Murray's tennis IQ

Could you elaborate on how Murray achieves planting the idea in the heads of his opponents that they have superior games to him?

I'm also interested to hear, in your analysis, what specific things Murray does to his opponents to defeat them in this fashion.

Not taking digs, just curious as to what people think of his game.

To answer your question - it's actually quite simple and at genius level (remember that Einstein quote). It's what Andy has to offer and he offers a defensive game. Most players play attacking game (to many, attacking game is superior to defensive game), so when they face Murray, their only plan is to hit through him. All Andy has to do is to put out this great defense which he is extremely good at and this, in return, frustrates his opponents and they end up beating themselves.

Someone on this thread mentioned that Murray doesn't have the game to overpower his opponents. But that isn't quite true. Murray is 6'3" tall and healthy and fit as a fine horse. There's no reason for him not to be able to generate his own power. It all goes back to the mindset he has that I already explained in my previous post (mentally more advanced than others). Someone also talked about the anticipation - that Andy anticipates things well but it doesn't start on court. It begins the moment Andy becomes aware of his opponent and his game. If it's an attacking player, he'd anticipate all possible attacks and would put out a great defense for that. Part of his strategy is to absorb the power of his opponent and slow down the point or play on his (Andy's) term (the slices, the mid-court return etc.). He loves to play a tricky game rather than just plain attack to win the match. My guess is he finds the attacking game non-creative and unimaginative.

One example that comes to mind is the character of Captain Kirk (Star Trek). He's highly intelligent and evolved as a human being. I guess that's why he's chosen to be the Captain of the Starfleet. When his ship gets attacked, the first thing he does, he puts the shield out to defend the ship, himself and his crew. And then he makes communication with the attacker to find out the reason behind the attack. If he can negotiate then problem resolves itself - in other words, he wins the battle without attacking. That's a type of win too. He seldom attacks back, only when his back is against the wall and his ship is under immediate threat. Do you suppose Kirk can't attack back when his own ship is well equipped with various weapons too? He most certainly can but he won't as battle can be won other ways too and as a highly evolved being, he prefers the non-attacking way, case in point.

Even if one insists that Murray plays defensive because he doesn't have a powerful game, then you will have to go with example of the movie Predator where Dutch faces his enemy who is not only so much more powerful than him but he is also hidden. How do you defeat an enemy like that? Do you want to go on a mindless attacking with whatever you have or do you want to know the enemy more and develop your plan based on that (wasn't that a cat and mouse game)? It's not the survival of the fittest but the survival of the wisest. Yes - tennis is a game and the ultimate goal is to win the match but punching your opponent to the ground is not the only way to win it.

I should mention that, Murray is also a person of feeling; reasons why the Comms always say he's got a great feeling of the court, ball, touch etc. He's also very sensitive - reason why things like gong, feather, butterfly distracts him easily. These are all signs of a more evolved being.

Also, athletes aren't supposed to be highly intelligent anyway apart from a few like Murray. As they say, either you are a brilliant scholar or you are everything else. Maybe Murray would have been more successful if he was one track and more primitive minded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To answer your question - it's actually quite simple and at genius level (remember that Einstein quote). It's what Andy has to offer and he offers a defensive game. Most players play attacking game (to many, attacking game is superior to defensive game), so when they face Murray, their only plan is to hit through him. All Andy has to do is to put out this great defense which he is extremely good at and this, in return, frustrates his opponents and they end up beating themselves.

Someone on this thread mentioned that Murray doesn't have the game to overpower his opponents. But that isn't quite true. Murray is 6'3" tall and healthy and fit as a fine horse. There's no reason for him not to be able to generate his own power. It all goes back to the mindset he has that I already explained in my previous post (mentally more advanced than others). Someone also talked about the anticipation - that Andy anticipates things well but it doesn't start on court. It begins the moment Andy becomes aware of his opponent and his game. If it's an attacking player, he'd anticipate all possible attacks and would put out a great defense for that. Part of his strategy is to absorb the power of his opponent and slow down the point or play on his (Andy's) term (the slices, the mid-court return etc.) He loves to play a tricky game to win the match rather than just plain attack. My guess is he finds it non-creative and unimaginative.

One example that comes to mind is the character of Captain Kirk (Star Trek). He's highly intelligent and evolved as a human being. I guess that's why he's chosen to be the Captain of the Starfleet. When his ship gets attacked, the first thing he does, he puts the shield out to defend the ship, himself and his crew. And then he makes communication with the attacker to find out the reason behind the attack. If he can negotiate then problem resolves itself - in other words, he wins the battle without attacking. That's a type of win too. He seldom attacks back, only when his back is against the wall and his ship is under immediate threat. Do you suppose Kirk can't attack back when his own ship is well equipped with various weapons too? He most certainly can but he won't as battle can be won other ways too and as a highly evolved being, he prefers the non-attacking way, case in point.

