Murray reached the No. 1 ranking on the ATP in Nov 2016. Obviously some doubt his consistency will ever match that of Djokovic amd there is a fair point to be made about that; however with the upset of Novak on Thursday, it’s seems likely Murray may retain his ranking throughout this year.
Obvoiusly the road ahead is enormously difficult. Murray (IMHO) seems to be the ‘weakest’ in the big 4. There are many obstacles in terms of professional players in the ATP that he needs to beat in order to succeed however do you think he can make it through the year on the top much less win the Australian Open?
I think Murray probably has the least raw ability of the top 4 (and I say that as a partisan, British, fan of his), if you measure them all at their respective peaks. This is probably best demonstrated by his consistently losing to Djokovic until last season, when Djokovic hit an amazing peak and Murray was playing very close to his best. But I think he is at the peak of his career now whereas the others are on a downward trajectory - pretty obviously so in the case of Federer and Nadal (largely due to injuries) but also, as I said in last year’s tennis thread, because Djokovic couldn’t sustain his amazing run of form (not that that is a criticism of him). If I am right, the question is whether Murray can continue to maintain the gap between him and the field. It’s only a matter of time before new talents emerge to replace the old guard.
I think it’s very unlikely Murray will finish this year at number 1 again, if only because he has a lot of points to defend at the end of the year (i.e. if he doesn’t have the stellar end to this season that he did last year, he will drop points in the rankings). But the opposite is true of the first half of the season, so on current form he could easily be number 1 seed for Wimbledon. He is clear favourite for the Australian Open with Djokovic’s exit, but will have to beat a top-ten player in his quarter-final (if he makes it). However, that could be the toughest match he faces.
I’ve said before that in any other decade Murray would have picked up 6-10 majors and be regarded as a truly great player. He has had the misfortune (and fortune) to play during the era of possibly three of the greatest ever players.
Misfortune because…well that’s obvious.
Fortune because all of his achievements came through battling a draw packed with the best playing at their best and as such each title should be held in the highest esteem.
He has been consistently good to a degree that no-one outside of the big three has managed. Only ten men have ever reached all four grand slam finals, Look at the career records of finals/semi/quarters reached and see the company he keeps. It is a who’s-who of the greats of the game.
I don’t think his ranking now is in any way false, The big three may be be waning but longevity and physical conditioning are as much a talent as the actual tennis execution and Murray has earned he place at the top. He is the best in the world at the moment without doubt and he has earned it, not been given it.
But yes, a new guard will emerge I’m sure but it is surprising that we have had a decade of four major superstars who began to show their quality in teens or early twenties but we really aren’t seeing that from a now crop at all. We think of Raonic as an emerging talent but he’s already 26.
Kyrios is nearly 22 and showing nothing of the the stability or determination that the big 4 did at that age.
Just as little aside, I’m watching Federer play Berdych and…as much as I like watching Murray, there has never been a more beautiful site in tennis…perhaps in sport…than Roger Federer on the top of his game. There seems to be minimal effort and the power seems to come from nowhere, wonderful to watch.
He’s had 6 months out, he’s 35 and he’s just demolished Berdych in straight sets.
Murray is a combination Roddick and Hewitt. Like the former, he has had the misfortune (as stated above) to be playing against some truly all time greats, but like Hewitt he also (since Fed and Nadal’s decline) has had the advantage of playing in a transitional era, so he can rack up a few more Grand Slams.
In short, he is an Agassi. Andre was a great player, but after being blocked by Sampras for the major part of his career, he was lucky to still be at his near his best when Sampras declined, those last 3/4 Grand Slams flattered him.
The question now is will Djoker’s decline be as sudden and final as Pistol Pete’s?
Agreed. Whenever Federer plays Murray I’m not sure who I really want to root for (a bit like Ivanisevic vs Henman all those years ago). I suspect romanticism beats patriotism, even (or perhaps especially) if it’s the final at Wimbledon.
I’m going to make the same prediction here as I have made for the last 2 or 3 years - Federer will win one more Grand Slam this year, and then retire, either immediately or at the end of the season (probably the former). And Wimbledon is probably the one at which he has the best chance, though clearly he’s still got it in him to beat Murray next week.
