Tennis

[whp.blue]

Murray must only do this purely for the money. he has no hope of winning
Once again he is getting a free tennis lesson off Djokovic!

 

[Deleted member 58678]

I'd go as far to say that in the last 18 months Novak Djokovic has played the best tennis anyone has ever played.

 

[jimharri]

I sort of feel sorry for Murray. Djokovic is just so much better than him, it's nearly impossible for Murray to beat him. Yes; I know Murray beat him at Wimbledon (2013?), but how many times have they met in the slam tournaments? And how many times has Murray beaten him? Precious few. Same when Henman was up against Federer. No shame getting beaten by someone so much better than you.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Murray is world class. First Male Brit to reach the French open final - done himself proud. Djokovic is not human.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Is Murray thinking of quitting, do you think?

Some strange quotes coming from him lately, such as "I didn't expect <to reach the final> at this stage of my career". Followed by "I may never get the chance again". And there was something else he said that got me thinking.

He's got more money than he can eat, he's won Wimbledon, the US Open, the Olympics, Davies Cup and he has a wife and new child sitting at home whilst he's out all over the world. I just think he mind be about to call it a day, or at the least, be selective about what tournaments he plays and forget about his world ranking.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Is Murray thinking of quitting, do you think?

Some strange quotes coming from him lately, such as "I didn't expect <to reach the final> at this stage of my career". Followed by "I may never get the chance again". And there was something else he said that got me thinking.

He's got more money than he can eat, he's won Wimbledon, the US Open, the Olympics, Davies Cup and he has a wife and new child sitting at home whilst he's out all over the world. I just think he mind be about to call it a day, or at the least, be selective about what tournaments he plays and forget about his world ranking.

No I don't think so. He's love a moan and a rant time to time but Tennis is in his blood. He's not going anywhere soon and expect him to reach Wimbledon final

 

[Matty]

Murray has made 10 Grand Slam Finals, which has included at least one final appearance at all 4 Grand Slam events. The fact he's won 2 and lost 8 is down to the fact that, in all 10 appearances, he's played either Djokovic or Federer, 2 of the best, if not THE 2 best players ever. Add Nadal into the mix and Murray has been unfortunate to be at his peak at the same time as some of the best ever were/are at their peak. Federer has won 17 grand slams, Nadal has won 14 and Djokovic now has 12. If you look at some of the best historically there's only really Sampras that comes close volume wise, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Lendl, none reached double figures. Since the start of the 1970's there's only Sampras, Borg and those 3 that have won 10 or more Grand Slams, so that just shows you how high the quality of Murray's opponents has been. Drop Murray into the Hewitt/Roddick era, 10 years before he reached his peak, and he'd have won far more than just the 2 Grand Slams.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Murray has made 10 Grand Slam Finals, which has included at least one final appearance at all 4 Grand Slam events. The fact he's won 2 and lost 8 is down to the fact that, in all 10 appearances, he's played either Djokovic or Federer, 2 of the best, if not THE 2 best players ever. Add Nadal into the mix and Murray has been unfortunate to be at his peak at the same time as some of the best ever were/are at their peak. Federer has won 17 grand slams, Nadal has won 14 and Djokovic now has 12. If you look at some of the best historically there's only really Sampras that comes close volume wise, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Lendl, none reached double figures. Since the start of the 1970's there's only Sampras, Borg and those 3 that have won 10 or more Grand Slams, so that just shows you how high the quality of Murray's opponents has been. Drop Murray into the Hewitt/Roddick era, 10 years before he reached his peak, and he'd have won far more than just the 2 Grand Slams.

Completely agree Matty.

There's another factor too. If you are 2nd best in the world and there's one player who is better than you, then by the laws of averages, you'd win quite a lot of tournaments when the best play has an off day, or injury or you happen to play out of your skin or whatever. But Murray has been in the ridiculously unfortunately circumstance to find himself competing against 3 players, all of whom are in the all-time-great category. So if one of those three is out or off form, there's another two he still has to overcome.

I know this is a gross oversimplification, but it gets the point across:

It's like playing a dice game with an opponent who is better than you and under these made up rules if he throws a 1, 2, 3 or 4, he wins. If you throw a 5 or a 6, you win. Playing him 100 times, you'd expect to win 33 times and him 67. But if there's 3 opponents, all with the same advantage over you and you need to beat all of them, then out of 100 games you'll win - on average - 4 times. Only in 4 times out of 100 will you beat all three of your opponents.

As I say, it's not exactly the same thing, but it demonstrates just how the stars have to align for Murray to win slams.

 

[ancoats]

forget this he's british scottish GB crap Murray is a world class tennis player won 2 majors and been in all 4 finals on his own back and you have to give him the most respect for that

you forget that the top 4 players are the best in the same part of history in tennis and murray is one of them. if he been 10 years earlier or 10 later we would be talking about a greatest ever played to come from the uk he's that level of a player. i think the thing that can help murray in staying in the games the top 4 and win more majors is the hunger and fight but will need to plan his seasons with more hand picking the small tournaments and just play less of them just do what needed to keep in the top 4 rankings that way he will only face somebody higher than him once in the majors

for me murray will be talked about as a great and anybody who can win wimbledon in his own back yard with the pressure of the people and media was specail. that win was key for british tennis and fans and kids to see and think am the new murray and i can do that. it was just at the right time for the UK and we needed a winner unlike tim henman murray is a winner

 

[bluegray]

Plus he's won 10 of the masters 1000 series, 4 of which he beat ND. Other than the big 4 no other player has won 2. RF has 10 titles too, ND has 25.