Andy Murray - The Modern Day Asterisk

First topic message reminder :

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.

@Andy11... Not everyone can have the personality of a Borg or Federer or Lendl. There will always be a McEnroe or a Connors.

Federer shows much more emotion now then when he did a few years ago.

Djokovic's shirt-ripping (and Janowicz's copy), Nadal's personal adjustments, etc., are all part and parcel of the player's persona, however much it may not to be individual liking.

I love how players victories (Murray's Olympic one in this instance) is being diluted and having a * put next to it partly because "Federer isn't what he was from 04-07"

By that logic, every slam from 07 onwards doesn't count unless Federer won it!

In fact, lets put a * next to Federer's wins because none were achieved with a peak Sampras around.

And while we're there, Sampras didn't have to contend with a peak McEnroe!

Lets just put a * next to every slam ever won!!

Exactly Danny - the whole nature of sport is that when one winner fades, the next comes along.
It's just as valid to say fed was lucky with every one of his slams because he was born with excellent hand-to-eye co-ordination. I mean, how lucky is that, to be born with such natural ability - he didn't have to work at it, just got lucky with it.

Andy11

Murray has been lucky with the 2 slams he won, for the reasons the author has mentioned.

So would you say he was unlucky with any of the five that he lost? Or is it only when he breaks seven times that it's "lucky"  

I would also say I'm disappointed Murray doesn't seem to have grown up much

Say what you want. The fact that it's ridiculously untrue is what matters  

He still has on court tantrums and petulantly shouts at his team, something I though Lendl was meant to beat out of him.

With a belt? Fists? Or just the open hand? Incidentally, can you tell me how he reacted been 2 sets and a break and then losing 4 games on the bounce.  

Also he still seems unable to give opponents credit, routinely clutching at an imagined pain when he loses a point.

Is that why, after his 2010 Aus defeat he said "I can cry like Roger, it's just a shame I can't play like him." Also, does he do the 'pain faking' after every point lost. If so why did he do it when he won a point early in the first set on Sunday? Why didn't he do it once in his final game, when he lost 5 out of 7 points?  

[/quote]

Unable to give opponents credit??

On Federer: greatest player ever. Wish I could play like him.
On Rafa: best competitor ever, my favourite player to watch
On Novak: will go down in history as one if the biggest fighters ever played.

What more can he say? He always gives those guys great credit! In fact all 4 of them are very generous with their praise.

I wish I could have Andy's luck. I might win the lottery if I did.

The thread solved its purpose, got 100 plus replies and 1000 plus views in a dull period between Wimbledon and Moger's cup.

The thread also served the purpose by letting Murray fans understand how great these three wins are , I would rather personally take 2 hard slams wins in my career than easy 10-11 slams, its so much fun to achieve success after success after series of failures, right now the joy Murray's camp would have undergone would be 10x higher than what Fed/Sampras camp underwent after their Wimbledon success.  

Coolers

I would prefer the 10-11 easy slams - as would put me in a very elite position and would be a fantastic achievement

Also as a side benefit - it would cause stress to the WUM as they would have to come up with many more made up excuses why all 11 were an *

Riskysports wrote:Coolers

I would prefer the 10-11 easy slams - as would put me in a very elite position and would be a fantastic achievement

Also as a side benefit - it would cause stress to the WUM as they would have to come up with many more made up excuses why all 11 were an *

Hmmm Rafa still gets ridicule from many quarters yet he has 12 slams. Basically, if somebody doesn't like a certain player no amount of slam wins will change their mind. The player could win a golden slam and they'd still denigrate.

This thread got semi serious all of a sudden :8¬O

JubbaIsle wrote:This thread got semi serious all of a sudden :8¬O

Wibble, splat kerpunk

Better?

invisiblecoolers wrote:I would rather personally take 2 hard slams wins in my career than easy 10-11 slams, its so much fun to achieve success after success after series of failures, right now the joy Murray's camp would have undergone would be 10x higher than what Fed/Sampras camp underwent after their Wimbledon success.  

