Unfair, Unprofessional, Misleading and a "Greek Tragedy"

First topic message reminder :

Just listening to Virginia Wade and Greg Rusedski discuss Murrays dramatic match against Neiminen. I'm not sure of all the details but for the first set and a half Murray gave all the impession that he was in agony and was going to withdraw and had 3 MTO's. Neiminen must have thought he was through to the 3rd round. Then Murray completely recovered as far as his game goes.

Wade and Rusedski didn't hold back with their criticism of Murray's behaviour. Wade said she was in no doubt that Murray was hurting but he turned it into a "Greek tragedy" and that this was not professional. At one point he talked to the umpire and it looked like he was going to default. Rusedski wondered about the injury (is it his back a pinched nerve... what is the "reasoning" behind it... it will be interesting for us all to see what the real injury is) and how he was able to suddenly start playing so well. This put Neimenen in a difficult position. Wade called it "unfair" and said it was no longer a competative match.

They both went on to say it's not the first time Murray has woken with something hurting and been indecisive about whether or not to play and people are left not knowing whats going on. Wade wanted to go on and talk about a particular Davis cup match but didn't get the chance as it looked like she was told they were moving on to the next live action. In fact both looked like they were itching to say more.

IMO Murray will have to try a little harder if he doesn't want people to talk about his back... It does appear to be a big weapon (his back that is... )

Watched the match highlights.

It is quite clear that Murray was suffering in that first set.

If this 'tactic' is a regular occurance, can anyone actually point to the last MTO he had prior to yesterday? Oh that's right last year's FO.

Makes him a regular culprit

The only tragedy here is the OP and her repetitive articles - ggal (GO GET A LIFE)

Ivan Ljubicic on the issue: "Back spasm is something that hurts, something that prevents you from giving your best, but it's also the kind of injury that only gets better," he said. "I'm sure in the next round he's going to feel a lot better, so the big scare was today."

But still hawkeye refuses to bite the bullet.

bogbrush wrote:We will have to wait and see what happens when Federer flounces around during a match with injury induced exhibitions.
I mean, been waiting 13 years so it must happen soon eh?

Bogbrush. When did you metamorphosise into a clone of 'Hawkeye'? Your comments about Murray, used to be constructive with an appreciation of his skills. Now you clearly relish in mocking and bullying, in the same manner that Ben Elton used to operate when ribbing people like Tarby. Of course some used to laugh then and join in. Didn't make it correct though, did it?

Also, as a long standing Tennis fan, I ain't interested in having anyone imitate the court demeanour of Fed. Give me the explosions of Nole and Nadal, the angst of Murray and the up and down emotions of Tsonga plus the racquet throwing emotional Fed of pre-2004 (i.e. before he realised he could earn more money becoming a global leader) any day of the week rather than the controlling Fed of the last few years (with the wonderful exception of the US09 final of course )

You may love the well mannered on court diplomat that Fed is, others may think it's an unnatural stance purely driven by his need to be loved by everyone. I've no issue with this. We're all different on this magnificent planet - so let's accept that Andy's different and just wear's is heart on his sleeve rather than any other ridiculous theories

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tu quoque Hawk! I mean: you Nadal fangirl or woman or whatever you are. This time your timely article is totally fluffy given the fact that Murray could not literally move for a set , and didn't pretend to be injured for the brief space of an MTO like others Spanish players that you know so well ......

Here they come again the Nadal hatahs ... no matter what the subject, no matter who the player, no matter what the match... back it comes to Nadal. Cant back up an argument with plain honest facts.. just go down there and dig the dirt on Nadal.. thats the way to settle any debate on 606v2 (I thought those days had gone) :censored: :censored:

I don't believe hawkeye will be giving us Neil Harman's article today. He has just been on ITV4 gushing praise on Murray.

She will find an article Craig. She always does. I am sure she will publish a Finnish article!

But why not prove she is unbiased (as she claims in all this)? She claims to be a fantastic fan of Harman's writings but obviously she is only a fan when it contains an ounce or a mere morsal of something she can use against Andy. Listening to Neil Harman there he sounds like a fan of Murray but yet going by only what hawkeye feeds us then you'd swear that wasn't the case. I wonder why?

What's Harman said? Easily, the best Tennis journo out there

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:We will have to wait and see what happens when Federer flounces around during a match with injury induced exhibitions.
I mean, been waiting 13 years so it must happen soon eh?

