Knee Jerk Reaction To A Murray Defeat

First topic message reminder :

I see we have the usual kneejerk reaction to an Andy Murray defeat. The same old verbal gonnorhea that he is over-rated, is not a great returner of serve blah blah blah.

He lost a Masters Final against the world No.1 with a point to prove and the last time I looked Andy is ranked No.4 in the world. What is with this over-rated nonsense? After all can I therefore claim Federer is over-rated for a much earlier exit here? It is always the same when Murray loses a match - his impending doom is forecast. As far as I recall he exited in the first rounds of IW and Miami during his spring season last year whilst this year he has reached the Dubai and Miami Finals so his spring form is a vast improvement on last year.

I don't hide the fact Andy played poorly yesterday by his standards and Novak as the better player on the day deserved the win. However, to try to portray such a defeat when his game was so off as being impending doom I see as nonsense. Of course some do hold a grasp on reality here and take it as a defeat to the world No.1 - a pity that others feel the need to go way OTT on some comments but there you go.

Next up is the clay season - Andy has been written off already in this phase of the season after three semis on that surface last year. It should be interesting.

sirfredperry wrote:I would say that Murray was a very worthy number four. It's not often you have three people above you who have won a total of THIRTY ONE SLAMS. Yes, I spose it could be argued that if Andy was better he might have reduced that 31 figure himself. But we've had some number 4s and also some number 3s and 2s (Tommy Haas) who have never even reached a GS final.
It's not as if Murray relies on getting a lot of points at the minor tourneys, either. His Masters 1000 record is very good.

Agree here with sirfred, murray is a very, very good number 4 player. He isn't anchoring the era and look at the credentials of the people ranked above him. Without question Murray is the best player in the open era never to win a slam. I can't even think of a close #2. The guy has 20 tournament wins 7 masters and 3 grandslam finals appearances. And I still think he will win a slam or two.

Craig makes a good point, everytime Andy loses a certain contingent want to talk him down. I personally would rate Andy as a player as being better than a lot of players who have just won a slam or two.

I'm not surprised by too many of the comments here. At least those who have no time for Murray are being consistent.

From watching a recording of yesterday's game, I would say that from the start Murray was facing an up hill battle. Djokovich's serving was just too good on the day, and that difference was compounded by relatively poor service games from Murray.

Could have gone to a third set though as Murray was 2 points away from winning it at 6 - 5.

I'm sure Murray's performance would have benefited from playing at least one of those walk over matches. I doubt if it would have given him the win though as Djokovich was playing so well. I'm pretty sure that Nadal or Federer would not have fared any better.

Looking ahead I think Murray will do OK in the clay court season to prove last year's results were not a fluke.

If he can continue that form, I wouldn't be surprised to see Murray at number 3 again by the end of the year.

touch(A)parabola wrote:Hi All, So, a little bit of experience in my life makes me more comfortable to post a comment or two here. In addition, I see that this forum has more understanding of tennis world and tries to be as objective as possible comparing to many other forums.
....

Welcome here TAP! Reading your post, I am not surprised you chose V2. You seem a big fan of tennis too.

Where are you based?

socal1976 wrote:
Craig makes a good point, everytime Andy loses a certain contingent want to talk him down

I think this is where some posters have a very emotional response to their favourite player's game being analysed. Contrary to what Craig thinks, there is a lot of support for Murray on here - people are just posting honestly about what they see, not to upset Craig but to exchange ideas and engage in conversation with people who want to talk about recent matches.

socal1976 wrote: I personally would rate Andy as a player as being better than a lot of players who have just won a slam or two

I know you have said this a lot of times - and it is true that Andy has had a more consistently successful career than someone like Roddick for instance, but when you look, not just at Roddick's 2003 USO, but his performance in Wimbledon finals he reached you might say that the latter is the better big match player than the former?

time please wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

time please wrote:There was one point at about 3 games all, second set (mercifully I missed the first set) yesterday when Murray came in two or three feet inside the baseline after hitting an excellent serve and hammered an aggressive forehand winner - it spoke of intent..........for all of one point!

