Murray's 'strike' talk.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/112342.html

Have to agree with the 1977 AO finalist on this; the disrespect shown by Murray towards the sport just further enhances his bad attitude. It's totally selfish to even consider such action when there are players in futures tournaments barely making enough money to survive; if anything it should be those such players considering a strike rather than the wealthy number 4 in the world. Murray has absolutely zero reasons to even think about rebelling against the sport, to put this into context, it would be like Somali pirates striking against unsecured, gold infested, cruise liners. It doesn't make sense.

Murray should apologise to the ATP!

barrystar wrote:Good grief - why do people want to take potshots at each other instead of fairly assessing what Murray said and in what context. Namely if the report I have is right he did not mention strikes, but answered a question about whether they would be possible by referring to what he understood to be the strength of feeling of players he had talked with.

I think CC's feverish patriotitism must surely be a case of dalayed development .....

Staunch fans of Murray may think because he is a good player he should be above criticism. Like it or not what he has been saying to the press about striking (unsurprisingly!) has not been well recieved. Tennis players depend on their popularity for their income. If they did "strike" without popular support it could be very damaging.

If Murray was chosen to put this idea about by players on the ATP council then more fool him for agreeing as he is now the target for criticism and is even seen as the instigator. If he took it upon himself and is voicing his own views then double more fool him.

Caladonian Craig you called me a "Murray hater" for saying he shouldn't have spoken to the press in this way. I believe anyone with a vested interest in Murrays career should have warned him not to do so. Murrays job is to play tennis not to act like an unelected shop steward. If he has a grievance of course he should try and resolve it but through the correct channels. It does him no favours to turn the public against him in this way. How difficult would it have been to respond to jounalist questions with "the player council are meeting in Shanghai"? Maybe the people responsable for his PR act like his fans and think he can do no wrong. In that case he is wasting his money. I could probably do a better job...

hawkeye wrote:Staunch fans of Murray may think because he is a good player he should be above criticism. Like it or not what he has been saying to the press about striking (unsurprisingly!) has not been well recieved. Tennis players depend on their popularity for their income. If they did "strike" without popular support it could be very damaging.

If Murray was chosen to put this idea about by players on the ATP council then more fool him for agreeing as he is now the target for criticism and is even seen as the instigator. If he took it upon himself and is voicing his own views then double more fool him.

Caladonian Craig you called me a "Murray hater" for saying he shouldn't have spoken to the press in this way. I believe anyone with a vested interest in Murrays career should have warned him not to do so. Murrays job is to play tennis not to act like an unelected shop steward. If he has a grievance of course he should try and resolve it but through the correct channels. It does him no favours to turn the public against him in this way. How difficult would it have been to respond to jounalist questions with "the player council are meeting in Shanghai"? Maybe the people responsable for his PR act like his fans and think he can do no wrong. In that case he is wasting his money. I could probably do a better job...

A well set out viewpoint, with a lot of very 'black and white' viewpoints

First and most important, I really don't know where you think that us Murray fans think he's "above criticism". He's not. I've already stated earlier, that I think he should be arguing about the courts, not this. Other forums, full of Murray fans also think he's being a bit foolhardy.

So that kind of blows a hole through that doesn't it!!

However, few of us think he's wrong for discussing an important subject and be selfless enough to care about the welfare of his fellow 'workers'

More naivety is apparent in your 'popularity' comment. Tennis players are not reliant on popularity for audiences. They are reliant on being very good players. Rafa often snarls around the court as though he's just discovered someone in bed with his girlfriend - however he is virtually as popular as Federer. We seem to forget that in the Tennis post Roger dominant, we didn't rely on 'all round media friendly / award winning' players. Sampras could be very sharp at times. As for Connors, McEnroe and Lendl.....???!!!!

