Andy Murray Latest and General Tennis Chat

[#Gary]

Exciting first set.

Federer got the 2 breaks back and at 5-5 Murray breaks again. Now serving for the set.

[Kris Boyd]

Murray just won the first set 7-5, Mon the Murray!

[McKee]

Shanky has been truly awful. Muzza is playing pretty shite himself, yet is still quite a bit the better player.

[ark loyal]

Murray wins 7-5 7-5.

[Kris Boyd]

Well done Murray! Next stop world nuber 1

[LiviCurryCider]

Del Potro underrated? Soderling dominating tennis?(I don't think you realise he is already 26 and at his peak?) Tsonga winning a slam? Where do you keep finding these gems from? What are you going to try and tell me next, Verdasco will triple bagel Nadal at Roland Garros? Del Potro is the most overrated player in tennis, other than Robin Soderling, and possibly Berdych at the moment. You quite obviously don't realise how hard it would be to "dominate tennis" with that style of play. Del Potro, Soderling and Berdych are ball bashers, they have very little variety in their games, for any 3 of them to win a slam they would need to be on fire for 2 whole weeks, which is hard enough. Take into account that their particular playing style combined with their physique will result in more injuries. In fact Del Potro has already missed the whole season with an injury(a wrist injury which is one of most difficult to come back from). There is a reason one dimentional ballbashers have never dominated tennis. Djokovic has had a slump year, he is definitely good enough. Federer is not finished by a long shot, HC is by far his best surface, he still has a few majors left in him. You don't seem to realise how week the competition is. I'm willing to bet that at least 11 out of the next 12 grandslams are won by a member of the big 4.

Del Potro has proved that he is capable of winning a slam. I'd imagine that by the end of his career, he'll have another 3/4 major titles. Cracking player.

Berdych is overrated, I'll agree with you there. Done very well to get to the final of Wimbledon. A one off, similar to Fernando Gonzales at the Australian in 2007.

I think Soderling will eventually win 1 grand slam, possibly the French if Nadal gets injured, or has a major blip.

Tsonga has enough potential to win at least 1 slam, he's a very good player. His backhand down the line is exceptional.

Federer has another 2 years left in him, I think he'll still win another 2/3 slams. When he retires the best players in order will be: Murray, Nadal, Del Potro, Djokovic, Tsonga. Soderling will be in and around there for a limited time.

Well played Murray, I tip him forn the next 2 GS events.

[McKee]

Winning a slam doesn't mean your going to dominate tennis, as you seem to think. Soderling is nothing. The guy has never even won a MM, he will never win a slam, which was evident as he was absolutely destroyed in his last 2 atempts. Del Potro got a flukey slam, and as I've said is out with a massive injury. It's doubtful if he'll ever rediscover his game again. Big hitters like Sod, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych will never dominate tennis. High risk, low variety tennis = no consistency to rack up the slams and dominate tennis. Can they beat one of the big 4? Of course. Can they catch fire for 2 weeks and go far in a slam, maybe even win one? Of course. But just don't expect them to win many, and be considered dominant.

PS, I think it's laughable how much you are overrating Tsonga. He is the epitome of averageness. Totally bizzare that you think he'll be ahead of the likes of Berdych, Gulbis, Querry, Cilic, Dimitrov and Young in 2 years time.

Edited August 15, 2010 by McKee

[blue4578]

del Potro is the real deal, he improved massively over the course of last year. Without the injury, I reckon he would probably be sitting at number two in the rankings currently. Whether he will be able to reach the same level when he returns is not certain, but his all round game is superb. He may not have the finesse of some players, but he can hit with massive power off both wings and has an excellent serve.

Soderling won't dominate anything. He is currently enjoying a purple patch, which may last for a while longer, but is unlikely to involve him winning a major tournament.

Berdych is very talented, but until this year was all over the place when it came to the matches that really mattered. He has the potential to be a dangerous opponent for many years to come, but he doesn't have the mental strength to be a consistent winner.

Tsonga I love to watch, but he just doesn't have that something extra to make him an elite player. Too inconsistent, and prone to the odd injury. Murray beat him easily at Wimbledon, which just about shows where he is at. His return of serve is poor and movement could be better.

