Murray is the greatest player to have never won a slam, what does this say about him and the era he plays in?

First topic message reminder :

For my part I am not really a murray fan in fact he is probably the last of the big 4 that i enjoy watching. That being said he is in my mind without question the best player to have never won a slam. Now many take that as a sideways compliment but I don't really mean it that way, it is still quite a statement about Murray's ability. The amount of masters and the 3 grandslam finals shows that he has grandslam level ability but lacks the trophy. Now what does that say about Murray? What does it say about the current era he is playing in?

About Murray it tells us that he is a remarkable talent, in my mind better than many players with one or two slams that have played recently. I mean he already has more masters than Safin and kafelnikov combined and many slam finals to boot. When looking back the only other player that was as good as murray and never won a slam is former short time #1 Marcelo Rios. Many others talk about Nalbandian but Murray has already lapped nalbandian in terms of total tournament wins, masters, and overral consistency in the ranking. Mecir is not even close I don't know frankly what people see in him other than he played with a wooden racquet for far too long and won a total of like 7 tournaments.
Murray is just not as good as 3 players that have monopolized a decade unlike any trio in the history of the game. Since Federer won his first slam the trio of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (since 2003) has won an outstanding 31 of the last 36 grandslams. That is an incredible statistic.

That leads us to a very pertinent question. What does that tell us about the current state of today's game. In my mind this is further evidence of the strength of top level competition in the last few years. In an era that has top down a strong core of legends represents the epitome of strong period in tennis. And murray while clearly able to separate himself from the rest of the tour has not been able to catch the other three guys or carve out his own grandslam legacy. Look at what a murderous route the world #5 would have to take to win a slam today, Tsonga or Berdy could very possibly have to beat fed in the quarter, Novak in the semi, and Nadal in the final in successive 5 set matches to win a slam. And murray is lurking there as the greatest player to have never won a slam. This is further evidence for socal's famous axiom that eras where you have a small group of top heavy talent dominating the tour is a tell tale sign of strong era. And murray being the best non-slam winner is further proof.

lydian wrote:If you compare Murray's Masters and Majors achievement, one is driven by Bo3 format, the other Bo5. My belief is that if Masters were Bo5 like they used to be then his title count would be far lower as I believe over 5 sets he's nowhere near as good at mentally toughing it out as the shorter Bo3 format. Mecir and Co had to win Masters over a much tougher format back then and not surprisingly the same guys who won the Majors tended to prevail. Otherwise, isnt the difference between Murray's TMS and Major results somewhat odd?

That was the other point i was going to make RE. the masters during the 80s being far harder to win/more comparable to slams than they are now; however i'd put so much egg into my other points that i left that one on the back burner. Very valid

emancipator wrote:I think Tom's last paragraph sums up the difficulty with making such claims, such as that in the OP.

Is Murray's superior talent reflected by his superior stats vis a vis the other non-slam winning talents or is it more as a result of playing in an era of homogenised conditions where one can play one style of game, and thus not step outside one's comfort zone, and be successful across all surfaces and tournaments?

Wrong another myth created by online posters begging to be dispensed with. They slowed the courts starting in 1999 all the way to 2002. We have had very consistent conditions in the last few years. Why didn't 2002 result in incredible consistency of 2 or 3 guys winning everything, why didn't 2003? Why have the women had the most topsy turvy and up and down results in the history of their tour with the same socalled homogenized surfaces. The quality of the top guys is what allows them the consistent results not the homogenized surface.

Additionally, this homogenized surface proponents always overstate the similarity of the surfaces with nonsense about green clay and now I guess blue grass at madrid. The surfaces and conditions are different enough from week to week. Concluding anything else is the height of irrationality. Why then would Fed win 6 slams on the green clay of wimbeldon and only win one on the red clay of Roland Garros? Why then is murray so great on hardcourt and so crap on clay?

Again life is about about balance I prefer a similar balance a little faster or a little slower compared to what we have today depending on what sells tickets and doesn't end up injuring the players. I don't want to see the kind of variety where JUan pablo whatshisname beats the world #1 on clay because he plays on the surface 12 months a year and has a total sell out clay game. The tour specialists everyone talks so glowingly about in my mind are on the whole not good for the game.

