Murray's best chance of winning that elusive slam?

Where might Murray win his first slam?

Us Open, provided it's quicker than it was last year.

ASO, 2 consecutive finals and counting!

Murray will win a Slam IF and WHEN the time comes



He is only 24 yo after all -And WHAT IS this obsession with Murray

and a Slam?

He's #3 in the World, worth a fortune,has sacrificed most of his

teenage years to tennis and STILL people put him down!

The put downs just keep on coming here yummy.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The put downs just keep on coming here yummy.

He's won 2 slams already.. Queen's is where real grass tennis is played..

yummymummy problem is that's how great players are measured.

Granted winning a slam is never easy and he might not achieve that ambition. The Olympics then might be a target. Davis Cup I think you can forget so that leaves winning the Masters here.

Nalbandian and Davydenko spring to mind as two who have won this event but found slam titles (so far at least) rather elusive.

I don't care if Andy NEVER wins a GS newballs - I just like his

determination and true grit ! He is the BEST British player in the

last 70 years - WHY does no-one give him credit for that ?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:He's won 2 slams already.. Queen's is where real grass tennis is played..

Guess who won Queens 2011

yummymummy wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:He's won 2 slams already.. Queen's is where real grass tennis is played..

Guess who won Queens 2011

Jamie's less humourous brother.

newballs wrote:yummymummy problem is that's how great players are measured.

Granted winning a slam is never easy and he might not achieve that ambition. The Olympics then might be a target. Davis Cup I think you can forget so that leaves winning the Masters here.

Nalbandian and Davydenko spring to mind as two who have won this event but found slam titles (so far at least) rather elusive.

In my eyes greatness can be assessed in various ways and not just on winning slams. I mean Gaston Gaudio (as an example) has won one slam does that automatically quantify him as a better player than Andy Murray. Certainly not if you look deeper - Gaudio won a total of 8 titles (far below Murray's total), highest ranking 5 (lower than Murray's best) and never got beyond the 3rd Round at any of the other slam events. So Murray no slams in many peoples eyes is the better player despite Gaudio having one slam win under his belt.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

newballs wrote:yummymummy problem is that's how great players are measured.

Granted winning a slam is never easy and he might not achieve that ambition. The Olympics then might be a target. Davis Cup I think you can forget so that leaves winning the Masters here.

Nalbandian and Davydenko spring to mind as two who have won this event but found slam titles (so far at least) rather elusive.

In my eyes greatness can be assessed in various ways and not just on winning slams. I mean Gaston Gaudio (as an example) has won one slam does that automatically quantify him as a better player than Andy Murray. Certainly not if you look deeper - Gaudio won a total of 8 titles (far below Murray's total), highest ranking 5 (lower than Murray's best) and never got beyond the 3rd Round at any of the other slam events. So Murray no slams in many peoples eyes is the better player despite Gaudio having one slam win under his belt.

Well that's right, but any conversation about greatness does not start with Gaudio.

The bottom line is that you cannot be a great player without a slam under your belt, you just can't. No ifs no buts.

It is also true that there are players who won one slam that nobody would assess objectively as having been better players than Murray (Gaudio, Johannsson to name but two).

Murray is a fantastic player, he's one of the very best ever not to have won a slam, and his career is more impressive than several who have won slams, but before the word great goes against his name he's got to start winning slams.

Great is subjective though is it not? I mean I have heard players of the ilk of Nalbandian and Gasquet labelled as 'great' and no slams for them and a good deal less achievements in their career compared to Andy Murray.

If he wins one then fabulous and if he doesn't he'll go down as one of the best players to have never won a slam.

Has no-one heard of Rios

Bye the way barrystar - I have NEVER put the word *great* before

Andy ! He is what he is -

CaledonianCraig wrote:Great is subjective though is it not? I mean I have heard players of the ilk of Nalbandian and Gasquet labelled as 'great' and no slams for them and a good deal less achievements in their career compared to Andy Murray.

If he wins one then fabulous and if he doesn't he'll go down as one of the best players to have never won a slam.

Aye - you can be more flexible when saying whether x y or z is or was a 'great player' or had a 'great game' or was a 'great player on form', but I am talking about whether x y or z is a 'tennis great' - which is a tougher test.

