Andy Murray Latest and General Tennis Chat

[kirkyblue2]

Murray always struggles with best of 5 sets over 2 weeks in the slams apart from a couple of finals and then he usually has to beat Nadal and Federer.

He also has injury problems so I don't think he will win a slam but we live in hope.

[StewartyMac]

Yeah, pile of pish just getting to two Grand Slam finals by the age of 23. He should chuck it now.

I'm now getting to the point where I'm hoping he wins one just to stop the tiresome, predictable, 'Montgomerie of tennis' rhetoric. Even then I suspect it won't be enough. In some people's eyes, unless he wins 10 slams, he'll be considered a failure.

He may well not have the mental toughness to win a slam, time will tell, but if he retired tomorrow, he'd still have had a 5 years in the game most professional players could only dream of.

[raith_94]

Yeah, pile of pish just getting to two Grand Slam finals by the age of 23. He should chuck it now.

I'm now getting to the point where I'm hoping he wins one just to stop the tiresome, predictable, 'Montgomerie of tennis' rhetoric. Even then I suspect it won't be enough. In some people's eyes, unless he wins 10 slams, he'll be considered a failure.

He may well not have the mental toughness to win a slam, time will tell, but if he retired tomorrow, he'd still have had a 5 years in the game most professional players could only dream of.

Unfortunately out of greens - I actually find it pretty miserable that there are people who think there being a Scotsman who is one of the best 5 players ON THE PLANET isn't good enough.

At 23.

He didn't play very well, but Wawrinka is an extremely talented player with all the shots, who if he performs well against a counter-puncher can win - when he doesn't, he gets pumped. Just like Cilic and also Gasquet, who Murray also struggles against.

As Miles Maclagan said, he lost to a good player - it happens.

He'll win a major - and thankfully, it won't ever be Wimbledon.

[kirkyblue2]

Yeah, pile of pish just getting to two Grand Slam finals by the age of 23. He should chuck it now.

I'm now getting to the point where I'm hoping he wins one just to stop the tiresome, predictable, 'Montgomerie of tennis' rhetoric. Even then I suspect it won't be enough. In some people's eyes, unless he wins 10 slams, he'll be considered a failure.

He may well not have the mental toughness to win a slam, time will tell, but if he retired tomorrow, he'd still have had a 5 years in the game most professional players could only dream of.

I wasn't trying to dismiss his achievements but pointing out that he struggles with best of 5 sets over 2 weeks as he appears to have physical problems and he has to beat 2 of the world's greatest players to win a slam.

He's only considered a failure because Fred Perry won Wimbledon and he has to carry Britain's expectations.

[StewartyMac]

I wasn't trying to dismiss his achievements but pointing out that he struggles with best of 5 sets over 2 weeks as he appears to have physical problems and he has to beat 2 of the world's greatest players to win a slam.

Dunno, he absolutely beasted Nadal, one of the greatest players ever, in the semi final a few years back. He's also in great physical shape.

I think his problem with certain matches is a mental one. Those problems would, IMO, be ironed out if he ever managed to convince Larry Stefanki to become his coach. Under his guidance, he could win a few slams.

[dubs]

I think his problem with certain matches is a mental one. Those problems would, IMO, be ironed out if he ever managed to convince Larry Stefanki to become his coach. Under his guidance, he could win a few slams.

But that won't happen - he's far too stubborn. That's why I believe he won't win one, the mental side of his game is too unpredictable. He shouldn't have had any problem getting to at least the semis at this tournament for the last two years and he finds himself papped out way too early both times. It isn't good enough.

[Piehutt]

Really disappointing to see Muzza lose to Wawvrinka.

Another one slips by.

However given the scheduling - I don't think victory was all that likely for Murray this week, even if he had got to the business end of the event. He was totally screwed starting on Wed, when others in the draw had started from Monday giving them a full 2 days more to play their 7 matches.

Especially with the Sat Semi and Sunday final that the US Open have, totally knocking the credibility of the event.

So to Australia...

[blue4578]

Time is ticking for Murray. As I said up the thread (post #3948), of the 22 multiple grand slam winners in the past 30 years, only 3 of them were older than 22 when they won their first. One was 23 and the other two were 24. No one can say at this point that Murray definitely will or won't win one, it's all a matter of opinion and I see there are a few contrasting ones here. Personally I think he'll struggle, and it's less than 50% likely that he'll ever win one.

The point about Murray struggling physically in grand slams isn't true really. We may all remember his first grand slam at Wimbledon in 2005 when he got himself two sets up against Nalbandian, before cramping horribly and losing the next three sets. He then followed that up at the US Open by going five sets against Clement, losing 6-0 in the fifth as he ran out of steam again. Since then he has worked at getting himself super fit with the off-season work he does in Miami. He hasn't lost a match at one of the majors due to physical problems since the Clement one at the 2005 US Open. He refused to blame that on his defeat the other day too, claiming he was super fit.

The coaching thing is interesting too. Murray didn't seem to enjoy the Brad Gilbert approach, so went for the more relaxed setup with his four man team, led by Miles Maclagan. Where does he go next? I would say it's certainly a good idea to appoint another coach, so he can try a slightly different approach to see how it works. Who that will be no one knows as yet. The story was that Murray wanted to appoint Darren Cahill, but Cahill didn't want the full time job with all the associated travelling. I would expect an appointment to be made by the end of the year,

The problem for Murray is that he is playing in an era with two all time greats. He has lost to Federer in two finals, as well as losing to Nadal three times (and beating him once). Since Wimbledon 2004, only three of the majors have been won by anyone other than Federer or Nadal. The 2008 US Open semi-final win against Nadal remains Murray's best ever match IMO. The other defeats, he has bottled it basically. There were chances to win the second set against Nadal at Wimbledon this year, he had a whole host of chances to take the third set against Federer in the Australian Open final. When it came down to it, he blew it under pressure in the big matches. In Australia in particular, he had a few set points and missed a couple of easy shots that would've won him the set.

Federer and Nadal standing in Murray's way is only part of the problem though. If you look back over the past three years, Murray has lost in grand slams to H-T Lee, Tsonga, Almagro, Verdasco, F. Gonzalez, Roddick, Cilic, Berdych and now Wawrinka, as well as to Federer and Nadal. Decent players playing well cause Murray all sorts of problems. He went into all of those defeats as favourite, some of them as an overwhelming favourite. I have watched all of those defeats, and the problem for Murray is that his counter attacking style relies largely on people beating themselves. If decent players have a good day against him, he usually loses.

People give Murray stick because he is the only decent British tennis player, so all of our eggs are in one basket. It's not like France where they have a dozen players in the top 100. It was the same with Tim Henman, he got critisised for being a nearly man, yet spent several years in the top 10 and reached six grand slam semi-finals. Murray has already achieved more than Henman of course and is clearly a better player, but could still end up being a nearly man. However people should realise how competitive men's tennis is at the moment and that wins Masters 1000 events, being ranked in the top 4 and making grand slam finals in a massive achievement. However for some people, winning the big ones is all that counts and Murray keeps falling short. Federer and Nadal get critisised when they lose a couple of matches just the same with people saying they're finished and so on. That's the way of the world at the moment - you're either the best thing since sliced bread or completely useless. The truth is usually somewhere inbetween but doesn't make as good a story.

The truth of the matter is that Murray just isn't quite as good as people, including himself, would like to believe. He is good enough to win a grand slam possibly, but will need a few lucky breaks along the way to achieve it.

[H_B]

Personally I think he'll struggle, and it's less than 50% likely that he'll ever win one.

I do too. I think he is unlikely to ever win one. I don't think a GS necessarily defines a player (Thomas Johansson won one after all) but it is a pretty important measure.

The Colin Montgomerie comparisons aren't tired, or nonsense at all. They are very apt actually, in more ways than one. Neither is at all likeable, both are money making machines, and minor to mid level tournament winners, but the odds are neither of them will capture a big one, despite being in and around the top echelon for years.

Not that this indicates they aren't very good players of course.

the problem for Murray is that his counter attacking style relies largely on people beating themselves. If decent players have a good day against him, he usually loses.

Again, spot on. He plays much like Wozniacki in the women's game. Against Sharapova last night, I believe in a very comfortable straight sets win, Wozniacki had only 14 winners. She relied on Sharapova missing, much as Murray does.

We'll find out this week if her gameplan works against someone like Clijsters. My money is on "no".

The truth of the matter is that Murray just isn't quite as good as people, including himself, would like to believe. He is good enough to win a grand slam possibly, but will need a few lucky breaks along the way to achieve it.

Agreed, other than I don't know about the himself part. He certainly isn't as good as a lot of people think he is.

[blue4578]

It's still premature to describe him as the tennis equivalent of Montgomerie, but if things continue as they have so far, it would be hard not to draw the comparison. I believe that it is harder to win tennis majors than golf majors as you can just have one good week in your life that happens to be in a major if you're a golfer. None of the other players can directly influence how you play. With tennis, you usually have to beat a couple of the very best players head to head, which makes it slightly different and more tricky IMO.

Murray is unlucky in a way that he didn't emerge a few years earlier. As the Sampras/Agassi era was winding down and before the Federer/Nadal era started, there was a window from approximately 1998-2004 where a few "lesser" players were able to cash in and win grand slams. The likes of Petr Korda, Carlos Moya, Pat Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Goran Ivanisevic, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Thomas Johansson, Alberto Costa, JC Ferrero, Andy Roddick and Gaston Gaudio won majors in that period. You'd say that Murray is a better player than the majority of those, but sadly for him Federer and Nadal have stopped him in his tracks five times. Murray might've had a chance to make the breakthrough otherwise against slightly lesser players, although as we've seen he usually finds a way to lose against players like that too.

This sort of debate always arises when Murray suffers a defeat, particularly at the US Open or Wimbledon. The same used to happen with Tim Henman. I think we should just all appreciate that he is almost certainly the best British player since Fred Perry and wish him well, without having unrealistic expectations.

