I feel sorry for Murray

Murray will still get a handsome prize money and does not need my sympathy but I really felt sad for him today. Kept playing in my mind why he is always unlucky and meets Nadal at Wimbledon. He played great last year and lost in straight sets, he won the 1st set today only to see Nadal become unplayable. He is a great player who is unlucky to be in arguably the greatest tennis era ever but he will get his lucky break I feel but it will just not be easy. He looked to find inspiration at the end of todays match but his opponent was too good. His hip injury might have bothered but I don't know what else he could have done today.

That's the price of being #4 in the world S_A

Nadal and Djoko (and to a certain extent now) Federer
are there first !!!!!!!!!!!

It's your rankings innit !

He is unlucky to be in the era of tennis he finds himself in. A testament to his talent is being able to win titles, albeit not Grand Slam titles, but he has appeared in the all the semi finals of these events. I think him winning 1 or 2 would be a massivve achievement in itself.

It's a shame because we are truely blessed with an exceptional player but I fear that he is just short of the quality that the top three players possess.

I agree Legend that he is unlucky to be fairing his trade in such a formidable era.

Today he ran into what I believe will turn out to be the best player to ever wield a raquet.

It is a shame.

If you feel sorry for Murray you must be inconsolable when it comes to Soderling.

I'll back Murray and have him as my No.1 player to support at USO. Nadal will understand lol.

I thought Murray was going to get himself a proper coach - at least that's what he said at the beginning of the clay court season.

I hope he does NS. It seems when Cahill worked with him in Paris, he found a sharp focus never seen before. His gameplan tactics seemed more aggressive and he never started matches defensively like he did under Machlagan.

There's quite a gap between him and the top 3, but he will I'm sure still win a Major one day. Only it won't be Wimbledon, despite what the Daily Mail, Sean Connery, the Grand Old Duke of York, etc., might say.

FreekShow wrote:It's a shame because we are truely blessed with an exceptional player but I fear that he is just short of the quality that the top three players possess.

I agree Legend that he is unlucky to be fairing his trade in such a formidable era.

Today he ran into what I believe will turn out to be the best player to ever wield a raquet.

It is a shame.

But he still has enough time on his side as he is only 24 years of age, and with someone like Roger Federer who is currently 29 years of age appearing to be in the autumn of his own illustrious career, there will be a window of opportunity in a few years time for Murray to win Wimbledon with only Djokovic and Nadal remaining out of the current fab 4, unless some of the younger generation like Tomic, Dimitrov, Raonic make the step up to the level of tennis which is currently played by the fab 4 in Slam Tournaments. A scenario could easily happen in a few years time once Federer has retired whereby both Nadal and Djokovic get injured before a Wimbledon tournament and Murray becomes the top seed and the red hot favourite to win it!

Murray is a mental midget. His performance reminds me of a less mentally frail player..Federer. He was playing light out tennis until he missed a near sitter in the third set to go 40-15 up on Nadal's serve.His game almost collapsed after that and lost the next 7 games...whilst Nadal smelling blood, stepped up his. He never really recovered after that and as fully expected capitulated.

Murray is 6'3 hardly a midget. And it was the 2nd set at 30-15. Maybe try watching the match.

legendkillar wrote:Murray is 6'3 hardly a midget. And it was the 2nd set at 30-15. Maybe try watching the match.

Give some of these "jokers" a racket and let's see what they could do

sportslover wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Murray is 6'3 hardly a midget. And it was the 2nd set at 30-15. Maybe try watching the match.

Give some of these "jokers" a racket and let's see what they could do

It makes me laugh these throw away comments people make without actually applying the correct facts. Don't give them a racket, maybe a brain first.

To be fair czaree called Murray a mental midget.

While I feel thats overly harsh I think its undeniable that Andy lacks the mental toughness and composure that the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer can muster when the pressure is really on.

You could see his body language change in the second set and his service game simply went to pieces for 2 sets. Against the current top 3 players, you simply can't let that happen. If Andy been able to maintain the level he showed in the first set, there was a very good chance he would be in the final now.

I think he had his best chance yet of reaching a Wimbledon final, but let it slip because he couldn't keep the pressure on Nadal that he'd built up with his first set win.

That said, all credit to Rafa. he was absolutely relentless with his power, athleticism and inventiveness. Some of the winners he came up with were just ridiculous. In one sense you can understand Murray getting frustrated, when his opponent his winning points they have no right to, but to be the best you have to be mentally strong too.

