Justin Gimelstob Says That Andy Murray is Not Elite Player.......
 

Until Murray can hit a forehand down the line? I was watching Tennis Channel's Top matches for 2012. Quote Gimel-snob commenting on the US Open finals match, "Murray needs to learn how to hit the forehand pass down the line in order to be an Elite player." Doesn't Gimel-SNOB understand that Olympic Champions are the elite players? .... Gimel-SNOB has his nose up in the air so much of he time that he cannot look down at Murray's footwork while he plays the game of tennis. His movement and split-step as his opponent strikes the ball is perfect or otherwise....ELITE!!! Murray has the Singles Gold Medal that many other elite players do not.... Gimel-SNOB needs to stick to some pregame notes when commentating or maybe Gimel-SNOB isn't SMART enough to prepare some prematch notes and we have to listen to this garbage!

That's garbage. He's a slam winner, and on his way to a Hall of Fame career. That's a step above elite level.

Gimelstob is an overly verbose idiot and a detriment to the TC. Why they keep him on there is a mystery to me.

Don't think Murray will lose any sleep over it. Besides, who is he to say sth. like that anyway? He never amounted to much in his own career or got past the 3rd round in ANY slam.

Wow, didn't Justin Gimelstob once make it to the second round of the US Open or something? There's nothing worse than second rate ex-players, Wally Masur is another one, who reckon they know the game better than the actual elite players and second guess every move they make as if they could ever have got near that level themselves. It's funny that guys like McEnroe and Courier don't tend to do this kind of thing and they were pretty elite in their day.

He just jelly he didn't win slams or Olympic gold medals

Justin is right. Murray is indeed not an elite player.

Well, Gimelstob is wrong in his comment about Murray's eliteness but if Murray could hit a down the line forehand as well as anyone else in the top 8 he'd be a much harder player to beat. He may have even picked up a few more scalps of the top players on the big stages too.

But that's like saying if *anyone* hit any shot better than they currently do they'd be a better player. It's not exactly rocket science.

I have often wondered myself why Murray doesn't hit a FH DTL on so many occasions. It would really add a lot to his arsenal.

Murray can't hit the inside-in forehand to save his life.

Erm, it was Murray's DTL/inside out forehand that won him Wimbledon OG and possibly the USO.

For the lazy detractors (I'm looking at you here Smoledman) - I posted the day that Murray lost to Ferru @ RG that I felt it was a turning point, and the reason it was a turning point was because whilst Murray had gone out, he'd gone out swinging - and in particular swinging his forehand DTL/IO. For a seasoned Murray watcher, this was something new and significant - Murray going for his forehand DTL - even when he was missing? Unheard of.

It has become a key shot in the development of Murray 2.0 and will continue to improve, alongside his 2nd serve.

I remember you saying that after Murray's loss to Ferrer at the FO and agree in general regarding his improvement of the shot under Lendl but it isn't what bothers me the most about this statement from Gimelstob though as a supposed tennis analyst he should have remarked on the improvement from Murray in that regard this year.

What irks me the most is when media heads like Gimelstob say something which they know is outlandish just to generate controversy and get the attention they seek.

Saying Murray's not an elite player is beyond dumb, he became an elite player back in 2008 when he got into top 5, won Cincy and Madrid, reached USO final etc. what changed with him winning USO this year is that he became a hall of famer.

You can't define elite as 3 best people in the world in their chosen profession.

To be honest mate, I wasn't even going to bother to address Gimlestob's statement; wrong as it is - but I thank you for putting it so eloquently. It is a bit of a silly thing for him to say.

Well, Olympic Champs are not necessarily elite players (particularly in tennis), but Murray is among the current elite.

I ultimately agree with you regarding Gimelstob, but people are taking his statement a little out of context...

He was comparing Murray with the other top 3 the entire match. He basically was saying what separates Murray from the others who have multiple slams is his forehand, and he's right about that...

Gimelstob's problem is he keeps muttering on and on until his original rational statement sounds foolish. He was doing it over and over again in that match; backing up sensible declarations with eventually more and more vacuous claims -- it was ridiculous...

I found Wilander to be very reasonable and intelligent in his commentary.

I think we all say stupid things at times that we'd rather not have said. Unlike us however, Justin Gimelstob gets the privilege of saying them on national TV.

What he probably meant was that for Murray to get to the next level of greatness that the other slam winners of this era have attained, he has to be able to have the option of going up the line more often with his forehand. The danger with not having nearly as good a pass up the line as crosscourt is that people can lean on the crosscourt pass.

Now the rest of his game is just as strong if not stronger than the current world no.1, so developing that part of his game seems to be prudent.

What's Gimelstob done compared to Murray?

Nothing.

/end of thread

You can be 100% sure Federer Nadal and Djokovic will rate Murray as an elite player.

Pure nonsense from Gimelstob.

It depends how you define elite? :-?