Wilander: " Murray has zero chance"

Federafa · Jun 22, 2009

Read in the french newspaper "l'Equipe": " Roger will easily win Wimbledon, the only threat he may have to struggle against is Tsonga. On Centre Court, in five sets, Andy has zero chance. He's not aggressive enough, there is nothing he can do to bother Roger on grass."

Ok maybe Murray is a little bit overrated for the Wimbledon title this year but imo he's still a huge threat to any player, including Fedex.

zagor · Jun 22, 2009

Disagree with Mats.Murray can play agressive tennis on grass,has a big serve,good hands,great athlete etc. he certainly has a shot.I also think that Fed's days of winning "easily" are gone,he'll always drop more sets now in slams which is normal as he ages.

I would love to see Tsonga win Wimbledon but match-up wise Murray is much tougher for Fed to handle regardless of the surface.

malakas · Jun 22, 2009

Of course he is.I disagree with Wilander.Noone has zero chance.Even against Fed in Wimby on centre court.

And one other "journalist" said that Fed stands no chance against Murray.

Who hires these guys to get paid to write?

mandy01 · Jun 22, 2009

Its Mats Wilander again :lol:
Murray def.has a great chance...

TENNISSLAVE · Jun 22, 2009

Federafa said:
Read in the french newspaper "l'Equipe": " Roger will easily win Wimbledon, the only threat he may have to struggle against is Tsonga. On Centre Court, in five sets, Andy has zero chance. He's not aggressive enough, there is nothing he can do to bother Roger on grass."

Ok maybe Murray is a little bit overrated for the Wimbledon title this year but imo he's still a huge threat to any player, including Fedex.

IMO Mats is right .. unless Murray plays much much braver and aggressive and risks a lot more than he tends too he will not be able to win it.

jelle v · Jun 22, 2009

Murray played prety well at Queens. He impressed me quite a bit so I disagree with Mats on this one.

P_Agony · Jun 22, 2009

zagor said:
Disagree with Mats.Murray can play agressive tennis on grass,has a big serve,good hands,great athlete etc. he certainly has a shot.I also think that Fed's days of winning "easily" are gone,he'll always drop more sets now in slams which is normal as he ages.

I would love to see Tsonga win Wimbledon but match-up wise Murray is much tougher for Fed to handle regardless of the surface.

Can Murray play aggressive tennis for more than a set? I doubt it - it's just not in his nature. His serve would help him sure, and I disagree with Mats Fed will win easily, but Fed at least plays on grass like how grass is meant to be played - aggressive tennis.

joeri888 · Jun 22, 2009

Almost as dumb a comment as Simon Reed's. How does ANYONE stand no chance, EVER? Even Lu has a chance! These so-called experts don't have a clue. They're no better than TW-ers, making bold statements and saying they are 100% sure.
I like Mats on eurosport a lot, and he's a great tennis legend, but this is a dumb comment

mandy01 · Jun 22, 2009

P_Agony said:
Can Murray play aggressive tennis for more than a set? I doubt it - it's just not in his nature. His serve would help him sure, and I disagree with Mats Fed will win easily, but Fed at least plays on grass like how grass is meant to be played - aggressive tennis.

I agree that Murray is a backboarder but he has a lot of variety..that works in his favour.

TENNISSLAVE · Jun 22, 2009

Typical press stuff .. 'sports -experts '..They are probably well aware of the hype / emotions that these kinds of statements bring .

joeri888 · Jun 22, 2009

P_Agony said:
Can Murray play aggressive tennis for more than a set? I doubt it - it's just not in his nature. His serve would help him sure, and I disagree with Mats Fed will win easily, but Fed at least plays on grass like how grass is meant to be played - aggressive tennis.

Against Federer on any surface, you still stand a better chance playing passive defensive tennis with of course if you have the chance making agressive moves, than by going all out, hitting big and trying to out-hit him. Simon, Nadal and Murray on the one hand and Blake, Soderling, Del Potro, Gonzales etc. on the other hand are the living proof of that.

jelle v · Jun 22, 2009

joeri888 said:
Against Federer on any surface, you still stand a better chance playing passive defensive tennis with of course if you have the chance making agressive moves, than by going all out, hitting big and trying to out-hit him. Simon, Nadal and Murray on the one hand and Blake, Soderling, Del Potro, Gonzales etc. on the other hand are the living proof of that.

