Marion Bartoli And Andy Murray Reach The Sumit At Wimbledon 2013

First topic message reminder :

Wimbledon 2013 marked the career high of both the men's and women's singles winners. Marion Bartoli as everyone knows followed this triumph with retirement. But what next for the winner of the men's singles? Simon Barnes from the Times speculates...

Why Andy Murray has reached the point of no return

So, Muzza dearest — is that it? Is it all over? Is your life’s work complete? I ask these questions because Andy Murray has just parted from his coach, Ivan Lendl, and that seems to me as significant as Lendl’s appointment two years earlier.

The pair should have parted on Centre Court on that unforgettable afternoon last July. Both had done what they set out to do. For Murray, Wimbledon champion, the world would never be the same again; for Lendl, the job wouldn’t be. Or the relationship.

But they have parted now and it is another sign that Murray is not the player he was last July. The prince has slain the dragon and kissed the princess; he has, it seems, no great appetite to kiss the kitchen-maids and ladies-in-waiting to add to his score. Perhaps he’s ready to live happily ever after.

Extract from The Times... Sorry no link as it's PPV.

BB, which shot of Hewitt's do you rate as superior to Murray's. We are talking about a player abou 5-6 years older, not a guy who played with a wooden racquet in tiny white shorts compared with the stars of today. Yes there have been significant changes. But I can't think of single shot that Hewitt the two time world number one has that is better than Murray's. Maybe the backhand topspin lob and that is about it. Tell me what shot does Hewitt hit better than Murray. Yes I understand that he would have accomplished more if not for injuries, but seriously he didn't have much competition compared to the big 4 era. Not to rehash old arguments, so tell me which of Hewitt's weapons are bigger or better than Murray.

Tennis has changed a lot though Socal. I mean the baseline counter-punching game Hewitt played is virtually impossible to compare to the likes of Djokovic and Murray.

socal1976 wrote:Andy is much better than Hewitt ever was. Shot by shot I can't think of a shot of Hewitt's I would rather have over murray's. Murray has the better serve, forehand, backhand, return, and they are about equal in volleys. And in terms of speed Murray is just as fast but he is six foot three and Hewitt is five ten.  If Murray reached his prime in the dark ages of tennis where cromagnons like Roddick where winning slams and attaining the world #1 he would have 300 weeks at number one.

Shot by shot Fogninnnnniiiiii is better than Murray. Yet the results seem to point in favour of the latter, just. That's dark ages posting Socal.

socal1976 wrote:...cromagnons like Roddick...

Classy.

I think when comparing Hewitt and Murray one needs take into account the era's they played in. Hewitt for example learnt his tennis in what was faster conditions. Hewitt beat Sampras on a fast court in New York. Sampras was still the man at that time and if compare the Federer result at Wimbledon to this had Hewitt gone on to win more Slams, then maybe this result would've been looked on with a lot more importance. Hewitt probably has the better FH on paper.

I even hate me for saying this but the era talk. Conditions changed favourably to counter punchers and both Andy and Novak came into a game that clearly favoured their strengths and style. It is only with enhanced fitness that their respective games elevated. That said it makes Federer and even Agassi's results post 2001 the more remarkable.

I don't see Hewitt as being left behind by conditions. In fact, to me, he looks like a milestone in the road to players like Novak and Andy who have prospered on slow conditions: fit, quick, great movement along the baseline, great return of serve, passing shots that come at least in part from racquet technology.

His slams came just as the slowing of surfaces started. USO slowed their surface in 2001, the year Hewitt won. Wimbledon changed to rye grass in 2001 and Hewitt won in 2002. I'd argue he was a beneficiary of slowed surfaces. He may not have learnt on slower courts but they certainly magnified his strengths.

The comparison of Hewitt and Murray is tricky because I see one as the progression of the other. It's like comparing a Walkman to an iPod. Feature for feature, an iPod is better. But at the time it arrived, the Walkman was fantastic, a game changer.

Likewise, I suspect if you put Murray in a time machine back to Wimbledon 2002, he would beat Hewitt. But Murray's game is the product of about a decade's worth of tennis development on relatively unchanging conditions since Hewitt was at his peak. I expect it to be better.

