Murray's Tears: Good Or Bad?

I know all of us serious tennis fans have far more important things to talk about (topspin forehands, race points and Raonic's accent to the number 1) but out there amongst the tabloids, magazine, radio and tv and gossip amongst 2 week tennis fans... There is only one tennis topic. Andy's tears and emotional break down having lost the Wimbledon final. The talk is emotional and divided. Even people who didn't watch any of the tennis have joined in.

Did Murray endear himself to the public by showing how much he wanted that shiny gold trophy? Did he prove with his tears that one day he will hold the trophy himself? Or did Murray steal the attention from Federer who had just won an historic seventh Wimbledon title. Did it demonstrate that Murray lacks the emotional control to beat the very top players in a slam?

Do you think Murray's tears were good or bad? How did they make you feel whilst watching?

I think the forum made clear how they felt.

Take a day off thinking from the (_!_).

Agreed LK. It's not like other players are exactly a stranger to tears either, including Federer himself.

The forum wouldn't be complete without the residential Andymoaner.

HE... you seem to have ignored the 4 sets of Tennis Murray played to focus on what may (according to you) show him in a bad light.

Did you read this article at all - https://www.606v2.com/t32288-sometimes-when-words-are-not-enough?

I am :sad: like yesterday when both Murray and Federer showed their human side to the world? Did you watch Federer hug Murray, like Nadal hugged Federer @AO 2009?

legendkillarV2 wrote:The forum wouldn't be complete without the residential Andymoaner.

The AndyMoaners I know were really positive about Andy.

Is it divided?

Murray did endear himself to the public or to many of us. I was touched by the reaction and I actually wish he could have given Fed more of a fight. Even though I wanted Fed to win, I thought the manner in which Fed took that second set was cruel. Murray's reaction actually made much more likely to support Murray.

Murray felt disappointed coz he felt he let his great supporters and fans down by losing, and he just didn't have any words for the love they are giving to him.

Its very understandable how one would feel when so many show a lot of love and support to win on individual sport.

Hawk no idea how come you could come with some strange articles like these

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:The forum wouldn't be complete without the residential Andymoaner.

The AndyMoaners I know were really positive about Andy.

I think he won over some fans yesterday.

I think the positive mindset and also his body language was far more positive than past finals

Like I said it is what is being discussed everywhere in the mainstream media. Quite passionately. Invisible coolers you should get out more if you think I've come up with this topic.

carrieg4 wrote:Agreed LK. It's not like other players are exactly a stranger to tears either, including Federer himself.

In fact Murray's reaction was very much in the Federer mould: he only reacted once the match was finished and he'd lost (just like Federer does). Perhaps the only difference is that Murray displayed some negative body language after he was on the back foot but Fed did show some signs of that himself during the first set. Perhaps not the negative body language, but Fed didn't look pleased at the overwhelming support Murray was getting, even the line calls aggravated Fed! There's little wrong in Murray or Fed expressing the emotions once the match is done, but there might be one during it.

hawkeye wrote:Like I said it is what is being discussed everywhere in the mainstream media. Quite passionately. Invisible coolers you should get out more if you think I've come up with this topic.

I think you should get out.

Where are your famous plagiarised links?

laverfan wrote:HE... you seem to have ignored the 4 sets of Tennis Murray played to focus on what may (according to you) show him in a bad light.

Did you read this article at all - https://www.606v2.com/t32288-sometimes-when-words-are-not-enough?

I am :sad: like yesterday when both Murray and Federer showed their human side to the world? Did you watch Federer hug Murray, like Nadal hugged Federer @AO 2009?

laverfan. Did I say what I thought about "Murray's Tears"? I was asking what others thought. What did you think? Did it make you sad or was it me asking the question that made you sad? Are Murray's tears a forbidden topic?

I've not heard anyone in the media suggest he was stealing the attention from Federer. Nor have I heard anyone question that a few tears means he lacks emotional control to beat the others at the top.

It is YOU that is suggesting it, as per usual. And frankly it's as ridiculous as suggesting Federer, Nadal, Agassi or the others in the article mentioned above lack or lacked emotional control, because they have shed tears on a tennis court too.

You know what the shame is? You might actually have decent opinions on the game, but nobody bothers to listen to you because of this type of rubbish you keep coming up with.

I cried with Murray.

I would like a 'doesn't matter' option.

I certainly don't condemn him in slightest, it's ridiculous to be criticising him for being overcome. Also I see nothing positive about it, nothing to get all sloppy about.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's not like it was the disgusting Federer outpourings of Aus Open 2009 final, neither was it the first time he blubbed. He did so in Aus Open 2010 final against Federer did he not?

