Originally Posted by zagor
I remember you saying that after Murray's lost 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 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.
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.