As for Gasquet and Nalbandian being also amazing players. Well sorry to tell you but....
Gasquet and Nalbandian between them have won 17 ATP titles. Murray alone has won 22 titles.
Gasquet and Nalbandian between them have reached one slam final. Murray alone has reached four.
Gasquet and Nalbandian between them have reached six slam semi-finals. Murray alone has reached ten.
On all of those fronts Gasquet and Nalbandian doesn't come close to Murray's career record.
CC, Glad to see you don't object anymore to my previous post. Now, about your question, if your question is whether or not Murray is one of the greatest players in activity then the answer is pretty obvious. Yes he is, and he is exactly 4th greatest (after the top 3). Now if your question is whether or not among the active players he is one of the (all-time) greats, the answer is obviously no. So really, it all depends on what you are asking). Now if you want a simple comparison in terms of greatness. I guess you would say that Kafelnikov is not an all-time great (even though I am sure you remember him and his name), and, in all objectivity, Kafelnikov has a better tennis resume than Murray as they both have an Olympic gold (in singles) but Kafelnikov has 2 slams to Murray 0. The only difference is that Kafelnikov cannot add to his tally while Murray can. So it's all up to the latter to show he can become a great, but right now, great he is, a great he is not.
I have answered this question for you several times CC
There is a big divide between the top 3 and no 4
They are the ones winning majors,they are the ones beating each other in majors,he isn't.He only makes grand slam finals if he doesnt have to face one of them along the way or if one of them withdraws or retires due to injury
Sure he has done more the the players behind him but he is very very far away from ever being in the same conversations as the 3 players ahead of him.He is not a part of the great 3 and its an insult to them to claim that he is
Of course all the other players are going to give Murray credit for what he achieves,no point in kicking a player while he is down but most of that praise generally only comes after they've beaten Murrays ass,cause its very rare,in fact it almost never happens that he beats them on the biggest stage of tennis
What about the time Murray moved to no3 last season and Federer said he was unimpressed cause Murray only moved out the ranking cause Roger wasn't playing and as soon as Roger came back on tour,Murray was reminded of where his place is.
Its not the first time this has happened,in 09 he couldnt even hang onto the ranking for 2 weeks but was cocky enough to say "only a few more weeks then Im no1"
So there I have answered your questions over and over again so why won't you answer mine?
I don't have the energy to rewrite them,they are all in the comments above
@ Jonty
No one ver said Murray doesnt deserve respect,and I have certainly given him the respect and credit he deserves based on what he has achieved but its clear that CC is once again trying to build Murray up to be something he isn't
Murray hasnt earned the right to be called great alongside the likes of Federer,Djokovic and Nadal,certainly not just cause he won a 750 tournament
And where have I ever said he is an all-time great. I never have. I merely state he is one of the greatest players in the world at the moment. You agree but veejay does not but am waiting for him to define why that is the case. He also feels Gasquet and Nalbandian have amazing games yet combined (even though their careers near their end) haven't achieved as much as Murray has in the sport. Yet he still aches to put down Murray. Figure that logic out because I can't.
@ CC
You fell straight into that one,I was waiting for the list of achievements comparing Murray to Gasquest and Nalbanidian
If Murray fails to win a major he will retire alongside Gasquet and Nalbandian and all other players whie never won a major
You can list all Murray achieved and ever will achieve,nothing will ever change that
Even if he wins a major,a hall of fame player he may become but he will still not be a great alongside the greats
What question? Murray hasn't won a slam even in a tournament that's draw opened up for him? I have already said that how can you say the draw opened right up for him when Federer awaited in the final. Nonsense. I would agree with you if a Tipsarevic or Isner awaited in the final at Wimbledon but he didn't so your point/question is invalid.
Nope Veejay afraid not.
People use numbers/figures all the time. It is how they define Fed as the greatest of all-time as he has won most slams. If Murray never wins a slam I think it is pretty fair to suggest he will be seen as one of the greatest/best players never to have won a slam (ahead of Nalbandian and Gasquet) on the grounds of his achievements out with slams in the sport.
