Murray minced
Posted by: Chillkram on 30 January 2011
It's a shame for him that he has had the misfortune to be around in one of the greatest eras ever for men's tennis. Any other time and I think he would have had a Grand Slam by now.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by DeltaSigma
I don't think so. There is something in his psychological make up that inhibits him on big occasions and until he deals with that, he will not deserve to win majors in this or any other era.
He also (with his obscene rants at the spectators and his own team) showed a nastiness to his personality that was particularly unattractive.
He also (with his obscene rants at the spectators and his own team) showed a nastiness to his personality that was particularly unattractive.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by Tony Lockhart
McHenman?
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by DeltaSigma
Perhaps, except that Henman was at least well mannered on court.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by GraemeH
Maybe minced but definitely minted!
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by David Scott
Mchenman? Yes, that's right. He was just like Henman was in all the Grand Slam finals he got to. Ummmmmm.....
Djokovic was at the very top of his game. Murray wasn't. He didn't play badly and he didn't choke. The standard of play he produced today would have been good enough to get him to the final. Djokovic has just moved to another level in the last couple of months. I don't think playing him today was any easier than playing Nadal or Federer in full flow, so I'd tend to agree with Chillkram.
As for him being 'nasty', nb must lead a very refined and sheltered life! I've never heard Murray say anything ungenerous about another person, which is more than I can say for some other players - Federer for instance. You'll be complaining about the size of his mouth next, then his mother etc.etc.
Djokovic was at the very top of his game. Murray wasn't. He didn't play badly and he didn't choke. The standard of play he produced today would have been good enough to get him to the final. Djokovic has just moved to another level in the last couple of months. I don't think playing him today was any easier than playing Nadal or Federer in full flow, so I'd tend to agree with Chillkram.
As for him being 'nasty', nb must lead a very refined and sheltered life! I've never heard Murray say anything ungenerous about another person, which is more than I can say for some other players - Federer for instance. You'll be complaining about the size of his mouth next, then his mother etc.etc.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by DeltaSigma
I just don't like the idea of players shouting "shut the f*** up" at their own team (including his mother) or at spectators after making errors through no one's fault but their own. There is no call for that. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I wouldn't like to take my children to see him play and having them exposed to that sort of behavior. After all this isn't soccer/football - there is an expectation of a certain standard of behavior that makes this sport a bit different in my view. I acknowledge that he is not the first top pro to exhibit this type of loutish behavior (Nastase, McEnroe, Connors) but he is probably the only contemporary one who acts that way. There used to be a code of conduct on the pro tour (McEnroe got ejected from the 1990 Australian Open for swearing at the tournament referee) but that seems not to be in force these days.
As to his standard of play, he tends to adopt a very passive approach in his matches and can probably get away with it against lesser players (Ferrer, Dolgopolov) but that will not work against a top 5 or 10 player like Djokovic, Federer (who he lost to in similar fashion 12 months ago), Nadal (who beat him at Wimbledon last year) or even Wawrinka (who beat him in similar fashion at last year's US Open and is not even a top tenner). Winning a major will require beating at least 2-3 players in the top 5 or 6, and that style of play (half pace balls played into the mid court without being under any pressure) will result in defeat against any of those players no matter how good your defensive skills.
As to his standard of play, he tends to adopt a very passive approach in his matches and can probably get away with it against lesser players (Ferrer, Dolgopolov) but that will not work against a top 5 or 10 player like Djokovic, Federer (who he lost to in similar fashion 12 months ago), Nadal (who beat him at Wimbledon last year) or even Wawrinka (who beat him in similar fashion at last year's US Open and is not even a top tenner). Winning a major will require beating at least 2-3 players in the top 5 or 6, and that style of play (half pace balls played into the mid court without being under any pressure) will result in defeat against any of those players no matter how good your defensive skills.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by MilesSmiles
I was rooting for him but he just falls short of today's top players and doesn't have the mental strength that could see him through a grand slam final. He could still get lucky one day but I doubt it.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by David Scott
nb,
That'll be why he hasn't been out of the top five for years, has a highest ranking of 2 and has beaten all the players you mention several times, then? He's actually developed a very good attacking game, but does still fall back into the defensive thing at times. If he looked passive today I think it was because Djokovic was on fire and his aggressive defense was unbelievable at times. He was returning shots with interest that would normally have been clean winners.