I think Hewitt more than anything was left behind by injuries! He has a plate in his foot, had double hip surgery. He was just blighted by injuries. The lack of power in his shots was made up by the sheer energy he had on court.

I wouldn't expect Murray to beat Hewitt back then simply because I think facing an animal that Hewitt was back then would be too much for Andy mentally.

Great post Murdoch. I think that's very fair albeit personally I think Murray's better touch and physical gifts would have given him the edge over Hewitt even had he come through at exactly the same time.

Very, very good post HMM ; in fact, the clearest, most balanced and most objective analysis amongst the many posts of the thread to date.

I see your analogy between a Walkman and an iPod as particularly relevant. To all intents & purposes, Hewitt's peak dates back to what is essentially another age in tennis, such has been the pace of change in the intervening years since his Slam victories. And - as with so many attempted comparisons between various high-achievers - it is virtually impossible to come to any definitive conclusion as to what may or may not have happened had they (ie Hewitt/Murray) met regularly in their prime.

Sampras made some comments about Hewitt in his book that are quite interesting:

"He loved players who served and volleyed and tried to pressure him. Lleyton was one of the few guys who really could resist the onslaught of a high quality attacker. For a period I felt Lleyton might really dominate. His game translated well from surface to surface, but then a few things happened.

For one Roger federer improved, and he figured Lleyton out cold. The game in general also improved while Lleyton was at the top. Guys were playing with a little more power, partly thanks to advances in racket technology, but fewer of them were playing into Hewitt's hands. Lleyton liked having a target, but in his era guys stopped coming to the net. Hewitt was a victim of his time"

I'd pretty much agree with that. Hewitt kind of heralded in the era of the modern power baseliner. The combination of his style, racquet technology and slower surfaces enabled him to usurp his predecessors whose patterns of play came from the SV era.

Once his style of play became more common, he got a bit left behind in the arms race (in his defence, he did have a lot interruptions with injury).

That's quite a rounded observation by one of the games greats. I think that last piece about being a victim of his time. Hewitt is an old 33 and Barry Cowan (who for the most part I disagree with) made a point about Tsonga looking and being older than his years and he remarked how old Roddick looked before he retired and was insinuating his game got much older before him.

It's an interesting analogy

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Andy is much better than Hewitt ever was. Shot by shot I can't think of a shot of Hewitt's I would rather have over murray's. Murray has the better serve, forehand, backhand, return, and they are about equal in volleys. And in terms of speed Murray is just as fast but he is six foot three and Hewitt is five ten.  If Murray reached his prime in the dark ages of tennis where cromagnons like Roddick where winning slams and attaining the world #1 he would have 300 weeks at number one.

Shot by shot Fogninnnnniiiiii is better than Murray. Yet the results seem to point in favour of the latter, just. That's dark ages posting Socal.

What JK, Foggy has a better backhand and return or volleys than Murray? Sorry Foggy is a talented shot maker but he has at most if you are being generous one or two shots as good or better than Murray.

For most of his career Hewitt has played with the same exact conditions and technology as Murray. Hewitt won his wimbeldon title on the new slower grass of wimbeldon. The big slowdown and birth of luxilon was from 1999-2003. Injuries did him in but even at his best he was not a dominate number 1. He was simply out fire powered even when healthy. Of course injuries knocked the tar out of him and he would have won more but I still rate him as being behind Murray. I actually think Hewitt is an all time great of the game, but he is sort of the entry level great. If you are better than Hewitt than you are an all time great if you aren't as good you aren't. I am still waiting for the answer shot by shot, which of Hewitt's shots are better than Murray's. And the changes you are talking about some happened before Hewitt was still winning. The changes were not as big by the way as what the players of the late 70s went through with graphite racquet replacing wood.

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Andy is much better than Hewitt ever was. Shot by shot I can't think of a shot of Hewitt's I would rather have over murray's. Murray has the better serve, forehand, backhand, return, and they are about equal in volleys. And in terms of speed Murray is just as fast but he is six foot three and Hewitt is five ten.  If Murray reached his prime in the dark ages of tennis where cromagnons like Roddick where winning slams and attaining the world #1 he would have 300 weeks at number one.

