Is this Murray's time to dominate?

First topic message reminder :

The path for the Brit appears to be opening up:
-Djokovic can’t even win a set against a ‘cake-walk’.
-Federer will probably retire in the next decade or so.
-Nadal has a knee injury and can’t perform in the major tournaments these days.

OK, I might have exaggerated slightly there
But, jokes aside I do see this time as a chance for Murray. Djokovic’s form has not been the same as last year; Federer (although playing well) at this age will not perform as consistently in every big tournament while Nadal is recovering from a knee injury.

For the last 2 years or so the tour has been dominated by the ‘Big 3.’ Before that the tour was dominated by the ‘Big 2.’ Even though it is possible, I think Murray going on a Djokovic 2011-like tear is unlikely. However I do think this could be his chance to dominate alongside a few others at the top of the men’s game.
Remember, Murray is one of the youngest players in the top 20, his time his hardly running out. If he can avoid injuries I believe he can play at the top level for another 5-6 years or so. Furthermore, there aren’t that many youngsters who are bursting through- certainly none of them are near Murray’s level.

But, I feel I may be getting a bit ahead of myself here. As a word of warning, although Murray’s victory over Federer was his first against the Swiss in BO5, it was not in a Grand Slam. Will this Olympics victory really give Murray the belief in the majors? We shall have to wait and see. Nevertheless it does look possible, very much so. He can beat Djokovic- he nearly beat him in AO 2012 but since then he has improved (unlike Djokovic). He can beat Federer- his record against him is 9-8 altogether- but he needs more belief in the majors. Nadal, well. Let’s see how he comes back from his knee injury.

So, what do you think? Is this Murray’s chance? Will the Gold Medallist grasp glory?

Will be good to hear your views,
IMBL

Fair comment about the W/O Born Slippy, you're right on that.
We'll just have to see and makes for another interesting dynamic on tour.
But I agree with IMBL and reassert that I think he has an inspirational level that IMO only he and Federer can go to over a concerted period of time. But clearly we don't know what effect 6 months off is going to have on him..a 6 months that exposes him more and more to real life away from tennis...is he going to want to immerse himself fully again to the grind of the tour? Will he be able to go to the same mental depths again? Or will he come back rejuvenated with points to prove. Only he knows.

lydian wrote:We'll have to see. Yes the H2H since Murray's first win is 8-5....but you dont mention 1 'win' is a walkover at Miama this year and 1 win when Nadal was almost literally playing on one leg at Rotterdam 2009.

Let's look more recently - last year Nadal beat Murray in semis of French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Yes matches may be closer in future but then again Nadal may bring his A game too...and I believe when he does he's the better player.

Yes and let's not forget that another win was a retirement at the AO, another should have been a retirement at the AO and of course there is that infamous semi at the 2008 US Open (the one were Nadal said that Murray played better a couple of weeks previously where he beat him). Ha ha! Only the most myopic of Murray fans would try and suggest that Nadal played at his best in any of these matches.

Nadal is clearly the better player...

HE... Murray can beat Nadal in Slams.

But I agree with Lydian, and re-assert my belief, that if Nadal brings his A game and is fully fit, then he has a gear which Murray simply does not possess.

I know Murray is now a Grand Slam Champion, a superb player no doubt, and a fantastic athlete, but he is not in Nadal's league.

Nadal brought his 'A' game the last time they played and won 2 games out of 14 and 4 points in a last set bagel

This coincided when Murray suddenley discovered that he could do something with his forehand

To compare the Murray of the last US Open to the Murray of this is the only myopic occurence on these boards

I'm amazed that anyone can be so confident about a player who's future we don't even know over one who has raised their game another level since they last met

Personally, I can't wait for Andy to play Rafa - becasue when he wins we can all have a laugh about the new excuses

It Must Be Love wrote:HE... Murray can beat Nadal in Slams.

But I agree with Lydian, and re-assert my belief, that if Nadal brings his A game and is fully fit, then he has a gear which Murray simply does not possess.

I know Murray is now a Grand Slam Champion, a superb player no doubt, and a fantastic athlete, but he is not in Nadal's league.

