So, if we're looking at what past players say about current ones, do we believe what Borg has to say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6167859.stm

no.

Having just received his award from the British people, perhaps he felt obliged to be kind and humour us.

Might be he is right..why not..the real question is when (i.e. when FED will start to slow down)? And how (i.e. how is he classifing the other young guns out there?) B) ..Wait and see :rolleyes:

Bjorn Borg is right to make his predictions but he is not taking one thing into account i.e. the other young guns. Andy Murray has proven that he can beat Roger Federer in straight sets, but he has yet to fully convince us that he can beat his peers. For example, when he played Richard Gasquet in Montreal, he lost in two routine sets. If Murray is to ever become world number one or win a slam, it will be his head-to-head with Gasquet that counts most. I see Murray being a great player, but he will have the unfortunate luck to have one of the all time greats alongside him, thus denying him titles he would otherwise have won. Gasquet is the one to watch, not Murray.

I'm trying to be patient with you, Dr. Sincere, but if you're going to be so smug and sure of yourself, at least present a better argument. You make these conclusions based on such little data . . . OK, so Murray beat Federer once and that proves he can beat Federer, and yet he can't beat his peers, because he lost his one match against Gasquet.

Answer this: How many of his "peers" has he played more than once and not beaten? He's 0-1 against Gasquet and Djokovic. He's 1-1 against Monfils and Berdych. I think it's kind of hard to draw much of a conclusion based on such a small number of matches for a player just hitting his stride on the tour. And Gasquet has certainly lost his share of matches, too.

As I said on TV' s thread ,the BBC possibly asked Borg something like:'Can Murray become number one?'and he admitted he was a possible candidate.I'm not saying that Murray won't be number one one day,but ,for once,I agree with Doctor Sincere that Gasquet may be a more likely future number one.I find it impossible to believe that Fed was fully motivated when Murray defeated him in Cinci BTW.

Apart from all the Murray stuff tho, Borg did have something of interest to say on Federer:

The 50-year-old Swede said: "As long as Roger is motivated then I think it might be a few years before he is dethroned.

"Federer is playing unbelievable tennis and appears to have no weaknesses."

Yet more idiotic journalism from the BBC. If they'd asked Borg if Djokovic, Gasquet, Berdych, etc could become number 1 one day, I'm sure the Swede would also have said yes. 'Could become number 1' means next to nothing - any of these players could, plus lots more. Theoretically, Bruce Forscyth could become number 1.

If the BBC, and other forms of the British media, stop putting words in people's mouths then screaming them from the rooftops like Murray's the reincarnatate of Jesus Christ himself, the young Scot will stand a much better chance of achieving something in his career. Things like this never help.

For the record, I think Murray could get to number one too, but it depends how he develops. From what I've seen so far, Gasquet, Berdych and Djokovic are all more talented than him, and given his poor stamina, it's unlikely Murray will peak before them. Stuff like this is all speculation though, it's impossible to tell how a player's going to mature. Murray's a promising talent, let's leave it that BBC.

I believe Murray has what it takes to reach the top if he can manage to look after his body as well as federer has and he will need to work very hard to keep his condioning up which to his credit he is doing right now in the states.Andy Murray is going to be a special player i have felt this ever since that marathon match at queens last year against Thomas Johansson.Even if he does not get to number one i believe he will still win a slam.

Agreed Murraynator. If I was forced to make a prediction for Murray's future, I'd say he could definitely win a Slam, probably US Open (or Australian now they've sped it up), and maybe be number 1 for a short period of time. However, like the Dr asserted, Richard Gasquet is the star player of Murray's generation, and at this point I can't look past him being the dominant player of the future, assuming he believes he can do it and ignores the French press.

No doubt Gasquet is a contender

This sums it up in one word.
BBC continues with their total biased stories as usual.
Its always some sort of prediction for Murray to do well next year.
I think its highly doubtful he will even crack the top 5.
One lucky win against Roger and they think he can compete for the top.Gimme a break.

Gasquet, Baghdatis and Nadal will shine next year and giv Fed the most competition imo.

It does make me a little cynical when I hear these predictions about Murray . They said all the same things re. Henman. Yes, he does have a lot of potential but lets just wait and see.

Wise, I can honestly say that you have redeemed yourself in my eyes to some extent with your contributions to this thread. You have the makings of an excellent poster, and a lynchpin member of this board. Stay on the straight and narrow from now on :ok:

He wont make the top 5?Based on what?

Because there are other players who would be there who are better than him mabye..

Roddick, Blake, Gasquet, Bagdahtis, Nadal, Federer, Davydenko, Ljubicic.

I believe the top 5 will be composed of these guys.
The only reason Murray is getting so much attantion is because he is british.Don't let the hype fool you.

I am not being fooled ive been watching tennis for years mate.You will see and be eating your words.