When You Are Wrong Refuse To Accept It

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18507863

Yes, this is for all those in denial who for years told us Murray was the real deal and a dead cert for a Slam. I remember the times well over at 606. To suggest Murray might not win a slam was heresy. Before Djokovic won a Slam, I said that he was the one to look out for (along with Del Potro, Tsonga). I may have been wrong on Tsonga, but I was dead right on the other two.

It was almost a joke back then to get through to people that Del Potro and especially Djokovic had far more potential than miserable Murray. No I won't use my space here to lambast the man for his obnoxious attitude on court as much as it gauls me, but I will be attacking the hype and reasons behind Murray's failure to win a slam and reason he probably never will win one.

So why is my title for this 'When You Are Wrong Refuse To Accept It'? The answer is simple. Many of Murray's fans, and blinkered stupid sympathisers (See BBC) have thrust Magic Murray down our throats year after year but now it is finally dawning on people that he is unlikely to win a Slam. Will they finally agree they were wrong? OF COURSE NOT!

Instead, we get this retarded article which tries to place opinion as fact and ignores blatantly that Murray's game and mindset is the reason for his failure at the last hurdle (not even a set in slam final). He does not have the mental strength and is under pressure from the same mindless media that then come up with embarrassing articles above when it goes wrong.

Andy Murray has 3 main problems:

1. His temperament is awful. He has a ridiculously poor attitude on court. He shouts MINE when he wins a point even if opponent double faults at times. He gets angry, shouts at managers, shouts at himself. He gives his opponents a massive boost in confidence by losing his mind all the time. His game disintegrates at the first spot of trouble.

2. He does not have the bottle or mental strength. Some of this extra pressure, as I said, comes from the media but lot of it due to himself. You can't be taught to have bottle. You either do or do not. The difference between a Jimmy White and a World Champion is measured only by bottle. It happens that a person is bad under pressure. I am not too good under it myself. It isn't something to be ashamed at, it is something to be annoyed at and hope you can keep it together when it matters. To keep trying. But as far as I know, you can't correct bad bottle.

3. His game is utterly negative and overly defensive. Nadal is too actually but Nadal is 3 times the player that Murray is and so succeeds. Murray's game is based on waiting for opponents errors and if you are a very good player but not a great player, forget it. This tactic will fail you against the great players every single time. There are so many occasions where I have watched Murray play to not lose, rather than to win.

I had Murray down for 1 or 2 slams at the start but after a while I got it. He isn't good enough. I am sick of the hype that follows him; his fans that never give it a rest; his crap annoying game and more than anything, awful articles like the one from the BBC above. Accept it, Murray fans. You were wrong and the rest of us were right.

His career isn't over yet

Yes so far the people who said he will not win a slam are being proved right. So far (who knows what might happen in the future).

Anyway on 606v2 from what I have seen it's not like Murray fans keep on saying 'He will definitely win a slam.' Considering this is a new forum, and a different one, it is upto you to show us on this forum Murray fans saying this. People like CC and Calder admit it will be very difficult for Murray to win a slam, but it is possible.

Anyway I do have to give credit to you for writing this. Earlier today I criticised you for only writing one liners and not backing up what you say. Now I don't agree with this article, not at all in-fact, but you have put in some effort and detail so I'll give you kudos for that

Do you need a hug Seifer?

You seem sad.

As much more of an expert that Agassi is than me I don't agree with his assertion that Murray would have won a slam in a different era.

Perhaps if he was to borrow the Tardis from Dr Who and transport himself back to the 30s to play spindly men with wooden racquets then he has a chance but overall I find his game is not good enough. The way he's finally been diposed of in the last 5 year's worth of slams doesn't suggest he's knocking on the door just yet.

Ok Siefer I will start with my reply when the BBC article was mentioned this morning.

Got to agree with your overall sentiment bogbrush. Andy has had up until now had a very good career and is easily the most successful British male tennis player since the 1930's. He is however still missing a slam which would allow him to get him out of 'the greatest player player never to win a slam' debate and define his career.