This has so many conditons, it reminds me of e-bay!! Murray can beat Nadal in Slams, but is not in Nadal's league? Can you explain the contradiction

If we're talking about Clay, then agreed. On hard courts, it's a nonsene statement, that pays no heed to the facts - out of their last 3 hard court slam matches the scores lie at 2-1 to Murray and this before the Lendl inspired improvements

banbrotam wrote:Nadal brought his 'A' game the last time they played and won 2 games out of 14 and 4 points in a last set bagel

Yes that was Nadal's A game.

banbrotam wrote:
I'm amazed that anyone can be so confident about a player who's future we don't even know over one who has raised their game another level since they last met

When exactly did I say I was confident for the future? As Lydain says, no one knows how Nadal will return.

banbrotam wrote:
Personally, I can't wait for Andy to play Rafa - becasue when he wins we can all have a laugh about the new excuses

Excuse me, when exactly did I make excuses for Rafa???
I said Murray is a brilliant player, who has the ability to be a big threat to Nadal in any tournament.
But despite of this Nadal, at his best, is better than Murray imo. Murray is a brilliant player, but Nadal is an all time great.

I think some Murray fans are getting a bit over-confident now. He's won one slam, Nadal has already won 11.

banbrotam wrote:Murray can beat Nadal in Slams, but is not in Nadal's league? Can you explain the contradiction

Murray can beat Nadal in slams, but if both players play their best I think Nadal wins.
And I don't think Murray can say he is in the same league as Nadal. Nadal has 11 slams, Murray 1. They won't be remembered in the same league I'm afraid- unless Murray can pick up significantly more slams.

Of course now Nadal is injured... we dont' know how he will come back.

Wow, Murray fans are getting very very confident after this USO. Let's see what happens.

Seriously if Murray fans genuinely believe that Nadal in Tokyo last year was at his best, then there is no point in debating this.

It Must Be Love wrote:But this could be opening up very very nicely for Murray:
-Nadal injured (knee)
-Federer saying he is 'wounded' and 'exhausted' at this age you feel Murray will have his chances against him in BO5.
-Like Vettel, Djokovic has not been at his best this year, and has looked mentally drained in the key moments. It's not that he's lost big matches, it's the fact that he's looked so edgy throughout them.
-No real clear young threat coming up that can challenge Murray.

What has Murray done to convince you that he has no clear challenge.

At the US Open he was hardly in control against Lopez, Cilic, Berdych or Djokovic. Same goes for Karlovic and Ferrer at Wimbledon. Of course he lost to Federer. He was in danger of losing all these matches. Why do you discount Nadal, Federer and Djokovic because you think they won't be able to recover from fatigue, injury or loss when the evidence show's that they have all done so before? And yet you are convinced that Murray will not just continue to play at the same wobbly level that allowed him to win the US Open but that things will open up for him and he will be unchallenged? The evidence so far is hardly convincing that this will happen.

It Must Be Love

Sorry ignore my previous post. I think you are doing fine on your own. Good Luck...

On a hard court Nadal leads by the grand total of 2 slams to 1 and trails in Masters titles by 8 to 5 but you are confident that his best on a hard court is better than Murray's best?

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:But this could be opening up very very nicely for Murray:
-Nadal injured (knee)
-Federer saying he is 'wounded' and 'exhausted' at this age you feel Murray will have his chances against him in BO5.
-Like Vettel, Djokovic has not been at his best this year, and has looked mentally drained in the key moments. It's not that he's lost big matches, it's the fact that he's looked so edgy throughout them.
-No real clear young threat coming up that can challenge Murray.

What has Murray done to convince you that he has no clear challenge.

At the US Open he was hardly in control against Lopez, Cilic, Berdych or Djokovic. Same goes for Karlovic and Ferrer at Wimbledon. Of course he lost to Federer. He was in danger of losing all these matches. Why do you discount Nadal, Federer and Djokovic because you think they won't be able to recover from fatigue, injury or loss when the evidence show's that they have all done so before? And yet you are convinced that Murray will not just continue to play at the same wobbly level that allowed him to win the US Open but that things will open up for him and he will be unchallenged? The evidence so far is hardly convincing that this will happen.

I'm not discounting them I'm saying there is a possibility it could open up for him.
Personally I would not be surprised if Djokovic stepped it up again and stopped Murray, or a young gun flashes on the screen and provides a totally new challenge.

Born Slippy wrote:On a hard court Nadal leads by the grand total of 2 slams to 1 and trails in Masters titles by 8 to 5 but you are confident that his best on a hard court is better than Murray's best?

