The Comparative

I was reading through a rag of a newspaper today and in the sporting section, was guy who predominantly writes football articles decided to have a bash a writing about Wimbledon so far. I read Jonathan Overend's views on the BBC website and dare I say he wasn't so carried away with Murray's performances, though he does seem to approach his excitement with caution. Back to the chap's article in the rag I was reading. He seemed to be comparing Murray's form to that of a Rory McIlroy at the US Open last week. Now recently there have been comparisons with the sports of late (BBC comparing the talent produced in golf to that of tennis). The author decided that there was a trend with McIlroy having a meltdown at the Masters was compared to Murray's destruction at the Australian Open. Golf and Tennis, Golf and Tennis. There is so much difference. The author seems to think that Murray's 'improved attitude' will be enough with good form to see him win a maiden Slam. Again the author compared McIlroy's 'mental improvement' to Murray's.

Oh the comparative. I know Murray is playing well and that he has found his form on the most un-likeliest surface in clay and he seems to have found a happy medium within himself when he is on court. Now too this author I raise this point before getting carried away and with the 'we've been there before' a maiden Slam for Murray I say this. Take Queens. The Semi-Finals, Murray was the highest ranked player left and can boast better H2H's against Roddick and Tsonga. Now there is a difference being in a last 4 scenario knowing your the best player, and being in the final 4 at a Slam and looking at the draw and seeing Nadal or Federer and questioning whether you are still the better player. In Golf, the player relies on himself and only he can win or lose the tournament. No matter how well Murray plays, if his opponent plays better, it is difficult to stop the opponent playing better than you.

Hence The Comparative never really works.

Golf should be banned from TV.

Tooooooooooo long

tooooooo boring

I'd prefer watching paint dry

emancipator - telling it how it is.

legendkillar the reality is that in golf you play the course first, demons in your own head second and your opponent third. In tennis the order is different with your own doubts and your opponent's mental state ahead of the court conditions (even if it is raining, windy ...etc)

Also in golf (except in matchplay) you are never paired up to compete directly against a given opponent -even playing partners are not the same as tennis opponents.

There is the similarity that an 18 hole round of golf lasts approximately the same amount of time as the average Wimbledon match and both tend to be won by the player with the greatest mental strength (where golfing and tennis playing abilities amongst the very top players are of a similar standard).

The biggest difference though is the one you allude to of the tennis player having finally to beat two out of three of the best players in the semis and finals. In golf this competition is never broken down into individual matches like this (except matchplay). Everyone is thrown into the mix at the same time as if all 128 players in the mens draw at Wimbledon were playing their matches simultaneously on one tennis court.

Wimbledon fortnight is the time when everyone in the office is suddenly a tennis expert. It's actually quite annoying as someone asks who Djokovic is and if Murray has beaten Federer before...

The whole 'Big Four' thing is a bit of a myth. In reality, it's the 'Big Three plus One'.

Guest82 it's actually worse than that. It's endless debate over the fortnight as to whether or not Henman, then now Murray can win the damn thing.

The answer, of course, is if they're good enough then yes, why not?

If they're not good enough, as in the case of our gallant Tim, then why not see that it's blindingly obvious that the answer was invariably no. Using golf anaologies it was like waiting for Monty to win that major that was never going to happen.

'The Big Three Plus One' is an anathema !

Murray is way ahead of Soderling on points so, to my mind,
that puts him firmly in the Top Four in the World !

yummymummy the problem with being 4th best player in the world means invariably "close but no cigar"

I wouldn'd mind being World #4 newballs !

And WHAT Tennis player wants a cigar ?

The thing is, he is the 4 th best player in the world. Those top 4 only changed late last year early this year for the first time since 2009. That to me shows that these are the players that win Master and Slam events.

I find it strange that people think that by not winning a Slam means your a loser. Sometimes people need to let go of that mentality.

yummymummy wrote:'The Big Three Plus One' is an anathema !

Murray is way ahead of Soderling on points so, to my mind,
that puts him firmly in the Top Four in the World !

Way ahead of Soderling, but way behind Federer. I've nothing against Murray, it's more a complaint about the media coverage in this country (UK). I think Ljubicic said something similar in an interview before he played Murray.

legendkillar wrote:The thing is, he is the 4 th best player in the world. Those top 4 only changed late last year early this year for the first time since 2009. That to me shows that these are the players that win Master and Slam events.

I find it strange that people think that by not winning a Slam means your a loser. Sometimes people need to let go of that mentality.

He's not a loser, far from it. But in reality winning a slam is the ultimate aim for a tennis player.

newballs wrote:Guest82 it's actually worse than that. It's endless debate over the fortnight as to whether or not Henman, then now Murray can win the damn thing.

The answer, of course, is if they're good enough then yes, why not?

