I Can Be Number One This Year Says Murray

Andy Murray still believes he can reach the world No 1 spot this year, despite Novak Djokovic showing no signs
that he is ready to give it up.

‘At the start of last week everyone was asking me if Roger is about to go back to world No 1, and if he was in his best ever form, yet I am possibly only one good tournament away from overtaking him,’ reasoned Murray in the wake of his loss to Djokovic on Sunday.

‘My goal this year is still to be world No 1, and to do that you’ve got to win Slams, so the two of them go together. The aim now is to peak for the French Open.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2124152/Andy-Murray-aiming-world-No-1.html

Oh Andy! Shush...

Oh no, he's at it again. How does he get drawn into making these ill-advised comments?!

Did he say also that he wanted to remain at number 1 in 2013 or does he want to get back to number 4 then?

Clearly his aim is to get to slam finals and to win them. If he does that enough times then the rankings will take care of themselves.

Andy Murray is still only 24 although he turns 25 ten days before the start of the French Open.

Ivan Lendl won his first slam aged about 24 years and 2 months.

Well, you're right Nore, on second reading, Murray's comments actually seem pretty innocuous. Of course it's his aim to win matches and what he says is factually correct. He is one good tournament away from catching Federer up in the official ATP ranking.

However, in the live rankings he is closer to Ferrer than he is to Nadal, who is behind Federer and maybe this is a better indication of current form? I just wish he wouldn't get drawn and let his tennis do the talking.

Oh well Murray is Murray, he wants to be a joker not Djoker

What is he going to change then?

If he does what he has always done, he'll get what he has always gotten, right?

Although I think the chances of Andy getting to number 1 are virtually zero, I don't see a lot wrong in what he said. What is he supposed to be aiming for? Number 3? To be runner up in a slam? As Nore Staat says, if he achieves his goal of winning slams, then his ranking will likely move up with it.

And I think he is right, some of the Federer discussion did get a bit out of control. Talk of getting to number 1 when he is 3000 points behind an incumbent who is still winning big events is a bit premature! (In fairness to Federer, he did point this out to people when they asked him his own opinion).

HM Murdoch wrote:Although I think the chances of Andy getting to number 1 are virtually zero, I don't see a lot wrong in what he said. What is he supposed to be aiming for? Number 3? To be runner up in a slam? As Nore Staat says, if he achieves his goal of winning slams, then his ranking will likely move up with it.

And I think he is right, some of the Federer discussion did get a bit out of control. Talk of getting to number 1 when he is 3000 points behind an incumbent who is still winning big events is a bit premature! (In fairness to Federer, he did point this out to people when they asked him his own opinion).

Fed is in touching distance in the "race to London" and is still ahead in points from USO11 and those discussions were going on about Fed cause he kept winning everytournament he entered almost. By contrast Murray says something that sounds strange after a clear defeat by the World number 1. Of course his goal is clear, and as said above, his goal is probably to remain number one (once he gets there at the year end) for many years to come. But players usually don;t say it.Or at least they can talk about regaining the top spot after having surrendered it, which is not the case of Murray.

So what should he say then? Simple "try to win my next match". That's as far as it goes for most players and that is the wisest approach not to put yourself in embarassing position or unecessary pressure.

HM Murdoch wrote:Although I think the chances of Andy getting to number 1 are virtually zero, I don't see a lot wrong in what he said. What is he supposed to be aiming for? Number 3? To be runner up in a slam? As Nore Staat says, if he achieves his goal of winning slams, then his ranking will likely move up with it.

And I think he is right, some of the Federer discussion did get a bit out of control. Talk of getting to number 1 when he is 3000 points behind an incumbent who is still winning big events is a bit premature! (In fairness to Federer, he did point this out to people when they asked him his own opinion).

The Federer discussion is all about the position after the USO 2012, and it's not unreasonable if he wins a Slam. Not at all. The guy bombed from here to the USO, with the exception of a RG final.

Just wish we'd had a little taste of how his form matches up against the Djoker.

