Well I agree that Andy Murray should have been a little more circumspect when he made the comment about England but that boy is one hell of a tennis player in any other era he would have won 4-5 majors by now his dissection of Gasquet was brilliant. Agree though Curb_it Djokovic is really something else he doesn't have the total game of Federer in his prime but he must be one of the toughest competitors in any sport. The way he wriggled out of all those match points against last night was impressive. Physical fitness is one thing but his mental strength at the moment is just beyond compare.
Sorry what era is that then where Murray would have won 4-5 majors by now? Totally disagree.
But he was generally injured. Don't really see why people dislike him so much.
oh he is always is. You can bet your life he wouldn't have been holding his stomach if he had been about to win. What a coincendence the stomach injury occurs when its pretty much game set and match
Like Tim Henman, Murray is a super tennis player, BUT there are a few around who are just that little bit better .. he'll retire a very rich man and probably will never win a 'grand slam'
Well I agree that Andy Murray should have been a little more circumspect when he made the comment about England but that boy is one hell of a tennis player in any other era he would have won 4-5 majors by now his dissection of Gasquet was brilliant. Agree though Curb_it Djokovic is really something else he doesn't have the total game of Federer in his prime but he must be one of the toughest competitors in any sport. The way he wriggled out of all those match points against last night was impressive. Physical fitness is one thing but his mental strength at the moment is just beyond compare.
Sorry what era is that then where Murray would have won 4-5 majors by now? Totally disagree.
People have short memories:
90s - Sampras, Agassi, Edberg
80s - McEnroe, Lendl, Becker
70s - Borg, Connors, Nastase
All miles better than Murray.
Have to agree with that but there have been some players who have won majors who don't reach the latter stages as consistently as Murray.
» show previous quotes daveaddick said:Well I agree that Andy Murray should have been a little more circumspect when he made the comment about England but that boy is one hell of a tennis player in any other era he would have won 4-5 majors by now his dissection of Gasquet was brilliant. Agree though Curb_it Djokovic is really something else he doesn't have the total game of Federer in his prime but he must be one of the toughest competitors in any sport. The way he wriggled out of all those match points against last night was impressive. Physical fitness is one thing but his mental strength at the moment is just beyond compare.
Sorry what era is that then where Murray would have won 4-5 majors by now? Totally disagree.
People have short memories:
90s - Sampras, Agassi, Edberg
80s - McEnroe, Lendl, Becker
70s - Borg, Connors, Nastase
All miles better than Murray.
Have to agree with that but there have been some players who have won majors who don't reach the latter stages as consistently as Murray.
Don't agree at all Oriental as LA said there are plenty of players who have won 1 major who didn't have 50% of Murrays talent Michael Stich and Jim Courier spring to mind. But lets analyse it was Lendl or Edberg really any better than Murray really? Their record says yes but their game was much more 1 dimensional Lendl was a hitter and Edberg a serve/vollyer neither adapted to another style very well whereas Murray has a more rounded/complete game but as said he is in the era of possible the greatest of all time (Federer), the toughest competitor of all time (Nadal) and possibly the best athlete to ever play the game (Djokovic)
» show previous quotes daveaddick said:Well I agree that Andy Murray should have been a little more circumspect when he made the comment about England but that boy is one hell of a tennis player in any other era he would have won 4-5 majors by now his dissection of Gasquet was brilliant. Agree though Curb_it Djokovic is really something else he doesn't have the total game of Federer in his prime but he must be one of the toughest competitors in any sport. The way he wriggled out of all those match points against last night was impressive. Physical fitness is one thing but his mental strength at the moment is just beyond compare.
Sorry what era is that then where Murray would have won 4-5 majors by now? Totally disagree.
People have short memories:
90s - Sampras, Agassi, Edberg
80s - McEnroe, Lendl, Becker
70s - Borg, Connors, Nastase
All miles better than Murray.
Have to agree with that but there have been some players who have won majors who don't reach the latter stages as consistently as Murray.
Don't agree at all Oriental as LA said there are plenty of players who have won 1 major who didn't have 50% of Murrays talent Michael Stich and Jim Courier spring to mind. But lets analyse it was Lendl or Edberg really any better than Murray really? Their record says yes but their game was much more 1 dimensional Lendl was a hitter and Edberg a serve/vollyer neither adapted to another style very well whereas Murray has a more rounded/complete game but as said he is in the era of possible the greatest of all time (Federer), the toughest competitor of all time (Nadal) and possibly the best athlete to ever play the game (Djokovic)
If you had said 1-2 Grand Slams I might have been inclined to agree with you, however no way would he have won '4-5 Slams by now' in any other era. Murray may have the technical skill but the mental aspects of his game are totally lacking.