Murray is not one of the greatest players right now cause Murray has 0 majors
Nadal -11
Federer -17
Djokovic -5
Ill say it again Murray has 0 majors...so explain to me how he is one of the greatest against 3 players who have won 33 major between them when he has a big fat zero
Even Del Potro will go down in history as a greater player then Murray based on his single major where the beat both Federer and Nadal back to back to win the title
Doesnt matter if Murray wins 100 more masters series and 100 more gold medals,makes 100 more grand slam finals or is ranked 4th till the day he dies,you have to start achieving what Federer Nadal and Djokovic have done to be considered great and then you have to match what they've done to be considered an all time great
Are you daft? Where have I ever said he was an all-time great? Quit trying to put words into my mouth. However, you wish to paint it he is one of the best players in the world at the moment. In top four for the last few years in a world of thousands of tennis players. Sure he hasn't got the slam wins but ticks every other box there is to tick. If you are not willing to admit that then you have an even more closed-mind than I thought.
And sorry but going by your analysis of greatness then Thomas Johanssen is a better player than Murray on the strength of one slam win.
That is a Johanssen who won 9 ATP titles to Murray's 22 ATP titles. A Johanssen who only played in one slam and never reached another slam semi.
His slam record is:-
Australian Open Best Won in 2002.
French Open Best 2nd Round exit.
Wimbledon Best 4th Round exit.
US Open Best Q/Final exit.
So you see trying to use slam wins putrely as a measure of greatness is seriously flawed. That is not me saying Andy is near to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic by the way but me pointing out that to claim a slam win by one player once alone quantifies them as better than Murray is seriously flawed.
Don't make me laugh CC
Murray cannot be called great in an era of Federer,Djokovic and Nadal.They are great,they will also retire and become all time greats of the game.Going by his results so far,he isn't great now and he certainly won't be an all time great of the game
He may be good,above average,ahead of the likes of Gasquet and Nalbandian for certain achievements but certainly way way way behind being called great alongside the top 3 players ahead of him.He hasnt even come close to achieving a 5th of what any of them have achieved
He will only earn the right to be called great if he starts winning multiple majors and dominates the game the way Federer,Djokovic and Nadal have
"but ticks every other box there is to tick"
Um no....How many time do I have to point out that apart from 4 years ago where he tanked his 1st round match at the Olympics to give himself a better shot at the Olympics,the other times he made a grand slam final was when he didn't have to face one of the top 3 players ahead of him in the semi finals.Every other time he has had to face one of them in the semi finals he has failed to make it past them to be a finalist
Murray is 25 already,if he hasnt done it by now,what gives you reason to believe he will?
He just lost against to Roger at Wimbledon when he didn't even have to face Djokovic or Nadal in the semi final
Even then when the draw opened up for him,he failed to even make it past 1 of the top 3 players ahead of him to win a major
If he cant even win when the draw opened up for him and he only had to beat 1 of the top3,how is he ever going to win a major beating 2 of the top 3 back to back to win a major?
Can you explain that to me?
I keep asking you the same questions and you keep ignoring it,if he cant even win a major when the draw opens up for him how is he ever going to win a major?
And don't try to act dumb,you know that when people say the draw opens up it means he doesnt have to face someone before the final
"So you see trying to use slam wins putrely as a measure of greatness is seriously flawed."
Slams are at the top of the list of achievements used in the tennis to rate greatness.Federer is considered the GOAT by popular opinion based solely on his grand slam titles.Dont shoot the messenger if you disagree
I think more comes into play when discussing it but a player who wins a major will always be rated greater then a player who hasnt
You can throw all Murrays achievement at me,history will always show that Johanson won a major and Murray didn't-case closed
You're becoming desperate here CC,just admit Murray isn't as great as you're making him out to be
he is a good player I will give him that but he hasnt earned the right to be called great alongside those who have won majors
If you are so close-minded that is your look-out. Thousands of players in the world and Murray has long been ranked in the top four. Top four in a world of thousands equates as one of the best players in the world at the moment. If you can't accept that then that is up to you.
As long as I see the improvements then I hold out much hope that Murray will win a slam in the future. Last slam at Wimbledon is proof of improvement alone where he won the first set and is fair to say he made all the running in the second set only to lose it so that is a step forward from previous slam finals. And please just quit trying to negate his achievements on other trivialities. He can only beat who is put before him. Is it his fault if others fail to earn the right to play him. NO. So on last slam evidence he is heading in the right direction. If he wins a slam or two then fabulous but if not (whether you like it or not) he will be talked about as one of the best players never to have won a slam, will be an Olympic champion, will be one of only nine player in history to reach each slam semi in a calendar year and be in the top ten most successful Masters Cup players of all-time so it certainly won't have been a mediocre career as you claim.
