Bollettieri thinks Murray can't win a GS

First topic message reminder :

This is taken from an interview with SPOX, translated from German:

SPOX: Andy Murray would be glad if he would finally win his first Grand Slam tournament. The Scot was close to it a few times when it will be for him so far?

Bollettieri: Never.

SPOX: Excuse me? Andy Murray has everything that a great champion.

Bollettieri: Look, Andy Murray is a great character, much like my past was Andre Agassi. But why you do not just take what Boris Becker has said about him. "Andy Murray has no weapon and never will be a Grand Slam title to get," which are Boris's words. And I'm close to. Murray has improved his forehand and his serve, his footwork is amazing, he's an outstanding player return, he has a world-class backhand, but in order to win a Grand Slam tournament, he would have to play a little bit offensively. The question is whether he has the weapons to win a really big thing? I do not think so. Even more so, because there are so many other strong boys. It is not easy for Murray.

Here is the link;

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.spox.com/de/sport/mehrsport/tennis/1108/Artikel/nick-bollettieri-interview-us-open-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-andy-murray-tommy-haas-sabine-lisicki.html&ei=8YBVTsucCIbLtAaB-5HmDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbollettieri%2Bspox%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1152%26bih%3D747%26prmd%3Divns

LK, that was a joke, you should read my initial post, below

emancipator wrote:I think Dolgopolov is a good prospect but Dolgopolopolov needs to find more consistency. Dolgopolopolopolopov is no longer a youngster in tennis terms and therefore needs to make a move soon. Dolgopolopogopolopolopolov has a good array of shots but his mental approach is questionable. Quite often it seems that Dolgopolopolopogopolopolopolov loses his cool in the heat of battle. However, Dolgopolopolopolopogopogopolopolopolov is an exciting player to watch when he's in the zone.

emancipator - universal intergalactic tennis expert and correspondent.

legendkillar wrote:Dolcrapalov won't win anything. I will bve amazed if he ever reaches a GS Quarter Final let alone a Final or Semi.

Embarassed yourself yet again mate!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Dolcrapalov won't win anything. I will bve amazed if he ever reaches a GS Quarter Final let alone a Final or Semi.

Embarassed yourself yet again mate!

Not really mate. Who beat him again???

legendkillar wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Dolcrapalov won't win anything. I will bve amazed if he ever reaches a GS Quarter Final let alone a Final or Semi.

Embarassed yourself yet again mate!

Not really mate. Who beat him again???

He needed 4 sets and wet himself in the tiebreaker... not to mention losing 18 games to a player who is, as you say, "crap"... yep that must be Murray again!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Dolcrapalov won't win anything. I will bve amazed if he ever reaches a GS Quarter Final let alone a Final or Semi.

Embarassed yourself yet again mate!

Not really mate. Who beat him again???

He needed 4 sets and wet himself in the tiebreaker... not to mention losing 18 games to a player who is, as you say, "crap"... yep that must be Murray again!

Wet himself!! Touche!!

Only losing one set in a tie break and 18 games to 'the next big thing' in tennis while winning 25 games and three sets you won't find me complaining. I watched that match and actually think that Dolgopolov is a good talented player. However his record for a 22 year old in the slams and Masters tournaments does not lead me to believe he is going to be a top 5 or even top 10 player soon.

Give up Josiah ! Were'nt you on 606 as "Slamless Andy"

poster ?



Jeeesh The calibre of posters on here heralds the Calibre

of the *Slamless Murray* posters on 606 !

legendkillar wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Dolcrapalov won't win anything. I will bve amazed if he ever reaches a GS Quarter Final let alone a Final or Semi.

Embarassed yourself yet again mate!

Not really mate. Who beat him again???

He needed 4 sets and wet himself in the tiebreaker... not to mention losing 18 games to a player who is, as you say, "crap"... yep that must be Murray again!

Wet himself!! Touche!!

Sorry LK -[ NOTHING to do with you but this is the sort of language/rubbish that Josiah clings to!



I often wonder if his Mum and Dad know what he does in his bedroom when "LIghts Out" has

been called !

Ooooh Kayyy



Who the heck is the DOG ?



WOOF - That#s the sound of my German Shepard greeting

the *Postie Man *



God Help Him

Y I Man wrote:Enough of the insults please.
Play nice

Tell that to Josiah and NOT to me !!!!!!!!!!!!