Sadly enough you are right.. add to that: Canas

Clydey2times · Jun 22, 2009

P_Agony said:
Can Murray play aggressive tennis for more than a set? I doubt it - it's just not in his nature. His serve would help him sure, and I disagree with Mats Fed will win easily, but Fed at least plays on grass like how grass is meant to be played - aggressive tennis.

Yes. See his match vs. Nadal at last year's US Open or his match with Wawrinka at the same event. There are plenty of examples. You do not hit 60 winners against Nadal if you're only aggressive for one set.

canuckfan · Jun 22, 2009

Murray has the firepower. Whether he can execute on grass is still a question mark for me. Yes, he won queens. But I still feel like murray loses critical traction on natural surfaces, and that small difference might be enough to prevent him from changing direction aggresively which is necessary for his favorite counterpuching style. He is not at his best when he is 100% attacking, although that part of his game is improving.

jaykay · Jun 22, 2009

i don't think much of wilander's comments. that said, i watched the queen's club final closely and i do believe that blake was able to expose murray's lack of aggression on grass.

a retriever-type game on hard courts has been effective against Federer (see murray, nadal, simon and canas),. but on grass, Roger's serve, slice, volleying skills and ability to pull the trigger aggressively and at will, give him a definitive edge over murray.

i don't endorse wilander's hyperbole. murray defly has a chance; he is a fantastic player and has the potential to be a future #1. but the court surface, Roger's game style and stats spk of greater probability of success for Roger.

jaykay · Jun 22, 2009

canuckfan said:
Murray has the firepower. Whether he can execute on grass is still a question mark for me. Yes, he won queens. But I still feel like murray loses critical traction on natural surfaces, and that small difference might be enough to prevent him from changing direction aggresively which is necessary for his favorite counterpuching style. He is not at his best when he is 100% attacking, although that part of his game is improving.

excellent point re: murray's court movement...

skip1969 · Jun 22, 2009

wilander has zero chance.

(and you can quote me on that)

sihatch19 · Jun 22, 2009

Murray=Quarters or better

pmerk34 · Jun 22, 2009

malakas said:
Of course he is.I disagree with Wilander.Noone has zero chance.Even against Fed in Wimby on centre court.

And one other "journalist" said that Fed stands no chance against Murray.

Who hires these guys to get paid to write?

They get paid to have an opinion. Nice work if you can get it.

PimpMyGame · Jun 22, 2009

I think Wilander either has huge stocks of shares or a sponsorship with at least 1 multinational gambling website. He really does spout some ****e.

malakas · Jun 22, 2009

pmerk34 said:
They get paid to have an opinion. Nice work if you can get it.

no.They get paid to have an educated opinion,with arguments and to analyse the game better and deeper than the average tennis fan.

But even that poor uneducated and ignorant average tennis fan will tell you,that expressions such as: "he has no chance " have no place in tennis.Especially if it is a slam final.

Frankauc · Jun 22, 2009

i agree whit Mats, there's no way Murray would win against Fed in a WB final. Fed has too much experience, game and mental to lose against him. It took 3 years to Rafa to win a 5 setter against Fed on grass......

coloskier · Jun 22, 2009

Doesn't matter what journalist said what. I highly doubt Murray will make it to the final. Too much pressure. Murray does not like pressure. If he gets behind, he rarely comes back.

egn · Jun 22, 2009

lets have both make it to the final first..

raven5288 · Jun 22, 2009

why does Wilander have to be a negative nancy all the time?

Guru · Jun 22, 2009

I wouldn't be suprised to see Wilander on the BBC talking Murray up.