I keep wondering where is the Murray that USO 2008 promised he would become, the one that took that semi against Rafa by the horns and aggressively played in or just inside the baseline and looked to hit winners not just to run down every point?

Some heroic defense by Murray yesterday - but he never looked as if he was the one dictating, apart from the point above.

I don't think there are knee jerk reactions on here at all, more as someone said that of resignation - if he continues to play like he did yesterday, then he is just not going to be as good as we once hoped he would be - very sadly.

Well what is it if it isn't knee jerk reaction? After all one defeat is all it was and in a match when Andy played poorly yet people choose to use this as a benchmark rather than say the match in Dubai. Bad day at the office and move on I say. Every player has them. Yes EVERY player.

I think you are being a little knee jerk yourself Craig.

I am just saying that over the last year, despite very good results, Andy Murray's game has plateaued imo - he isn't improving, or certainly not at the rate one hoped. It is how he lost that people are commenting on - not that he lost.

It always seems as if the match is on the others' raquets when he faces his peers in the top four, and yet that did not always seem to be the case a few years ago. His semi final in slam attendance record was impressive last year, but his performance in those semis was not one of a contender, so it is not using one match as a benchmark.

BTW I would be over the moon to be proved wrong.

How exactly would you rate as improvement though? If you are merely gauging that on beating those above him in the rankings then I am not sure I agree. After all in this year alone he has already beaten Djokovic (Dubai), came as close as you can to beating Djokovic in the Australian Open without doing it and losing in two tight sets against an on-fire Federer.

Now if we are only going by slams then compared to last year then can we agree his semi defeat was perhaps his best slam performance against one of the top three for some time which suggests he hasn't plateaued. He may never win a slam but is that such a crime in the era we have at the moment?

Craig,

I feel your being too defensive. Almost like you want to put out fires before anyone has even lit a match.

People are not disputing Andy's accomplishments or even his standing in the current game. Thing is Craig, realistically how can he really put himself amongst the top 3 without a Slam victory or success in tournaments like a Clay victory or even victory at the WTF.

Andy will be 25 this year. I do not know of any player who has managed a massive turnaround of fortune, new shots or playing style and form to go on and win Slams and other titles. That will require an effort beyond this sport. For me personally I don't see Andy being able to make that transition.

@Timeplease, I have no doubt when it is said and done that Andy M will be rated higher than Andy Roddick. But that may or may not happen in terms of his slams. Clearly, my larger point was that murray is by far the best player to never win a slam in the open era.

Good post Teassoc, I agree, Murray was always in for an uphill fight. Novak was in better form than in Dubai and he is the world #1. Not to mention that Djokovic pumped in 70 percent of first serves and defended his second serve beautifully. Murray also uncharacteristically missed a large number of second serve returns. Novak hits 70 percent first serves and he probably beats anyone.

If you read what I said about how aggressively Murray played in USO 2008 and again against Rafa at AO 2010 you would understand when I say that to see Murray regressing last year (oh yes he made 3 semis against Rafa) by being unable to dictate to Rafa at all is, imo, a massive step backwards,or a plateauing, at a time when Nadal himself was looking a little vulnerable.

CaledonianCraig wrote: is that such a crime

Now you are being over emotional (or having another knee jerk) - of course it is not a 'crime' . Nobody said it was - it is a disappointment!

It is probably just easier not to comment on Murray when you are around because you sort of 'own' him and the right to be disappointed or not.

He is not over-rated in terms of being a top four ranked player. He is a little over-rated by some in terms of expectations at a slam tournament. There are a few elements missing in his game that are preventing him from winning a slam. There are some that are hopeful that with Lendl's guidance, Murray can work on and overcome those missing elements. There are some that are not convinced he will ever overcome those missing elements, suggesting that he might win a slam or two if he is "lucky" (alignment of the planets, massive food poisoning incident amongst the other top players).

