Article: Journalist Blasts Andy Murray says he lacks mental toughness against top 3

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

I meant that the fact that Murray is the only person to have followed up his maiden slam win with a final is petty and trivial at best because of cases like Connors who, as you know, was robbed of the opportunity of holding this particular record.

Well, Connors aside, why didn't anybody else manage to do it in the Open Era?

[SempreSami]

Originally Posted by Mainad

Gosh, that was very generous of Berdych. But how come he didn't win the title himself?

He also won Wimbledon for Nads in 2010.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by SempreSami

He also won Wimbledon for Nads in 2010.

Do you think he's on commission?

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by Mainad

Well, Connors aside, why didn't anybody else manage to do it in the Open Era?

Because the "record" is so insignificant that nobody attempts to set/break it.

[SempreSami]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Because the "record" is so insignificant that nobody attempts to set/break it.

Likelihood is they don't know/care about records like forumites.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by Mainad

Well, Connors aside, why didn't anybody else manage to do it in the Open Era?

Connors didn't do it. In fact he never made it past the SF of the French Open. Why someone would think that just because he didn't play a tournament he probably would have won it is puzzling.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Because the "record" is so insignificant that nobody attempts to set/break it.

why would anyone not try to win their second GS title? That makes no sense.

What I suspect is there is so much pressure on a player who has finally broken through and won their first major that it is a daunting task.

[dafinch]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Let's face it, Murray got lucky winning the USO. Berdych won him the title.

Yup. Many years from now, it will be apparent that Fur Ball was to the 2012 US Open as Michael Chang was to the 1989 French Open.

[Antonio Puente]

Andy Murray risks becoming one-hit wonder

It's better than being a no-hit wonder.

[always_crosscourt]

You guys don't realize that by saying Murray has 'mental' issues, you are unknowingly complementing him by suggesting that he has the game/talent to compete with the best, but his head is his weakness.

I take a different approach.

I think Murray's mental strength is the only thing that offsets his blatant lack of talent compared to the Big Three, and, in fact, he is much less talented than most all of the Top Thirty. He is just lucky that the rest of the Top Thirty are choking headcases, whereas he is an untalented workman with opportunistic tendencies, a callous killing instinct, and a good work ethic.

If Murray was not as mentally tough as he is, he would get absolutely pulverized by the Big Three every time he met them on any stage, because his game and level of talent is a good whole three tiers below them.

in other words, Murray's 'mental' problems are the least of his worries. He simply does not have the talent to be a great tennis player.

If you say Murray has mental problems, you give his fans hope that one day he will sort them out and realize his true potential. If you simply say he lacks talent in the first place, it is much bleaker because it means that nothing he does will ever make him a better player.

[SandV]

Originally Posted by mariecon

Connors didn't do it. In fact he never made it past the SF of the French Open. Why someone would think that just because he didn't play a tournament he probably would have won it is puzzling.

Should be noted that Connors did not play the F O from 1974-1978--five prime years of his career.

[SempreSami]

Originally Posted by Antonio Puente

It's better than being a no-hit wonder.

Did John Leicester lose money on that final? That article smacks of 'shoulda woulda coulda'.

[dafinch]

Originally Posted by mariecon

Beg all you want. Since your nickname for Murray is Ratboy you just confirmed what I thought which is that you're just a pathetic hater. And your vehemence about Connors stems from that hatred. I will scroll past your posts from now on and you can do the same with mine. You've lost all credibility.

Ohhhh, should I alert the media? 5-17, WHOA, that record(not to mention 1-6 overall) really stinks on ice! And people act like he's improving, lol! It's not like he took Nole the distance, like last year, or even, well, he lost the 4th set in a tiebreaker and had a couple of set points to take it to a 5th set. He got crushed like a cockroach in the 4th set-all the time, of course, grimacing and gesticulating to let EVERYBODY know what extreme agony he was in.

[dafinch]

Originally Posted by SandV

Should be noted that Connors did not play the F O from 1974-1978--five prime years of his career.

I'm gonna go out of a limb and guess that in view of being banned by the Frenchies, they weren't exactly first on his Christmas list, no matter how big the tournament was-kinda like the Williams Sisters with Indian Wells-particularly when he was making money hand over fists with Riordan's rival tour.

[Antonio Puente]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Now that I know Blinkism is back I know I have to up my game. If buckethead returned I would have to banish myself. There is no competing with him.

You might have to dumb down your game a little if you aspire to be as effective as Buckethead. Take Bob, for example. Simple-mindedness and simplicity in the troll game are positive attributes.

[Clay lover]

How is Murray gonna beat the big 3 consistently with that forehand? It's improved, but it's still no killed forehand.

How is Murray gonna beat the big 3 with that terrible second serve, when arguably 2nd serve win pct is the most important stat in modern tennis?

How is murray gonna beat the big 3 with that naturally defensive approach, with only a few triggers being pulled occasionally?

