Wimbledon 2016

Davey_Pitch · 14 Jul 2016 at 16:23

SpeedFreak said:
Good post, I strongly agree that regardless of final grand slam count he will be considered a great. I actually think Sampras, Agassi and Becker would have really struggled against him.

Agreed. Sampras especially, as he relied so much on his serve, which Murray has already shown can't really be used as a weapon against him. His movement and defense is simply off the charts at times.

Pigeon_Killer · 14 Jul 2016 at 17:27

Sampras had the ultimate serve imo. Not as quick as Roddick or as hard to read as Ivanisevic but he produced an insane amount of spin that made it extremely difficult for his opponents to return. I think Murray would've struggled against him the most

cheesyboy · 14 Jul 2016 at 17:31

Depends when they played. In the '90s, Sampras would have had the beating of Murray at Wimbledon. Now, with slower balls and a bouncier surface, Murray would probably have the edge.

Davey_Pitch · 14 Jul 2016 at 20:16

Pigeon_Killer said:
Sampras had the ultimate serve imo. Not as quick as Roddick or as hard to read as Ivanisevic but he produced an insane amount of spin that made it extremely difficult for his opponents to return. I think Murray would've struggled against him the most

I think it would be a great match to watch. Murray is an expert returner (easily one of the best I've ever seen) and he hits great passing shots and great lobs. Considering Sampras liked to serve and volley, it would be a great match of styles.

SpeedFreak · 14 Jul 2016 at 21:32

Pigeon_Killer said:
Sampras had the ultimate serve imo. Not as quick as Roddick or as hard to read as Ivanisevic but he produced an insane amount of spin that made it extremely difficult for his opponents to return. I think Murray would've struggled against him the most

For that reason I think Murray would get the better off him more often than not as he is one of the great returners of serve. I did love Sampras, the best second serve of all time!

semi-pro waster · 15 Jul 2016 at 08:51

Davey_Pitch said:
I think part of the problem is that he never seems really comfortable having a mic shoved in his face after a match. I've seen him on TV in much more relaxed situations (like A League of Their Own) and he comes across as a genuinely nice, funny bloke.

I'm so happy that he won though. I honestly think that in virtually any other era of tennis, he'd be close to double figures for Slam wins by now. For him to have won as many titles as he has is quite remarkable when he's up against possibly the best ever player in Federer, the best ever clay court player in Nadal, and someone like Djokovic who could easily overtake Federer and be known as the best ever. All 3 of those will go down as 3 of the best 5 tennis players in history, and Murray has pushed them, he's matched them, and on occasion he's beaten them. I don't think any of us would be surprised if he went on to defend his Olympic crown either, or go on to win the US Open next month. Hell, I wouldn't be too surprised if he did both (though I think the heat in Brazil may be too much for him).

I'd agree though it's hard to say how much Murray has also benefited by being in an era with three such superlative players. I was and am so pleased he won Wimbledon again, his talent and application to his sport deserve to make him a multiple slam champion. Even if he never wins another (and I very much hope he does) he has proved beyond a doubt that he can mix it with some of the best players ever in one of the most competitive eras.

It's difficult to compare between eras but Sampras and Murray would be a hell of a game, the Sampras serve wasn't the quickest (albeit in his day he wasn't far off) but so metronomic in quality and accuracy.

It's rather off topic but on a strangely similar line about sportspeople unlucky to be born in an era with a peerless competitor - the BBC has been doing a re-run of various moments of Olympic history and it reminded me of poor Roger Black and Steve Backley who had to compete with Michael Johnson and Jan Zelezny respectively who were two absolute greats of their sport. Had either been born a few years earlier or later they'd probably have been Olympic gold medalists.

cheesyboy · 15 Jul 2016 at 11:22

semi-pro waster said:
It's rather off topic but on a strangely similar line about sportspeople unlucky to be born in an era with a peerless competitor - the BBC has been doing a re-run of various moments of Olympic history and it reminded me of poor Roger Black and Steve Backley who had to compete with Michael Johnson and Jan Zelezny respectively who were two absolute greats of their sport. Had either been born a few years earlier or later they'd probably have been Olympic gold medalists.

The odd thing about Backley was that he won loads of Euro Championships gold medals, and no world/Olympic golds, when all the best throwers, including Zelezny, were European.