Yes, although I think it would be close.
HC is Nadal's worst surface, and Murray's best; but I still think Nadal would fancy his chances if he played his best.

Honestly if we are forced to believe that Tokyo Nadal @2011 was the best of Rafa, and that Nadal (11 Slams) is in the same league as Murray (1 Slam) then my hands are tied.

Murray is a brilliant fantastic player, there is no doubting that. For me on hard-courts and grass he is a threat to anyone- but I still feel against the Top 3 if they all played their best Murray wouldn't win.

It Must Be Love wrote:Honestly if we are forced to believe that Tokyo Nadal @2011 was the best of Rafa, and that Nadal (11 Slams) is in the same league as Murray (1 Slam) then my hands are tied.

Murray is a brilliant fantastic player, there is no doubting that. For me on hard-courts and grass he is a threat to anyone- but I still feel against the Top 3 if they all played their best Murray wouldn't win.

You're taking stats from the past and assuming that the trend will continue for the future. I'm surprised at your lazy thinking

Let's be frank here, some will never give Murray any credit and state that he only wins when the others don't turn up. We Murray fans could easily say that there are numerous times when Murray doesn't turn up

For me it totally disrespects Murray's talent. You don't lead Federer by being all ways inferior to him

And yet he has a positive hard court head to head from 2008 onwards against all three of them. Strange that.

And no-one is saying Murray is in the same league as Rafa overall but you aren't seriously arguing Rafa is an all-time great hard courter are you?

we are talking about small margins here, is the gap between Murray and Nadal bigger than the gap between Murray and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga? For me no. I wouldn't say Tsonga isn't in Murrays league as there really isn't loads in it, as with Murray and Nadal. Is McEnroe not in Federers league because he has 10 slams more? Its only 10 percent more here or there.

They are all in the same league, just different ends of it, a different league would be players like Andrea Seppi or Victor Troicki in my opinion.

banbrotam wrote:
You're taking stats from the past and assuming that the trend will continue for the future. I'm surprised at your lazy thinking

That's a totally false claim I'm afraid. I've never said the trend will continue for the future, in-fact look at the title of this article!!
I also wrote a thread predicting Murray to win 5-6 Grand Slams in his career, so your allegation is false and very insulting. No one knows what will happen in the future- and whether the current top guns will keep up their play, or new stars will suddenly rise.

banbrotam wrote:
Let's be frank here, some will never give Murray any credit and state that he only wins when the others don't turn up.

Who is 'some'? Are you referring to me?
Can you quote me saying that at any point?

If this is about Tokyo 2011- I stand by my comment that Nadal was not at his best in the match. You can disagree with me

banbrotam wrote:
For me it totally disrespects Murray's talent.

What exactly have I said which disrespects Murray's talent?
I said he is a great player, a brilliant player, but I don't think he is yet in the same league/category of the Top 3. Apologies if that offends anyone.

Im a huge Murray fan but even I think that you can't look too much into the match with Nadal in Tokyo, it came at a time of the year where he was also beaten by Ivan Dodig and Florian Mayer and then crushed by Federer winning just 3 games.

In 2011 in the same year Nadal beat Murray in 3 consecutive slams on 3 different surfaces, and was on a 5 match winning streak over him.

a great quote from Murray a few years ago "theres a few things I can do better than Rafa, but Rafa can do things nobody can do."

CAS wrote:we are talking about small margins here, is the gap between Murray and Nadal bigger than the gap between Murray and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga? For me no. I wouldn't say Tsonga isn't in Murrays league as there really isn't loads in it, as with Murray and Nadal. Is McEnroe not in Federers league because he has 10 slams more? Its only 10 percent more here or there.

They are all in the same league, just different ends of it, a different league would be players like Andrea Seppi or Victor Troicki in my opinion.

Interesting opinion CAS but I disagree

Personally I feel Tsonga is not in Murray's league, unless Tsonga can win a slam and significant number of Masters titles.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:we are talking about small margins here, is the gap between Murray and Nadal bigger than the gap between Murray and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga? For me no. I wouldn't say Tsonga isn't in Murrays league as there really isn't loads in it, as with Murray and Nadal. Is McEnroe not in Federers league because he has 10 slams more? Its only 10 percent more here or there.