Slams are at the top of the list of achievements used in the tennis to rate greatness.Federer is considered the GOAT by popular opinion based solely on his grand slam titles.Dont shoot the messenger if you disagree
I think more comes into play when discussing it but a player who wins a major will always be rated greater then a player who hasnt
You can throw all Murrays achievement at me,history will always show that Johanson won a major and Murray didn't-case closed
You're becoming desperate here CC,just admit Murray isn't as great as you're making him out to be
he is a good player I will give him that but he hasnt earned the right to be called great alongside those who have won majors
Nope veejay and it is you that is desperate if you see Johansson as better than Murray on the strength of one slam win and nothing else of note in his career. In other sports it is the same. Ask snooker fans who is the best player - Jimmy White (0 world titles) or Joe Johnson (1 world title) and White wins all the time. Ask golf fans who is better Paul Lawrie (1 major) or Colin Montgomerie (0 majors) and most would see Monty as top dog. Other sports have similar incidences.
CC no personaI agro intended, but, I think part of the problem is British media despereately hyping Murray up all the time. That is a massive turn off for many fans.
If he was Swedish, you souldn't hear nay of this greatnes talk.
I would agree to some extent nole but is that Andy's fault? No of course not.
Ok he won a set..that may be improvement but that was on set off 1 player.Question is can he beat one of the top 3 players in the semi final and then still take a single set of a player on the fInal?
Remains to be seen..
Bwahaha...thats hilarious CC trying to make out that Murray can only play who is in front of him
Who ever said anything to the contrary??
My point was when he faces one of the top 3 in the semi finals he cant even make it past 1 them to make it to the finals,its only when he doesnt have to face one of the top 3 in the semi finals that he can make a grand slam final
Why are you dancing around this point?
I see youre still avoiding answering he questions I posed you
Don't you think thats rude? I mean I answered all of yours so why won't you answer mine?
The only people who will trumpet that Murray is one of the best players to never win a major will be fanatic Murray fans like you and the likes of Andrew Castle and few other bias muppets from the BBC
The truth is if Murray is good enough to win a major he will win one,but so far he hasnt which proves he hasnt been good enough to win a major.And then you want to attack those who make pathetic excuses when you're doing no different
To suggest Murray is one of the best to never win a major is making excuses for the fact that he never won a major,there is no way around it
Truth is he wasn't "one of the best " enough to win a major,if he could have he would have but he didn't cause he couldnt
Even players who retire with a single major are called 1 hit wonders,sort of implying to mediocrity,could only pull it off once and never again,if players who have won a major can be called 1 hit wonders how can players who havent even won a major not be called mediocre or under achievers?
Sorry CC
Johanson will go down in the history books having won a major,so far Murray hasnt so he won't-case closed
Does matter what else Murray achieves,Johanson achieved the greatest achievement a player can in tennis and Murray hasnt
You can try to spin this as much as you want,it won't change anything
"I would agree to some extent nole but is that Andy's fault? No of course not."
No its your fault,your the one trying to build Murray up to be something he isn't
Like the Olympics title you just cant be happy with the victory,you now have to claim Murray is great when he is just a good player
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/09/andy-murray-withdraws-toronto-injury?newsfeed=true
It really is nonsense that you spout veejay. People can judge for themselves without your vindictive brainwashing. Who is closer to reality here ? I say Andy Murray is one of the best players in the world at the moment (hardly rocket science considering he has consistently been a slam semi and finalist in the last few years)and never said anything about him being an all -time great like you try to put into my mouth. Or should we listen to veejay who swears Andy Murray has had a mediocre career on the basis he has not won a slam at a time when Roger Federer (widely regarded as the greatest of all-time) and Rafael Nadal (greatest clay courter of all-time) are plying their trade. Now you reiterate his mediocre Murray is yet he is the only other consistent contender outwith Fed, Nadal and Djokovic by a country mile. Sorry veejay MASSIVE flaws in your logic clouded I suggest by a distinct dislike of Murray. You are quite pathetic really and your attitude to top tennis players stink - Nadal is a drug cheat is another of your claims after all. Take your views away from tennis as they do it no favours.