Bogbrush. When did you metamorphosise into a clone of 'Hawkeye'? Your comments about Murray, used to be constructive with an appreciation of his skills. Now you clearly relish in mocking and bullying, in the same manner that Ben Elton used to operate when ribbing people like Tarby. Of course some used to laugh then and join in. Didn't make it correct though, did it?

Also, as a long standing Tennis fan, I ain't interested in having anyone imitate the court demeanour of Fed. Give me the explosions of Nole and Nadal, the angst of Murray and the up and down emotions of Tsonga plus the racquet throwing emotional Fed of pre-2004 (i.e. before he realised he could earn more money becoming a global leader) any day of the week rather than the controlling Fed of the last few years (with the wonderful exception of the US09 final of course )

You may love the well mannered on court diplomat that Fed is, others may think it's an unnatural stance purely driven by his need to be loved by everyone. I've no issue with this. We're all different on this magnificent planet - so let's accept that Andy's different and just wear's is heart on his sleeve rather than any other ridiculous theories

Well, first of all the quote you cite was in response to the Djokovic-loving socal who was - as usual - dragging this along with any other thread he visits into a Federer-hate debate. That particular quote related not to Murray but to refute his stupid point. I think Federers approach to disguising weakness, by the way, is more about on-court control and management of his opponent rather than what you allege, that he wants to be loved. That's groundless and a bit silly.

Secondly, I started my contribution to this thread by making a comment about Andy having been something of a drama queen throughout his career (I well remember his very first TV viewing (for me) when he was hurling himself theatrically to the floor with terminal cramp against Stepanek - very funny it was too!). I have stated quite a few times on this thread that there's no question in my mind that he was injured yesterday, but I do challenge those seeking to portray his match as some heroic triumph against all odds simply because with Andy we always get quite a display regardless of the actual seriousness of whatever's going. In my original words, he is a bit of a drama queen.

I really don't see what in there is "mocking" or "bullying".

And I really don't see where the drama queen thing comes in? Now if he had of listened to his team and Jim Courier he could have been a drama queen and quit at the end of the first set or when he went a break down in the second set but he didn't he chose to play through the pain and for that he reaped the benefit of winning through to the Third Round. I don't see the bullying either granted. However, I would say there is definite jealousy or ire that comes out adversely whenever Andy gets a good press report or credit. People seem to think credit and praise should be reserved solely for their player but sorry it doesn't work like that.

I say Andy is a drama queen irrespective of yesterday. Yesterday he was injured but can I discern from his reaction whether it was chronic/serious/trivial? No, because all his career Andy has winced and grimaced.

That's the beginning and end of the point I was making.

I have stated quite a few times on this thread that there's no question in my mind that he was injured yesterday, but I do challenge those seeking to portray his match as some heroic triumph against all odds simply because with Andy we always get quite a display regardless of the actual seriousness of whatever's going. In my original words, he is a bit of a drama queen.

Not so much 'Heroic'

What has annoyed me has been the lack of emphasis on just how poorly Nieminien's performance went downhill. Granted the performance for me swung from stupidity because he looked awfully out of sorts in the 1st and into the 2nd set to one of which he played the situation and played aggressively. Something we all want to see and something that frustrates when it requires a physical impairment to get such a performance out of Andy.

I would hardly grant it as theatrical, more un-tidy if anything. Can't say I have seen a 'pretty' injury on court. Nieminen for me deserves more criticism as an experience pro to lose so easily. Yes some of Andy's play at times he had no answer for, but he should've had 2 sets in the bag.

And as for the Courier and Ljubicic comments, yes granted they may have experienced them, but they can't vouch for Andy's pain threshold. You can only go by what is seen on court, and for me yes I am happy Andy won, but I would be me peed off if Andy causes long term damage which will affect the rest of his season.

This is all about perception anyhow and in some eyes Andy may have been portrayed as un-professional because even when you are playing an injured opponent, in the back of Nieminen's mind must've been 'When is Andy going to shake hands' it is a natural feeling. Compassion but also logic. I just don't think Nieminen recovered when he lost the 2nd set. Also what if Andy pulls out of the 3rd round? That 2nd round display would've been in a vein and a 'fit' player is denied the chance to progress.

It is well-renowned as I am sure you'll know that Andy has had various injuries in his career so you'll get those grimaces that doesn't make him a drama queen. He has a floating knee-cap and wears ankle supports on his ankles. Not everyone can be jacksy like some players with injuries and get off without any serios or recurring problems you know.

