Adrian Mannarino sums up this current era vs the big lot

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRAJ1988
  • Start date Start date
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
Bags of talent, mentality lacking. Zero killer instinct, to put your opponent out especially if he's a "top 5" player. This is not a "weak era" in general, it's a mentally weak era.

Adrian should have beat Murray with the brand of tennis he was playing in the first two sets, we've seen it so many times over the past 5 years. Only Rosol and Seppi truly had the balls (Figuratively) to beat Nadal in 2012 (Was at a better level than now) and Federer (Renaissance of 2014-). With that said there must be credit given to the likes of Djokovic and Federer in particular, they will fight to the death, take Federer's run at Wimbledon in 2012, I'm sure he nearly went out to that French gent whom I can't remember his name.

The late 80s early 90s generation are not good enough mentally but are talented, let's hope the likes of Chung, Kokkinakis and even Kygrios bring it further. This is only an opinion doesn't make it fact.

Lastly I apologize for being an irritated loudmouth on the match thread towards our Feddites, dropping a 15kg dumbbell into ones "jewels" leaves a lasting impression on the day. :)
 
JRAJ1988 said:
Bags of talent, mentality lacking. Zero killer instinct, to put your opponent out especially if he's a "top 5" player. This is not a "weak era" in general, it's a mentally weak era.

Adrian should have beat Murray with the brand of tennis he was playing in the first two sets, we've seen it so many times over the past 5 years. Only Rosol and Seppi truly had the balls (Figuratively) to beat Nadal in 2012 (Was at a better level than now) and Federer (Renaissance of 2014-). With that said there must be credit given to the likes of Djokovic and Federer in particular, they will fight to the death, take Federer's run at Wimbledon in 2012, I'm sure he nearly went out to that French gent whom I can't remember his name.

The late 80s early 90s generation are not good enough mentally but are talented, let's hope the likes of Chung, Kokkinakis and even Kygrios bring it further. This is only an opinion doesn't make it fact.

Lastly I apologize for being an irritated loudmouth on the match thread towards our Feddites, dropping a 15kg dumbbell into ones "jewels" leaves a lasting impression on the day. :)
Click to expand...

So you're not going to give any credit to Andy for being a fighter too? o_O
 
Mainad said:
Maybe but he still hung in there when many others would have thrown in the towel at 2 sets down (and how many times has he come back from 2 sets down?) so why can't we credit him with being a fighter along with Djoko and Fed?
Click to expand...

Because he had no business losing the first 2 sets to a player like Mannarino. I watched some of the first 2 sets and Murray was God awful. The moment he broke at the beginning of the 3rd set I knew he had the match in his hands.
 
Utter nonsense! EVERY era has had players with 'bags of talent'. Talent is common, application, hard work and versatility is not. Anyone can win a match if they are on fire. The new players today are lazy, and lack the mental strength and fight needed to succeed, and lack the hard work to work on their weak parts.
 
tennis_pro said:
Because he had no business losing the first 2 sets to a player like Mannarino. I watched some of the first 2 sets and Murray was God awful. The moment he broke at the beginning of the 3rd set I knew he had the match in his hands.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He fought to get back into it. Pity Nishikori didn't have the same fighting spirit when he squandered 2 match points in his 5 set loss to Paire!
 
Mainad said:
Maybe but he still hung in there when many others would have thrown in the towel at 2 sets down (and how many times has he come back from 2 sets down?) so why can't we credit him with being a fighter along with Djoko and Fed?
Click to expand...
This match reminds me of Federer-Benneteau Wimbledon 2012. First two sets it was a bit worrying, but from there on, it never seemed like the favourite was in serious trouble. Being a "fighter" doesn't quite characterize how either of these matches played out. A 5-setter sure, but not with the drama one normally associates with it. It seemed to be more an exercise in patience.
 
Mainad said:
Exactly. He fought to get back into it. Pity Nishikori didn't have the same fighting spirit when he squandered 2 match points in his 5 set loss to Paire!
Click to expand...

No, you misunderstood. Murray just had to start playing his standard level to win. The only reason he was down 2 sets was because he played like total crap, Mannarino played well but he's not a player who should be having 2-0 leads in the Slams agains the likes of Murray.