What was particularly hard about Murray's Wimbledon slam (from the "2 hard slams" quote)?
Ok Djokovic was a tough final (though didnt turn out that way) but his trip there a great draw (if it was Federer or Nadal it would have been called cakewalk no doubt) by anyone's standards.
Also, how do you know what the Sampras/Federer camp felt when they first won Wimbledon?
The way we're going these 2 Murray slams will be the best and hardest ever won at this rate...

I'd say ic is labelling his two slams as 'hard' due to having to beat the world No.1 in the final regardless of what draw he had on the way there compared to say Fed winning his first V Phillipoussis and Nadal winning his first V Puerta. I may be wrong but that is how I am reading it lydian.

invisiblecoolers wrote:The thread solved its purpose, got 100 plus replies and 1000 plus views in a dull period between Wimbledon and Moger's cup.

The thread also served the purpose by letting Murray fans understand how great these three wins are , I would rather personally take 2 hard slams wins in my career than easy 10-11 slams, its so much fun to achieve success after success after series of failures, right now the joy Murray's camp would have undergone would be 10x higher than what Fed/Sampras camp underwent after their Wimbledon success.  

I see that IC is now an adherent to Socal's weak era theory. It is about time some you came to your senses.

lydian wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:I would rather personally take 2 hard slams wins in my career than easy 10-11 slams, its so much fun to achieve success after success after series of failures, right now the joy Murray's camp would have undergone would be 10x higher than what Fed/Sampras camp underwent after their Wimbledon success.  

What was particularly hard about Murray's Wimbledon slam (from the "2 hard slams" quote)?
Ok Djokovic was a tough final (though didnt turn out that way) but his trip there a great draw (if it was Federer or Nadal it would have been called cakewalk no doubt) by anyone's standards.
Also, how do you know what the Sampras/Federer camp felt when they first won Wimbledon?
The way we're going these 2 Murray slams will be the best and hardest ever won at this rate...

Think you need to remember where this thread started. It was an attempt to downplay all the success Murray has had over the last 12 months. I for one would never claim that they are the 'best and hardest ever won' but winning slams is no easy feat and doesn't deserve to be downplayed. His draw on paper at the start of the tournament was not particularly easy. The fact that big names like Nadal and Federer lost early shouldn't be allowed to take away from the achievement. They obviously weren't playing well enough to progress to their alloted seedings and play him.

Calder106 wrote:

lydian wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:I would rather personally take 2 hard slams wins in my career than easy 10-11 slams, its so much fun to achieve success after success after series of failures, right now the joy Murray's camp would have undergone would be 10x higher than what Fed/Sampras camp underwent after their Wimbledon success.  

What was particularly hard about Murray's Wimbledon slam (from the "2 hard slams" quote)?
Ok Djokovic was a tough final (though didnt turn out that way) but his trip there a great draw (if it was Federer or Nadal it would have been called cakewalk no doubt) by anyone's standards.
Also, how do you know what the Sampras/Federer camp felt when they first won Wimbledon?
The way we're going these 2 Murray slams will be the best and hardest ever won at this rate...

Think you need to remember where this thread started. It was an attempt to downplay all the success Murray has had over the last 12 months. I for one would never claim that they are the 'best and hardest ever won' but winning slams is no easy feat and doesn't deserve to be downplayed. His draw on paper at the start of the tournament was not particularly easy. The fact that big names like Nadal and Federer lost early shouldn't be allowed to take away from the achievement. They obviously weren't playing well enough to progress to their alloted seedings and play him.

Plus lest we forget he beat Janowicz in the semis who was statistically the best server in the tournament and then beat the world No.1 in the final.

lydian wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:I would rather personally take 2 hard slams wins in my career than easy 10-11 slams, its so much fun to achieve success after success after series of failures, right now the joy Murray's camp would have undergone would be 10x higher than what Fed/Sampras camp underwent after their Wimbledon success.  

