Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Australian Open 2023

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 29,277 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi



    Oh good, it'll be great to have him back again!



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Have you remember Djokovic missed about two years with "personal injuries" and more with COVID. Could be pushing 30 plus really.

    I don't think it's an indictment of how good he or the big 3 are, but how poor the rest are. Hardly broke a sweat this tournament. Hard to watch Murray compete these days when you consider what could of been. Only for injuries he would of been the top player since the mid 10s imo. He had the measure of Djokovic when he peaked



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Slashermcguirk


    Golden Miller, That is a real stretch. Djokovic has pretty much always dominated the rivalry vs Murray. Djokovic dominated the H2H 25-11 and 8-2 in Grand slam meetings. You could even argue that the Wimbledon final that Murray won, Djokovic was completely shafted as he had to get through a 5 set semi final vs Del Potro and Djokovic was a shadow of himself in that final (probably the worst I have seen him play in a grand slam final).

    Even if you look at the Australian open final in 2011 when both players were at their very peak, Djokovic beat Murray in straight sets 6-4 6-2 6-3. to say that Murray ever had Djokovic's measure is way off the mark in my opinion.

    Also saying that the Next Gen are really poor. There is simply no way you can say Alcaraz, Sinner, Rune, Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev are not really good players. The fact of the matter is Djokovic is arguably the greatest player of all time and you could argue that 98% of players have struggled to beat him over the past 15 years. Age seems irrelevant when you consider how fit he is, how well he still moves and being a crazy good tennis player.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    From the summer of 12 to the end of 13, the hth, was 3-3. Dissect it further you see either Murray battered him, and when lost, Djokovic was holding on. Had the trajectory continued there was only one outcome, and Djokovic was in for some heavy beatings going forward.

    It was Murray's time and injuries cruelly denied him of sustained success. He had the beating of Federer and Nadal, and Djokovic was clinging on to live with him, when Murray got the run on him straight setted him.

    As time passes people forget but for a year Murray was the undisputed no. 1, injuries beat him not Djokovic. To try and rewrite history to downplay Murrays ability is pathetic by mainly fanboys of the other 3.

    Even if Djokovic gets to 23 slams, he knows deep down, and will question it in himself, was he really the greatest? He knows better than anyone how Murray had his number, and on many occasions he had no response.

    Djokovic got the better of Federer and Nadal, but when Murray peaked, had met his match. He knows it himself. Fortunately for him, injuries prevented Murray from really ascending to the top. Which is disappointing if your a real sports fan.

    In time, and is happening now, the general public will rate Murray as a level below the big 3, but ask the big 3 themselves was he a level below and you'll get your answer



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz


    Jaysis , I've always maintained Murray doesn't get the respect he deserves and he's prob top 10/15 of all time but you seem to be putting him as the GOAT!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,916 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Murray beat himself. Destroyed his body playing every tournament to try and get enough points to be number 1. Unsustainable, and he has to take full responsibility for his 'injuries'. No denying his heart and that he was ahead of the remaining pack though. And great to see him get through a few rounds in Melbourne.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,896 ✭✭✭Girly Gal


    Murray was definitely best of the rest, but, he just came up short against the big 3, which is not a criticism. Had he played in another era he probably would have won upto 10 slams and been no 1 for a few years. He was unlucky to come along at the same time as the big 3. It's a pity he got injured when he did as he was at the time Djokovic's most difficult opponent, but, his injuries were a result of trying to live with the big 3, his body wasn't able to sustain that, while they were.

    Had he stayed fit I think he definitely could have gotten a few more slams and been one of Djokovic's main challengers, but, Djokovic would still have been the dominant player. Murray is definitely a level above the " next gen players" and generally made the big 3 earn their wins, which the next gen players have generally failed to do. A fit Murray would definitely have made the last 4 or 5 years more interesting, Murray getting injured was definitely a loss to the game. A great player, that had the misfortune to come along at the same time as probably the 3 greatest players of all time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    Murray had injuries because he pushed himself too far and played a ridiculous schedule in order to try and get world number 1, if he played a normal schedule he almost certainly wouldn't have got such injuries but he almost certainly wouldn't have got to number 1 either.Murray never had a year in his career where he won more grand slam tournaments than any other player, he has never had a multiple grand slam year .

    So basically your putting Murray on the same level as the big 3 because he had a couple of spells where he was close to competing with them and matched them , which is ridiculous as you could apply that sort of logic to numerous players throughout history and claim they were as good as some of their contemporaries because for short periods of time they matched them .The reason the big 3 are ahead of Murray is they could perform at the high level they did for over a decade, Murray could only reach that high level for short periods which means he's a level below them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Slashermcguirk


    You are picking a period of one year in their entire careers and deciding that Murray had his number on foot of that. You could argue that Djokovic dominated Murray for 12 of the past 13 years! Also you even mention that during that golden spell for Murray, the H2H was 3-3, hardly suggests that Murray dominated him. The only grand slam were Murray comfortably won was that wimbledon final in 2013, as I mentioned previously Djokovic was a shadow of himself in that final having also played a brutal 5 hour semi vs Del Potro. The only other time Murray managed to beat him in a slam was the US open in howling wind where it was a complete lottery. Even at that it still took Murray 5 sets to see him off and he very nearly lost with a 2 set lead. Those two matches aside, Djokovic has beaten Murray in 8 out of 10 grand slam meetings and on top of that Djokovic has dominated their rivalry overall 25-11.

