It was a great achievement and a forgettable tennis match

Apparently, it is churlish to point out that in my opinion, the tennis wasn't exactly the best in USO 212 final. This is in some way seen as spoiling Andy's moment.

I fail to understand why this is the case. When my favourite player won Wimbledon in 2009 and broke perhaps the most important record in the game, I did not have any problem accepting that it wasn't the best match he had played.

Why is everyone so sensitive to this? How does a comment on the quality of the match take away from the great achievement of winning a slam? I would have thought that the two are almost (Note: I didn't say "completely") independent!

So let me say that again. It was a forgettable match for the quality of tennis, but it was a great achievement by Murray, and I'm so glad for him!

Who's been sensitive to that? That's what I've picked up as the consensus view.

And well done for citing W '09; it was virtually unwatchable, as well as being a wonderful occassion.

Thank you, BB. Glad to see that you echo my views. As for who's been sensitive, I'd say most Murray fans. On this forum, I do remember a few comments on one of my threads talking about how people can't give Murray his due even in this moment.

That may be true, but lots of people, myself, included, don't just watch tennis for the quality alone. The excitement, drama, unforgettable-ness etc aren't necessarily related to the standard of tennis.
After all, it wasn't bad tennis, it was very good at times.

I will be honest. I don't think another thread was required to state already how you felt.

You have to take into consideration some fans will ellude to the conditions impacting the standard of play. The argument for them is, is it really the responsibility of the player to still play their natural game despite the wind being such an influential factor? Would that not only increase the risk of an error on every shot made but also reduce the quality of it even more.

Yes it was an ugly and unspectacular match, but I think of many worse matches by where the quality was dreadful despite no unfavouring conditions.

I agree posters shouldn't respond in a manner which they feel the player is being attacked. I am sure that your view isn't that oh 2 counter punchers mean a crap final, but more that it wasn't tennis that would leave you wanting more of the same standard displayed.

Yes, there must be some reason why I watched virtually every minute of it!

As I said on another thread, the acid test is whether I'd have done so had it been like that between Ferrer and someone not-Federer/Murray, and the answer is a big no.

TA I think that you are the one being sensitive. I didn't reply to your previous article but have read through it. Can't see 'most' Murray fans slagging you off for raising the article. Yes a few contrary views but that's what discussion is about.

What tennis match?

I think the quality of the mens game dropped once they introduced shorts. In Fred Perry's day they used to wear proper gentlemens trousers.

Nore Staat wrote:What tennis match?

What is this 'tennis' of which you speak?

yawn...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:yawn...

That's not bad - a decent quality yawn I would say. In my day we had quality yawns, although to be honest I did once choke on a yawn. ... or was it a prawn? I can never remember nowadays. It's my memory you see I keep on you know ... what's that word ... it's on the tip of my thingy ... you know that place where those biting things go. O' dear is that the time ... I have to be somewhere at sometime soon, or was it yesterday?

Nore Staat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:yawn...

That's not bad - a decent quality yawn I would say. In my day we had quality yawns, although to be honest I did once choke on a yawn. ... or was it a prawn? I can never remember nowadays. It's my memory you see I keep on you know ... what's that word ... it's on the tip of my thingy ... you know that place where those biting things go. O' dear is that the time ... I have to be somewhere at sometime soon, or was it yesterday?

NS... did you take your medicine?

PS: Are you highlighting a sexual innuendo?

Tennisanorak

Dont worry! Everyone will be happy with your judgement that it was "a forgettable tennis match" because you also said (3 times) that it was a great achievement for Murray and that you were glad for him. Also legendkillarV2 can safely say that "it was an ugly and unspectacular match" and "that it wasn't tennis that would leave you wanting more" because he is a fully paid up member of the Murray appreciation society. As is Mad for Chelsea who could only yawn (I know)... But I wouldn't dare voice my opinion that I can think of better things to do than watch a forgettable, ugly and unspectacular match once let alone want more. Sigh.

Hawkeye, interesting. Glad to see you agree with me regarding the tennis. Don't you also agree it was a great achievement?

LK is a tennis fan in general Hawky.

I am not afraid to to pour scorn on Murray if he plays poorly and also I am not afraid to praise him when he does play well and succeed. The significance of the result is what is important in context of what this can do for British tennis on the whole.

