Bris Vegas Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Yep they do and he beat the world number 1 to boot. Not his fault the others couldn't lift their game. Yep.. It's a tough era but the top players have completely failed in this tournament.. No Ferrer, Tsonga, Del Potro, Federer, Nadal, Berdych, Wawrinka, Tipsarevic.. Guys that could have caused him problems and he avoided them all due to their failings.. I actually think Federer is slightly overrated too.. I love the guy and his style but the first 10 or so titles that he won was in an era where he had literally no competition.. The best of the top 4 IMO is Nadal.. He's won the complete set and 12 overall against the other 3 whilst they were all in their prime.. If him and Federer had swapped ages Nadal would have over 20 titles by now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardifframs Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 For once Andy got lucky. Happy for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 In this, his hour of need, please spare a thought for Bris Vegas. Don't spare a though for me.. Andy Murray has won me my lunch money for today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Yep.. It's a tough era but the top players have completely failed in this tournament.. No Ferrer, Tsonga, Del Potro, Federer, Nadal, Berdych, Wawrinka, Tipsarevic.. Guys that could have caused him problems and he avoided them all due to their failings.. I actually think Federer is slightly overrated too.. I love the guy and his style but the first 10 or so titles that he won was in an era where he had literally no competition.. The best of the top 4 IMO is Nadal.. He's won the complete set and 12 overall against the other 3 whilst they were all in their prime.. If him and Federer had swapped ages Nadal would have over 20 titles by now.. Easy route or not Murray was the only one who beat what was in front of him. Played at Queens to get used to grass in his come back from injury He'd have beaten anyone on his form. After all we had number 1 and number 2 in the world in the final. They are in those rankings for a reason / they are better than the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Yep.. It's a tough era but the top players have completely failed in this tournament.. No Ferrer, Tsonga, Del Potro, Federer, Nadal, Berdych, Wawrinka, Tipsarevic.. Guys that could have caused him problems and he avoided them all due to their failings.. I actually think Federer is slightly overrated too.. I love the guy and his style but the first 10 or so titles that he won was in an era where he had literally no competition.. The best of the top 4 IMO is Nadal.. He's won the complete set and 12 overall against the other 3 whilst they were all in their prime.. If him and Federer had swapped ages Nadal would have over 20 titles by now..Aren't you forgetting Pete Sampras? The best player to ever play on grass imo. After he retired, fair point, there wasn't anyone to challenge for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 For once Andy got lucky. Happy for him. Got lucky? Do you think so Cisse? I have to disagree with you there my friend. Djoko has never won a set of tennis against Murray on grass. I'd say there's more to that than luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Aren't you forgetting Pete Sampras? The best player to ever play on grass imo. After he retired, fair point, there wasn't anyone to challenge for a while. He only ever met Sampras once at a GS Easy route or not Murray was the only one who beat what was in front of him. Played at Queens to get used to grass in his come back from injury He'd have beaten anyone on his form. After all we had number 1 and number 2 in the world in the final. They are in those rankings for a reason / they are better than the others. The rankings are like FIFA rankings.. Completely flawed.. Nadal came into Wimbledon having lost only one game since in 5 months or so.. Murray missed the French Open, struggled before that and won Queens against weaker players.. Murray beat what was infront of him.. I get that.. But what was infront of him were players who had 0 hope of winning the competition.. Federer and Nadal got knocked out by weaker players, which helped him out bigtime.. But Murray winning this Wimbledon is the equivalent of England winning the Euros by playing Estonia, Lithuania, Greece, Slovakia, Turkey, Switzerland and then finally Spain in the final.. He did a great job to beat Djoko in the final.. But all I'm saying is his route has been as easy as they come and he grabbed it with both hands.. Good on him. But I completely disagree that he would have beaten anyone on that form.. Nadal and Federer have proved they can destroy him on grass.. Especially Nadal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 The rankings are indeed flawed. The ATP ought to just ask Bris to do them. Here's a bold prediction... Federer will never win another slam, and Nadal will never win another one outside Paris. Get used to Djokovic v Murray finals - there will be a few of them in the next 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnieronalde Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Djokovic has never been beaten in straight sets in a grand slam final. Ever. Still it's nice to see that less than hour after the greatest moment in modern day british (scottish) tennis history, we have the usual belittiling of achievments from our resident sports guru. Why, seriously why? Brilliant achievement by Murray and absolutely delighted for the bloke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duracell Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Haha, Tennis is one of those sports where the best player in the tournament wins, that's just how it is. World Number 2 beat World Number 1. But nah, it was easy, he shouldn't have won etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I love it when people completely take things out of context and exaggerate to make a point.