There are some that over-react when he loses due to their own frustrations. There are some that like to tease the Murray supporters when he loses because they see that their comments affect them. Then there are a few that are just sociopaths and it might be best to ignore them.

There are some that have an overly rosy view on matters, some that are overly pessimistic and some that don't really care one way or another but are just happy to engage in the debate.

This requires perspective.

Take Rome and Melbourne where Andy got himself into match winning positions. 2-1 up in Melbourne and serving for the match in Rome against Djokovic. Now if Murray playing at his best in those positions cannot see matches out, it begs the question how can achieve greater success? There is no question when he plays his best he can beat these players. What makes great champions is being able to see out matches. He just hasn't got that winning momentum mentality against players better than him. So it goes that Andy has a lot development that he needs to develop in ageing gap where the players around his age are better and the young players coming through might even be better than Murray.

No not at all time please. I do believe if you read my posts during and after the match yesterday I was critical of Andy's play and criticised him. Refreshing I'd say considering how other players fans react when their favourite player loses.

As for Murray in the here and now he is going through a difficult stage of his career. He has played as a successful counter-puncher (see Masters record and titles won and I'd say that deemed being a success) for the first few years of his career but now he is striving to follow a new path and be more attacking as we saw in Australian Open and Dubai but never saw it in Miami that much. Does he stick or twist so as to speak. Stick with his natural game as counter-puncher and probably end up slamless but very successful in other tournament wins or twist and go more aggressive in a bid to overcome the big three which is necessary but doesn't come naturally to him. That is the quandary however to play the aggressive game he MUST improve his serve to back him up. That is how I see it and I won't be committing hari-kari if he remains slamless but will have enjoyed watching him develop from a raw teenager into the best British mens player for seventy five years.

Thanks guys for some of your welcoming words.
I'm in Canada and making small breaks while getting my papers ready for tax fillings

To address Josiah's points:
Did you have that same explanation for Nole's loss against Federer in the semis of RG last year? Fabio Fognini also pulled out. But that should not be the reason what made Federer to beat Nole. In fact, in those situations usually the one who rested more has the advantage. Not the opposite. Federer was better, I have to admit. The sooner you accept it and move on, the better it is.

Making these kinds of excuses can do more harm to your player then good. Your surroundings makes him/her to believe in the wrong thing. Same thing with the sayings who gets the easier draw who doesn't. I do not buy excuses about injuries either, since they are part of being fit or having the physical natural predispositions for this sport. Yes, sometimes is like this or like that, for all of them. What would happen if this or if that…

But for overall conclusion, one should look at the math and the score board.

Welcome to the forum by the way touch.

I didn't say you weren't critical about elements of Murray's match play sometimes Craig just that you sometimes react too defensively to other people's points.

I am much more pragmatic about Murray's going on from here than you are - I agree with legend, I don't see him being able to turn it up that extra notch at this stage in his career.

However please bookmark this and I will happily eat oodles of humble pie and toast AM in buckets of champagne if he does take that extra step.

Hello Child Touch(A)Parabola,

welcome to the board.

I have been called by many names throughout the ages. Each nation, planet and galaxy has known me in different ways.

On this board I am known as the emancipator (guardian of the ancient secrets and eternal adversary of the evil creature BOO).

My search for potential disciples continues....



emancipator

I would say that there have been a few women British players that have been better than Murray over the past seventy five years, in terms of winning slams.

He certainly seems to be the best male British player for the past seventy-five years or so.

touch(A)parabola wrote:Thanks guys for some of your welcoming words.
I'm in Canada and making small breaks while getting my papers ready for tax fillings

To address Josiah's points:
Did you have that same explanation for Nole's loss against Federer in the semis of RG last year? Fabio Fognini also pulled out. But that should not be the reason what made Federer to beat Nole. In fact, in those situations usually the one who rested more has the advantage. Not the opposite. Federer was better, I have to admit. The sooner you accept it and move on, the better it is.