Even if one insists that Murray plays defensive because he doesn't have a powerful game, then you will have to go with example of the movie Predator where Dutch faces his enemy who is not only so much more powerful than him but he is also hidden. How do you defeat an enemy like that? Do you want to go on a mindless attacking with whatever you have or do you want to know the enemy more and develop your plan based on that (wasn't that a cat and mouse game)? It's not the survival of the fittest but the survival of the wisest. Yes - tennis is a game and the ultimate goal is to win the match but punching your opponent to the ground is not the only way to win it.

I should mention that, Murray is also a person of feeling; reasons why the Comms always say he's got a great feeling of the court, ball, touch etc. He's also very sensitive - reason why things like gong, feather, butterfly distracts him easily. These are all signs of a more evolved being.

Also, athletes aren't supposed to be highly intelligent anyway apart from a few like Murray. As they say, either you are a brilliant scholar or you are everything else. Maybe Murray would have been more successful if he was one track and more primitive minded.
excellemt post
 
Why is the 2nd serve bad though. Why hasn't he used his genius level tennis IQ to fix his 2nd serve.

Now who said he has genius level IQ? Why must you exaggerate? He perhaps has more knowledge (inner knowing) about he game than most others.

Anyway, Andy plays his 2nd serve safe (that's part of his decision as well). He goes all out with this 1st and when that fails, he chooses to play safe with the 2nd. His thought process behind this is to make sure that he at least gets a chance at the shot rather than double faulting. He's not going to go all out on the 2nd as well as he probably finds it a dumb idea unless you are Sampras, who could take the risk as he was highly confident when it came to his serves.

But I think you've mentioned somewhere, on this thread I think, that Andy has all sorts of ideas and plans but they don't always connect to the body as planned. If Andy is distracted, he can't produce what he wants. In other words, mind/body aren't aligned to play that perfect game. He also confuses himself when he has a few options to play, say a shot, as timing becomes a factor and he ends up with the shot he'd otherwise would least go with. This happens quite a bit unfortunately. That's when he yells at his box, not to curse them, but to tell them how stupid or dumb he was. He's also not a happy camper when his mind/body isn't perfectly aligned. Reasons why he doesn't like to play in the morning because it takes him time to make that connection.
 
Never before has a discussion I've seen absolutely obliterated my tennis worldview like this.

The only words that come to mind to describe reading these poasts are "transcendent", "genius", and "come on!"

Me and my tennis IQ thank you.
 
Attacking game means having an assaulting mind and Andy's not that player/person. Even if you attack Murray physically, rather than attacking right back, he'd take a step back and assess the situation first and see what's required in order to deal with the situation better. Attacking is reactionary. It's primitive and resides with the reptilian side of brain. Evolved mind takes a step back and goes through a thought process because we've evolved a lot since those cave days. Sports haven't evolved as much because it's competitive and reactionary. Andy could attack more or think like you but at the end of day, he'd go back to his original self.

Well, I love that someone is finally talking about the reptile brain here. No, I mean it! Stand out post. But I have to disagree that attacking tennis is reactionary--actually by definition it's the opposite of reactionary--it's the proactive element that forces a reaction.
Smart attacking tennis--like Fed's or Rafa's or many others, is the result of a million calculations done in a nanosecond. It requires more choices than defensive tennis, and cannot be described accurately as coming from the more primitive, reptilian brain. Well maybe in Kyrgios' case ...
 
Yeah they all say that about Murray.
I think it's partly true, though i don't think his tennis IQ is off the charts, in terms of being that much ahead of the rest, or even as good as the other best thinkers on the court.
What I beleive they're referring to is his guile, his way of mixing up the shots, re spin and placement, to foil his opponent's strategies. Also his ability to problem solve (not always) on the court, find a weakness then exploit it.
But I would also say Rafa does this even better. They don't talk about his tennis IQ, because his groundies put more pressure on opponent's than Murray's.
So I think in a way this is a bit of a double-edged sword, this "compliment" about tennis IQ, because it's kind of obvious Murray doesn't have big weapons. So it must be his tennis IQ keeping him at the top (toppish about to topple). Murray's whole M.O. is just keep on getting the ball back and wait for the other guy to screw up. He has soaked more juice out of that lemon than any player I can think of.
Also, he is famed for having parsed his own game to the max. So he has probably put more thought into his game than anyone.
 