Like I said earlier lk if we are all being honest here a fit Murray V a fit Nieminen and there will always only be one winner. Niemenin did implode but also as Neil Harman said in the third and fourth set Andy also played some superb tennis. If Nieminen hadn't mentally imploded and Murray been 100% fit the result would have been the same.

I am in your camp and believe he should just quit the French Open and take a couple or three weeks off to get fit for the tournaments that he has a better chance in. However, I don't know what medical advice he is being given for his injury.

Yes a fit Murray would've beaten a fit Nieminen, but what I am talking about is completely situational. Nieminen took the first set and I think easily for a set and half was tentative because he expected Andy to shake. He lost focus and once Andy got himself into the match, Nieminen folded. It is a learning curve for him. Take when Andy played Simon last year. No slip of focus by Andy even when the crowd were on his back and Simon was injured. It threw Nieminen. He didn't play the situation at all.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Yes a fit Murray would've beaten a fit Nieminen, but what I am talking about is completely situational. Nieminen took the first set and I think easily for a set and half was tentative because he expected Andy to shake. He lost focus and once Andy got himself into the match, Nieminen folded. It is a learning curve for him. Take when Andy played Simon last year. No slip of focus by Andy even when the crowd were on his back and Simon was injured. It threw Nieminen. He didn't play the situation at all.

Yes but that surely just displayed why he is ranked just inside the top 50 rather than being a top 20 player or better?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Yes a fit Murray would've beaten a fit Nieminen, but what I am talking about is completely situational. Nieminen took the first set and I think easily for a set and half was tentative because he expected Andy to shake. He lost focus and once Andy got himself into the match, Nieminen folded. It is a learning curve for him. Take when Andy played Simon last year. No slip of focus by Andy even when the crowd were on his back and Simon was injured. It threw Nieminen. He didn't play the situation at all.

Yes but that surely just displayed why he is ranked just inside the top 50 rather than being a top 20 player or better?

Exactly. When Nadal defeated Murray at MC last year in that 3rd set, no drop in concentration.

That's what separates the top players from the mid-ranked players.

And what separates from Murray from the top 3 too

Some points taken from the players quotes :

Murray said “I don’t really see what the point would be in play-acting, going down 6-1, 4-2". I would go along with that. If someone can explain why they think of a good reason to give their opponent that sort of lead before starting playing I'd like to hear it.


Nieminen, who had far more cause to question Murray’s condition having just lost to an apparently crippled opponent, didn’t think he was conned.

The Finn said: “I don’t think he was acting. It looked like he could hardly walk. It looked pretty bad what he had. It’s not often that somebody looks that bad and can keep going. I still didn’t think that he would give up but it didn’t look good.”

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Here they come again the Nadal hatahs ... no matter what the subject, no matter who the player, no matter what the match... back it comes to Nadal. Cant back up an argument with plain honest facts.. just go down there and dig the dirt on Nadal.. thats the way to settle any debate on 606v2 (I thought those days had gone)

One comment in a long thread attacks Nadal and you respond with this tearful post that implies that the whole thread was Nadal bashing?

It was not a necessary comment to make in the circustances djl so try defending it if you feel the need .. I stand by what I said.. Nadal is fair game isn´t he .?? to some who feel the need.

Tearful !!!!!!??? get over yourself

Just a few things to add before I tire of this subject...

Neimenen was not fully fit himself. That could explain why he played so poorly and made so many unforced errors. He said this in his post match interview. It's funny that no one noticed.

"Obviously I had problems with part of the body. I didn't feel great right from the beginning"

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/multimedia/2012-05-31/0137a2e97188000003b1.html

On Eurosport this morning Virginia Wade responded to the anger of Murray over her comments. She laughed and said "actually I thought I was being circumspect".

When it was pointed out to her that as a multi slam winner her expert opinion was valuable you could see her visibly preen as only someone with a Wimbledon trophy, a US Open trophy and an Austalian Open trophy safely at home on her mantlepiece can. All won in one of the toughest eras in womens tennis.

Murray should think carefully who he picks a fight with as with Wade he has more than met his match.

(I also checked and was impressed to discover that Wade also has doubles titles at the Australian Open, the French Open and two at the US Open... all in an era when doubles was very competative with most top singles players playing)

CaledonianCraig wrote:I don't believe hawkeye will be giving us Neil Harman's article today. He has just been on ITV4 gushing praise on Murray.

