[konvictz0007]

As a Brit I would like Andy to do well at some point.

But we must face reality - he is, at the moment, simply just not good enough to beat Federer, Nadal or Djokovic.

We must acknowledge yesterday's achievements by Federer. 17 Grand slams, the most of any player. He equals Sampras's record of 7 Wimbledon titles and he is set to be the longest ever to have been ranked number one. At nearly the age of 31, when his competitors (this does include Murray) at their absolute prime age, his achievement are nothing short of unbelievable.

The day should have been about the champion, hyping a runner up before and after an event in such extremities is counter productive.

Murray has not got the game to be a multiple grand slam winner at the moment. It is a defensive style of play, using the topspin forehand. This technique is very effective to get you into the quarter/semi finals but the top 3 are excellent in their execution. If Murray played Djokovic yesterday, it would have been over in straight sets - Djokovic eats up these defensive topspin rallies, as we saw this with him and Nadal a few times now. He must add an extra finishing layer to his game if he wants to progress, he must learn how to and when to apply a flatter harder shot to hit the clean winners. This works well on grass, as Federer has demonstrated 7 times now.

We know Murray is a base line defensive player, and he is pretty good as I mentioned to get him into the quarters/semis of most grand slams. But you must consider he is competing with Federer who Murray has never got to grips (in the grand slams) with his attacking quick paced game, and secondly he is competing with Djokovic and Nadal who are relentless and who Murray will not beat from the baseline.

I do not want to sound harsh but we must be realistic. I cannot see Murray improving significantly so the only way he would win a grand slam would be if Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have a dip of form. Unfortunately these 3 have won something like 29 out of the last 30 grand slams, which is shocking levels of consistency. This is what Murray is competing with.

Without any doubt Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.

Yesterday belongs to Roger Federer, and it should serve as a painful reminder to Murray that he needs to improve.

[internet tough guy]

Yeah in this country, it was overshadowed by Murray, and in many ways understandable as well - 76 year thing, and being a brit as well. I'm sure though that in the rest of the world, Federer was the one who took all the headlines.

[the bear]

Federer is the Daddy for the next couple of years... i would expect the Chinese to produce some great players before long

[doggyfizzel]

I was saying to my mum during the match, Federer winning again, on the grass of all surfaces, and equalling Sampras's record is far more special from a tennis point of view than Murray winning, its more special from a Brit tennis point of view the greatest player to ever play and the equal greatest player ever on grass is a better thing to see than Murray winning Wimbledon once. It would really only been special from a Brit non-tennis point of view for Murray to have won.

I'm glad even as Murray played the final, the commentary team referred to it as Henman Hill. That's why it became so popular, I think that is a nice legacy for Henman.

I do think Murray won a lot of fans yesterday for the way he conducted himself after he lost. Hopefully he learned, if he shows a bit of emotion, the Wimbledon crowd can be one of his biggest weapons. He has that advantage no one else has, even against Fed the crowd were landslide Murray fans.

[Tycho]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
As a Brit I would like Andy to do well at some point.

But we must face reality - he is, at the moment, simply just not good enough to beat Federer, Nadal or Djokovic.

This isn't true. Murray has beaten all three of them in the past. The difficulty he faces is that to win a slam he will likely have to beat two of them; one after the other. Clearly this isn't easy, but Murray does have the ability if he plays well. He'd do himself a favour if he improves his first serve percentage. Remember that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the favourites in each of their first ever slam finals - Murray has been the underdog on each of his four attempts. I'd say it's highly likely Murray will win a slam at some point, but I doubt it'll be Wimbledon.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
We must acknowledge yesterday's achievements by Federer. 17 Grand slams, the most of any player. He equals Sampras's record of 7 Wimbledon titles and he is set to be the longest ever to have been ranked number one. At nearly the age of 31, when his competitors (this does include Murray) at their absolute prime age, his achievement are nothing short of unbelievable.

Federer is an incredible athlete, and I believe he has confirmed his position as the greates player in history with his win on Sunday. Having said that, you must remember that players peak at different ages. Mid-twenties is the typical peak, but look at players like Ferrer as an exception to the rule. Murray's best tennis may be in the next few years. I'd say Murray is playing better now than he ever has, and his mental game is improving too.

I wouldn't be surprised if Federer added another few slams to his trophy cabinet before he retires.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Murray has not got the game to be a multiple grand slam winner at the moment. It is a defensive style of play, using the topspin forehand. This technique is very effective to get you into the quarter/semi finals but the top 3 are excellent in their execution. If Murray played Djokovic yesterday, it would have been over in straight sets - Djokovic eats up these defensive topspin rallies, as we saw this with him and Nadal a few times now. He must add an extra finishing layer to his game if he wants to progress, he must learn how to and when to apply a flatter harder shot to hit the clean winners. This works well on grass, as Federer has demonstrated 7 times now.