Gimelstob is the only commentator that I'll actually mute when watching matches. His commentating formula is basically "that is incredibly intelligent tennis, John. The sheer velocity and rotational spin on the ball coming off the racquet is simply confounding. (Any top 50) player has the best (oddly specific shot) in the men's game today. That's high tennis IQ."

He sometimes makes some good observations, but he tries way too hard to sound smart by bombarding his comments with big words that he doesn't quite know how to use.
Even worse: Trump supporter
 
However, he seems to have a blind spot when it comes to working out that he's being way too passive, and seems unable to snap out of it.
Pretty much.

Murray is always talked about for having a fantastic tennis IQ but in many ways this is reflected in his in-match efforts. His non-match tennis IQ can't be all that good - or have a serious blind spot at least - he has never fixed his second serve which is WTA bad often in big matches. He's also never committed to playing in a way which gets him through early round opponents faster so he often spends too much effort before he meets the top players in later rounds.

His on-court tennis IQ is forever making up for his years-long avoidance of doing much about the weak areas of his game. I give him tons of credit for what he's been able to achieve but reverting to safe, retriever mode or hitting lots of lobs is really only "high tennis IQ" insomuch as any number of other players does things to adjust to an opponent who might be playing great or has a kooky style.

Murray's pretty clueless loss to Zverev (snr) at the Aussie Open and then seeing how readily Federer handled him a few days later should be a counter example to Murray's legendary tennis IQ. Ditto vs Pospisil at Indian Wells, Coric in Madrid... woeful losses in which he looked pretty much clueless.
 
Gimelstob is the only commentator that I'll actually mute when watching matches. His commentating formula is basically "that is incredibly intelligent tennis, John. The sheer velocity and rotational spin on the ball coming off the racquet is simply confounding. (Any top 50) player has the best (oddly specific shot) in the men's game today. That's high tennis IQ."
Pretty much a perfect summing up on Gimelstob.

Every time I hear him I think he got any commentating jobs off the back of his involvement in the ATP, not for having any particularly interesting thoughts.
 
He lacks any real attacking weapons by comparison to the other Big Three - he doesn't have the overall attacking flair of Federer, the forehand of Nadal or the backhand of Djokovic. That he doesn't have those things and is still competing at the very top, almost always, is down to supreme fitness and a high tennis IQ. When was the last time any player won a slam without at least one weapon? Murray's been to 11 slam finals and won 3 of them, alongside two Olympic Golds.

IMO, if he has any one of those three weapons he'd be as dominant as the others too - but that's a hypothetical.
 
Now who said he has genius level IQ? Why must you exaggerate?

Because he's one of the best and smartest players in the world, therefore I imagine he makes the cut of being in a percentile that gives him some equivalent genius tennis IQ - especially given how he plays the game. Long story short, not an exaggeration.
 
.He reads his opponent's game first and adjusts his game accordingly.

Then why is he 3-7 in slam finals? Basically, he has to have a "high IQ" on court because he's not as naturally gifted as many other players. But if his tennis IQ was on Einstein proportions, he would have had greater success in big matches. I don't expect him to beat Fed at Wimbledon, but he clearly could have won the 2012 USO and the 2013/2015 AO's.
 
Then why is he 3-7 in slam finals? Basically, he has to have a "high IQ" on court because he's not as naturally gifted as many other players. But if his tennis IQ was on Einstein proportions, he would have had greater success in big matches. I don't expect him to beat Fed at Wimbledon, but he clearly could have won the 2012 USO and the 2013/2015 AO's.

Although, ironically, he has beaten him at Wimbledon,albeit in the 2012 Olympic final.
 
Basically, they mean he has a wide range of shots available to him, has good anticipation, can read his opponents well, and can come up with solutions if his opponent is playing particularly well, or is part of his game isn't firing. More specifically, he plans ahead during a rally. He doesn't just hit the ball hard and hope it is unreturnable, but instead he'll construct a point to box his opponents into a metaphorical corner. It's often said that he knows the shot his opponent will play before they do. Obviously, that latter quality depends a bit on the other players, but there are definitely times when you see him moving towards a shot before it's been played, and he gets it right more often than by chance.

Who knows. But Ashe was one of the most intelligent players, and I personally think his intelligence hurt him more than helped him.

That was often said of Murray too, and I think it was one of the things Lendl tried to address. He wanted Murray to simplify his game, so there were less choices available to him. The thinking being that it used up too much energy, and slowed things down too much. If you are thinking several shots ahead in a rally, then you might not notice that a loose shot from your opponent has presented a decent opportunity to go for an outright winner.

For what it's worth, I've heard both Nishikori and Roddick single out Murray for his Tennis IQ.