Making these kinds of excuses can do more harm to your player then good. Your surroundings makes him/her to believe in the wrong thing. Same thing with the sayings who gets the easier draw who doesn't. I do not buy excuses about injuries either, since they are part of being fit or having the physical natural predispositions for this sport. Yes, sometimes is like this or like that, for all of them. What would happen if this or if that…

But for overall conclusion, one should look at the math and the score board.

Great post touch - your second paragraph is absolutely spot on - it's sport, it happens!

Nore Staat wrote:I would say that there have been a few women British players that have been better than Murray over the past seventy five years, in terms of winning slams.

He certainly seems to be the best male British player for the past seventy-five years or so.

Yes absolutely - Ann Jones, Virginia Wade, Sue Barker

I love how the men and the media always forget the 'male' part of this sentence until reminded!!!!

Why do we always need to lament that there has been no slam champion since Fred Perry, since there clearly has been - just not the preferred sex!

time please wrote:I didn't say you weren't critical about elements of Murray's match play sometimes Craig just that you sometimes react too defensively to other people's points.

I am much more pragmatic about Murray's going on from here than you are - I agree with legend, I don't see him being able to turn it up that extra notch at this stage in his career.

However please bookmark this and I will happily eat oodles of humble pie and toast AM in buckets of champagne if he does take that extra step.

Who knows? That is the beauty of the sport. Yes I get defensive but only on posts containing what I would deem as nonsense. As for Murray we shall see what the future brings.

I was hoping to see a more mentally resilient Murray (with Lendl in the stands) and play a close match. The first set and missed and erratic shot-making was very strange to see. Tipsy pushing him to three sets was perhaps a clear indicator of the challenge that Djokovic is right now.

Touch(A)Parabola.. welcome to 606v2.

Touch(A)Parabola wrote:
Fabio Fognini also pulled out. But that should not be the reason what made Federer to beat Nole. In fact, in those situations usually the one who rested more has the advantage. Not the opposite. Federer was better, I have to admit. The sooner you accept it and move on, the better it is.

Socal... I will post this on your thread as well.

touch(A)parabola wrote:Thanks guys for some of your welcoming words.
I'm in Canada and making small breaks while getting my papers ready for tax fillings

To address Josiah's points:
Did you have that same explanation for Nole's loss against Federer in the semis of RG last year? Fabio Fognini also pulled out. But that should not be the reason what made Federer to beat Nole. In fact, in those situations usually the one who rested more has the advantage. Not the opposite. Federer was better, I have to admit. The sooner you accept it and move on, the better it is.

Socal, please read and learn

Great minds, laverfan........



As for Andy, I look back to 2008 when he went into that USO final having given Rafa a good beating and favourite against the out of sorts Fed and I reflect on how opportunity must always be grasped no matter how certain it is that more will come available.

bogbrush wrote:Great minds, laverfan........



As for Andy, I look back to 2008 when he went into that USO final having given Rafa a good beating and favourite against the out of sorts Fed and I reflect on how opportunity must always be grasped no matter how certain it is that more will come available.

Yes but it was Murray's first final. Not easy and Fed played very well actually. But what got Murray then is what gets him today as well. He is not agressive enough!.

Federer said as much at about that time.

In addition, some of you have mentioned Nole's loss to Murray in Dubai. You guys refuse to see some things. Have in mind that Nole has a team that calculates well for him. Nole simply needs to loose some matches in order to stay No. 1 for couple of more years, otherwise he can face injury or never to gain any point again. He knows how to pace himself. What happened right after Dubai? Well, Nole had more time to get ready for Indian Wells then Murray. Murray has scheduling problem. One or two wins do not make the conclusion. Consistency is what counts. Everyone will loose sometimes, for some reason, but who wins more is the goal.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Great minds, laverfan........



As for Andy, I look back to 2008 when he went into that USO final having given Rafa a good beating and favourite against the out of sorts Fed and I reflect on how opportunity must always be grasped no matter how certain it is that more will come available.

Yes but it was Murray's first final. Not easy and Fed played very well actually. But what got Murray then is what gets him today as well. He is not agressive enough!.

