Andy Murray - The Modern Day Asterisk

So far, the 3 bigger tournaments that Murray has won have come with a huge asterisk. The US Open was played in extreme winds (you can argue he is a greater wind player than Djokovic, but that doesn't change anything), which crippled Djokovic's attacking game, and allowed Murray's more defensive pusher/counter attack style to win over.  Despite this, Djokovic still got into the match.

The Olympic final defeating an ageing Federer.  Luck of the draw caused Federer to have the much more difficult opponent in Del Potro, who took Federer to the longest 3 sets in history(?) by games (and was it by time too?).  Federer was in absolutely no shape to put up any real fight in the final.

And then Wimbledon 2013. The hype wagon was rolling along as usual, and the only circumstance I could see that would allow for a Murray victory was a supremely easy draw.  He got it.  Even with the easiest draw at a slam that I can remember, he still nearly blew it against Verdasco.  The final would have been one way traffic had Del Potro not intervened once again, this time tiring out Djokovic.  Djokovic played a great 3 sets in the final considering how worn out he was.  Murray played his A game.  Had Murray met Del Potro in the semi final, it's pretty obvious he would have been getting beat. And even if he made it through, he would have been in no shape to play Djokovic.

The truth is, Murray has been extraordinarily lucky in all 3 of the tournaments above, especially Wimbledon 2013. Now there is talk of him winning 6 slams.  The hype wagon just keeps on rolling. Much has been said of Lendl's input.. well, sorry, but I can't see anything has changed all that much in Murray's game.  He still blows big chances, he still whines, snarls and screams when he is behind.  He still has really weak temperament.  

What has changed is that Federer and Nadal are no longer competing at the top level on most surfaces.  And most of us know this is the reason Murray won that slam.

Cute

Pretty

This reads exactly as though you’ve arrived at your conclusions and then gone to find some facts to try and back it up
I think you’re just miffed that Murray can win GS’s

Reem

D'aww, bless.

bradman99.94 wrote:This reads exactly as though you’ve arrived at your conclusions and then gone to find some facts to try and back it up
I think you’re just miffed that Murray can win GS’s

Not at all, I can't help it that US Open final was played in a tornado, or that Del Potro took Federer to the longest 3 sets in history, or that he tired Djokovic out, or that Murray had a very very easy draw at Wimbledon.  I am glad you are conceding these are facts though.

I agree Murray can win slams, because he has won 2. But he needs a lot of luck, it seems.

Laughable

Yawnable

    

Intolerable

  I'll set out my deckchair here if nobody minds and have a good laugh.

Deckchair-able

Luck-able

Missable

CaledonianCraig wrote:  I'll set out my deckchair here if nobody minds and have a good laugh.

You do realise that Murray hasn't won anything for you? The problem with fanboyism is, it gets in the way of rational thought. For example, rather than admitting that Murray had a weak draw, and got a lot of luck, instead, you feel it is your duty to defend him. You have to make sure everyone loves him, like you do. Murray won the slam for Murray. He is a millionaire, you are not. He is a slam winner, you are not. And quite how you do like him so much is beyond me. His game is 1 dimensional and too defensive, his attitude stinks. I don't understand it. Is it simply because he is Scottish? If so, that's pathetic.

  I was right. What a good laugh.

Eatable

Popcorn-able

Maybe he was lucky. I'm sure he would rather that than be unlucky.

Deplorable.

Load-a-bull

LOL homo

Must try harder!

Dirigible.

Trouble with the Tribbles.

Amok Time

'City on the Edge of Forever'

I agree with the esteemed and honorable article. It is high time we raised the bar on asterisking and it is about time that straight sets defeats of fully fit world no 1s were put where they belong in the asterisked pile. Nothing less than a 6-0 6-0 6-0 win in perfect playing conditions against an undisputed GOAT is a true, unasterisked slam (or Olympics) win.

Mudd's Women

'The Space Seed'

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!

BUTTSCRATCHER!!!

'Mirror Mirror'

CaledonianCraig wrote:'Mirror Mirror'

Videotheque

Both his victories in the G.S majors have come at the expense of Djokovic, who is no. 1. Impressive it is, indeed. It could also mean that Andy has figured out Djokovic game and the latter is not able to play his best against Andy, or that Andy does not allow him to play his best. However, there is doubt whether Andy is the most feared player for the field. Until recently, Federer was the most feared player for the field though he would consistently fail against Nadal, who was dominant though not feared outside clay by most. Since 2011, Nadal was never feared by Djokovic anywhere; infact it was vice versa. Nadal and Federer perhaps do not fear Andy at all even at this stage in their career, though they might lose against him. Djokovic does not fear anybody. Andy might be getting under his skin slowly, but not in his head. Andy has proved his arrival on the big stage, but has to prove much more if one has to take the asterisk aside.