Tom_____ wrote:

lydian wrote:If you compare Murray's Masters and Majors achievement, one is driven by Bo3 format, the other Bo5. My belief is that if Masters were Bo5 like they used to be then his title count would be far lower as I believe over 5 sets he's nowhere near as good at mentally toughing it out as the shorter Bo3 format. Mecir and Co had to win Masters over a much tougher format back then and not surprisingly the same guys who won the Majors tended to prevail. Otherwise, isnt the difference between Murray's TMS and Major results somewhat odd?

That was the other point i was going to make RE. the masters during the 80s being far harder to win/more comparable to slams than they are now; however i'd put so much egg into my other points that i left that one on the back burner. Very valid

Tom, Lydian you guys are reasonable posters do you really want to push the idea that murray's success at the masters is due to its 3 set format? Come on how many finals and semis does Murray have in the slams what 15 or so at this tender age? The reason he doesn't win the slams is because at the slams fed, nadal, and djoko bring their best and sell out effort to win the slams, when those guys are that focused and prepared it makes it hard on Murray. It doesn't mean that he has some deficiency in 5 set matches. He is maybe the fittest of the big 4 if not he isn't far behind the leader.

Not sure I'm really buying the "if it were 5 sets Murray wouldn't have 8 masters". He is far far less likely to lose early in that format, as shown by his record in slams, so he would probably have made the latter stages of even more of them. The question is then is whether his record would be worse against the top 3. Personally I would say 5 sets favours him against rog and novak. You've also got to think that both rafa and Novak struggle to maintain their level over a season with three set masters. They'd both be on their knees by wimby if the masters were 5 sets.

I actually think 5 set masters would help Murray's chances in the slams. He'd have more opportunities to play the big guys in that format. When he then played them in slams it wouldn't feel so different and he'd be more likely to bring his a-game. As it stands, he clearly gets exceptionally nervous in the latter part of slams because he knows he hasn't yet won one. Anything that made it feel more like just a masters event could only help.

socal1976 wrote:They slowed the courts starting in 1999 all the way to 2002.

Links? Evidence? I don't recall any change to Wimby before 2002 (or was it 2003?) and I'm pretty sure the same is true of the USO.
Which courts started slowing in 1999 and can you provide a source?

I don't buy this theory Murray would have had less success if Masters were best of 5. Murray's issues at slams are mental. Only 3 times has he brought his best to the table against the top 3 in slams, whereas in masters he is much more confident having won so many and brings his best most of the time (apart from clay, of course). That's belief, not the different format.

I would buy it a bit more if Murray had a habit of collapsing in the 5th set in slam semis and finals against his 3 rivals, that would at least show there is a clear difference between his abilities in best of 3 and best of 5. But only 1 of his multiple semi and final slam losses would have been a win had it been best of 3, against Novak in Australia.

He's a fantastic player, but has not yet found the belief to consistently take it to the 3 great players above him in those big matches. As Born Slippy says, he gets too nervous. Melbourne was the first time in years he's played near his best in one of these matches, so I'm hopeful he's getting there.

Spot on Danny.

socal1976 wrote:[Why then is murray so great on hardcourt and so crap on clay?

Woahh there!! I like your article, I didn't say you could go writing blunt truths about Andy's current clay court efforts

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:[Why then is murray so great on hardcourt and so crap on clay?

Woahh there!! I like your article, I didn't say you could go writing blunt truths about Andy's current clay court efforts

No shame in that a lot great players are quote crap on clay. That is why they started doing away witn the specialists. Sampras crap on clay, Mac better but no where near as good on clay. I only posted this banbro because I get tired of this beating of the homogenized surfaces dead horse.

Julius, Laverfan produced a very good link that I commented on in another thread where the US Open tournament directly stated that they slowed the surfaces between 2001 and 2002 and since 2003 the surface has remained completely stable. Kind of destroying all this nonsense about ever slowing conditions. If you listen to some people by know the players should be playing on hour old cement.