In summary, Rafa got off to a slow, if decent, start and just got better, whereas Murray was only at his best for the 1st set and steadily tailed off, apart from a late rally in the 4th (too little, too late, as they say).

I'd say Andy Murray is somewhat unlucky to be playing in an era blessed with Rafa, Roger and Novak, but he has shown he can beat them adn he just needs to get his head right.

I think Boris Becker had a point when he said Murray needs to cut down the size of his entourage. He needs to do his mental preparation before a game and not have a bunch of people shouting at him on court.

All this talk of the "fab 4" is a little unfair on two of our other great CHAMPIONS in todays game...I'd call it a fab 6...

Fed, Rafa, Joker....plus Del boy, Roddick and Hewitt are all Grand Slam WINNERS afterall. And that's what counts.

consigliare wrote:All this talk of the "fab 4" is a little unfair on two of our other great CHAMPIONS in todays game...I'd call it a fab 6...

Fed, Rafa, Joker....plus Del boy, Roddick and Hewitt are all Grand Slam WINNERS afterall. And that's what counts.

Hmmmmmmm the term one hit wonder springs to mind. A bit of weak arguement you present.

legendkillar wrote:

consigliare wrote:All this talk of the "fab 4" is a little unfair on two of our other great CHAMPIONS in todays game...I'd call it a fab 6...

Fed, Rafa, Joker....plus Del boy, Roddick and Hewitt are all Grand Slam WINNERS afterall. And that's what counts.

Hmmmmmmm the term one hit wonder springs to mind. A bit of weak arguement you present.

Better than a no time blunder. In the case of the latter two, how did "one time wonders" get to world #1?

consigliare wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

consigliare wrote:All this talk of the "fab 4" is a little unfair on two of our other great CHAMPIONS in todays game...I'd call it a fab 6...

Fed, Rafa, Joker....plus Del boy, Roddick and Hewitt are all Grand Slam WINNERS afterall. And that's what counts.

Hmmmmmmm the term one hit wonder springs to mind. A bit of weak arguement you present.

Better than a no time blunder. In the case of the latter two, how did "one time wonders" get to world #1?

If you can explain with your superlative tennis knowledge how Murray blundered I will constructively debate it.

Roddick got to number 1 through Masters Series victories too. Look at the Grand Slam winners that year. Agassi, Ferrero, Federer and Roddick.

Hewitt in 2001-2. Again who were the slam winners? Johansson, Ivanisevic, Sampras.

What does number 1 in the world mean? Rios had it without a Slam win.

legendkillar wrote:

consigliare wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

consigliare wrote:All this talk of the "fab 4" is a little unfair on two of our other great CHAMPIONS in todays game...I'd call it a fab 6...

Fed, Rafa, Joker....plus Del boy, Roddick and Hewitt are all Grand Slam WINNERS afterall. And that's what counts.

Hmmmmmmm the term one hit wonder springs to mind. A bit of weak arguement you present.

Better than a no time blunder. In the case of the latter two, how did "one time wonders" get to world #1?

What does number 1 in the world mean? .

Nothing, unless it were to somehow ever be Murray in which cause it would mean everything to you.

If you can explain with your superlative tennis knowledge how Murray blundered I will constructively debate it.

He didn't literally blunder, I agree. He just isn't good enough, no argument here. I just thought I'd produce a glib remark along similar lines to yours when you belittled the achievements of champions.

I am not belittling the achievements of past champions. Just that rankings never reflect the achievements of the players achieving them. Careers are long and Murray has won titles. He knows how to win. Just have to transfer that form to the Slams.

Correct Murray wasn't good enough on the day. It is a case of back to the drawing board for Murray. But I wouldn't say he blundered though.

He hasn't been good enough on any day that counts actually.

That's a line brought out to try and avoid admitting he isn't as good as those who have thrashed him numerous times in the big matches by making it sound like a one off.

Fact is, he is improving and getting better at handling the kind of pressure that no other player gets in their home country. This year, if all had gone as seeded, Murray would have had to beat Nadal then Djokovic in the final. A pretty tough order for any player outside the top 3 (who are all slam winners)

He may or may not in a slam, he is No4 in the world for a reason. But it didn't take long for Djoko to leap up the rankings and win slams when he suddenly got confident with his game. Who knows, same thing could happen to Murray, but he needs to get a slam under his belt, and maybe the only place he can do that is the USA.

Until that time, he will always be viewed as a wannabe, and whether or not we believe he will win a slam, he has managed to put Britain back on the tennis map and give us something to cheer about.

I don't feel sorry for Andy he is richer than me, taller than me, and Kim Sears for a girlfriend. He gets to travel the world and play tennis everyday. I feel sorry for North Korean peasants and starving African kids. Andy murray will be just fine whether he wins a slam or not.

Very good points socal.

Certainly no need to feel sorry for the lad. He just needs a Mr Miyagi or Yoda to teach him mental discipline, then he'll start winning Slams.

socal1976 wrote:I don't feel sorry for Andy he is richer than me, taller than me, and Kim Sears for a girlfriend. He gets to travel the world and play tennis everyday. I feel sorry for North Korean peasants and starving African kids. Andy murray will be just fine whether he wins a slam or not.

consigliare wrote:He hasn't been good enough on any day that counts actually.

That's a line brought out to try and avoid admitting he isn't as good as those who have thrashed him numerous times in the big matches by making it sound like a one off.

He has, like I said he has won finals.

He has to try and convert that form to the latter stages of Slams.

When I see "he isn't good enough" i know the words are coming from someone who either only has a passing interest in tennis, or someone who just doesn't like Murray. The kind of person I expect to come out with pearls of wisdom like "he needs to get rid of his mother".

Pretty much everyone who knows the game knows that whatever Andy lacks, it is not ability.

Another thing that gets me at this time of year is how after a defeat to Nadal people say that he will never be able to get past him in a slam, that Nadal is just too good... Well, there are 3 other slams and Murray has knocked Nadal out of those other slams twice in recent years.

I sincerely hope that Murray finds the belief that Djoko has found in the last year, or the mental toughness that Nadal is blessed with because that is pretty much all that is lacking. It is certainly not talent, and those that think it is don't know the game very well in my opinion.

Spot on Danny.

So let us see:-

Twice Runner-Up in Australian Open
One French Open Semi-Final
Three Wimbledon Semi-Finals
Once US Open Runner-Up

Do they look like stats of someone who isn't good enough?

Danny

I cannot wait for the day that Murray wins a Slam. It will ignite his game and no doubt will serve as the biggest launching pad ever. His time will come.

I hope it comes at the US or Australian Open because I think if it happens at Wimbledon I think the press and fans will expect that to be the pinnacle of his career and I know pure tennis fans like me want to see him as a multiple slam champion.

And again

legend

CaledonianCraig wrote:Spot on Danny.

So let us see:-

Twice Runner-Up in Australian Open
One French Open Semi-Final
Three Wimbledon Semi-Finals
Once US Open Runner-Up

Do they look like stats of someone who isn't good enough?

Errr, yes?...That's exactly what they do look like actually.

Posting clear evidence showing someone not being good enough...as an argument for them being good enough.

I disagree with the notion that 'ability' isn't the department that Andy is lacking in. I think it's the gap in natural 'athletic' ability that's separating him from the top 3. His forehand, the shot that needs to be the biggest weapon, is comparatively laboured. He's physically strong, tactically savy, his serve is powerful and consistent now, but in general his strokes are lumpen and inefficient compared to those of a Nadal, Federer, Djokovic or Del Potro. He's not a natural athlete, he's all hands rather than a perfect synchronisation of entire body. His talent is his brain and hands.

I disagree droogle, murray is tall and fast. He is a good athlete who can hit really high mph on his first serve and has cat like reactions on the return. Players with less physical ability have won grandslams. And less technical or shotmaking ability have won multiple slams. If you put Andy Murray's body and speed, and his shotmaking into Jimmy Connor's body; well connors would have won 20 slams.

I think Murray is the more skillful player but Djokovic has greater length in his shots, Murray is a better volleyer but Djokovic is the better server purely because of service percentage and his 2nd serve

legendkillar wrote:

consigliare wrote:He hasn't been good enough on any day that counts actually.

That's a line brought out to try and avoid admitting he isn't as good as those who have thrashed him numerous times in the big matches by making it sound like a one off.

He has, like I said he has won finals.

He has to try and convert that form to the latter stages of Slams.

And like I say...So have many, many other players.

And they have to do the same.