What was particularly hard about Murray's Wimbledon slam (from the "2 hard slams" quote)?
Ok Djokovic was a tough final (though didnt turn out that way) but his trip there a great draw (if it was Federer or Nadal it would have been called cakewalk no doubt) by anyone's standards.

The amount of finals he lost before that, I am talking Murray's career not just the Wimbledon. 

lydian wrote:

Also, how do you know what the Sampras/Federer camp felt when they first won Wimbledon?

I explained the reasons above, tasting series of success is more fun after series of failures. 

lydian wrote:

The way we're going these 2 Murray slams will be the best and hardest ever won at this rate...

Certainly not the hardest by the draw but second hardest for a Multi-slam winner in terms of reaching the goal after Lendl , coz he had similar failures but Ivan had more success.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Plus lest we forget he beat Janowicz in the semis who was statistically the best server in the tournament and then beat the world No.1 in the final.

He beat the WN1 who was knackered. It's a very big difference.  Murray played his heart out and played at his best, for that he should be commended.  But he had the easiest, luckiest run in a slam that I can remember.  It doesn't hurt to just admit that.  No boogey man is coming to take his trophy away.

Also, Andy11, keep thinking out of the box.  It isn't liked, but it actually shows real intelligence.  Conformism, on the other hand, does not. And pretending that every draw is equally as strong, or that circumstances like a killer 5 set (and virtual 6 set at Olympics as Bogbrush stated) do not matter, is just plain wrong.

Homogenised, you seem to miss a) the point of a tennis tournament and b) the nature of sport in general.

I like that.

Murray's draw was very tough. It contained Tsonga, Federer / Nadal and Djokovic.

The fact he only played 1 of the above named is their failing, not his doing. Plus no route that ends with beating the world number 1 can ever be described as easy.

Murray has clearly made it big time... The Wummery is increasing! Love it!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Homogenised, you seem to miss a) the point of a tennis tournament and b) the nature of sport in general.

I like that.

I disagree, which means, right back at you. I understand sport requires luck for a start off, or do you disagree with that and all. Murray had a lot of luck. That really isn't in dispute.

Every slam winner needs a bit of luck.
But you said "But he had the easiest, luckiest run in a slam that I can remember." - how far back is that? 2012?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Every slam winner needs a bit of luck.
But you said "But he had the easiest, luckiest run in a slam that I can remember." - how far back is that? 2012?

Name a draw that was easier than the one Murray had? No top 20 until final, and a finalist who had played a 5 setter in his semi.

How far back can you remember? I need to know where to start.

How about Sampras at Wimby 1997 or even 2000

JuliusHMarx wrote:How far back can you remember? I need to know where to start.

Federer's draw in 2006 at the Australian Open may be within H's memory?

To make a fair and accurate comparison, I think it's obvious to anyone that you can't just go on ranking, of course. Otherwise Stakhovsky, for example, is a very, very easy draw. A paper draw doesn't represent reality.
You have to watch each of the 7 matches in turn to make a fair judgement of how well each opponent was playing.
To look at rankings and make a judgement is just plain lazy and is the sole realm of the WUM.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Every slam winner needs a bit of luck.
But you said "But he had the easiest, luckiest run in a slam that I can remember." - how far back is that? 2012?

Which slam you are debating to be the easiest then? Wimbledon 2012? 

JuliusHMarx wrote:To make a fair and accurate comparison, I think it's obvious to anyone that you can't just go on ranking, of course. Otherwise Stakhovsky, for example, is a very, very easy draw. A paper draw doesn't represent reality.
You have to watch each of the 7 matches in turn to make a fair judgement of how well each opponent was playing.
To look at rankings and make a judgement is just plain lazy and is the sole realm of the WUM.

In other words, you can't find me one easier and one that followed the criteria I laid out.  Let's take 1990 onwards, and you find me one that a. the person did not play a top 20 en route to final and b. when in final, opponent had played 5 sets and they had not. You can narrow it down further by being specific to Wimbledon.