They are unlikely to even consider strike action (kindly remember that Murray never said it had been considered) unless the authorities give them no leeway. If that ends up being the situation, then this fervent anti-union Tennis fan, would actually support them in withdrawing from tournaments - simply because such a strike is unlikely to affect the vulnerable, but would certainly hit the conceited money bags personalities like Stich, who seems to think that Tennis is the same as it was 20 years ago, so what's the problem

Such a complicated problem, that has openly been discussed by two of the four best players in the world, doesn't deserve such simple minded 'black and white' thinking as expressed by 'the public'. That public is either full of bitter people who resent the amounts the sporting superstars earn (witness the glee greeted at the revelations of the MP's expenses - a system that has been replaced by something that's even worse and apparently will cost us more money) ex-players more interested in preserving their legacy or people who love to have a go at anyone daring to express an opinion

I for one am grateful that Murray doesn't give a flying fig about his image (as bogbrush correctly surmised) certain sports stars care far too much about that, meaning that we end up questioning their motives for doing good causes, which then affects those who are actually genuine

I repeat though, so you know, he is wrong to give 100% attention to the Calender, when it's mainly the courts that are the problem

My favourite Henman ballgirl incident was the one in the commentary box at Wimbledon when he made a remark at the *ahem* "outstanding" features of one young lady standing with her shoulders very much back.

I nearly spat coffee all over the TV when he said it.

Banbro,

You should correct your misleading post on the BBC website wherein you stated:

"Yes, he's a Slam failure. But do you really think Federer would have been as dominant as this if his three rivals had been around in 2003-2006? (as opposed to Nadal for just 2006)"

Nadal won 11 tour titles in 2005 including RG. That's more than he's won in any other season.

You also, very conveniently, missed out 2007 which was a ridiculously dominant year for Roger. All three of his top rivals were established players that year; Novak finished the year at number 3 and reached the USO final.

Banbro,

The playing conditions would not have suited Novak and Murray back then, they love slower conditions, if anything had they been around since 2003 when Roger started his run they would have found themselves taking bagels and breadsticks every match they played against him. Sorry but your logic is very biased and ill educated

bantrotam. A well set out reply!

Interesting point about the courts. I presume you mean too many hardcourts as they cause the most injuries? I would vote for digging a few up and replacing them with clay. But not sure this would pass a majority vote...

If Murray were really "selfless enough to care about the welfare of his fellow workers" he would be arguing for a more even distribution of prize money (something IMO that should be addressed) or better pay and meals allowances for umpires.

But he was talking about issues that mainly affect the very top players from his own perspective. Not surprisingly what he said was interpreted by the "public"as he wanted to work less for the same (ridiculas?) pay. As someone who watches a bit of tennis I do think the schedule sometimes makes it difficult for top players to always play their best. But talking of strikes by millionaire sports stars is asking for criticism especially in the current climate. Murray didn't have to do it and it won't help the cause.

Its one thing not paying too much attention to a cultivated image and its another being in the public eye and thoughtlessly saying things without realising the effect they may have. Personally I think its crazy the way sports stars and often very young sports stars views often carry so much weight. Buts thats the way it is and at the very least they should be given help (and take it!) with this area when needed.

As for Nadal snarling around the court. Rather than it being something that hinders his popularity I always viewed it as a carefully staged PR stunt designed to make him as popular as Federer. Its obviously not working on everyone though...

emancipator wrote:Banbro,

You should correct your misleading post on the BBC website wherein you stated:

"Yes, he's a Slam failure. But do you really think Federer would have been as dominant as this if his three rivals had been around in 2003-2006? (as opposed to Nadal for just 2006)"

Nadal won 11 tour titles in 2005 including RG. That's more than he's won in any other season.

You also, very conveniently, missed out 2007 which was a ridiculously dominant year for Roger. All three of his top rivals were established players that year; Novak finished the year at number 3 and reached the USO final.

If you think being 26, when your rivals are 20 or 21 is representative or an 'established' Top 4, then of course you are correct. Considering that Murray missed about 4 months of the season, which hindered his progress, of course is not relevant. Neither is the fact that Nole didn't become one of the Top 3 until later in the year!!

What any of this has to do with the topi, is beyond me

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Banbro,

The playing conditions would not have suited Novak and Murray back then, they love slower conditions, if anything had they been around since 2003 when Roger started his run they would have found themselves taking bagels and breadsticks every match they played against him. Sorry but your logic is very biased and ill educated

I love a good joke MTL, doesn't have anyone with the dry wit of Josiah. I'm still trying to work out which of Murray's 18 titles were on anything resembling a slow court. I mean Indy's the only Hard Court Masters (in the current Calender) that he hasn't won - significantly it has the slowest hard courts

Strange that!! You'd better tell Wiki by the way who must have got their facts wrong when they say "Murray is most proficient on a fast surface (such as hard courts)" - not for the first time I suppose!!

hawkeye wrote:bantrotam. A well set out reply!