Compare this comeback win against some of the comebacks he had against Gasquet at the FO and Wimbledon - now there he had to fight for it. Against Mannarino he didn't, just started playing his normal level and no surprises happened.
 
Mainad said:
Maybe but he still hung in there when many others would have thrown in the towel at 2 sets down (and how many times has he come back from 2 sets down?) so why can't we credit him with being a fighter along with Djoko and Fed?
Click to expand...

8 I think at this point, only Fed has more 0-2 comebacks (9 IIRC). Quite a competitor Andy.

Inanimate_object said:
This match reminds me of Federer-Benneteau Wimbledon 2012. First two sets it was a bit worrying, but from there on, it never seemed like the favourite was in serious trouble. Being a "fighter" doesn't quite characterize how either of these matches played out. A 5-setter sure, but not with the drama one normally associates with it. It seemed to be more an exercise in patience.
Click to expand...

Fed won the 4th set in a close tiebreak, he was definitely in trouble, he only cruised in the 5th. And yes, there are many ways to measure how much of a fighter a player is but I'd say the amount of times a player come back from 0-2 down is a solid gauge of that.
 
Inanimate_object said:
This match reminds me of Federer-Benneteau Wimbledon 2012. First two sets it was a bit worrying, but from there on, it never seemed like the favourite was in serious trouble. Being a "fighter" doesn't quite characterize how either of these matches played out. A 5-setter sure, but not with the drama one normally associates with it. It seemed to be more an exercise in patience.
Click to expand...

This! You guys always want to blame the loser for choking but in a lot of cases, such as this one, it's the better player coming back to win. Look at it the other way: if players, especially the top players like Murray, never ever came back from 2 sets down, wouldn't that mean that this era is full of weaklings who can't fight their way back? Most of the time when a player, any player, leads 2 sets to love they've got the match in the bag but the top players obviously aren't going to make it easy for you to put them away, especially in a Slam.

This match felt like one of those movies where you never get the feeling at any point that the hero is going to lose or die. Murray had that kind of calmness about him and the match was WON by him, not necessarily LOST by Mannarino.
 
zagor said:
Fed won the 4th set in a close tiebreak, he was definitely in trouble, he only cruised in the 5th. And yes, there are many ways to measure how much of a fighter a player is but I'd say the amount of times a player come back from 0-2 down is a solid gauge of that.
Click to expand...
It was 7-3 in the 4th set breaker. That's not exactly nail-biting, nerves of steel stuff, and neither was Marrino-Murray. Murray certainly is a fighter and he's proven it over the years, but not all 5 setters are created equal - not even close. You have Krickstein-Connors US '91, Becker-Lendl '88 Masters, Federer-Nadal '08 Wimbledon and Nadal-Djokovic '12 Australia. That's called a test of character. This is a exercise in patience and fitness - albeit a very long one, not the forging of champions.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
JRA got a point, Facebook/Twitter generation.



Watch the Robredo match in Valence of last year and get back to us.
Click to expand...

1414438543_extras_noticia_foton_7_0.jpg


Saved how many MPs? 6?
 
zagor said:
8 I think at this point, only Fed has more 0-2 comebacks (9 IIRC). Quite a competitor Andy.



Fed won the 4th set in a close tiebreak, he was definitely in trouble, he only cruised in the 5th. And yes, there are many ways to measure how much of a fighter a player is but I'd say the amount of times a player come back from 0-2 down is a solid gauge of that.
Click to expand...
What about when a player comes back from 2 sets down and loses in 5?
 
Inanimate_object said:
It was 7-3 in the 4th set breaker. That's not exactly nail-biting, nerves of steel stuff, and neither was Marrino-Murray. Murray certainly is a fighter and he's proven it over the years, but not all 5 setters are created equal - not even close. You have Krickstein-Connors US '91, Becker-Lendl '88 Masters, Federer-Nadal '08 Wimbledon and Nadal-Djokovic '12 Australia. That's called a test of character. This is a exercise in patience and fitness - albeit a very long one, not the forging of champions.
Click to expand...

8-6 and I disagree, weathering a storm against a zoning opponent and eking out a win after being 0-2 down (instead of getting blown out in straights) is a test of character.
 
