Andy Murray - Charlie Rose

First topic message reminder :

Interesting interview with Andy Murray, he talks about his fellow professionals in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and what makes them so good. The thing that struck me most was his reasoning to what made them so good.

Djokovic is a superior athlete, hes quicker and more flexible than himself and is so consistent he is like 'a wall'

Federer, plays a classical style that looks nice and seems to look like he's working a lot less hard than everyone else. He uses a looser racket so he does not have to hit the ball as hard as others.

Rafa, mentally is a rock and intensity in each point is what makes him so difficult to play.

Murray regards himself as someone who plays with a lot of feel and a player very different to Djokovic (which i found interesting as many people say they are very similar)

Not a fan of Charlie Rose interviews with tennis players as he doesn't have a great understanding of the game and it shows a lot in his questions but I do like the setting of the interviews.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/Uploaded/2012/9/13/Andy-Murray-Charlie-Rose-Show.aspx

Not me !!!!!

Calder106 wrote:Not me !!!!!

Exactly, I don't think anyone who supports Murray has said it on here.

So that's a no then

[quote="carrieg4"]

It Must Be Love wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Nobody is saying Murray is superior to Nadal or Federer
At tennis anyway.

I think you'll find that they are...

Who exactly as said this? I haven't, Craig hasn't, Banbro hasn't, Danny hasn't, LK hasn't. In fact I am fairly sure that no regular poster who is a supporter of Murray has ever made such a statement on 606v2. Sources please.

Oh! So everyone (including laverfan) is admitting that Federer and Nadal are superior to Murray in all aspects of tennis? Physical, mental, tactical etc? Can I have this in writing (signed of course) so I can use it in the future? Phew! If you shout "WHITE" loud enough people do listen.

hawkeye wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Nobody is saying Murray is superior to Nadal or Federer
At tennis anyway.

I think you'll find that they are...

Who exactly as said this? I haven't, Craig hasn't, Banbro hasn't, Danny hasn't, LK hasn't. In fact I am fairly sure that no regular poster who is a supporter of Murray has ever made such a statement on 606v2. Sources please.

Oh! So everyone (including laverfan) is admitting that Federer and Nadal are superior to Murray in all aspects of tennis? Physical, mental, tactical etc? Can I have this in writing (signed of course) so I can use it in the future? Phew! If you shout "WHITE" loud enough people do listen.

What on earth are you on about?
Saying Fedal is superior to Murray as a tennis player in general, is a totally totally different line to saying they are superior in 'all aspects of tennis.' Complately different.
For the record I think Murray is fitter than Federer, stamina wise. Also Murray's backhand is probably better than Nadal's and Federer's, but not by much.
But both Federer and Nadal are better players than Murray, overall.

[quote="hawkeye"]

carrieg4 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Nobody is saying Murray is superior to Nadal or Federer
At tennis anyway.

I think you'll find that they are...

Who exactly as said this? I haven't, Craig hasn't, Banbro hasn't, Danny hasn't, LK hasn't. In fact I am fairly sure that no regular poster who is a supporter of Murray has ever made such a statement on 606v2. Sources please.

Oh! So everyone (including laverfan) is admitting that Federer and Nadal are superior to Murray in all aspects of tennis? Physical, mental, tactical etc? Can I have this in writing (signed of course) so I can use it in the future? Phew! If you shout "WHITE" loud enough people do listen.

Nice try but no dice. You have been asked to provide links to comments where posters have said Murray is a superior tennis player than Roger / Rafa and have failed to do so. Expressing an opinion that a player excels in individual aspects is not the same thing and you know it. Posters talk about Isners or Karolovic' serve, Gasquets SHBH etc, etc. Do you also think that they are saying they are better all round players than Roger / Rafa / Djokovic??

Once again, sources please.

Absolutely hilarious Hawkeye.

So you'll stop your Murray obsession if all Murray fans admit that those two are better than Murray in EVERY SINGLE department?

Over their careers they are better than almost everyone. They are two of the greatest players ever, Murray has a long way to go before being even considered in that category. Nobody denies that. But every single department? Come on!! How would he ever beat either of them of that was the case?

You have some issues, you really do.

Ps - US open champion 2012.

hawkeye wrote:Oh! So everyone (including laverfan) is admitting that Federer and Nadal are superior to Murray in all aspects of tennis? Physical, mental, tactical etc? Can I have this in writing (signed of course) so I can use it in the future? Phew! If you shout "WHITE" loud enough people do listen.

That's not the point, you naughty girl and you know it. If some are justifying Andy's right to be ranked amongst the Big 3, RIGHT NOW, then that doesn't mean they are saying he is better -so it makes your rather petulant request, as always, irrelevant

You see, you've always ranked Fed and Nadal as superior to Murray - but the facts of this summer have conspired to show that this is now no longer the case (nor are they inferior, before you start!! ).