Shot by shot Fogninnnnniiiiii is better than Murray. Yet the results seem to point in favour of the latter, just. That's dark ages posting Socal.

What JK, Foggy has a better backhand and return or volleys than Murray? Sorry Foggy is a talented shot maker but he has at most if you are being generous one or two shots as good or better than Murray.

Fognini has by far the better forehand which is the most important shot in tennis. Ever watched a Nadal or Federer match? He is close at the net but goes to net more often and has a better drive volley (that is even more important than proper volleys in modern game). Most people other that you would find that Fognini has bigger shots than Murray. The point is: it's pointless to compare players shot by shot. How would you rank Wilander shot by shot against his peers?

I am even looking at athleticism, speed and fitness are too huge weapons. At his peak Hewitt and Murray and Wilander for that matter had it. Foggy, struggles to replicate his best shots that big forehand of his i not as great as it appears because it can breakdown quite a bit. But a nice dodge, still no one can answer my question. Because it is obvious Hewitt lacks the weapons and firepower of murray. Of course at the end of the day their accomplishments decide who is the better player.

socal1976 wrote:I am even looking at athleticism, speed and fitness are too huge weapons. .

Yes but they are no shots. Hard work and mental toughness are also important, but still they aren't shots.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I am even looking at athleticism, speed and fitness are too huge weapons. .

Yes but they are no shots. Hard work and mental toughness are also important, but still they aren't shots.

As has been the case history will vindicate me yet again. Murray has already surpassed Hewitt in masters and equaled him in slams, when he wins a couple of more slams and continues to pile up match and tournament wins what I have been saying for years will be vindicated. I am like the Copernicus of tennis.

Copernicus had the Sun as the centre of the universe. So basically you're the guy who improves slightly on rubbish theories, but doesn't come up with a correct one   
We finally agree on something!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Copernicus had the Sun as the centre of the universe. So basically you're the guy who improves slightly on rubbish theories, but doesn't come up with a correct one   
We finally agree on something!

I think the paragraph after the Sampras quote above, Pete goes on to talk about Weak Eras!

People are reading too much into Leyton's injury though. The hip injury came in 2008 and by that time he had already spent a few years behind the up and coming youngsters Nadal, Djokovic and Murray so lets not pretend that if the injuries had not come along things would have been a heck of a lot different. Also can I point out that Murray has been no stranger to injury with wrist injury keeping him out for many weeks and the back injury requiring surgery that kept him out for months and hindered him prior to the operation.

Craig people who can't see the deficiencies in Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and Nalbandian compared to the generation of players that came after them couldn't see a pit bull if it was biting them on the arse. Hewitt was surpassed not due to injury, look at how many injuries Rafa and yes even Andy have had and they are still in the mix in the top of the game. He just lacked firepower and players came around that could defend like he could and hit a lot bigger, game over Hewitt. Seriously, Federer would have had more competition in 03-06 if he played on the WTA against Henin, Clisters, and the Williams sisters.

socal1976 wrote:.....................................Seriously, Federer would have had more competition in 03-06 if he played on the WTA against Henin, Clisters, and the Williams sisters.

Interesting use of the word "seriously" there - in as much as it's hard to imagine anyone reading this typical socal throwaway line and taking it seriously.

Given that Federer had competition from a certain Rafa Nadal during 03-06 - a period in which they clashed around ten times (many of them whilst Rafa was a Slam Champion) - socal manages to insult two sporting greats in the same sentence.

I think Socal would no doubt accept that Rafa was a challenge on clay. However, if the main rival on hard and grass was a kid who had barely played on those surfaces (even a future ATG) then that isn't suggestive of strong competition.

Hmm.....not sure I find that very convincing.

During the period highlighted by socal, Rafa was already a pretty accomplished HC player, as evidenced by his success in winning two Masters titles, and another in Dubai. Plus, he had already beaten world no 1 Federer on a Miami hard court back in 04, and just lost out in a 5 set tussle the following year. Safe to say that Federer himself, who was facing Rafa across the net on hard courts, must have regarded him as "suggestive of strong competition ......"  (even if armchair viewers don't !!)

