Andy Murray

[Goldie03]

Ooh I am quite excited about this afternoon

 

C'mon Murray 

 

 

 

[manc_don]

I know coverage starts at 1, but what time does the match actually start?

[Kowalski]

I know coverage starts at 1, but what time does the match actually start?

 

They're first on so I expect it'll start just after 1.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7416645.stm

[Kowalski]

I'm restricted to watching the BBC text updates and he's already 2 sets down.  Sounds a good match though. 

[glasgow sheep]

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

[manc_don]

Been a good match, but Nadal thoroughly deserves it as Murray has bottled it every single time he's had an opportunity. They made a good point in the commentary, until he learns to stop all this chit chat, he'll amount to nothing.

[Kowalski]

I don't think I've ever seen any player play so well and end up losing so many points as Andy Murray has today. So little reward for such brilliant tennis. It's testament to the sheer determination and physical might of Rafa Nadal.

[TENEMENTFUNSTER]

Been a good match, but Nadal thoroughly deserves it as Murray has bottled it every single time he's had an opportunity. They made a good point in the commentary, until he learns to stop all this chit chat, he'll amount to nothing.

 

This.

[amp]

Aye, he definitely needs to stop the chit chat, in particular the swearing, during points.

 

A bit unlucky today though - played really well. Nadal played the big points better; that was the difference today. I guess that's still what separates him from Nadal and Djokovic, probably still Federer as well.

[Goldie03]

I wasn't as disappointed in him as I usually am - yeh he did lose it at the end of the second set and you know it is all over for him when the talking and gesturing start but he played some pretty good tennis and gave Nadal a run for his money - was listening to Five Llive after the game and one of the commentators reckoned it was probably the hardest 3 match set Nadal had ever won

 

 

[Madbadteacher]

To be fair to Murray, yes he may "bottle it" at times, but he's fucking unlucky to be around at the same time as Fed and Rafa ( and Novak).

 

McEnroe siad as much on the US coverage and added that Murray was one of the two best returners in the game he'd ever seen (the other being Djokovc). I think JPM knows a lot more about tennis than I do, but I would agree with him.

[BobbyBiscuit]

To be fair to Murray, yes he may "bottle it" at times, but he's fucking unlucky to be around at the same time as Fed and Rafa ( and Novak).

 

McEnroe siad as much on the US coverage and added that Murray was one of the two best returners in the game he'd ever seen (the other being Djokovc). I think JPM knows a lot more about tennis than I do, but I would agree with him.

 

What a lot of nonsense, there are always good players around: Connors, Bjorg and McEnroe; Becker, Lendl and Edberg;  Agassi and Sampras. 

 

Murray isn't better than any of them so the era he's in matters not a fuck.

 

There's no shame in that.

 

But it's a bit of a shame people making excuses for him. The only excuse is that he hasn't got the required part where it matters at that level - in the head. Colin Montgomerie was the same when it came to golf and majors... great talent, but just couldn't deal with the pressure.

 

It'd be a start if he got rid of his mummy from his entourage...

[manc_don]

What a lot of nonsense, there are always good players around: Connors, Bjorg and McEnroe; Becker, Lendl and Edberg;  Agassi and Sampras. 

 

Murray isn't better than any of them so the era he's in matters not a fuck.

 

There's no shame in that.

 

But it's a bit of a shame people making excuses for him. The only excuse is that he hasn't got the required part where it matters at that level - in the head. Colin Montgomerie was the same when it came to golf and majors... great talent, but just couldn't deal with the pressure.

 

It'd be a start if he got rid of his mummy from his entourage...

 

It makes you cringe, some bitter spinster hanging out in the box

 

But in all seriousness I agree, just needs to get his house in order. As bobby says there always have been and there always will be great rivals. His problem being? He's British. Destined to achieve fuck all.

[Madbadteacher]

"He's British......." to correct the last part of your  quote should be ".......therefore he'll always be shite in the eyes of his countrymen"

[dave_min]

"He's British......." to correct the last part of your  quote should be ".......therefore he'll always be shite in the eyes of his countrymen"

 

Good to see you've got that chip off your shoulder

[Kowalski]

What a lot of nonsense, there are always good players around: Connors, Bjorg and McEnroe; Becker, Lendl and Edberg;  Agassi and Sampras. 

 

It could easily be argued that Nadal and Federer are better than all the above apart from perhaps Sampras.  Nadal is probably the best player ever to play on clay.

 

As for Murray, he used to be shite on clay but has managed three semi finals this year which is much better than previous years.  This bodes well for Wimbledon and New York where he has his best chance of a major.

[manc_don]

It could easily be argued that Nadal and Federer are better than all the above apart from perhaps Sampras.  Nadal is probably the best player ever to play on clay.

 

As for Murray, he used to be shite on clay but has managed three semi finals this year which is much better than previous years.  This bodes well for Wimbledon and New York where he has his best chance of a major.

 

It does, but as i said earlier, until he cuts out his stupid chit chat, he'll do nothing. Needs to channel his frustrations better.

[Goldie03]

It does, but as i said earlier, until he cuts out his stupid chit chat, he'll do nothing. Needs to channel his frustrations better.

 

He certainly does - you never see Federer or Nadal behaving like that on court

[BobbyBiscuit]

It could easily be argued that Nadal and Federer are better than all the above apart from perhaps Sampras.  Nadal is probably the best player ever to play on clay.

 

As for Murray, he used to be shite on clay but has managed three semi finals this year which is much better than previous years.  This bodes well for Wimbledon and New York where he has his best chance of a major.