It will definitely be good for his popularity among the casual fans though. Next year more people will want to see him win whilst the hardcore England football fan morons will have taken great delight in his bawling and will continue to want him to lose.

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:HE... you seem to have ignored the 4 sets of Tennis Murray played to focus on what may (according to you) show him in a bad light.

Did you read this article at all - https://www.606v2.com/t32288-sometimes-when-words-are-not-enough?

I am :sad: like yesterday when both Murray and Federer showed their human side to the world? Did you watch Federer hug Murray, like Nadal hugged Federer @AO 2009?

laverfan. Did I say what I thought about "Murray's Tears"? I was asking what others thought. What did you think? Did it make you sad or was it me asking the question that made you sad? Are Murray's tears a forbidden topic?

1. Does 'others' include you or not, HE?
2. It made me sad both times, when he cried and when you asked the question, albeit for different reasons. I will let you analyse that statement to your heart's content.
3. No they are not. The link I pointed to (LKv2's article) shows many players who became emotional.

Here is another link to show you the humanity of players - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI6LA92yXjw

It would have been better to have a general discussion about the emotions of athletes in general. Your anti-Murray articles indicate a repetitive and somewhat obsessive tendency. Many other posters show similar tendencies towards other players. It is very disturbing to see out-of-context articles which do nothing to enhance the enjoyment of Tennis as a sport.

From a different sport, after having won the NBA Championship (US Basketball), Michael Jordan, becomes emotional - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLgtJdqsTIo&feature=related

HE... do you recall this.

Q. Tough luck. You just said Roger's the best player of all time. Roger Federer is Roger Federer, but can you try and put into words what he showed us tonight, why he was so tough?

JULIEN BENNETEAU: Mentally he's a rock, you know. He's two sets down and he doesn't show anything. After that, if your level is a little bit lower, right here, right now he takes the opportunity.

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/interviews/2012-06-29/201206301341055896837.html

This same 'mental rock' cried at AO 2009.

Did players used to cry in finals in the past? For example did Mr Laver cry, or Mr Tilden, or Mr Connors, or Mr Borg, or Mr Lendl, or Mr Sampras. Compared to the current generation of tennis players, I would think that they would have received far less prize money for coming second. Was there much weeping and gnashing of teeth in the days of yore?

I suppose when Mr Murray esquire saw Sue Barking approaching with mike in hand, that could have been cause enough to burst into tears.

If my memory serves me right, I do recall Laver shedding a few tears.

None of these players cry during matches...unless its for personal bereavement-type issues (Sampras and Djokovic). What they do off-court/post-match is their own business....if they have to let out the pent up emotion through crying then fine...McEnroe used to do it and some others as well. It doesnt make them weak, its just their way of off-loading. And some matches create more pent up emotion than others depending on what is riding on the match.

To judge human emotion seems a little trite to me...for we all have it in us and none of know how we would react in their pressure situations. So I for one will not judge these players by how they react post-match. Showing emotions during a match however is topical because it can either solidify or weaken a player. In Murray's case I think he shows too much negative energy which I believe saps his energy too much...by the end of the 2nd set he looked knackered...and that was besides Federer running him left and right (as Murray did to him but Federer looked much fresher you have to say).

Let 'em cry if they want...it doesnt mean they're wimps.

How about adding a third option: "Largely neutral, he's not the first nor will he be the last guy to let his emotions get the better of him in such a situation. The most important time to control your emotions is whilst playing - after the last ball has been hit it's less important although it may be a sign that there's less control just beforehand."

Personally I prefer it if the guy who has lost manages to save his tears for the locker room (something Nadal did in 2007 I believe) and leaves any display of lachrymosity to the winner, but I don't think it's the biggest of issues.

barrystar wrote:...Personally I prefer it if the guy who has lost manages to save his tears for the locker room (something Nadal did in 2007 I believe) and leaves any display of lachrymosity to the winner, but I don't think it's the biggest of issues.

In the past public displays of self-pity were frowned upon especially if it detracts from someone elses success (raining on someone's parade), but in this day and age many perceive it as acceptable and preferable (come to mummy - let it all out, there there, cuchi cuchi coo). I wonder whether the winner feels embarassment or pleasure (for crushing someones soul) or saintly compassion. Federer said in his aftermatch speech "I am sure he will win at least one". Of course Federer has done the same even after having thirteen titles already in the bag (AO 2009).

I'm neutral too.