Interesting point about the courts. I presume you mean too many hardcourts as they cause the most injuries? I would vote for digging a few up and replacing them with clay. But not sure this would pass a majority vote...

If Murray were really "selfless enough to care about the welfare of his fellow workers" he would be arguing for a more even distribution of prize money (something IMO that should be addressed) or better pay and meals allowances for umpires.

But he was talking about issues that mainly affect the very top players from his own perspective. Not surprisingly what he said was interpreted by the "public"as he wanted to work less for the same (ridiculas?) pay. As someone who watches a bit of tennis I do think the schedule sometimes makes it difficult for top players to always play their best. But talking of strikes by millionaire sports stars is asking for criticism especially in the current climate. Murray didn't have to do it and it won't help the cause.

Its one thing not paying too much attention to a cultivated image and its another being in the public eye and thoughtlessly saying things without realising the effect they may have. Personally I think its crazy the way sports stars and often very young sports stars views often carry so much weight. Buts thats the way it is and at the very least they should be given help (and take it!) with this area when needed.

As for Nadal snarling around the court. Rather than it being something that hinders his popularity I always viewed it as a carefully staged PR stunt designed to make him as popular as Federer. Its obviously not working on everyone though...

We already have two slams which ape the French, I'm not certain that we need anymore to give us those wonderful 1hr grindfest sets

"Its one thing not paying too much attention to a cultivated image and its another being in the public eye and thoughtlessly saying things without realising the effect they may have" I agree. It's a good job Andy actually gave a considered and thoughtful view, isn't it?


"As for Nadal snarling around the court. Rather than it being something that hinders his popularity I always viewed it as a carefully staged PR stunt designed to make him as popular as Federer"

Priceless!! So Nadal has time to consciously cultivate his image whilst caning Federer and Murray. I hope not, otherwise I might have to revise my opinion about Roger being the GOAT. Moreover, you've obviously hit onto why he constantly loses to Nole - he's spending too much time posing. Maybe you should be the person to replace Uncle Toni - you're obviously onto a winner

These boards are WAY more entertaining than MTL!!

banbrotam wrote:These boards are WAY more entertaining than MTL!!

We aim to please! Happy to have you here banbrotam

Yes I did get behind Tim Henman in answer to the early question despite spurious claims from JM AGAIN.

banbrotam a warm welcome and couldn't put it better myself in what you said earlier and barrystar is correct as well where in that Murray's comments to questions asked are being blown out of all proportions by people with an axe to grind with him.

Oh and by the way the mentioning of Dunblane massacre is relevant as it played a massive part in Andy's and the town's history. Very tragic incident with countless kids murdered and those that survived traumatised yet Andy has grown to come one of the greatest tennis players in the world and the best British men's player for seventy odd years. Remarkable.

If you could just explain how the shooting held back Andy's development that would be helpful. Or more probably, remarkable.
.

No not saying it held back his development just that it is surprising that it didn't. I work in an industry where deaths happen in accidents and can and do cause great trauma to those witnessing these events. Some cannot cope and leave the job, some can continue after counselling so you see a massive challenge is put in front of those people.

How old was he? Young kids brush this stuff off.

bogbrush wrote:How old was he? Young kids brush this stuff off.

Crass

A couple of months short of a ten-year-old. Obviously, still plays on his mind as it is a subject he doesn't like talking about.

They do. They are way more resiliant than adults. Doesn't mean they aren't upset or affected, and I'm sure he doesn't feel it's something to be revisited, but they bounce back far better.

I don't see it as even vaguely relevent to his progress as a tennis player.

Oh right so witnessing a massacre of fellow school-mates isn't relevant in his life/development etc etc. To many people it would most definitely be but the fact Andy has picked himself up from trauma is admirable even if you don't think so bogbrush.

I do take offence to your fanboy terminology as well as that is held for someone who can see no wrong in their idol/team etc. Now you can look through this forum and I have often pin-pointed areas Andy needs to work on and have often said he may never win a slam - hardly views of a fanboy.

I used the term when you were going off on one attacking anyone criticising him as being unpatriotic and the reason for failure. On that count I stand by it. I didn't use it in any other context, such as those you mentioned.

Criticism of him is fine by me and again check through the forum and many criticisms have been posted of him where I haven't gone 'off on one' so sorry that does not make me a fanboy.