I'll let Federer know; he mentioned in his on court interview yesterday how he probably gets to grips with blue clay more easily than some others because when he started in 1998 the courts were different from each other whereas now they are all much closer. But what does he know?

I dont like this surface, but it does places a premium on variety and creativity, and if your game is a bit robotic you're going to struggle.

I don't know where you've been Socal but we've already discussed the slowing conditions to death. Many players and pundits have come out and mentioned that the conditions are slower overall now than they have been in the past. It's basically accepted wisdom. Of course slow conditions are a product of both courts and balls.

socal1976 wrote:Julius, Laverfan produced a very good link that I commented on in another thread where the US Open tournament directly stated that they slowed the surfaces between 2001 and 2002 and since 2003 the surface has remained completely stable.

So when you said 1999 you were making it up?

socal1976 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:[Why then is murray so great on hardcourt and so crap on clay?

Woahh there!! I like your article, I didn't say you could go writing blunt truths about Andy's current clay court efforts

No shame in that a lot great players are quote crap on clay. That is why they started doing away witn the specialists. Sampras crap on clay, Mac better but no where near as good on clay. I only posted this banbro because I get tired of this beating of the homogenized surfaces dead horse.

I would say 'crap' might be taking it a bit far. I don't think anyone who reached a RG semi final can ever be described as 'crap' on clay, but he is of course nowhere near as good on this surface.

I wonder what seed Murray would be for RG if they seeded it based on how good each player was on the dirt? He'll go in 4th seed of course, but perhaps a more realistic placing would be between 8 - 10. Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro and a few others are a lot more comfortable on this surface, and more of a threat to the top 3 in this stretch of the season.

bogbrush wrote:I dont like this surface, but it does places a premium on variety and creativity, and if your game is a bit robotic you're going to struggle.

I had forgotten what a devilishly flair-filled talent Berdych is. Or Del Potro for that matter. Variety and creativity galore...

emancipator wrote:I don't know where you've been Socal but we've already discussed the slowing conditions to death. Many players and pundits have come out and mentioned that the conditions are slower overall now than they have been in the past. It's basically accepted wisdom. Of course slow conditions are a product of both courts and balls.

Emancipator I don't doubt the courts were slowed, they needed to be in the late 90s and early 2000s to account for the better technology racquets and bigger male players. I think in retrospect the decision to slow those courts in that time frame proved to be sagacious at the least. Now here is the part that i don't buy from the slow court theorists, this idea that the courts are continually being slowed year in and year out. I think for quite a few years they have been stable and if anything this year I think overall so far the courts are playing quicker than usual. Last year the french open was extremely quick. Overrall if you listened to this idea of the steady creap of slow courts and conditions at this point the players should be playing in sand. I have always maintained that I think that the mix of paces we have right now is pretty close to the optimum for quality tennis and variety. Maybe a little quicker at a couple of tourneys maybe slow down a couple of the clay courts for more variety. But I don't buy the online mania that suggest we are way too slow and that anything drastic is needed to be done.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I dont like this surface, but it does places a premium on variety and creativity, and if your game is a bit robotic you're going to struggle.

I had forgotten what a devilishly flair-filled talent Berdych is. Or Del Potro for that matter. Variety and creativity galore...

Depends who they played doesn't it, and if those players have enough to overcome the power game of those two.

Thankfully this event doesn't look like standing in the way of the consensus forming that the game needs change to bring volleying back.

socal1976 wrote:But I don't buy the online mania that suggest we are way too slow and that anything drastic is needed to be done.

What online mania? Who's suggesting anyting drastic?
As soon as someone says that overall the courts are a bit too slow these days (like Murray did recently) you portray them as some sort of fundamentalist super-fast court advocate who wants to see 100 aces per match and rallies of 1.2 strokes on average.

The courts have been homogenised. It so happens that they've been homogenised to the slow end, but it would be just as bad if they'd homogenised to the fast end. It wouldn't take anything drastic to redress the balance.

Well said Julius.

Socal you need to stop using hyperbole and arguemements in extremes.