Muzza will go down as more successful player than Nalbandian, who will go down as a hugely wasted talent (in my book). What Muzza has not really ever achieved is 'force of nature' status sweeping all before him, which Fat Dave managed for two tournaments, Madrid and Paris, in the fag end of 2007.

Rios - only No. 1 not to win a slam, not a tennis great, and not as successful as Murray.

Of course and this is always how it will be. Should Murray end up slamless will I bawl my eyes out that he won't be seen as a 'tennis great'? Of course not as I will look back with pride as to what he has achieved in the sport and his standing as the greatest British male player since Fred Perry in the 1930's.

Why will you be proud of Murray? I take not an iota of pride in Federers success, nor indeed in any such success.

I think he may already be the best player never to win a slam. Has anyone else won the amount of masters, reached the amount of slam finals and semis without winning one?

In terms of appreciating Murray, from a British perspective I completely agree with yummy. Only Henman comes close in the last 70 years to being as good as Andy, and Tim has himself admitted that Andy is way more talented.

In 3 out of 4 grand slams a year we have a player from these isles going into them with a genuine chance of winning them. We should embrace that, yet all we do is knock him for coming up fractions short. Nobody else in the world of tennis is putting up a sustained challenge to the other 3.

In terms of being a tennis great, he needs to win some slams... No question. But even if he fails, I'm just glad we had someone good enough to give the Brits reason for hope at the majors.

Danny_1982 wrote:I think he may already be the best player never to win a slam. Has anyone else won the amount of masters, reached the amount of slam finals and semis without winning one?

In terms of appreciating Murray, from a British perspective I completely agree with yummy. Only Henman comes close in the last 70 years to being as good as Andy, and Tim has himself admitted that Andy is way more talented.

In 3 out of 4 grand slams a year we have a player from these isles going into them with a genuine chance of winning them. We should embrace that, yet all we do is knock him for coming up fractions short. Nobody else in the world of tennis is putting up a sustained challenge to the other 3.

In terms of being a tennis great, he needs to win some slams... No question. But even if he fails, I'm just glad we had someone good enough to give the Brits reason for hope at the majors.

THANK YOU Danny



I think that Andy ruined his chances with the British *Public* when he uttered those infamous words

"Any one but England* to Tim. Unfortunately the masses didn't understand that it was A JOKE

between him and Henman - hence the "hatred".



Sad innit ?

And Y I Man those that hold it against him should read this and educate themselves in the facts:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1194310/DES-KELLY-For-time--Scot-Andy-Murray-traitor.html

yummymummy wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I think he may already be the best player never to win a slam. Has anyone else won the amount of masters, reached the amount of slam finals and semis without winning one?

In terms of appreciating Murray, from a British perspective I completely agree with yummy. Only Henman comes close in the last 70 years to being as good as Andy, and Tim has himself admitted that Andy is way more talented.

In 3 out of 4 grand slams a year we have a player from these isles going into them with a genuine chance of winning them. We should embrace that, yet all we do is knock him for coming up fractions short. Nobody else in the world of tennis is putting up a sustained challenge to the other 3.

In terms of being a tennis great, he needs to win some slams... No question. But even if he fails, I'm just glad we had someone good enough to give the Brits reason for hope at the majors.

THANK YOU Danny



I think that Andy ruined his chances with the British *Public* when he uttered those infamous words

"Any one but England* to Tim. Unfortunately the masses didn't understand that it was A JOKE

between him and Henman - hence the "hatred".

Sad innit ?

It's a strawman, an easy thing to knock off and lay against his critics.

I have mixed feelings about him; on the one hand I like his reluctance to spin like Nadal (on and off the court) but he does depress me with his always-say-die attitude.

The whole Murray and the British v Scottish thing is something I rarely comment on, because I think it is a bit of an embarrassment that its still an issue to some people, but my thoughts are these:

A lot of those that claim he seriously maintains a hatred of England forget that most of his team are English, his girlfriend is English, he lives in London and he himself is a quarter English!!

Is he also a proud Scot? Of course he is! Why shouldn't he be? Even if he was being serious with the 'anyone but England' comment (which he clearly wasn't) why should it be an issue?