As for the other stuff.....worth remembering that socal's favourite Aussie player still holds one of the very best match win records on grass.

Trying to ascertain the strength of any era by statistics and who won what is a complete waste of time IMHO. Especially where there are only a finite amount of trophies to go around. The 5 'best' players of all time could be playing at exactly the same time and if the 'best' of that bunch was so much better than the other 4 that he hoovered up every trophy, would the other 4 players cease to be any good? Of course they wouldn't. Does this make it a weak 'era'? Of course it doesn't.

Was Jimmy White a terrible snooker player because he never won the World Championships? Is every player who won the World Championships since a much better player than Jimmy White? Of course not. But he just had the misfortune to play in a time when Stephen Hendry took the game to a different planet.

The facts remain that Federer and Nadal played against the same competition bar just under 2 years. And a tennis career is not built in 2 years. If one has had it easy, so has the other. Just cus Nadal was younger when he made his breakthrough makes no odds. Quality is not measured by age.

Johnyjeep wrote:Trying to ascertain the strength of any era by statistics and who won what is a complete waste of time IMHO. Especially where there are only a finite amount of trophies to go around. The 5 'best' players of all time could be playing at exactly the same time and if the 'best' of that bunch was so much better than the other 4 that he hoovered up every trophy, would the other 4 players cease to be any good? Of course they wouldn't. Does this make it a weak 'era'? Of course it doesn't.

Was Jimmy White a terrible snooker player because he never won the World Championships? Is every player who won the World Championships since a much better player than Jimmy White? Of course not. But he just had the misfortune to play in a time when Stephen Hendry took the game to a different planet.

The facts remain that Federer and Nadal played against the same competition bar just under 2 years. And a tennis career is not built in 2 years. If one has had it easy, so has the other. Just cus Nadal was younger when he made his breakthrough makes no odds. Quality is not measured by age.

I fully agree.   

Very good post CC, not least your reminder that Federer and Nadal have, all said & done, played against the very same competition other than for a very short period of less than two years. Anybody looking to devalue the 'scale of difficulty' of the achievements of either one of them, by definition also devalues those of the other. Given just how great these two icons of the sport are - a ridiculous 30 Slams between them, and counting -  it's clearly a wholly irrational line of argument (although that won't stop the wacky theories ....).

Your wider point about the pointlessness of trying to ascertain the strength of ANY (my caps) era by statistics and who won what pretty much says it all ..... 

That post you commended lags was posted by Johnyjeep. I thought I'd point that out as I don't want to steal his thunder.

BS I have to fully agree. No competition to speak of on faster surfaces other than a teenage clay court specialist. As for jj's point I don't remember Hewitt, Safin, and nalbandian getting to loads of grand slam semis and finals and losing to only federer. In what should have been their physical prime they where overran by a whole generation of youngsters and struggled to maintain relevance and even a top ten ranking. Usually players who don't win as much are not as good as those that do, for everyone but federer's early rivals since the dawn of time this has been held to be sufficient to draw a conclusion

Thanks for putting me straight on that CC, my bad.

As you say, it was Johnyjeep's post, so full credit to him for putting it all into clear perspective  

"No competition to speak of on faster surfaces other than a teenage clay court specialis"

Isn't it this week the 10 year anniversary of the first game between Federer and Nadal -hardcourt. I wonder who won that game    

WRaleigh, yes we can see how a nadal far from his peak on a fast court could provide a modicum of challenge that none of his contemporaries were able to

I see you're a new poster WRaleigh (welcome) and just thought you might want to save yourself a lot of circular debating time.

Mind you, my suggestion would involve accepting the socal (aka Copernicus   ) theory of modern tennis, which goes something like this ........

- Nadal provided nothing more than a "modicum of challenge" to Federer in his early years

- Hewitt (multi-Slam winner & World No. 1) provided no challenge at all, even though he was beating Federer regularly (and Nadal) in the early years

- Safin (multi-Slam winner & World No.1) provided no challenge at all, even though he was good enough to beat defending champ Federer at the Australian Open

- Nalbandian provided no challenge at all, even though he managed to beat Federer five times in a row, including AO & USO meetings

Obviously "no competition to speak of" from those guys.