No one on this board has called for drastic changes. Stop falsely attributing statements to board members. Also stop the ridiculous categorising of posters. I expect you do this unintentionally. Perhaps you're just given to exaggeration for emphasis in order to be heard. Unfortunately this approach is not conducive to debate and discussion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:But I don't buy the online mania that suggest we are way too slow and that anything drastic is needed to be done.

What online mania? Who's suggesting anyting drastic?
As soon as someone says that overall the courts are a bit too slow these days (like Murray did recently) you portray them as some sort of fundamentalist super-fast court advocate who wants to see 100 aces per match and rallies of 1.2 strokes on average.

The courts have been homogenised. It so happens that they've been homogenised to the slow end, but it would be just as bad if they'd homogenised to the fast end. It wouldn't take anything drastic to redress the balance.

well said

bogbrush wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I dont like this surface, but it does places a premium on variety and creativity, and if your game is a bit robotic you're going to struggle.

I had forgotten what a devilishly flair-filled talent Berdych is. Or Del Potro for that matter. Variety and creativity galore...

Depends who they played doesn't it, and if those players have enough to overcome the power game of those two.

Thankfully this event doesn't look like standing in the way of the consensus forming that the game needs change to bring volleying back.

Agreed. I think Berdych transcends surface differences when he plays well due to his power. Good win for him beating Del Potro.

socal - I personally don't see any 'online mania' (not on any sensible forums anyway) so I'm struggling to understand what you're saying here.....

socal1976 wrote:For my part I am not really a murray fan in fact he is probably the last of the big 4 that i enjoy watching. That being said he is in my mind without question the best player to have never won a slam. Now many take that as a sideways compliment but I don't really mean it that way, it is still quite a statement about Murray's ability. The amount of masters and the 3 grandslam finals shows that he has grandslam level ability but lacks the trophy. Now what does that say about Murray? What does it say about the current era he is playing in?

About Murray it tells us that he is a remarkable talent, in my mind better than many players with one or two slams that have played recently. I mean he already has more masters than Safin and kafelnikov combined and many slam finals to boot. When looking back the only other player that was as good as murray and never won a slam is former short time #1 Marcelo Rios. Many others talk about Nalbandian but Murray has already lapped nalbandian in terms of total tournament wins, masters, and overral consistency in the ranking. Mecir is not even close I don't know frankly what people see in him other than he played with a wooden racquet for far too long and won a total of like 7 tournaments.
Murray is just not as good as 3 players that have monopolized a decade unlike any trio in the history of the game. Since Federer won his first slam the trio of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (since 2003) has won an outstanding 31 of the last 36 grandslams. That is an incredible statistic.

That leads us to a very pertinent question. What does that tell us about the current state of today's game. In my mind this is further evidence of the strength of top level competition in the last few years. In an era that has top down a strong core of legends represents the epitome of strong period in tennis. And murray while clearly able to separate himself from the rest of the tour has not been able to catch the other three guys or carve out his own grandslam legacy. Look at what a murderous route the world #5 would have to take to win a slam today, Tsonga or Berdy could very possibly have to beat fed in the quarter, Novak in the semi, and Nadal in the final in successive 5 set matches to win a slam. And murray is lurking there as the greatest player to have never won a slam. This is further evidence for socal's famous axiom that eras where you have a small group of top heavy talent dominating the tour is a tell tale sign of strong era. And murray being the best non-slam winner is further proof.

Andre Agassi seems to subscribe to these thoughts socal:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18507863

Never mind though as many will subscribe that he has been pressured/brain-washed/paid to say this.

I saw that CC and avoided a Hawkeye like article!

Laughable BBC efforts to award virtual Slams to the plucky Brit / dour Scot. I suppose it's a sign of their lessening confidence in Andy that rather than talk up his chances of winning one in the real world they rely on natural modesty of a past champion to give generous (and costless) support.

Still, to be fair it's not restricted to tennis. It seems that every sport now has to be manned by the "best-ever". It couldn't have anything to do with the need to fill wall-to-wall media capacity could it?