What's happened is a slow but sure evolvement of Tennis, where he and Novak are going to be in the shake up as many times as Roger and Rafa

Is this so shocking? Given that they've both been easily the '2nd best' up to the beginning of 2011 for the previous 2 to 3 years?

Is it arrogance to expect a couple of multi winning 25 year olds to start to get a grip on a 31 year old?

Is it surprising to see a player that is on the Top 10 all time lists of many stats (best returner since 1990) now been compared to TODAY'S Rafa and Roger?

Lets be honest here Hawkeye. You dislike Murray with such a passion that it continually clouds your judgement. This wasted emotion makes someone, who could be one of this boards most intelligent posters (in fairness you do know about the game) come across as these boards equivalent of Bernard Manning - someone who had the intelligence to change their act, but refused to do so, because they always thought they were right

I am going to stand by my statement that Murray is a better tactician than the remaining Top 3.

Federer - the most stubborn player that I have seen in my tennis watching.

Nadal, Djokovic - are alter egos of each other regarding repetitive or attritional tennis.

Murray - has enough wins against the Top 3 to justify my statement that he is a better tactician. Being a better tactician does not automatically bestow GOAThood on Murray.

If tactics were the only ingredient of success, Murray would be the most successful, but he is not . Examples of such are the recent matches against Cilic and Lopez.

HE... please do not worry about someone stealing GREATness from others.

That is a good point Laverfan, Murray is maybe the most adaptable of the top 4. Federer how many times have we seen him stick to the same style of play when it failed over and over again against Nadal? I don't know about Nadal or Novak being more attritional than Andy Murray. I think Novak is naturally more aggressive than Andy and in most of their matches he is the one being the aggressor. If you watched the US open final you would think that Andy is the more natural counterpuncher.

socal1976 wrote:If you watched the US open final you would think that Andy is the more natural counterpuncher.

My image of a classical counterpuncher is Simon. Murray may been a counterpuncher under McLagan, but, IMVHO, not anymore.

laverfan wrote:I am going to stand by my statement that Murray is a better tactician than the remaining Top 3.

Federer - the most stubborn player that I have seen in my tennis watching.

Nadal, Djokovic - are alter egos of each other regarding repetitive or attritional tennis.

Murray - has enough wins against the Top 3 to justify my statement that he is a better tactician. Being a better tactician does not automatically bestow GOAThood on Murray.

If tactics were the only ingredient of success, Murray would be the most successful, but he is not . Examples of such are the recent matches against Cilic and Lopez.

HE... please do not worry about someone stealing GREATness from others.

Laverfan. Greatness is not something you can steal... But it is a word that can be thrown around.

Anyway back to Murray who according to you is the masterful tactician. I presume by tactics you don't mean limping around the court pretending to be dead before running around like a rabbit or attempting to mess up multi slam winning all time greats hair by trying (unsuccessfully) to hit them in the head or.... no I won't go on as I know you don't mean these things?

When I watch Murray his game appears to consist of retrieval. He is very good at running around and hitting the ball back. Murray is very fit. He doesn't come to the net much and hits mainly from the baseline. He hits most of his backhands and nearly all of his forehands crosscourt. Murray's puts a lot on his first serve but it is high risk. His 2nd serve is poor (relatively for such a high ranked player) because he isn't able to vary it with spin and still keep it safe. Admittedly he does throw in the odd drop shot. Maybe this is how his reputation as being capable of variety has been built? He plays this game against all his opponents. Sometime he plays better and sometimes he plays worse but his game doesn't vary. So where are the tactics?

Counter puncher's are usually smart enough to not show their emotions after every point, something Murray fails to do. So for me he is a pusher a player with very limited tennis skills that outlasts others with his legs. Talent wise Murray is behind Tsonga, Berdych and probably Tipsarevic, but his legs and shoulders have put him into the reckoning as a top 4 squatter.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Counter puncher's are usually smart enough to not show their emotions after every point, something Murray fails to do. So for me he is a pusher a player with very limited tennis skills that outlasts others with his legs. Talent wise Murray is behind Tsonga, Berdych and probably Tipsarevic, but his legs and shoulders have put him into the reckoning as a top 4 squatter.

Josiah do you even believe the things you write or do you just like to laugh at yourself after you type out posts. One day you are saying that murray is better than those terrible grinders Novak and Nadal and that he has to save tennis from them. The next day you say he is a pusher. The only thing crazier than BB's political ideas are your tennis posts my friend and that takes some doing. You have no consistency other than your love del po and federer. That is fine but then you run off the deep end with statements like no tennis fans could love a match with more errors than winners.

My mistake I meant to write Skill Wise, not Talent Wise. He is above those players on talent but not on skill.

If you read Hawkeye's and JM's comments on here you'd think they were talking about the world number 103.