Yes having Federer, Nadal and Djokovic around has made it more difficult for him to win one. However once he gets to the semis and finals of slams he needs to make his own luck and beat whoever he plays.

You have to remember though that BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation. Therefore they are always going have a huge leaning to reporting on a British player especially when they are playing at a very high level in their sport. It boosts their viewing figures.

The points you make are fair. His temperament can be bad (don't agree with your shouting Mine comment though. I haven't noticed that) but different players show their on court feelings in different ways. I don't think that he is worse than a lot of others who chunter away in languages that I don't understand (my lack of education not theirs). Sometimes I don't think it helps him though.

Although I don't think he is 'a bottler' I do think at present he lacks the mental strength, which in my mind is different, that would get him that slam. This is what I hoped Lendl would instil in him but as yet I have seen. Still hoping though.

Yes his game can be too negative and I agree with most of what you say in point 3.

However thats the swings and roundabouts of supporting someone. You always have the hope they will win but the frustration when they lose. They are not perfect. I am well used to this with the sports teams I support outside of tennis. Don't think I'll ever be accused of being a glory hunter.

Like IMBL I don't think there is evidence of lots of Murray fans on this forum raising articles saying he is going to win this and that. Most articles where Murray is talked about are raised by others or his name is thrown in randomly to start a debate. I like to think that I am realistic and am always fine with debating points like you have raised above.

Murray did win Shanghai let's not forget. A city with potentially 23 million people watching in, is there any more pressure than that?

You god dam MURRAY HATERS!!!

The BBC is supposed to be impartial though...

Doesn't mean it is though. Have you watched the reporting on Euro 2012 ? They are not being unfair to the other teams but the vast majority of the reporting is on England and how think they will do. It's only to be expected.

Yes I know... BBC sucks. But I can still be annoyed that they are blatantly biased and going against their own charter, funded by the taxpayer.

So your argument is:

"I pay for a TV licence, so the BBC should hate the same tennis players I do"?

No, I said be impartial. That means not being blatantly biased like their silly article and coverage is.

Also, I don't pay the license. I have no TV

Seifer Almasy wrote: ... who for years told us Murray was the real deal and a dead cert for a Slam. I remember ... Andy Murray has 3 main problems ...

... I had Murray down for 1 or 2 slams at the start but after a while I got it. He isn't good enough. I am sick of the hype that follows him ... You were wrong and the rest of us were right.

I was wrong and the the rest of you were right

But hey I have met many a former Murray supporter that became disenchanted and then "angry" and I sympathise with them

Look the BBC are no longer "independent" and they are drumming up a story to promote Wimbledon. We also get to hear about what Mr Agassi has been doing!

Take it all with a pinch of salt, it is not as if we are discussing starvation in Somalia, or people dieing in Afghanistan. Sport is supposed to be a diversion. Murray is just a very good tennis player who has several tens of millions of pounds in the bank, and who may, if the cards fall right for him, win a slam title. It will make some people happy, some unhappy and some won't even know what happened. But the world still turns, global population continues to rise, oil prices will keep rising as resources are depleted, the Amazon forest will be turned into firewood, and life will go on as usual

Seifer Almasy wrote:No, I said be impartial. That means not being blatantly biased like their silly article and coverage is.

Also, I don't pay the license. I have no TV

Well, perhaps if you did, you could have checked the 'I hate Andy Murray' box on the form.

Then they might have changed their coverage just for you.

I applaud this great and brave article from Seifer Almasy.
Personally on the old 606 I had to dodge a lot of personal attacks simply because I reasoned that Djokovic was a better player than Murray with more potential also (back in 2010). Although some of those 'attackers' are active on this forum, 606 v2 seems to be at least a bit more reasonable and civilized than the old version. I can only hope that the OP will be treated with more descency than I was back in the day (not that I really cared).

Murray may not have a slam, but from a GBR perspective, he is the lone ranger for the last five years in the Top 100, and deserves credit for it.