You must have missed it as I posted snippets from it on this thread (10.15) when it was published last night. I will post it again here for you.

It was a not a back problem but a muscle spasm and he speculates it was brought on by not being warmed up and having to play in the "early" morning. He is also not very happy with Virginia Wade. (this from todays Times sorry PPV but as usual well worth it)

Commentating on television, Virginia Wade, Britain’s last Wimbledon champion, suggested that Murray was a drama queen, and she was not exactly Queen Ginny in
his eyes. “There are people who have to come out and say something controversial when really they should be supportive, or maybe ask me a question first before commenting on it,” he said. “I’ve known her [Wade] since I was a really young kid. She used to do coaching stuff with my mum, so to me that’s quite disappointing. She has no idea what I was feeling on the court. She doesn’t know what was happening 20 minutes before I went out on to the court, what I was feeling, what I was doing. There’s nothing more I can say about that.”

I think Virginia Wade knows Murray quite well. And even more interesting this from the usually reticent Ivan Lendl

“Andy’s having so much fun at the moment,” he said. Later, as he hurried from the hurly-burly of Roland Garros, Murray’s coach stopped only to say that “it’s always good to get through a match like that”,

What do you think Ivan meant when he said after the match that "Andy's having so much fun at the moment"?

As I have said before Neil Harman is a huge fan of Andy Murray. But he is usually professional and follows the tennis tour around the world so more often than not reports from the tounaments themselves. He attends the press interviews and often has informal talks with individual players. I guess by the coverage in the Times he has to primarily cover Murray. I thought it was interesting that this year he was in Monte Carlo, Barcalona and Rome but had not intention of covering Madrid even before Murray officially withdrew. I guess he had inside information that Murray was not going to play in Madrid.

Haddie-nuff wrote:It was not a necessary comment to make in the circustances djl so try defending it if you feel the need .. I stand by what I said.. Nadal is fair game isn´t he .?? to some who feel the need.

Tearful !!!!!!??? get over yourself

I wasn't defending it. I merely pointing out that one oddball making a comment in the thread doesn't turn the thread into a Nadal bashing thread like you implied.

So if he is a huge fan of Murray (and by listening to him saying how Andy played superb tennis in the third and fourth set I'd say he is) then why do we not get that picture from the snippets you feed us? Answer:- You only feed us what you want to feed us and use to twist around to suit your own twisted agenda that is why.

Give it up and you'll gain a modicum of respect as you do show a modicum of tennis knowledge but continue and you'll continue to look a bitter and twisted individual who is obsessed with anti-Murray sentiment.

Hawkeye Murray said "She has no idea what I was feeling on the court. She doesn’t know what was happening 20 minutes before I went out on to the court, what I was feeling, what I was doing. There’s nothing more I can say about that.”

As in all sports it's very easy to watch and comment with your thoughts about what is happening but without knowing exactly what the situation is it is also easy to be wide of the mark.

HE

That is the biggest load of half-arsed waffle I have read.

Justifying someone else suffering 'knocks' and then slandering someone for the same thing albeit receiving treatment for it.

And as for the claim about Wade giving her due on Murray's 'theatrics' Courier gave his view and as far as I am concerned is in much better position than Wade given that he played in the era when the game evolved to what it is today!

Caladonian Craig

You are a true fan! Part of being a true fan is seeing things from a biased perspective. You may see me as "a bitter and twisted individual who is obsessed with anti-Murray sentiment" but that is only because of the biased perspective through which you choose to look.

I like to think of myself as a brave truth seeker...

Did you know that Virginia Wade also has a degree in mathematics and physics? She graduated in 1966 from Sussex University. Wade must have been studying these difficult and very academic subjects at the same time as she was collecting slam trophies. That is impressive don't you think?

Calder106

Virginia Wade was commenting on the theatrics she did not say that Murray didn't feel any pain.

legendkillarV2

I have no idea what the first bit of your comment meant. What did Courier say?

Nice try hawkeye but that won't wash with me or a heck of a lot of other posters here. If you wish to carry on down your route bunging up the forum with 30+ anti-Murray posts and claim you have no obsession then that is your choice alone which does you or this forum no favours.

Read the thread and you will see what Courier said.