I must say, patriotism is a word that should really not be used in Murray context. Should be avoided at all cost because the whole thing is a mess.
I think we all know why.

noleisthebest

Are you from Serbia. I hadn't thought about it before but am now curious.

hawkeye wrote:noleisthebest

Are you from Serbia. I hadn't thought about it before but am now curious.

I'm not Scottish.

Murray quotes...

"We just want things to change, really small things. Two or three weeks during the year, a few less tournaments each year, which I don't think is unreasonable."

""Right now it takes so long to change things.
To get another change implemented may take five or six years at the rate things are going and then all of us will be done [retired]. We want it to happen sooner rather than later."

Why haven't we heard anything from the other 3? because it hasn't been translated from Serbian/Spanish/Swiss to English yet.

I think a lot of you just want to jump down his throat because he's opened his mouth, the same 606 attitude that befell the old school and before you cry out, "Its my opinion" "its freedom of speech" spare a thought for the hundreds of us who've had to listen to the same old claptrap for the last 4 years.

We have heard from Nadal Jubbahey - we heard from him first at US and then Cordoba. Andy is speaking after talking with Rafa. The inference is that a lot of the top players are in agreement.

Agree Andy was measured, but the hinting about striking came from what Rafa said at DC - for my part that slightly sticks in my throat because there is 40 percent plus unemployment of the young in Spain - I think Rafa was a lot hotter under the collar than Andy and perhaps he needed a sense of proportion?

It is in everyone's interests to have ALL players fit and healthy, and to find a solution that benefits ALL.

With the greatest of respect Jubb, freedom of speech does mean you get to listen to some 'claptrap' amongst the things you want to talk about

Asked if the prospect of a strike will be discussed, Murray replied: "Yes I think so."

Is this what all the "Murray threatens strike" headlines are based on? Sounds to me like he has said nothing of the sort. He was asked if he thinks it will be discussed, and answered that he thinks it will.

Is Murray the only one at this meeting? Or is he merely the only one not too concerned with his popularity to answer a question honestly?

Lack of objectivity here. Those people that always criticise him are not surprisingly choosing to do so again, and those defending him are the ones that usually do.

If it comes out that at the meeting Murray was pushing for a strike and everyone else disagreed then fine. Until that point he is basically being slated for being the only that has so far been asked that question, and been willing to answer.

I can't see the fury in all the comments towards Murray. Maybe it is because I come from the states and we are used to proffesional athlete millionaires striking and acting all aggrieved. To me I don't agree with murray's comments in that I don't want there to be fewer tournaments. Maybe they can cut the number of mandatories down from 18 to 16, I like the current tour. Murray has a right to argue for his self interest and his fellow stars. The players maybe me millionaires but the tournament owners, sponsors, and broadcasters are often megabillion dollar corporations. So if the players want to fight for their self interest I don't have a problem with it, I hardly feel offended by Murray's voicing of his opinion.

Thats right enough regarding a strike, but I resent the hypocrisy behind the moan about the season; the players who have made the most noise -particularly Nadal - are those who play attritional tennis. I can't help feeling that Nadals resentment stem in part from the fact that he's now the one suffering at the hands of another who can physically kill him on court.

Has Federer spoken? At 30 I'd have thought he'd fancy a shorter season (though his longevity does allow him some exemptions I think). If he doesn't is that because he's not interested in talking or because he's happy the way things are?

socal1976 wrote:I can't see the fury in all the comments towards Murray. Maybe it is because I come from the states and we are used to proffesional athlete millionaires striking and acting all aggrieved. To me I don't agree with murray's comments in that I don't want there to be fewer tournaments. Maybe they can cut the number of mandatories down from 18 to 16, I like the current tour. Murray has a right to argue for his self interest and his fellow stars. The players maybe me millionaires but the tournament owners, sponsors, and broadcasters are often megabillion dollar corporations. So if the players want to fight for their self interest I don't have a problem with it, I hardly feel offended by Murray's voicing of his opinion.

An ideal response. Note, to the immature carpers (those who choose to use this as a knocking exercise against Murray) 'social1976' doesn't necessarily agree with Andy, but they respect that he's raising the subject

Bogbrush, I have heard Fed say that the season is too long before and comment for needs to change it. But fed always schedules very smartly and doesn't fill up his calendar with more events than he needs, which a lot of players today do. I do agree that murray and Nadal are more impacted because they play an attritional style. But in a lot of ways the conditions that exist today favor that style of play and the conditions are controlled by the tournaments, ATP/Itf. The players play with conditions they are given. And I actually don't think there has been an increase in injuries on tour, it has always been a big part of this sport and many others.