But I think more of him for having decided to make a speech and thank everyone for their support, even though he knew he could only do it through the tears. He could have declined.

To be honest, win or lose, tears or no tears, the attention was always going to be on Murray more than Federer (both in terms of the crowd & the UK media; international media attention seemed more focussed on Fed). If Federer felt in any way that Murray stole his limelight, then he's more arrogant than I thought.

YvonneT wrote:I'm neutral too.

But I think more of him for having decided to make a speech and thank everyone for their support, even though he knew he could only do it through the tears. He could have declined.

To be honest, win or lose, tears or no tears, the attention was always going to be on Murray more than Federer (both in terms of the crowd & the UK media; international media attention seemed more focussed on Fed). If Federer felt in any way that Murray stole his limelight, then he's more arrogant than I thought.

Falling for hawkeye's little smear job quite nicely then...

reckoner wrote:

YvonneT wrote:I'm neutral too.

But I think more of him for having decided to make a speech and thank everyone for their support, even though he knew he could only do it through the tears. He could have declined.

To be honest, win or lose, tears or no tears, the attention was always going to be on Murray more than Federer (both in terms of the crowd & the UK media; international media attention seemed more focussed on Fed). If Federer felt in any way that Murray stole his limelight, then he's more arrogant than I thought.

Falling for hawkeye's little smear job quite nicely then...

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. You think hawkeye was smearing Federer? Or that I was?

reckoner wrote:

YvonneT wrote:I'm neutral too...[/b]

Falling for hawkeye's little smear job quite nicely then...

Did I tell you about the time when I had to spend a night in a crowded prison cell in Shanghai?

YvonneT wrote:I'm neutral too.

But I think more of him for having decided to make a speech and thank everyone for their support, even though he knew he could only do it through the tears. He could have declined...

I thought he did well in pulling himself together and giving a fair tribute to Mr Federer. He also did well to remember the Wimbledon staff (and sponsors?) etc, although it didn't come out as well as he had intended - as he mentioned later.

YvonneT wrote:

reckoner wrote:

YvonneT wrote:I'm neutral too.

But I think more of him for having decided to make a speech and thank everyone for their support, even though he knew he could only do it through the tears. He could have declined.

To be honest, win or lose, tears or no tears, the attention was always going to be on Murray more than Federer (both in terms of the crowd & the UK media; international media attention seemed more focussed on Fed). If Federer felt in any way that Murray stole his limelight, then he's more arrogant than I thought.

Falling for hawkeye's little smear job quite nicely then...

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. You think hawkeye was smearing Federer? Or that I was?

I mean that hawkeye was smearing Federer. There's not a single bit of evidence to suggest that Federer begrudged Andy his moment, he gave him a hug at the end and it was evident there was a great deal of respect between the two players.

Your question "If Federer felt in any way that Murray stole his limelight" is probably as a result of reading the second option in hawkweye's odious poll, namely: "Bad. Federer won. Murray shouldn't steal his attention. Lack of emotional control might make it difficult to perform at his best"

Lets change this topic.

Davydenko retiring good or bad?

Bad!

Thing is I don't want him to play Nadal again and ruin his fine H2h.

LOL there had to be a reason...

He's retired??!!

Sad to see him go, but in this shape he's only damaging his legacy. He was a really good player. His Masters Cup triumph was the zenith, he really looked incredible at that event.

Not sure why Hawkeye would want to smear Federer as she professes to support him as well as Nadal.

I suspect the idea of the thread and poll came from an article similar to this.

http://www.london24.com/sport/other/wimbledon_2012_andy_murray_apologises_to_roger_federer_for_crying_1_1437907

It shows that both players seem to have a good understanding of the players emotions actually go through after these big matches.. Therefore I'll go for the neutral stance.

Calder106 wrote:Not sure why Hawkeye would want to smear Federer as she professes to support him as well as Nadal.

I suspect the idea of the thread and poll came from an article similar to this.

http://www.london24.com/sport/other/wimbledon_2012_andy_murray_apologises_to_roger_federer_for_crying_1_1437907

It shows that both players seem to have a good understanding of the players actually go through. Therefore I'll go for the neutral stance.

Well your suspicions have as much validity as mine do, given hawkeye's record of posting a daily article to take the mick out of Murray and occasionally other players.

bogbrush wrote:He's retired??!!

Sad to see him go, but in this shape he's only damaging his legacy. He was a really good player. His Masters Cup triumph was the zenith, he really looked incredible at that event.