Let me put this way. Nadal coming back isn't going to have me foaming at the mouth with anticipation.

Can someone remind me what we're talking about

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Let me put this way. Nadal coming back isn't going to have me foaming at the mouth with anticipation.

Nadal still has a much bigger fanbase worldwide, and generates far mor interest for tennis than Murray as a whole.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Let me put this way. Nadal coming back isn't going to have me foaming at the mouth with anticipation.

Nadal still has a much bigger fanbase worldwide, and generates far mor interest for tennis than Murray as a whole.

Can you prove that without resorting to Facebook and Twitter followers?

Sorry but you need to reword your topic title. The great achievement and what it entailed makes it a memorable tennis match however anyone wishes to paint it. For the final time on this - it won't go down as a classic for five sets crammed full of superb tennis (conditions saw to that) but it did offer up tension, a number of great rallies and a tense finish. Put it this way - far better than sitting through a three set walkover by Rafa or Roger (sorry fans of those players if it offends) but that is how I feel.

Tennisanorak wrote:Hawkeye, interesting. Glad to see you agree with me regarding the tennis. Don't you also agree it was a great achievement?

Well considering Hawkeye didn't actually watch the match I'm sure her view on it is very relevant.

Sorry Tennisanorak. When I said "Don't worry" I forgot about CaladonionCraig. You could try throwing in another couple of "it was a great achievement for Murray" lines or maybe add "very, very" to how glad you were for Murray. But I am not sure it would work. To be safe I would advise you to re-title your article "A Tribute To Andy" and re work the article itself leaving out the word "forgettable" and replacing it with "memorable". If you like I will check it for you prior to posting. It might also be wise to claim you were drunk when you wrote this one and ask laverfan to remove it.

Calder106 wrote:

Tennisanorak wrote:Hawkeye, interesting. Glad to see you agree with me regarding the tennis. Don't you also agree it was a great achievement?

Well considering Hawkeye didn't actually watch the match I'm sure her view on it is very relevant.

Please, please don't make me watch that match.

I take it that "The Times (ppv) but well worth it" had nothing to say about Murray's win.

sigh...

Tut tut - so much animosity hawkeye, Still waiting for a congratulations Andy Murray. Shame that you can't even bring yourself to do that whereas I've freely congratulated players even if they have beaten Andy in slam finals.

In fairness Hawky shouldn't be expected to congratulate anyone. I would never expect that of any poster for that matter. It is their disgression of whom they choose to follow and what successes to acknowledge.

Andy has won a Slam and it doesn't get any sweeter than that in the faces of all those who doubted him and I would even include myself on that list.

Calder106 wrote:I take it that "The Times (ppv) but well worth it" had nothing to say about Murray's win.

Actually "The Times (PPV well worth it if you are a Murray fan) has realms and realms of articles paying homage to Murray. They do this by saving paper and not reporting on any tennis tournament that doesn't feature Murray and stopping coverage once he gets beaten. I am still waiting to find out who won the FO. I know that Murray lost at Wimbledon because he found love through tears... but I still don't know who made him cry...

Take it your cancelling your subscription then as it is obviously not well worth it to you.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Let me put this way. Nadal coming back isn't going to have me foaming at the mouth with anticipation.

Nadal still has a much bigger fanbase worldwide, and generates far mor interest for tennis than Murray as a whole.

Can you prove that without resorting to Facebook and Twitter followers?

Are you angry today or something lk? You seem in a very argumentative mood!

Murray's win generated a lot of interest- especially historically- as Britain hadn't generated a male slam winner for 76 years. So Murray's win this USO was of great importance, especially to Britain.

However, I don't think even the most fanatic Murray fan will try to say that world wide, Murray is more popular than Nadal. It simply isn't true. Nadal has more fans than Murray atm, I don't need to use fbook to point that out.

Calder106 wrote:Take it your cancelling your subscription then as it is obviously not well worth it to you.

No she will keep it in case it breaks the news of Andy breaking wind on court and then she can proclaim him as disgusting.

Aside from Britain who loves a loser, the world loves a winner. You will never be fully appreciated until you start winning as people jump on the bandwagon.