Federer's favorite but Murray has a chance
so does Djokovic and Roddick.

nikdom · Jun 22, 2009

Wilander is an attention monger. McEnroe commentating and doling out his opinions on everything (Roger is the GOAT, Nadal is clay court GOAT etc) has got all these old fools coming out of their closets spewing their stupid opinions.

batz · Jun 22, 2009

coloskier said:
Doesn't matter what journalist said what. I highly doubt Murray will make it to the final. Too much pressure. Murray does not like pressure. If he gets behind, he rarely comes back.[/QUOTE

Apart from when he's playing Roger maybe? I know he's only come from behind to beat Roger on FOUR occasions, but it's just a thought.

Your posts and reality are rarely bedfellows are they mate.

zagor · Jun 22, 2009

Watch Wilander say Fed has no balls if he loses in a final against Murray

j/k

zagor · Jun 22, 2009

malakas said:
no.They get paid to have an educated opinion,with arguments and to analyse the game better and deeper than the average tennis fan.

But even that poor uneducated and ignorant average tennis fan will tell you,that expressions such as: "he has no chance " have no place in tennis.Especially if it is a slam final.

That's definitely true,phrases like that always get on my nerves.Each player has a chance,matches aren't won on paper but on court.I bet he would have said Soderling had zero chance of ever reaching a FO final beating Nadal in the process,actually most of us would and yet look what happened.

tudwell · Jun 22, 2009

I wouldn't say no chance...but I wouldn't be surprised to see Federer win this tourney without dropping a set.

nikdom · Jun 22, 2009

I'm no Murray fan, but Wilander takes the cake for his stupid predictions. I see it for what it is - generating controversy so the TV channels get more eyeballs and the tabloids get more attention.

mental midget · Jun 22, 2009

malakas said:
no.They get paid to have an educated opinion,with arguments and to analyse the game better and deeper than the average tennis fan.

But even that poor uneducated and ignorant average tennis fan will tell you,that expressions such as: "he has no chance " have no place in tennis.Especially if it is a slam final.

what i get from wilander is that he is a fan first, journalist second. he speaks in absolutes, he gets carried away, and imo that's fine, i'm not waiting on press clippings to help me formulate my opinion one way or the other. if you can battle through your righteous outrage, his tennis insight is usually pretty interesting.

i'd much rather sit courtside and watch a match with mats, than share the experience with whoever we're holding up as the ******* of objective sports journalism these days.

sureshs · Jun 22, 2009

Mats is just upset he cannot insult Federer any more about not winning the French. Mats time has come and gone and he should realize he is simply not important any more.

GameSampras · Jun 22, 2009

I wouldnt say Murray has NO CHANCE. But he has yet to prove to get it done at the slams. So I dunno... I give Murray a 50/50 chance. That is if he doesnt underperform and lose to players he should beat en route to the final.

Murray is still most effective at the USO, which is where I think his first slam will come from. if in fact, he does win a slam. He hasnt proven to be a championship calibor player thus far

coloskier · Jun 22, 2009

batz said:
coloskier said:

Doesn't matter what journalist said what. I highly doubt Murray will make it to the final. Too much pressure. Murray does not like pressure. If he gets behind, he rarely comes back.[/QUOTE

Apart from when he's playing Roger maybe? I know he's only come from behind to beat Roger on FOUR occasions, but it's just a thought.

Your posts and reality are rarely bedfellows are they mate.

Click to expand...

That is true when he plays Roger, but not true when he is playing everyone else. When is the last time he has come back on Gonzalez, DelPotro, Monaco? All of these matches were tied going into the 3rd set and he lost the match this year. So that is why i say he probably won't even make the finals, unless he gets a 2-0 set lead.

zagor · Jun 22, 2009

GameSampras said:
I wouldnt say Murray has NO CHANCE. But he has yet to prove to get it done at the slams. So I dunno... I give Murray a 50/50 chance. That is if he doesnt underperform and lose to players he should beat en route to the final

Hey look who's back! Even though we had some heated discussions,it's good to see you back.

galactico · Jun 22, 2009

wilander critises everyone, it's just a rule of life.

having said that i don't think you can predict these things, i thought he would have learnt that at the french open

tahiti · Jun 22, 2009

Murray definitely has a chance at doing well but he'll probably get pipped at the post.

Guru · Jun 22, 2009

The bookies say Murray has a big chance
Federer is favorite and for good reason
but Andy can win this title.