I would agree there Tenez. Although he can be aggressive as he was against Djoko in AO but he wasn't yesterday for what reason only he knows.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Great minds, laverfan........



As for Andy, I look back to 2008 when he went into that USO final having given Rafa a good beating and favourite against the out of sorts Fed and I reflect on how opportunity must always be grasped no matter how certain it is that more will come available.

Yes but it was Murray's first final. Not easy and Fed played very well actually. But what got Murray then is what gets him today as well. He is not agressive enough!.

I would agree there Tenez. Although he can be aggressive as he was against Djoko in AO but he wasn't yesterday for what reason only he knows.

Yes, he can be agressive but he needs "to be invited" into aggression like against Nadal....or even versus Federer cause he knows he can't give soft shots against them or ge gets punished like in that USO08 final.

As I said, I am pretty sure he will be number 2 or 3 soon. BUt has he got the guts to win a slam?

It isn't about guts Tenez. He showed them by battling away last night although playing pretty poorly. It is just down to instinct and he was brought up as a counter-puncher and he may find it impossible now to convert but we shall see.

laverfan wrote:I was hoping to see a more mentally resilient Murray (with Lendl in the stands) and play a close match. The first set and missed and erratic shot-making was very strange to see. Tipsy pushing him to three sets was perhaps a clear indicator of the challenge that Djokovic is right now.

Touch(A)Parabola.. welcome to 606v2.

Touch(A)Parabola wrote:
Fabio Fognini also pulled out. But that should not be the reason what made Federer to beat Nole. In fact, in those situations usually the one who rested more has the advantage. Not the opposite. Federer was better, I have to admit. The sooner you accept it and move on, the better it is.

Socal... I will post this on your thread as well.

why?
Can't you just leave the guy alone, he's got the right to have an opinion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It isn't about guts Tenez. He showed them by battling away last night although playing pretty poorly. It is just down to instinct and he was brought up as a counter-puncher and he may find it impossible now to convert but we shall see.

It is about guts. The same guts that could improve his second serve.

No I would disagree there. What you have to remember is that since a child his game has been as a counter-puncher and it is his natural game. So almost like a computer that is how he has been programmed to play. Now in recent months a bit of reprogramming has been going on but that natural instinct still kicks in but he has played aggressive from time to time. If he lacked guts he wouldn't have made the many comebacks he has in his careers such as against Gasquet at Wimbledon, Troicki at Roland Garros though injured and plenty of other similar matches. Perhaps lacks courage of conviction in his shots at time but that doesn't mean he lacks guts in my opinion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I would disagree there. What you have to remember is that since a child his game has been as a counter-puncher and it is his natural game. So almost like a computer that is how he has been programmed to play. Now in recent months a bit of reprogramming has been going on but that natural instinct still kicks in but he has played aggressive from time to time. If he lacked guts he wouldn't have made the many comebacks he has in his careers such as against Gasquet at Wimbledon, Troicki at Roland Garros though injured and plenty of other similar matches. Perhaps lacks courage of conviction in his shots at time but that doesn't mean he lacks guts in my opinion.

I think you are mixing guts with tenacity/perseverence. Guts is about pulling the right risky shot at the right time and having done it so many times that it becomes a second nature. Making those key FHs that would have took him in a 4th set in that AO10 or as said able to pull better second serves. But as you say Murray has always been a counter-puncher and that because he feels more comfy letting the opponent take the risk first. The reward? he is a consistent player. The cost? difficulty in producing the great risky shots which he will need to win a slam.

His fighting and wins versus Gasquet are the result of his tenacity, never say die, a la Nadal. But neither are very gutsy I am afraid. Well Nadal a bit more actually.

I'd agree with much of that Tenez apart from the tenacity bit. Problem is as well that his counter-punching game is capable of beating 98% of players in the world but it won't beat the likes of Djoko, Nadal and Federer so that is why he's trying to re-invent himself whether he will ever get there we will have to wait and see.

Murray being gutsy? While youre at it lets call Isner a drop shot expert.