They are all in the same league, just different ends of it, a different league would be players like Andrea Seppi or Victor Troicki in my opinion.

Interesting opinion CAS but I disagree

Personally I feel Tsonga is not in Murray's league, unless Tsonga can win a slam and significant number of Masters titles.

I think if we are talking in terms of careers then fair enough, Nadal is miles a head of Murray but then so is Djokovic in my opinion. In terms of attributes and ability no one in the top 4 is a league a head of the other, each match is very close. I think being a different league to someone equates to something much more, i.e Nadal and Verdasco or Federer and Wawrinka. Murray, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are fighting for the same things, Number 1s, Grand Slams and Masters titles so for me they are in the same 'league'. Tsonga is probably fighting for 2 out of 3 of those.

Another league will be the guys fighting for QF finishes, top 10/20 year end rankings, thats a different section of the tour.

CAS wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:we are talking about small margins here, is the gap between Murray and Nadal bigger than the gap between Murray and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga? For me no. I wouldn't say Tsonga isn't in Murrays league as there really isn't loads in it, as with Murray and Nadal. Is McEnroe not in Federers league because he has 10 slams more? Its only 10 percent more here or there.

They are all in the same league, just different ends of it, a different league would be players like Andrea Seppi or Victor Troicki in my opinion.

Interesting opinion CAS but I disagree

Personally I feel Tsonga is not in Murray's league, unless Tsonga can win a slam and significant number of Masters titles.

I think if we are talking in terms of careers then fair enough, Nadal is miles a head of Murray but then so is Djokovic in my opinion. In terms of attributes and ability no one in the top 4 is a league a head of the other, each match is very close. I think being a different league to someone equates to something much more, i.e Nadal and Verdasco or Federer and Wawrinka.

Spot on.

I sometimes wonder if certain Murray fans have actually watched any tennis in the last few years. Federer and Nadal have clearly separated themselves from the pack. They continue to do this everytime they step on the court.

Last year Djokovic went on an historic run winning everything including very nearly a slam. It was however just one year. By doing this he separated himself from the pack including Murray. But it still wasn't enough to join Federer and Nadal at the very top. They showed their class by reasserting themselves at the top. Federer by winning another slam and re gaining number one. Nadal by re claiming his dominance over Djokovic beating him in three finals including the FO (and probably damaging his confidence for the rest of the year in the process) By winning one slam and cry protest if you like but not even winning this one slam in the emphatic way that Djokovic managed to win his... Murray is still no where near Djokovic. Let alone Nadal and Federer!

I do wonder if you actually watch tennis Hawky through those crap tinted glasses.

Oh and on the point of Nadal's one legged defeat to Murray at Rotterdam, shall we count Nadal's victory over Murray at Monte Carlo in 2011 when he played with one arm?

I tell you some Nadal fans have selective memories.

Right where is this Slam off Clay going to come from? Did he win one in 2011? Nope. Did he win one in 2012? Nope again. So the fact he is facing a crossroad in his career given the rumours of his knees, I would like to know where this Slam is going to come from.

End of the day based on current form, Murray is the player more likely to pick up more Slams. Would Nadal beat Murray at the Australian Open in this day and age? Nope. At the US Open? Nope.

As barry pointed out earlier, maybe Wimbledon, but that is an open field and I wouldn't hedge a bet on Nadal winning there.

In the here and now as we stand looking at what has gone before between Nadal and Murray then yes you would always favour Nadal and it would be pretty daft to think otherwise. However, if we look at this objectively, Murray of the past is a different beast to the Murray of the here and now. Since Nadal last clashed with Murray in a major match a lot has improved in Andy's game. He went on an impressive unbeaten run at the end of last year, took on Ivan Lendl as coach, improved his forehand, second serve stats, on court demeanour has improved and become Olympic Champion and a grand slam winner so self-belief and confidence is on a different planet to where it is. I say judge the pairing on their future meetings from here on in instead of looking at when Nadal was possibly at his very best and Murray was not the finished article.

Knowing hawkeye the guy probably blames Murray for the Dunblane massacre when he was 6. Disturbing hatred you have hawky.