It's absolute nonsense. He was stitched up by the British press who took advantage of his naivety... and who incredibly now criticise him for being guarded with them! That's the sad thing about our country... Being exceptional at something in Britain will guarantee you a harder time than if you are average at it.

Anyway, I digress....

He's obviously head and shoulders the best British player since Perry whatever he does. I'd like him to end the 'wait' for a male slam win chiefly because I think he merits one.

Goodness he's frustrating to follow though - I think the trouble is that his A-game is good enough to beat them all, and he reasonably regularly does.

His B-game is just too weak and you always know that it's only a shot away - the classic example was his Wimbledon SF vs. Nadal. He was outplaying Nadal, he missed that easy put away at the net, and from then onwards it was one-way traffic for Nadal - Gaaaaaaah!

That is the enigma that is Murray barrystar !

Frustrating? - YES

Gifted? - YES



Blooming annoying ? - YES

It is bloody frustrating.... But I prefer it to watching Henman.

With Tim you knew that he was good but not great, and he maximised what he had admirably... But he was never good enough to beat the best with any regularity.

With Andy, the ability he has is so unique (as Rafa always says) that you feel the best is yet to come. It's such small details that I'd be amazed if he didn't win at least one major.... Surely..... Hopefully.... Possibly?.....

You're trying to pitch him as some kind of erratic genius. He isn't, he's a very good player who falls short against the best, and whose mentality is highly suspect in adversity.

I like him though, but let's be realistic.

Hmmm erratic mentality and genius....

Paul Gascoigne
Alex 'Hurricane' Higgins
Ronnie 'O' Sullivan
Mike Tyson

Oh I see a pattern developing. All seen as geniuses whose mentality was often questioned.

In any case lets leave the epitaph writing until he hangs up his racquet as he is still short of his mid-twenties.

bogbrush wrote:You're trying to pitch him as some kind of erratic genius. He isn't, he's a very good player who falls short against the best, and whose mentality is highly suspect in adversity.

I like him though, but let's be realistic.

Erratic genius is your phrase, not mine. But yes, I think he is enormously talented.

If you don't, fair enough. Doesn't mean you're right. Just means you have a different opinion to mine.

bogbrush wrote:You're trying to pitch him as some kind of erratic genius. He isn't, he's a very good player who falls short against the best, and whose mentality is highly suspect in adversity.

I like him though, but let's be realistic.

Don't think Murray is a tennis genius either, why he should be? I think he is quite the opposite someone who thanks to his iron will has managed to achieve what many others, even those more talented than him, could only dream of.

Balderdash and brimstone JK

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmmm erratic mentality and genius....

Paul Gascoigne
Alex 'Hurricane' Higgins
Ronnie 'O' Sullivan
Mike Tyson

Oh I see a pattern developing. All seen as geniuses whose mentality was often questioned.

In any case lets leave the epitaph writing until he hangs up his racquet as he is still short of his mid-twenties.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

JK, either way what he has is admirable. Didn't Fed once say he worried that one day he'd wake up and be unable to serve or hit a forehand or something to that effect? I think Murray's skills are more prone to leaving him when he needs them the most. Slams are overated anyway, isn't it just the fittest player that wins now? At least with Murray as opposed to Henman you have a genuine contender for anything he enters and its not a complete shock if he beats anyone anywhere. I think what upsets a lot of rational people about Murray is that maybe they felt that he showed a lot more promise than what has been delivered in terms of slams.

Likewise, I don't see why people (not yourself) are almost writing epitaphs and asking how he'll be seen as a player. That will be decided when he retires which won't be for some time yet.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:JK, either way what he has is admirable. Didn't Fed once say he worried that one day he'd wake up and be unable to serve or hit a forehand or something to that effect? I think Murray's skills are more prone to leaving him when he needs them the most. Slams are overated anyway, isn't it just the fittest player that wins now? At least with Murray as opposed to Henman you have a genuine contender for anything he enters and its not a complete shock if he beats anyone anywhere. I think what upsets a lot of rational people about Murray is that maybe they felt that he showed a lot more promise than what has been delivered in terms of slams.

Sure he should be admired for his wins, he won more than the rest of the top ten combined together, excluding the usual suspects I mean. otherwise would be difficoult to admire the likes of Tsonga, Ferrer, Fish or so.....

