So much for the Murray-Djokovic era

I had to write this.

I remember the predictions on V2 where pretty much everyone had Murray and Djokovic down as the two dominant forces over the next couple of years. Okay.. good luck with that one. Of course Djokovic has had his own dominant spell but a duopoly - nah.

So as soon as Fedal get fit they absolutely dominate the season. From 2 slams and 5 masters so far they've won 6 of the big tournaments. Complete domination. 



Emancipator

Key word in there "fit"

Djokovic clearly not fit mentally. Murray not fully physically fit and never been mentally fit ever 

The merry go round continues. Who knows Murray and Djokovic might peak again at 38!!

i think that djokovic and murray could win another major each but honestly,it was never really their era
you have to give them credit from managing to achieve what they have in the era of federer and nadal

I think Djokovic has certainly carved out an era - he was so dominant for about 2 years. 

Murray should never be mentioned in the same breath as these three.

Don't agree. Don't think Murray is mentioned in the same breath from an achievement perspective. Murray was a strong presence in their respective eras and picked the bones out of the respective feasts. I think once the dust settles, people will realise Andy and even Stan to a part were lucky to achieve what they have.

legendkillar wrote:Don't agree. Don't think Murray is mentioned in the same breath from an achievement perspective. Murray was a strong presence in their respective eras and picked the bones out of the respective feasts. I think once the dust settles, people will realise Andy and even Stan to a part were lucky to achieve what they have.

Murray's Wimble-2016 was lucky somewhat. But I wouldn't say that about the previous-2 slams.

Stan has won all his slams passing though a tough draw and beating #1 in each slam final. No luck about it, Stan can reach extremely high levels of tennis. Its just difficult to keep it for long.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Don't agree. Don't think Murray is mentioned in the same breath from an achievement perspective. Murray was a strong presence in their respective eras and picked the bones out of the respective feasts. I think once the dust settles, people will realise Andy and even Stan to a part were lucky to achieve what they have.

Murray's Wimble-2016 was lucky somewhat. But I wouldn't say that about the previous-2 slams.

Stan has won all his slams passing though a tough draw and beating #1 in each slam final. No luck about it, Stan can reach extremely high levels of tennis. Its just difficult to keep it for long.

Stan got luck in that AO final. Rafa wasn't 100% through that final. Swings and roundabouts.

It is luck for both of them to find the minute windows of opportunities. Murray I'd argue has had more opportunities than Stan and for that I admire his achievements in the Slams more than Andy's.

murray has made quite a lot of slam finals though,you still need to get through the draw to get there
he has been pretty consistent if you look at his results,that deserves some respect

Oh it does. For me there is the argument he should've done a bit better.

Stan you sort of feel he couldn't waste the opportunities say Murray could afford because of consistency which I think brought an added presssure to Stan which is why I think it's a heck of record prior to today to go 3 for 3 in Slam finals.

the argument of " he should have done better" really depends on how good a player you think he is
if you think that that he could have done better its because you believe that he is a better player then the result
otherwise you think that making the finals is a greater achievement beyond his ability or  what he should be achieving or that that is at least the very best that he can do
in most of his finals i think that he has been beaten pretty comprehensively 
but yeah stans 3-3 against the very best of the game is mighty impressive

He is a fantastic player. Underrated in my eyes. I think Murray should've won the US Open in 08 based on the form throughout that period. Froze on the stage. Should've won the AO in 15. Again lost focus after the MTO.

For me aside from the class of the player, they need the form too to win a Slam.

a lot of that has to do with playing in the same era as federer,nadal and djokovic,so he will naturally always be compared to them
i mean compare murrays game to federers effortless movement alone..
things would most likely have been much different for him had he played in another era 
i dont think that murray should have won u.s open in 08,federer destroyed him 
it was his first grand slam final so he could have played better had the occasion not overwhelmed him but still think that federer was by far the better player 
once roger was in full flight murray couldnt even keep up with the pace that the match was being played at

Disagree on the US 08. Federer wasn't anything near his conquering best that season, or the tournament. Murray had a stormer and his semi final performance was immense. If he brought that to the final, he would've downed Federer. That was at a time when his serve was more of a weapon than it is now when he still had some of the raw power gained from his time with Gilbert.

As I say those 2 Slams stand out from a perspective of how he played throughout the tournament. When I consider the other Slams, the AO ups, W12 and FO16, I don't believe throughout those tournaments that he was the better player on performance and form. That's my humble opinion anyway.