So.....who exactly DID come along to provide a challenge ?? When did a truly competitive era actually begin, you may be wondering ......  

Well, that happened in the early part of 2007.

Which - by sheer coincidence - just happens to be the very point at which Novak Djokovic won his first Masters title ..........

And who  - by sheer coincidence - just happens to be the all-time favourite player of socal

It all makes perfect sense.

How could anyone ever doubt its veracity and irrefutable logic ....??

I mean ......"seriously" now ......

Well lags if you want to misrepresent the things that I say then great post. Nadal was way off his peak on faster surfaces in 05-07, does anyone question that? In 05 he had a serve that struggled to break 110mph.

It is just interesting that Nadal and Djokovic at the end of 07 were the closest players to Roger in the rankings and his contemporaries at a stage where they should have been dominating the younger players gave away.

If you call this circular logic then you don't understand what circular or logic is. As I have often said, if the rollover generation were better players they would have won more, the fact that they didn't proves that they were not good enough to challenge. And no it wasn't just Federer preventing them from reaching their peak they were supplanted by a whole generation of younger stars.

Era debate    

carrieg4 wrote:Era debate    

Yeah - that'll bring the crowds flocking

Thanks CC and Lags   

Johnyjeep wrote:Trying to ascertain the strength of any era by statistics and who won what is a complete waste of time IMHO. Especially where there are only a finite amount of trophies to go around. The 5 'best' players of all time could be playing at exactly the same time and if the 'best' of that bunch was so much better than the other 4 that he hoovered up every trophy, would the other 4 players cease to be any good? Of course they wouldn't. Does this make it a weak 'era'? Of course it doesn't.

Was Jimmy White a terrible snooker player because he never won the World Championships? Is every player who won the World Championships since a much better player than Jimmy White? Of course not. But he just had the misfortune to play in a time when Stephen Hendry took the game to a different planet.

The facts remain that Federer and Nadal played against the same competition bar just under 2 years. And a tennis career is not built in 2 years. If one has had it easy, so has the other. Just cus Nadal was younger when he made his breakthrough makes no odds. Quality is not measured by age.

Agree with that proposition. The difference is that I'd say we have been far closer to that position over the last few years than at any time I can recall. We have been privileged to see three of the top ten players of the open era but Novak's stats won't reflect how good he actually is as he's been up against the two greatest of all time. As for Murray, his record against the rest of the field in slams, not to mention the fact we can subjectively see how complete a game he has, suggests a player who would normally have won more slams and probably been number 1 for a fair period in his career.

In contrast, during Hewitt's time at the top, the top guys were all regularly losing to some pretty average players. That's indicative not of the top guys been all that strong. Agassi (aged 32-33) won the most Slams/Masters in 01/02 when Hewitt was number 1. Only when Federer matured did we see a player start to dominate.

Yes BS I agree. Greats of any sport will find a way to dominate and put together a jaw-droppingly good run of results/form. Failing that they can obtain long spells of ridiculous consistency that keeps them in the upper echelons of the sport (say the top ten) for five to ten years. Hewitt was almost there on both counts but dropped short whilst Murray isn't quite there yet either but isn't finished yet. For me if Murray wins one more slam or reaches No.1 then he leapfrogs Hewitt in the all-time standings.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes BS I agree. Greats of any sport will find a way to dominate and put together a jaw-droppingly good run of results/form. Failing that they can obtain long spells of ridiculous consistency that keeps them in the upper echelons of the sport (say the top ten) for five to ten years. Hewitt was almost there on both counts but dropped short whilst Murray isn't quite there yet either but isn't finished yet. For me if Murray wins one more slam or reaches No.1 then he leapfrogs Hewitt in the all-time standings.

For me Murray already is better.

