capybara Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Disappointing but maybe a reality check.Agree US his best chance. He was out of sorts today,i have not caught any of the post match interviews.Has he commented on the result? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasnost Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I think he is going to forever be a failure when it comes to the major tournaments. Still he will win a few minor irrelevant tournaments and find himself hyped up beyond all recognition which won’t do him any good. How some people must be laughing at the moment, in particular those that scoffed at the idea of him being bookies favourite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) I think he is going to forever be a failure when it comes to the major tournaments. He's already reached the final of the US Open. A Grand Slam final being something most players never reach in a career. Still he will win a few minor irrelevant tournaments He has already won several far from irrelevant Master Series tournaments. and find himself hyped up beyond all recognition which won't do him any good. How some people must be laughing at the moment, in particular those that scoffed at the idea of him being bookies favourite. He won his last 8 matches against the other members of the big 4 and was rightly the favourite going into the Aussie Open. Bookies favourites have fared poorly at the AU in recent years. Being early in the season and the conditions make it far the most likely to have upset winners. Also, he was joint favourite with some. William Hills made Roger Federer their 9/4 favourite before a ball was struck. It is clear to me he will win several GS titles in the coming years. As most people have acknowledged though, the US Open is the most likely to be his first. Edited January 26, 2009 by H_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 He was out of sorts today,i have not caught any of the post match interviews.Has he commented on the result? I haven't been a big fan of his, but I thought his PM interview was pretty good. He seems to be maturing a bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasnost Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) It is clear to me he will win several GS titles in the coming years. I will believe it when I see it. The Scottish tennis equivalent of Colin Montgomerie. Edited January 26, 2009 by glasnost 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) I will believe it when I see it. The Scottish tennis equivalent of Colin Montgomerie. It's a fair doubt and one Federer alluded to. Several of the former champions have stated how hard it is to win the first one. Then they become easier. I dont think he has any bottle issues though. I suspect he will either win 0 or 5+. That said, there are so many playres coming through every year, it isnt safe to assume because you are one of the top 3 or 4 at the moment, you will automatically contend for them in the next 3 or 4 years. There could be another Federer just starting out. Don't see the Montgomerie reference. Murray is very much in the embryo of his career. If he has won none when he is 27 then yes, the comparison will be a fair one. Edited January 26, 2009 by H_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drs Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I'd like to thank Andrew Murray ESQ for making my branflakes taste so much sweeter this morning - favourite my arse! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I'd like to thank Andrew Murray ESQ for making my branflakes taste so much sweeter this morning Why? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds are Forever Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Bit harsh Pheonix, I dont think he "has a long way to go". He reached the US final in September and has beaten all the other top guys, he is ready to win a Major. This defeat is really disappointing but we need to remember that Verdasco is a very dangerous player who when he hits his best form (not often enough) will push any player really hard. But Verdasco didn't even have to play well, Murray was dreadful. He looked almost lazy at times and at the end of the first set he was starting to be casual, this carried on into the second set and was trounced. He seemed almost complacent. He was far too cautious, I know that is how he plays but surely not to that extent. Maybe Federer was right when he said he was far too defensive. In truth the whole tournament he has looked pretty poor, never really got going at all. People say he has matured but his attitude and tactics cost him that match, Verdasco is a dangerous player but not in the same class as Murray, but for whatever reason his mind wasn't right. Was going back to his petulant ways for no reason. Ironically I think this defeat is good for him. Will calm some of the hype down about him and make him come back stronger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convenor Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I think he is going to forever be a failure when it comes to the major tournaments. Still he will win a few minor irrelevant tournaments and find himself hyped up beyond all recognition which won’t do him any good. How some people must be laughing at the moment, in particular those that scoffed at the idea of him being bookies favourite. A young Scottish sportsman who is already one of the best in the world – at tennis of all things, a sport where we’ve hardly produced anyone of any note in the past – and all some folk want to do is attempt to bring him down to their level. Classic “a kent his faither” attitude and it’s totally pathetic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 One wonders if Glasnost's attitude towards Murray would be different had Murray been Irish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 One wonders if Glasnost's attitude towards Murray would be different had Murray been Irish. Apart from Paddy McRacquety, I don't think there are any Irish Tennis Players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yer Maw Has a Sac. Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 But Verdasco didn't even have to play well, Murray was dreadful. He looked almost lazy at times and at the end of the first set he was starting to be casual, this carried on into the second set and was trounced. He seemed almost complacent. He was far too cautious, I know that is how he plays but surely not to that extent. Maybe Federer was right when he said he was far too defensive. In truth the whole tournament he has looked pretty poor, never really got going at all. People say he has matured but his attitude and tactics cost him that match, Verdasco is a dangerous player but not in the same class as Murray, but for whatever reason his mind wasn't right. Was going back to his petulant ways for no reason.Ironically I think this defeat is good for him. Will calm some of the hype down about him and make him come back stronger. yes, he didnt have to but he did play very well, he didnt allow Murray just to plod the ball back into the court. Verdasco's serving was terrific, and at times his length was brilliant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 yes, he didnt have to but he did play very well, he didnt allow Murray just to plod the ball back into the court. Verdasco's serving was terrific, and at times his length was brilliant. Matron! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasnost Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 One wonders if Glasnost's attitude towards Murray would be different had Murray been Irish. Why would you wonder that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convenor Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 It's good to wonder. The world is a wonderful place. Don't ask me why I think these things are good and wonderful. I just do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I find with Murray that he will take the foot of the gas when things come easy to him. After winning his second set, he eased off and then struggled to get up to the pace of the game when Verdasco started smashing his serve in. Like H_B said once he gets through the barrier of winning his first he will go onto win more just like Padraig Harrington has done in golf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hirop Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 it was one of those Murray displays that totally baffles, had that lethargic and miss-timing everything performance going on. A bit like how he played against nadal at wimbledon. But even so, he was better than that display and came really close to winning. The game before he lost his serve in the 5th set he put verdasco under so much pressure, the game lasted about 10-15 minutes with plenty of deuces. I think he shot his bolt in that game, and with verdasco serving so well just couldn't convert the pressure and take the break. he was toast on his service game after that, clearly knackered and it was all over at that point. I think that was a bit of inexperience from him, but not really a lot you can do about that, he has to go for the break if he sniffs it. Verdasco's serving was unreal, much like Murray himself, if he gets 75/80% first serves, your opponent ain't going to break you. Verdasco was getting something like 90% first servers in the last 2 sets... I thought Nadal in the final showed how smart a player he can be. In the 5th set once he got up a break, he didn't give a shit how Federer served and was happy to play the games, not bust himself looking for the second break and bring it home on his own serve. I know he has this rep of being a tiger and fighting for every point, but when he needs to, like in a slam final, he plays real real smart tennis. Federer might think he had the momentum coming back to 2-2 in sets, but Nadal had him in the 5th, and Nadal new it. Same thing, Federer was so busy trying to pummel him in the 4th set, Nadal had the energy when it mattered in the 5th. Christ, just realised I officially prefer tennis over the spl (though it's still behind proper football, theskillful stuff from top rate players) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Been keeping up with this weeks tournament by text commentary, I've noticed the Murray hype has died down a bit since he got put out of the Aussie open, which is probably a good thing. However, he's in the final of this weeks tournament, which is on now, and has just gone a set up on Nadal! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reina Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Is anyone going to actually retain their serve in this set? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.