Down_the_line said:
This! You guys always want to blame the loser for choking but in a lot of cases, such as this one, it's the better player coming back to win. Look at it the other way: if players, especially the top players like Murray, never ever came back from 2 sets down, wouldn't that mean that this era is full of weaklings who can't fight their way back? Most of the time when a player, any player, leads 2 sets to love they've got the match in the bag but the top players obviously aren't going to make it easy for you to put them away, especially in a Slam.

This match felt like one of those movies where you never get the feeling at any point that the hero is going to lose or die. Murray had that kind of calmness about him and the match was WON by him, not necessarily LOST by Mannarino.
Click to expand...
The million dollar question is why does Murray constantly lose sets to opponents to home he should not lose any? Is the back stiff? Where do these funks come from? Is this some elaborate mind game where Murray gets more of a work out in?
 
zagor said:
8-6 and I disagree, weathering a storm against a zoning opponent and eking out a win after being 0-2 down (instead of getting blown out in straights) is a test of character.
Click to expand...
I appear to have mixed up the breaker. In either case, Murray was not "eking out a win". He was playing normally and let Mannarino implode. It's not a fighting match. It's a clever patient match. Not every five-setter is an "epic" despite how liberally people like to use this term. Who would call Wawrinka-Djokovic AO '15 an epic? That was one of the worst five-setters in recent memory and certainly NOT a test of either's fighting spirits. The fighters in that match were the audience struggling to stay awake. 5 setters are way overrated in this regard. It may take a player 5 sets to figure out the other. It doesn't mean they went to war.
 
Inanimate_object said:
I appear to have mixed up the breaker.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Benneteau wasn't really far off from getting MPs there.

Inanimate_object said:
In either case, Murray was not "eking out a win". He was playing normally and let Mannarino implode. It's not a fighting match. It's a clever patient match. Not every five-setter is an "epic" despite how liberally people like to use this term. Who would call Wawrinka-Djokovic AO '15 an epic? That was one of the worst five-setters in recent memory and certainly NOT a test of either's fighting spirits. The fighters in that match were the audience struggling to stay awake. 5 setters are way overrated in this regard. It may take a player 5 sets to figure out the other. It doesn't mean they went to war.
Click to expand...

I was talking in general terms, I watched very little of Murray's match (a bit in the beginning), I was watching Hewitt-Tomic. Of course not every 5 set match is the same type of drawn out war (like 2009 Wimbledon final or Isner-Mahut Wimbledon match or whatever) regardless of whether you're coming back from 0-2 down or not.

However chances are, that if a player has a penchance for coming back from 0-2 sets down he's a pretty good fighter/competitor in addition to being pretty fit. It means that said player is hard to put away, even if you're up 2-0 you're still far from the finish line.

There's a reason people in that thread were expecting Murray to come back, because they knew he did it quite a few times. Another player they might have written off.
 
JRAJ1988 said:
Bags of talent, mentality lacking. Zero killer instinct, to put your opponent out especially if he's a "top 5" player. This is not a "weak era" in general, it's a mentally weak era.

Adrian should have beat Murray with the brand of tennis he was playing in the first two sets, we've seen it so many times over the past 5 years. Only Rosol and Seppi truly had the balls (Figuratively) to beat Nadal in 2012 (Was at a better level than now) and Federer (Renaissance of 2014-). With that said there must be credit given to the likes of Djokovic and Federer in particular, they will fight to the death, take Federer's run at Wimbledon in 2012, I'm sure he nearly went out to that French gent whom I can't remember his name.

The late 80s early 90s generation are not good enough mentally but are talented, let's hope the likes of Chung, Kokkinakis and even Kygrios bring it further. This is only an opinion doesn't make it fact.

Lastly I apologize for being an irritated loudmouth on the match thread towards our Feddites, dropping a 15kg dumbbell into ones "jewels" leaves a lasting impression on the day. :)
Click to expand...
This kind of turned into a Murray thread when the supposition is that many of the players are mentally weak today. The question was not about Murray, but the rest of the players on tour.

