Murray's Demands

All the talk about militant action meant I overlooked some of the things that Murray wants.

He wants more money if the US Open expands to 15 days (to match FO).

Also it appears its not the number of touraments that top players are required to play but the number of tournaments that he is required to play when the other top players are there.

"When we play the Masters Series and the Slams, we're playing against the best players in the world every time. Sometimes it's nice to go to a tournament when you don't have to kill yourself in every single match."

http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld/2011/09/around-the-world-in-1000-words.html#comments

CaladonianCraig Please don't check that link you may not like what you see.

Whatever people think about Murrays views it is clear they are not being well recieved

I heard he demands his dressing room to be decked out in cinnamon-scented-candles and pink satin and lace. Or that might be Celine Dion, I'm always getting the two mixed up.

Well hawkeye in murray's defense for most of the open era players have not been required to play in 8 master's or 1000 point level events. In the past the top guys could more easily duck each other and often did.

Reply with quote
Report post to moderator or admin
Lock post for new reports

Re: To Strike Or Not To Strike?

Post by socal1976 Today at 8:58 pm
I think the players shoud have less mandatories, I mean they weren't always forced to play 8 masters every year.

You posted practically the same comment in 2 articles, why?

More from Bodo on this..

http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld/2011/09/tk-5.html

JuliusHMarx wrote:I heard he demands his dressing room to be decked out in cinnamon-scented-candles and pink satin and lace. Or that might be Celine Dion, I'm always getting the two mixed up.

Me too.

socal1976 wrote:Well hawkeye in murray's defense for most of the open era players have not been required to play in 8 master's or 1000 point level events. In the past the top guys could more easily duck each other and often did.

That just won't be good enough! If the top players change the rules so that they can "duck each other" more often then I may decide to strike. It will be bad for the sport and the players as I'm pretty sure many would join me...

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Well hawkeye in murray's defense for most of the open era players have not been required to play in 8 master's or 1000 point level events. In the past the top guys could more easily duck each other and often did.

That just won't be good enough! If the top players change the rules so that they can "duck each other" more often then I may decide to strike. It will be bad for the sport and the players as I'm pretty sure many would join me...

The main difference between the tour now and lets say 25 years ago or 35 years ago is the number of mandatories the players are forced to play. I like the fact that everyone is required to play the masters events, barring injury. That isn't my point, I want to see the big name match ups each and every week. But this lack of freedom and discretion in scheduling given to top guys is what is viewed as an issue. Maybe they can reduce the number of mandatory events and let the players have just a bit more freedom in deciding their schedules. I think even if they reduced the mandatories down to 16 from 18 players would still play 20 to 22 tourneys a year, but then they wouldn't have an excuse to gripe. It could be a fair compromise. It won't keep the top guys from playing more, the prize money and appearance fees are such that they would still play as many tournaments as they could but maybe would have more say over picking and choosing if their body needed it.

socal1976 wrote:The main difference between the tour now and lets say 25 years ago or 35 years ago is the number of mandatories the players are forced to play.

Nah! That's not the difference between now and then. Back then they had the same obligations. If it was not through the ATP it may ave been through their sponsors. The bottom line is that back then they had a crammed schedule too with tons of travelling.

The real difference between now and then is that unlike then a match nowadays feels like being hit by a bus.

"Sometimes it's nice to go to a tournament when you don't have to kill yourself in every single match."

Think Murray will enjoy his week in Bangkok...

He is the top seed. Monfils is 2. Simon is 3 and Garcia Lopez is 4.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2011/1720/mds.pdf

One of the things I like about Murray is his honesty.
He's paid for it BIG time. He still is.
That's why I don't judge him on this strike thing. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he's said what he thought and was obviously on his mind for a long time. Stuff PC, stuff PA, stuf PR, he can afford to speak his mind.

I do hope he wins that slam one day!

I have a feeling Murray will win his first slam next year. At the USO.

eraldeen wrote:I have a feeling Murray will win his first slam next year. At the USO.

Que Sera Sera even if he never wins a Slam he has to be feted as the best tennis player

that GB has had for the past 70 years !



Fact

yummymummy wrote:

eraldeen wrote:I have a feeling Murray will win his first slam next year. At the USO.

Que Sera Sera even if he never wins a Slam he has to be feted as the best tennis player

that GB has had for the past 70 years !



Fact

Bogdanovic has more backbone than him.