Only the Daily Mail can print such nonsense. I quote "Nadal is fewer than 2,000 in front and, as ever, he has a mass to defend in the next 10 weeks"

And where are the bulk of these points to be defended? Monaco, Barcelona,Madrid, Rome and Roland Garros. Oh right, obviously Nadal's least favoured surface and one Andy feels right at home on. File under complete and utter rubbish.

newballs wrote:Only the Daily Mail can print such nonsense. I quote "Nadal is fewer than 2,000 in front and, as ever, he has a mass to defend in the next 10 weeks"

And where are the bulk of these points to be defended? Monaco, Barcelona,Madrid, Rome and Roland Garros. Oh right, obviously Nadal's least favoured surface and one Andy feels right at home on. File under complete and utter rubbish.

hahahaha it was in the Daily Mail?! LOL no wonder it is a failure of an article.

"player wants to be best in the world" shocker

This is a story for the News of the World! Oh, wait...

bogbrush wrote:The Federer discussion is all about the position after the USO 2012, and it's not unreasonable if he wins a Slam. Not at all. The guy bombed from here to the USO, with the exception of a RG final.

That, at present, is a fairly significant 'if' though. Because:
a) he hasn't won a slam in two years
b) the two guys above him have won every slam in that period.

Given that Andy's recent slam form is better than Roger's, I don't think the claim of "he could get to number 1 if he wins a slam" is any less credible when applied to Andy rather than Roger. Which I think is probably the essence of Andy's point.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The Federer discussion is all about the position after the USO 2012, and it's not unreasonable if he wins a Slam. Not at all. The guy bombed from here to the USO, with the exception of a RG final.

That, at present, is a fairly significant 'if' though. Because:
a) he hasn't won a slam in two years
b) the two guys above him have won every slam in that period.

Given that Andy's recent slam form is better than Roger's, I don't think the claim of "he could get to number 1 if he wins a slam" is any less credible when applied to Andy rather than Roger. Which I think is probably the essence of Andy's point.

I'm not sure what position you're arguing with. If anyone says "Federers will be #1" then your points are right, but if they say (as I've heard) "If Federer wins a Slam he has a great chance of #1" then you are challenging them on the grounds of the condition they themselves applied, in which case your argument is redundant.

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The Federer discussion is all about the position after the USO 2012, and it's not unreasonable if he wins a Slam. Not at all. The guy bombed from here to the USO, with the exception of a RG final.

That, at present, is a fairly significant 'if' though. Because:
a) he hasn't won a slam in two years
b) the two guys above him have won every slam in that period.

Given that Andy's recent slam form is better than Roger's, I don't think the claim of "he could get to number 1 if he wins a slam" is any less credible when applied to Andy rather than Roger. Which I think is probably the essence of Andy's point.

I'm not sure what position you're arguing with. If anyone says "Federers will be #1" then your points are right, but if they say (as I've heard) "If Federer wins a Slam he has a great chance of #1" then you are challenging them on the grounds of the condition they themselves applied, in which case your argument is redundant.

I'm not 'arguing' with any position. My comment was that the talk of Federer getting to number 1 again was "a bit premature". Your response was that it is not unreasonable if he wins a slam. Well, he hasn't won slam yet, so are we not in agreement that the talk is premature?

What I'm agreeing with is the sentiment of Andy's comment. Their current points totals are not that far apart and they both have the scope to gain points over the coming months. This will mainly depend on them winning a slam, which recent form suggests they have a similar chance of achieving.

And yet there has been lots of discussion about Federer getting to number 1 but barely a murmur about Andy doing so. I think Andy is justified in highlighting this disparity.

HM Murdoch wrote:And yet there has been lots of discussion about Federer getting to number 1 but barely a murmur about Andy doing so. I think Andy is justified in highlighting this disparity.

1 - Federer refuses to say he is considering the top spot. Murray says he is aiming for it by year end!
2- One has spen 280 weeks at number 1. The other was never close to get a single week there.

That's 2 big disparities to me.

Can't fault Murray's comments. He wants motivation and this is the best way. I would never judge it to be a failure should he not win a Slam this year or attain the number 1 ranking.

In fairness I wouldn't wipe my arss with the Daily Mail.

The goals he has set out are not un-realistic. If he was ranked 100 in the world, then yes it is a load lovesacks. He has a tidy sum of points, whether he achieves it or not is a whole other issue.