For you to devalue the achievements of Lendl (8 Slams) and Edberg (6 slams) makes the debate a pointless exercise. Both men won 3 out of the 4 slams and both men reached the final of the slam they didn't win. Lendl in particular won 142 career titles, reached 8 slam finals in a row at one point and is generally regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time. For you to classify him as just a "hitter" (whatever that means?) is quite frankly absurd.
I am a tennis enthusiast and I agree that Murray is a fantastic talent from a technical perspective. He might win 1 or 2 slams in his career and I don't think anyone would begrudge him that but to put him up there with the caliber of players I listed is pure nonsense.
The problem these days is that whereas 20 years ago the surfaces were extreme - clay court specialists would play long grinding rallies while grass court specialists would be all big serves and vollies - nowadays, with the changes in tennis, the play is pretty similar in all 4 Grand Slams, and the top 3 players are highly competent on all surfaces, hence the 'big 3' monopolising the titles.
Tim Henman (and Murray so far) was unlucky not to win 1 title, certainly I would rank Murray a better player than someone like Andy Roddick, but at the moment Murray is destined (outside of Paris) to be a top 4 player who never wins the major titles, like Arsenal in the PL now...
Agree. I used to dislike Murray for the 'England quote', however a chap I work with plays tennis to a high standard and knows Andy very well. I mentioned a couple of years ago about Murrays England comment and he replied that he regrets it now, it was the words of a 17/18 year old boy (I think) and was kinda tongue in cheek. He also told me what a great bloke Murray is, always has time for the kids at the tennis club. which he still attends when he is in the UK, and regarding his personality/charisma, Murray has a very dry sense of humour, and is very funny, he is not a particular fan of the media, so holds back. He also raises a lot of money for various charities, more than any one of this forum I would guess. Personally I hope Andy Murray wins Wimbledon, and I will support him and watch his matches, those that hate him and want him to fail need to take a good look at themselves. Oh yes, for the record I will support any team that plays against Scotland, why because I don't want Scotland to win, I support England, but Andy Murray plays for Great Britain and the last time I looked England was part of Great Britain!
» show previous quotes daveaddick said:Well I agree that Andy Murray should have been a little more circumspect when he made the comment about England but that boy is one hell of a tennis player in any other era he would have won 4-5 majors by now his dissection of Gasquet was brilliant. Agree though Curb_it Djokovic is really something else he doesn't have the total game of Federer in his prime but he must be one of the toughest competitors in any sport. The way he wriggled out of all those match points against last night was impressive. Physical fitness is one thing but his mental strength at the moment is just beyond compare.
Sorry what era is that then where Murray would have won 4-5 majors by now? Totally disagree.
People have short memories:
90s - Sampras, Agassi, Edberg
80s - McEnroe, Lendl, Becker
70s - Borg, Connors, Nastase
All miles better than Murray.
Have to agree with that but there have been some players who have won majors who don't reach the latter stages as consistently as Murray.
Don't agree at all Oriental as LA said there are plenty of players who have won 1 major who didn't have 50% of Murrays talent Michael Stich and Jim Courier spring to mind. But lets analyse it was Lendl or Edberg really any better than Murray really? Their record says yes but their game was much more 1 dimensional Lendl was a hitter and Edberg a serve/vollyer neither adapted to another style very well whereas Murray has a more rounded/complete game but as said he is in the era of possible the greatest of all time (Federer), the toughest competitor of all time (Nadal) and possibly the best athlete to ever play the game (Djokovic)
If you had said 1-2 Grand Slams I might have been inclined to agree with you, however no way would he have won '4-5 Slams by now' in any other era. Murray may have the technical skill but the mental aspects of his game are totally lacking.
For you to devalue the achievements of Lendl (8 Slams) and Edberg (6 slams) makes the debate a pointless exercise. Both men won 3 out of the 4 slams and both men reached the final of the slam they didn't win. Lendl in particular won 142 career titles, reached 8 slam finals in a row at one point and is generally regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time. For you to classify him as just a "hitter" (whatever that means?) is quite frankly absurd.
I am a tennis enthusiast and I agree that Murray is a fantastic talent from a technical perspective. He might win 1 or 2 slams in his career and I don't think anyone would begrudge him that but to put him up there with the caliber of players I listed is pure nonsense.