    I have huge respect for Murray as a player and how he has battled injuries but the reality is that if anyone has dominated that rivalry, it was Djokovic. The only top 3 member that Murray had a good record against was Federer (even at that Federer had the winning record and he dominated their important meetings in grand slams). Murray had a pretty lousy record in comparison vs Nadal and Djokovic. No shame in any of that though as pretty much every player has a woeful record against the top 3.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭Brief_Lives


    I thinjk we can all agree, that in the likability charts, it's:

    Fed

    Murray

    Rafa

    Joker


    and thats what counts..



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Slashermcguirk


    I think that has no relevance whatsoever to legacy. you are judged on what you win. John McEnroe as a legend of the game sums it up perfectly here. Also worth bearing in mind that among the players, particularly the top young players on tour (including medvedev, tsitsipas, thiem, zverev, Rune etc), they all seem to suggest Djokovic is the nicest guy off court of the big 3. Several of the legends of the game have also commented on how misunderstood Djokovic is. That doesnt of course suit the media narrative who seem to make Djokovic out as the ultimate villain.




  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,903 Mod ✭✭✭✭whiterebel


    No guarantee that playing tennis caused Murray's problems anyway. It can be a genetic problem. No doubt there is a lot of stress on the joints from tennis. I think his body was put together in a fit of disinterest anyway, looking at his ankles etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    No he's a distant 4th in this era as that's how his career panned out, way behind in Slams etc, and hths. The point really is, as he was finally peaking, as he just got to grips with the big 3, set backs started to happen. After years he finally reached a level where he was ahead of Federer and Nadal and drew up level with Djokovic.

    I think he had finally just put his whole game together and could of pushed on further, when bad luck and injuries hindered him. I personally think he had the beating of Djokovic too going forward. He was hindered for the best part of 3 years after and when he started to push on again circa 2016, bad luck didn't allow it.

    The big 3 could all beat each other at their peaks, and when Murray peaked he was also at this level imo. As time passes though, people will look at the GS count and see him as miles behind, it's hard to remember being of the time and the context. But to my mind, what I saw with my own eyes, was a player as capable and every bit as good as the big 3. No revisionism will make me forget him battering a peak Djokovic on several occasions, and Djokovic struggle and pushed to his limit to get a win off Murray.

    Since Murrays injuries, all of the big 3 have benefited and won slams, when really their numbers should be lower. If Djokovic had been facing a peak Murray for the best part of the last decade they would of been splitting slams, Nadal wouldn't be meeting Medvedev but Murray in a final etc.

    Specific to Djokovic, he'll be regarded at the best ever. Nadal at his best threw everything at Nole and came up short, as did Federer. And in many ways it wasn't the fact he beat them but the nature of how he did it, forcing his game on them mostly, with them hanging on.

    But not Murray, for me that question mark will remain for Djokovic, when Murray peaked in 12-13, he couldn't force his game on him, infact the opposite was happening. Murray was the one dictating proceedings, something a look back at their hth wont show on paper. Peak Djokovic, the best ever we say, yet Murray could handle him when he finally put his game together.

    Not saying Murray is the GOAT, nothing of the sort, but it's worth remembering the problems Djokovic had with Murray when we discuss the best ever. And it's something Djokovic never really proved, injuries to Murray done the job for him.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,347 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    This "Murray pushing himself too hard" to be at the level of the big 3, is fanboy nonsense. The one thing fanboys of the big 3 all agree on, to explain away Murray rising and beating them. Their player couldn't beat him, so Murray getting injured and not sustaining that level proved he wasn't as good.

    The reality is, when he peaked, Murray had many handy wins against all 3 off them, which they can't accept, so not sure how that manifests into the idea he dug so deep he played himself into the ground and got constant injuries. Excuses, nothing more, nothing less. Murray was just unlucky in the end.

    This excuse infact backs up my whole point really. It was borne from the time Murray was beating all the big 3, so people do remember it happening, yet looking back try to ignore, forget and downplay how good Murray got.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Slashermcguirk


    I have been following the tennis very closely all these years and I disagree, djokovic has nearly always had Murrays number, really don't know where you are getting this from. Djokovic also dominated him at the most important events, 8-2 in slams. Yes there were times when Murray got some wins over him but he never managed to do over a consistent period of time. Murray was a great player and competitor but Djokovic was and is a much better player, there is no denying that, the stats don't lie. Even pre murrays injuries, Djokovic was consistently beating him



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Slashermcguirk


    I think the toughest part for Murray was the grand slam match ups in his career against his biggest rivals. He had a losing record to all:

    Nadal 7-2 vs Murray

    Djokovic 8-2 vs Murray

    Federer 5-1 vs Murray

    Wawrinka 4-3 vs Murray



Advertisement