I think that’s true up to a point, but I think he’s overall a better player than either Roddick or Hewitt - his serve is better than Hewitt’s and his groundstrokes are better than Roddick’s, his athleticism and tenacity are comparable to Hewitt as well. I think the opposition he is currently facing is tougher than either, as well - Federer, Djokovic, and even Nadal are far from done yet. Around 2003 there were literally no greats of the game anywhere near their peak.
As for Djokovic, I doubt he will decline quickly. For one thing, nutrition and sports science has advanced a lot in 20 years. For another, his game is much more rounded than Sampras’s - Djokovic will be among the favourites for the French this year, which Sampras couldn’t win even at his peak, against fairly mediocre opposition. And Sampras was my first tennis idol. Unlike many, I never got bored of watching that serve.
He occupies the same sort of role as Roddick and Hewitt but I’d also rate him more highly than either.
That’s probably around the relative level I’d put him too (absolute ability comparison is a mugs game) but for Murray he’s been facing three Samprases (Sampri?)
I’d go so far as to say that don’t think there has even been anyone more athletic in the history of tennis. There may be some (Djokovic?) who are on a par but hand on heart I can’t think of anyone who runs as much, as fast, as long as Murray does. Woe betide a sloppy drop-shot on Andy’s watch. Just think of the amount of tennis Murray packed in at the end of 2016 in order to get to no.1 That is testament to his fitness.
And therein lies a worrying possibility. There have been whispers to say that Djokovic’s problems have coincided with the meldonium ban and the nature of his problems are what you’d expect to see. I don’t know. If he was taking it when it was legal then no real fault on him but it does raise the possibility that his issues may not be easily reversible.
Perhaps I have not watched enough of Murray’s matches, but you think Murray is more athletic than Nadal around the time he won his first Wimbledon? Nadal improved his hardcourt/grass game over a period of years, but in the years leading up to that first Wimbledon victory I would argue he was making it close with Federer on pure athleticism alone. And the reason he dominated clay for so long was because he could run down everything. Though of course being left handed and the insane topspin didn’t hurt.
No doubt that Nadal is right up there and I’m not saying he is more athletic that everyone but just that it is hard to make a case that anyone else is more athletic than him.
Yep, sport makes a mug of me and my predictions yet again. In other news, bears still Catholic, etc.
From what little I saw of the highlights, Zverev played the match of his life and deserved the win. It often happens that way - as #1 you have a target on your back and many players (consciously or unconsciously) raise their game against you. On the other hand, you are also the best person to intimidate them into losing matches they should win. In particular, when the ‘lesser’ player gets near the winning line they will often suddenly realise what they are about to achieve and have an attack of the collywobbles. Witness Murray’s (perhaps slightly underhand) challenge of Zverev’s service winner that took him to 30-15 up (I think) in either his penultimate or last service game. The ball didn’t even look close to the line, let alone the wrong side of it (and indeed it was good) but Zverev promptly made a couple of big errors that meant Murray got close to a break point. However, credit to Zverev - he quickly got over that and continued with some awesome shot-making to close it out.
I agree with Navratilova that Murray is probably still feeling the effects of last season, not to mention his young child. Hope Federer can pull it off but he will be even more susceptible to such a giantkilling, I think.
No I wouldn’t read too much into it. Shit happens. It wasn’t even the biggest upset of this tournament. I also suspect that these things scar Murray far less than they used to.
He’s still no.1 and rightly so but we now have a very interesting scenario, possibility of another win for Nadal or Federer?
Watched a curly headed Andy Murray for the first time ever when I broke my hip and was in hospital laying back relaxing.
Wife was visiting me and I told her to look at the TV cos Andy was on court at Wimbledon in June 2005 and lost out to David Nalbandian.
I told her there and then,‘that guy will win Wimbledon one day.’
Not only did he win it,he became world champion and done Scotland proud,he will be remembered for the rest of his life and beyond.
Yes,he has lost a few games since becoming champ but he will be back,most champs do.