I don't think any player is really the finished article hence why in defeat many of them look at self improvement. Look at the volley and net play machine Federer has become and how that has enhanced his game. Nadal in 2010 served much faster to win at the US Open 2010. Nadal now using a heavier racquet is looking at being more dominate in matches without the need for 20 stroke rallies. Nadal when he returns might become a much heavier hitting player looking to hit flatter on the court, especially on the HC should he play on them. Look at the Djokovic who won the 2008 Australian Open and the 2011. Massive difference.

Murray still has areas to improve on and for me like all players is not the finished article, but more of playing to his strengths much rather than exposing his weaknesses.

In fairness, Nadal hasn't won any title off clay since 2010 - ironically (given all the talk above about how he wasn't playing well against Murray there in 2011) that was at Tokyo. Murray in that time, of course, has picked up 8 non clay titles.

It Must Be Love wrote:Murray can beat Nadal in slams, but if both players play their best I think Nadal wins.

On hard courts? You're sounding as vacant at Grinning Greg, who makes sweeping statements without looking at the facts. Murray was a major disappointment at the US Open against Nadal last year - but that was still Nadal's first Slam hard court victory in 3 matches and Murray's improved since. Who won their last Masters hard court event? Who won their last hard court event? Are these facts in dispute? During the past 2 years their hard court record is 2-2. Go back to September 2008 and it's 5-3 to Murray. We can't ignore them or make injury excuses to make our argument

It Must Be Love wrote:And I don't think Murray can say he is in the same league as Nadal. Nadal has 11 slams, Murray 1. They won't be remembered in the same league I'm afraid- unless Murray can pick up significantly more slams

If you want to measure in terms of Slams, then fine. However, I always thought the idea of debate on these boards was to be a little bit more cerebral than merely comparing Slams. And just because Nadal has more Slams in the past, do we lazily assume that will be the future (Incidentally, I've always looked beyond the Slams, which is why Mecir is in my all time five faves and Sampras, Becker, Stich isn't)

It Must Be Love wrote:Wow, Murray fans are getting very very confident after this USO. Let's see what happens.

I can guarantee you something. Murray fans would have no confidence in their players future, if he'd missed a major chunk of the season with his third knee injury in three years. They certainly wouldn't be assuming that he'd come back and resume his winning ways

Any chance we can discuss the future using what's going on around the Tennis world now?

hawkeye wrote:I sometimes wonder if certain Murray fans have actually watched any tennis in the last few years. Federer and Nadal have clearly separated themselves from the pack. They continue to do this everytime they step on the court.

Last year Djokovic went on an historic run winning everything including very nearly a slam. It was however just one year. By doing this he separated himself from the pack including Murray. But it still wasn't enough to join Federer and Nadal at the very top. They showed their class by reasserting themselves at the top. Federer by winning another slam and re gaining number one. Nadal by re claiming his dominance over Djokovic beating him in three finals including the FO

Is it 2008 or something?

Anyway back to 2012. Murray's just got in the middle of the battle to be No.1, which involved him beting the two fighting for the spot three times out of three. These were major victories. Nadal before his injury, was a clear No.3 - can you explain how this makes him and Federer "separate from the pack"

We now see the predictable route that Hawkeye is going to go down in her desperation to undermine all things Murray!!

I hadn't realised quite how far ahead Murray is of Nadal in titles off clay - 24-15 with two years less on tour. Of course, on clay it is 35-0 but it kind of puts into perspective their relative merits when discussing hard courts.

banbrotam wrote: And just because Nadal has more Slams in the past, do we lazily assume that will be the future (Incidentally, I've always looked beyond the Slams, which is why Mecir is in my all time five faves and Sampras, Becker, Stich isn't)

Can you quote me on this
When have I said Nadal will do better in the future.
I have even written threads predicting Murray will win 5 more slams in the future. I don't think Nadal will win 5 more slams.

banbrotam wrote:I can guarantee you something. Murray fans would have no confidence in their players future, if he'd missed a major chunk of the season with his third knee injury in three years. They certainly wouldn't be assuming that he'd come back and resume his winning ways

Interesting, when did I said that he'd come back to winning ways
I said if he regained full fitness and played his A game he is favourite against Murray. At the moment Murray is on better form, higher in the world rankings, and fully fit, so if they played today Murray would win.

False allegations once again, ridiculous stuff.

Born Slippy, I think it is more relavant to look at the Slam titles.
At the moment off clay Nadal has 4 slam titles, Murray has 1.
It's not lazy, the fact is the slams are the most important tournaments.

