I like Andy Murray, but I often feel sorry for the bloke that has to play him, because even if his opponent is superior & has a better record, it's as if he is not even there, as evidenced by Roger Federer last Sunday.
I agree, to treat a seven times Wimbledon champion, and a tennis player who has re-taken the number one spot in doing so, in such a casual and un-recognising way of his achievements, especially by former tennis professionals, is really dis-appointing.
I've been trying to think who it would be worth comparing Andy Murray to as a tennis player from 20 or 30 years ago, regardless of nationality. Yes, he's good. He's done well to make the final. But please appreciate the true champion.
I think Roger was also being extremely polite when he said Murray will win a grand slam, and later he said a few of them. I saw this more as Murray's high water mark, and rather than building on it and going on to win majors, he will now struggle from this point forward.
He's lost his first 4 majors like Lendl, his new trainer. But that is where the comparison ends I'm afraid. Murray is not going to be world number one, unless Federer, Nadal and Djokovic retire next week, and he is not going to end up with 8 grand slam majors after this like Lendl, who got 2 Australian, and 3 each of the French and US Opens, as well as runner up twice at Wimbledon.
Murray will be fortunate to make another Wimbledon Final now.
I think Roger was also being extremely polite when he said Murray will win a grand slam, and later he said a few of them. I saw this more as Murray's high water mark, and rather than building on it and going on to win majors, he will now struggle from this point forward.
He's lost his first 4 majors like Lendl, his new trainer. But that is where the comparison ends I'm afraid. Murray is not going to be world number one, unless Federer, Nadal and Djokovic retire next week, and he is not going to end up with 8 grand slam majors after this like Lendl, who got 2 Australian, and 3 each of the French and US Opens, as well as runner up twice at Wimbledon.
Murray will be fortunate to make another Wimbledon Final now.
Wow!!!
You sure know what you're talking about don't ya? ROFLMAO
I've read a number of old posts like that around online from years prior in the last few days now. There must be millions of them and a fair few on DS. Good stuff
I've read a number of old posts like that around online from years prior in the last few days now. There must be millions of them and a fair few on DS. Good stuff
there was some fun thread bumping after the US Open last year it has to be said.
It's a bit unfair to make fun of people who have made a prediction in good faith, which turns out not to be right.
Predictions are 50/50 by their very nature; you're either going to be right or wrong.
To be fair, a few years ago, it did look like Andy Murray might never win a Grand Slam, but happily he has stuck at it & prevailed & good on him.
I 'predict' that he has another couple of Grand-Slams in him too.
I'm not sure about the French Open, as Rafael Nadal owns clay court tennis, but I can see him winning the US Open, or the Australian Open, or maybe Wimbledon again.
It's a bit unfair to make fun of people who have made a prediction in good faith, which turns out not to be right.
Predictions are 50/50 by their very nature; you're either going to be right or wrong.
To be fair, a few years ago, it did look like Andy Murray might never win a Grand Slam, but happily he has stuck at it & prevailed & good on him.
I 'predict' that he has another couple of Grand-Slams in him too.
I'm not sure about the French Open, as Rafael Nadal owns clay court tennis, but I can see him winning the US Open, or the Australian Open, or maybe Wimbledon again.
To be fair a lot of people have been saying for years that Murray would win a slam one day too - even after a lot of his tough losses, so it must be satisfying for them to see people who've been making such certain predictions that he'l never win one be proved wrong for the second time now.
To be fair a lot of people have been saying for years that Murray would win a slam one day too - even after a lot of his tough losses, so it must be satisfying for them to see people who've been making such certain predictions that he'l never win one be proved wrong for the second time now.
I also think it's wrong to assume predictions were all made in "good faith". A lot of this stuff was made through malicious intent and ill will towards Murray not based on his talent and ability but based on their own ignorance.
Someone on this forum once made a post where they suggested that it was shame Thomas Hamilton didn't have an extra bullet and a couple of people actually responded with a :D as though the possible murder of an 8 year old child was a point of hilarity. Of course said posts were eventually removed by the mods, but they remain among the most disgusting things I have seen posted on this forum.
I also think it's wrong to assume predictions were all made in "good faith". A lot of this stuff was made through malicious intent and ill will towards Murray not based on his talent and ability but based on their own ignorance.