I've heard it from Rokkick a few times, and he especially refers to his encyclopaedic knowledge of the rest of the tour. When Murray has an on court, post-match interview, and is asked about his opponent, he'll very often trot out a list of their strengths, and what he's going to have to do to deal with it. Roddick reckons that no other player can do it like him. Granted, some other players may be capable, but keep it close to their chest, but it's not like Murray is showing off. He'd just rather talk about tennis tactics than whatever banal drivel is usually favoured in those interviews.
 
Gimelstob is the only commentator that I'll actually mute when watching matches. His commentating formula is basically "that is incredibly intelligent tennis, John. The sheer velocity and rotational spin on the ball coming off the racquet is simply confounding. (Any top 50) player has the best (oddly specific shot) in the men's game today. That's high tennis IQ."

He sometimes makes some good observations, but he tries way too hard to sound smart by bombarding his comments with big words that he doesn't quite know how to use.
completely agree, I probably for the same reason but I just am not a fan of Gimelstob anyone else but him on the mic. I lack the tennis IQ to figure out why I dislike him but I do know 'tennis good, Gimelstob bad'. And not RUN DMC's version 'bad meaning, good'
 
It's nice that you love him. Just try and respect him a little more. :cool:

Andy is so lucky that he's got you as his personal patrol to protect him on this here internet board. I wish all fans here were as dedicated and as diligent as you are about making sure people stay in line about their guy. I'm sure Andy appreciates it so much and is grateful that you so tirelessly defend his good name amongst these poasters.

What do you get out of telling someone who is making a lighthearted joke to "respect" someone who doesn't even care that you exist? I don't understand fans. You clearly love Murray so much that you've become to his self-appointed watchdog on this forum. Which makes me wonder: at the end of the day, when you're lying alone in your bed, do you say to yourself, "you know, had I not taken on the arduous task of upholding Andy Murray's reputation on the TW boards and making sure that no one even takes one playful dig at him, I just don't think I would be going to bed happy with myself tonight" before wrapping yourself up in a Scottish flag and snuggling up tight with an ASO ankle brace?
 
Why hasn't Stephen Hawking used his genius IQ to combat his physical deficiencies? Perhaps because they're unrelated propositions?

I think that's a laughable comparison. Murray could choose to put more on his second serve and if he stuck at it then he'd be confident of making a higher quality serves without double faulting or whatever. He chooses to play conservatively with that part of his game and for the most part is locked into that mentality. Hawking cannot choose to fix his physical deficiencies.
 
Andy is so lucky that he's got you as his personal patrol to protect him on this here internet board. I wish all fans here were as dedicated and as diligent as you are about making sure people stay in line about their guy. I'm sure Andy appreciates it so much and is grateful that you so tirelessly defend his good name amongst these poasters.

What do you get out of telling someone who is making a lighthearted joke to "respect" someone who doesn't even care that you exist? I don't understand fans. You clearly love Murray so much that you've become to his self-appointed watchdog on this forum. Which makes me wonder: at the end of the day, when you're lying alone in your bed, do you say to yourself, "you know, had I not taken on the arduous task of upholding Andy Murray's reputation on the TW boards and making sure that no one even takes one playful dig at him, I just don't think I would be going to bed happy with myself tonight" before wrapping yourself up in a Scottish flag and snuggling up tight with an ASO ankle brace?

Gosh, you know me SO well! But can it REALLY be TRUE? Andy doesn't know I exist??? You mean I'm not even a figment of his imagination??? :eek::eek::eek:

Seriously, as you may be able to detect from the above, I enjoy a joke as much as anyone on here...even at Andy's expense providing it's a good one. But the poster I was replying to did not start off joking about him. He was being quite serious. It was only when I put him right about some of his dubious assertions that he turned round and started to claim he had only been joking in order to kind of turn it all back on me! It's a familiar tactic of people who have lost their argument.

So lighten up pal. If I want to challenge what I think are unsubstantiated observations about my guy, that's my business and nobody else's. Ummmmkkkayyy?? :cool:;)
 
Then why is he 3-7 in slam finals? Basically, he has to have a "high IQ" on court because he's not as naturally gifted as many other players. But if his tennis IQ was on Einstein proportions, he would have had greater success in big matches. I don't expect him to beat Fed at Wimbledon, but he clearly could have won the 2012 USO and the 2013/2015 AO's.

Having higher IQ and materializing it to the same level isn't always achievable for many different reasons. Einstein himself fell short a few times. He was average in his Physics class and he'd let his wife do all the maths for him. It's just that he had a different way of thinking which wasn't the way of many others. We are unique individuals being after all and we have different ways of manifesting our realities. Andy is also quite modest. I think you need a bit arrogance and single minded to go with that kind of IQ in order to be a bit more successful.