Murray may be consistently 4th in the rankings but as I have said so many times before the gap between 4th and the top 3 is enormous
Murray cannot even be mentioned in the same sentence
as the 3 ahead of him.Murray hasnt done enough to be called one of the greatest players in the world cause his achievements is nothing more then mediocre against those who can be called the greatest players in the world.They may be good achievements by his own standards,but this is what the argument is all about,they are not great by the standards of the players ahead of him,in fact if we measure his achievements against the top 3,its pretty poor,very very far from great
Murray is a lot closer to the rest of the pack then he is to the 3 players ahead of him
LMAO..theres the excuses made for Murray again,he hasnt won a major because he is playing in the same era as Federer..sounds like the times excuses were made for Henman cause he was playing in the same era as Sampras.Whats with the excuses CC?
Murray is 5 yeas younger then Federer and is the same age as Djokovic and Nadal,if they are good enough to win majors then it proves that he simply isn't good enough to win majors.If he was good enough to win a major he would have won one by now,but he isn't and here you are trying to shove Murrays greatness down everyones throat
Come back when Murray has achieved enough to be called great and then everyone will take you seriously,but right now you're just making a fool of yourself by trying to build Murray up into something he isn't
Why cant you just be happy with the fact that Murray is a good player,he's done well for himself,did the nation proud this week,but no,you won't be happy unless we all call him one of the greatest players in the world right now even though he hasnt done near enough to earn such praise
Its insulting to the rest of the top 3 players that you can ignore the magnitude of what they achieved and then call what Murray achieved "great"
How can Murray be great and Federer,Nadal and Djokovic be great all at the same time too.What separates them if you want to call Murray one of the greatest players in the world?
"Now you reiterate his mediocre Murray is yet he is the only other consistent contender outwith Fed"
LMAO..exactly he is only a contender without the great 3,so how great can he be if the opposition needs to be eliminated for him to have a legitimate chance at winning a major?
Its like saying,Murray is a legitimate contender at majors,but only when the top 3 are upset before the semi finals and finals LOL!!
Funny as it is,thats exactly the only reason why he makes grand slam finals,he has proven that he cannot even make it past 1 of the top 3 in the semi final to make the final.
Of course my views won't do you any favours cause Im saying it how it is.Youre doing Murray no favours by building Murray up to be something he isn't,just like you claimed that Murray handed Federer his heaviest defeat at Wimbledon.If someone is that over rated,the only direction they can do go is down,so the haters will throw an even bigger party when Murray fails to once again live up to your hype.Can you not see how you're hurting your favourite player?
I see you still havent answered any of my questions,why won't you explain to me how Murray is going to win a major if he cant even win one when the draw opens up for him?
Your quick to explain Murrays greatness to me but yet you wont explain to me why Murray fails to achieve what he needs to in order for anyone to call him great
Brilliant post Veejay.
I have to add though that it's futile to reason with fans that take criticism of their favourite player personally.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Why are people so bloody naïve. Do you really think that Federer, the Pro that he is would ever throw a match? You Federer fanboys don't realise that suggesting that Federer threw the match is more of an insult to Federer than it is Nurray.
Federer wanted that Gold Medal badly, his interview after the match proved that. Now stop attempting to detract from Murray's achievements. Suggestions of Federer letting Murray win are seriously unfounded.
What an embarrassing article.
My god .... this conversation shows a new level of hatred, jealousy and ignorance.
Fact is that whatever Murray does people like this will always find an excuse to undermine his achievements by any means possible. If Murray were to win a Slam they'll have the 'yes but (insert opponent name) was injured' etc ready and waiting.
Thankfully those people are in the vast minority.
Sign in if you want to comment
FOR ALL YOU MURRAY FANS!!!!!
Page 5 of 6
6
posted on 9/8/12
As for Gasquet and Nalbandian being also amazing players. Well sorry to tell you but....
Gasquet and Nalbandian between them have won 17 ATP titles. Murray alone has won 22 titles.
Gasquet and Nalbandian between them have reached one slam final. Murray alone has reached four.