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I actually think that was a quite a dull match in terms of tennis entertainment. A classic for who won it, but not how they won it. It doesn't matter how he got there, the point is, he was there and he won it. Murray won mainly because he wanted it so much more. You cannot take anything away from his achievement. And...(For Bris) Until Nadal makes 36 consecutive grand slam quarter finals he will not be as good overall as Federer. That is a record that covers all aspects of what makes a great player. You can only ever beat what is infront of you. And it isn't unlucky that Nadal suffers with his knees, that is down to his technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I love it when people completely take things out of context and exaggerate to make a point.. We are learning from the master, Bris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnieronalde Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I love it when people completely take things out of context and exaggerate to make a point.. You could always have just left it at the congratulations part and not tried to rip apart was he's just done. Then there is no space for context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 He only ever met Sampras once at a GS The rankings are like FIFA rankings.. Completely flawed.. Nadal came into Wimbledon having lost only one game since in 5 months or so.. Murray missed the French Open, struggled before that and won Queens against weaker players.. Murray beat what was infront of him.. I get that.. But what was infront of him were players who had 0 hope of winning the competition.. Federer and Nadal got knocked out by weaker players, which helped him out bigtime.. But Murray winning this Wimbledon is the equivalent of England winning the Euros by playing Estonia, Lithuania, Greece, Slovakia, Turkey, Switzerland and then finally Spain in the final.. He did a great job to beat Djoko in the final.. But all I'm saying is his route has been as easy as they come and he grabbed it with both hands.. Good on him. But I completely disagree that he would have beaten anyone on that form.. Nadal and Federer have proved they can destroy him on grass.. Especially Nadal. 4 title wins this season and runner up in the Australian, reached the last 8 in all bit one tournament hes played in? I wouldn't class as struggling At Queens he beat Tsonga and Cilic Oh and he matched Federer on grass last year until the rain and roof delay, then dismantled him in the Olympics, and has a better head to head record this season in slams. (and has a winning record over federer in all matches since 2005) He's the first person to beat Djokovic in straight sets in a GS final and has never lost a set to him on grass. He'd have beat anyone this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 We are learning from the master, Bris Stop it, I'm blushing. Until Nadal makes 36 consecutive grand slam quarter finals he will not be as good overall as Federer. That is a record that covers all aspects of what makes a great player. You can only ever beat what is infront of you. And it isn't unlucky that Nadal suffers with his knees, that is down to his technique. Don't get me wrong, that's a great achievement.. But the fact is, Federer only has 5 more titles than Nadal yet Nadal won his first title at the French Open in 2005.. He was still really young and never came into his own until 2008.. The same time in 2007 Federer had already won 9 titles and 12 after 2008 compared to Nadal's 4 in the French Open.. So he was already trailing Feds by 8 or so before he even hit close to his prime.. Federer was winning title against guys that weren't anywhere near as good as Nadal, Murray, Del Potro, Ferrer or Djoko now.. Federer was winning against the like of Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick, Baghdatis, (an old Agassi), Safin and Gonzalez.. The fact that Nadal was his first actual competitor in consecutive tournament finals shows how inconsistant the other guys were.. If Nadal was born 5 years earlier and Federer 5 years later then Nadal would have absolutely cleaned up the lot.. He would be sitting on 20 titles now.. Federer on the other hand would probably only have around 7 or 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 He only ever met Sampras once at a GS Yep and I bet Federer was thanking his lucky stars because getting past Sampras at his peak was not disimilar to getting past Djoko now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSheep Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 This forum gets out of hand in so many arguments, that shouldn't of even been started. Can't we just celebrate his victory? (BTW the question mark was rhetorical so no answer needed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I concur. "http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/th_whistling-smiley" alt="th_whistling-smiley"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.