Hawkeye,

Virginia Wade did not win a grand slam trophy until 1968 (i.e after she graduated). She also turned professional that year.

Also as Neiminen said: “I don’t think he was acting. It looked like he could hardly walk. It looked pretty bad what he had. It’s not often that somebody looks that bad and can keep going. I still didn’t think that he would give up but it didn’t look good.”

So there you have two different opinions.

Calder106

Oh well she did all that maths and physics first...

Virginia Wade won the US Open in 1968 beating Billie Jean King! She won the AO in 1972 beating Evonne Goolagong! She won Wimbledon in 1977 and as some have pointed out dismissively beating Betty Stove... but she did beat the defending champion and favourite Chris Evert in the semi's!

Her career spanned 26 years. She won 55 singles titles and had a 839-329 win loss record. What was that thread recently about how impressive it was for any man to reach over 800 career wins?

Virginia Wade had a very impressive career however you look at it. She has earnt and deserves some respect.

hawkeye wrote:She has earnt and deserves some respect.

So has Murray, but not everyone gives it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:She has earnt and deserves some respect.

So has Murray, but not everyone gives it.

Yesterday Virginia Wade described Murray's behaviour as unfair, unproffessional, missleading and like a greek tragedy. Does that warrant respect? Instead of "hitting back" Murray should perhaps listen.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:She has earnt and deserves some respect.

So has Murray, but not everyone gives it.

Yesterday Virginia Wade described Murray's behaviour as unfair, unproffessional, missleading and like a greek tragedy. Does that warrant respect? Instead of "hitting back" Murray should perhaps listen.

It is clear then you are taking the view of Wade

So much for impartial.

Of course she deserves respect for her achievements and I'm more than happy to give it. She had an excellent career and deserves any plaudits she gets.

That doesn't mean though that everything she says in comment should be taken as unerringly correct. She is giving her opinion others have different opinions. In this case Murray is saying he thinks her opinion was wrong as she did not have the full facts and could only see the signs not feel the symptoms.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:She has earnt and deserves some respect.

So has Murray, but not everyone gives it.

Yesterday Virginia Wade described Murray's behaviour as unfair, unproffessional, missleading and like a greek tragedy. Does that warrant respect? Instead of "hitting back" Murray should perhaps listen.

Murray should listen to Wade, but Wade doesn't have to listen to Murray?
Or do you mean, "I don't like Murray, therefore I agree with Wade"?
Or, more accurately "I don't like Murray, therefore I agree with anything negative said about him and will re-post it all on 606v2, but not re-post any positive things because I seek the truth"?

Is this guy ever 100% fit for a whole tournament??

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:She has earnt and deserves some respect.

So has Murray, but not everyone gives it.

Yesterday Virginia Wade described Murray's behaviour as unfair, unproffessional, missleading and like a greek tragedy. Does that warrant respect? Instead of "hitting back" Murray should perhaps listen.

Murray should listen to Wade, but Wade doesn't have to listen to Murray?
Or do you mean, "I don't like Murray, therefore I agree with Wade"?
Or, more accurately "I don't like Murray, therefore I agree with anything negative said about him and will re-post it all on 606v2, but not re-post any positive things because I seek the truth"?

Perhaps You should do a pole.

Whats more boring - listening to Wade or reading hawkeyes "articles"

Would be a pretty close call lol

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:She has earnt and deserves some respect.

So has Murray, but not everyone gives it.

Yesterday Virginia Wade described Murray's behaviour as unfair, unproffessional, missleading and like a greek tragedy. Does that warrant respect? Instead of "hitting back" Murray should perhaps listen.

Murray should listen to Wade, but Wade doesn't have to listen to Murray?
Or do you mean, "I don't like Murray, therefore I agree with Wade"?
Or, more accurately "I don't like Murray, therefore I agree with anything negative said about him and will re-post it all on 606v2, but not re-post any positive things because I seek the truth"?

????!!!! I am now totally confused! Do I like Murray but disagree with re-posts on 606v2? Did I not post that I dislike Wade's comments but am actively seeking the positive truth.... Please tell me? But don't get me to sign anything...

What do you think? Do you like Murray so think it's ok for him to flail in agony. Do you like Wade but not trust her opinion because it was critical of Murray? Should we all keep quiet until we've got signed permission from Murray to speak?