I am like Andy in some regards or even Sampras (that's why it's easy for me to understand them). I don't like attention. My biggest fear is getting famous so I avoid anything that has any element to it. I give a lot of credit to Andy for being in the limelight 24 hours, for being one of the centre attention whole of UK and dealing with that kind of pressure week in week out. I wouldn't be able to do it even if my life dependent on it. But when you are like that, it also compromises your abilities, your talent in many ways.
 
I think that's a laughable comparison. Murray could choose to put more on his second serve and if he stuck at it then he'd be confident of making a higher quality serves without double faulting or whatever. He chooses to play conservatively with that part of his game and for the most part is locked into that mentality. Hawking cannot choose to fix his physical deficiencies.

You are not thinking about this very clearly - or in other words, you are letting you biased interpretation getting in the way of a true discussion. Your answers are one dimensional for example.

The serves are the start of a point therefore, it doesn't leave for much imagination or to be extremely creative. The ideas or tactics (in tennis world) follow when you actually get engaged in the point. The serves set the tone but actual play comes after. If I hit an ace, it doesn't leave much room for the opponent to do but to see the ball pass by. Sampras' serves were beautiful to watch but he was most creative at the net.

Andy's 2nd serve is conservative, yes but that's also part of his mentality where he is choosing not to go all out because he sees it as a dumb play. If you say his game is conservative because his 2nd serve is conservative then there's not much to add to that because it's your interpretation not mine. I just thought it was a pretty plain explanation to an otherwise complex game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having higher IQ and materializing it to the same level isn't always achievable for many different reasons. Einstein himself fell short a few times. He was average in his Physics class and he'd let his wife do all the maths for him. It's just that he had a different way of thinking which wasn't the way of many others. We are unique individuals being after all and we have different ways of manifesting our realities. Andy is also quite modest. I think you need a bit arrogance and single minded to go with that kind of IQ in order to be a bit more successful.

I am like Andy in some regards or even Sampras (that's why it's easy for me to understand them). I don't like attention. My biggest fear is getting famous so I avoid anything that has any element to it. I give a lot of credit to Andy for being in the limelight 24 hours, for being one of the centre attention whole of UK and dealing with that kind of pressure week in week out. I wouldn't be able to do it even if my life dependent on it. But when you are like that, it also compromises your abilities, your talent in many ways.

giphy.gif
 
Andy is so lucky that he's got you as his personal patrol to protect him on this here internet board. I wish all fans here were as dedicated and as diligent as you are about making sure people stay in line about their guy. I'm sure Andy appreciates it so much and is grateful that you so tirelessly defend his good name amongst these poasters.

What do you get out of telling someone who is making a lighthearted joke to "respect" someone who doesn't even care that you exist? I don't understand fans. You clearly love Murray so much that you've become to his self-appointed watchdog on this forum. Which makes me wonder: at the end of the day, when you're lying alone in your bed, do you say to yourself, "you know, had I not taken on the arduous task of upholding Andy Murray's reputation on the TW boards and making sure that no one even takes one playful dig at him, I just don't think I would be going to bed happy with myself tonight" before wrapping yourself up in a Scottish flag and snuggling up tight with an ASO ankle brace?

There's nothing wrong with being passionate about your player, innit. I mean there are some Federer fans who act as if they won 19 slams and yet some of us tolerate their obnoxious behavior on a regular basis. Are you keen on calling on that or are you particular about Mainad only?
 
There's nothing wrong with being passionate about your player, innit. I mean there are some Federer fans who act as if they won 19 slams and yet some of us tolerate their obnoxious behavior on a regular basis. Are you keen on calling on that or are you particular about Mainad only?

There's a difference between being passionate and being condescending to other posters who make clear and obvious jokes. This is the first time I've ever addressed Mainad--but by doing so, I'm not asserting that other fans aren't just as rabid or deplorable, am I? I made my post because this is a thread I started and therefore has interest to me as opposed to all the other threads here that I make the choice to not participate in.
 
There's a difference between being passionate and being condescending to other posters who make clear and obvious jokes. This is the first time I've ever addressed Mainad--but by doing so, I'm not asserting that other fans aren't just as rabid or deplorable, am I? I made my post because this is a thread I started and therefore has interest to me as opposed to all the other threads here that I make the choice to not participate in.

But here's the problem, really. And actually goes to the discussion of having an IQ. Instead of going to the extent you went to call out Mainad, you could have simply chosen to either let it go or you could have said to him that this was just a joke. He may have rubbed you the wrong way without realizing it, but you had the choice to not take it too personally.
 