Regarding to the expectations, those are mostly irrational and often made up by press etc. I suspect the bookmakers are making a fortune with Murray by proposing quotes that are totally divorced from reality.....

He's won Shanghai and Japan.. nuff said.

I think this is a sore and tested subject discussed on many a tennis forums. The key to Murrays success at a Slam is eradicating defeats to players outside of the top 4. 2009 Murray lost to 4 players not ranked above him. If we look closer, in the slams he had played since being ranked in the top 4 he has played 11 Slams and lost 6 times to players ranked below him. This is something that Nadal and Federer and more recently Djokovic do not do. If Murray can overcome that he could win a slam.

He's overcome it this year... I just think that his game is missing something it had in 2008 when he was rising to the top. I think he actually had the mental edge over everyone.

I will have a bet that 2 out of the 4 slams next year he will go out to players ranked lower than him than him winning one.

Take yesterday, both Novak and Andy were not physically at their best. Yet one triumphs and the other doesnt.

Andy can beat all comers, he has done that. He can't sustain it though. If he had taken his clay form into the US Open he would've won it hands down.

The results of the "elusive slam vote" so far make interesting reading.

Someone either has a very good sense of humour or has been on the sauce thinking that the French Open is his best bet.

Quite why so many people think he has a better chance in Australia than the US is an interesting one. Historically I guess anyone prepared to go that far and beat up a few Aussies in their local event was in with a shout but nowadays it's just as competitive as the US Open.

The reality is he's in with a reasonable shot for both over the next few years and (if he could cope with the pressure that would build up there) an outside chance at Wimbledon. But (and here's the proviso) why oh why can't he lose that stubborn streak and take a few hints from Novak as to how to progress his game (and attitude) to the levels required?

y

Perhaps the fact people think he has a better chance in the Australian rather than the US Open is because he has a better record there as in two Australian Open Finals to one US Open Final?

Well CC you could argue that the conditions at the Aussie Open i.e. stifling heat don't help his cause. Ye,s everyone plays in the same conditions but players like Andy who take their time to get going in such events will find the later stages all the more challenging if they've spent hours more time sweating it out on court than their opponent.

Factor in that the US Open is later in the year when Andy's form has often picked up (he usually has a decent run at Wimbledon plus the following hard court events).

So merely stating two final appearances versus one doesn't tell the whole story.

Yes but you could say that Australian Open comes when he is most freshest. Besides I really don't think heat bothers Andy since he has trained a lot of his life in Spain and Miami (both with hot climates). His defeats in the Aussie Open Finals have never been heat-related in any case just that he met the best players in the world on top form whilst he never brought his best game to court.

If, when Fed, Nadal and Djoko are approaching retirement, the new generation still isn't threatening then Murray has a chance at any of the slams. But he'll still have to get through the Berdychs, Soderlings etc.. The odds of things aligning in his favour seem almost non-existent to me.

droogle wrote:If, when Fed, Nadal and Djoko are approaching retirement, the new generation still isn't threatening then Murray has a chance at any of the slams. But he'll still have to get through the Berdychs, Soderlings etc.. The odds of things aligning in his favour seem almost non-existent to me.

And I bet your first love is Football !

And I bet your first love is Football !

Great attitude to another's opinion...

I think Murray has peaked, injuries going on, nerves and body control in the court are the usual disastrous levels, and those who say he had a very good year are just kidding themselves, Murray should be getting slams by now and not semis and silly village tournaments in Asia.

A talent wasted by lack of discipline & weak mental power.

A slam will come...

Jahu wrote:A talent wasted by lack of discipline & weak mental power.

A slam will come...

People should realise that if he had that much talent, he would do less scrapping around the court, save his legs from so many injuries and make his opponent do the running instead.

What do people call "talent"?

Tenez wrote:

Jahu wrote:A talent wasted by lack of discipline & weak mental power.

A slam will come...

People should realise that if he had that much talent, he would do less scrapping around the court, save his legs from so many injuries and make his opponent do the running instead.

What do people call "talent"?

"Talent" is an instinctive and allusive thing Tenez. Anyone can bash a ball from one side of the

court to the other (even Moi )



Knowing WHERE to place said ball is a matter of instinct and that rare commodity *Talent*

You either have the feel and hands or you don't