Actually Oriental on reflection you are right and I probably got a little over enthusiastic regarding Andy Murray and indeed both Lendl and Edberg were out the top drawer so I retract what I said. Unfortunately you cannot determine when your career is at it's peak how good the other top players are going to be and I have to say Greenie makes a really good point about the surfaces and speed of the courts being more "even" today. When you consider Wimbledon back in the Sampras era what we got was serve/volley and not a great deal else only Agassi was good enough to break the mould but generally I am sure you would agree that was the order of the day. A good example is the way Pat Cash (who played the match of his life) destroyed Lendl who was considered the best player in the world at the time but he was never in it because he didn't have the game to cope with the surface.
As i have said before nobody knows Murray at all apart from his family and friends,yet we decide we don't like him because he passed a comment about England or he is a bit surly etc.Nobody on here really knows him so how can we pass an accurate judgement on him? It really annoys me that as a nation we are so quick to pass judgement on someone,just because he passed a flippant comment or what is written in the Sun.
Murray has grown on me last year or so, couldn't care less if he supports england or not which is where all the hate for him comes from. Hope he does win a grand slam soon.
Don't really care abput the England comment, up to him who he supports at football.
However, I prefer watching Federer for example - love the way he plays tennis, and he comes across very well. Also like watching the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Tsonga. On court I find Murray grumpy, unsportsmanlike and boring in interviews, so I'm not really of a mind to root for him just because he's British.
Wouldn't say that makes me a Murray 'hater' as some have said, though I suppose I'm not on here cheering him losing or saying 'Good' when he does.
And Greenie, if he's good with kids off court, good - always good to see big players take some time out for kids as a small moment can clearly mean so much to them all.
I actually like Murray and want him to win a grand slam, unfortunately unless Federer , Nadal and Djokovic are all injured at the same time, it's not going to happen, he would have to improve enormously , and although he's got a new coach in Ivan Lendl, I don't think he can overtake the other guys, I really want to be proved wrong on this One.
Probably gonna get abuse for this but serious question Everyone on here knows I have a issue with Andy Murray
but has been discovered over the last couple of days he was a yes voter
so my question do people still believe his comment about England was just a joke or are people now like I have since he made them believe he was being serious and pretended it was a joke so he did not get criticized
I'm back to hating him. Taken down my Murray poster and everything.
Making fun of me I know, but its a genuine question, I have had a lot of abuse for having a go at Murray and people saying it was a joke what he said, so why Vote yes then
Comments
Raining now, so play suspended.
People have short memories:
90s - Sampras, Agassi, Edberg
80s - McEnroe, Lendl, Becker
70s - Borg, Connors, Nastase
All miles better than Murray.
Sad.
Not that it will bother Andy Murray one fraction, he will achieve more in one day than most of his detractors will in their entire lives.
» show previous quotes
daveaddick said:Well I agree that Andy Murray should have been a little more circumspect when he made the comment about England but that boy is one hell of a tennis player in any other era he would have won 4-5 majors by now his dissection of Gasquet was brilliant. Agree though Curb_it Djokovic is really something else he doesn't have the total game of Federer in his prime but he must be one of the toughest competitors in any sport. The way he wriggled out of all those match points against last night was impressive. Physical fitness is one thing but his mental strength at the moment is just beyond compare.
Sorry what era is that then where Murray would have won 4-5 majors by now? Totally disagree.
People have short memories:
90s - Sampras, Agassi, Edberg
80s - McEnroe, Lendl, Becker
70s - Borg, Connors, Nastase
All miles better than Murray.
Have to agree with that but there have been some players who have won majors who don't reach the latter stages as consistently as Murray.
Don't agree at all Oriental as LA said there are plenty of players who have won 1 major who didn't have 50% of Murrays talent Michael Stich and Jim Courier spring to mind. But lets analyse it was Lendl or Edberg really any better than Murray really? Their record says yes but their game was much more 1 dimensional Lendl was a hitter and Edberg a serve/vollyer neither adapted to another style very well whereas Murray has a more rounded/complete game but as said he is in the era of possible the greatest of all time (Federer), the toughest competitor of all time (Nadal) and possibly the best athlete to ever play the game (Djokovic)
For you to devalue the achievements of Lendl (8 Slams) and Edberg (6 slams) makes the debate a pointless exercise. Both men won 3 out of the 4 slams and both men reached the final of the slam they didn't win. Lendl in particular won 142 career titles, reached 8 slam finals in a row at one point and is generally regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time. For you to classify him as just a "hitter" (whatever that means?) is quite frankly absurd.