Djokovic is probably deserving of more respect. He is currently ranked number two (until tomorrow), and is consistent in making the semi finals of most tournaments he plays at least. He has problems in the intense heat, as well as other physical problems, which have lead him to retire from important matches in the past. Djokovic is more than a match for everyone outside the top four usually, but hasn't improved in the past two years the way a couple of other players have. That's not to say he won't in the future.

Murray, I think time is running out. Almost all multiple grand slam winners have won their first one by the age of 22. He has every chance in the US Open, and the Australian Open after that, but if he fails to win either, the game may pass him by. The next Federer/Sampras may emerge (it may be del Potro IMO), Nadal is only a few months older than Murray, so he needs to get it done now. Will be interesting to see how he gets on in New York, always regarded by himself and others as his best chance of winning the big one.

People like Thomas Johansson and Goran Ivanišević won majors out of nowhere late in their careers, so you certainly can't rule any good player out and say "he'll never win one".

[LiviCurryCider]

Winning a slam doesn't mean your going to dominate tennis, as you seem to think. Soderling is nothing. The guy has never even won a MM, he will never win a slam, which was evident as he was absolutely destroyed in his last 2 atempts. Del Potro got a flukey slam, and as I've said is out with a massive injury. It's doubtful if he'll ever rediscover his game again. Big hitters like Sod, Del Potro, Cilic, Berdych will never dominate tennis. High risk, low variety tennis = no consistency to rack up the slams and dominate tennis. Can they beat one of the big 4? Of course. Can they catch fire for 2 weeks and go far in a slam, maybe even win one? Of course. But just don't expect them to win many, and be considered dominant.

PS, I think it's laughable how much you are overrating Tsonga. He is the epitome of averageness. Totally bizzare that you think he'll be ahead of the likes of Berdych, Gulbis, Querry, Cilic, Dimitrov and Young in 2 years time.

I don't think that winning a slam means that you will be a dominant force. Ivanisevic won Wimbledon near the end of his career and was never really a dominant force in the game. Perhaps I rate Del Potro a little highly, but I seriously believe that he has a bright future. I saw him at Wimbledon about 4 years ago and you could tell he was a massive talent. I'd be very surprised if he wasn't a major threat.

I don't think I'm overrating Tsonga, either. He'll certainly be better than Querry, who I don't rate too highly. I may be proved wrong. Ernests Gulbis is an interesting player. He certainly has the potential to be a class player, but he's too inconsisitent and doesn't the desire the others have. You rate him quite highly, judging by your avatar? Cilic has a big serve, he'll be decent, top 8, yes. I don't think he'll be a major threat. Don't know too much about Grigor Dimitrov, he's only about 18/19, in 2 years he might not quite be challenging Tsonga. Donald Young won't be anywhere near Tsonga in 2 years.

[blue4578]

PS, I think it's laughable how much you are overrating Tsonga. He is the epitome of averageness. Totally bizzare that you think he'll be ahead of the likes of Berdych, Gulbis, Querry, Cilic, Dimitrov and Young in 2 years time.

Only Berdych and possibly Cilic out of that list have any realistic chance of being ranked above Tsonga in 2012. Would be surprised to see any of the others in the top 20.

[McKee]

I don't think that winning a slam means that you will be a dominant force. Ivanisevic won Wimbledon near the end of his career and was never really a dominant force in the game. Perhaps I rate Del Potro a little highly, but I seriously believe that he has a bright future. I saw him at Wimbledon about 4 years ago and you could tell he was a massive talent. I'd be very surprised if he wasn't a major threat.

Have you seen Del Potro on grass?!?! It's not a pretty sight.

I don't think I'm overrating Tsonga, either. He'll certainly be better than Querry, who I don't rate too highly. I may be proved wrong. Ernests Gulbis is an interesting player. He certainly has the potential to be a class player, but he's too inconsisitent and doesn't the desire the others have. You rate him quite highly, judging by your avatar? Cilic has a big serve, he'll be decent, top 8, yes. I don't think he'll be a major threat. Don't know too much about Grigor Dimitrov, he's only about 18/19, in 2 years he might not quite be challenging Tsonga. Donald Young won't be anywhere near Tsonga in 2 years.

Gulbis is a total headcase, but he is certainly cool as f**k. All he needs is a bit of maturity and he'll be top 10 easily. He is in my avatar as an ode to the match he played against Nadal at Madrid a few years ago. Dimitrov has all the tallent in the world. Just needs to piece it altogether. All of them will be above Tsonga in 2 years time. Other than Donald Young, who is now an internet meme I believe. Typical overhyped American.