Murray has more titles than Nadal at Queens. Nadal has 2 more Wimbledon titles.

Who knows what will happen in the future? Murray may go on a Djokovic like tear, and eventually end up with more Grand Slam titles than Federer. Or he could peter out with under 5 slams. Who knows?

But at the moment, if you compare the records, Nadal has acheived far more than Murray, at this point in time.

Born Slippy, I think it is more relavant to look at the Slam titles.
At the moment off clay Nadal has 4 slam titles, Murray has 1.
It's not lazy, the fact is the slams are the most important tournaments.

It is lazy. If Nadal was not winning Slams off Clay, but say Masters of ATP 500 events he was winning off Clay, then a broader argument could be that Nadal struggles with the BO5 format which is no crime. The fact he has struggled to win and defend HC titles does suggest a weakness on surface. Take Murray on Clay and his lack of success. Fans even me would never quote Murray as a favourite at any Clay event.

No-one is questioning Nadal's record. What posters are saying that in the present, Murray is looking the more likely to contest the Slams off Clay compared to Nadal. Murrays progress on HC non-slams has been consistent and finally he has managed to reach that goal of winning a Slam and hopefully can further progress from it.

If anything I will be intrigued to see how Nadal plays once he returns to the tour.

It Must Be Love wrote:

banbrotam wrote: And just because Nadal has more Slams in the past, do we lazily assume that will be the future (Incidentally, I've always looked beyond the Slams, which is why Mecir is in my all time five faves and Sampras, Becker, Stich isn't)

Can you quote me on this
When have I said Nadal will do better in the future.
I have even written threads predicting Murray will win 5 more slams in the future. I don't think Nadal will win 5 more slams.

banbrotam wrote:I can guarantee you something. Murray fans would have no confidence in their players future, if he'd missed a major chunk of the season with his third knee injury in three years. They certainly wouldn't be assuming that he'd come back and resume his winning ways

Interesting, when did I said that he'd come back to winning ways
I said if he regained full fitness and played his A game he is favourite against Murray. At the moment Murray is on better form, higher in the world rankings, and fully fit, so if they played today Murray would win.

False allegations once again, ridiculous stuff.

Nobody's alleging anything. I haven't stated that you've said these things!! I've looked at your comments like "And I don't think Murray can say he is in the same league as Nadal" and argued against it

After all, if you say that you're not referring to the past, I fail to see how anyone cannot see that right now Murray is in Nadal's league

In fairness, you seem to be solely discussing slam records - which makes your statement true. But if this is the case, then I'm correct about questioning why you are doing this, when that is the past

I refer people to my earlier post here. Nadal fans are posting assumptions on their past meetings from a year ago. Now pardon me for mentioning this but since then Murray has moved onto a new level. A level that has seen him appoint Lendl as coach, improved his forehand, improved his second serve stats, improved his on court demeanour and instilled new self-belief and become olymlic champion and won his first slam. I say let's wait to see what their next meeting brings after all this is a new-improved Murray we are talking about here as I am sure Roger and Djoko would be able to confirm.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I refer people to my earlier post here. Nadal fans are posting assumptions on their past meetings from a year ago.

Go on CC, where have I made these assumptions. Quote me.
Where have I said Nadal will be able to get back to his best? I don't think he will.

I'm comparing their records so far, and am saying that Nadal has atm acheived far more than Murray at this point. In the future Murray may catch up, who knows he may go on to win 17 slams like Federer, or he may stay below 3. Who knows?
I can't compare future records... unless I have a time machine.

I can however speculate, and I recognise there is a possibilty that Murray will go on to dominate the tour and win many slams. He is in a better position than Nadal at the moment (who is injured), Federer is at the twilight of his career, and he has shown he can compete against Djokovic.
So perhaps under all this criticism I can write an article speculating whether it is Murray's time to dominate.

Oh wait, I already have...

For all the Murray fans who have been saying I have been making negative assumptions about Murray:
https://www.606v2.com/t34830-how-many-grand-slams-will-andy-murray-win-in-his-career
I say Murray will win 5 more slams in his career, personally I don't see Nadal winning anymore. Fedal is over. (Federer maybe but only maximum 2 more).