Do you guys honestly believe a pusher with little skill apart from running could beat Novak and Roger back to back to win the Olympics and beat Novak over 5 hours to win the US open?

I mean, really??? Do you think that little of Novak and Roger that they could be beaten by such a limited player? He has a 7-8 record against Novak, and 9-8 v Federer. Incredible how such great, great players can have such close H2H's against such a poor player.

Dear oh dear. Are you guys watching the same sport?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Counter puncher's are usually smart enough to not show their emotions after every point

Yeah, I remember the best counter puncher of the lot, being just like Borg with his emotions. What was is his name now? Ah! That's it Jimmy Conners

It's taken a few days of Josiah being unusually decent about Murray for the normal nonsense to re-commence

Danny_1982 wrote: If you read Hawkeye's and JM's comments on here you'd think they were talking about the world number 103.

Do you guys honestly believe a pusher with little skill apart from running could beat Novak and Roger back to back to win the Olympics and beat Novak over 5 hours to win the US open?

I mean, really??? Do you think that little of Novak and Roger that they could be beaten by such a limited player? He has a 7-8 record against Novak, and 9-8 v Federer. Incredible how such great, great players can have such close H2H's against such a poor player.

Dear oh dear. Are you guys watching the same sport?

Danny. Stop being naughty it's obvious that Andy got lucky on 16 occassions

Jimmy Connors didn't stand 20 feet behind the baseline far as i know.

Also, look at Murray in sets 3 and 4 of the final, winning a mere 5 games in those 2 sets total.

Would that have happened to Connors??

Just be realistic and unbiased like me.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Also, look at Murray in sets 3 and 4 of the final, winning a mere 5 games in those 2 sets total.

Would that have happened to Connors??

Just be realistic and unbiased like me.

5 games in 2 sets! Terrible

Once there was a player who got 4 games in the whole Grand Slam Final- can't remember his name though.

Anyway whoever he was, would that have happened to Connors??

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Also, look at Murray in sets 3 and 4 of the final, winning a mere 5 games in those 2 sets total.

Would that have happened to Connors??

Just be realistic and unbiased like me.

5 games in 2 sets! Terrible

Once there was a player who got 4 games in the whole Grand Slam Final- can't remember his name though.

Anyway whoever he was, would that have happened to Connors??

Depends on whether Connors would be playing with contracted mononucleosis.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Also, look at Murray in sets 3 and 4 of the final, winning a mere 5 games in those 2 sets total.

Would that have happened to Connors??

Just be realistic and unbiased like me.

5 games in 2 sets! Terrible

Once there was a player who got 4 games in the whole Grand Slam Final- can't remember his name though.

Anyway whoever he was, would that have happened to Connors??

Depends on whether Connors would be playing with contracted mononucleosis.

Yeah, I think he contracts it everytime he plays Nadal in a slam

In 2007 Wimby Federer managed to shake it off in the 5th set.
Wimby 2006 both players had it, and as Federer has more practice playing with mono, he won the match.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Also, look at Murray in sets 3 and 4 of the final, winning a mere 5 games in those 2 sets total.

Would that have happened to Connors??

Just be realistic and unbiased like me.

5 games in 2 sets! Terrible

Once there was a player who got 4 games in the whole Grand Slam Final- can't remember his name though.

Anyway whoever he was, would that have happened to Connors??

1984 Wimbledon final against John Mc.

Why did you delete your "EPO" comment It Must Be??

Keep it up, be a man.

Be like Rosol, a real man

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Why did you delete your "EPO" comment It Must Be??

Keep it up, be a man.

Be like Rosol, a real man

It's an in-joke between me and Laverfan, not sure if others would get it.

Born Slippy wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Also, look at Murray in sets 3 and 4 of the final, winning a mere 5 games in those 2 sets total.

Would that have happened to Connors??

Just be realistic and unbiased like me.

5 games in 2 sets! Terrible

Once there was a player who got 4 games in the whole Grand Slam Final- can't remember his name though.

Anyway whoever he was, would that have happened to Connors??

1984 Wimbledon final against John Mc.

What about 1975 Ashe v Connors 6–1, 6–1, 5–7, 6–4

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Jimmy Connors didn't stand 20 feet behind the baseline far as i know.

You mean never climbed the backstops.

As a guide for international competitions, the recommended minimum distance between the baselines and the backstops should be 21 feet (6.40 m) and between the sidelines and the sidestops the recommended minimum distance should be 12 feet (3.66 m).

http://www.itftennis.com/technical/rules/equipment/markings.asp

Seriously, please watch the 1980 US Open SF between Connors and McEnroe.

Stop being obtuse with this lf. You know what I meant.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Stop being obtuse with this lf. You know what I meant.

I know what you meant, JM. Just joshing with you, no offence intended.