Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/te...ent-Dubai-hit-volley-abuse.html#ixzz0gflVC7cp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/feb/25/barclays-andy-murray-dubai-open
I see Murray is managing to win friends and influence people.
Andy Murray's Dubai 'Experiment'
- Thread starter settolove
- Start date
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/te...ent-Dubai-hit-volley-abuse.html#ixzz0gflVC7cp
I see Murray is managing to win friends and influence people.
mtr1
Professional
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/te...ent-Dubai-hit-volley-abuse.html#ixzz0gflVC7cp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/feb/25/barclays-andy-murray-dubai-open
I see Murray is managing to win friends and influence people.
If he plays normally he's a pusher, if he tries to be more aggressive he isn't trying. Not matter what he does, he's always going to be criticised by some people. That is a shame.
tennisboygr
Rookie
I think it happens a lot when a top player loses in the second round of a tourament (ala, Federer against Murray in I think the 2006 Ciny tourney?), because they're tired. Although, I've never heard of a player admitting that they were purposely losing a match.
MichaelChang
Hall of Fame
He is just finding excuses for his loss. And partially true, he is not really take it as serious as a slam final. But still pretty mean to the ATP 500 tournament organizers.
All-rounder
Legend
Is there a reason why he chose to do this at dubai a 500 event instead of Marseille a 250 event?
A cynic would think that the appearance fee for Dubai is larger than Marseilles.
Vyse
Semi-Pro
There is nothing wrong with Murray trying new tactics and seeing if they work. He just said it in a stupid way that would make people think that he wasn't trying. Saying it was an 'experiment' is stupid. Him trying to be more agressive is probably not a bad idea since how will he ever know if it will be successful if he doesn't try it. Murray just needs to speak more intelligently.
djokovicgonzalez2010
G.O.A.T.
I said at end of AO "Murray is now tied with Djokovic for my favorite player. Though he'll probably lose it son." I was right. Welcome back, Nole. Btw...Hey people, I'm about to start Davis Cup thread(S) should i make one round 1 thread or one for every tie?
murray mania
It was!
Pity for Andy...he has done it again!
He can't help himself but he is damned if he tries to change, improvise and damned if he doesn't! Still think he should do what he wants. He could be the most unpopular man in the top 10 but he should just keep on grinding, imporovising and mixing it up...he will get there.
It was a great match, he should have shut up, told Tipsi he played a great match (he did!), taken the money and got out of town! Somebody else got a nice payday out of it.
But that's not Andy.
It was!
Pity for Andy...he has done it again!
He can't help himself but he is damned if he tries to change, improvise and damned if he doesn't! Still think he should do what he wants. He could be the most unpopular man in the top 10 but he should just keep on grinding, imporovising and mixing it up...he will get there.
It was a great match, he should have shut up, told Tipsi he played a great match (he did!), taken the money and got out of town! Somebody else got a nice payday out of it.
But that's not Andy.
I pretty much agree with this.
I'm not a big fan of Murray, but I'll give him props for trying to evolve as a player. And hell, you have to try new stuff in matches at SOME point...just be discrete about it and don't marginalize the opponents victory or the tournament when it doesn't work out.
RyanRF
Professional
The problem here is appearance fees.
"With a $383,000 (£250,000) first prize available, and appearance fees as big as $500,000"
How about appearance fees of around $50k and a first prize of $1.5m?
This way Andy Murray won't get paid half a million dollars to 'experiment'. If he or any other player ends up going out early, it won't be a big loss of an investment.
"With a $383,000 (£250,000) first prize available, and appearance fees as big as $500,000"
How about appearance fees of around $50k and a first prize of $1.5m?
This way Andy Murray won't get paid half a million dollars to 'experiment'. If he or any other player ends up going out early, it won't be a big loss of an investment.
Outbeyond
Legend
I think others here and in earlier threads on Murray hit the nail on the head: his growing prominence carries with it some leadership responsibilities that he doesn't quite yet recognize or seem willing to bear. He needs to be more careful about how he expresses himself, as his words carry more weight nowadays...he's a bigger star and there are higher expectations of bigger stars.
Murray seems to want to emulate Fed's scheduling, but he would also do well to take notes on how Fed deals with the press.
Murray seems to want to emulate Fed's scheduling, but he would also do well to take notes on how Fed deals with the press.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
When is he supposed to work on things? There is only so match you can simulate in practice. You have to do it in a match if you want to be able to execute it in a major.
And we all know this aggressive play is what he needs to win a major.