[McKee]

Only Berdych and possibly Cilic out of that list have any realistic chance of being ranked above Tsonga in 2012. Would be surprised to see any of the others in the top 20.

Gulbis is already on the verge of the top 20. Dimitrov is the most talented teenager on tour, and will crack top 30 by 2 years. Tsonga will be nothing more than a mediocre 13-20 player, if he isn't that already.

[LiviCurryCider]

Have you seen Del Potro on grass?!?! It's not a pretty sight.

Gulbis is a total headcase, but he is certainly cool as f**k. All he needs is a bit of maturity and he'll be top 10 easily. He is in my avatar as an ode to the match he played against Nadal at Madrid a few years ago. Dimitrov has all the tallent in the world. Just needs to piece it altogether. All of them will be above Tsonga in 2 years time. Other than Donald Young, who is now an internet meme I believe. Typical overhyped American.

Completely agree with that. Very similar to James Blake.

I think Gulbis is a good player. As you say he needs maturity and experience, which will make him a better player. His lifestyle means that he didn't have the desire to do as well as some of the top players. I've not saw a lot of Dimitrov, but I've heard him being rated highly, I don't know enough about him to comment on where he could possibly be in 2 years time. I still think there is more to come from Tsonga. Okay, he may not win a slam, but he could possibly challenge and get to a couple finals and perhaps win a masters title or two.

I can remember Del Potro performing very well at Wimbledon about 4 years ago, in the first round, when he was very young. He doesn't seem to play well at Wimbledon though, I've heard rumours that he doesn't like spending time in the UK and that he didn't get on well with Murray in the juniors because of nationality. He's still a fantastic hard court player though.

[blue4578]

Gulbis is 22 in a couple of weeks and has a career high ranking of 27, which is not impressive. He tends to show brief runs of decent form, before deciding he can't be bothered again. He has talent but there is nothing to suggest he has the application to be a consistently top 20 player. Tsonga has already achieved more than Gulbis ever will in his career is all likelihood.

Talented teenagers like Dimitrov are ten a penny on the ATP Tour, not many of them make it to the top of the game. He is currently ranked 270, with a career high of 255. By his age, Nadal had won the French Open and Murray was ranked inside the top 50. People endlessly talk Dimitrov up all the time, but I've never really seen why. Need to see more of him, but I would be very surprised if he is in the top 20 two years from now.

[McKee]

Gulbis is 22 in a couple of weeks and has a career high ranking of 27, which is not impressive. He tends to show brief runs of decent form, before deciding he can't be bothered again. He has talent but there is nothing to suggest he has the application to be a consistently top 20 player. Tsonga has already achieved more than Gulbis ever will in his career is all likelihood.

What? Of course that is impressive, what a bizzare thing to say. Davydenko didn't reach the top 30 untill he was 23, similar story with Verdasco, Tsonga and many member of the top 16. Gublis had already reached a grandslam R16 and QF before his 20th birthday. He has the talent to be a consistent member of the top 10, without a shadow of a doubt, and will achieve far, far more than Tsonga.

Edited August 16, 2010 by McKee

[pantene proV]

To me this is Murray's most impressive title win.

From memory (forgive me if this is wrong) he's beaten Rafa & Fed in the same tournament for the first time I believe (back to back straight sets too)? Beating Fed in a final for the first time also? Beating Nalbandian for the first time ever? These are important factors in his confidence with Cinci then the US Open looming.

Combine that with having no coach, no consistent form to speak of, no season title AND battling to keep his no. 4 seeding and he can be very happy with his week.

Well done Muzzah!

edit - I seem to have posted in the middle of an argument about who's less average than others!

Edited August 16, 2010 by pantene proV

[blue4578]

Elite players almost always have made the top 20 by the age of 22. Elite players have also usually won one of the four majors by that age. You always get slightly late developers, particularly in the men's game. Someone like Gulbis looks the sort of player who will achieve what he is going to by the age 25 I would've thought. He had a decent run earlier in the year which boosted his ranked but many players move into the top 30 for a while before falling back again.

Tsonga has won a Masters 1000 and reached a grand slam final. I would be astonished if Gulbis ever does either of those things. In the last eight grand slam events that Gulbis has played, he has not made it past round two. To achieve far, far more than Tsonga, he would have to win a grand slam, multiple Masters 1000 events and do better than Tsonga's career high ranking of 6. A very, very long shot.

