Wimbledon 2012

[Barnzy]

This was Murray's best chance to win a GS for some time. Nadal and Joker stumble out before the final, Fed still a very good player but he's nowhere what he used to be. Still couldn't do it and overcome his mental demons. This set of circumstances is unlikely to occur too often. I can't see him beating Nadal or Joker anytime soon. Bad luck Murray, always the bridesmaid I guess.

 

[Caesar]

Murray is undoubtedly the best player of the Open era never to have won a Slam.

If Melbourne Park continues to play like it did this year, I don't rate his chances there any time in the near future. I just don't think he has the chops for a grindfest against Nadal or Djokovic - and unless something unlikely happens again, he's going to have to beat at least one of them to win. But, they are much less formidable at Flushing Meadows.

I think his first Grand Slam will probably be one of the next two USOs.

 

[Mint Condition]

I think Murray's game suits the slower hard courts better than the fast ones. On slower hard courts it's only Nadal and Djokovic ahead of him, and I think Murray is the one that can improve more. Murray got pretty close to beating Djokovic this year and probably would have won if he'd had a slightly more aggressive game plan (and he seems to be on that path).

On the faster courts of the US Open he's a big chance too, but I think there are more guys that can just blow you off the court if they get hot. Guys like Tsonga, Del Potro, Isner, Raonic, Fish etc would probably have a better chance of beating Murray at the US than the AO. And obviously Federer is a bigger threat at the US right now as well. If they played next week on the US Open court I'd favour Federer...AO court I'd probably favour Murray.

 

[Icanwalk]

Murray is undoubtedly the best player of the Open era never to have won a Slam.

If Melbourne Park continues to play like it did this year, I don't rate his chances there any time in the near future. I just don't think he has the chops for a grindfest against Nadal or Djokovic - and unless something unlikely happens again, he's going to have to beat at least one of them to win. But, they are much less formidable at Flushing Meadows.

I think his first Grand Slam will probably be one of the next two USOs.

I don't know about undoubtedly, he'd certainly be close but has major deficiencies in his game as many have pointed out. There is a reason why he hasn't won a GS yet, and it's not simply because of the 3 greats ahead of him. And I'd argue much of it lies above the shoulders.

Obviously his second serve and forehand down the line are substandard, but it's his immaturity which is costing him. The match last night was virtually over in the epic 20min game where Murray was broken, his body language was very negative, dropping the head, clutching his legs and stretching his back as if he had some sort of injury. He was stuck in this mindset for the rest of the match. You're not gonna beat Federer in that mental state.
He'll only mature with time and once he's able to control his emotions, he'll certainly win a GS as he has the talent.

Would also like to see him play a little less defensively and attempt more winners rather than simply prolonging the rally and waiting for an error from his opponent. Obviously he'd need to develop his forehand but this Hewitt-esque style of tennis won't work against the big 3.

 

[Icanwalk]

Btw, it was a pleasure to watch Federer at his best once again. So graceful over the court and his racket control is simply in a class of it's own.

Must be getting close to announcing himself as the best of all time, but perhaps he'll need to win his 20th. Can he do it?

 

[Caesar]

I think Murray's game suits the slower hard courts better than the fast ones. On slower hard courts it's only Nadal and Djokovic ahead of him, and I think Murray is the one that can improve more. Murray got pretty close to beating Djokovic this year and probably would have won if he'd had a slightly more aggressive game plan (and he seems to be on that path).

On the faster courts of the US Open he's a big chance too, but I think there are more guys that can just blow you off the court if they get hot. Guys like Tsonga, Del Potro, Isner, Raonic, Fish etc would probably have a better chance of beating Murray at the US than the AO. And obviously Federer is a bigger threat at the US right now as well. If they played next week on the US Open court I'd favour Federer...AO court I'd probably favour Murray.

7 of Murray's 8 Masters titles are on fast hardcourts - Cincinnati, Toronto, Shanghai, etc. That's where he tends to get the wins against the top guys.

To me, that's what counts. He's a good enough player that running into the top 3 is a much bigger problem than lower-ranked guys jagging wins against him. I am far more keen to back him against Djokovic or Nadal at Flushing Meadows than I am at Melbourne Park.

Totally agree he'd prefer to play Federer on Plexicushion than Decoturf. But let's be honest - Wimbledon or no Wimbledon, Federer is a much smaller factor at Slams than the other two these days. Especially if he ends up on the same side of the draw as Nadal.

I don't know about undoubtedly, he'd certainly be close but has major deficiencies in his game as many have pointed out. There is a reason why he hasn't won a GS yet, and it's not simply because of the 3 greats ahead of him. And I'd argue much of it lies above the shoulders.

Who would you put above him? Statistically, there is definitely no comparison - even at 25 no other slamless player comes close in terms of GS finals, GS semi finals, Masters Series and other titles won.

He definitely has clear deficiencies, but so do most slamless players - that's why they're slamless. I'm struggling to think of anyone I'd rate even close to him. Maybe Rios I suppose, but he was even more of a mental case than Murray.