I give him credit for trying to evolve his style of play, although its unfortunate that he put it out there for the media.
Hmm, it sounds harsh but this is something that was talked about in the tanking thread. Did Murray want to win? Yes. Was he 100% focused *on winning* ? Not really.
Fed does it, not suprised to see other players do it too.
And we all know this aggressive play is what he needs to win a major.
I give him credit for trying to evolve his style of play, although its unfortunate that he put it out there for the media.
Hmm, it sounds harsh but this is something that was talked about in the tanking thread. Did Murray want to win? Yes. Was he 100% focused *on winning* ? Not really.
Fed does it, not suprised to see other players do it too.
jazzyfunkybluesy
Banned
Thats exactly what needs to be working on. He did it great against Nadal in the AO. Against Fed he wasn't aggressive and I think he mentally folded to some extent.
Feña14
G.O.A.T.
True, alot has also been made about how he puts alot into the smaller tournaments and has great records in them. It's been said that putting alot of emphasis on them could be one the reasons why he hasn't done as well as he would of liked in the best of 5 majors.
It looks like he's cutting the number of smaller tournaments down so he can go in hard to the Masters and majors, perfecting his game, trying new things out, making some tweaks etc.. in the "smaller" tournaments seems like a clever move at the moment.
TennisFan3
Talk Tennis Guru
Contrast Murray's crap with Novak's healthy attitude from one of his pressers
___________
Q. You're one of the guys at the very top of the game. Obviously, you view the slams as the one to win and then the Masters Series. Do you view tournaments like this as maybe a tournament to experiment and try a few things? Kind of not a public practice session, but just an experimental sort of thing?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: No, I wouldn't agree with that. I think that every tournament is important tournament. So that's the way I accepted every tournament in my professional career. Who knows what's going to happen tomorrow, so I play every matchtry to play 100%, and try to win every match I play.
I cannot calculate and I cannot experiment. Of course sometimes maybe you should prioritize some bigger events. But, look, you know, we are professionals, and we are here to perform as best as we can.
There is not just a lot of expectations from ourselves and our people that are surrounding us. It's just the tournament and people who come to watch you. You carry certain responsibility when you are Top 5, Top 10 in the world. You cannot just go out there and practice, you know. So that's my opinion.
_______________
I agree that the Djoker's game is not anywhere close to world #2 right now. But he's working hard, fighting his guts out. An important part of being a great player is to tough out matches when you're not at your best. Good stuff from Novak and nice comments!
___________
Q. You're one of the guys at the very top of the game. Obviously, you view the slams as the one to win and then the Masters Series. Do you view tournaments like this as maybe a tournament to experiment and try a few things? Kind of not a public practice session, but just an experimental sort of thing?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: No, I wouldn't agree with that. I think that every tournament is important tournament. So that's the way I accepted every tournament in my professional career. Who knows what's going to happen tomorrow, so I play every matchtry to play 100%, and try to win every match I play.
I cannot calculate and I cannot experiment. Of course sometimes maybe you should prioritize some bigger events. But, look, you know, we are professionals, and we are here to perform as best as we can.
There is not just a lot of expectations from ourselves and our people that are surrounding us. It's just the tournament and people who come to watch you. You carry certain responsibility when you are Top 5, Top 10 in the world. You cannot just go out there and practice, you know. So that's my opinion.
_______________
I agree that the Djoker's game is not anywhere close to world #2 right now. But he's working hard, fighting his guts out. An important part of being a great player is to tough out matches when you're not at your best. Good stuff from Novak and nice comments!
I understand his points and players definitely do this. I just can't imagine Sampras or someone like that actually ADMITTING this though. It's obvious Andy Murray can't accept defeat and has to tell everyone why he lost. He needs to mature and do his "experiments" without telling everyone what he's doing. He has to be able to practice new tactics without getting upset if he loses and justifying it.
That's that.
That's that.
Murray needs to be careful with his press conferences, he needs to be more diplomatic, he can learn that from Federer.
It is good to know that he is all about the slams now, however, he shouldn't say that out loud, it could cause some sort of reaction from tournament directors from these worthless tournaments that he enters just for practise purpose.
Hopefully he learns to improve his PR skills.
It is good to know that he is all about the slams now, however, he shouldn't say that out loud, it could cause some sort of reaction from tournament directors from these worthless tournaments that he enters just for practise purpose.
Hopefully he learns to improve his PR skills.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
the worst thing is that this lame muzzette's comment comes right after his suspect marseille withdrawal...
but well... the good thing is that he lost.
but well... the good thing is that he lost.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Don't think I've ever said that.