Gasquet and Nalbandian between them have reached six slam semi-finals. Murray alone has reached ten.
On all of those fronts Gasquet and Nalbandian doesn't come close to Murray's career record.
posted on 9/8/12
CC, Glad to see you don't object anymore to my previous post. Now, about your question, if your question is whether or not Murray is one of the greatest players in activity then the answer is pretty obvious. Yes he is, and he is exactly 4th greatest (after the top 3). Now if your question is whether or not among the active players he is one of the (all-time) greats, the answer is obviously no. So really, it all depends on what you are asking). Now if you want a simple comparison in terms of greatness. I guess you would say that Kafelnikov is not an all-time great (even though I am sure you remember him and his name), and, in all objectivity, Kafelnikov has a better tennis resume than Murray as they both have an Olympic gold (in singles) but Kafelnikov has 2 slams to Murray 0. The only difference is that Kafelnikov cannot add to his tally while Murray can. So it's all up to the latter to show he can become a great, but right now, great he is, a great he is not.
posted on 9/8/12
I have answered this question for you several times CC
There is a big divide between the top 3 and no 4
They are the ones winning majors,they are the ones beating each other in majors,he isn't.He only makes grand slam finals if he doesnt have to face one of them along the way or if one of them withdraws or retires due to injury
Sure he has done more the the players behind him but he is very very far away from ever being in the same conversations as the 3 players ahead of him.He is not a part of the great 3 and its an insult to them to claim that he is
Of course all the other players are going to give Murray credit for what he achieves,no point in kicking a player while he is down but most of that praise generally only comes after they've beaten Murrays ass,cause its very rare,in fact it almost never happens that he beats them on the biggest stage of tennis
What about the time Murray moved to no3 last season and Federer said he was unimpressed cause Murray only moved out the ranking cause Roger wasn't playing and as soon as Roger came back on tour,Murray was reminded of where his place is.
Its not the first time this has happened,in 09 he couldnt even hang onto the ranking for 2 weeks but was cocky enough to say "only a few more weeks then Im no1"
So there I have answered your questions over and over again so why won't you answer mine?
I don't have the energy to rewrite them,they are all in the comments above
@ Jonty
No one ver said Murray doesnt deserve respect,and I have certainly given him the respect and credit he deserves based on what he has achieved but its clear that CC is once again trying to build Murray up to be something he isn't
Murray hasnt earned the right to be called great alongside the likes of Federer,Djokovic and Nadal,certainly not just cause he won a 750 tournament
posted on 9/8/12
And where have I ever said he is an all-time great. I never have. I merely state he is one of the greatest players in the world at the moment. You agree but veejay does not but am waiting for him to define why that is the case. He also feels Gasquet and Nalbandian have amazing games yet combined (even though their careers near their end) haven't achieved as much as Murray has in the sport. Yet he still aches to put down Murray. Figure that logic out because I can't.
posted on 9/8/12
@ CC
You fell straight into that one,I was waiting for the list of achievements comparing Murray to Gasquest and Nalbanidian
If Murray fails to win a major he will retire alongside Gasquet and Nalbandian and all other players whie never won a major
You can list all Murray achieved and ever will achieve,nothing will ever change that
Even if he wins a major,a hall of fame player he may become but he will still not be a great alongside the greats
posted on 9/8/12
What question? Murray hasn't won a slam even in a tournament that's draw opened up for him? I have already said that how can you say the draw opened right up for him when Federer awaited in the final. Nonsense. I would agree with you if a Tipsarevic or Isner awaited in the final at Wimbledon but he didn't so your point/question is invalid.
posted on 9/8/12
Nope Veejay afraid not.
