How far can Gilbert take Murray?

Moose Malloy · 07-11-2006, 03:13 PM

Just read that this is pretty much a done deal(3 year contract)

I think this is the biggest challenge of Gilbert's career. With Agassi & Roddick, he joined them when they had already accomplished quite a bit(Agassi was already W champion & former top 3 player, Roddick was in the top 5 & had already been to a slam SF)

Murray is 19, currently ranked 36. He certainly isn't a sure thing like those players.

Gilbert reminds me of Phil Jackson, someone who steps into a perfect situation & ends up looking like a genius when his players do what they are supposed to do. Now we'll see just how good of a coach he really is.

punch · 07-11-2006, 03:16 PM

Well I think Murray has the talent to get up there, I think Gilbert will do a good job furthering Murray along, introducing some new tactics, etc.

clayman2000 · 07-11-2006, 03:19 PM

gilbert also joined up with murry at 19...the earliest of the three...he will make murray at top ten player...but to what extent i dont know

Marat Safinator · 07-11-2006, 03:19 PM

gilbert transformed roddick so i think he will do the same for the cocky murray, maybe he can give him some money to get a dentist. that would be an awfuly kind gesture of him.

chiru · 07-11-2006, 03:21 PM

i donno i think the phil jackson reference doesn't quite work out. when brad talks he seems to knwo what he's talking about, i mean when agassi took on brad, he wasn't exactly no.1 in the world. i say gil reyes and gilbert deserve all the credit (of course agassi too) in bringing agassi back up to champion status. with roddick, he was basically the raw material without the proper guidance, and i donno, i agree that this will be a different challenge and that this will be a good test for brad's patience. personally i odn't like murray at all, he's so negative on court, i donno if brad's ebuliant presence will change that much.

Moose Malloy · 07-11-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

gilbert also joined up with murry at 19...the earliest of the three

Roddick was 20 when he joined Gilbert.

Quote:

i mean when agassi took on brad, he wasn't exactly no.1 in the world.

No, but he was a former Wimbledon champion. While Murray's career best slam is a 4th round appearance.

Quote:

he will make murray at top ten player

That would be impressive. He has a long way to go. If he fails to do that, Gilbert's reputation will go down a bit.

omniexist · 07-11-2006, 03:36 PM

Should be a good move. Doesn't it seem a lot of these young phenoms aren't really progressing all that much?

Well, it can't hurt I guess.

BaseLineBash · 07-11-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by omniexist

Should be a good move. Doesn't it seem a lot of these young phenoms aren't really progressing all that much?

Well, it can't hurt I guess.

A ranking of 312 in the world last Wimby to a now 36 world ranking is quite a big jump! Murray is going places, he has the shots, the grit, attitude, blunt honesty and BG will help him with his ticker. Top 10 very soon my friends!

Marat Safinator · 07-11-2006, 03:25 PM

chiru your absolutely right about murrays negativity, i dont think that he will change that at all.

The tennis guy · 07-11-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Just read that this is pretty much a done deal(3 year contract)

I think this is the biggest challenge of Gilbert's career. With Agassi & Roddick, he joined them when they had already accomplished quite a bit(Agassi was already W champion & former top 3 player, Roddick was in the top 5 & had already been to a slam SF)

Murray is 19, currently ranked 36. He certainly isn't a sure thing like those players.

Gilbert reminds me of Phil Jackson, someone who steps into a perfect situation & ends up looking like a genius when his players do what they are supposed to do. Now we'll see just how good of a coach he really is.

I think he can get to top 16 in 3 years. He has such different game, mix junk with touch and power, just plays so different. Top 10 would be tough because I am not sure if he can pass the likes of Baghdatis, Berdych, Djokovic, Monfils, Gasquet, Ancic. Not a lot of room left in top 10 in 3 years.

fastdunn · 02-20-2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The tennis guy

I think he can get to top 16 in 3 years. He has such different game, mix junk with touch and power, just plays so different. Top 10 would be tough because I am not sure if he can pass the likes of Baghdatis, Berdych, Djokovic, Monfils, Gasquet, Ancic. Not a lot of room left in top 10 in 3 years.

Who is "he" you're refering here ?

Murray is currently #13. And current top 10 is not exactly a group of folks
who strike me as solid top 10 talents excapt of course Fed, Nadal and maybe
Nabandian...