Miles, on current form he's a rank below Federer/Nadal and Djokovic, yes. As to the other thing, let's wait and see. He's made real progress every time it was called for in the past. I wouldn't bet against him doing it again. I'm not sure mental strength was the issue today - he's showed plenty of that in the past - I just think Djokovic has made a huge leap since the last time they played (Murray won their last three encounters) and AM wasn't ready for it. I know they practice together, but a match is something else again.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by DeltaSigma
He may have beaten them in lesser events but beating them in Grand Slams is another thing altogether - that's where the mental strength issue comes into play. The top players save their best for the majors - in a lot of cases they only play Masters events (the events just below the majors) to fulfill contractual commitments (ATP rules require them to play these events unless injured), but they all show up to the majors with their "A" games. Murray can beat Federer, Nadal, et al in 2 best of 3 matches at Indian Wells, the Cdn Open, etc, every day of the week, but it's beating them in 3 out of 5 sets at Roland Garros, Flushing Meadows, etc that counts and they all know it. Great players are measured by their Grand Slam performances, not by how long they remain in the top 5 or 10. I never heard someone say Pete Sampras or Rod Laver were great players because they were #1 for so many weeks - it was because they produced great Grand Slam performances time and again. There have been players who reached #1 without winning a single major (Marcelo Rios, for example) but they are not generally recognized as great players.
Murray looked passive today and he was passive against Ferrer in the semis (but Ferrer lacked the offense to make him pay), he looked passive also against Wawrinka in NY last September (and completely folded mentally halfway through the match), he was passive against Federer last year, etc. etc. Today was not an isolated event, by any means.
Murray looked passive today and he was passive against Ferrer in the semis (but Ferrer lacked the offense to make him pay), he looked passive also against Wawrinka in NY last September (and completely folded mentally halfway through the match), he was passive against Federer last year, etc. etc. Today was not an isolated event, by any means.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by David Scott
Thought this would be next. Do you really think you can be a great player if you only try in four tournaments a year? Federer and Nadal have won plenty of Masters tournaments. If Murray could beat them at those 'every day of the week' they'd be unlikely to win any. You may only pay attention to few competitions every year. I don't think the players approach things that way.
People are ALWAYS going on about the number of weeks Sampras and Federer spent as number one! Nadal was thrilled to get to number one and he'd won quite a few Grand Slams before that happened.
How likely is it that some the most competitive men on the planet wouldn't care about winning tournaments and being top of the ranking list?
As for the other thing, I said Murray has developed an attacking game but still becomes passive at times. It used to be a very valid criticism. Less so now. Even less so in future I'd expect.
He was clearly unwell against Wawrinka. No argument with the other matches you mention, except that he did get out of the rut against Ferrer and it was clearly his periods of aggressive attacking play that won him the game. Quite a decent number of clean winners IIRC.
People are ALWAYS going on about the number of weeks Sampras and Federer spent as number one! Nadal was thrilled to get to number one and he'd won quite a few Grand Slams before that happened.
How likely is it that some the most competitive men on the planet wouldn't care about winning tournaments and being top of the ranking list?
As for the other thing, I said Murray has developed an attacking game but still becomes passive at times. It used to be a very valid criticism. Less so now. Even less so in future I'd expect.
He was clearly unwell against Wawrinka. No argument with the other matches you mention, except that he did get out of the rut against Ferrer and it was clearly his periods of aggressive attacking play that won him the game. Quite a decent number of clean winners IIRC.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by DeltaSigma
Federer/Nadal have indeed won many Masters events, but how many tennis fans, much less casual followers of the sport, can recall how many of these events they have won, or how many weeks they have spent at #1 (or at #5 which is where Murray is at the moment, having fallen below Soderling)? The saying is that rankings come and go, but once you have been a Grand Slam champion, no one can take that away (as I believe Goran Ivanisevic said after winning Wimbledon in 2001). Track and field athletes say the same thing about records vs. Olympic medals, by the way.
I don't know how long you have been following the sport, but there is a pattern among the top male players in which they cut their participation in non major events to a minimum once they reach a certain point in their careers and focus their energies on the majors. Sampras and Lendl were notable examples of this - in fact, Lendl famously started skipping the entire clay court season after 1989 (with obvious consequences for his ranking) to focus on winning Wimbledon. The same thing happens today, except that the players are restricted by ATP rules (as mentioned above). As a result, they base their yearly schedules around participation in the majors, and schedule their rest periods, training, competition, etc in order to "peak" at those events. It would be foolish to give 100% to every tournament they play in, and cut their careers in half as a result due to injury or burnout.
Tennis has a very long season and once the Federers/Lendls have won a certain number of events outside of Grand Slams, they begin to focus their energies where it really counts, and that means Grand Slams. Given the choice between winning 3 or 4 more Masters events and winning another Slam this year, which do you think Federer would choose? I recall him saying last year that he had set himself a goal of 20 slams before he retires but, strangely, he didn't say anything about how many more Masters events he wanted to win, or how many more weeks he wanted to spend in the #1 spot.
I don't know how long you have been following the sport, but there is a pattern among the top male players in which they cut their participation in non major events to a minimum once they reach a certain point in their careers and focus their energies on the majors. Sampras and Lendl were notable examples of this - in fact, Lendl famously started skipping the entire clay court season after 1989 (with obvious consequences for his ranking) to focus on winning Wimbledon. The same thing happens today, except that the players are restricted by ATP rules (as mentioned above). As a result, they base their yearly schedules around participation in the majors, and schedule their rest periods, training, competition, etc in order to "peak" at those events. It would be foolish to give 100% to every tournament they play in, and cut their careers in half as a result due to injury or burnout.
Tennis has a very long season and once the Federers/Lendls have won a certain number of events outside of Grand Slams, they begin to focus their energies where it really counts, and that means Grand Slams. Given the choice between winning 3 or 4 more Masters events and winning another Slam this year, which do you think Federer would choose? I recall him saying last year that he had set himself a goal of 20 slams before he retires but, strangely, he didn't say anything about how many more Masters events he wanted to win, or how many more weeks he wanted to spend in the #1 spot.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by David Scott
"Given the choice between winning 3 or 4 more Masters events and winning another Slam this year, which do you think Federer would choose? "
I can't think of anything I've said which would make you think you needed to ask me this question. I'm quite sure Murray would feel the same way. This relates to what? I simply refute the idea that Murray has won highly regarded Masters events, beating Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in finals and semifinals only because they weren't really trying!
By the way, Murray has beaten Nadal and other top ten players in Slams too. I don't really see how someone who has made it to three slam finals (twice beating Nadal on the way) is as far from having what it takes to win a slam as you say Murray is. Especially as Nadal is a great player and great players 'always bring their A games'.
I can't think of anything I've said which would make you think you needed to ask me this question. I'm quite sure Murray would feel the same way. This relates to what? I simply refute the idea that Murray has won highly regarded Masters events, beating Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in finals and semifinals only because they weren't really trying!
By the way, Murray has beaten Nadal and other top ten players in Slams too. I don't really see how someone who has made it to three slam finals (twice beating Nadal on the way) is as far from having what it takes to win a slam as you say Murray is. Especially as Nadal is a great player and great players 'always bring their A games'.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by TomK
I didn't see all of the match so can't comment on the foul language. There was none in the part I saw and I've never heard it from him in any other match I've watched. In interviews I've never heard him being anything other than polite, gracious and gentlemanly. In fact he's often criticised over here for being boring.