Hmm this seems to suggest otherwise:-

http://www.bet365.com/news/en/betting/tennis/federer-aiming-to-be-no1-again

And how long a player has spent at No.1 compared to another means nothing. I mean is Mancini wrong for being boss of Manchester City (never won the EPL) and suggest United will drop points between now and the end of the season and say City can still be champions? No of course not.

Sadly, this is now 20+ articles by the OP going down the same road on the same player and I won't sullen myself with any more responses to any such-like articles like these ever again.

Would it be realistic to say that to reach no.1 this year Andy would need to win at least two slams and have various other results go his way?

Well I can't see him winniNng the French meaning it would need to be both Wimby and the US Open. Now given Djokovic's form and the fact that you can't write off either Nadal or Federer I'd say the odds on that happening are pretty remote. Yes Andy can win a slam this year and might have an outside chance of no. 2 in the world. Anything else for this year is frankly cloud cuckoo land.

Tenez wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:And yet there has been lots of discussion about Federer getting to number 1 but barely a murmur about Andy doing so. I think Andy is justified in highlighting this disparity.

1 - Federer refuses to say he is considering the top spot. Murray says he is aiming for it by year end!
2- One has spen 280 weeks at number 1. The other was never close to get a single week there.

That's 2 big disparities to me.

1 - Stating that you are aiming for it doesn't affect the chances of it actually happening.

2- Said player last held the number 1 spot in June 2010 and his year end rankings have dropped the last two years. Expecting a 30 year old at the beginning of slow decline to reverse this trend against three 25/26 years olds seemingly in their prime has to be a hope rather than an expectation.

Federer beating Nadal on slow outdoor HC and then losing to Roddick. If that can happen, then why not Murray being number 1? You are all Murray haters on this forum. ALL OF YOU!!!

That does prove ANYTHING can happen in tennis, so yeah maybe you're right...

Well there are limits to that, Reck. Nadal not complaining about an injury when losing...The humble sportsmanship is very consistent!

HM Murdoch wrote:
Their current points totals are not that far apart and they both have the scope to gain points over the coming months. This will mainly depend on them winning a slam, which recent form suggests they have a similar chance of achieving.

And yet there has been lots of discussion about Federer getting to number 1 but barely a murmur about Andy doing so. I think Andy is justified in highlighting this disparity.

Federer is about 1000 point ahead of Murray, and his best chance of reaching #1 would be by late October (i.e. just before his Basel-Paris-WTF points from last year will be dropped). Main things to defend until late October are:

Federer: Slams 1200+360+720, Masters Rome SF (360)
Murray: Slams 720+720+720, Masters Monte Carlo+Rome SF (360+360), Cincinnati+Shanghai W (1000+1000)

So Murray would actually need to perform significantly better than Federer.

If (and that's a big if!) Federer can reach the #1 position by late October, he is likely to lose it again before the year-end.

Great post prostaff, good to see some hard numbers brought into the debate.

I still don't see a huge difference between them. I don't want to go too far down the path of hypotheticals (because we could be here all day!) but IF Murray were to win Monte Carlo and get to the semi in Madrid, then he will likely overtake Fed before Rome (as Fed isn't entering Monte Carlo). Not saying I think he will, just that it is possible for the 1000pt gap to close quickly.

From there on at ATP1000 level, Murray has less opportunity to gain than Federer but Canada, for instance, could offer a gain of almost 1000pts. But really I think we are talking nip and tuck and it will hinge on who does best at the slams. It is here that I think Murray has the edge. He doesn't have the pedigree but I get the feeling he could (i.e it is within his ability) beat Nadal and Djokovic over 5 sets but I sadly no longer think Federer can (at least not both in the same tournament).

Looking at the bigger picture though, I don't expect either to get to number 1. I expect the top 4 to be the same at the end of the year as they were at the start.

Interesting, I really don't have much of a problem with Andy's comments. I mean I think he is being optimistic and don't think that he has a very realistic chance of getting the number 1 this year. I don't see this as being a big mistake or foolish for murray to say he wants to win slams and be number 1. I mean the guy has played in 3 grandslam finals what other goal could he have. I mean should he have said I want to forever play in Roger, RAfa, and Novak's shadow?