People use numbers/figures all the time. It is how they define Fed as the greatest of all-time as he has won most slams. If Murray never wins a slam I think it is pretty fair to suggest he will be seen as one of the greatest/best players never to have won a slam (ahead of Nalbandian and Gasquet) on the grounds of his achievements out with slams in the sport.
posted on 9/8/12
Murray is not one of the greatest players right now cause Murray has 0 majors
Nadal -11
Federer -17
Djokovic -5
Ill say it again Murray has 0 majors...so explain to me how he is one of the greatest against 3 players who have won 33 major between them when he has a big fat zero
Even Del Potro will go down in history as a greater player then Murray based on his single major where the beat both Federer and Nadal back to back to win the title
Doesnt matter if Murray wins 100 more masters series and 100 more gold medals,makes 100 more grand slam finals or is ranked 4th till the day he dies,you have to start achieving what Federer Nadal and Djokovic have done to be considered great and then you have to match what they've done to be considered an all time great
posted on 9/8/12
Are you daft? Where have I ever said he was an all-time great? Quit trying to put words into my mouth. However, you wish to paint it he is one of the best players in the world at the moment. In top four for the last few years in a world of thousands of tennis players. Sure he hasn't got the slam wins but ticks every other box there is to tick. If you are not willing to admit that then you have an even more closed-mind than I thought.
posted on 9/8/12
And sorry but going by your analysis of greatness then Thomas Johanssen is a better player than Murray on the strength of one slam win.
That is a Johanssen who won 9 ATP titles to Murray's 22 ATP titles. A Johanssen who only played in one slam and never reached another slam semi.
His slam record is:-
Australian Open Best Won in 2002.
French Open Best 2nd Round exit.
Wimbledon Best 4th Round exit.
US Open Best Q/Final exit.
So you see trying to use slam wins putrely as a measure of greatness is seriously flawed. That is not me saying Andy is near to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic by the way but me pointing out that to claim a slam win by one player once alone quantifies them as better than Murray is seriously flawed.
posted on 9/8/12
Don't make me laugh CC
Murray cannot be called great in an era of Federer,Djokovic and Nadal.They are great,they will also retire and become all time greats of the game.Going by his results so far,he isn't great now and he certainly won't be an all time great of the game
He may be good,above average,ahead of the likes of Gasquet and Nalbandian for certain achievements but certainly way way way behind being called great alongside the top 3 players ahead of him.He hasnt even come close to achieving a 5th of what any of them have achieved
He will only earn the right to be called great if he starts winning multiple majors and dominates the game the way Federer,Djokovic and Nadal have
"but ticks every other box there is to tick"
Um no....How many time do I have to point out that apart from 4 years ago where he tanked his 1st round match at the Olympics to give himself a better shot at the Olympics,the other times he made a grand slam final was when he didn't have to face one of the top 3 players ahead of him in the semi finals.Every other time he has had to face one of them in the semi finals he has failed to make it past them to be a finalist
Murray is 25 already,if he hasnt done it by now,what gives you reason to believe he will?
He just lost against to Roger at Wimbledon when he didn't even have to face Djokovic or Nadal in the semi final
Even then when the draw opened up for him,he failed to even make it past 1 of the top 3 players ahead of him to win a major
If he cant even win when the draw opened up for him and he only had to beat 1 of the top3,how is he ever going to win a major beating 2 of the top 3 back to back to win a major?
Can you explain that to me?
I keep asking you the same questions and you keep ignoring it,if he cant even win a major when the draw opens up for him how is he ever going to win a major?
And don't try to act dumb,you know that when people say the draw opens up it means he doesnt have to face someone before the final
posted on 9/8/12
"So you see trying to use slam wins putrely as a measure of greatness is seriously flawed."
Slams are at the top of the list of achievements used in the tennis to rate greatness.Federer is considered the GOAT by popular opinion based solely on his grand slam titles.Dont shoot the messenger if you disagree
I think more comes into play when discussing it but a player who wins a major will always be rated greater then a player who hasnt
You can throw all Murrays achievement at me,history will always show that Johanson won a major and Murray didn't-case closed
You're becoming desperate here CC,just admit Murray isn't as great as you're making him out to be
he is a good player I will give him that but he hasnt earned the right to be called great alongside those who have won majors
posted on 9/8/12
If you are so close-minded that is your look-out. Thousands of players in the world and Murray has long been ranked in the top four. Top four in a world of thousands equates as one of the best players in the world at the moment. If you can't accept that then that is up to you.