I think his problems are more mental than anything else and what particularly worries me after today is that he has now been completely thrashed in three Grand Slam finals. He has totally capitulated in each and obviously has failed to win even a single set. It will be interesting to see how he bounces back.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by DeltaSigma
My question was motivated by your implication that the top players take all events equally seriously - hence, would someone like Federer regard 3 or 4 Masters level events as being more important than one Slam? I think not, and this would contradict your assertion.
You are right that great players like Nadal/Federer always bring their A games to slams. The problem is that Murray frequently brings his C or D game to slams, which is why he has so much difficulty winning them. That's the mental issue I'm talking about.
You are right that great players like Nadal/Federer always bring their A games to slams. The problem is that Murray frequently brings his C or D game to slams, which is why he has so much difficulty winning them. That's the mental issue I'm talking about.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by David Scott
nb,
I didn't imply that top players take all tournaments equally seriously and I certainly didn't assert it. It's really rather disingenuous of you to suggest that I did. In particular, slipping from 'implication' to 'assertion' in the course of a paragraph like that is either very careless or somewhat underhand. You don't like to lose arguments do you?
A universe in which great players always brought their A game to slams would be beguilingly simple. Perhaps this is how things were in the days of your childhood; when milk was rich and creamy and never went off and boy scouts patrolled the streets, hoping to help old ladies get the stones out of their hooves.
I didn't imply that top players take all tournaments equally seriously and I certainly didn't assert it. It's really rather disingenuous of you to suggest that I did. In particular, slipping from 'implication' to 'assertion' in the course of a paragraph like that is either very careless or somewhat underhand. You don't like to lose arguments do you?
A universe in which great players always brought their A game to slams would be beguilingly simple. Perhaps this is how things were in the days of your childhood; when milk was rich and creamy and never went off and boy scouts patrolled the streets, hoping to help old ladies get the stones out of their hooves.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by DeltaSigma
I'm sorry if you now want to back off your initial argument, but the fact is that you were trying to use Murray's performance against other top players in Masters level events to argue that he should be able to beat them in Grand Slam events as well. My point was that beating them in lower level events was a totally different proposition than doing so in majors. Murray has shown a tendency to lower his standard of play when going from Masters events to majors, while the other top players raise theirs (because they approach those events differently).
And yes, great players always bring their A games to the important tournaments, i.e. slams (that's why they're called "great", after all).
I also think we should avoid the snide remarks if possible.
And yes, great players always bring their A games to the important tournaments, i.e. slams (that's why they're called "great", after all).
I also think we should avoid the snide remarks if possible.
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by Bruce Woodhouse
Murray's on-court attitude reminds me of Mcenroe with the mood, angry and sulky behaviour etc, but with one big difference; McEnroe consciously and deliberately used this as an asset. He freely admits he used his ranting and strops as a positive force for his own concentration and performance and also to disrupt his opponent. Murray appears to withdraw into a negative internal world when pressed/nervous or whatever. He is greatly talented so I enjoy watching his tennis but I sincerely did not feel from the end of the first 2 games yesterday that he would win. To go the next step not just once but consistently something must surely change.
Djokovic played well but he was not unbeatable.
Is Murray the only top ten player without a regular coach? He can play the shots (and now appears physically robust) but does he not need help to change his matchplay skills, mental and strategic?
Bruce
Posted on: 30 January 2011 by likesmusic
I don't think he'll get to the next level until his mother disappears from his professional life.
Posted on: 31 January 2011 by ewemon
There an old advert for a Scottish boiled sweet whose strapline goes "Never hurry a Murray". He is still young yet remember. Personally I think he needs some real aggression in his play.
Posted on: 31 January 2011 by David Scott
nb,
Nobody could accuse you of not being inventive. If you don't like the universe you're living in make up another, eh?
It's possible you're just a bit confused, but I strongly suspect you're being disingenuous. Either way, I wish you well with it.
Nobody could accuse you of not being inventive. If you don't like the universe you're living in make up another, eh?
It's possible you're just a bit confused, but I strongly suspect you're being disingenuous. Either way, I wish you well with it.