Gosh, you know me SO well! But can it REALLY be TRUE? Andy doesn't know I exist??? You mean I'm not even a figment of his imagination??? :eek::eek::eek:

Seriously, as you may be able to detect from the above, I enjoy a joke as much as anyone on here...even at Andy's expense providing it's a good one. But the poster I was replying to did not start off joking about him. He was being quite serious. It was only when I put him right about some of his dubious assertions that he turned round and started to claim he had only been joking in order to kind of turn it all back on me! It's a familiar tactic of people who have lost their argument.

This has nothing to do with me knowing you. I never made any claim to. I did say that a celebrity tennis player doesn't care about someone defending him against "unsubstantiated claims" on a message board.

Does your head ever hurt from all the cognitive dissonance you experience? The "tactic" you referred to is exactly what you're doing in your reply. The exact same "tactic" (as if that poster was planning a "tactical" takedown of Andy. Please!) That poster was obviously making a joke but for whatever reason, you felt a need to get butthurt about it and "correct" that behavior, then backtrack saying you can "enjoy a joke."

You can't.

Your rabid love of Andy prevents you from knowing an obvious joke isn't a malicious one. If you think you're doing Andy any kind of service, you're delusional.

You cannot honestly tell me that you are making a difference in his life by being so uptight about him on this message board.

The same goes for all obsessive fans on this board, regardless of who their #1 is (which is something I'm obligated to say so I don't seem like I'm flaming Andy. It doesn't matter if it's Fed, or Rafa, or Nole, blah blah blah, have I covered myself enough yet?).

Your "business" becomes the business of this community the moment you go all watchdog on other posters. There's a difference between having constructive discussions about tennis players, their styles, matchups, rivalries, etc. and playing mommy because you simply cannot bear the thought of anyone saying anything about Andy that you don't agree with.
 
But here's the problem, really. And actually goes to the discussion of having an IQ. Instead of going to the extent you went to call out Mainad, you could have simply chosen to either let it go or you could have said to him that this was just a joke. He may have rubbed you the wrong way without realizing it, but you had the choice to not take it too personally.

Mainad was told it was a joke and denied that.

Could I have let it go? Absolutely. Did I not? No, I didn't, because it's not right to me--not because it affects me, but because it's ludicrous that someone can take a joke in a thread that was otherwise tension-free.

Could Mainad have made the same choice? Of course. Did they? No. That standard should be applied to them as well.

You have the chance to demonstrate your high IQ and your belief in your own words as well by "letting it go". If this is truly reflective of having a substantial IQ, then you'll heed your own advice and do so.
 
But I am not troubled by it. I am simply making you see your choices and Mainad's standing in terms of a fan. Most of the times, I am just an observer. Because there's a lot on this forum that one can choose to flip over 24 hours.

As to Mainad - I've seen him here long enough to know that he'd never intentionally attack anyone or twist anyone's word just for the heck of it. If anything, he probably made an honest mistake here. Giving the benefit of the doubt is truly beneficial anyway you look at it but I think you are losing your sweet temper here.

Mainad was told it was a joke and denied that.

Could I have let it go? Absolutely. Did I not? No, I didn't, because it's not right to me--not because it affects me, but because it's ludicrous that someone can take a joke in a thread that was otherwise tension-free.

Could Mainad have made the same choice? Of course. Did they? No. That standard should be applied to them as well.

You have the chance to demonstrate your high IQ and your belief in your own words as well by "letting it go". If this is truly reflective of having a substantial IQ, then you'll heed your own advice and do so.[/QUOTE]
 
You are not thinking about this very clearly - or in other words, you are letting you biased interpretation getting in the way of a true discussion. Your answers are one dimensional for example.

The serves are the start of a point therefore, it doesn't leave for much imagination or to be extremely creative. The ideas or tactics (in tennis world) follow when you actually get engaged in the point. The serves set the tone but actual play comes after. If I hit an ace, it doesn't leave much room for the opponent to do but to see the ball pass by. Sampras' serves were beautiful to watch but he was most creative at the net.

Andy's 2nd serve is conservative, yes but that's also part of his mentality where he is choosing not to go all out because he sees it as a dumb play. If you say his game is conservative because his 2nd serve is conservative then there's not much to add to that because it's your interpretation not mine. I just thought it was a pretty plain explanation to an otherwise complex game.

Another thing I wanted to add which I forgot in the first place actually, you can't intellectualize serves - that one aspect of the game. Either you've got it or you don't. In other words, it's an innate ability. That's why players like Karlovic, Isner can serve bombs without giving it much thought. But when it comes to the actual game, they fall short because they are unable to come up with a game plan other than their default game or use different tactics.
 