Does that include personal insults about Andy Murray?

People can say what they want about sports people as long as it's not libellous.
However, insulting other posters is a no go.

Y I Man wrote:People can say what they want about sports people as long as it's not libellous.

and as long as it's not on a Q+A

This is the idiotic version of 606



Ar least on 606 the Mods showed a modicum of sense!

The *Mods* on this forum are sooooo pc that their forum

is in danger of becoming a laughing stock "

Guys we have been here before and blows have been traded and can we now close the chapter on this thread and look to contribute to the other matches happening at the US Open

Heather Watson is in action at the moment

cheers Y I, but I doubt that'll hinder yummy's continued pursuit to have my opinions completely removed from this site. Craig... you're far too sensitive to be on this forum, all i've done is state my views on Murrays history of falling apart in slams, his far too defensive style of play, and his sorry excuse of a forehand!

Andy Murray - best player Britain has produced since Fred Perry,

7 Masters Titles (only legends of the game have won more than Andy)

Triple Slam Finalist

One of a handful of players to have reached a slam semi at all four slams.

Statistically, one of the two best returners of serve in the world.

As I said earlier could retire tomorrow and he'd still have had a tremendous career. Really hurts doesn't it JM?

JM you have to admit the FH has improved. It has become a go to shot now. Let's just see how these next 2 weeks fan out for him.

He will only win a slam when it's on virtua tennis 3

LK i always thought Murray had a decent enough forehand, especially in bo3 set format, but he gets too tentative when the slams are around!

Y I Man wrote:People can say what they want about sports people as long as it's not libellous.
However, insulting other posters is a no go.

Agree that insulting other posters is a no go. But it should also be a no go to put blantant mistruths on the thread as well. If you read through JM comments on this thread you will find a number of them but when challenged with true statistical facts he doesn't justify them but comes back with another unsubstansited facts. I'm all for discussion and realise that people have different opinions on players but just throwing out inflammatory comments (e.g. a player only won seven Masters 1000 titles because his opponents didn'r care and played at 50% of their ability) should be moderated as well. That's why people get annoyed and start getting personal. I have refrained from this as yet but admit I have been close to it.

Well said Calder.

Calder106 wrote:

Y I Man wrote:People can say what they want about sports people as long as it's not libellous.
However, insulting other posters is a no go.

Agree that insulting other posters is a no go. But it should also be a no go to put blantant mistruths on the thread as well. If you read through JM comments on this thread you will find a number of them but when challenged with true statistical facts he doesn't justify them but comes back with another unsubstansited facts. I'm all for discussion and realise that people have different opinions on players but just throwing out inflammatory comments (e.g. a player only won seven Masters 1000 titles because his opponents didn'r care and played at 50% of their ability) should be moderated as well. That's why people get annoyed and start getting personal. I have refrained from this as yet but admit I have been close to it.

Sorry but this is not a players fansite, this is where we debate and form opinions/theories, say why players are not going to win slams, what they need to improve on etc etc. If you want to find a fansite just type in google/bing "Andy Murray fansite" where you can get giddy and starry eyed all you like, i'm not going to like Murray just because a couple of sensitive souls write some "statistical facts"!

Thanks for the post Calder, I appreciate your viewpoint.
But moderation is a very difficult task. We can't have rules for one section, and one for another.

There are false comments about a player that are wanted to be deleted, but if we take that view, then we also need to delete comments such as "Howard Webb (the football referee) is a Man Utd supporter because he keeps giving them penalties and favouring them in their matches."

Of course there is no proof of this, but it is someone's opinion and we cant delete these comments.

Likewise here in the tennis section, we cant delete comments simply because they are not true, or because there are no facts to back them up. It is down to the members to either debate it, prove it is not true or ignore it.

Therefore we have our site rules (in the announcement section) any posts that break the site rules will be acted upon.

Why do you guys keep feeding JM.

He is a wum and not a very good one at that as Calder keeps pointing out.

My grandmother knows more about tennis and she doesn't even watch it.

Well clearly there is no evidence that ,as JM said earlier that Murray has only won seven Masters because other players didn't try. No evidence so should be deleted. Correct?