 

[wally funk]

Btw, it was a pleasure to watch Federer at his best once again. So graceful over the court and his racket control is simply in a class of it's own.

Must be getting close to announcing himself as the best of all time, but perhaps he'll need to win his 20th. Can he do it?

It's not totally beyond him. Agassi won the AO and the no.1 ranking in '03, aged 33. If the Maestro can keep up this skill level til that age he's definitely got some chance of getting 20 slams. Likely he won't though, you'd reckon.

 

[Mint Condition]

Agassi was still a very good player at 35. in 2005 he was very even with Federer at his peak for the first 3 sets of the US Open final. No reason to believe that Federer won't be able to keep up a high level to the same age given his attacking style of game. He'll have chances for more slams that's for sure. It's going to be pretty tough for him to win any more FO's but he'll be a big threat at Wimbledon and the US Open for a few more years...and the AO if he gets a bit of luck.

 

[jod23]

Downplaying Federer a bit here. He is a very big chance at every major he plays. When at his absolute best nobody can go with him. Getting the number 1 ranking back is big for him too as now he will avoid Nadal, Djoker at the USO. Only has to beat the subpar Murray to make it to the final.

 

[Caesar]

Downplaying Federer a bit here. He is a very big chance at every major he plays. When at his absolute best nobody can go with him. Getting the number 1 ranking back is big for him too as now he will avoid Nadal, Djoker at the USO. Only has to beat the subpar Murray to make it to the final.

Seeds 1 and 2 are drawn randomly against 3 and 4. So it's not certain whether it will be Nadal or Murray in his half.

 

[Flameboy]

Well done Roger Federer. The best player when it mattered. Deserved the title.​

But in terms of where he stands in the GOAT debate, this tournament hasn't changed much for me. Of course he still sits right up there, and this win merely confirms that - but he didn't have to get through Nadal. And IF Rafa keeps this ridiculous GS H2H record he has over Roger, I'll always be hesitant in referring to him as the best, even though he has the most number of majors. ​

Over the next 3-4 years, something will give. Either Federer will continue this form and win a few more majors - and somewhat mend the H2H record with Nadal; Rafa will win a few more and continue to dominate Roger in GS's; or Djokovic will regain the kingpin status he had in 2011. I think either way these 3 will sort themselves out, and by the end of their careers it will be clear as to who was the best. It's so exciting. ​

As for Murray, well, he played a lot better than I thought he could. Credit to him. Played really well to beat Tsonga in the semi (even though Jo played like a muppet for the first 2 sets), and took it up to Federer in the first two sets of the final. In the end though he didn't beat any of the big 3, so I'm still unsure as to whether he can win a Grand Slam.​

Only time will tell ...with everything.​

 

[jod23]

Well done Roger Federer. The best player when it mattered. Deserved the title.​

But in terms of where he stands in the GOAT debate, this tournament hasn't changed much for me. Of course he still sits right up there, and this win merely confirms that - but he didn't have to get through Nadal. And IF Rafa keeps this ridiculous GS H2H record he has over Roger, I'll always be hesitant in referring to him as the best, even though he has the most number of majors. ​

Your argument is so ridiculous. Roger didnt have to go through Nadal cos Nadal was shit and lost before the pointy end of the tournament. BY your reckoning, not major win by any tennis player ever doesnt count unless they beat Nadal on the way to the title. It's just stupid bro. Federer beat the world number 1 and 4 on the way to the Wimbledon crown. Has now got 17 majors and has regained the world number 1. He is ridic.

Nadal's H2H record is nice for him but some guys just match up better on other guys. Simple as that.

 

[Caesar]

Can we leave the Nadal/Federer stuff in the GOAT thread please?

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

Well that was the most amount of tears I can recall in a grand slam final for some time. Considering all the pressure, he did well to get to that stage of the tournie IMO. As much as I wanted Fed to win, it was not nice seeing Murray so upset at the end. Also didn't like how Todd and Newc took a bit of a shot at his box (and in particular his mother) for being so animated. Roger's box was pretty up and about as well, and they clearly forgot about Djokovic's girlfriend.

Some of the touch Roger has on his shots though, especially when he approaches the net, is just unreal.

 

[OzBomber]

Well that was the most amount of tears I can recall in a grand slam final for some time. Considering all the pressure, he did well to get to that stage of the tournie IMO. As much as I wanted Fed to win, it was not nice seeing Murray so upset at the end. Also didn't like how Todd and Newc took a bit of a shot at his box (and in particular his mother) for being so animated. Roger's box was pretty up and about as well, and they clearly forgot about Djokovic's girlfriend.

Some of the touch Roger has on his shots though, especially when he approaches the net, is just unreal.

Not a bad thing to show your emotions.

 

[Natho]

Was a great game. The Fed was simply to good for Murray. Murray will break the drought soon.