There are many who remain slamless in their careers, but the 127 who go home at every slam without the trophy do deserve applause for their choice of playing Tennis professionally.

laverfan wrote:Murray may not have a slam, but from a GBR perspective, he is the lone ranger for the last five years in the Top 100, and deserves credit for it.

There are many who remain slamless in their careers, but the 127 who go home at every slam without the trophy do deserve applause for their choice of playing Tennis professionally.

Sure, that's alright and so, nobody denies that. But that doesn't mean we can't suggest he won't win a slam. On this site today I read an article about Top 4 H2H, and Murray's H2H against the top 4 in slams is abysmal. Given their consistency, chances for Murray to win a slam look very slim.

Chydremion wrote:I applaud this great and brave article from Seifer Almasy.
Personally on the old 606 I had to dodge a lot of personal attacks simply because I reasoned that Djokovic was a better player than Murray with more potential also (back in 2010). Although some of those 'attackers' are active on this forum, 606 v2 seems to be at least a bit more reasonable and civilized than the old version. I can only hope that the OP will be treated with more descency than I was back in the day (not that I really cared).

Same here. I was attacked all the time and if I so much as called someone an idiot I was rounded on and banned without any explanation as to why the original abuser wasn't. These days I don't fall for that little trap.

The fact is the people who reduced Djokovic to second fiddle against Murray are today looking very foolish indeed.

Seifer Seifer is there a point in writing article on hatred? why try writing some articles on you favorite players.

Believe me Nadal fan girls are better than hatred writers, Nadal fan girls just focus on the love for their hero eventhough at times it could be boring but atleast they enjoy the occasion but in your case neither you seem to be happy and wanna make other sad too.

laverfan wrote:Murray may not have a slam, but from a GBR perspective, he is the lone ranger for the last five years in the Top 100, and deserves credit for it. ...

Feminists would be shaking their heads in despair at this comment

Chydremion wrote:Given their consistency, chances for Murray to win a slam look very slim.

Mark Edmondson #212, 1976 AO. Sampras #17, USO 2002. Many examples to contradict the typical notion of consistency. As long as the chance is not an absolute zero, it is worth consideration.

Seifer Seifer is there a point in writing article on hatred?

As much point as not bothering to debate the points and posting on a thread you can't be bothered with

laverfan wrote:

Chydremion wrote:Given their consistency, chances for Murray to win a slam look very slim.

Mark Edmondson #212, 1976 AO. Sampras #17, USO 2002. Many examples to contradict the typical notion of consistency. As long as the chance is not an absolute zero, it is worth consideration.

Sampras? Comparing Murray to Sampras?

Hmmmmmm.

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL INSULTS Big mistake number 1. But let me point out the old fashioned way:

1. His temperament is awful. He has a ridiculously poor attitude on court. He shouts MINE when he wins a point even if opponent double faults at times. He gets angry, shouts at managers, shouts at himself. He gives his opponents a massive boost in confidence by losing his mind all the time. His game disintegrates at the first spot of trouble.

He yells 'Come on' not mine. Not sure where you got that from. Also berrating yourself is a common occurance. Something Simon does. Also Djokovic looks to his box as if the answers are there. He suffers a massive crisis of confidence in his ability when he is in a position if the momentum is not with him.

2. He does not have the bottle or mental strength. Some of this extra pressure, as I said, comes from the media but lot of it due to himself. You can't be taught to have bottle. You either do or do not. The difference between a Jimmy White and a World Champion is measured only by bottle. It happens that a person is bad under pressure. I am not too good under it myself. It isn't something to be ashamed at, it is something to be annoyed at and hope you can keep it together when it matters. To keep trying. But as far as I know, you can't correct bad bottle

.

A great champion once said 'Guys who win know how win at tournaments. It is a case that they need to elevate their game to the next level and win a Major'

Murray knows how to win. It is just doing it on the big stage. Jimmy White just didn't know how to play tactics. Simple as really.