I am a tennis enthusiast and I agree that Murray is a fantastic talent from a technical perspective. He might win 1 or 2 slams in his career and I don't think anyone would begrudge him that but to put him up there with the caliber of players I listed is pure nonsense.
Tim Henman (and Murray so far) was unlucky not to win 1 title, certainly I would rank Murray a better player than someone like Andy Roddick, but at the moment Murray is destined (outside of Paris) to be a top 4 player who never wins the major titles, like Arsenal in the PL now...
Personally I hope Andy Murray wins Wimbledon, and I will support him and watch his matches, those that hate him and want him to fail need to take a good look at themselves. Oh yes, for the record I will support any team that plays against Scotland, why because I don't want Scotland to win, I support England, but Andy Murray plays for Great Britain and the last time I looked England was part of Great Britain!
» show previous quotes
daveaddick said:Well I agree that Andy Murray should have been a little more circumspect when he made the comment about England but that boy is one hell of a tennis player in any other era he would have won 4-5 majors by now his dissection of Gasquet was brilliant. Agree though Curb_it Djokovic is really something else he doesn't have the total game of Federer in his prime but he must be one of the toughest competitors in any sport. The way he wriggled out of all those match points against last night was impressive. Physical fitness is one thing but his mental strength at the moment is just beyond compare.
Sorry what era is that then where Murray would have won 4-5 majors by now? Totally disagree.
People have short memories:
90s - Sampras, Agassi, Edberg
80s - McEnroe, Lendl, Becker
70s - Borg, Connors, Nastase
All miles better than Murray.
Have to agree with that but there have been some players who have won majors who don't reach the latter stages as consistently as Murray.
Don't agree at all Oriental as LA said there are plenty of players who have won 1 major who didn't have 50% of Murrays talent Michael Stich and Jim Courier spring to mind. But lets analyse it was Lendl or Edberg really any better than Murray really? Their record says yes but their game was much more 1 dimensional Lendl was a hitter and Edberg a serve/vollyer neither adapted to another style very well whereas Murray has a more rounded/complete game but as said he is in the era of possible the greatest of all time (Federer), the toughest competitor of all time (Nadal) and possibly the best athlete to ever play the game (Djokovic)
If you had said 1-2 Grand Slams I might have been inclined to agree with you, however no way would he have won '4-5 Slams by now' in any other era. Murray may have the technical skill but the mental aspects of his game are totally lacking.
For you to devalue the achievements of Lendl (8 Slams) and Edberg (6 slams) makes the debate a pointless exercise. Both men won 3 out of the 4 slams and both men reached the final of the slam they didn't win. Lendl in particular won 142 career titles, reached 8 slam finals in a row at one point and is generally regarded as one of the greatest tennis players of all time. For you to classify him as just a "hitter" (whatever that means?) is quite frankly absurd.
I am a tennis enthusiast and I agree that Murray is a fantastic talent from a technical perspective. He might win 1 or 2 slams in his career and I don't think anyone would begrudge him that but to put him up there with the caliber of players I listed is pure nonsense.
Actually Oriental on reflection you are right and I probably got a little over enthusiastic regarding Andy Murray and indeed both Lendl and Edberg were out the top drawer so I retract what I said. Unfortunately you cannot determine when your career is at it's peak how good the other top players are going to be and I have to say Greenie makes a really good point about the surfaces and speed of the courts being more "even" today. When you consider Wimbledon back in the Sampras era what we got was serve/volley and not a great deal else only Agassi was good enough to break the mould but generally I am sure you would agree that was the order of the day. A good example is the way Pat Cash (who played the match of his life) destroyed Lendl who was considered the best player in the world at the time but he was never in it because he didn't have the game to cope with the surface.
However, I prefer watching Federer for example - love the way he plays tennis, and he comes across very well. Also like watching the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Tsonga. On court I find Murray grumpy, unsportsmanlike and boring in interviews, so I'm not really of a mind to root for him just because he's British.
Wouldn't say that makes me a Murray 'hater' as some have said, though I suppose I'm not on here cheering him losing or saying 'Good' when he does.
And Greenie, if he's good with kids off court, good - always good to see big players take some time out for kids as a small moment can clearly mean so much to them all.
Everyone on here knows I have a issue with Andy Murray
but has been discovered over the last couple of days he was a yes voter
so my question
do people still believe his comment about England was just a joke or are people now like I have since he made them believe he was being serious and pretended it was a joke so he did not get criticized