Thanks for the compliment banbrotam, Andy seems to be very polarizing; he isn't my favorite player to watch and I have criticized him in the past. But being rich doesn't disqualify you from seeking what you feel is right for yourself in a negotiation process. Especially, when you are negotiating against people and corporations who are a great deal richer and more powerful. It hardly raises to the level of scandal and outrage that hear from some of the critics.

Who will be at "that meeting". It should be players on the ATP players council. They were elected by fellow players to represent the views of all players - not just the top players. Murray is not on that council.

Unless he's being advised on what to say by other players on the council (unlikely) he's talking out of turn. Do players lower down the rankings want to go on strike to shorten the calander? I don't know as none have been asked but I doubt it.

Murray may or may not be concerned about popularity but he's using his unique position with the media to get his own views heard above others. IMO damaging views. I don't like reading about spoilt millionaire tennis players after watching Djokovic suffer in his efforts to play Davis Cup so soon after the Open and the scheduling mess at the US Open itself. Maybe he likes the attention...

"Why havn't we heard anything from the other three." Maybe they've got nothing to say until after the meeting.

Just before it becomes official that I'm using this to attack Murray, he's my 2nd fav player. I just think he's been foolish IF he's indicated a strike and I maintain the view that the attritional players are hypocrites to complain about wear and tear.

The players could demand the banning of certain strings and insist on faster courts if they are really concerned about wear and tear, but since some of the most successful depend on that to stay in the top 5 that's less likely isn't it?

bogbrush wrote:Thats right enough regarding a strike, but I resent the hypocrisy behind the moan about the season; the players who have made the most noise -particularly Nadal - are those who play attritional tennis. I can't help feeling that Nadals resentment stem in part from the fact that he's now the one suffering at the hands of another who can physically kill him on court.

Has Federer spoken? At 30 I'd have thought he'd fancy a shorter season (though his longevity does allow him some exemptions I think). If he doesn't is that because he's not interested in talking or because he's happy the way things are?

Indeed. Federer did ask for a shorter season but he said "nothing drastic, a week or 2 extra over Xmas, like it was the year before 2010). 2010 was particularly long for some reasons.

Hi TP, whilst I acknowledge that "ClapTrap" is fast becoming the BLT of The Murray Bash diet for some people, it would be more beneficial to stick to the facts and not build in a load of opinionated heresay into much of what Andy has said.

He is not advocating a strike, he doesnt want to go on strike, but the "fact" that anything they ask for takes years to implement, much of which is the purposeful dragging of heels by the authorities, something has to give and at the moment, its the players tenacity and patience with them.

Murray was asked whether a strike was on the books, which I gather was from Nadals heated conversations after the his last DC event, and to which he replied, yes, but we'd rather not go down that road.

I think in the end, the fact that so many players are backing these requests, and lets face it, its not revolutionary or going to put thousands of people out of work, in fact it may generate more money by allowing other tournaments to vie for the spots that may arise from the players having more choice about where they play, but because its not just the top 4 who are advocating changes, the authorities will actually have to do something this time and the added affect of a projected strike may tip the seesaw and get the ball moving.

Many top players, except Stich of course, have been banging on about the strain of the tour dates and schedules for decades now, so its not like a sudden development or a sulky move by the top earners to make more money for doing less, its about realtime management of the calendar to help ease the injury frequency and allow the public to see more of their players too, instead of reading about them in the glossary of players out to injury.

Jubbahey wrote:Hi TP, whilst I acknowledge that "ClapTrap" is fast becoming the BLT of The Murray Bash diet for some people, it would be more beneficial to stick to the facts and not build in a load of opinionated heresay into much of what Andy has said.

He is not advocating a strike, he doesnt want to go on strike, but the "fact" that anything they ask for takes years to implement, much of which is the purposeful dragging of heels by the authorities, something has to give and at the moment, its the players tenacity and patience with them.

Murray was asked whether a strike was on the books, which I gather was from Nadals heated conversations after the his last DC event, and to which he replied, yes, but we'd rather not go down that road.