Huh? All the top guys use a topspin forehand. Nadal has won several majors with a heavy topspin forehand. Murray has the second best (under Federer) backhand slice in the game. This is a great defensive shot that gets him back into many rallies. Murray has improved his style of play to be more aggressive, and has a much better balance now than before.

(Original post by konvictz0007)
I do not want to sound harsh but we must be realistic. I cannot see Murray improving significantly so the only way he would win a grand slam would be if Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have a dip of form. Unfortunately these 3 have won something like 29 out of the last 30 grand slams, which is shocking levels of consistency. This is what Murray is competing with.

This competition is the only reason Murray hasn't already won several majors. If Murray was competing in any other era he'd have already won several. He's the best player in history to have never won a slam. I don't think Murray needs the other three to have a significant dip in form to win a slam. He has beaten Nadal more than once in slam semis and just needs one more very solid match beyond that to win. If Murray plays Djokovic then you'd imagine Djok would win 3 out of 4 matches, so Murray needs to find that one match where he wins.

[konvictz0007]

(Original post by Tycho)
This isn't true. Murray has beaten all three of them in the past. The difficulty he faces is that to win a slam he will likely have to beat two of them; one after the other. Clearly this isn't easy, but Murray does have the ability if he plays well. He'd do himself a favour if he improves his first serve percentage. Remember that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the favourites in each of their first ever slam finals - Murray has been the underdog on each of his four attempts. I'd say it's highly likely Murray will win a slam at some point, but I doubt it'll be Wimbledon.


Federer is an incredible athlete, and I believe he has confirmed his position as the greates player in history with his win on Sunday. Having said that, you must remember that players peak at different ages. Mid-twenties is the typical peak, but look at players like Ferrer as an exception to the rule. Murray's best tennis may be in the next few years. I'd say Murray is playing better now than he ever has, and his mental game is improving too.

I wouldn't be surprised if Federer added another few slams to his trophy cabinet before he retires.


Huh? All the top guys use a topspin forehand. Nadal has won several majors with a heavy topspin forehand. Murray has the second best (under Federer) backhand slice in the game. This is a great defensive shot that gets him back into many rallies. Murray has improved his style of play to be more aggressive, and has a much better balance now than before.



This competition is the only reason Murray hasn't already won several majors. If Murray was competing in any other era he'd have already won several. He's the best player in history to have never won a slam. I don't think Murray needs the other three to have a significant dip in form to win a slam. He has beaten Nadal more than once in slam semis and just needs one more very solid match beyond that to win. If Murray plays Djokovic then you'd imagine Djok would win 3 out of 4 matches, so Murray needs to find that one match where he wins.

Ah another tennis amateur commenting on the 'lead' that Murray apparently had against Federer prior to the final. It is people like you who build up a guy like Murray only to watch him fall. A lot of people who do not watch tennis were proudly broadcasting this piece of news. I must explain to you, beating the top 3 in a small tournament and in a grand slam is very different. Federer is an example of this, whilst he was getting into something like 18 out of the 19 grand slam finals, he would under perform at the smaller tournaments - grand slams are different rules, different pressures hence Andy Murray's poor performance in the grand slam finals. And yes he has beaten the likes on Nadal in a grand slam, but last time I checked beating Nadal does not win you a grand slam.

I would argue differently to your case about Murray's peak age. Murray's game is reliant upon fast running and prolonging the rallies - this relies on footwork, and it is common knowledge that as one approaches 30 their speed somewhat begins to diminish. Federer's game is not solely reliant upon this hence the reason he can perform so consistently at this age. If you are suggesting Murray has another 5-7 years to find a grand slam I think you will be very disappointed, I would suggest you watch more tennis.

And you mention top spin forehand and all players using it. I really thought I would not have to explain something so simple to people like you, well you have proven your narrow mindedness by bigging up Murray to such extents. Topspin forehand is not like a boolean value where it can be turned on and off. Players vary the amount they hit according to the situation. If you were a literate person and read my post properly you would have seen I mentioned this. As you mentioned Nadal does employ the top spin forehand however he also has the flatter harder shots to finish the point of, this is the reason why Nadal is a multiple grand slam winner and Murray is not. Murray will not beat the likes of Nadal on the baseline, he has not got the game, the head to head record (something like 15-5 in Nadal's favour) confirms this.