It Must Be Love,

Of course Rafa has more fans worldwide as he has eleven slam wins now after winning his first slam many years ago. I would say that Andy's fanbase will only get larger from here on in.

hawkeye wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

Tennisanorak wrote:Hawkeye, interesting. Glad to see you agree with me regarding the tennis. Don't you also agree it was a great achievement?

Well considering Hawkeye didn't actually watch the match I'm sure her view on it is very relevant.

Please, please don't make me watch that match.

Hawkeye, I don't understand a few things.

Firstly if you didnt' watch the match then how can you judge it? Surely you'd have to watch it to know how it was?

Secondly, if you're not going to watch it, I can tell you it wasn't the most entertaining match, play-wise. The conditions were windy, so poor for tennis, and both competitors have similar games, hence it did not produce a classic.

But still, this doesn't change the immense historical significance it had for Britain, and it doesn't de-value the win.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It Must Be Love,

Of course Rafa has more fans worldwide as he has eleven slam wins now after winning his first slam many years ago. I would say that Andy's fanbase will only get larger from here on in.

Yes, indeed
Will he ever get as many fans as Nadal/Federer did? It'll be very difficult to do that. He has won over a lot of Britain, but not worldwide yet.
Still in the next few years if he has success I think he will be a hugely popular figure, and become a well-known face over the world.

Calder106

Not yet as I am still waiting to find out who won the FO!

The Times like anything can be biased but it is better than the alternatives. The tennis coverage can be good. Neil Harman follows the tour around the world and although his brief is obviously Murray centric he sometimes lets things slip...

It Must Be Love

I am good at guessing. I guessed what the match would be like and from the reports I was proved right. I don't really understand the "immense historical significance it had for Britain". How did this win benefit me? I am British but my favourite players are Nadal and Federer because they are fun to watch.

USO 2012 match was ok for me, but can't take such baselines matches more than 1-2 times, its a variety and it won't be a problem if it happens only a few times and not every time but looks like thats gonna be the trend.

I don't blame Andy or Djoko for it, I blame the authorities of USO for slowing the court conditions.

hawkeye wrote:Calder106

Not yet as I am still waiting to find out who won the FO!

Murray won it. Now you know!

Would definitely agree that it is far from the best match either has played, in part due to the conditions. Pretty watchable though.

Overall agree a great achievement but not the greatest match.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Calder106

Not yet as I am still waiting to find out who won the FO!

Murray won it. Now you know!

Judging from this thread it seems the match isn't forgettable. What has been so impressive is that even those that didn't watch the match cannot forget it.


On a separate matter: is it possible to achieve something great without doing anything great?

Nore Staat wrote:is it possible to achieve something great without doing anything great?

My head has just exploded.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:is it possible to achieve something great without doing anything great?

My head has just exploded.

Mine too.

It could be said that achieving what he did in the adverse conditions which led the match not to be great is an even greater achievement in itself therefore the match actually was great.

Nore Staat wrote:
On a separate matter: is it possible to achieve something great without doing anything great?

I suppose so. Neil Armstrong walked on the moon which was a great achievement for NASA, yet all he did was walk.

carrieg4 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:is it possible to achieve something great without doing anything great?

My head has just exploded.

Mine too. ...

I suppose it could explain the OP.

hawkeye wrote:
II am British but my favourite players are Nadal and Federer because they are fun to watch.

This can't be true, come on! If you really have British passport, it must be 'cause you are a Russian spy .........

The Special Juan wrote: ... Neil Armstrong walked on the moon which was a great achievement for NASA, yet all he did was walk.

That's like saying Murray lifting the trophy was the great achievement ... yet all he was doing was raising his arms.

Nore Staat wrote:

The Special Juan wrote: ... Neil Armstrong walked on the moon which was a great achievement for NASA, yet all he did was walk.

That's like saying Murray lifting the trophy was the great achievement ... yet all he was doing was lifting his arms.

Well, I say "all he did was walk".

Ok, let me rephrase whilst digging myself a hole.

Neil Armstrong walked, which ordinarily is not such a special thing. However, he achieved it on the moon, which is a phenomenal achievement. He achieved something great (walking on the moon) by doing something not that great (walking). I hope that makes sense.

What made the achievement great was him getting to the moon (and getting back). Did you know he had to land manually as there was a problem with the "automatic" controls.