Murray should have been less honest and just said what people wanted to hear.
batz
G.O.A.T.
This is a pisstake right? The guy with the biggest record of quitting in he top 10 pontificating about 'always giving 100%'. Aye right Novak.
Tune in next week, where Maria Sharapova writes that women shouldn't scream and Serena opines on how other players should treat officials with respect.
No, no, no now batz. Can't go back on what you said before. You said that Masters are important because the make up a large portion of the points of a person's rankings. Thus you are implying the below :
ATP 500 series do indeed make up a significant portion of the points that go towards a ranking, and Andy Murray should have taken it seriously should he have not? At least a little more seriously than he did. Or maybe he's just a little ticked off that he lost to a player that is capable of upsetting most guys who are having a bad day.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Strawman argument Nam - MS offers 9000 points per annum to a player's ranking. 500s offer 1000/1500 pa.
Masters events and 500s are about as far apart as masters series and slams.
DownTheLine
Hall of Fame
He was most likely just making excuses for his loss.
If he was going for more winners or being more aggressive maybe he was just using it as a practice tournament. He finally found out that he has to go for a little more and put some more pace on the ball after getting hammered off the court at the AO.
If he was going for more winners or being more aggressive maybe he was just using it as a practice tournament. He finally found out that he has to go for a little more and put some more pace on the ball after getting hammered off the court at the AO.
Hahaha, I love it when you get so defensive. It's quite hilarious. I'm just giving you a good elbow nudge. We all know the real reason why Andy Murray lost, and it has nothing to do with "experimenting".
However, I do think you owe some Federer fans an apology. Federer obviously doesn't take Master Series tournaments quite as seriously as he does slams (especially at his age). Tanking early is quite a possibility now isn't it?
batz
G.O.A.T.
Ok - you enjoy your bit of fun mate.
Murray lost because the other guy was better than him on the day. That's all she wrote.
I am trying to figure out what it is I should apologise for.
Ok - you enjoy your bit of fun mate.
Murray lost because the other guy was better than him on the day. That's all she wrote.
I am trying to figure out what it is I should apologise for.
Federer fans were saying that Federer does not take Master Series tournaments so seriously (especially the out of place ones like Cincinnati, etc. especially now in his older years). Federer tanking in Cincinnati for instance is quite a real possibility now isn't it?
Both you and Clydey said that Federer indeed does takes them seriously, and agitated alot of Federer fans by saying so, when it's quite obvious Federer does pace himself and doesn't overexert himself in Master Series tournaments. I believe it was Clydey however who pressed the issue more than you, maybe my memory is shady.
I watched a few parts of the match and it appeared Murray was playing like he was at the AO, just not as well as he should have.
Last edited:
Tipsarevic is a good player, didn't he nearly beat Murray last year in the FO but choked?
LMAO Federer doesn't take MS titles seriously. Does anyone think that Tsonga would come from 1-5 down to win in a slam?
This is a video on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkx1AGphHZs
LMAO Federer doesn't take MS titles seriously. Does anyone think that Tsonga would come from 1-5 down to win in a slam?
This is a video on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkx1AGphHZs
batz
G.O.A.T.
OK - now I get it - but I still don't think I need to apologise for anything - what is it I'm supposed to have done; shared a different viewpoint to someone?
It is the opinion of some Fed fans that some of Fed's losses to Murray were becasue he tanked. It is my opinion that they are wrong.
If you genuinely think I should apologise for holding that opinion then you need to step away from the bong mate. It's a messageboard; where people share opinions.
OK - now I get it - but I still don't think I need to apologise for anything - what is it I'm supposed to have done; shared a different viewpoint to someone?
It is the opinion of some Fed fans that some of Fed's losses to Murray were becasue he tanked. It is my opinion that they are wrong.
If you genuinely think I should apologise for holding that opinion then you need to step away from the bong mate. It's a messageboard; where people share opinions.
No, we were talking about Federer's loss in 2004 where he lost in the 2nd round (or 1st) and Clydey insisted that Federer did not tank, or that 3rd set in Hamburg where Nadal cleary tanked the 3rd set (2007). It really had nothing to do with Murray at all, and more with the fact that players do in fact well not put 100% effort or tank matches simply because they don't want to be there anymore.
Clydey in particular (and you did indeed support him) called us all raving lunatics for thinking that players would actually not put their full effort into matches / tank matches.