I don't really see it. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, and even Murray (now) are all very strong competitors who don't blink too often. I've never seen their equal except maybe Borg who, when the going got tough, retired. Very high level of focus and they've driven themselves to this due to the demands of competing against each other. (Wawrinka is getting there day in and day out and obviously super focused in his major wins.) In comparison, every one else is going to look weak.

I think the younger generation is watching this and learning. Chung was perfect today. Probably even better than Coric. Kokkinakis may get there. These players may not make it to the top, but they are mentally very strong. Even a head case like Rublev, seems to have tremendous focus.

The rest of the tour has been dominated by the big four, so perhaps they don't have the same level of confidence and finals experience. In the past, the lesser players would have been more mentally developed due to greater experience in these situations. Maybe, I do see the logic of your contention that outside of the top 5, this has been a mentally weak era.
 
Down_the_line said:
This! You guys always want to blame the loser for choking but in a lot of cases, such as this one, it's the better player coming back to win. Look at it the other way: if players, especially the top players like Murray, never ever came back from 2 sets down, wouldn't that mean that this era is full of weaklings who can't fight their way back? Most of the time when a player, any player, leads 2 sets to love they've got the match in the bag but the top players obviously aren't going to make it easy for you to put them away, especially in a Slam.

This match felt like one of those movies where you never get the feeling at any point that the hero is going to lose or die. Murray had that kind of calmness about him and the match was WON by him, not necessarily LOST by Mannarino.
Click to expand...
Yes, Murray reached a zone of calmness by streaming a river of audible F-bombs late in the second set. He was never in doubt about who would win, even then.:eek:
 
stringertom said:
Yes, Murray reached a zone of calmness by streaming a river of audible F-bombs late in the second set. He was never in doubt about who would win, even then.:eek:
Click to expand...
You've done it. Murray can only play well after going on a tirade of F-bombs. He just needs to start cursing like a sailor in the first game and he'll never lose!
 
tennis_pro said:
No, you misunderstood. Murray just had to start playing his standard level to win. The only reason he was down 2 sets was because he played like total crap, Mannarino played well but he's not a player who should be having 2-0 leads in the Slams agains the likes of Murray.

Compare this comeback win against some of the comebacks he had against Gasquet at the FO and Wimbledon - now there he had to fight for it. Against Mannarino he didn't, just started playing his normal level and no surprises happened.
Click to expand...


Maybe it's not always that easy to suddenly start playing your normal level? He seems to be repeating the pattern of his Cincinnati performance rather than that of Montreal!
 
Murray is The Fighter. Like many posted yesterday at 2-0 Mannarino: A classic Murray match, which he will win.
 
tennis_pro said:
No, you misunderstood. Murray just had to start playing his standard level to win. The only reason he was down 2 sets was because he played like total crap, Mannarino played well but he's not a player who should be having 2-0 leads in the Slams agains the likes of Murray.

Compare this comeback win against some of the comebacks he had against Gasquet at the FO and Wimbledon - now there he had to fight for it. Against Mannarino he didn't, just started playing his normal level and no surprises happened.
Click to expand...


You know all those matches when Roger came back from two sets down - you said EXACTLY the same things about Roger, right?
 
stringertom said:
Yes, Murray reached a zone of calmness by streaming a river of audible F-bombs late in the second set. He was never in doubt about who would win, even then.:eek:
Click to expand...
LOL yes... clearly audible, even on my TV. Bit strange he didn't get a warning for it.

The moment he grabbed the 3rd set, I knew who would come out the winner. :)
Great performance by Mannarino in the first two sets though.
 
It was evident when the first game of set 3 was played that Mannarino had checked out.

Murray had to be just physically present in court. There are other matches that are examples of his fighting spirit , not the least this one.
 
Meles said:
The million dollar question is why does Murray constantly lose sets to opponents to home he should not lose any? Is the back stiff? Where do these funks come from? Is this some elaborate mind game where Murray gets more of a work out in?
Click to expand...

Been watching Andy since 2005 and it's just a part of him. He's always done it. He has lost sets to some really low ranked players (John millman!). One of the commentators put it well last night: sometimes Murray needs to feel his back against the wall to give him something to push off.
 