I think some fans/people are trying too hard to comfort themselves by covering up Murray's lack of talent (compared to the big 3) with this "mental weakness" stuff.

He is good, but he is lacking in some areas of the game that significantly hinders his chance of winning big titles. People choose to conveniently ignore that, of course, and go on to suggest that "as a whole package" he is as good. I don't disagree, but the amount of talent you have, in my opinion, is determined by the weapons you possess that are more relevant as well.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Clay lover

How is Murray gonna beat the big 3 consistently with that forehand? It's improved, but it's still no killed forehand.

Er..he's 11-9 v Federer, just beat him in the semi of a Slam, recently beat Djokovic in the final of a Grand Slam and has beaten Nadal twice in Grand Slams. Try again!

Originally Posted by Clay lover

How is Murray gonna beat the big 3 with that terrible second serve, when arguably 2nd serve win pct is the most important stat in modern tennis?

See reply to point one.

Originally Posted by Clay lover

How is murray gonna beat the big 3 with that naturally defensive approach, with only a few triggers being pulled occasionally?

See reply to point one.

Originally Posted by Clay lover

I think some fans/people are trying too hard to comfort themselves by covering up Murray's lack of talent (compared to the big 3) with this "mental weakness" stuff.

What I think is that some people on here feel so threatened by Murray's success for some really bizarre reason that they just cannot accept that he is successful, can mix it with the best when he's playing his best and is so far above the rest of the pack that he needs binoculars to spot them all in the distance.

Originally Posted by Clay lover

He is good, but he is lacking in some areas of the game that significantly hinders his chance of winning big titles. People choose to conveniently ignore that, of course, and go on to suggest that "as a whole package" he is better. i don't disagree, but the amount of talent you have, in my opinion, is determined by the weapons you possess that are more relevant as well.

Love to focus on the negatives don't you? What is it about Murray that he constantly attacts these weird negative posts from so many people? Just last year he thrashed Federer to win Olympic gold, beat Djokovic to win his first Major, and is the first male player in the Open Era to reach the final of the next scheduled Slam after winning his first! Not to mention the number of times he has beaten the Big 3 in smaller ATP tournaments (2-0 v Federer, 2-1 v Nadal, 3-2 v Djokovic). But no, let's focus on the fact that he didn't win the very next Major after winning his first (which no other player has ever done by the way) and put it down to his lack of game, lack of talent, lack of mental strength, lack of good looks, lack of nice teeth, lack of smart clothes etc. etc. etc.

Blimey O'Riley! Give him and give us all a break for Pete's sake!!

[dafinch]

Somebody remind me, how many times did Rat Boy break the service of Nole? Oh, the same as a dead person, NONE? Not ONCE all match, from a guy known for his return of serve, and THIS is a marked improvement?

Unreal...

[Clay lover]

Originally Posted by Mainad

Er..he's 11-9 v Federer, just beat him in the semi of a Slam, recently beat Djokovic in the final of a Grand Slam and has beaten Nadal twice in Grand Slams. Try again!



See reply to point one.



See reply to point one.



What I think is that some people on here feel so threatened by Murray's success for some really bizarre reason that they just cannot accept that he is successful, can mix it with the best when he's playing his best and is so far above the rest of the pack that he needs binoculars to spot them all in the distance.



Love to focus on the negatives don't you? What is it about Murray that he constantly attacts these weird negative posts from so many people? Just last year he thrashed Federer to win Olympic gold, beat Djokovic to win his first Major, and is the first male player in the Open Era to reach the final of the next scheduled Slam after winning his first! Not to mention the number of times he has beaten the Big 3 in smaller ATP tournaments (2-0 v Federer, 2-1 v Nadal, 3-2 v Djokovic). But no, let's focus on the fact that he didn't win the very next Major after winning his first (which no other player has ever done by the way) and put it down to his lack of game, lack of talent, lack of mental strength, lack of good looks, lack of nice teeth, lack of smart clothes etc. etc. etc.

Blimey O'Riley! Give him and give us all a break for Pete's sake!!

Errr I am not hard on the guy. But this talent talk makes me sick. I am comparing seperate shots of the big four instead of matching them up in a match. Not to mention you only raised Federer as an example but not the other since murray cleearly has a losing h2h against them.

It's tennis, of course a match could go either way. But whether your skills and shots will CONSISTENTLY win you slams is another question. What I am saying is, Murray is lacking in the department of key shots that will lead him to consistent success as opposed to the big four, and it will remain that way. We cannot blame that all on mental strength.

I am breaking down the elements of his game and again you choose to conveniently ignore that and go on to talk about his match results and small tournament success. Do you admit, however, that he has those weaknesses in his game, and therefore deserve to lose even if he was mentally stronger? No, simply because, you are his fan. It's that simple.

[Relinquis]

He is mentally tough. He didn't choke away his chance in the 2nd set, even though he didn't seize the opportunity either.

The guy deserves to be mentioned in the same breathe as the other three because he can beat them and has separated himself from the rest of the top ten.