[xbl]

This season, did he not make the US Open Final, get further in the French Open than he ever has before, and get to the semi finals of Wimbledon? I mean, sure, losing the other night was a bad result, but you have to say that over the season, he's actually done alright in the Slams surely?

[Savage Henry]

This season, did he not make the US Open Final, get further in the French Open than he ever has before, and get to the semi finals of Wimbledon? I mean, sure, losing the other night was a bad result, but you have to say that over the season, he's actually done alright in the Slams surely?

Yes. But as I'm sure Murray would tell you himself, if you are considered one of the elite players in tennis, there's no such thing as doing all right in the slams. You either win or you don't. That's the level Murray is at.

[dubs]

This season, did he not make the US Open Final, get further in the French Open than he ever has before, and get to the semi finals of Wimbledon? I mean, sure, losing the other night was a bad result, but you have to say that over the season, he's actually done alright in the Slams surely?

Australian Open... and didn't he only match his best in Paris? In any case this is meant be the peak of his career as far as I can see it - given he will most likely never change his style which is based predominantly on fitness levels and defensive play, time is running out for him.

[blue4578]

This season, did he not make the US Open Final, get further in the French Open than he ever has before, and get to the semi finals of Wimbledon? I mean, sure, losing the other night was a bad result, but you have to say that over the season, he's actually done alright in the Slams surely?

Final in Australia, fourth round at Roland Garros (not his best, made quarter final last year) and third round at US Open. I think the problem for a lot of people is the manner of the defeats on each occasion, Murray never came close to winning any of the matches he eventually lost. He was almost complacent against Federer in the Australian Open, and then it took him till Wimbledon to get his confidence back when he lost.

Murray has done alright this year, it would be an exceptional year for the vast majority of players as he's won a Masters 1000 event as well. Twice grand slam runner up is an awful lot better than 99.99% of tennis players do, but is that enough for Murray and the expectant British public?

I personally wish him well, and hope he wins the Australian Open in January so that the will he/won't he debate ends once and for all.

[Reynard]

It's still premature to describe him as the tennis equivalent of Montgomerie, but if things continue as they have so far, it would be hard not to draw the comparison. I believe that it is harder to win tennis majors than golf majors as you can just have one good week in your life that happens to be in a major if you're a golfer. None of the other players can directly influence how you play. With tennis, you usually have to beat a couple of the very best players head to head, which makes it slightly different and more tricky IMO.

Murray is unlucky in a way that he didn't emerge a few years earlier. As the Sampras/Agassi era was winding down and before the Federer/Nadal era started, there was a window from approximately 1998-2004 where a few "lesser" players were able to cash in and win grand slams. The likes of Petr Korda, Carlos Moya, Pat Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Goran Ivanisevic, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Thomas Johansson, Alberto Costa, JC Ferrero, Andy Roddick and Gaston Gaudio won majors in that period. You'd say that Murray is a better player than the majority of those, but sadly for him Federer and Nadal have stopped him in his tracks five times. Murray might've had a chance to make the breakthrough otherwise against slightly lesser players, although as we've seen he usually finds a way to lose against players like that too.

This sort of debate always arises when Murray suffers a defeat, particularly at the US Open or Wimbledon. The same used to happen with Tim Henman. I think we should just all appreciate that he is almost certainly the best British player since Fred Perry and wish him well, without having unrealistic expectations.

I'm sure as a ten year old he would have still found it tough going.

[Stainrod's Fedora]

Final in Australia, fourth round at Roland Garros (not his best, made quarter final last year) and third round at US Open. I think the problem for a lot of people is the manner of the defeats on each occasion, Murray never came close to winning any of the matches he eventually lost. He was almost complacent against Federer in the Australian Open, and then it took him till Wimbledon to get his confidence back when he lost.

Murray has done alright this year, it would be an exceptional year for the vast majority of players as he's won a Masters 1000 event as well. Twice grand slam runner up is an awful lot better than 99.99% of tennis players do, but is that enough for Murray and the expectant British public?

I personally wish him well, and hope he wins the Australian Open in January so that the will he/won't he debate ends once and for all.

Thank you for offering your well informed views in a sea of self-indulgent bullshit from the usual gobshites on this thread. You are a breath of fresh air!

[TheScarf]

Murray is through to the quarters of the Shanghai Masters after he beat Bai Yan yesterday 6-2 6-2 and Jeremy Chardy 6-3 6-4 earlier today. He needs to sort his barnet out, it's fucking honking.

[doulikefish]

Murray is through to the quarters of the Shanghai Masters after he beat Bai Yan yesterday 6-2 6-2 and Jeremy Chardy 6-3 6-4 earlier today. He needs to sort his barnet out, it's fucking honking.

Just hammered tsonga 6-2 6-2,barnet still honking

[TheScarf]

Just hammered tsonga 6-2 6-2,barnet still honking

Just caught the last game there when I got up this morning. In the studio Barry Cowan was praisig his aggresiveness and said that he's been working on his forehand and he's hitting it a lot flatter and harder.

Melzer or Monaco in the Semi's for Murray. I'd put my money on Melzer.

[staggy4life]

Murray up a set (6-3) in the final against Federer.