Murray 24- 22 vs Top 10 in last three years.

[Fastgrass]

Here is his record against top 10 in 3 Years
.2011- 7-8
2012 12-9
2013 5-5

overall 24- 22 vs top 10 in his peak years.
This shows that whenever Murray plays with top 10 there is
almost 50% possibility that he will lose , and also in peak.
Now he is injured now , I think in next two - three years His .numbers will be more disappointing as he will be:27 when
he will come. Its not the Age of domination.

Now comparing with post prime nadal and nole

nadal 19-3 in come back year

nole 16-6 in post prime year.

This also explains why is not no 1 yet .
To be no 1 you need to score consistently well against top 10 .
Nadal will make 21-22 Victories at the end of the year that is
same as Murray's 3 years count .

Murray needs do well to be no 1

 

[Front242]

Murray's forehand is much improved since Lendl came along. While no one has any idea how he'll fare when he comes back, the hope is that he'll be pain free as his back was bothering him quite a bit. Enough to require surgery. Nadal took 7 months off to return pain free and it certainly helped him this year so I don't see why Murray can't have a strong 2014. Players are peaking much later these days. Look no further than Ferrer. Plenty of life left in Murray if he recovers well and he likely will as it was only minor surgery.

 

[Kieran]

Well, it's an interesting stat - if it's accurate. I wonder if fastgrass will do us a favour and break it down further: who's he beaten and who beat him?

But it's a stat he needs to improve drastically if he's going to climb to the summit. 24-22 isn't very convincing against the best players - and factor in that he hasn't even faced Rafa since 2011!

 

[Fastgrass]

its accurate and indication of his weaknesses and shows how overrated he is in prime .
In prime he is 50% against top players .

 

[Kieran]

its accurate and indication of his weaknesses and shows how overrated he is in prime .
In prime he is 50% against top players .

Where'd you get the statistic?

Do you have a breakdown of the figures?

Cheers!

 

[Fastgrass]

its accurate and indication of his weaknesses and shows how overrated he is in prime .
In prime he is 50% against top players .

Where'd you get the statistic?

Do you have a breakdown of the figures?

Cheers!

Thanks for logical discussion.
2013: 5-5
Wins: Federer at AO, Gasquet & Ferrer at Miami, Tsonga at
Queens, Djokovic at Wimbledon
Losses: Djokovic at AO, Del Potro at IW, Berdych at Madrid &
Cincinnati, Wawrinka at USO
2012: 12-9
Wins: Berdych at Dubai, USO & WTF, Djokovic at Dubai,
Olympics & USO, Tipsarevic at Miami, Ferrer at Wimbledon,
Tsonga at Wimbledon & WTF, Federer at Olympics &
Shanghai
Losses: Djokovic at AO, Miami, Shanghai & WTF, Federer at
Dubai, Wimbledon & WTF, Berdych at Monte Carlo, Ferrer at
FO,
2011: 7-8
Wins: Ferrer at AO, Tokyo & Shanghai, Roddick at Queens,
Fish at Cincinnati, Djokovic at Cincinnati, Nadal at Tokyo
Losses: Djokovic at AO & Rome, Nadal at Monte Carlo, FO,
Wimbledon, USO, Berdych at Paris, Ferrer at WTF

My memory is strong , check this if anyone have source or

 

[Kieran]

Thanks fastgrass, for taking the time.

There's something that'll improve if Murray is to progress, but as you say, he's in his prime years now.

And also, I agree with JLLB - he won Wimbledon. It pays for a lot, but if he's going up another level - or maintaining the same - he has a lot of room to improve...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The question is do you believe murray will be #1 someday?

 

[Denis]

I think Murray himself doesn't consider that a priority (the no 1 position). He just wants to be competitive in Slams which he is.

And he may be 50% against top 10 players, he is able to defeat Novak, Nadal, and Federer on a regular basis. I am pretty sure his stats there are quite good.

 

[Moxie]

I think Murray himself doesn't consider that a priority (the no 1 position). He just wants to be competitive in Slams which he is.

And he may be 50% against top 10 players, he is able to defeat Novak, Nadal, and Federer on a regular basis. I am pretty sure his stats there are quite good.

I agree that Murray is probably very sanguine about the times he plays in. Reaching for #1 is not as worthwhile a goal as getting Slams. He's already done some of what he needed to. The monkey being off his back, I expect he'll play freer and have some still excellent results in the next few years, provided that the back that the monkey got off of is in good shape, after surgery.

 

[Iona16]

The past 3 years have not been Andy's peak years. I don't consider his 2011 record particularly relevant. I think he's done remarkably well these past 18 months when you consider he was playing with back pain.

Murray dreamed of winning the US Open and Wimbledon. He's done both. After Wimbledon he said he felt a "huge release of tension and pressure". I'm hoping he will finally be free of back pain and fully fit when the new season starts. He is missing tennis and will be hungry when he returns. He will be going all out to win the Australian Open.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I wonder what would have happened if Nadal didn't play in 2011. Nadal and Murray met at Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open.

 

[Front242]

I wonder what would have happened if Nadal didn't play in 2011. Nadal and Murray met at Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open.

I know you're insinuating Nadal would have 3 more slams. I wonder what would've happened if Soderling, Rosol and hell even Federer weren't born? 30 + slams? Back on planet Earth the weather is good this morning.

 

[Moxie]

I wonder what would have happened if Nadal didn't play in 2011. Nadal and Murray met at Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open.