They both have 2 slams, Murray has 9 masters to Hewitt's 4. Murray has 28 singles titles to Hewitt's 29 with Hewitt having way more years on tour and I think the prospects are clearly in Murray's favor. Hewitt has a career .713 win percentage to Murray's .762. Murray has a career 55% percent win percentage against the top ten. Hewitt has a career 48.5 percent win percentage against the top ten. The fact that a player like Murray can't get a sniff at number 1 and Hewitt has two year end #1s is clear evidence of what I have been saying for ages. The reason that Hewitt finished year end #1 and Murray hasn't is more of a function of there being no Nadal or Djokovic around and even Federer was nowhere near his grandslam winning level in 01 and 02. Murray tops Hewitt in every major statistical category and has years more to fill his boots. I wouldn't be surprised if he finished his career with double the slams and 4 times the Masters series wins. Only a federer fan can't understand that type of mathematical advantage.

Yes socal I do agree but did say at the moment. It is inevitable Murray will finish way above what Hewitt achieved but I still get the feeling some will not recognise that. Heck some here are laughably suggesting (and they aren't kidding) about Fognini being more talented than Murray.   

My take on this is thus. Andy Murray has great talent which he was born with and can play shots others cannot pull off from impossible positions (we saw one the other day V Djokovic where the ball had passed him way behind baseline and Djoko was at the net yet Murray hit a cross court winner from outside the tramlines). Unfortunately, the achilles heal of Andy I feel could always be his inconsistency. It blights him unlike any of the other top players where he has form dips and that is what will ever prevent him getting to No.1 (unless he sorts it out) and will prevent him stringing together a heck of a lot of slam wins. If he had more consistency in his play he'd already be up there with Novak on slam wins and looking at winning 10+ slams. Wonderful talent though he has that isn't enough to guarantee becoming one of the greats.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes socal I do agree but did say at the moment. It is inevitable Murray will finish way above what Hewitt achieved but I still get the feeling some will not recognise that. Heck some here are laughably suggesting (and they aren't kidding) about Fognini being more talented than Murray.   

My take on this is thus. Andy Murray has great talent which he was born with and can play shots others cannot pull off from impossible positions (we saw one the other day V Djokovic where the ball had passed him way behind baseline and Djoko was at the net yet Murray hit a cross court winner from outside the tramlines). Unfortunately, the achilles heal of Andy I feel could always be his inconsistency. It blights him unlike any of the other top players where he has form dips and that is what will ever prevent him getting to No.1 (unless he sorts it out) and will prevent him stringing together a heck of a lot of slam wins. If he had more consistency in his play he'd already be up there with Novak on slam wins and looking at winning 10+ slams. Wonderful talent though he has that isn't enough to guarantee becoming one of the greats.

Hell of a lot more consistent than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, or Nalbandian and pretty much any other guy that won 2 slams maybe with the exception of Nastase. The point is that Murray would be number  1 in an era where people like Roddick and Hewitt could attain that title. Hewitt's best season is 1 slam and 2 masters that would get him a number 3 ranking today. And if you look at Hewitt's 29 tournament wins you see that he has a lot of secondary tournaments that people like Murray and Djokovic rarely would play. Two titles in Scottsdale, two in vegas, lots of brisbane and Adelaide titles; in short Hewitt has way more 250s in his 29 tournaments than Murray. The only reason Djokovic or Murray would go to Vegas would be to play some high stakes black jack, and I didn't even know Scottsdale had a tournament like ever. The fact is that those who can't see a significant qualitative difference between Murray and Hewitt and the rollover boys don't want to see it. Murray is a level or two above them, but there is a need among a certain group of Federer fans that needs to inflate the obviously laughable competition Roger faced in 03-06, and really even in 07 where an asthmatic Djokovic and Nadal where his nearest competitors and they couldn't even buy a beer in the United States. That is why we see this inflation of fed's contemporaries like Super talented Dave the most talented guy not named Federer to pick up a racquet or an Empanada in the last 15 years. Easily the worst period of top level talent the early to mid 2000s that I have seen in my 30 years of watching and playing tennis.

socal1976 wrote:like Super talented Dave the most talented guy not named Federer to pick up a racquet or an Empanada in the last 15 years.

  
I must confess to laughing out loud at this line.

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes socal I do agree but did say at the moment. It is inevitable Murray will finish way above what Hewitt achieved but I still get the feeling some will not recognise that. Heck some here are laughably suggesting (and they aren't kidding) about Fognini being more talented than Murray.   