I think in the end, the fact that so many players are backing these requests, and lets face it, its not revolutionary or going to put thousands of people out of work, in fact it may generate more money by allowing other tournaments to vie for the spots that may arise from the players having more choice about where they play, but because its not just the top 4 who are advocating changes, the authorities will actually have to do something this time and the added affect of a projected strike may tip the seesaw and get the ball moving.

Many top players, except Stich of course, have been banging on about the strain of the tour dates and schedules for decades now, so its not like a sudden development or a sulky move by the top earners to make more money for doing less, its about realtime management of the calendar to help ease the injury frequency and allow the public to see more of their players too, instead of reading about them in the glossary of players out to injury.

For me Stich's 'head in the sand' numbskull response (i.w. "we never complained so just get on with it") was an amazingly dumb thing for him to have done. Granted Stich has always been indifferent about Murray (as compared to someone like Connors who constantly praises him) and so he may have used it as an opportunity to put him down - but he is actually involved in the organisation of some of the events

In other words, he's more or less made Murray's point for him, even if we may argue Andy's barking about the wrong thing. It'll be easy for the 'activists' in Shanghai to point out that the unsympathetic Stich response is 'typical' of the various event organisers

Stich's response was about as subtle as the then French minister who when asked why a lot of the immigrants were rioting (2005) said (and I paraphrase) he didn't know after all we've let them live here haven't we!!

Finally something on the topic: tennis players have the right to strike if they feel they need to just like anybody else.

Personally, I don't see what the players are trying to achieve, they don't have to compete in all the tournaments if they don't want to, the very top ones can even afford it (fines, loss of revenue etc) just like Williams sisters.

I'd like the compulsory tournaments to end after USO, so other players can earn a bit of cash in the absence of "stars", and if the tournaments are desperate for them, they can pay them a bit more for appearance fees, just like in other professions.

Stich I mean, who cares about what he thinks, it's just plain, undisguised envy.

Wrong. Michael Stich has a winning head 2 head over Golden Era Samprat, Murray has a losing to head to head with Mardy Fish, therefore nothing to be jealous about

Andy and Rafa can strike if they like. The doors over there -------->

On the other hand they can campaign for the game to be changed so it's not so attritional. I wonder why they won't do that?

Quite funny to see CC and bantroban hurling their bodies in front of the train for Andy. Yes guys, we know he and Nadal have the right to do all this, just as people have the right to call them scoundrels for it.

How many matches has Nadal played since Wimbledon to the USO final?

11 matches! in exactly 2 months (62 days! to be precise) . This is on average a match every 5.5 days. Pretty close to being a match a week!

Really are people going to feel sorry for them?

I woudl not be surprised if guys like Fish hadn't played more matches in that same period taking on all the smaller tournaments available in between.

Boiling off al the nonsense, it's Nadal whose complaining just after running into the wall at the USO.

Nothing to see here, move on. Just a pity Murray got trapped in it.

No-one will strike because they won't be able to agree about what they want. Top players want a shorter schedule. Lower ranked players need all the matches they can get. Even the top players won't be able to agree. Strike or not, Davis cup straight after Slams or not, US Open final straight after "super" Saturday or not. The list could go on. In fact the more I think about it I can't imagine the top four agreeing on much.

Too much player power may not be a good thing. In an individual sport they all have too much vested interest in making things better for themselves. It needs a non player to listen to views and come up with a solution that may not completely satisfy everyone but is fair to all.

bogbrush wrote:Andy and Rafa can strike if they like. The doors over there -------->

On the other hand they can campaign for the game to be changed so it's not so attritional. I wonder why they won't do that?

Quite funny to see CC and bantroban hurling their bodies in front of the train for Andy. Yes guys, we know he and Nadal have the right to do all this, just as people have the right to call them scoundrels for it.

At least it is not as funny/perverse as watching yourself and others desperate to make Murray out to be a striking anarchist. As has already been pointed out by sensible posters here but others are too blinded by other emotions to see it in no statement/interviews posted anywhere did Andy say he was going to strike. He was asked if it is possible and said it was so the likes of myself and banbrotam are not the ones fabricating stuff. In fact it would seem that if there is a strike then surely those on the players committee a la Federer and Nadal will have the biggest say in this.

Jubbahey wrote:Hi TP, whilst I acknowledge that "ClapTrap" is fast becoming the BLT of The Murray Bash diet for some people, it would be more beneficial to stick to the facts and not build in a load of opinionated heresay into much of what Andy has said.