I can't see any confirmation of this. He got knocked out early by Dustin Brown but no mention of retirement as far as I can see.

reckoner wrote:

bogbrush wrote:He's retired??!!

Sad to see him go, but in this shape he's only damaging his legacy. He was a really good player. His Masters Cup triumph was the zenith, he really looked incredible at that event.

I can't see any confirmation of this. He got knocked out early by Dustin Brown but no mention of retirement as far as I can see.

I was about to post the same thing. I can't find mention of it anywhere.

YvonneT wrote:To be honest, win or lose, tears or no tears, the attention was always going to be on Murray more than Federer (both in terms of the crowd & the UK media; international media attention seemed more focussed on Fed).

Murray, in his post match interview, stated that he had tremendous support, but it will always be tough for a British player @W.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B3y1J1mv4c

YvonneT wrote:If Federer felt in any way that Murray stole his limelight, then he's more arrogant than I thought.

Federer's expressions during Andy's speech were quite contrary to arrogance. He was almost on the verge of tears, till Andy cracked a joke. Federer also gave him a hug after he walked back, but the Beeb decided to focus elsewhere.

I agree with Lydian. There is a lot of work these players put in. It is rather unfortunate that such emotions take a back seat till it is over. AO 2006 Federer trophy speech is worth listening to.

legendkillarV2. Once again you try and in some ways succeed in side tracking one of my threads by repeatedly insulting me. I set up a thread asking for peoples views either good or bad. Isn't that what we are here for. I'm also a little sad that the moderators allow such offensive insults to remain. I thought this place was better than that...

I'll say what I think.

I think Murray's tears were neither good nor bad but I certainly don't think they are something to be celebrated. The ideal in sport for many is to be able to "meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same". Of course in reality this is often difficult to do. I had sympathy for Murray that he was unable to do this. It didn't make me like him more or less. There was also a certain car crash fascination in watching the scene. Not something I particularly enjoy but something that captured attention. Some of the discussion involved people who said they don't really follow tennis or Murray but after seeing him cry really liked him and thought that he would win Wimbledon next time. So as an unintentional PR exercise it was surprisingly successful.

laverfan pointed out that Federer cried after losing the AO final to Nadal in 2009. I felt a similar way about that. Like Murray I don't blame him but I don't think it's something that should be celebrated. It did take attention away from Nadal. It was a huge win for Nadal but at that trophy ceremony he had the look of someone who had done something wrong. In both cases the way the way the weeping player was handled didn't help. Murray was encouraged to talk for way too long. It wasn't fun to watch. Then when Federer was given the trophy he had to talk about poor Murray. It did detract from Federer's celebration and of course we know what an important win it was for him. But IMO Federer is made of tougher stuff than Nadal and he still managed to look pretty happy... and smug.

As for the prediction that Murray's emotional outburst predicts that his chances of winning a slam have increased. Maybe because he's shown he wants it more? Personally I don't see it like that. It should really have no effect. However Murray has shown in the past he finds disappointments difficult to get over.

If any players behavior after a loss should be celebrated it is Djokovics. Watching him after a loss even a huge loss he is pure class. I don't think it's because he is unemotional because he is. He just appears able to control it.

hawkeye wrote:legendkillarV2. Once again you try and in some ways succeed in side tracking one of my threads by repeatedly insulting me. I set up a thread asking for peoples views either good or bad. Isn't that what we are here for. I'm also a little sad that the moderators allow such offensive insults to remain. I thought this place was better than that...

I've checked for reported posts, but none have been reported. There's no way of really knowing who takes offence at what unless posts get reported. If we have to make a judgement, it's best that we're at least asked to do that first.

Afterwards in the BBC studio I believe, there was a short interview with Federer. Federer mentioned he had done something similar in the past and the AO 2009 final was then mentioned by the interviewer. Federer went on to say that he cried because he was disappointed for his own supporters - who had so much wanted to see him winning. Hence he cried for his supporters not for himself.

HE,

Point to an insult on this thread?

Secondly no-one is celebrating tears. In fact people are paying respect by addressing the fact that Andy showed a human touch and also that Federer being there himself as the runner up had the class to console with him.

Nadal was pretty close to crying in Australia...

hawkeye wrote:I'll say what I think.

Can LKv2 have the same 'right' as you do?

Hawkeye. It's interesting that your poll gives us the option of 'good' or 'bad' and yet your opinion is that it's neither good or bad.

Why would you set up a poll where you don't even allow an option for the thing that you yourself believes? Seems a bit odd to me.

Hahaha.

Reporting LF's comment?

The grounds?

not bad at all at this moment