Why is he a "claycourter"? I also wouldnt call Lendl or Borg particularly defensive players, certainly not Lendl. Is that your definition of claycourter - a defensive player? I wouldnt call Guga a defensive player for a start.

Tennis is radically different today than the game they played. Technology, training, surfaces, balls, etc. Today someone with the same game can dominate (or even do well across) all surfaces without changing technique much. But with that comes increased competition - Ferrer has held a solid top 10 position for a long time now and has some very good wins and runs. But outside the current top 4 hardly anyone is winning majors or Masters - guys like Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, etc, seem to be almost fighting over whats left.

Federer is a bad example seen as the guy was brought up on clay! I wouldnt assume all spaniards are either - Verdasco learnt most of his tennis on hardcourt. But more than that, Federer is just simply a better player, irrespective of surface...as said above talent is talent and the greats find ways to find across most surfaces. That said Federer is clearly very comfortable on clay as his results show at, for example, snail-slow Hamburg.

Anyway...the simple point here is why should Ferrer be judged a relative a weak player? For me, he's a very worthy top 10 player who played arguably the match of his life on clay yesterday to really push Nadal close and LK has just shown he's got an excellent record this year in defending service breaks. As a benchmark surely we all agree that Nadal would have been a formidable challenge on clay in any era...against Lendl, Wilander, Borg (who says Nadal is the best ever on clay)...so Ferrer's performance yesterday surely doesnt need to be qualified or justified?

lydian wrote:Think that's a little harsh on Ferrer BB, he's won 3 titles this year, 4 times finalist at Barcelona and in any other era might have had 4 titles there if not for likely greatest ever player on clay facing him.

.

Just to clarify the point in discussion.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: I personally rate Ferrer in the class of Mantilla and Sanchez...

And Mantilla and Sanchez both won Barcelona!
So in your own words Ferrer was capable of winning Barcelona - precisely my point!
Unlike Ferrer, Sanchez or Mantilla didnt have multi-surface, multi-slam champions such as Nadal, Wilander, Lendl or Borg to try and topple.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:At the beginning of the clay season I was convinced that Murray was able the build on the progress shown during the past year, especially in Rome and MC where he got very close to challenge Djokovic and Nadal. I am now very much less so. Not only did show up the old Murray, a passive and inconclusive player who struggles to dictate points and rely mainly on UEs gifted by his opponents, but even the level of belief in himself seems not really great to say the least.

I'm surprised that anyone would have high hopes of Murray on clay, and even more surprised that anyone would think his clay performances in any way reflect how good he is as a player on the rest of the tour. Do people forget that in his 6 or 7 years on the ATP that he's NEVER reached a clay final, let alone won one? This is not his surface, never has been and never will be. Last year was about as good as it will ever get IMO.

I agree with socal's comments above, whilst Murray has the tools he does seem to lack the mentality of the other 3. I guess that steely belief comes from the fact they have won slams. They also had the 'luxury' of beating Philippoussis, Puerta and Tsonga to get their first. Good players, but the likelihood is that Murray will have to beat a great player in the final to win his first.

I see that the favourite game: find a good excuse for Murray is on again. Now you tell me: why should Murray, who is according to most of his fans so close to Djokovic, be such a great players on the hard courts and such a shame on the slow courts ......

Err, what? How is this finding an excuse? Essentially, my post listed the following things:

Murray is nowhere near as good on clay as on hard and grass
Murray has reached 0 finals on clay
Murray lacks the steely mentality of the three players above him
Murray is likely to have to beat a great player to win a slam

Please tell me which of these you think is untrue or an excuse?

"Now you tell me: why should Murray, who is according to most of his fans so close to Djokovic, be such a great players on the hard courts and such a shame on the slow courts"

I assume you mean clay courts rather than slow courts? As Murray is very good on a slow hard court. He isn't as good on clay because he moves nowhere near as well on clay, in my opinion.

He's not the first top player who can't do it on a certain surface. One of the greatest players ever had very little success on clay, Pete Samprass.

Danny_1982 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:At the beginning of the clay season I was convinced that Murray was able the build on the progress shown during the past year, especially in Rome and MC where he got very close to challenge Djokovic and Nadal. I am now very much less so. Not only did show up the old Murray, a passive and inconclusive player who struggles to dictate points and rely mainly on UEs gifted by his opponents, but even the level of belief in himself seems not really great to say the least.

I'm surprised that anyone would have high hopes of Murray on clay, and even more surprised that anyone would think his clay performances in any way reflect how good he is as a player on the rest of the tour. Do people forget that in his 6 or 7 years on the ATP that he's NEVER reached a clay final, let alone won one? This is not his surface, never has been and never will be. Last year was about as good as it will ever get IMO.

I agree with socal's comments above, whilst Murray has the tools he does seem to lack the mentality of the other 3. I guess that steely belief comes from the fact they have won slams. They also had the 'luxury' of beating Philippoussis, Puerta and Tsonga to get their first. Good players, but the likelihood is that Murray will have to beat a great player in the final to win his first.

I see that the favourite game: find a good excuse for Murray is on again. Now you tell me: why should Murray, who is according to most of his fans so close to Djokovic, be such a great players on the hard courts and such a shame on the slow courts ......

Err, what? How is this finding an excuse? Essentially, my post listed the following things:

Murray is nowhere near as good on clay as on hard and grass
Murray has reached 0 finals on clay
Murray lacks the steely mentality of the three players above him
Murray is likely to have to beat a great player to win a slam

Please tell me which of these you think is untrue or an excuse?