So which is it bogbrush? Brain-washed? Pressured into saying it? Paid to say it? Perhaps it was even an imposter or perhaps...ah what the heck....it is what Andre Agassi genuinely believes.

It's a nice, generous comment from a modest champion. Nice guy there.

I seriously doubt you'd hear Sampras saying the same thing. The idea to Pete that Andy could have deprived him of a Wimbledon or US Open would be like a red rag to a bull, and as I think about it now it's laughable. Andy beating Pete on 90's grass or the US Open? Nope.

Got to agree with your overall sentiment bogbrush. Andy has had up until now had a very good career and is easily the most successful British male tennis player since the 1930's. He is however still missing a slam which would allow him to get him out of 'the greatest player player never to win a slam' debate and define his career.

Yes having Federer, Nadal and Djokovic around has made it more difficult for him to win one. However once he gets to the semis and finals of slams he needs to make his own luck and beat whoever he plays.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So which is it bogbrush? Brain-washed? Pressured into saying it? Paid to say it? Perhaps it was even an imposter or perhaps...ah what the heck....it is what Andre Agassi genuinely believes.

And what does the likes of Agassi or Wawrinka know!, especially when there are lots of "keyboard experts" on Internet forums like this one, who all know better

Quite, Calder, and I don't see a major reason why he won't.

Andy against Sampras in 90's on Grass or HC in US Open in 90's virtually no chance. Australian Open, maybe.

We are talking conditions which heavily favoured Sampras and the power hitters. Andy has struggled against power hitters on slower courts, so the suggestion he would've had different success on faster courts is a massive oversight on Agassi's behalf.

bogbrush wrote:It's a nice, generous comment from a modest champion. Nice guy there.

I seriously doubt you'd hear Sampras saying the same thing. The idea to Pete that Andy could have deprived him of a Wimbledon or US Open would be like a red rag to a bull, and as I think about it now it's laughable. Andy beating Pete on 90's grass or the US Open? Nope.

Sampras might say that, if only because he's a nice guy too - he was nice enough to say (after beating Henman one year) "I'm sure Tim will win Wimbledon one day". Alas, we all know how accurate that nice, generous comment turned out to be.

So it is what Agassi believes then? What Sampras says or thinks is irrelevant here until remarks of his come to light. One thing that strikes me is that whatever Murray has not won in terms of slams he commands respect from past and present legends of the game and that is something to be proud about. I have listened to many players such as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander and Courier and all laud Andy and feel he has a slam in him. That is a commendation for him and now it is all up to him.

sportslover wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So which is it bogbrush? Brain-washed? Pressured into saying it? Paid to say it? Perhaps it was even an imposter or perhaps...ah what the heck....it is what Andre Agassi genuinely believes.

And what does the likes of Agassi or Wawrinka know!, especially when there are lots of "keyboard experts" on Internet forums like this one, who all know better

We can always count on you to enetr the fray if there's anything going around to disabuse the notion that Andy is a virtual multi-Slam winner.

The fraility of this era is shown by the preponderance of older players in the top 10 and the inability of anyone younger than Murray to turn Ferrer etc over. Hell, it's taken a bad injury to get Mardy Fish out of the elite group!

CaledonianCraig wrote:So it is what Agassi believes then? What Sampras says or thinks is irrelevant here until remarks of his come to light. One thing that strikes me is that whatever Murray has not won in terms of slams he commands respect from past and present legends of the game and that is something to be proud about. I have listened to many players such as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, McEnroe, Becker, Wilander and Courier and all laud Andy and feel he has a slam in him. That is a commendation for him and now it is all up to him.

Can you find any quotes where any professional - past or present - comments adversely about any players capability? It might help for context.

Agassi comments are even more modest when you think that he was essentially Murray +. Greater returns, more steady and more attacking.

Don't get me wrong, I like Murray (despite him being a drama queen) and I think he can win a Slam so long as it's done before 2015, I just find this sort of ridiculous ramping a bit stupid and increasingly desperate.

bogbrush wrote:

sportslover wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So which is it bogbrush? Brain-washed? Pressured into saying it? Paid to say it? Perhaps it was even an imposter or perhaps...ah what the heck....it is what Andre Agassi genuinely believes.