As long as I see the improvements then I hold out much hope that Murray will win a slam in the future. Last slam at Wimbledon is proof of improvement alone where he won the first set and is fair to say he made all the running in the second set only to lose it so that is a step forward from previous slam finals. And please just quit trying to negate his achievements on other trivialities. He can only beat who is put before him. Is it his fault if others fail to earn the right to play him. NO. So on last slam evidence he is heading in the right direction. If he wins a slam or two then fabulous but if not (whether you like it or not) he will be talked about as one of the best players never to have won a slam, will be an Olympic champion, will be one of only nine player in history to reach each slam semi in a calendar year and be in the top ten most successful Masters Cup players of all-time so it certainly won't have been a mediocre career as you claim.
posted on 9/8/12
Slams are at the top of the list of achievements used in the tennis to rate greatness.Federer is considered the GOAT by popular opinion based solely on his grand slam titles.Dont shoot the messenger if you disagree
I think more comes into play when discussing it but a player who wins a major will always be rated greater then a player who hasnt
You can throw all Murrays achievement at me,history will always show that Johanson won a major and Murray didn't-case closed
You're becoming desperate here CC,just admit Murray isn't as great as you're making him out to be
he is a good player I will give him that but he hasnt earned the right to be called great alongside those who have won majors
Nope veejay and it is you that is desperate if you see Johansson as better than Murray on the strength of one slam win and nothing else of note in his career. In other sports it is the same. Ask snooker fans who is the best player - Jimmy White (0 world titles) or Joe Johnson (1 world title) and White wins all the time. Ask golf fans who is better Paul Lawrie (1 major) or Colin Montgomerie (0 majors) and most would see Monty as top dog. Other sports have similar incidences.
posted on 9/8/12
CC no personaI agro intended, but, I think part of the problem is British media despereately hyping Murray up all the time. That is a massive turn off for many fans.
If he was Swedish, you souldn't hear nay of this greatnes talk.
posted on 9/8/12
I would agree to some extent nole but is that Andy's fault? No of course not.
posted on 9/8/12
Ok he won a set..that may be improvement but that was on set off 1 player.Question is can he beat one of the top 3 players in the semi final and then still take a single set of a player on the fInal?
Remains to be seen..
Bwahaha...thats hilarious CC trying to make out that Murray can only play who is in front of him
Who ever said anything to the contrary??
My point was when he faces one of the top 3 in the semi finals he cant even make it past 1 them to make it to the finals,its only when he doesnt have to face one of the top 3 in the semi finals that he can make a grand slam final
Why are you dancing around this point?
I see youre still avoiding answering he questions I posed you
Don't you think thats rude? I mean I answered all of yours so why won't you answer mine?
The only people who will trumpet that Murray is one of the best players to never win a major will be fanatic Murray fans like you and the likes of Andrew Castle and few other bias muppets from the BBC
The truth is if Murray is good enough to win a major he will win one,but so far he hasnt which proves he hasnt been good enough to win a major.And then you want to attack those who make pathetic excuses when you're doing no different
To suggest Murray is one of the best to never win a major is making excuses for the fact that he never won a major,there is no way around it
Truth is he wasn't "one of the best " enough to win a major,if he could have he would have but he didn't cause he couldnt
Even players who retire with a single major are called 1 hit wonders,sort of implying to mediocrity,could only pull it off once and never again,if players who have won a major can be called 1 hit wonders how can players who havent even won a major not be called mediocre or under achievers?
posted on 9/8/12
Sorry CC
Johanson will go down in the history books having won a major,so far Murray hasnt so he won't-case closed
Does matter what else Murray achieves,Johanson achieved the greatest achievement a player can in tennis and Murray hasnt
You can try to spin this as much as you want,it won't change anything
"I would agree to some extent nole but is that Andy's fault? No of course not."
No its your fault,your the one trying to build Murray up to be something he isn't
Like the Olympics title you just cant be happy with the victory,you now have to claim Murray is great when he is just a good player
posted on 9/8/12
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/09/andy-murray-withdraws-toronto-injury?newsfeed=true
posted on 10/8/12
It really is nonsense that you spout veejay. People can judge for themselves without your vindictive brainwashing. Who is closer to reality here ? I say Andy Murray is one of the best players in the world at the moment (hardly rocket science considering he has consistently been a slam semi and finalist in the last few years)and never said anything about him being an all -time great like you try to put into my mouth. Or should we listen to veejay who swears Andy Murray has had a mediocre career on the basis he has not won a slam at a time when Roger Federer (widely regarded as the greatest of all-time) and Rafael Nadal (greatest clay courter of all-time) are plying their trade. Now you reiterate his mediocre Murray is yet he is the only other consistent contender outwith Fed, Nadal and Djokovic by a country mile. Sorry veejay MASSIVE flaws in your logic clouded I suggest by a distinct dislike of Murray. You are quite pathetic really and your attitude to top tennis players stink - Nadal is a drug cheat is another of your claims after all. Take your views away from tennis as they do it no favours.