"Now you tell me: why should Murray, who is according to most of his fans so close to Djokovic, be such a great players on the hard courts and such a shame on the slow courts"

I assume you mean clay courts rather than slow courts? As Murray is very good on a slow hard court. He isn't as good on clay because he moves nowhere near as well on clay, in my opinion.

He's not the first top player who can't do it on a certain surface. One of the greatest players ever had very little success on clay, Pete Samprass.

Sampras did not perform well on clay because his weapons were less effective on the slow surfaces. I still don't get why Murray should not be able to perform on clay as well as on the other surfaces given that:

- he is mainly a defensive player and a counter puncher, imo has the kind of game who is needed to perform on clay and on the slow courts in general.

- he is a fast mover and a strong man, qualities which are essential nowadays to sustain long and wearing rallies, which are more likely to happen on slow surfaces/clay.

- he doesn't move well on clay is purely your opinion, which I am not inclined to support. Whatching Murray play recently there was the impression he has had problems on his Serve and on the FH side, mainly, rather than on his ability to defend.

Movement is vitally important to Murray's game. When he moves well, he plays well. He only ever plays anywhere near his attacking capabilities when he moves well. On clay his movement is laboured more often than not, and he rarely goes for his shots like he does on a hard court.

He hot more winners than Novak in that AO semi, and most of them off the forehand, so it's not like he can't do it. The second serve is an issue on any surface, but its all about his movement on clay as far as I'm concerned.

You say he has the game for clay, yet he has 22 titles and a career high of world number 2, yet 0 finals reached on clay. Stats don't lie. He is nowhere near the same player on clay and it's all down to his movement in my opinion.

I have always wondered with his style of play why Murray does seem so deficient on clay. He is so fast and likes to play deep behind the baseline yet a game that should be prototypical on the clay is inexplicably really weak on clay.

His second serve is the big technical flaw if there is one that should be addressed. The forehand is more up and down but he does he hit some great shots and when on his forehand can be pretty lethal. The big hindrance is that second serve that puts him under all kinds of pressure in big matches.

"Just Imagine If Murray Had 5 Slams And Djokovic Had None"

About as hard to imagine as Tim Henman winning Wimbledon many times beating such opponents in the semi-finals as Pete Sampras in 1998 and 1999, Goran Ivanisevic in 2001 and Lleyton Hewitt in 2002!

"Just Imagine If Murray Had 5 Slams And Djokovic Had None"

Just imagine if Sampras had a weak serve.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

"Just Imagine If Murray Had 5 Slams And Djokovic Had None"

Just imagine if Sampras had a weak serve.

He would be Tim Henman in disguise!

This is an interesting thesis but seems to be based on some slightly flawed reasoning.

First, it fails to take into account that the British public, in general, are going to be more interested in British players. It's the same in any sport. Donald, McElroy or Westwood get far more coverage than say Martin Kramer. Nothing wrong with that. No doubt djokovic has been the focus of the Serbian media for some years.

Then there is the suggestion that djokovic's 2008 Australian was downplayed. That is contrary to what I recall happening which was a suggestion that djokovic was more or less on a par with fed or nadal after that one triumph. After that triumph he briefly followed it up with masters titles in Indian wells and Rome. However, he then went into a period where he comparatively slumped. Over the next 2 1/2 year period he made no major finals and acquired two masters titles, both at the end of the season and both without having to beat one of his big 4 contemporaries (other than nadal in Paris when he was still on the recovery road from his injury). In comparison, Murray picked up 6 masters titles in that time-frame and reached 2 grand slam finals. Given that context, it would seem relatively reasonable to me that djokovic, as at the start of the us open 10 would be regarded as the slightly weaker link in the big 4. That wouldn't have been a case of downplaying his 08 triumph. Just a simple application of subsequent form since then.

The final point I guess is whether it is a big 4 or big 3. Murray is certainly currently the weakest of the big 4. However, given that he has eight masters series titles in the last four years and has reached the semis or better at the last 5 slams it would seem he is also head and shoulders above anyone else. It would therefore seem reasonable to me to talk about a big 4, in much the same way as djokovic was included in it when he wasn't winning much.

Great first post by born slippy, I mean I would agree that in 09 and 10 that there was a fair case to be made that Novak was the weak link in the top 4. I mean murray beat Djoko 3 times in a row. However here is where I used to have some contention with murray fans at the time. I told them that this had little or nothing to do with murray being a superior talent which is what they believed at the time, but instead was a reflection of the massive Corria like serving disaster that Djokovic was going through. At the time people in Murray's corner just claimed that Andy was better than Novak.

As a Djoko fan I knew that once Novak's temporary serving issues were worked out that he would be a dominant force on tour. Afterall he had the worst serve in the top 30 of any player in 2010 but yet managed to finish in the top 3. That being said i agree with a lot of other things in your post.

At the time people in Murray's corner just claimed that Andy was better than Novak.

To be honest, he was better than him before 2011. Everyone acknowledged that Novak was going to be another Gaudio, who had 1 great slam then fell off the map. Novak then improved hugely after switching to YouTek Head racquets.

Murray's wrist injuries have taken his confidence away on the forehand where he used to have Nadal and Federer in trouble. Murray also made tactical mistakes in becoming a pusher, his results are always better when he goes attacking the tramlines. He will enjoy a fruitful career as a SKY pundit though.

Well,if Murray had Djokovic's 5 Grand Slam there would be one MAJOR difference. He wouldn't be nearly as arrogant as Djokovic. Federer & Djokovic have been wrestling over that 'trophy' for years!