Someone on this forum once made a post where they suggested that it was shame Thomas Hamilton didn't have an extra bullet and a couple of people actually responded with a :D as though the possible murder of an 8 year old child was a point of hilarity. Of course said posts were eventually removed by the mods, but they remain among the most disgusting things I have seen posted on this forum.
There is already a post on another thread re knighthoods about Andy Murray being in a drunken fight last night which was actually a link to a story about how an overzealous fan caught Murray in the eye with a tennis book as he was leaving a restaurant.
To be fair a lot of people have been saying for years that Murray would win a slam one day too - even after a lot of his tough losses, so it must be satisfying for them to see people who've been making such certain predictions that he'l never win one be proved wrong for the second time now.
It's those who said the Murray would never win a grand slam tilte who are the ones that have been proven wrong. Not those who aren't predicting that he'll win a hatful.
I think Roger was also being extremely polite when he said Murray will win a grand slam, and later he said a few of them. I saw this more as Murray's high water mark, and rather than building on it and going on to win majors, he will now struggle from this point forward.
He's lost his first 4 majors like Lendl, his new trainer. But that is where the comparison ends I'm afraid. Murray is not going to be world number one, unless Federer, Nadal and Djokovic retire next week, and he is not going to end up with 8 grand slam majors after this like Lendl, who got 2 Australian, and 3 each of the French and US Opens, as well as runner up twice at Wimbledon.
Murray will be fortunate to make another Wimbledon Final now.
It's a bit unfair to make fun of people who have made a prediction in good faith, which turns out not to be right.
Predictions are 50/50 by their very nature; you're either going to be right or wrong.
To be fair, a few years ago, it did look like Andy Murray might never win a Grand Slam, but happily he has stuck at it & prevailed & good on him.
Agree. Andy himself said he had got to the point (before the US Open) where he was thinking he might never win one and trying to prepare himself for that.
A month later I've just stumbled on some of the gloating of my incorrect predictions about Andy Murray from summer 2012. I'm very pleased, and genuinely very surprised to have been proven wrong, but at least I wasn't sitting on the fence, or more appropriately straddling the net! How about some of the gloaters here give a prediction of his next year up to Wimbledon 2014 then? Many people held the view I stated after his 2012 final defeat, including Martina Navratilova & Michael Stich who stated the same view on TV and radio at that time, as well as one or two commentators on radio. I am surprised by the lack of potency from the other 3 top players, Federer, Nadal & Djokovic at the moment that has seen Murray come through. It did not look likely in July 2012. I did however predict Murray to win Wimbledon on the Talksport thread after his quarter final!
His form has dipped a lot since winning Wimbledon already. He lost to Tomas Berdych in straight sets in Cincinnatii yesterday. How does this bode for his defence of the US Open gloaters? Let's see your predictions laid bare and open to future scrutiny!
A month later I've just stumbled on some of the gloating of my incorrect predictions about Andy Murray from summer 2012. I'm very pleased, and genuinely very surprised to have been proven wrong, but at least I wasn't sitting on the fence, or more appropriately straddling the net! How about some of the gloaters here give a prediction of his next year up to Wimbledon 2014 then? Many people held the view I stated after his 2012 final defeat, including Martina Navratilova & Michael Stich who stated the same view on TV and radio at that time, as well as one or two commentators on radio. I am surprised by the lack of potency from the other 3 top players, Federer, Nadal & Djokovic at the moment that has seen Murray come through. It did not look likely in July 2012. I did however predict Murray to win Wimbledon on the Talksport thread after his quarter final!
His form has dipped a lot since winning Wimbledon already. He lost to Tomas Berdych in straight sets in Cincinnatii yesterday. How does this bode for his defence of the US Open gloaters? Let's see your predictions laid bare and open to future scrutiny!
I wouldn't say that at all. His form is always shaky, inconsistent outside of the slams.
Last year he lost to Jeremy Chardy in Cincinnati. He then went on to win the US Open.
Losing to Berdych in Cincinnati (whom he beat at Flushing Meadows last year) is of little relevance when discussing his US Open chances, imo.
I wouldn't say that at all. His form is always shaky, inconsistent outside of the slams.