IMHO, Murray can be top 5 in a hurry... but he'd better hurry... while
top 10 is pretty weak, IMHO.

The tennis guy · 02-20-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastdunn

Who is "he" you're refering here ?

Murray is currently #13. And current top 10 is not exactly a group of folks
who strike me as solid top 10 talents excapt of course Fed, Nadal and maybe
Nabandian...

IMHO, Murray can be top 5 in a hurry... but he'd better hurry... while
top 10 is pretty weak, IMHO.

Well, many people like to jump on bandwagon, but not me. After Wimbedon last year, Nadal was going to replace Federer; after US Open last year, Roddick was getting closer to Federer; after just defended his title from last year (he beat both Roddick and Hewitt last year at SAP), Murray was going to be next No. 1. I just don't buy those sudden realization.

I don't judge player by one tournament. After 2004, I was convinced Federer was going to dominate on tour for years to come; even after great 2005 from Nadal, I was convinced he would not challenge Federer for No. 1 without drastic change to his game. Now, I am not convinced Murray will get to top quickly or stay there. I'll judge his game after 2007.

fastdunn · 02-20-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The tennis guy

Well, many people like to jump on bandwagon, but not me. After Wimbedon last year, Nadal was going to replace Federer; after US Open last year, Roddick was getting closer to Federer; after just defended his title from last year (he beat both Roddick and Hewitt last year at SAP), Murray was going to be next No. 1. I just don't buy those sudden realization.

I don't judge player by one tournament. After 2004, I was convinced Federer was going to dominate on tour for years to come; even after great 2005 from Nadal, I was convinced he would not challenge Federer for No. 1 without drastic change to his game. Now, I am not convinced Murray will get to top quickly or stay there. I'll judge his game after 2007.

Well, I just noticed your post (that I replied) dated back in July 2006.
(So ignore my posting, I just though you did not know his current ranking..)

Back to the point,..., I think Murray has interesting game but I wouldn't
participate in debate on whether he can challenge Fed any time soon.

About Nadal, I predicted he would give Federer some trouble couple
of years ago simply based on the match up with a lefty.
At that time, we didn't have many left-handed notable players (maybe
still we don't have many...)

07-11-2006, 07:44 PM

Where is Murray going to go, 3 years from now? The answer is simple: Numero Tres, behind Federer and Nadal

TacoBellBorderBowl1946 · 07-11-2006, 07:46 PM

you have a good point Moose,

He coached Agassi and A-Rod when they were reaching the peaks of their careers.

Murray still needs to develop, Gilbert could take him to the top 20 in a year and top ten in 3.

serveitup911 · 07-11-2006, 08:02 PM

Murray can't go that far because he has no big weapons.

Phil · 07-11-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serveitup911

Murray can't go that far because he has no big weapons.

I recall the same thing being said about Hewitt. I wouldn't underestimate the mental aspect, which is, possibly, where Murray has somewhat of an edge already. Being a smart tactician can get you somewhere today, in an era populated largely by players who don't know how to build a point.

FEDEXP · 07-11-2006, 08:24 PM

All I know is, hopefully (and I know many here like him on air) I won't have to listen to him on ESPN? Any chance?

serveitup911 · 07-11-2006, 08:28 PM

I'll add to my previous point. Murray has no big weapons and is mopey. Phil, Hewitt had two weapons - mental toughness and speed. Murray seems to have neither of those.

TXKiteboarder · 07-12-2006, 04:11 PM

well, i heard on bbc that they will be offering him nearly 500K Euros, so I am sure that will buy alot for a year.

I personally would like to see him coach Baghdatis. I think they would an aowsome choice since Baghs just need that "extra" push to make it near the top, while Murray seemed to require alot more work

07-11-2006, 08:02 PM	#16
serveitup911 Semi-Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 649	Murray can't go that far because he has no big weapons. __________________ Babolat Pure Drive Roddick + / Solinco Tour Bite 16 @ 49M/52X / Prince NEOS 1000 4 year starter at Furman University '05-'09

07-11-2006, 08:28 PM	#19
serveitup911 Semi-Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 649	I'll add to my previous point. Murray has no big weapons and is mopey. Phil, Hewitt had two weapons - mental toughness and speed. Murray seems to have neither of those. __________________ Babolat Pure Drive Roddick + / Solinco Tour Bite 16 @ 49M/52X / Prince NEOS 1000 4 year starter at Furman University '05-'09

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode