Bollettieri thinks Murray can't win a GS

First topic message reminder :

This is taken from an interview with SPOX, translated from German:

SPOX: Andy Murray would be glad if he would finally win his first Grand Slam tournament. The Scot was close to it a few times when it will be for him so far?

Bollettieri: Never.

SPOX: Excuse me? Andy Murray has everything that a great champion.

Bollettieri: Look, Andy Murray is a great character, much like my past was Andre Agassi. But why you do not just take what Boris Becker has said about him. "Andy Murray has no weapon and never will be a Grand Slam title to get," which are Boris's words. And I'm close to. Murray has improved his forehand and his serve, his footwork is amazing, he's an outstanding player return, he has a world-class backhand, but in order to win a Grand Slam tournament, he would have to play a little bit offensively. The question is whether he has the weapons to win a really big thing? I do not think so. Even more so, because there are so many other strong boys. It is not easy for Murray.

Here is the link;

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.spox.com/de/sport/mehrsport/tennis/1108/Artikel/nick-bollettieri-interview-us-open-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-andy-murray-tommy-haas-sabine-lisicki.html&ei=8YBVTsucCIbLtAaB-5HmDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbollettieri%2Bspox%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1152%26bih%3D747%26prmd%3Divns

hawkeye wrote:CaledonianCraig

Slams - Federer 16, Nadal 10
Masters - Federer 17, Nadal 19

Also when did tournaments get grouped together and called "masters". I'm sure players such as Borg, Connors, McEnroe etc must have won many tournaments outside of slams but we have no way to categorize them.

Can we presume then, taking JM's point of view, that those at the top of the Masters winners list are only there because the rest of the players weren't trying as well? Not sure but think they had another title in those days (Socal may remember).

Caedonian Craig

That would be silly! But some tournaments are more significant than others and some wins are more significant than others. I would even say some GS's are more significant than others. I wonder how Nadal veiws his 2010 Wimbledon title compared with his 2008 one.

As to which tournaments and wins are more significant... I'm sure we could argue all day.

Ah so it would be silly to claim Rafa and Roger won masters when other players weren't trying but for Andy Murray's wins it is a fact is it that others weren't trying in JM's book.

Craig at one time they called them Mercedes super 9, I think at another time they called them grand prixs. But actually, in the distant past these events weren't mandatory. In 1981 they started to make a large number of events mandatory for the top pros but the requirements were much more lax than the current 8 mandatory masters requirements, 4 500s, 2 250s requirements. Still there were more prestigious non-slam events that always were big measuring sticks, IW, Rome (Italian Open), Hamburg (german open), Canadian open. These were always seen as more prestigious titles to win and were worth more points and prize money. But since they weren't mandatory in the older days their fields were not as strong with every single top player required to go. The current masters configuration has been pretty stable since 1990. So if a player in 1970s and early 80s won grand prixs it would be the equivalent of today's masters series, or a mercedes super 9 in the late 80s.

Cheers socal.

Could some-one - ANY ONE - take JM to one side and

tell him/her that Murray is #4 IN THE WORLD and as such

deserves a bit of respect !



Getting a bit tired of the Murray sniping JM ! Grow up

yummymummy wrote:Could some-one - ANY ONE - take JM to one side and

tell him/her that Murray is #4 IN THE WORLD and as such

deserves a bit of respect !



Getting a bit tired of the Murray sniping JM ! Grow up

Have you met Murray?

Bolletieri on Murray's US open chances in todays London Evening Standard:


Bollettieri said Murray's win in Cincinnati 10 days ago - when world No1 Novak Djokovic quit during the final due to a shoulder injury - gave him an important confidence boost.

"I think the surface here is perfect for him, it's not overly fast," he said. "And whether Djokovic was hurt or not, he still beat him. That will help him a lot.

"I would like to see him sneak in to the net a little bit more because he moves so silently that, if he was a burglar, no one would ever see him coming in. I believe right now he is right in there with a great chance. He's in a good position."

So he's gone from not having a chance to having a great chance in the space of a few days?

Is Bolletieri a bit fickle with his opinions or did the OP get all damp over nothing at all? I'll let you decide.

yea that's right I got all damp, just like all the other non Murray fans who know full well he can't win a slam, because of his bad temper and weak mind
you know you should save such a comment until Murray finally wins a slam, right?

Did I make any comment whatsoever about what I thought about Murray and his chances of winning a grand slam?

This thread is about the opinions of one person, and it seems that you've got it completely wrong as perhaps his latest comments show that Bolletieri actually thinks that Murray can win a GS.

Do you accept this?

Nah he sure doesn't think Murray will win a GS, he showed his true colours on the interview with SPOX, changing his story after that interview will be seen as him faking it.

Think it's time Murray fans accept with dignity that the Scot will be happy to make semi finals from now on, where Rafa will hand him his ass on a plate

So you think Bollettieri - who is quoted in English saying Murray has a great chance of winning this grand slam - actually doesn't believe that Murray can win a grand slam?

.... Nurse !!!!

You think i'm going to respect an interview with a London tabloid (British hype machine), than with a sensibly unbiased and professional German tabloid?!

Yes I think you do need the nurse mate

So can we expect Bollettieri to bring a lawsuit against this London Tabloid for 'misquoting'?

Ok. There are some people who are here purely to articulate their dislike of certain players, and actually won't listen to any logic (or in this case - direct quotes) that go against what they claim or think.

Clearly you are one of them. So I leave you to enjoy your Murray bashing.

Come on JM, get your story straight.

Are you saying that NB is a liar or that this 'British Tabloid' is printing things that he didn't say. You've used both excuses as your last two posts, but it'll probably be best if you stuck with just one of them.

yeah sure Nick was being very sincere and honest when talking to the "London Times" (chuckle ), clearly he was exaggerating Murray's chance to this paper, so that they will print his words, they would not be printing his words if he said something bad about Murray, that is how it works with Murray and the tabloids sadly, delusional!

Wasn't it the Evening Standard he was talking to?

Quite amusing that you think that a German gossip website is a more reputable news source than The Times though, you should let OEM know that, he's readily available on twitter and a number of messageboards.

Although given the fact that The Times no longer publishes in broadsheet form you are correct in calling it a tabloid. You do know what a tabloid is don't you?

Wow a journalist on our hands who knows what gets said and what gets left out. I thought I heard it all, but clearly not.