posted on 10/8/12
Murray may be consistently 4th in the rankings but as I have said so many times before the gap between 4th and the top 3 is enormous
Murray cannot even be mentioned in the same sentence
as the 3 ahead of him.Murray hasnt done enough to be called one of the greatest players in the world cause his achievements is nothing more then mediocre against those who can be called the greatest players in the world.They may be good achievements by his own standards,but this is what the argument is all about,they are not great by the standards of the players ahead of him,in fact if we measure his achievements against the top 3,its pretty poor,very very far from great
Murray is a lot closer to the rest of the pack then he is to the 3 players ahead of him
LMAO..theres the excuses made for Murray again,he hasnt won a major because he is playing in the same era as Federer..sounds like the times excuses were made for Henman cause he was playing in the same era as Sampras.Whats with the excuses CC?
Murray is 5 yeas younger then Federer and is the same age as Djokovic and Nadal,if they are good enough to win majors then it proves that he simply isn't good enough to win majors.If he was good enough to win a major he would have won one by now,but he isn't and here you are trying to shove Murrays greatness down everyones throat
Come back when Murray has achieved enough to be called great and then everyone will take you seriously,but right now you're just making a fool of yourself by trying to build Murray up into something he isn't
Why cant you just be happy with the fact that Murray is a good player,he's done well for himself,did the nation proud this week,but no,you won't be happy unless we all call him one of the greatest players in the world right now even though he hasnt done near enough to earn such praise
Its insulting to the rest of the top 3 players that you can ignore the magnitude of what they achieved and then call what Murray achieved "great"
How can Murray be great and Federer,Nadal and Djokovic be great all at the same time too.What separates them if you want to call Murray one of the greatest players in the world?
"Now you reiterate his mediocre Murray is yet he is the only other consistent contender outwith Fed"
LMAO..exactly he is only a contender without the great 3,so how great can he be if the opposition needs to be eliminated for him to have a legitimate chance at winning a major?
Its like saying,Murray is a legitimate contender at majors,but only when the top 3 are upset before the semi finals and finals LOL!!
Funny as it is,thats exactly the only reason why he makes grand slam finals,he has proven that he cannot even make it past 1 of the top 3 in the semi final to make the final.
Of course my views won't do you any favours cause Im saying it how it is.Youre doing Murray no favours by building Murray up to be something he isn't,just like you claimed that Murray handed Federer his heaviest defeat at Wimbledon.If someone is that over rated,the only direction they can do go is down,so the haters will throw an even bigger party when Murray fails to once again live up to your hype.Can you not see how you're hurting your favourite player?
I see you still havent answered any of my questions,why won't you explain to me how Murray is going to win a major if he cant even win one when the draw opens up for him?
Your quick to explain Murrays greatness to me but yet you wont explain to me why Murray fails to achieve what he needs to in order for anyone to call him great
posted on 10/8/12
Brilliant post Veejay.
I have to add though that it's futile to reason with fans that take criticism of their favourite player personally.
posted on 10/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/8/12
Why are people so bloody naïve. Do you really think that Federer, the Pro that he is would ever throw a match? You Federer fanboys don't realise that suggesting that Federer threw the match is more of an insult to Federer than it is Nurray.
Federer wanted that Gold Medal badly, his interview after the match proved that. Now stop attempting to detract from Murray's achievements. Suggestions of Federer letting Murray win are seriously unfounded.
What an embarrassing article.
posted on 10/8/12
My god .... this conversation shows a new level of hatred, jealousy and ignorance.
Fact is that whatever Murray does people like this will always find an excuse to undermine his achievements by any means possible. If Murray were to win a Slam they'll have the 'yes but (insert opponent name) was injured' etc ready and waiting.
Thankfully those people are in the vast minority.
Page 5 of 6
6