 

[JolyV]

Murray is coached by eight-time Grand Slam champion Ivan Lendl, the only other man who lost his first four major finals
hmmmmmmmm coincidence ?

 

[The Passenger]

i've never been a big murray fan, but i think he has matured a bit in the last couple of years. always seemed a bit petulant. he still acts it a bit on the court, but you don't see it off the court anymore. and i've never really judged people how they act on the sporting field. it's an intense battle i can't crucify a bloke for a few slips here and there.

but you do gotta feel for him. 4 times to the big dance with nothing to show. i think he was pretty genuine in how emotional he was after that match. it was a sooky this i'm over this bullshit sort of speech, it came across as i'm trying my guts but just can't quite get there

if the english hadn't claimed murray so eagerly i probably would've been going for him in the final. at least it's one thing they won't be able to claim. wiggins is looking solid for the TDF, their cricket is dominating, and they'll probably jag more golds in a few weeks than they have since Longon 1908.

on the hand how good is fed. been written off and over the last few months has stepped up again. not much else to say. i'm still backing rafa to break his GS record but with one more to chalk up, and the fact Novak will be a presence for the rest of Rafa's career, it'll make it harder. if a bookie was doing odds you'd probably put nadal in at about 2.40.....

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

if the english hadn't claimed murray so eagerly i probably would've been going for him in the final. at least it's one thing they won't be able to claim. wiggins is looking solid for the TDF, their cricket is dominating, and they'll probably jag more golds in a few weeks than they have since Longon 1908.

What do you mean? I don't mean to be a smart arse, but the English are British just like him so he's still a fellow countryman...

 

[The Passenger]

they don't claim too many other scotsman, even in individual sports. it's only cause they having nothing else to cling onto. colin montgomerie, almost the golfing equivalent of murray with five major runner ups didn't get the same press. and england certainly didn't claim rory mcilroy or graeme mcdowell's major wins, and i don't think there was the press surrounding darren clarke who identifies himself as a british norther irish, unlike the previous two. why?? because they have guys like luke donald, ian poulter, lee westwood and co. who more than handle their own on the golfing stage (even if neither have cracked a big one).

if it was standard english behavior to claim the scots, welsh or northern irish i'd think it was ridiculous but i wouldn't hold it against those that are claiming murray. but it's not standard england behavior. it's only when it's convenient cause they've got nothing else to hang their hat on.

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

Yeah, but in golf don't they compete as England, Wales etc, and not as GBR? Its not really the same thing. If it were the same thing in tennis then you'd probably end up with the same situation.

 

[Caesar]

What do you mean? I don't mean to be a smart arse, but the English are British just like him so he's still a fellow countryman...

The thing is, the only people who go on about the British identity are the English. I mean, talk to someone Welsh - they don't give a damn about Andy Murray, because he's not Welsh.

And the English only do it in situations like this - where someone from one of the other home nations is successful and they want to claim them.

When Henman was successful, the English papers didn't trumpet his Britishness - it was all 'English tennis player Tim Henman' and 'Henman first Englishman in Wimbledon semis since X'.

 

[The Passenger]

Yeah, but in golf don't they compete as England, Wales etc, and not as GBR? Its not really the same thing. If it were the same thing in tennis then you'd probably end up with the same situation.

maybe that is the case, but it seems a bit strange to play as one country in one sport and as another country in another sport...

 

[Corrosion]

Well done Roger Federer. The best player when it mattered. Deserved the title.​

But in terms of where he stands in the GOAT debate, this tournament hasn't changed much for me. Of course he still sits right up there, and this win merely confirms that - but he didn't have to get through Nadal. And IF Rafa keeps this ridiculous GS H2H record he has over Roger, I'll always be hesitant in referring to him as the best, even though he has the most number of majors. ​

Over the next 3-4 years, something will give. Either Federer will continue this form and win a few more majors - and somewhat mend the H2H record with Nadal; Rafa will win a few more and continue to dominate Roger in GS's; or Djokovic will regain the kingpin status he had in 2011. I think either way these 3 will sort themselves out, and by the end of their careers it will be clear as to who was the best. It's so exciting. ​

As for Murray, well, he played a lot better than I thought he could. Credit to him. Played really well to beat Tsonga in the semi (even though Jo played like a muppet for the first 2 sets), and took it up to Federer in the first two sets of the final. In the end though he didn't beat any of the big 3, so I'm still unsure as to whether he can win a Grand Slam.​

Only time will tell ...with everything.​

Dumbest argument I've ever seen or read. Its not Federer's fault that Nadal couldn't beat some no name player in the 2nd round or whatever round it was. Deadset rediculous argument.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Dumbest argument I've ever seen or read. Its not Federer's fault that Nadal couldn't beat some no name player in the 2nd round or whatever round it was. Deadset rediculous argument.

Winning a grand slam only counts if you beat Nadal en route. As soon as Rosol was knocked out by Kohlschreiber, the tournament became illegitimate. I thought this was common knowledge?