Love Mannarino's game. I don't think it was a mental failure but a fitness failure as the match wore on.
Mannarino is a fairly unique player, IMO.
 
heninfan99 said:
Love Mannarino's game. I don't think it was a mental failure but a fitness failure as the match wore on.
Mannarino is a fairly unique player, IMO.
Click to expand...


this. Mannarino is humble youngster with some good talent. really like his game.
didn't even expect him to get a 2nd set. and he did. that's some good mental ability for starters.
also, really liked his behavior on court. seems like a smart guy.
too bad he's 27.
@stringertom - maybe think of a new thread name for him? ;)
 
Last edited:
Rozroz said:
this. Mannarino is a humble youngster with some good talent. really liked his game.
didn't even expect him to get a 2nd set. and he did. that's some good mental ability for starters.
also, really liked his behavior on court. seems like a smart guy.
@stringertom - maybe think of a new thread name for him? ;)
Click to expand...
He's already 27 so that's not a youngster but I like his game. Let him win a title (lost two finals to Vesely and Tomic this year) and "I Pray For Mannarino From Heaven" will be published.:D
 
oh 27?? i guess i'm not that sharp on age checking :(
poor Mannarino.
i guess a whole thread for a 27yrs guy is not as necessary!
 
batz said:
Been watching Andy since 2005 and it's just a part of him. He's always done it. He has lost sets to some really low ranked players (John millman!). One of the commentators put it well last night: sometimes Murray needs to feel his back against the wall to give him something to push off.
Click to expand...

That's fine when you're 24-25, not so good when you're 28 let alone beyond that. No matter how fit the player is, the age/mileage takes its toll and recovering from 5 setters gets harder and harder.

Would be nice to see a bit more focused and aggressive Murray in the future who doesn't let lower ranked players dictate and rely on his legs so much, we know he can hit big off both wings (yes even FH one) and finish at the net, he only needs mentality to do it.
 
I still do not understand how Murray lost two sets against Mannarino, but I saw coming from China a check out from the French to let the Scot wins... jeez
 
heninfan99 said:
Love Mannarino's game. I don't think it was a mental failure but a fitness failure as the match wore on.
Click to expand...
That's what I saw. Early in the 3rd he just ran out of energy.

But good on Murray not to panic and step on his neck once given the opening. But he does need to work on his slow starts - won't be as fortunate in the future.
 
Muzz can sometimes lose focus, and credit to Adrian for clearly playing a good first two sets.

I agree, shades of Benneteau 2012?
 
zagor said:
That's fine when you're 24-25, not so good when you're 28 let alone beyond that. No matter how fit the player is, the age/mileage takes its toll and recovering from 5 setters gets harder and harder.

Would be nice to see a bit more focused and aggressive Murray in the future who doesn't let lower ranked players dictate and rely on his legs so much, we know he can hit big off both wings (yes even FH one) and finish at the net, he only needs mentality to do it.
Click to expand...


I didn't say I liked it Zag but it is what it is. I'd love to see him do as you suggest but it ain't gonna happen. And it's not even about the coach - Millman is the lowest ranked guy he dropped a set to and that was under Lendl.
 
zagor said:
That's fine when you're 24-25, not so good when you're 28 let alone beyond that. No matter how fit the player is, the age/mileage takes its toll and recovering from 5 setters gets harder and harder.

Would be nice to see a bit more focused and aggressive Murray in the future who doesn't let lower ranked players dictate and rely on his legs so much, we know he can hit big off both wings (yes even FH one) and finish at the net, he only needs mentality to do it.
Click to expand...

I guess old habits die hard. Plus I feel he looks a bit drained and was the same in Cincinnati. I fear his long season may have caught up with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
The weak era - july 2012 to current .
2
Replies
67
Views
8K
abmk
abmk
Zardoz7/12
The Big 3 era is over.
Replies
19
Views
769
Rosstour
Rosstour
weakera
Nikolay Davydenko says the current ATP Generation aren’t as strong as in the ‘Big 3’ Era
Replies
46
Views
2K
Neptune
Neptune
RedClayFan
Eubanks shocks world to overcome legends of the strongest era in living memory
2
Replies
64
Views
3K
NedStark
N
Megafanoftennis100
Addressing the weak era argument (2019-2023)
Replies
41
Views
3K
DSH
DSH
Back
Top