My take on this is thus. Andy Murray has great talent which he was born with and can play shots others cannot pull off from impossible positions (we saw one the other day V Djokovic where the ball had passed him way behind baseline and Djoko was at the net yet Murray hit a cross court winner from outside the tramlines). Unfortunately, the achilles heal of Andy I feel could always be his inconsistency. It blights him unlike any of the other top players where he has form dips and that is what will ever prevent him getting to No.1 (unless he sorts it out) and will prevent him stringing together a heck of a lot of slam wins. If he had more consistency in his play he'd already be up there with Novak on slam wins and looking at winning 10+ slams. Wonderful talent though he has that isn't enough to guarantee becoming one of the greats.

Hell of a lot more consistent than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, or Nalbandian and pretty much any other guy that won 2 slams maybe with the exception of Nastase. The point is that Murray would be number  1 in an era where people like Roddick and Hewitt could attain that title. Hewitt's best season is 1 slam and 2 masters that would get him a number 3 ranking today. And if you look at Hewitt's 29 tournament wins you see that he has a lot of secondary tournaments that people like Murray and Djokovic rarely would play. Two titles in Scottsdale, two in vegas, lots of brisbane and Adelaide titles; in short Hewitt has way more 250s in his 29 tournaments than Murray. The only reason Djokovic or Murray would go to Vegas would be to play some high stakes black jack, and I didn't even know Scottsdale had a tournament like ever. The fact is that those who can't see a significant qualitative difference between Murray and Hewitt and the rollover boys don't want to see it. Murray is a level or two above them, but there is a need among a certain group of Federer fans that needs to inflate the obviously laughable competition Roger faced in 03-06, and really even in 07 where an asthmatic Djokovic and Nadal where his nearest competitors and they couldn't even buy a beer in the United States. That is why we see this inflation of fed's contemporaries like Super talented Dave the most talented guy not named Federer to pick up a racquet or an Empanada in the last 15 years. Easily the worst period of top level talent the early to mid 2000s that I have seen in my 30 years of watching and playing tennis.

The funny thing isn't so much Socal's deliria which is something we already know and that will come more often than usual in the weekends. The funny thing is to find a couple of Murray fanatics who are prepered to "reason" with him to big up their one and only!!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: The funny thing is to find a couple of Murray fanatics who are prepered to "reason" with him to big up their one and only!!

Says the person who thinks Fognini has more talent than Murray.    That bitterness prevents clarity of thinking me thinks.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes socal I do agree.......    
If he had more consistency in his play he'd already be up there with Novak on slam wins and looking at winning 10+ slams. Wonderful talent though he has that isn't enough to guarantee becoming one of the greats.

So when Murray wins, it's because of his superior talent, when he loses it's his inconsistency. Unlike Hewitt who won his slams and wtfs (conveniently  forgotten in this "dabate") and weeks at n.1  because of his superior consistency but couldn't achieve more for his lack of talent.

Sometimes it's fanaticism that prevents clarity of mind.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes socal I do agree.......    
If he had more consistency in his play he'd already be up there with Novak on slam wins and looking at winning 10+ slams. Wonderful talent though he has that isn't enough to guarantee becoming one of the greats.

So when Murray wins, it's because of his superior talent, when he loses it's his inconsistency. Unlike Hewitt who won his slams and wtfs (conveniently  forgotten in this "dabate") and weeks at n.1   because of his superior consistency but couldn't achieve more for his lack of talent.

Sometimes it's fanaticism that prevents clarity of mind.

What are you wittering on about? Check back and earlier in this thread I did say I had Hewitt just ahead of Murray just now on strength of him being a world No.1.   

I have said that Fognini has bigger shots than Murray, where did I say he had more talent? Again, fanaticism causes confusion. Happy debate with Socal, I am out!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I have said that Fognini has bigger shots than Murray, where did I say he had more talent? Again, fanaticism causes confusion. Happy debate with Socal, I am out!

    Deary me. I will say not more than that.....deary me.   

socal1976 wrote:Only a federer fan can't understand that type of mathematical advantage.

Craig - he just called you a Federer fan!