He won at Queens and his record against Federer is very good.

Clydey2times · Jun 22, 2009

coloskier said:
Doesn't matter what journalist said what. I highly doubt Murray will make it to the final. Too much pressure. Murray does not like pressure. If he gets behind, he rarely comes back.

How about those 4 times he's beaten Federer from a set down? How about beating Gasquet from sets down? Beating Melzer from 2 sets down?

Aabye · Jun 22, 2009

Thank you so much, Mats! Here I was doubting Murray's chances, and then you came along and bolstered them simply by telling us that he ain't got a snowball's chance. :lol:

batz · Jun 22, 2009

coloskier said:
batz said:

That is true when he plays Roger, but not true when he is playing everyone else. When is the last time he has come back on Gonzalez, DelPotro, Monaco? All of these matches were tied going into the 3rd set and he lost the match this year. So that is why i say he probably won't even make the finals, unless he gets a 2-0 set lead.

Click to expand...

The last time he came back to beat Monaco was in IW this year. The last time he came back to beat gonzo was USO 2006 and the last time he came back to beat Del Potro was Rome 2008.

I tell you what - you keep making the false allegations, I'll keep making you look daft.

tahiti · Jun 22, 2009

batz said:
coloskier said:

The last time he came back to beat Monaco was in IW this year. The last time he came back to beat gonzo was USO 2006 and the last time he came back to beat Del Potro was Rome 2008.

I tell you what - you keep making the false allegations, I'll keep making you look daft.[/quote]

This comment is not direct towards me, but it's comments like that make me lthink this forum is worthless. Such a negative, agressive stance you have. People who like to push other people down are normally the ones with the inferiority complexes. Says more about you than anything else.

Vamos Murray, prove your critics wrong :twisted:

Click to expand...

batz · Jun 22, 2009

tahiti said:
batz said:

coloskier said:

The last time he came back to beat Monaco was in IW this year. The last time he came back to beat gonzo was USO 2006 and the last time he came back to beat Del Potro was Rome 2008.

I tell you what - you keep making the false allegations, I'll keep making you look daft.[/quote]

This comment is not direct towards me, but it's comments like that make me lthink this forum is worthless. Such a negative, agressive stance you have. People who like to push other people down are normally the ones with the inferiority complexes. Says more about you than anything else.

Vamos Murray, prove your critics wrong :twisted:

Click to expand...

You're right. I should just've ignored the factually incorrect stuff he was posting or said 'look old chap, are you quite sure about that?' and left it at that shouldn't I.

The board would be a much better place if only I'd done that.

Click to expand...

Cesc Fabregas · Jun 22, 2009

GameSampras said:
I wouldnt say Murray has NO CHANCE. But he has yet to prove to get it done at the slams. So I dunno... I give Murray a 50/50 chance. That is if he doesnt underperform and lose to players he should beat en route to the final.

Murray is still most effective at the USO, which is where I think his first slam will come from. if in fact, he does win a slam. He hasnt proven to be a championship calibor player thus far

Hey welcome back.

BHud · Jun 22, 2009

Hey, if Hewitt won it then Murray certainly has a chance! What has Mats been smoking?

BigServer1 · Jun 22, 2009

GameSampras said:
I wouldnt say Murray has NO CHANCE. But he has yet to prove to get it done at the slams. So I dunno... I give Murray a 50/50 chance. That is if he doesnt underperform and lose to players he should beat en route to the final.

Murray is still most effective at the USO, which is where I think his first slam will come from. if in fact, he does win a slam. He hasnt proven to be a championship calibor player thus far

I agree 100%.

Welcome back.

CyBorg · Jun 22, 2009

What a Federer hater, this Mats.

I think if Murray plays up to his potential he'll win this.

illuminati · Jun 22, 2009

mats wilander is a little swedish ratface gimp. whoever gave that rat a job with a mic should be shot

Wilander: " Murray has zero chance"

New User

Bionic Poster

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Professional

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Banned

nikdom

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

nikdom

Guest

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Banned

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Professional

Banned

Hall of Fame

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Rookie

Similar threads