What does that even mean? What are you trying to reinvent...a whole season that Nadal featured in largely, without him? Could we try to stick, for the most part, to what actually did happen and debate those issues relevantly? Re-imagining the past is almost never useful.

 

[Fastgrass]

Thanks fastgrass, for taking the time.

There's something that'll improve if Murray is to progress, but as you say, he's in his prime years now.

And also, I agree with JLLB - he won Wimbledon. It pays for a lot, but if he's going up another level - or maintaining the same - he has a lot of room to improve...

yes he achieved life time ambition but I am comparing him
with no 1 players considering he is in peak and peoples thinks that he is underachieving .
It may be a reason IMO.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

What does that even mean? What are you trying to reinvent...a whole season that Nadal featured in largely, without him? Could we try to stick, for the most part, to what actually did happen and debate those issues relevantly? Re-imagining the past is almost never useful.

I know you're insinuating Nadal would have 3 more slams. I wonder what would've happened if Soderling, Rosol and hell even Federer weren't born? 30 + slams? Back on planet Earth the weather is good this morning.

How would Nadal win more slams? That makes no sense. In my scenario, Nadal wins no slams.

When I asked, "I wonder what would have happened if Nadal didn't play in 2011" I was insinuating that Murray may have won 3 more slams (or 1-3 more slams).

See, let's break it down. Instead of Nadal eliminating Murray at the semis, let's say Nadal lost prior to the semis in these slams-
2011 RG Final: Murray vs Federer
2011 Wimbledon Final: Murray vs Djokovic
2011 US Open Final: Murray vs Djokovic

I give Murray a legit shot in all 3 of those. Its fascinating, because I'm pretty sure Murray was good enough in 2011 to win those, despite some people making out that Murray suddenly improved in 2012. Murray doesn't get enough credit for his level in 2011. I mean people keep saying Murray's forehand improved dramatically from 2011-2012. Look at the video of Murray's forehand at 2013 US Open and compare it to 2011 US Open. You still think his forehand improved dramatically after 2011? Well I definitely do not.

So when Iona16 says "The past 3 years have not been Andy's peak years. I don't consider his 2011 record particularly relevant" I don't agree. It is the same player, in his prime. The same player who occasionally hits his forehand with conviction, but often does not. Its like the 2013 AO final, we saw a couple of sets of conviction, and a couple of sets of nothingness. And go back to 2010 AO and watch Murray vs Nadal. That was the best I've ever seen Murray play. Nadal had no control over that match. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, we saw Murray hit his forehand with conviction for portions of each year. 2011, 2012, 2013 have been Murray's prime.

 

[Fastgrass]

What does that even mean? What are you trying to reinvent...a whole season that Nadal featured in largely, without him? Could we try to stick, for the most part, to what actually did happen and debate those issues relevantly? Re-imagining the past is almost never useful.

I know you're insinuating Nadal would have 3 more slams. I wonder what would've happened if Soderling, Rosol and hell even Federer weren't born? 30 + slams? Back on planet Earth the weather is good this morning.

How would Nadal win more slams? That makes no sense. In my scenario, Nadal wins no slams.

When I asked, "I wonder what would have happened if Nadal didn't play in 2011" I was insinuating that Murray may have won 3 more slams (or 1-3 more slams).

See, let's break it down. Instead of Nadal eliminating Murray at the semis, let's say Nadal lost prior to the semis in these slams-
2011 RG Final: Murray vs Federer
2011 Wimbledon Final: Murray vs Djokovic
2011 US Open Final: Murray vs Djokovic

I give Murray a legit shot in all 3 of those. Its fascinating, because I'm pretty sure Murray was good enough in 2011 to win those, despite some people making out that Murray suddenly improved in 2012. Murray doesn't get enough credit for his level in 2011. I mean people keep saying Murray's forehand improved dramatically from 2011-2012. Look at the video of Murray's forehand at 2013 US Open and compare it to 2011 US Open. You still think his forehand improved dramatically after 2011? Well I definitely do not.

So when Iona16 says "The past 3 years have not been Andy's peak years. I don't consider his 2011 record particularly relevant" I don't agree. It is the same player, in his prime. The same player who occasionally hits his forehand with conviction, but often does not. Its like the 2013 AO final, we saw a couple of sets of conviction, and a couple of sets of nothingness. And go back to 2010 AO and watch Murray vs Nadal. That was the best I've ever seen Murray play. Nadal had no control over that match. 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, we saw Murray hit his forehand with conviction for portions of each year. These years have been Murray's prime.

if nadal wouldn't have stopped Murray , as you said
IMO he would have just one chance of winning at Wimbledon .Nothing more than one slam .
But think if nadal was not injured , Murray would be slam less.

 

[Kieran]

How would Murray be slam-less? Nadal played at Wimbledon this year, but Murray won it...

 

[Front242]

How would Murray be slam-less? Nadal played at Wimbledon this year, but Murray won it...

To be honest this X would have happened if Y didn't play, etc is fine if people want to discuss that in a Fantasy Tennis thread, which maybe could be created somewhere if people want to go down that route. Personally I see little point though in debating what could have happened when it not only didn't happen but couldn't happen. Reality is the spice of life.

Edit: And I know you're into reality more too. Was just replying to your last post because it was logical and about reality

 

[Kieran]

Actually, variety is the spice of life. Reality is its bread n butter!