And what does the likes of Agassi or Wawrinka know!, especially when there are lots of "keyboard experts" on Internet forums like this one, who all know better

We can always count on you to enetr the fray if there's anything going around to disabuse the notion that Andy is a virtual multi-Slam winner.

The fraility of this era is shown by the preponderance of older players in the top 10 and the inability of anyone younger than Murray to turn Ferrer etc over. Hell, it's taken a bad injury to get Mardy Fish out of the elite group!

Obviously, you haven't kept up with the growing trend in tennis bogbrush. Stats clearly show that in recent years the average age of top ten has risen as the game has become more of a physical challenge. Hence the young pups need time to develop physically before becoming competitive.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

sportslover wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So which is it bogbrush? Brain-washed? Pressured into saying it? Paid to say it? Perhaps it was even an imposter or perhaps...ah what the heck....it is what Andre Agassi genuinely believes.

And what does the likes of Agassi or Wawrinka know!, especially when there are lots of "keyboard experts" on Internet forums like this one, who all know better

We can always count on you to enetr the fray if there's anything going around to disabuse the notion that Andy is a virtual multi-Slam winner.

The fraility of this era is shown by the preponderance of older players in the top 10 and the inability of anyone younger than Murray to turn Ferrer etc over. Hell, it's taken a bad injury to get Mardy Fish out of the elite group!

Obviously, you haven't kept up with the growing trend in tennis bogbrush. Stats clearly show that in recent years the average age of top ten has risen as the game has become more of a physical challenge. Hence the young pups need time to develop physically before becoming competitive.

Yeah, 23 year olds can't compete physically. That's why Nadal's only just started winning Slams.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

sportslover wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So which is it bogbrush? Brain-washed? Pressured into saying it? Paid to say it? Perhaps it was even an imposter or perhaps...ah what the heck....it is what Andre Agassi genuinely believes.

And what does the likes of Agassi or Wawrinka know!, especially when there are lots of "keyboard experts" on Internet forums like this one, who all know better

We can always count on you to enetr the fray if there's anything going around to disabuse the notion that Andy is a virtual multi-Slam winner.

The fraility of this era is shown by the preponderance of older players in the top 10 and the inability of anyone younger than Murray to turn Ferrer etc over. Hell, it's taken a bad injury to get Mardy Fish out of the elite group!

Obviously, you haven't kept up with the growing trend in tennis bogbrush. Stats clearly show that in recent years the average age of top ten has risen as the game has become more of a physical challenge. Hence the young pups need time to develop physically before becoming competitive.

BB makes an excellent point in Fish. The guy was a chub and when he dropped weight and increased his fitness he made the top 10. Fish is not renowned for 'technical' ability. The question remains if this is not a period in tennis dominated by fitness, why haven't the more talented players in Wawrinka and Dolgopolov made splashes in the top 10? Wawrinka is as fit as he can be and as is Dolgopolov.

It is a nice token that Agassi has made such comments, but I am sure Murray wouldn't want such comments because he wants to win a Slam in his current era.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

sportslover wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So which is it bogbrush? Brain-washed? Pressured into saying it? Paid to say it? Perhaps it was even an imposter or perhaps...ah what the heck....it is what Andre Agassi genuinely believes.

And what does the likes of Agassi or Wawrinka know!, especially when there are lots of "keyboard experts" on Internet forums like this one, who all know better

We can always count on you to enetr the fray if there's anything going around to disabuse the notion that Andy is a virtual multi-Slam winner.

The fraility of this era is shown by the preponderance of older players in the top 10 and the inability of anyone younger than Murray to turn Ferrer etc over. Hell, it's taken a bad injury to get Mardy Fish out of the elite group!

Obviously, you haven't kept up with the growing trend in tennis bogbrush. Stats clearly show that in recent years the average age of top ten has risen as the game has become more of a physical challenge. Hence the young pups need time to develop physically before becoming competitive.

Yeah, 23 year olds can't compete physically. That's why Nadal's only just started winning Slams.