As for the Fed thing, Roger has a limited window to regain the #1 by the USO. Of course that means winning one of the next 3 slams. Still I don't think it will happen. If nadal and Novak are both healthy and playing reasonably up to form I think they will continue to block his path. And as prostaff has pointed out any return to #1 would most likely be shortlived as he has to basically defend thousands of points in the indoor season and Novak has virtually no points to defend in the indoor season and by just playing decently in the indoor swing he can retake the #1 ranking. Still I think over all that Roger won't get the #1 ranking. He certainly won't have a great shot at it if Novak wins the RG and adds about 1500 points to his tally. And he basically has to hope and pray that in all 3 of the upcoming slams he avoids Nadal's half or Nadal gets upset along the way.

By the way from the start of the season this year Roger is #2 in the points race behind Novak. Novak wins the RG pretty much everyone's "I can be number 1" thesis, except for his will look pretty silly, Roger's included.

His goal is to be number 1 and win slams?

What an outrageous thing for the world number 4 to say!

How dare he have such aspirations!

Why are you telling Andy to 'shush' hawkeye?

What would you post about if he didn't make innocuous comments in interviews for you to have a hissy fit about and blow out of all proportion?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Federer beating Nadal on slow outdoor HC and then losing to Roddick. If that can happen, then why not Murray being number 1? You are all Murray haters on this forum. ALL OF YOU!!!

Come on JM, everybody in this forum wants Murray to win, but there is a difference between hoping and expecting, We hope Murray can win a slam but we don't expect him to win it, do you get the difference . If its a motivational quote its perfectly fine, but fans should understand this and don't jump over his head.

There is a saying Aim at the Star and shoot at the tree, Murray is doing just that, Aiming for No.1 and coz of that he could atleast end up at No.3, I guess its a serious possibility if Rafa has a bad clay season, which could just happen.

djlovesyou

I'm telling Andy to "shush" because tactically IMO it's not wise to talk himself up to the press in this way. For those blaming The Daily Mail. Murray gave them the quote they are just using it.

Of course thats just my opinion. If you disagee please explain how he gains from such talk.

The DM are full of crap!!

These are the guys forecasting snow in October and -20 in November.

Hardly cutting edge accurate journalism now is it.

Now before you all trash the Daily Fail, I would refer you to this piece of cutting edge journalism:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html

hawkeye wrote:djlovesyou

I'm telling Andy to "shush" because tactically IMO it's not wise to talk himself up to the press in this way. For those blaming The Daily Mail. Murray gave them the quote they are just using it.

Of course thats just my opinion. If you disagee please explain how he gains from such talk.

Talk himself up? Was it previously thought that he didn't want to win slams and be world number 1? There are only 3 players ahead of him in the rankings, and he's got to 3 slam finals and has just reached his 5th slam semi in a row... What did people assume his aspirations were?

If Man City said "we are aiming to win the league this year" would everyone say "That's a mistake! They are talking themselves up to the press" .... No, of course they wouldn't.

"Top player wants to win slams and be world number 1"... Is not a shocking headline folks. It's not even news! It's stating the obvious. It doesn't add pressure to himself. Surely anyone with half a brain knew this already, no?

I fear the opprobrium and censure that Mr Murray might receive from some, after reading quotes from his latest interview:

Andy Murray wrote: If they hadn't have been around [Federer, Nadal, Djokovic] then I could have won seven or eight Grand Slams ... I've been in the top four now for five years and if that had been in another sport, say boxing, then I would have been world champion for all time. ... I have a good record over all these guys, so I can say I've beaten two of the greatest players of all time and in Novak - he probably had the greatest year in tennis last year. So I think I've been lucky to be in this era.

http://sport.uk.msn.com/tennis/murray-i-couldve-won-eight-majors-in-a-different-era

Is there enae hope for this wee laddie?

Nore Staat wrote:I fear the opprobrium and censure that Mr Murray might receive from some, after reading quotes from his latest interview:

Andy Murray wrote: If they hadn't have been around [Federer, Nadal, Djokovic] then I could have won seven or eight Grand Slams ... I've been in the top four now for five years and if that had been in another sport, say boxing, then I would have been world champion for all time. ... I have a good record over all these guys, so I can say I've beaten two of the greatest players of all time and in Novak - he probably had the greatest year in tennis last year. So I think I've been lucky to be in this era.

http://sport.uk.msn.com/tennis/murray-i-couldve-won-eight-majors-in-a-different-era

Is there enae hope for this wee laddie?