Gulbis certainly has ability, but he has very little mental strength and application. If it was just down to talent, Richard Gasquet would have been in the top three in the world rankings for the past few years, but it's about more than that. If you gave Gulbis Nadal's attitude and temperament, he would have a shot at the top 10 at some point. As it stands, very unlikely to ever happen.

[McKee]

Elite players almost always have made the top 20 by the age of 22. Elite players have also usually won one of the four majors by that age. You always get slightly late developers, particularly in the men's game. Someone like Gulbis looks the sort of player who will achieve what he is going to by the age 25 I would've thought. He had a decent run earlier in the year which boosted his ranked but many players move into the top 30 for a while before falling back again.

Tsonga has won a Masters 1000 and reached a grand slam final. I would be astonished if Gulbis ever does either of those things. In the last eight grand slam events that Gulbis has played, he has not made it past round two. To achieve far, far more than Tsonga, he would have to win a grand slam, multiple Masters 1000 events and do better than Tsonga's career high ranking of 6. A very, very long shot.

Gulbis certainly has ability, but he has very little mental strength and application. If it was just down to talent, Richard Gasquet would have been in the top three in the world rankings for the past few years, but it's about more than that. If you gave Gulbis Nadal's attitude and temperament, he would have a shot at the top 10 at some point. As it stands, very unlikely to ever happen.

No one is calling him an elite player, comparisons with Nadal or Murray are irrelevant. I dissagree with every single bit of your post. He doesn't lack mental strength, he lacks consistency and motivation. All he needs is a good coach to help him take it to the next level. I have no doubts whtasoever that he'll be a major winner, and top 5 player some day.Also, if Gulbis has Nadal's attitude and temperament he'd already be a multiple grand slam champion.

Edited August 16, 2010 by McKee

[blue4578]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you'll be in a very small minority believing he'll win majors and reach the top five. He is unlikely to find motivation if he hasn't already.

Also, if Gulbis has Nadal's attitude and temperament he'd already be a multiple grand slam champion.

Only three players other than Nadal and Federer have won one of the grand slams since Wimbledon 2004. Safin (Australia 2005), Djokovic (Australia 2008) and del Potro (US Open 2009). All of those three players are better than Gulbis, whatever his attitude or motivation. Gulbis has not been remotely close at any point to a grand slam win. Are you suggesting if he'd been a bit more motivated he would've beaten Federer in grand slams over the past few years? Or beaten Nadal at Roland Garros? A ludicrous suggestion.

I'm tiring of this pointless argument, but if you're persisting with the direct comparison with Tsonga, why if Gulbis is so much better, does Tsonga have a 3-0 head to head record against him?

Like I say, when it comes talent, Gasquet is probably the only player on the ATP Tour who could claim to be perhaps as naturally gifted as Federer. What has he won? Nothing much. What is he likely to win? Nothing much, because his attitude is all wrong. Gulbis doesn't have the ability of Gasquet, so why should he be any different?

[McKee]

Only three players other than Nadal and Federer have won one of the grand slams since Wimbledon 2004. Safin (Australia 2005), Djokovic (Australia 2008) and del Potro (US Open 2009). All of those three players are better than Gulbis, whatever his attitude or motivation. Gulbis has not been remotely close at any point to a grand slam win. Are you suggesting if he'd been a bit more motivated he would've beaten Federer in grand slams over the past few years? Or beaten Nadal at Roland Garros? A ludicrous suggestion.

Where have I said "a bit more motivated"? I've said with the mental attributes of Nadal. Stop making things up.

I'm tiring of this pointless argument, but if you're persisting with the direct comparison with Tsonga, why if Gulbis is so much better, does Tsonga have a 3-0 head to head record against him?

Again, stop making things up. I have said Gulbis will achieve more than Tsonga, at no point have I said he is currently better than Tsonga. That's aan argument an 8 year old would make.

Like I say, when it comes talent, Gasquet is probably the only player on the ATP Tour who could claim to be perhaps as naturally gifted as Federer. What has he won? Nothing much. What is he likely to win? Nothing much, because his attitude is all wrong. Gulbis doesn't have the ability of Gasquet, so why should he be any different?

Because Gasquet is nothing more than a beautiful backhand. Gulbis is more talented.

Edited August 16, 2010 by McKee