And Murray having the second best slice in the game? Are you sure about that, you deluded Murray fans really don't watch tennis do you, just watch Murray games?

The absolute bottom line is, you should be judged upon your performances. Murray has demonstrated on 4 different occasions that he is not yet good enough to win a grand slam, especially in the recent one against an almost 31 year old Roger Federer, he got beaten in the net and in the baseline (last 3 sets).

People like you are the reason when a man wins a record equalling 7th Wimbledon, record 17th grand slam, the main story is about the runner up and when he will win a grand slam.

[Tycho]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
Ah another tennis amateur commenting on the 'lead' that Murray apparently had against Federer prior to the final. It is people like you who build up a guy like Murray only to watch him fall. A lot of people who do not watch tennis were proudly broadcasting this piece of news. I must explain to you, beating the top 3 in a small tournament and in a grand slam is very different. Federer is an example of this, whilst he was getting into something like 18 out of the 19 grand slam finals, he would under perform at the smaller tournaments - grand slams are different rules, different pressures hence Andy Murray's poor performance in the grand slam finals. And yes he has beaten the likes on Nadal in a grand slam, but last time I checked beating Nadal does not win you a grand slam.

I would argue differently to your case about Murray's peak age. Murray's game is reliant upon fast running and prolonging the rallies - this relies on footwork, and it is common knowledge that as one approaches 30 their speed somewhat begins to diminish. Federer's game is not solely reliant upon this hence the reason he can perform so consistently at this age. If you are suggesting Murray has another 5-7 years to find a grand slam I think you will be very disappointed, I would suggest you watch more tennis.

And you mention top spin forehand and all players using it. I really thought I would not have to explain something so simple to people like you, well you have proven your narrow mindedness by bigging up Murray to such extents. Topspin forehand is not like a boolean value where it can be turned on and off. Players vary the amount they hit according to the situation. If you were a literate person and read my post properly you would have seen I mentioned this. As you mentioned Nadal does employ the top spin forehand however he also has the flatter harder shots to finish the point of, this is the reason why Nadal is a multiple grand slam winner and Murray is not. Murray will not beat the likes of Nadal on the baseline, he has not got the game, the head to head record (something like 15-5 in Nadal's favour) confirms this.

And Murray having the second best slice in the game? Are you sure about that, you deluded Murray fans really don't watch tennis do you, just watch Murray games?

The absolute bottom line is, you should be judged upon your performances. Murray has demonstrated on 4 different occasions that he is not yet good enough to win a grand slam, especially in the recent one against an almost 31 year old Roger Federer, he got beaten in the net and in the baseline (last 3 sets).

People like you are the reason when a man wins a record equalling 7th Wimbledon, record 17th grand slam, the main story is about the runner up and when he will win a grand slam.

I'm sorry, posts like this just anger me. Your aggression and self-righteous attitude just stinks of arrogance and your presumptious tone backs this up. How on Earth do you know how much tennis I watch? Absolutely nothing I said in my post is wrong.

I am fully aware of the differences between slams and other events, but the point I was making is that Murray can - and has - beaten these guys before. He also demonstrated that he is able to live with them in rallies, and indeed win sets. Look at his last meeting with Djokovic, for instance! Nobody is questioning Federer's brilliance, only you have brought that into the equation. It's actually because of people like you, people with poor aspirations and low expectations for our players, that guys like Tim Henman failed to win more. As soon as a guy who is genuinly talented enough comes along idiots like you look for reasons why they won't ever win a major and why other players are too good. It's bull****. The top three are a cut above the rest, no doubt about it, but a player who can reach four slam finals has got a chance of winning a slam in their career.

RE: age... what are you talking about? You didn't even mention my example - David Ferrer - who (by the way) plays a game which requires lots of running around the court. Everyone is different. I'm not suggesting that Murray will be as good at that age, but it's not impossible - as you'd have people believe.

Re shot making... all the top players can use topspin on their shots, including Murray. All of them can flatten out their shots to shorten the point. What's your point? And yes, Murray is widely regarded as having the second best backhand defensive slice in the game (under Federer). You need to go and watch some tennis yourself. Who's backhand slice would you rate higher than Murray's?

Sort yourself out moron. Everyone has differences of opinions and you have gone way overboard with your aggressive and disrespectful response.

[hiding12]

(Original post by the bear)
Federer is the Daddy for the next couple of years... i would expect the Chinese to produce some great players before long

Federer will not dominate the next couple of years, Nadal and Djokovic will be back to winning Grand Slams