3. His game is utterly negative and overly defensive. Nadal is too actually but Nadal is 3 times the player that Murray is and so succeeds. Murray's game is based on waiting for opponents errors and if you are a very good player but not a great player, forget it. This tactic will fail you against the great players every single time. There are so many occasions where I have watched Murray play to not lose, rather than to win

The last 3 Slams have been won on this merit alone. When Murray plays poor it is really poor and even players outside the top 10 can defeat him when he plays a poor match. Again the momentum. He can't turn the tide so well like a Nadal or Djokovic.

So on that basis your quite wrong, but I forgive.

Nore Staat wrote:

laverfan wrote:Murray may not have a slam, but from a GBR perspective, he is the lone ranger for the last five years in the Top 100, and deserves credit for it. ...

Feminists would be shaking their heads in despair at this comment

Did you intend to quote a different comment?

Seifer Almasy wrote:... and if I so much as called someone an idiot I was rounded on and banned without any explanation ...

Surely only idiots would ban someone for calling them idiots

legendkillarV2 wrote:

The OP seems to be more retarded as he seems to think he knows better than Agassi. Big mistake number 1.

Well more personal abuse, but this guy here doesn't seem to know this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:... and if I so much as called someone an idiot I was rounded on and banned without any explanation ...

Surely only idiots would ban someone for calling them idiots

And you took my quote out of context by deliberately snipping away part of it. I thought this forum was better than 606?

Seifer Almasy wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Chydremion wrote:Given their consistency, chances for Murray to win a slam look very slim.

Mark Edmondson #212, 1976 AO. Sampras #17, USO 2002. Many examples to contradict the typical notion of consistency. As long as the chance is not an absolute zero, it is worth consideration.

Sampras? Comparing Murray to Sampras?

No. It was more to show that a winner at a slam can come from anywhere. Jan Kodes, perhaps, but alas 1973?

Accept it, Murray fans. You were wrong and the rest of us were right.

You have already created a 'Us v Them' and laid out the Yin and Yang. Is there a debate you had intended, it could have been styled like this - https://www.606v2.com/t31322-top-4-record.

We have had a few British ladies in the top 100 bringing up the rear to Murrays achievements.

by Seifer Almasy Today at 7:02 pm

.legendkillarV2 wrote:


The OP seems to be more retarded as he seems to think he knows better than Agassi. Big mistake number 1.

Well more personal abuse, but this guy here doesn't seem to know this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Or you don't know this:

Bias and prejudice is a human weakness found in experts as well as ordinary people. Wishful thinking is just one possibility when authorities who invested a great deal (time or money) in developing their expertise naturally want to be correct. Evidence that experts are biased weakens their arguments or rebuts the arguments altogether depending on circumstances. We cannot always be certain whether biased experts have weighed up and evaluated arguments carefully or are speaking from prejudice. Experts can be biased for any number of reasons including who is paying them. [7] Doctors employed by the tobacco industry are not necessarily reliable for example. [8] [9]

That there about sums up your position

I was arguing from a personal opinion and making it obvious it was opinion. I was not using 1 man in authority to claim fact. Please learn the difference. This is basic stuff

The title of the thread is a statement of fact.

Will they finally agree they were wrong? OF COURSE NOT!

Well you are claiming 2 'facts' there.

Keep digging though

Seifer Almasy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18507863

No I won't use my space here to lambast the man for his obnoxious attitude on court as much as it gauls me.

OK. So we can look forward to a constructive critique?

Seifer Almasy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18507863
His temperament is awful. He has a ridiculously poor attitude on court. He shouts MINE when he wins a point even if opponent double faults at times. He gets angry, shouts at managers, shouts at himself.

I am sick of the hype that follows him; his fans that never give it a rest; his crap annoying game and more than anything, awful articles like the one from the BBC above. Accept it, Murray fans. You were wrong and the rest of us were right.

.


Perhaps not

Chydremion wrote:I applaud this great and brave article from Seifer Almasy.
Personally on the old 606 I had to dodge a lot of personal attacks simply because I reasoned that Djokovic was a better player than Murray with more potential also (back in 2010). Although some of those 'attackers' are active on this forum, 606 v2 seems to be at least a bit more reasonable and civilized than the old version. I can only hope that the OP will be treated with more descency than I was back in the day (not that I really cared).