Last year he lost to Jeremy Chardy in Cincinnati. He then went on to win the US Open.
Losing to Berdych in Cincinnati (whom he beat at Flushing Meadows last year) is of little relevance when discussing his US Open chances, imo.
Let's not forget these Masters events are only the best of 3. If this was the US Open I would strongly fancy Murray to recover from 2 sets down and win against both Gulbis and Berdych.
He was 2 sets down at Wimbledon v Vadesco and still won. He has been no more shaky now at Montreal and Cincinatti than he was at Wimbledon before the final. The difference is that it was best of 5 at Wimbledon which gave Murray the chance to recover. The best of 5's of the grand slams are the true test after all.
There is every likelihood that Murray will trail 0-2 or 1-2 in sets, or get hauled back from 2-0 or 2-1 in sets to 2-2 two or three times before the final in the upcoming US Open. The only important thing that really matters at Flushing Meadows is who's the first to 3 sets, and of late in the grand slams it's usually been Murray.
I wouldn't say that at all. His form is always shaky, inconsistent outside of the slams.
Last year he lost to Jeremy Chardy in Cincinnati. He then went on to win the US Open.
Losing to Berdych in Cincinnati (whom he beat at Flushing Meadows last year) is of little relevance when discussing his US Open chances, imo.
Agree completely! Light years difference between a slam and masters. And even still, Berdych is number 5 in the world, hardly an awful result!
Djokovic and Murray getting knocked out yesterday doesn't make a jot of differnece to their US chances. What good did Fef winning Cinci do him last year?
Let's not forget these Masters events are only the best of 3. If this was the US Open I would strongly fancy Murray to recover from 2 sets down and win against both Gulbis and Berdych.
He was 2 sets down at Wimbledon v Vadesco and still won. He has been no more shaky now at Montreal and Cincinatti than he was at Wimbledon before the final. The difference is that it was beat of 5 at Wimbledon which gave Murray the chance to recover. The best of 5's of the grand slams are the true test after all.
There is every likelihood that Murray will trail 0-2 or 1-2 in sets, or get hauled back from 2-0 or 2-1 in sets to 2-2 two or three times before the final in the upcoming US Open. The only important thing that really matters at Flushing Meadows is who's the first to 3 sets, and of late in the grand slams it's usually been Murray.
Agree, he went 2 down v Haase here a few years ago. Should have v Cilic last year. A good few of Nadal and Djok's slam wins and deep runs have involved tricky 4/5 setters. They're part and parcel of slams. The difference between best of 3 and 5 is huge
Not only that but you can't really judge someone's form on two masters events. The preparation that goes into a slam match is completely different. Murray'll be far more motivated in a slam anyway
I think Roger was also being extremely polite when he said Murray will win a grand slam, and later he said a few of them. I saw this more as Murray's high water mark, and rather than building on it and going on to win majors, he will now struggle from this point forward.
He's lost his first 4 majors like Lendl, his new trainer. But that is where the comparison ends I'm afraid. Murray is not going to be world number one, unless Federer, Nadal and Djokovic retire next week, and he is not going to end up with 8 grand slam majors after this like Lendl, who got 2 Australian, and 3 each of the French and US Opens, as well as runner up twice at Wimbledon.
Murray will be fortunate to make another Wimbledon Final now.
I don't think Murray will end up with 8 grand slam titles.
Broadcasters often communicate through their nationality prism.
Not saying it's right but that's how it's done - 'how many Britons killed in disaster X' - not here is a list by nationality of the dead.
Got into a semi-heated debate once in the 90's with a well known ex South African tennis legend by now working for a US tennis network who complained that having 2 Spanish players in the final of the French Tennis Open was bad for the game.
What it transpired he meant was that because there were no Americans involved, it would be bad for US viewer ratings!
Though true, this is a different point and begs different questions / answers.
Comments
I agree, to treat a seven times Wimbledon champion, and a tennis player who has re-taken the number one spot in doing so, in such a casual and un-recognising way of his achievements, especially by former tennis professionals, is really dis-appointing.
I've been trying to think who it would be worth comparing Andy Murray to as a tennis player from 20 or 30 years ago, regardless of nationality. Yes, he's good. He's done well to make the final. But please appreciate the true champion.