Ha ha! I have to admit when there is no tennis to be played Murray is fast becomming my favourite player...

Good find Nore Staat, seriously bizarre article!

I don't understand how he would have been a world champion boxer. Presumably his strategy would have been to keep well away from his opponent and hope they tired themselves out throwing punches?

Murray needs to keep his mouth shut and win ONE major in THIS era!

There are so many quotes one can pick on ...

Andy Murray wrote:At the last Olympics I played really badly, but it was actually one of the best experiences of my sporting career ...

Andy Murray on this years Olympics wrote: ... going to the opening ceremony and being around all the best athletes in the world. .. I'm really really pumped about it and I found out a few days ago that I get to carry the torch as well.

Andy Murray on his choice of sport wrote: I actually preferred the team sports because you were with all your friends and there was a little bit less pressure. In tennis, when you lose then you're the only person to blame. I only made the decision because they had a ranking system and at that age I was ranked number two or three in Europe, whereas in football I was probably like number 30 in central Scotland alone!

Good grief! Did his mum read it back to him before it got published???

I honestly can't think of any other top performer in another sport who would have said such things. Honesty, naivety? Call it what you will.

Nore Staat wrote:There are so many quotes one can pick on ...

Andy Murray wrote:At the last Olympics I played really badly, but it was actually one of the best experiences of my sporting career ...

Andy Murray on this years Olympics wrote: ... going to the opening ceremony and being around all the best athletes in the world. .. I'm really really pumped about it and I found out a few days ago that I get to carry the torch as well.

Andy Murray on his choice of sport wrote: I actually preferred the team sports because you were with all your friends and there was a little bit less pressure. In tennis, when you lose then you're the only person to blame. I only made the decision because they had a ranking system and at that age I was ranked number two or three in Europe, whereas in football I was probably like number 30 in central Scotland alone!

lol

lydian wrote:Murray needs to keep his mouth shut and win ONE major in THIS era!

Are you suggesting he should say 'no comment' every time a journo asks him a question?

Murray could be number 1 in a sport like bowls where the objective is to bore the opponent to death superior defense.

Nore Staat wrote:There are so many quotes one can pick on ...

Andy Murray wrote:At the last Olympics I played really badly, but it was actually one of the best experiences of my sporting career ...

Andy Murray on this years Olympics wrote: ... going to the opening ceremony and being around all the best athletes in the world. .. I'm really really pumped about it and I found out a few days ago that I get to carry the torch as well.

Andy Murray on his choice of sport wrote: I actually preferred the team sports because you were with all your friends and there was a little bit less pressure. In tennis, when you lose then you're the only person to blame. I only made the decision because they had a ranking system and at that age I was ranked number two or three in Europe, whereas in football I was probably like number 30 in central Scotland alone!

Ha ha!

I quite like this one too (in the context of Murray saying he could have been an all time champion in another sport).

"I played a lot of football, golf and I did gymnastics, but tennis was the only one I was ever any good at."

from the same linked article.

He's always been your 'favourite' player hawkeye.

At least favourite in the sense he's the player you've got the biggest obsession with, albeit a slightly unhealthy obsession to be fair.

He was a decent footballer as a kid to be fair.

I get the impression these sorts of pronouncements are a result of the thinking that in order to win one has to truly believe one can win. So by talking as if one can win one convinces oneself of it. I wonder if this is to do with Lendl, or more about the example set by Djokovic whose turnaround seemed, apparently, to be about 'self-belief'.

It's a chicken and egg thing, If you're already winning then the belief ought to follow from the results. If you're not winning you want to find a way to buoy yourself, push yourself a bit further, so you put your goals out there in the world as a way to solidify those goals, make yourself accountable to them, to increase your motivation.

However, I still feel that it's self-consciousness that's hindered Murray, i.e. it's to do with fear bound up in public perception, that hinders his ability to express himself on court. That's what Djokovic and Nadal do so well, they're totally immersed in the moment, and over the period of his winning streak Djokovic's forehand has become more and more fluid, loose, easy. I wouldn't be surprised if Murray trying to talk himself up into becoming the champion has the opposite effect, the combination of self-consciousness and added pressure weighs him down and makes him tighter on court.
Let's see.