I wonder if Murray was in so much pain that he was unable to control himself on court if he should have played. Lot's of talk about how Murray's behaviour may have been distracting to his opponant but does a paying audience want to watch someone flailing in agony? Personally it's not something that I would enjoy...

Did Murray winning make you cry hawkeye?

CaledonianCraig wrote:It is well-renowned as I am sure you'll know that Andy has had various injuries in his career so you'll get those grimaces that doesn't make him a drama queen. He has a floating knee-cap and wears ankle supports on his ankles. Not everyone can be jacksy like some players with injuries and get off without any serios or recurring problems you know.

Comments by a lot of people on this site show me that they actually don't play a lot of sports craig and some might not even remember what it was like to play them Craig. I play tennis 3 times a week for 90 minutes and I am in reasonable shape. After a tennis match on hardcourt if I don't ice my feet within an hour of playing in a couple of hours my feet swell up like balloons and I walk around grimacing in agony like every step is on broken glass. 2 over the counter anti inflammatory's and 15 minute ice down and I can play 2 hours the next day. I highly doubt that there are very few world class professional athletes in physical sports who don't develop some sort of pain threshold or management skills. Those who bandy about terms like drama queens and such from the comfort of their laptops probably don't know the constant battle with pain that a real athlete goes through especially after years of going through the wars. Nothing makes a manly man as tough as posting from the comfy confines of his couch.

Trust me on this if it had been fed fighting through a back injury to win a match not only would their be no criticism from posters on this site, but currently they would be deifying the man. That is the kind of double standard that we have had to get used to from people in regards to federer and everyone else.

djlovesyou wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:It was not a necessary comment to make in the circustances djl so try defending it if you feel the need .. I stand by what I said.. Nadal is fair game isn´t he .?? to some who feel the need.

Tearful !!!!!!??? get over yourself

I wasn't defending it. I merely pointing out that one oddball making a comment in the thread doesn't turn the thread into a Nadal bashing thread like you implied.

No you were not "just pointing out" anything of the sort . The comment was made by a well known anti´-nadal poster odde ball or otherwise but a wum and so yes I was quick to jump on it...What I implied was that any comparison to Nadal FOR WHATEVER reason is totally unneccessary this is a thread about Andy Murray . Nadal stands and falls by his own mistakes (and gets plenty of criticism for them) not Murray´s or anyone elses.
I made that comment and it bothered you more than anyone else it seems Maybe had I made it in defence of Federer it would have been different.

It has been a pleasure so far to be back on 606v2 and actually discuss without having anti-player remarks and antagonistic comments made to player fans...I left this forum for the very reason that odd balls do love to make wind up comments like (please note his post "fangirls") So if you call that a "tearful" response then so be it.

Hawky,

I could flat out call you a dipstick for your views, but instead I am going to be every bit patronising you are to everyone else.

You posted comments made by Wade on Murray and his health. Despite this other posters who watched the match and exchanged views even went to the lengths of posting comments made by Courier, Ljubicic, Harman. All showed sympathy with Murray. Even his opponent confirmed he saw Andy in some discomfort. You don't acknowledge these or even offer a view to those comments. This tells me you fully support the views of Wade and furthermore have the view that he was a 'Drama Queen' and even questioned his creditability. Instead you come out with pointless question and pointless question to distance yourself for your dislike for Murray and try to turn the thread into 'Oh I am not saying anything' rubbish. So please for your own creditability and that of the forum will you stop acting like the last of the window lickers when you are challeged on such articles. If you want the delete comment function, the other place will welcome you with open arms I am sure

The House of Lords?

She does have spin!

Virginia Wade was unfair, unprofessional and misleading with her comments.

Good to see that the vast majority have seen this article for what it is. Unbalanced and with the usual ulteria motive.

It really is a shame because HE may know quite a lot about the sport and have some good points to make, but chooses to write repetitive nonsense like this all the time.

I think HE is to Murray, as AIR was to Federer. You sense its all tongue in cheek deep down. I dont mind HEs articles but then again I'm not a strong Murray fan (never have been since I first saw him cramp as a 18 yr old). Murray seems to be one of those sort of players who isnt particularly inspiring (well to me at least...) but I do think he was genuinely feeling something yesterday...its just strange how it resolved itself though. Guess must have been a spasm to be like that. Wade doesnt really add much to the debate, kind of comes across as Greg's great-aunt. Her continental grip-like tennis is a world away from the tennis of today...she's just jealous of Murray's 2nd serve