He "has got there" as he has beaten them all multiple times. My concern is that the other top 3 seem to have progressed faster than him recently, including the 30yo. However he will be number 2, 3 at worst soon....and maybe with a better chance for slams.

One thing I'd say for sure, he looked much fitter than Djokovic yesterday. Had he got that tb I'd have put him favourite (then again Lazarus doesn't rise from the dead like Djokovic).

For the Murray fans to ponder on if they want spirits boosted then look at how things have vastly improved for Andy in the rankings compared to this time last year:-

RANKINGS TODAY

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 12,670
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 9,935
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 9,035
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 8,040
5.Ferrer, David (FRA) 4,700

RANKINGS ON 4/4/11

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 12,870
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 9,700
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,550
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 5,545
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 5,420

Good post there craig it does show how murray's position has gotten much stronger vis a vis the guys ranked above him. Look it isn't easy toppling the three players ranked above him but he has shown that he has the tools.

Good post Craig (apart from David Ferrer being French?!), I didn't realise quite how much healthier Andy's ranking points are looking.

I think they really show the difficulty of his situation though. Despite a great improvement on 2011, he is still about 2000 points behind #2 and 1000 points behind #3 with a good number of points of his own from the 2011 clay swing to defend. Not impossible... but very tough!

Interesting that Djokovic and Nadal have almost exactly swapped places.

I think the area where people seem to disagree is whether Andy can improve at all or do things differently to change from semi finalist / losing finalist to slam winner.

I believe the only way to judge that is in the slams themselves.

I already believe we've seen that it can be done. Take all of his semi final defeats last year, and his defeat to Novak in the AO final. Apart from for a set and a bit at Wimbledon, every single one of those matches saw Andy 2 metres behind the baseline, counter punching, basically waiting for errors. Also, all of them had Murray getting despondent as soon as he was behind and displaying negative body language.

Compare that to the Australian open this year against Novak. Andy was on the baseline, going for his shots and even at a set and a break down did not lose hope or start to blame anyone. He hit more winners than Novak, but in going for so much also made more errors. That's what Murray fans have been waiting for, a display like that.

He didn't win of course. Even though such a good approach got him 3 break points at 5-5 in the fifth, he reverted to type and lost all 3 points without going for a single winner... But then a change in mentality takes more than 2 weeks with a new coach.

As a Murray fan, I came out of that match with more hope than ever. Apart from those 3 BP's he went for it, not kamikaze but controlled and assertive. He hadn't done that since USO semi 2008. If he approaches every slam semi and final he plays with that approach then i think he can and will win at least one slam.

I want him to play like that every tournament, which is why it was really disappointing to same him take a step backwards in Miami in terms of his approach, but surely to god he now sees how he should play in the slams after Melbourne. Playing that way, he is good enough to beat 2 of the 3 players above him in the slams in my opinion. And the more he does it, the better he will get at it.

I wish him well. He just needs not to play Djokovic who is a better version of himself. His best chance will come if he's playing Nadal. I think Murray will play a Djokovic against him and outlast him. He looked awesomely fit in that final.

The difference between now and last year's ranking is that he has replaced a 4th round and third round loss with two semi-finals at a slam. This year he has replaced a F with a SF loss, however his AO 2012 loss to Djokovic was a much better loss than his loss in AO 2011.
............2010 2011 2012
AO.......F..........F........SF
FO......4R........SF.......
Wim....SF........SF.......
USO....3R........SF.......

The question is
a) can he at least reach the SF's in the remaining year's slams?
b) can he reach a slam final this year?
c) can he reach more than one slam final in a year? He has reached one slam final in 2008, 2010 and 2011 - can he reach two slam finals this year?
d) can he win a slam title?

Apart from the top three.

Can Murray beat Del Potro (the last time they played was in 2009)?