In the future when the Federer, Nadal and Djokovic era is reflected upon, without doubt Murray and Wawrinka will gain a load of credit for winning what they had. Also I'd have to say that Del Potro and Cillic would be worthy of a mention as well for seizing upon a rare opportunity to win a Slam.

legendkillar wrote:Don't agree. Don't think Murray is mentioned in the same breath from an achievement perspective. Murray was a strong presence in their respective eras and picked the bones out of the respective feasts. I think once the dust settles, people will realise Andy and even Stan to a part were lucky to achieve what they have.

I agree about Murray in the sense he was lucky the others dropped form allowing him to win more than he should have but Stan has been brilliant and won his 3 slams beating the best available players.

Stan to me is the clear number 4 here. In fact number 3 if you take away clay!

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Don't agree. Don't think Murray is mentioned in the same breath from an achievement perspective. Murray was a strong presence in their respective eras and picked the bones out of the respective feasts. I think once the dust settles, people will realise Andy and even Stan to a part were lucky to achieve what they have.

I agree about Murray in the sense he was lucky the others dropped form allowing him to win more than he should have but Stan has been brilliant and won his 3 slams beating the best available players.

Stan to me is the clear number 4 here. In fact number 3 if you take away clay!

Don't agree he was lucky from the form perspective. As you say beating the best available players which all Slam winners do. You'll find it difficult to apply such logic and not get a backlash from the weak era theorists  If he actually got his mindset in gear, would've won more.

When you think of Stan, he will be remembered for the performances against Djokovic in those victories for the nature of them, particularly the AO and FO. As prior to Djokovic being remembered for his frequent tonkings of Nadal in 2011 before he experienced 2014-2016.

He has beaten tbe number 3 on 3 occasions.

I am assuming you mean the Number 1 on those occasions and 3 you mean as it stands now?

Murray beat him too for his Slam victories when drawn to face them.

You need to be careful where you go with the whole rigid application of the ranking of players faced in the Slams won by players.

Regardless of players who I am fond of or not, would not influence the way I rank their achievements. As I stated I find Stan's haul of Slam's more impressive than Murray's because of the 3 from 3.

But the bottom line is Stan has the game to beat the best players on form (especially Djokovic), Murray never was a real match for Djoko.

That's a big difference!

Bottom line is Murray has the game to beat the top players when he is on form when they are form too. Demonstrated throughout his career. Murray and Stan's form against those is interesting because I think the extremes Murray went to (fitness) to bridge the gap completely in the long run limited his game and made him less effective. Stan on the over hand had the perfect accompaniment to his game, which was increased power which I think lead to much better incline in improvement as compared with Murray. Either way the outcome is the same and both have the same number of Slam wins.

If you have a preference for Stan's game and his haul of Slams over Murray, nothing wrong with it. I find it strange when posters try to circumnavigate a view with bizarre logic which eventually unknots them (not just restricted to what is posted on this OP).

It's a waste of effort and good debate

I think Murray would have gone nowhere without his fitness. Sorry but he has not the shots....tovstart with Gasquet would have sent him packing every time....and many others would have too. Thats to me the key difference between Stan and Murray. And like we saw in their last match...the shot making ability is hugely differ3nt between those 2.

Tenez, if all Murray brings to the table is "fitness" why is he better on grass than other surfaces?

Disagree. In his early years he had the shots needed, except for the FH which later developed and utilised under Lendl's first spell. He had the variation and the serve then (first more consistent) and had to be aggressive with the lack of fitness he had in those early years, hence embracing more risk than he was more accustomed to. When you look at his game then, would certainly help him more now in matches where fitness seems to have reduced in terms of factors deciding matches.

I am taking a complete career view here in support of my view. I've followed Murray's career closely and in those early years was an exciting prospect. Then came the gruelling years of fitness which when you look at the player he was say in 07 to now, alarming difference.

The one area I think is key between both is mental strength. Where I see Stan comes more from the mindset of "I can win the match" Murray has always been "I can't lose the match" which I think with the difference in abilities, that one particularly stands out.

Its his S&V game, constant aggressivity like Djoko and Nadal as well! LoL.!
What do you see in Murray than no one sees? Do you watch his winners only and forget about the 20 balls he brought back scrapping the court? I invite you to wartch a match of his....with neutral eyes if possible.

Show me a match where you see agreesion and great shot making in his young age LK. You will noy find one. Even Tommy Haas got gutted to lose to a "club player". Besides the drop shot which is certainly not a very aggressive shot you wont find a shot maker in Murray...certainly not with enough talent to allow him to win that way....otherwise he would have of course. Remember what Federer said of him?