He is not advocating a strike, he doesnt want to go on strike, but the "fact" that anything they ask for takes years to implement, much of which is the purposeful dragging of heels by the authorities, something has to give and at the moment, its the players tenacity and patience with them.

Murray was asked whether a strike was on the books, which I gather was from Nadals heated conversations after the his last DC event, and to which he replied, yes, but we'd rather not go down that road.

I think in the end, the fact that so many players are backing these requests, and lets face it, its not revolutionary or going to put thousands of people out of work, in fact it may generate more money by allowing other tournaments to vie for the spots that may arise from the players having more choice about where they play, but because its not just the top 4 who are advocating changes, the authorities will actually have to do something this time and the added affect of a projected strike may tip the seesaw and get the ball moving.

Many top players, except Stich of course, have been banging on about the strain of the tour dates and schedules for decades now, so its not like a sudden development or a sulky move by the top earners to make more money for doing less, its about realtime management of the calendar to help ease the injury frequency and allow the public to see more of their players too, instead of reading about them in the glossary of players out to injury.

Hi Jubb - With the way the game is going, it is probably necessary to reduce the number of mandatory tournaments and to try to do so without affecting individual tournaments and the prize money up for grabs in the tournaments otherwise there could be a bad knock on effect on the guys out of the top 30. I wonder if making IW or Miami non mandatory would help, particularly as it allows a little more preparation for clay -it doesn't seem to affect Monte Carlo at all badly by being non compulsory, and IW and Miami might well then find the top four divide up which would ensure you have marquee players at both, and allows a few players a lucky entry into a 1000.

The person that has irritated me is actually Rafa and not Murray - ok I am not the biggest fan generally, so I may be a little unfair. His language, unlike Murray's, has been intemperate and he has been flinging accusations about 'only concerned with money not players' at the USTA, the ITF and the ATP despite the fact that actually there have been advances in top player welfare over the last few years with byes in first rounds, and doing away with best of 5 finals in this comps and reducing to 3. He was angry about DC so close to USO after being one of the players to instigate this change in 2009 against the wishes of the ITF who bowed to the players' requests.

And I am really sorry banbrotam if you think my distaste for Rafa's stance is 'immature carping', but actually I do find the WAY he has gone about this to be a little crass when, as I said before, Spain is in severe economic difficulties (well basically nearly as bust as Greece) and I think it is 43% or 45% of young Spanish people are unemployed with little hope of work. That doesn't mean he shouldn't seek to change things through the proper channels, but the immoderate language is a little immature itself.

In Andy's case - it was just so obvious that Rafa would say 'jump' and Andy would say 'how high'. I don't think there is anything wrong with the players negotiating with the ATP and other authorities at all - it's their sport, but they should have discussed the issues first at Shanghai. If the ATP won't listen then of course they have the right to strike - they could just all quietly inform the ATP that they wouldn't be turning up for whichever tournament they elect - it would probably be handled fairly swiftly. But an appeal to public sympathy at this time is hardly likely to find widespread sympathy I'm afraid, particularly when you look at the stats Tenez mentions in his post 2 above this one.

bogbrush wrote:Boiling off al the nonsense, it's Nadal whose complaining just after running into the wall at the USO.

Nothing to see here, move on. Just a pity Murray got trapped in it.

Murray didn't get trapped he jumped right in! I'm beginning to think that Murray deliberately says things to be contraversial. Maybe he likes the attention or maybe in this case he just wanted to be associated with Rafa...

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Wrong. Michael Stich has a winning head 2 head over Golden Era Samprat, Murray has a losing to head to head with Mardy Fish, therefore nothing to be jealous about

Envy and jealousy are two different things.
He is envious of today's players' earnings. and opportunities.

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Boiling off al the nonsense, it's Nadal whose complaining just after running into the wall at the USO.

Nothing to see here, move on. Just a pity Murray got trapped in it.

Murray didn't get trapped he jumped right in! I'm beginning to think that Murray deliberately says things to be contraversial. Maybe he likes the attention or maybe in this case he just wanted to be associated with Rafa...

Can I put you and Craig in touch because I feel like I'm engaged in a vicarious argument between you

CaledonianCraig wrote:At least it is not as funny/perverse as watching yourself and others desperate to make Murray out to be a striking anarchist.

Well he is Scottish. I hardly need to add anything to that.