And even if you can, it will be rare.  It doesn't change a thing, since my argument is it was one of the easiest ever draws.  And it was.

falzy21 wrote:How about Sampras at Wimby 1997 or even 2000

So you think that a draw of this kind happening once every decade makes it common!?

It did open up well for Murray in terms of the big names dropping out. But I say that as a record off what happened and not attempt to belittle Murray.

Also, if you come up with a subsets I'm sure you'll whittle down most groups down to a reasonably low number.

2002 Australian = Thomas Johansson (Doesn't fit exactly into your category, but played only two seeds before the final, no higher than 16th & only 9th seed Safin in the final)
2006 Australian = Roger Federer (As mentioned above, played 5th seeded in Quarters, but 21, Kiefer, in the semis and unseeded Baghdatis in the final.

And Baghdatis had played back to back 5 setters before the final.

And of course Murray had the weight of pressure end expectation on his shoulders way above that normally experienced by slam finalists. Besides homo he has proven he can reach slam finals with tough draws in the past and considering he beat the world No.1 in the final in straight sets (only Federer has managed that against the Serb in a slam final) that is noteworthy in itself. In any case what is an easy draw? Considering Federer and Nadal lost to players ranked 100+ proves there is no such thing as an easy draw. You really must try harder.

Exactly CC, to look at a draw on paper and only the rankings and to then say a draw with a guy ranked 100 is easier than a guy ranked 50 is just plain lazy and shows a lack of knowledge or real interest in the sport.
Anyone making such an argument isn't really worth bothering about as they aren't interested in a proper discussion, only in quick and cheap fanboy-type posts.
I'd much rather homogenised went on believing he's right - it makes him happy and it saves me time. That's a win-win scenario in my book.

_homogenised_ wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Every slam winner needs a bit of luck.
But you said "But he had the easiest, luckiest run in a slam that I can remember." - how far back is that? 2012?

Name a draw that was easier than the one Murray had?  No top 20 until final, and a finalist who had played a 5 setter in his semi.

Federer French Open 2009

I'm confused. I thought Murray had quite a tough draw. Didn't he have Federer, Nadal and Tsonga all in his half? A draw doesn't represent the route to a final. This constant incorrect use of nomenclature is puzzling.

Murray can only play 7 people to win Wimbledon. Thats 7 out of 128 who enter. He can realistically only play 3 players inside the top 20 at the most. Those 3 seeded players betweem them would have to play something in excess of 10 matches (between them again) before they could meet Murray at various stages in the draw.

The point being there is so much tennis played where Murray has absolutely no control over that would influence his route to the final. Luck has actually very little part to play in tennis I believe (outside of the drawing of the erm...draw!). Even then players can influence this by winning matches, thereby increasing their rankings, thus improving their seedings and making their chances of going deep into a tournament more likely.  

Due to the way it is scored, no one can 'luckily' win a tennis match. Was it luck that Federer got knocked out? No. Was it luck that Nadal got knocked out? No. Was it luck that got Tsonga knocked out (he came into Wimbledon with a niggle I understand)? No. I watched the Nadal and Federer match and luck had no part to play in their defeats.

So was Andy Murray lucky they got knocked out? Of course not. So whether he faced a top 20 player or not is completely irrelevant and doesn't represent 'ease' in anyway. The players that knocked them out were playing better so went through.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Every slam winner needs a bit of luck.
But you said "But he had the easiest, luckiest run in a slam that I can remember." - how far back is that? 2012?

Name a draw that was easier than the one Murray had?  No top 20 until final, and a finalist who had played a 5 setter in his semi.

Federer French Open 2009

 

Federer only beat one seed (No.24 seed) Fernando Gonzalez in the QF's in 2008 in the French Open and eventually lost to world No.2 Rafa Nadal in the final whereas Murray faced three seeded players prior to the final against the world No.1 . Ah dear blown out again homo.