Josiah that's absolutely fine with me. I'm quite happy to debate players weaknesses etc. and if you take the time to read my posts you will see that although I support Murray I realise that he does have these and I also have my doubts whether he will win a slam or not (although I sincerely hope he does). So if you will debate sensibly without throwing out statements without any basis like I quoted in my previous post I'm all for it. I will probably agree with some of them (like he needs more consistency on his FH) as well as disagreeing with others but wolud be willing to debate them in a measured fashion.

Craig, how much a player tries is unprovable, so I don't think you can delete that sort of thing. But JM doesn't really believe it himself, so it's best just to dismiss that sort of thing with a 'whatever'.

Anyways, the USO has commenced. Lets all try to get along and enjoy the tennis. It's the last slam of the year baby!

If Bollettieri himself posted his opinion on 606v2 that Murray will never win a slam should he be moderarted?

IMO this is just the sort of opinion that can open up a debate. For Murray fans it is a chance to say if they think that his opinion is wrong and a chance for them to say why they think Murray can (win a slam). Also a chance for those that agree that Murray can't and show why. Hopefully no-one would feel the need to call this well respected coach names...

Y I Man wrote:Thanks for the post Calder, I appreciate your viewpoint.
But moderation is a very difficult task. We can't have rules for one section, and one for another.

There are false comments about a player that are wanted to be deleted, but if we take that view, then we also need to delete comments such as "Howard Webb (the football referee) is a Man Utd supporter because he keeps giving them penalties and favouring them in their matches."

Of course there is no proof of this, but it is someone's opinion and we cant delete these comments.

Likewise here in the tennis section, we cant delete comments simply because they are not true, or because there are no facts to back them up. It is down to the members to either debate it, prove it is not true or ignore it.

Therefore we have our site rules (in the announcement section) any posts that break the site rules will be acted upon.

That's for the reply Y I Man. Much appeciated. I realise that you have a hard task so will continue to remain within the rules. I'm very happy to hear other peoples opinions/perspectives even if they do not concur with mine and then have a sensible debate (or agree) with them. That's what these sites are for.

hawkeye wrote:If Bollettieri himself posted his opinion on 606v2 that Murray will never win a slam should he be moderarted?

IMO this is just the sort of opinion that can open up a debate. For Murray fans it is a chance to say if they think that his opinion is wrong and a chance for them to say why they think Murray can (win a slam). Also a chance for those that agree that Murray can't and show why. Hopefully no-one would feel the need to call this well respected coach names...

Totally agree. No way it should be moderated. It was a great discussion subject which started off well with most Murray supporters saying that they thought he could win a GS but with caveats. No one questioned Bolletteiri's right to have an opinion.

I don't understand the logic of Murray fans, hoping to delete/ban me because I don't have the same opinion as some of you, utterly ridiculous and unintelligent responses to my opinions is not exactly going to make me like him, is it?

I also don't like Alex Ferguson, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams etc, as I don't find them very nice/likeable people, mostly because I find them obnoxious/bad losers etc.

If I were to like these kind of people, then it would go against my beliefs, sorry but I aint going to do that!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I don't understand the logic of Murray fans, hoping to delete/ban me because I don't have the same opinion as some of you, utterly ridiculous and unintelligent responses to my opinions is not exactly going to make me like him, is it?

I also don't like Alex Ferguson, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams etc, as I don't find them very nice/likeable people, mostly because I find them obnoxious/bad losers etc.

If I were to like these kind of people, then it would go against my beliefs, sorry but I aint going to do that!

Josiah I don't want you banned. Would just like a sensible debate. I don't want you to like Murray that's your perogative but let's be honest saying that Murray has only won 7 Masters 1000 series because his opponents were not playing well is a bit far fatched. I am realistic and concur that Murray has not played particulary well in any of his GS finals. I honestly think that in at least the last two he has lost it when the match has started to go against him and that is something he needs to address should he get to another final.

Murray needs a sports psychologist and a better second serve. When his first serve percentage drops he is incapable of winning most of his matches because the opponents especially if they are high quality start hammering that second serve.

socal1976 wrote:Murray needs a sports psychologist and a better second serve. When his first serve percentage drops he is incapable of winning most of his matches because the opponents especially if they are high quality start hammering that second serve.

I agree with both points. I think he is trying to improve his on court demeanour but its a work in progress. He can get away with poor second serve in most matches because his other attributes normal outweigh his opponents but against the top three he doesn't have that luxury.