If they're not good enough, as in the case of our gallant Tim, then why not see that it's blindingly obvious that the answer was invariably no. Using golf anaologies it was like waiting for Monty to win that major that was never going to happen.

A bit like having Westwood & Donald at No.1 & 2 without a Major between them!

Remember before this year it was really the Big Two with Djokovic a fairly distant third followed by Murray. However as Djokovic has really stepped up this year it can certainly now be called a Big Three. Hopefully Murray having seen what Djokovic has done can build his confidence and consistency to join these these three.

The media don't help. But when have they ever helped? No doubt Murray can play great tennis. I like how he has started to change his court demenour. We all saw glimpses of the old 'irritable' side of him come out in his match with Ljubicic. If a player is starting to play well or raise their level, he needs to re-act with his tennis. Move up a gear.

The Slam is the ultimate aim and I think now he is even closer than previous years. If he gets past Gasquet, the draw opens nicely as it gets to the business end of the Slam.

I think that Darren Cahill is having a soothing effect on Andy !

His serve has certainly come on in leaps and bounds since
Cahill started coaching him.

BUT - as with Henman - I don't think that carrying the weight
of the hopes of a Nation can help anyone.

In the meantime good luck tomorrow Andee !

legendkillar wrote:The media don't help. But when have they ever helped? No doubt Murray can play great tennis. I like how he has started to change his court demenour. We all saw glimpses of the old 'irritable' side of him come out in his match with Ljubicic. If a player is starting to play well or raise their level, he needs to re-act with his tennis. Move up a gear.

The Slam is the ultimate aim and I think now he is even closer than previous years. If he gets past Gasquet, the draw opens nicely as it gets to the business end of the Slam.

To be honest I think his main problem is quite simple - he's just not quite as good as the other three. No shame in that, two of the best of all time and another exceptional player. I know he has beaten them in masters series and even beaten Nadal in slams but I think the very best players raise their game by 10% or so in the slams.

The consistency is so good now that he is unlikely to win a slam without beating one of these three either.

I felt for Tim because there was always better players in the draw. his best chance was 2001 and I would buy his autobiography to see his approach to his match with Ivanisevic was and during the match how he felt during the rain delays.

But back on topic, I think Murray has a Slam winning game, just getting it all together when it counts that matters.

I you Legend !!!!!!!!

Well LK

you can't win slams if you sit back and wait for mistakes.

2 names JM

Mats Wilander and Andre Agassi

Another un-informed comment from yourself.

In this era, I mean.

Or did you not look at Nadal-Murray in RG?

We've heard it all before Josiah !

SLAMLESS MURRAY - You should join forces with "Pauline"

Moving the goalposts huh?

Considering this era of tennis is not over, there is time involved.

I saw Nadal-Murray at RG and all the fitness palaver there was before the match, it is very difficult whether to judge whether it had a mental effect or not on Andy. Admittedly Andy was sloppy on certain points.

The one thing taken by Andy's campaign as a whole and not on one individual match is that Andy now has the game to attack in long spells in matches. eg. Troicki, Berrer, Chela matches.

legendkillar wrote:The thing is, he is the 4 th best player in the world. Those top 4 only changed late last year early this year for the first time since 2009. That to me shows that these are the players that win Master and Slam events.

I find it strange that people think that by not winning a Slam means your a loser. Sometimes people need to let go of that mentality.

legendkillar I don't think that made Henman or indeed Murray a "loser". I was referring more to press speculation and hype. In Andy's case it's justified but let's wait until he wins a slam before crowning him champion

legendkillar wrote:Moving the goalposts huh?

Considering this era of tennis is not over, there is time involved.

I saw Nadal-Murray at RG and all the fitness palaver there was before the match, it is very difficult whether to judge whether it had a mental effect or not on Andy. Admittedly Andy was sloppy on certain points.

The one thing taken by Andy's campaign as a whole and not on one individual match is that Andy now has the game to attack in long spells in matches. eg. Troicki, Berrer, Chela matches.

It's easier for him to impose himself on Triocki, Berrer, Chela etc...Nadal, Fed, Djoko will make it harder for him to attack them.

Guest82 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Moving the goalposts huh?

Considering this era of tennis is not over, there is time involved.

I saw Nadal-Murray at RG and all the fitness palaver there was before the match, it is very difficult whether to judge whether it had a mental effect or not on Andy. Admittedly Andy was sloppy on certain points.

The one thing taken by Andy's campaign as a whole and not on one individual match is that Andy now has the game to attack in long spells in matches. eg. Troicki, Berrer, Chela matches.

It's easier for him to impose himself on Triocki, Berrer, Chela etc...Nadal, Fed, Djoko will make it harder for him to attack them.

We shall see in this championship. I think his FH will be key. If he hits it with the power like he did in the FO, Fed, Djoko, Nadal will find it difficult.