Chydremion. You're treated with 'more decency', simply because you're acted with more respect towards Murray. None of us fans could give a flying fig who likes him - we just want there to be some interlect in the reasoning (i.e. see any comment from 'Lydian')

This article, is like the worst worst days of the old 606

I mean does the author, think that Steffi and the kids have been kidnapped and the only way to release them is to say nice things about Andy, simply because it doesn't fit their point of view

Mac's constantly negative view of Murray doesn't suit me either. However, this doesn't stop me from respecting him and him still being my favourite of all time

That's the difference

banbrotam

Does Murray deliver you a buzzing sensation when he hits an audacious lob?

3. His game is utterly negative and overly defensive. Nadal is too actually

----------

Well I find myself in a strange situation of defending Andy Murray.. to me a man who can stay in the top 4 for such an inordinate amount of time is being ...lambasted is the only word I can use So what is the purpose of this article if it is not create another lets bash Andy thread...it speaks volumes for the remaining seeds below him who cannot manage to get past him..

The above comment is in itself hypocrital and incorrect. .. this article is pure negativity at its worst and the OP defensive. to call Nadal defensive may well be true but ...Ive heard Nadal called many many things but negative is not one of them he is in fact quite the opposite or he would never have achieved what he has.

Well haddie the thing with the Spanish players is they don't have to attend school to the same degree that most people do, so when they are young they have much longer leisure time to hone their technique and have a clear advantage. Also the way Nadal acts like a primadonna with the umpires, you can tell he has never been taught discipline in his life, Spanish tennis players are separated from reality.

Do you know what JM the temperatures here are nearly 100 deg and rising.. and with it comes this irritating little midges and pesky buzzing flies.. no matter how you swat them they still keep coming back.. they serve no useful purpose than to irritate and annoy... they are mindless and just spoil what would otherwise be a nice day... can you draw any comparisons here.

Just try putting your brain into gear before opening your mouth because it helps when you know what your talking about.

Thats deep haddie, thats just so deep and scars my little heart.

BRB shower time

Going out in the rain again ????

Wouldnt keep your money in those Spanish banks either haddie, with how bad the economy is going down there...

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Thats deep haddie, thats just so deep and scars my little heart.

BRB shower time

Hope you clean up well during the shower?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Wouldnt keep your money in those Spanish banks either haddie, with how bad the economy is going down there...

She has her money in RBS, JM.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Wouldnt keep your money in those Spanish banks either haddie, with how bad the economy is going down there... :)

Havent got any JM .... and Im not "down" anywhere... Im over in Spain

Josiah Maiestas wrote:banbrotam

Does Murray deliver you a buzzing sensation when he hits an audacious lob?

Yes. Because, if it's one of the best, it just happens to be one of the more difficult aspects of the game to play and requires exquisite skill

What's your point? You're not letting that youthful cheek of yours go overboard again are you?

Just trying to understand what it is Murray fans actually enjoy about his tennis... lets call it research. No mischief going on here sailor.

legendkillarV2 wrote:The title of the thread is a statement of fact.

Will they finally agree they were wrong? OF COURSE NOT!

Well you are claiming 2 'facts' there.

Keep digging though

Wait those are obviously intended as MY opinion. A good number of Murray fans and the BBC ARE like that and I was mainly referring to the article. The one that he 'will win a slam' and he hasnt is currently a fact and it will stay that way until he does

You obviously have no concept of what Argument from Authority actually means, or debate in general, so I will just stop there. Clearly, a lot of you still have much to learn from your 606 days. A good number of personal posts here aimed at the OP as usual... (not just here).

"When you are wrong..."

........Stop digging

Actually learn how to argue instead stating facts and merely then hiding behind on it was my opinion.

Geeez I though some posters would grasp general grammar

Look at this folks. Hilarious double standards from our cerebral author of this article

https://www.606v2.com/t30864-mark-allen-fined#1334380

It's good to know that they believe in a bit of personality at the snooker table, but not on the Tennis court

Certainly not, if your name's Andy Murray!!