 

Are they playing on clay at Wimbledon and New York this year...? 

 

And, yeah, Nadal and Federer are probably better than the majority of those players... doesn't change the fact that Murray isn't better than any of them.

[Kowalski]

Are they playing on clay at Wimbledon and New York this year...? 

 

It just means he's improved his all round game, ahead of playing on surfaces he normally does better on.

[Tyrant]

I agree that Federer and Nadal are two of the best players Tennis has seen ever. You just have to look at the number of grand slams that Federer has won and how much Nadal is bound to win but I don't think that Murray is better than many of the past greats. Murray just isn't good enough and although he's close he's not close enough. And I can't see him improving all that much now.

[Sonoftherock]

What a lot of nonsense, there are always good players around: Connors, Bjorg and McEnroe; Becker, Lendl and Edberg;  Agassi and Sampras. 

 

Murray isn't better than any of them so the era he's in matters not a fuck.

 

There's no shame in that.

 

But it's a bit of a shame people making excuses for him. The only excuse is that he hasn't got the required part where it matters at that level - in the head. Colin Montgomerie was the same when it came to golf and majors... great talent, but just couldn't deal with the pressure.

 

It'd be a start if he got rid of his mummy from his entourage...

 

For me, that's a lot of nonsense.

 

Federer is the greatest player in the modern era, while Nadal may go on to eclipse even his achievements if his knees hold up.

 

In my opinion, Murray would have won a major had he been playing around the 1997-2003 period.  The likes of Pat Rafter, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Yevgeny Kafelinkov were multiple GS winners, while players like Goran Ivanisevic and Andy Roddick, Thomas Johansson and Petr Korda all won majors on the hard courts/Wimbledon (I'm not counting the French Open champions during this period because I'm not sure Murray could have won there - however, he certainly would have given the likes of Moya, Costa and Ferrero a good run for their money).  I reckon Murray is better than all those players.

 

Not since the Borg/MacEnroe era have we seen 3 players completely dominate Tennis in the fashion that Nadal and Federer have done in recent years. 

 

I don't subscribe to the "bottle merchant" argument as he's never been a favourite, because Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have all been better than him.  I don't really follow Golf, but the comparison will always be with Colin Montgomerie and his failure to collect a major... but hasn't Montgomerie been world number 1?  Also I believe Monty should have won one of the american majors, but was pipped by Ernie Els (is this correct?).  Murray, on the other hand, has made GS finals, but has never actually come close/had a chance to win the big prize, as he's always met far better players, who were playing far better tennis.  He's just not good enough.

 

If he's going to win a major during the current era he'll have to improve his game, ala Djokovic.  We'll find out over the coming years if he can find that next level... I have my doubts, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Kowalski]

For me, that's a lot of nonsense.

 

Federer is the greatest player in the modern era, while Nadal may go on to eclipse even his achievements if his knees hold up.

 

In my opinion, Murray would have won a major had he been playing around the 1997-2003 period.  The likes of Pat Rafter, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Yevgeny Kafelinkov were multiple GS winners, while players like Goran Ivanisevic and Andy Roddick, Thomas Johansson and Petr Korda all won majors on the hard courts/Wimbledon (I'm not counting the French Open champions during this period because I'm not sure Murray could have won there - however, he certainly would have given the likes of Moya, Costa and Ferrero a good run for their money).  I reckon Murray is better than all those players.

 

Not since the Borg/MacEnroe era have we seen 3 players completely dominate Tennis in the fashion that Nadal and Federer have done in recent years. 

 

I don't subscribe to the "bottle merchant" argument as he's never been a favourite, because Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have all been better than him.  I don't really follow Golf, but the comparison will always be with Colin Montgomerie and his failure to collect a major... but hasn't Montgomerie been world number 1?  Also I believe Monty should have won one of the american majors, but was pipped by Ernie Els (is this correct?).  Murray, on the other hand, has made GS finals, but has never actually come close/had a chance to win the big prize, as he's always met far better players, who were playing far better tennis.  He's just not good enough.

 

If he's going to win a major during the current era he'll have to improve his game, ala Djokovic.  We'll find out over the coming years if he can find that next level... I have my doubts, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

Some sense at last.

Apart from the bit about Monty, he got to world number 2 at the time when Woods was world number 1.  He has come closer to winning a major than Murray has to winning a grand slam IMHO.

[Sonoftherock]

In addition, and some folk may laugh at me for saying this, I would have loved to have seen Murray matching up Sampras during his long domination of the US Open and Wimbledon.  Agassi was in and out of the sport during this period and Sampras didn't have a great deal of competition.  Murrays game would match up well with Sampras, who was the king of serve/volley.  Murray would certainly have made him play more balls than the likes of Stich, Chang, Ivanisevic and Rafter.

 

As Sampras and Rafter began to decline, we saw a decline of the serve/volley era and other players, as mentioned above, began to win titles.  Then Federer and Nadal, who were/are supreme all court players, capable of winning on any surface, brought tennis to a whole new level.  The likes of Roddick, Safin and Lleyton Hewitt, who were winning majors, were shown up for exactly what they were.  Limited players, who were perhaps lucky to have been around during a lull in the mens game.  They couldn't live with the new breed and they began to slip down the rankings.  The same goes for the likes of Moya, Kuerten, Ferrero etc, etc (who'd enjoyed zero challenge from the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Sampras, Rafter and the other serve volliers who couldn't play for shit on clay)... they started to flounder because Federer and Nadal could beat them on clay too, and beat them with ease.