Yeah they all say that about Murray.
I think it's partly true, though i don't think his tennis IQ is off the charts, in terms of being that much ahead of the rest, or even as good as the other best thinkers on the court.
What I beleive they're referring to is his guile, his way of mixing up the shots, re spin and placement, to foil his opponent's strategies. Also his ability to problem solve (not always) on the court, find a weakness then exploit it.
But I would also say Rafa does this even better. They don't talk about his tennis IQ, because his groundies put more pressure on opponent's than Murray's.
So I think in a way this is a bit of a double-edged sword, this "compliment" about tennis IQ, because it's kind of obvious Murray doesn't have big weapons. So it must be his tennis IQ keeping him at the top (toppish about to topple). Murray's whole M.O. is just keep on getting the ball back and wait for the other guy to screw up. He has soaked more juice out of that lemon than any player I can think of.
Also, he is famed for having parsed his own game to the max. So he has probably put more thought into his game than anyone.

Nadal's whole game is based on his forehand. There's not much going on other than that.
 
Well, I love that someone is finally talking about the reptile brain here. No, I mean it! Stand out post. But I have to disagree that attacking tennis is reactionary--actually by definition it's the opposite of reactionary--it's the proactive element that forces a reaction.
Smart attacking tennis--like Fed's or Rafa's or many others, is the result of a million calculations done in a nanosecond. It requires more choices than defensive tennis, and cannot be described accurately as coming from the more primitive, reptilian brain. Well maybe in Kyrgios' case ...

The word reactionary has a political connotation to it so I want to stay away from it. What I mean is the difference between reacting and responding. Andy responds while other reacts.

Most players play repetitive game until and unless they play an opponent they have never played before (otherwise they heavily rely on their default game). That's when they use their brain to some extent but it's not much. I am always curious to see how Andy's going to play someone he's never played before. For example, his first round player at Wimbledon who simply went for it and beat himself as a result. He could have simply taken his time, relax and come up with a plan rather than just bashing balls mindlessly. I mean surely he was familiar with Andy's game given that he's one of the top players? One can learn a lot just by observing.
 
This has nothing to do with me knowing you. I never made any claim to. I did say that a celebrity tennis player doesn't care about someone defending him against "unsubstantiated claims" on a message board.

Does your head ever hurt from all the cognitive dissonance you experience? The "tactic" you referred to is exactly what you're doing in your reply. The exact same "tactic" (as if that poster was planning a "tactical" takedown of Andy. Please!) That poster was obviously making a joke but for whatever reason, you felt a need to get butthurt about it and "correct" that behavior, then backtrack saying you can "enjoy a joke."

You can't.

Your rabid love of Andy prevents you from knowing an obvious joke isn't a malicious one. If you think you're doing Andy any kind of service, you're delusional.

You cannot honestly tell me that you are making a difference in his life by being so uptight about him on this message board.

The same goes for all obsessive fans on this board, regardless of who their #1 is (which is something I'm obligated to say so I don't seem like I'm flaming Andy. It doesn't matter if it's Fed, or Rafa, or Nole, blah blah blah, have I covered myself enough yet?).

Your "business" becomes the business of this community the moment you go all watchdog on other posters. There's a difference between having constructive discussions about tennis players, their styles, matchups, rivalries, etc. and playing mommy because you simply cannot bear the thought of anyone saying anything about Andy that you don't agree with.

Oh dear...what's brought this on? Why are you getting involved in a conversation between myself and another poster that had resolved itself quite amicably without you getting involved? Step back and get over yourself and stop interfering in matters and things you plainly haven't got a clue about. If you had followed me at all on this board you would know perfectly well I am nothing like what you fondly imagine me to be like. But maybe you're not interested in doing any of that and are solely interested in attacking me for some reason possibly because you can't stand people who say favourable things about the player I happen to support or you don't like to hear people defending him. I don't really know and I don't really care one way or the other. You and I clearly have nothing meaningful to say to one another and if you resent my postings so much then please feel free to put me on Ignore. I couldn't care less one way or another.

In the meantime, this conversation stops right now as far as I'm concerned. End of.
 
But I am not troubled by it. I am simply making you see your choices and Mainad's standing in terms of a fan. Most of the times, I am just an observer. Because there's a lot on this forum that one can choose to flip over 24 hours.

As to Mainad - I've seen him here long enough to know that he'd never intentionally attack anyone or twist anyone's word just for the heck of it. If anything, he probably made an honest mistake here. Giving the benefit of the doubt is truly beneficial anyway you look at it but I think you are losing your sweet temper here.

