Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Amelie Mauresmo, Jan 28, 2013.
Should be noted that Connors did not play the F O from 1974-1978--five prime years of his career.
Did John Leicester lose money on that final? That article smacks of 'shoulda woulda coulda'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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?
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.
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.
This is the reason I was so happy that Murray won the US Open. No one deserves that kind of pressure from an entire nation.
No he doesn't. The only time you mention Murray in the same sentence as the other three is when you refer to him as their punching bag.
Well, yes you are hard on the guy. Extremely hard and unfair to boot. There is nothing in Murray's game that is lacking to beat the other 3 big players as consistently as he wishes. In the AO final, he was more than holding his own against Djokovic, almost going 2 sets up. It was his fitness in the end that let him down and a bit of a suspect mental focus. Nothing in his game whatsoever.
Since Murray has consistently beaten the other 'big four' time and time again, your reasoning is nonsense. There is no shot in the book that he is incapable of hitting and hasn't hit many times. IMO his range of shots is even superior to Djokovic's and Nadal's though not so Federer. His problem in applying them consistently enough on the biggest stages is purely mental and tactical. He still has work to do there. But I can only repeat, there is nothing lacking in his game and his results aginst the others bears this out.
No, I treat him fairly, unlike you. I have been following his career for many years now (have you?) and I am fully satisfied that his game is all there and is even steadily improving. His problem has almost always been mental, with some fitness concerns too as we just witnessed in the AO final. If you were not so biased and so negative towards him, you would be able to see this for yourself.
You're back to being pathetic and unfunny again. People don't try to win the next slam they play after winning their first one? Really?
Well can you think of anyone who beats the big 3 more consistently than Murray? It's not a question of how he's gonna do it, he's been doing it since 2008 (he beat all of the big 3 in that year).
Of course you can analyze his game and find flaws but the results are there.
lets assume fed won semifinal against murray, the question is would he won the final against novak djokovic
Haha I like this analogy.
Djokovic is obviously George Harrison - a late bloomer overshadowed by two titans, who eventually became known as a legend in his own right.
But who is Lennon and who McCartney out of Federer and Nadal?
Again, I like the guy, and I respect him a lot. You are the one who is biased and negative against me. I am not even hard on him. I am merely pointing out some problems with his game that you choose to overlook because you love him. He is great, has a well-rounded game with good variety but to say he is on par with the top 3 talent-wise is ludicrous. Right now, he has one sixth of the slams Djokovic has, one eleventh of the slams Nadal has, one seventeenth of the slams Fed has. Yes, the problem is purely mental...
The problem is not in Murray, it is in defensive fans like you who will do anything to defend his non-existing greatness by twisting and bending my views towards him in the process.
I state for the nth time, I respect his game, he is a well rounded player and has more variety than both Nadal and Djokovic.
However, His forehand, his second serve and his defensive attitude will continue to hurt him in the future.
Beating the dead horse "good h2h against the big 3" argument in 3,2,1...
I dunno, his matches with Djokovic seem to come down to a few points here or there. During pretty much all four of Murray's last encounters with Djokovic, Djokovic was outplayed in the earlier set(s) of the match, and his fitness and/or mental toughness edged it out in the end. That suggests Murray is somewhat up there in talent.
I see it more as Djokovic switching up a gear towards the end. Did you see the third and fourth sets? He was like a BALL MACHINE out there. Also, failing to hold up components of your game later in the match should be seen at least partly as weaknesses in the components themselves, instead of in your stamina.
Let's say you create a 100forehand 100backhand and 1stamina player in a tennis game. If this player were to play in reality, would you consider him to have the best forehand and backhand in history?
It's not you, but this has been the attitude of some of the fan boys on this forum. He has not achieved as much, so let's blame it on some quality that "sounds" nicer not to have! Let's start with Mental strength! Or stamina! Or consistency! As if their technique has nothing to do with it. But my view is, if it deteriorates, it deteriorates. If it fluctuates, it fluctuates. It has as much to do with the shot itself as what is between the player's head.
When a player wins a slam for the first time, I imagine it's party time and the players tends to put his feet up a little bit. You have earned a little bit of rest. If there was a lot of prestige riding of winning your second slam, maybe there would be less of a let up. But there isn't.
Wow, every player I spoke to or listened to, who won a major have said it was the best feeling & they wanted to go out in the very next one & prove it wasn't a fluke...The prestige is in their head, not ours.
McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Rafter, Wilander, Lendl...just a few names but a whole lot of champions.
Some others like Stich, Cash...didn't get a second one, but I refuse to believe they weren't trying to get the prestige of another one.
I can't imagine it being any different for Andy Murray.
But I haven't had the chance to ask him.
Ivan Lendl was once 1-6 in Slam finals. Just saying.
This journo just sounds disappointed.
However I find the "feather incident" fascinating. If a feather threw him off what would happen if you moved forward like Chang and stood on the service line once in while?
Separate names with a comma.