Can Murray beat Berdych?
2012 Dubai: Murray wins 6-3, 7-5
2011 ATP World Tour Masters: Murray loses 4-6, 7-6(5), 6-4
2010 Roland Garros: Murray loses 6-4, 7-5, 6-3

Can Murray beat Tsonga?
2011 London / Queen's: Murray wins 3-6, 7-6(2), 6-4
2010 ATP World Tour Masters: Murray wins 6-2, 6-2
2010 Wimbledon: Murray wins 6-7(5), 7-6(5), 6-2, 6-2

Can Murray beat David Ferrer?
They have played seven times in 2010-2011. Murray leads 4-3.

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:I was hoping to see a more mentally resilient Murray (with Lendl in the stands) and play a close match. The first set and missed and erratic shot-making was very strange to see. Tipsy pushing him to three sets was perhaps a clear indicator of the challenge that Djokovic is right now.

Touch(A)Parabola.. welcome to 606v2.

Touch(A)Parabola wrote:
Fabio Fognini also pulled out. But that should not be the reason what made Federer to beat Nole. In fact, in those situations usually the one who rested more has the advantage. Not the opposite. Federer was better, I have to admit. The sooner you accept it and move on, the better it is.

Socal... I will post this on your thread as well.

why?
Can't you just leave the guy alone, he's got the right to have an opinion.

Nitb, please do not be mad. There is an article which draws parallels between the Djokovic-Fognini W/O and Murray-Nadal W/O. It is a theory being repeated, hence that comment.

Players at this elite level should take such happenings in their strides and they do. Media and some of writers are reinforcing such a viewpoint. This view point does two things...

a. takes away from Djokovic's Miami victory, and,
b. equates Murray to a player of Fognini's caliber.

Both a. and b. are so far away from what these two players bring to the Tennis court.

sirfredperry wrote:Whether it puts pressure on Murray or not, I DON'T think it incorrect to talk about him being one of the big four. OK, in slam terms he's very much fourth-best compared with the top three. But Andy is miles ahead of number five and has been top four, except for a very few Soderling weeks, for many, many months.
He's twice beaten Nadal in slams and not many players can say that.

Why would it be incorrect to talk about him being in one of the "BIG 4". Is it not Murray himself who claims he is getting closer to the top-3 and difference between #1 and #4 ranks are only few points going one way or the other. Does he not talk too much about a much improved forehand and a physical match with Nadal? Its not people who like to put Murray unnecessarily in as "Big 4", its Murray himself who likes those kind of talks. And he keeps talking things that give air to such "Big 4" talks.

If having a #4 is like #1 for you then fine. If just because he is ahead of #5, you think its a great achievement, then all fine. If beating Nadal 2 times in slams looks a great achievement to you then fine. Who is stopping you to keep celebrating these? But the problem with CC is different. He wants people to join in this celebration of Murray's achievements. He wants everyone to only talk about how great Murray is and how far ahead he is of the players below his ranking. And when people do not, he labels them as Murray haters.

What's the point of this article? This Murray loss didn't generate any criticism like it often does in the past. Yet he feels the need to write it as "knee jerk reaction". What he wants people to do here? Celebrate his Masters finals getting 2 walkovers on the way? This sure was a far better performance that what he did in IW. So unless we all join hands in this celebration with CC, he will crib about it.

Have to agree with raiders. A knee jerk reaction to what?

It's business as usual for Andy who still needs to show that extra percentage that will get him past Novak when it really counts.

Whether fans like it or not Djokovic takes some time out, looks a little rusty then eases through the Miami draw. Nadal is a bit of an unknown quantity at present and Federer had an off day. Andy's going to have to hope he's firing on all cylinders the time when all three of them aren't at their best.

Well sorry raiders but there are some people on this thread that have agreed there was a knee jerk reaction so surely makes this a valid thread. As for Murray talking himself up. Where? If you mean him having a positive outlook is that a crime?

As for your last comment - pretty pathetic. I was on here criticising Andy's play post-match but this thread is for those who posted stuff like Murray being over-rated and not that great a returner of serve at all. Interesting as we never got an adverse knee jerk reaction when Murray beat Djoko in Dubai as in Murray fans spouting off about what he was destined to do. Shame it cant work both ways eh?

I think it's known as preemptive self-defence...