Watch the Stepanek match Wimbledon 05 Ten! That's a starter.

With non bias eyes if you can

If you can find a video of it! Youtube seemingly don't have it??

This Emancipator guy..

What if Nadal doesn't win a single slam this year or next year?

I think that's more likely to happen than adding more slams. Stan was dead on his feet after 4 games yesterday and it was blatant.

Btw Nadal can run for 6 hours or more and his level will be the same, time to compare him to Lance tbh

6 hours was probably the length of all his matches combined during the tournament.

Murray is a very skilful player, his problem has been sometimes he goes into a shell and plays too passively. And throughout his career he has gone AWOL during some big matches.
When he's playing well; he has a fantastic serve, can hit with depth and pace off both wings, can change direction on his backhand in particular very well, he shows incredible reflexes and timing to return serve as well as he does (and defend in general as well he does for that matter), he is good at the net, and also has some variety in the form of drop shots.

legendkillar wrote:Disagree on the US 08. Federer wasn't anything near his conquering best that season, or the tournament. Murray had a stormer and his semi final performance was immense. If he brought that to the final, he would've downed Federer. That was at a time when his serve was more of a weapon than it is now when he still had some of the raw power gained from his time with Gilbert.

As I say those 2 Slams stand out from a perspective of how he played throughout the tournament. When I consider the other Slams, the AO ups, W12 and FO16, I don't believe throughout those tournaments that he was the better player on performance and form. That's my humble opinion anyway.

In the future when the Federer, Nadal and Djokovic era is reflected upon, without doubt Murray and Wawrinka will gain a load of credit for winning what they had. Also I'd have to say that Del Potro and Cillic would be worthy of a mention as well for seizing upon a rare opportunity to win a Slam.

federer was no where near his best in 08 but i think that the u.s open was the best tournament he played that year
it was good enough to demolish both murray and djokovic is straight sets,never forgetting the inbetweener he hit to set up match point in the semi final
i think that federer gave murray a master class in the final
murray was completely out of depth in the final,but having said that,he did play an incredible semi final against nadal
maybe the rain delay ruined his chances for the final as the match had to be played over 2 days

AceofDeath wrote:This Emancipator guy..

What if Nadal doesn't win a single slam this year or next year?

I think that's more likely to happen than adding more slams. Stan was dead on his feet after 4 games yesterday and it was blatant.

Yes, Stan insinuated he was tired in the post match interview.
After all, he had to beat wn1 in 5 very taxing physical sets.

Nadal, lower ranked, had an easier draw (what a surprise!).

I would've liked to see him play Murray and Stan Thiem in the semis and then meet in the final.

AceofDeath wrote:
Btw Nadal can run for 6 hours or more and his level will be the same, time to compare him to Lance tbh

Nadal from yesterday's final, reminded me of Nadal from FO14 final which I saw live.
I got a full picture of Nadal's physicality in clay in that day.

Nole lost in four sets, but really had Nadal in the ropes, it all turned on one game, O even remember the point at 30 all mid 4th set.

Yesterday's Nadal dis strike his shots flatter, but really his tennis and fitness were not much different from '14.

That's why I said he was bluffing.

He is so good at it, esp as he knew he had a knackered opponent across the net.

He knew Stan had tired legs, so easy for him to strut around like an invincible bull, exoe ding all the e eegy he liked in the forst few sets.
And his confidence grew as Stan faded away.

Stan needed Nole's legs yesterday.

... wrote:
He knew Stan had tired legs, so easy for him to strut around like an invincible bull, exoe ding all the e eegy he liked in the forst few sets.

Savage criticism of Nadal, as a Nadal fan I've been flattened.

DECIMA wrote:

... wrote:
He knew Stan had tired legs, so easy for him to strut around like an invincible bull, expending all the energy he liked in the first few sets.

Savage criticism of Nadal, as a Nadal fan I've been flattened.

Corrected all the typos!

Well Kimmy, you know what I think of Nadal, and I haven't changed my mind.

I am glad for you personally as I can imagine how happy you must be.

Sorry, I just don't find him exciting all, his admirable qualities are relentless hard work and fantastic footwork. And I do appreciate his not giving up attitude in a match.

That's it for me.

On the other hand....no I'd better not start.

... wrote:

AceofDeath wrote:This Emancipator guy..