The thing is Murray wasn't playing to and irrelevantly didn't beat a fully fit Novak. He was playing to win Wimbledon which is what he did. Same deal with the Olympics.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Every slam winner needs a bit of luck.
But you said "But he had the easiest, luckiest run in a slam that I can remember." - how far back is that? 2012?

Name a draw that was easier than the one Murray had?  No top 20 until final, and a finalist who had played a 5 setter in his semi.

Federer French Open 2009

There's your answer homo.  

Federer only beat one seed (No.24 seed) Fernando Gonzalez in the QF's in 2009 and eventually lost to world No.2 Rafa Nadal in the final whereas Murray faced three seeded players prior to the final against the world No.1 . Ah dear blown out again homo. 

Federer won the tournament in 2009 silly, you are referring to 2008. In 2009 he faced 11th seed, 5th seed and 23rd seed.

LuvSports! wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Every slam winner needs a bit of luck.
But you said "But he had the easiest, luckiest run in a slam that I can remember." - how far back is that? 2012?

Name a draw that was easier than the one Murray had?  No top 20 until final, and a finalist who had played a 5 setter in his semi.

Federer French Open 2009

There's your answer homo.  

Federer only beat one seed (No.24 seed) Fernando Gonzalez in the QF's in 2009 and eventually lost to world No.2 Rafa Nadal in the final whereas Murray faced three seeded players prior to the final against the world No.1 . Ah dear blown out again homo. 

Federer won the tournament in 2009 silly, you are referring to 2008. In 2009 he faced 11th seed, 5th seed and 23rd seed.

Cheers LivSportsamended it. And am sure (though haven't checked) that there are many more such-like cases of draws opening up for players. It is not their fault - their job is to beat whoever is put in front of them. If you do that you win a slam and deservedly so.

Feds 2009 FO was pretty straightforward on paper if that is how we are judging it.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Feds 2009 FO was pretty straightforward on paper ;)if that is how we are judging it.

No in 2009 it was difficult definitely than 2008. He faced seed Mathieu (No.32 in the 3rd Round), Monfils (No.11 in the QF's), Del Potro (No.5 in the SF's) and Soderling (No.23 in the final).

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Feds 2009 FO was pretty straightforward on paper ;)if that is how we are judging it.

No in 2009 it was difficult definitely than 2008. He faced seed Mathieu (No.32 in the 3rd Round), Monfils (No.11 in the QF's), Del Potro (No.5 in the SF's) and Soderling (No.23  in the final).

Seriously?

Monfils super choke??

Yes it was much tougher than 2008 as however you look at it he faced more seeded players in the run up to the final.

On speaking about the Dunblane killings in his 'documentary', he said 'you don't know how tough a thing like that is'. Oh really Murray? I actually think losing a close family member is harder, but hey, what do I know about the incomparable turmoil of Murray's life. Oh and another thing, using a dog as a sort of living flannel to cry into might not be too pleasant for the dog.

Duh - he didn't say "It's harder than losing a close family member" - he didn't even compare it to other tragic events.

Got your hate on today, Andy? Good for you mate!

Australian Open 2006 was on seedings-wise and how it panned out another easier route to the final than Andy had at Wimbledon this year. Federer beat No.30 seed Mirnyi (3rd Round), Davydenko No.5 seed (QF's), Nicolas Kiefer No.21 seed (SF'a) and unseeded Baghdatis in the final.

As quoted in the Waterboy.

Stoo stoo stupid!

Also Wimbledon 2008 the draw opened up very well for Roger Federer as he played one seeded player on his way to the final - Lleyton Hewitt (No.20 seed) in the Fourth Round and in the final he lost to world No.2 Rafa Nadal in the final.

I think I have given enough examples now and proven my point.

Going through a school massacres a hard thing to deal with Andy, criticizing him for being upset about that as though its some kind of contest as to whose had the harder life is ridiculous. I'd much rather he didnt have to go through that, for him and EVERY child in that school at the time, but its one of those things you look back on and it makes you think... god that could have been me.
Also dogs typically like being stroked a cuddled a bit. Its his dog, he clearly looks after them well.