'Tomorrow Is Yesterday'

Eskay wrote:Both his victories in the G.S majors have come at the expense of Djokovic, who is no. 1. Impressive it is, indeed. It could also mean that Andy has figured out Djokovic game and the latter is not able to play his best against Andy, or that Andy does not allow him to play his best. However, there is doubt whether Andy is the most feared player for the field. Until recently, Federer was the most feared player for the field though he would consistently fail against Nadal, who was dominant though not feared outside clay by most. Since 2011, Nadal was never feared by Djokovic anywhere; infact it was vice versa. Nadal and Federer perhaps do not fear Andy at all even at this stage in their career, though they might lose against him. Djokovic does not fear anybody. Andy might be getting under his skin slowly, but not in his head. Andy has proved his arrival on the big stage, but has to prove much more if one has to take the asterisk aside.  

You're right. The question is now whether Murray can continue the form everyone expects, or whether he actually NEEDS the cards to fall nice for him in order to make it. I think it's the latter. It isn't Murray's fault of course that he had an easier draw or some very lucky things happen, you can only play what you are given. I just don't think he has answered any real questions. I certainly can't see him ever becoming WN1 with Djokovic around (who is far better overall, on clay too, and has more consistency), and thus, it's unlikely he will get into anyone's head. Also, his screaming on court to himself does nothing to place any fear into opponents... it merely highlights a weakness in character. If Borg or Federer had done that, I doubt they would have the slam tallies they currently do.

love articles like this.

Somehow makes Sunday even sweeter!

_homogenised_ wrote: Also, his screaming on court to himself does nothing to place any fear into opponents... it merely highlights a weakness in character.  If Borg or Federer had done that, I doubt they would have the slam tallies they currently do.

We should ask a certain John McEnroe (77 ATP Singles titles/31 Finals, 7 Singles slams/4 finals, 71 ATP Doubles titles/22 Finals, 9 Doubles slams/3 Doubles finals) or a certain Mr. Jimmy Connors  (quite a long list available here  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors_career_statistics ).

Weak characters (by your definition) can win many slams.

just think if Connors had kept his temper in check he might have won >200 tournaments  

McEnroe did not scream at himself, looking up aimlessly at his box.  It was not a self defeating action.  He expressed frustration, but he used it to fire him.  Murray, on the other hand, falls apart. We've seen it plenty of times.  He loses his head.  McEnroe didn't.

And I knew you'd come back trying to equate the 2. Also, McEnroe was infinitely more talented. Chalk and cheese.

_homogenised_ wrote:McEnroe did not scream at himself, looking up aimlessly at his box.  It was not a self defeating action.  He expressed frustration, but he used it to fire him.  Murray, on the other hand, falls apart. We've seen it plenty of times.  He loses his head.  McEnroe didn't.

And I knew you'd come back trying to equate the 2.  Also, McEnroe was infinitely more talented.  Chalk and cheese.

Did McEnroe's talent vanish after 1984?

I recall a certain camera motor being the culprit at RG 1984.

Chalk and Cheese is very subjective.

If you dislike Murray, you should write something positive about someone you like.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood...
 
or,
 
How many slams does a player need to win and how many slam finals does a player need to get to before luck don't enter into it?

You know Murray's doing well when the wums are out in force!

You need luck in every sport to win in truth, Murray got some sure but every sports person or team gets lucky. Sure Djokovic was tired, he made some poor mistakes and looked jaded for parts of the match but Murray played the better tennis and his work when on the backfoot was unbelievable he deservedly won that game.

Is there any  left?

  Yes have some of mine.  

It took a while, and some cross-referencing. But I have whittled Homogenised's true identity to one of two people

Nole4King
Noleisthebest...

Discuss

@Kingraf... NFK posts on MTL, while NITB posts on OTF. IP address-based tracking is fraught with issues.

LF - Well, I am an amateur detective, at best.... They say journalists are failed detectives, and sports journalists are failed failed detectives... Which is what I fall under, in fact, seeing as Im still a junior, Im a junior failed failed detectives.

Is that  salty or sweet?

If its sweet, can I have some while I reminisce about Sunday and bask in the joy of articles like this?