What if Nadal doesn't win a single slam this year or next year?

I think that's more likely to happen than adding more slams. Stan was dead on his feet after 4 games yesterday and it was blatant.

Yes, Stan insinuated he was tired in the post match interview.
After all, he had to beat wn1 in 5 very taxing physical sets.

Nadal, lower ranked, had an easier draw (what a surprise!).

I would've liked to see him play Murray and Stan Thiem in the semis and then meet in the final.

AceofDeath wrote:
Btw Nadal can run for 6 hours or more and his level will be the same, time to compare him to Lance tbh

Nadal from yesterday's final, reminded me of Nadal from FO14 final which I saw live.
I got a full picture of Nadal's physicality in clay in that day.

Nole lost in four sets, but really had Nadal in the ropes, it all turned on one game, O even remember the point at 30 all mid 4th set.

Yesterday's Nadal dis strike his shots flatter, but really his tennis and fitness were not much different from '14.

That's why I said he was bluffing.

He is so good at it, esp as he knew he had a knackered opponent across the net.

He knew Stan had tired legs, so easy for him to strut around like an invincible bull, exoe ding all the e eegy he liked in the forst few sets.
And his confidence grew as Stan faded away.

Stan needed Nole's legs yesterday.

Stan has never had the best of defense or great legs. Djokovic lost to him 2 years ago because Stan had an easier semi final, and Djokovic played badly after the 1st set. I'm just glad we won't have any more clay tennis for 10 months. The surface is an abomination and only helps road runners.

I think clay is a wonderful surface, just that it has been tainted with doping, allowing rr tennis.

legendkillar wrote:Watch the Stepanek match Wimbledon 05 Ten! That's a starter.

With non bias eyes if you can

https://vimeo.com/98014490

I found one.....and yeah Murray not to be seen at the net, playing soft and making the most of Step's mistakes.

Frankly do you call this aggressive tennis? first it looks like 1970s tennis and Murray makes the most of Step's missed volleys and badly executed drop shot to pass him.

This is a very bad example. It clearly shows you have not seen a replay of that match since!!!

Any other example?

When the books are written Djokovic will not be rated like Federer or Nadal. Murray won't even be mentioned but to be fair I don't think he or most of his supporters do this, it's stupid media types.

Djoko will be remembered as the No1 guy who blew it all. Andy never was big or dominating.

Or Djoko will be remembered as the ultimate counter puncher who saved Federer's GOAT status by beating Nadal a few timeq? Though Djoko robbed him of 2 Wimby and one USO at least.

So Fed could of been on 22-23GS, Nadal without Djoko on 18-19GS, same!!

So Djokos existence is irrelevant in tennis world.

Tenez wrote:Or Djoko will be remembered as the ultimate counter puncher who saved Federer's GOAT status by beating Nadal a few timeq? Though Djoko robbed him of 2 Wimby and one USO at least.

Djokovic has done just as much damage (possibly more) to Federer as he has to Nadal - Is it 9 times he's beaten Federer in slams including three finals?

bogbrush wrote:When the books are written Djokovic will not be rated like Federer or Nadal. Murray won't even be mentioned but to be fair I don't think he or most of his supporters do this, it's stupid media types.

That depends how you would rate the likes of Sampras, Borg or Laver. If you have Fed and Nadal a clear step above them all, then fair enough. I'd personally probably have all 6 in a tier 1 great list. Arguably, Novak is even ahead of Rafa on overall career achievements given his massively superior weeks at number 1, WTF wins and the fact he held all four slams at once. 

I don't think anyone puts Murray on the same level of achievement as the other three. However, for 10 years he has been part of a big 4 which has dominated the entire tennis calendar. 45 titles including 20 at Masters level or above(the next best off this era being Stan with 4) is an incredible career. That probably puts him in the top 15 or so players of the Open era which, I suggest, would still be enough to get a mention in most books about the history of tennis.

Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:When the books are written Djokovic will not be rated like Federer or Nadal. Murray won't even be mentioned but to be fair I don't think he or most of his supporters do this, it's stupid media types.

That depends how you would rate the likes of Sampras, Borg or Laver. If you have Fed and Nadal a clear step above them all, then fair enough. I'd personally probably have all 6 in a tier 1 great list. Arguably, Novak is even ahead of Rafa on overall career achievements given his massively superior weeks at number 1, WTF wins and the fact he held all four slams at once. 

...yep and a positive H2H.....the very stat that Rafalitos were holding tight when comparing Nadal to federer!