Good Prediction there
You sure know what you're talking about don't ya? ROFLMAO
this one is better...;)
there was some fun thread bumping after the US Open last year it has to be said.
It's a bit unfair to make fun of people who have made a prediction in good faith, which turns out not to be right.
Predictions are 50/50 by their very nature; you're either going to be right or wrong.
To be fair, a few years ago, it did look like Andy Murray might never win a Grand Slam, but happily he has stuck at it & prevailed & good on him.
I 'predict' that he has another couple of Grand-Slams in him too.
I'm not sure about the French Open, as Rafael Nadal owns clay court tennis, but I can see him winning the US Open, or the Australian Open, or maybe Wimbledon again.
To be fair a lot of people have been saying for years that Murray would win a slam one day too - even after a lot of his tough losses, so it must be satisfying for them to see people who've been making such certain predictions that he'l never win one be proved wrong for the second time now.
I also think it's wrong to assume predictions were all made in "good faith". A lot of this stuff was made through malicious intent and ill will towards Murray not based on his talent and ability but based on their own ignorance.
Someone on this forum once made a post where they suggested that it was shame Thomas Hamilton didn't have an extra bullet and a couple of people actually responded with a
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1706037
Best thread ever
That was called jumping the gun somewhat! - mind you from what I remember the papers were doing that too...
There is already a post on another thread re knighthoods about Andy Murray being in a drunken fight last night which was actually a link to a story about how an overzealous fan caught Murray in the eye with a tennis book as he was leaving a restaurant.
It's those who said the Murray would never win a grand slam tilte who are the ones that have been proven wrong. Not those who aren't predicting that he'll win a hatful.
You were saying?!
Agree. Andy himself said he had got to the point (before the US Open) where he was thinking he might never win one and trying to prepare himself for that.
His form has dipped a lot since winning Wimbledon already. He lost to Tomas Berdych in straight sets in Cincinnatii yesterday. How does this bode for his defence of the US Open gloaters? Let's see your predictions laid bare and open to future scrutiny!
Last year he lost to Jeremy Chardy in Cincinnati. He then went on to win the US Open.
Losing to Berdych in Cincinnati (whom he beat at Flushing Meadows last year) is of little relevance when discussing his US Open chances, imo.
Let's not forget these Masters events are only the best of 3. If this was the US Open I would strongly fancy Murray to recover from 2 sets down and win against both Gulbis and Berdych.
He was 2 sets down at Wimbledon v Vadesco and still won. He has been no more shaky now at Montreal and Cincinatti than he was at Wimbledon before the final. The difference is that it was best of 5 at Wimbledon which gave Murray the chance to recover. The best of 5's of the grand slams are the true test after all.
There is every likelihood that Murray will trail 0-2 or 1-2 in sets, or get hauled back from 2-0 or 2-1 in sets to 2-2 two or three times before the final in the upcoming US Open. The only important thing that really matters at Flushing Meadows is who's the first to 3 sets, and of late in the grand slams it's usually been Murray.
Agree completely! Light years difference between a slam and masters. And even still, Berdych is number 5 in the world, hardly an awful result!
Djokovic and Murray getting knocked out yesterday doesn't make a jot of differnece to their US chances. What good did Fef winning Cinci do him last year?
Agree, he went 2 down v Haase here a few years ago. Should have v Cilic last year. A good few of Nadal and Djok's slam wins and deep runs have involved tricky 4/5 setters. They're part and parcel of slams. The difference between best of 3 and 5 is huge
Not only that but you can't really judge someone's form on two masters events. The preparation that goes into a slam match is completely different. Murray'll be far more motivated in a slam anyway
I don't think Murray will end up with 8 grand slam titles.
But he can add another couple.
Can he really win either way.
The guy will lose games like everyone else.
Don't forget Murray had an injury - maybe its caught up a bit with him.
Not saying it's right but that's how it's done - 'how many Britons killed in disaster X' - not here is a list by nationality of the dead.
Got into a semi-heated debate once in the 90's with a well known ex South African tennis legend by now working for a US tennis network who complained that having 2 Spanish players in the final of the French Tennis Open was bad for the game.
What it transpired he meant was that because there were no Americans involved, it would be bad for US viewer ratings!
Though true, this is a different point and begs different questions / answers.