Zara, I doubt I made an honest mistake. The original references to Murray made by donquijote in another thread entirely were quite serious ones and ones that I challenged quite firmly. Instead of continuing to make his case or acknowledging my point, he then claimed to be making jokes about him to which I replied, or thought I did, in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek way to match his tone. I considered that conversation with donquijote had concluded reasonably amicably and then along comes TheOne Hander who saw fit to butt in, ignore the content of the original conversation entirely, and just start attacking me personally. Quite extraordinary but I've had experience of that happening before and the posters in question usually have some sort of agenda. I suspect this particular one does too. Don't worry about it or him because I certainly won't.
 
I think that's a laughable comparison. Murray could choose to put more on his second serve and if he stuck at it then he'd be confident of making a higher quality serves without double faulting or whatever. He chooses to play conservatively with that part of his game and for the most part is locked into that mentality. Hawking cannot choose to fix his physical deficiencies.

That's obviously not what the problem is though, which is the point I'm making. He's an elite tennis player an an ATG - you think any of us watching him play could tell him something about his second serve either he or Lendl (another ATG) can't? And, if that's the case, the issue is obviously a physical or technical deficiency in his game which he uses his high IQ to overcome after the weak serve.
 
Oh dear...what's brought this on? Why are you getting involved in a conversation between myself and another poster that had resolved itself quite amicably without you getting involved? Step back and get over yourself and stop interfering in matters and things you plainly haven't got a clue about. If you had followed me at all on this board you would know perfectly well I am nothing like what you fondly imagine me to be like. But maybe you're not interested in doing any of that and are solely interested in attacking me for some reason possibly because you can't stand people who say favourable things about the player I happen to support or you don't like to hear people defending him. I don't really know and I don't really care one way or the other. You and I clearly have nothing meaningful to say to one another and if you resent my postings so much then please feel free to put me on Ignore. I couldn't care less one way or another.

In the meantime, this conversation stops right now as far as I'm concerned. End of.

Where are you getting the idea that I don't like Murray from? I started a thread where the point was to learn more about him and have said nothing to disparage him!

I don't follow you on these boards because I...don't follow strangers on Internet forums? I'm not going to research your post history between you and DQ to find that kind of stuff. That's absurd. And for suggesting such a thing, you obviously didn't take any of my other posts into consideration, which would demonstrate that I have no "agenda". That is a conflict that you are imagining to justify why I would find your actions questionable and to acquit yourself of any ridiculous tendencies.

If you're so high and mighty and convinced from this one interaction that we clearly have nothing to say to each other, why bother responding at all?

Zara, I doubt I made an honest mistake. The original references to Murray made by donquijote in another thread entirely were quite serious ones and ones that I challenged quite firmly. Instead of continuing to make his case or acknowledging my point, he then claimed to be making jokes about him to which I replied, or thought I did, in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek way to match his tone. I considered that conversation with donquijote had concluded reasonably amicably and then along comes TheOne Hander who saw fit to butt in, ignore the content of the original conversation entirely, and just start attacking me personally. Quite extraordinary but I've had experience of that happening before and the posters in question usually have some sort of agenda. I suspect this particular one does too. Don't worry about it or him because I certainly won't.

Hop off your high horse, princess. If you're so unbothered, you wouldn't have replied.

You've made more and more ridiculous claims to fit your deluded narrative. Like I said--if this all makes you sleep better at night, good for you! But don't act so big and tough if you're going to keep engaging.

A response from you will only go to prove my point. Learn how to not escalate conflicts and let things go.
 
Nadal's whole game is based on his forehand. There's not much going on other than that.
Nonsense. Rafa's Bh is now a big weapon, and last time I looked he was #7 in service stats (ATP leaderboards.) He's soon going to overtake Andy, if Fed doesn't do it first, in his placeholder spot at #1, and has been #1 in the Race to London for most of the year.
Just a cheap dig, you showed your cards, thanks you. There's no comparison between Andy and Rafa, 17-7 H2H in favour of Rafa, maybe as a Murray fan are you also trying to get H2H declared invalid as a stat.
Or maybe that's just you r reptile brain talking.
Sigh, another ignore.
I can't be bothered with this nonsense.
 
The word reactionary has a political connotation to it so I want to stay away from it. What I mean is the difference between reacting and responding. Andy responds while other reacts.

Most players play repetitive game until and unless they play an opponent they have never played before (otherwise they heavily rely on their default game). That's when they use their brain to some extent but it's not much. I am always curious to see how Andy's going to play someone he's never played before. For example, his first round player at Wimbledon who simply went for it and beat himself as a result. He could have simply taken his time, relax and come up with a plan rather than just bashing balls mindlessly. I mean surely he was familiar with Andy's game given that he's one of the top players? One can learn a lot just by observing.
Oh really, I didn't know word "reactionary" had political connotations.
This has been really educational.
 
Back
Top