Yes, calder if you look at his serve numbers he is way behind the other top 4 guys in points won on second serve, Federer in particular abused Murray's second serve in their two grandslam finals. Interestingly, I would say murray has a better first serve and gets more free points than Djoko but Djoko has a much better second serve and for that reason has been able to hold much better than murray. If i had to pick between having a stronger first or second serve delivery I would always take a better second serve delivery.

His serve is obviously a big key as to how much further he can progress. His games won on serve percentage is in the high 70's whereas the top three as all in the 80's (Fed and Djoko in the high ones) as are players like Soderling, Fish and Berdych. If he could get his 1st serve in percentage up he would not have to use the 2nd serve as often. He seems to lose rhythm on it during matches and therefore serves too many faults which allows his opponents to attack that second serve (which also need improving). Actually when you look at things clearly there can't be too much wrong with the rest of his game when he can still compete close to the top while his serve stats are poor.

That 2nd serve wouldn't even hurt Wozniacki on the women's he really should be aiming closer to the lines setting himself up taking control. Guy needs to inherit some mental strength that the big 3 have not relying on a 1 in a 1000 unforced error!

As normal Josiah exagerating for for effect. Think I have already agreed these points in a sensible echange with Socal.

Like I said earlier the cream comes to the top at Masters Events hence these are the most successful of all-time:-

1st. Rafael Nadal with 19
2nd. Andre Agassi with 17
2nd=. Roger Federer with 17
4th. Pete Sampras with 11
5th. Novak Djokovic with 10
6th. Thomas Muster with 8
7th. Michael Chang with 7
7th=. Andy Murray with 7

Are we still shagging the life out of this thread???

Language Timothy. I mean legendkillar

CaledonianCraig wrote:Like I said earlier the cream comes to the top at Masters Events hence these are the most successful of all-time:-

1st. Rafael Nadal with 19
2nd. Andre Agassi with 17
2nd=. Roger Federer with 17
4th. Pete Sampras with 11
5th. Novak Djokovic with 10
6th. Thomas Muster with 8
7th. Michael Chang with 7
7th=. Andy Murray with 7

I bet Murray has achieved his lifetimes goals tieing with Michael "run the ball down" Chang, little speedster Chang must be having fits, but when Chang was playing, Masters finals were bo5 sets, therefore more relevant to slam success, bo3 in finals belongs in WTA! Sadly Murray gets made to look ordinary when the big names play with weapons, his fault for parting with coach Gilbert!

Yes I was going to keep it going until we got a :

Bollettieri thinks Soderling can't win a GS thread

or

Bollettieri thinks Fish can't win a GS thread

or

Bollettieri thinks Monfils can't win a GS thread

etc.

Then we can dissect these players strengths and weaknesses.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Like I said earlier the cream comes to the top at Masters Events hence these are the most successful of all-time:-

1st. Rafael Nadal with 19
2nd. Andre Agassi with 17
2nd=. Roger Federer with 17
4th. Pete Sampras with 11
5th. Novak Djokovic with 10
6th. Thomas Muster with 8
7th. Michael Chang with 7
7th=. Andy Murray with 7

I bet Murray has achieved his lifetimes goals tieing with Michael "run the ball down" Chang, little speedster Chang must be having fits, but when Chang was playing, Masters finals were bo5 sets, therefore more relevant to slam success, bo3 in finals belongs in WTA! Sadly Murray gets made to look ordinary when the big names play with weapons, his fault for parting with coach Gilbert!

Hate to burst your bubble but Andy is a long way from finished yet.

IMO Masters have never been the same since they stopped playing finals over 5 sets. Rome 2006 v Cincinnati 2011. No contest.

The emphasis that everyone places on slams today has something to do with this.

hawkeye wrote:IMO Masters have never been the same since they stopped playing finals over 5 sets. Rome 2006 v Cincinnati 2011. No contest.

The emphasis that everyone places on slams today has something to do with this.

Doesn't explain why all the best players are top of the pile does it?

CaledonianCraig

Slams - Federer 16, Nadal 10
Masters - Federer 17, Nadal 19

Also when did tournaments get grouped together and called "masters". I'm sure players such as Borg, Connors, McEnroe etc must have won many tournaments outside of slams but we have no way to categorize them.