Just that there was a post earlier stating categorically if Nadal brings his A game to a match against Murray he wins. That is an assumption and a pretty big one at that considering this is a new and improved Murray we are talking about. Not saying it was you It Must Be Love but it is an assumption. Clearly Murray has improved immensely since he last played Nadal in a slam and that wasn't exactly a thrashing. To cap that all we need to see how Nadal recovers from his injury.

As much as respect IMBL, the good work he has done on this site and his tennis knowledge I have to agree with Murray fans. I don't know if there next meeting on hardcourt in a major will be something that nadal should be favored in. Nadal has always due to his style and his knees been susceptible on a hardcourt. To me 2013 and 2014 will be murray and Novak's time, I could be wrong, never smart to count out Nadal or fed. I think they both could win slams in that period so I am not completely counting them out. However for my money I just want to see Nadal prove that he can stay healthy, something that unfortunately has not been the case.

Socal, I don't see where you disagree with me.
The fact is I highly doubt Nadal will get back to his best. Murray is now in-form and ranked higher than Nadal.
I simply don't see Nadal coming back to his best after injury- and yes I also agree that Murray and Djokovic will dominate the tour.

However at the moment in this moment in their careers for me Nadal has achieved far more than Murray, and has won 10 more slams than him. I don't think Murray will every catch up and be as great as Nadal.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Clearly Murray has improved immensely since he last played Nadal in a slam and that wasn't exactly a thrashing. To cap that all we need to see how Nadal recovers from his injury.

CC, I don't think Nadal will come back to anywhere near his best after injury.

At his best I think Nadal is a better player than Murray, I also think Nadal has achieved more than Murray upto this point.
But I don't see Nadal coming back to his best after this long long injury break.

If that is the case that Nadal never comes back as strong as he was then that would be sad. It also deprives us of a chance of seeing both players meet in their prime. I say that as the Murray we have now is him some way above his level of losing tamely in crunch matches and shluld Nadal come back a weaker player then we will have been robbed of a battle of two top players at their prime.

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, I don't see where you disagree with me.
The fact is I highly doubt Nadal will get back to his best. Murray is now in-form and ranked higher than Nadal.
I simply don't see Nadal coming back to his best after injury- and yes I also agree that Murray and Djokovic will dominate the tour.

However at the moment in this moment in their careers for me Nadal has achieved far more than Murray, and has won 10 more slams than him. I don't think Murray will every catch up and be as great as Nadal.

Well there is no dispute in that for sure IMBL we are in agreement.

Yes craig I would feel robbed if Nadal didn't come back as good as ever. He means a lot to the sport. So sad to have missed so many matches in his prime with the ability he has. I feel for him and his fans on that score.

Socal, I'm really relieved he secured his Roland Garros record, he deserves that fully.
Has anyone dominated a surface like Nadal has dominated clay?
I know Federer has done well on grass, but there aren't that many tournaments on the surface. He has done well in Halle, but because Queens is in the same week we don't get to see real crunch matches at Halle which is a shame.

IMBL - Nadal on clay, and at RG in particular, is surely the toughest match in tennis history. I mean, he's 26 now isn't he and has lost 1 match in his entire career at RG. that is absolutely ridiculous!

It's pointless to speculate what Rafa will be like when he eventually returns. The rest may give him all he required to have another 5+ years at the very top. Or he might never be the same player. We'll just have to wait and see.

I hope we see him back at his best next year. We've had a glorious year in which all of the top 4 have won a slam. How great would it be to see a 4 man fight for world number 1 next year?!

Before the Rosol match, Nadal was in terrific form he had beaten Djokovic 3 times in a row and should have won the Australian Open. It was a sudden injury that affected him, once its healed you would think he will be back to his best. In 2009 I was more concerned than I am now

I hope Nadal comes back fit and healthy. Tennis is a poorer place without him.

In response to the OP, I don't think Murray will ever dominate the tour the way Federer did for several years for the simple reason that there's two other guys roughly his age who are (at least) as good as he is. It's not out of the question he'll have a Novak 2011 year when he dominates, but I can't see him doing it for a number of years.

I don't think he'll dominate either.

To dominate even for a year you have to have momentum. Murray's momentum will always be halted by the clay season. Ok, he won the last 2 big tournaments but as MFC says, there are two players at least as good as him right now and the GOAT who is still at the top of the game.

If someone offered me a slam a year for the next 3 years for murray I'd bite your hand off.