Last edited:
Do you think Nadal tanked Hamburg 07?
It was very clear Nadal tanked the 3rd set after losing the 2nd set. No way on earth Federer (no matter how well he is playing) actually bagels Nadal on clay.
Nadal was going for shots he would never go for, stopped running after alot of balls, and definitely did not put his full effort into the match by the 3rd set.
Last edited:
Oh sorry i was only asking because i never saw the full match and highlights on youtube don't tell the whole story.
Now you say it, it does sound stupid that Federer can bagel Nadal on clay!
Well think of it this way.
Supposedly Nadal in 2009, who just played a 3+ hour marathon match with Djokovic the other day, almost completing a clay court title sweep that year (winning Monte Carlo, Rome, Barcelona), and still only lost 6-4, 6-4.
Yet some people will tell you that Federer simply bageled Nadal fair and square in 2007. It really makes no sense when you think about it.
Nadal knew that he wasn't going to win the match after the 2nd set, so he threw in the towel. Nadal did not tanked 07 Hamburg. If he did, he would planned to lose in 1st or 2nd round. He try his best but Roger was the better player. You don't set yourself to lose in the final if you don't want to be there.
Yeah that's true, Djokovic ran Nadal ragged in Rome and somehow actually made it tight against Federer. And let's not forget that the Madrid court helped Federer out quite a bit.
I suppose you could use the Verdasco match (Hard Courts are worse on joints too than clay) where he was like a dead-man and managed to beat Federer in 5 two days later.
Federer threw in the towel at AO09. FO 2008 Federer tanked straight away as he had no chance to win lol.
Why waste all your time and energy tanking in the final when you could have easily tank it in the 1st round? I think nadal wants to win the tourney real bad, and certainly doesn't want to lose his 81 consecutive wins on clay, especially in the final. Roger was a better player that day, and Nadal knew he wasn't going to win so he threw in the towel in the 3rd set. If it was someone else instead of Roger playing Rafa, he would have won, easily.
Fee
Legend
I like Murray, he's been one of my favorite players since he won San Jose a few years ago and I got to see in person what he can do on a tennis court.
I've always liked his droll, dry personality and wit (that might be redundant). He speaks plainly and truthfully, and that is going to get him into trouble. Now some say he should be diplomatic and say all the right things, but that's what Pete Sampras did and everyone criticzed him for being boring and insincere.
Consider this: what if Murray doesn't care? What if his singular goal is to be the best tennis player that he can be, with emphasis on the slams and Masters events, the events where players build their place in history? What if he truly has a thick skin and doesn't care if he's 'popular' or 'beloved', he's just happy enough with whatever fan base he has?
Yes, we as fans want Murray to be perfect, to say the right things, to be more diplomatic so that we can all feel good about following somebody who is so all around admirable like Federer or Nadal. Murray just isn't like that. He's not like Novak either - someone who seems to want to do and say the right thing, but just finds a way to put his foot in his mouth every so often, but he's learning as he gets older.
I kind of like Murray as he is, a bit rough around the edges. His roughness might not be 'good for tennis' and it might affect his ability to make money if he starts getting lower appearance fees because of his attitude, but if it doesn't affect his ability to win matches and big titles then I'm not going to be too concerned about it just yet.
I've always liked his droll, dry personality and wit (that might be redundant). He speaks plainly and truthfully, and that is going to get him into trouble. Now some say he should be diplomatic and say all the right things, but that's what Pete Sampras did and everyone criticzed him for being boring and insincere.
Consider this: what if Murray doesn't care? What if his singular goal is to be the best tennis player that he can be, with emphasis on the slams and Masters events, the events where players build their place in history? What if he truly has a thick skin and doesn't care if he's 'popular' or 'beloved', he's just happy enough with whatever fan base he has?
Yes, we as fans want Murray to be perfect, to say the right things, to be more diplomatic so that we can all feel good about following somebody who is so all around admirable like Federer or Nadal. Murray just isn't like that. He's not like Novak either - someone who seems to want to do and say the right thing, but just finds a way to put his foot in his mouth every so often, but he's learning as he gets older.
I kind of like Murray as he is, a bit rough around the edges. His roughness might not be 'good for tennis' and it might affect his ability to make money if he starts getting lower appearance fees because of his attitude, but if it doesn't affect his ability to win matches and big titles then I'm not going to be too concerned about it just yet.
Another intrepretation would be he broke down nadal. Nadal did win the first set pretty easily so something must of happened. If he were tanking he would of lost in straight sets like fed did
Similar threads