As you know Nadal was a different physical proposition all together from the rest of tennis players at 23. If making out this current period of tennis is marred by a higher average age of top ten then remember it is in this age that Federer The Great's slam wins have dried up so the current age can't be that devoid of talent.

It says you are making excuses for the fact he has no bottle, and that 4th is a loooong way to 3rd when the top 3 are as good as they are (top 2 only excellent on the dumbed down slow surfaces). He will not win Wimbledon and will probably not even get to the semi this time. He has the crowd behind him and he still falls short every time.

I had Murray down for at least 1 slam a while back but now I am not sure he will even get that. Del Potro has beaten him to it already. So has Djok. Murray is another choker.

Every year we have to endure the hype wagon of Murray and every year I laugh when I see him fall short. I will be laughing again this year. I am sure someone will come back to this with:

"Well Seifer, you can't get to a slam semi"
"Murray is 4th in the rankings"
"Murray has reached semi in this tournament the last x times."
"He is against 3 of the best in any era" (which is bogus due to the change of surface speed and the balls and racquets. The Great Pretender Nadal would never have won Wimby in 1980)
"I'd love to be as 'bad' as Murray is LOL"
"You are a troll"

But each one of these does not avoid the reality that he has no slams to his name and at this rate, is unlikely to get 1. He simply is not good enough. He is a good player but not a very good player. So sorry. Prepare for more disappointment. I await the excuses for the fact Murray is way too negative and has a lack of bottle and self control.

Bring it on.

Disappointment? Why would one be disappointed? Always a pleasure to see Andy Murray in action whatever the outcome. Can we say the same for you in any walk of life sitting behind that keyboard? Please do me a favour as well and check before you use words you don't understand such as choker. Chokers don't get into the top ten list of most successful Masters Cup winners of all-time, 22 career titles, reached 12 of the last sixteen slam quarter-finals or better etc etc etc. Need I go on?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Can we say the same for you in any walk of life sitting behind that keyboard?

So you come back and say something along the lines of what I said you would.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
As you know Nadal was a different physical proposition all together from the rest of tennis players at 23. If making out this current period of tennis is marred by a higher average age of top ten then remember it is in this age that Federer The Great's slam wins have dried up so the current age can't be that devoid of talent.

So young players can't compete except for the ones who can?

I think you've missed the bit where, back in 2008, Federer passed the age when most champions stop winning.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Can we say the same for you in any walk of life sitting behind that keyboard?

So you come back and say something along the lines of what I said you would.

I think you do have to put that stock response back in the bag, Craig.

Seifer Almasy wrote: I will be laughing again this year. I am sure someone will come back to this with:

"Well Seifer, you can't get to a slam semi"
"Murray is 4th in the rankings"
"Murray has reached semi in this tournament the last x times."
"He is against 3 of the best in any era" (which is bogus due to the change of surface speed and the balls and racquets. The Great Pretender Nadal would never have won Wimby in 1980)
"I'd love to be as 'bad' as Murray is LOL"
"You are a troll"

But each one of these does not avoid the reality that he has no slams to his name and at this rate, is unlikely to get 1. He simply is not good enough. He is a good player but not a very good player. So sorry. Prepare for more disappointment. I await the excuses for the fact Murray is way too negative and has a lack of bottle and self control.

Bring it on.

Who is this guy? Seems to be quite a knowledgeable chap.

I expected that too sadly.... Thanks for not disappointing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

So I'll take that as a yes, good to know.

And what great point have you made exactly. You've hardly made constructive points like Bogbrush and Caldonian Craig but you've just come up with one-liners.

I don't like one-liners.

I don't see you debating what I wrote

Murray is not the greatest player not to win a slam nor is he due one. It is really starting to get annoying to hear all this garbage about him being so great and this and that. He's no.4, capable of playing some good tennis and has no slams... I wish people would just learn to live with it instead of going on about what he would have won.

There have only been a handful of men who have Slams in their 30's on the Open Era

Sampras
Agassi
Rosewall
Laver
Newcombe
Ashe
Korda