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.

McEnroe said "Marx used to use verbal volleys a lot but now he rarely gets away from base one-liners. I like to see him introduce more variety in his moderating".

kingraf wrote:haha Marx you pretty much nailed my POV. As an aside, is Marx a homage to Karl Marx?

Er, no - google my user name.

HM Murdoch wrote:McEnroe said "Marx used to use verbal volleys a lot but now he rarely gets away from base one-liners. I like to see him introduce more variety in his moderating".

Modern forum conditions are not conducive to adding variety to moderating. Back when there were differences between forums you could do everything in moderation.

Agassi may have criticized Marx's return game as well, apparently he just isnt as sharp with the come backs as the great Mods of the past.

Some (who?) say... his serving has gotten Really shaky... as is evidenced by the lack of suspensions served out recently...

Nonsense, why just the other day I banned someone for putting a spurious capital letter in the middle of a sentence.

kingraf wrote:Agassi may have criticized Marx's return game as well, apparently he just isnt as sharp with the come backs as the great Mods of the past.

You can't compare eras though.

Developments in technology means that innuendo is far more risky than it was in the past. Anyone basing their comeback game on it is likely to be punished.

In Marx's case, by the police and legal system.

Yeah, but that was at 250 level, where is the same dead-eye serving in the Moderating Grand Slams???

It was the great Cedric Pioline i think who gave Marx a real slagging off for his poor use of the review system

HMM -

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Can we close this thread?

Let me ask JHM. JHM, should we?

We should. Nothing but back biting going on and even I took a bite!

Nothing new has really been added.

This is the second stage of trench warfare. The grenades have already been lobbed and done with and casualties are now being wheeled back to the infirmary. Now, it is defending why I was not the first to light the incendiaries stage?

Such a cyclical and repeatable cycle. BTW, I just watched Murray beat Nadal and Federer back-to-back in Toronto...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tIUYysLDeg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6prwZYh9RQ

It seems the white flags will not appear despite the chucking of grenades.

Good viewing BTW

Montreal is 2 weeks time isn't it?

legendkillarV2 wrote:It seems the white flags will not appear despite the chucking of grenades.

Perhaps after the fourth set, unless this becomes a MahIsner epic. It is now a Federer v Roddick so far.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Good viewing BTW

Montreal is 2 weeks time isn't it?

Thanks. 5 Aug is Montreal.

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:It seems the white flags will not appear despite the chucking of grenades.

Perhaps after the fourth set, unless this becomes a MahIsner epic. It is now a Federer v Roddick so far.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Good viewing BTW

Montreal is 2 weeks time isn't it?

Thanks. 5 Aug is Montreal.

Its pity they not happening in Toronto this year, they have advertised WTA events every where and as bonus Roger's legends cup is taking place and the participants included are Sampras, Roddick etc,.. so its 2 value for the price of 1, I would rather go to watch Sampras, Roddick's match rather than Sharapova - Azarenka match.

Nice to see Roddick gently going into the night, then.

_homogenised_ wrote:Oh yeah, and I don't like Murray (I can't think why...).  That also has something to do with it.  So sue me.  I want you to know that I really tried to like Murray at first, but a few things stopped me, the main one being his personality (or lack thereof).

1. The media hype that surrounds him, and extends to his fans. The Wimbledon lot were disgraceful again this year, doing everything in their power to make opponents feel uncomfortable.  I can't enjoy supporting someone who has bullies for fans, and worse even waves his arms around to rouse them up like some sort of conductor.  Clapping double faults and mistakes by opponent and shouting out all the time during points.

2. His boring personality.  He is so dour and uninteresting.  Never smiles.  He is like cardboard.

3.  His conduct on court is atrocious.  He whines, shouts, screams.  Shouts out things even on opponents double faults.  He has no class whatsoever.  The minute he is a set behind against a player like Djokovic, it's usually lights out.

4.  His style of play is typical baseliner.  Pusher and counter puncher.  I really wish this was old conditions to sort this kind of style out.  It's frustrating when I play tennis and my opponent does this same crap against me.  No imagination or skill, but get away with it.

There's not one thing I can say about him that is good.  As for Craig's assertion that it was a "unique" rise to the top.  Not really.  He was another silver spoon product from the middle and upper classes.  Sent to Spain to train and given opportunities in life that 99.9% of people can only dream of.  Get some perspective.

Outrageous Homogenised. "He was another silver spoon product from the middle and upper classes.

Go and do a little research before you foolishly spout your uniformed wisdom on us. Tell you what, I'll give you a link so you don't have to put "Judy Murray" in a search engine.....

http://www.scottishroots.com/people/andy.php

And to further ease your pain strutting over the keyboard...

"Judy, born in Bridge of Allan in 1959, is the daughter of Robert (Roy) Erskine, an optician who played football for Stirling Albion in the 1950’s"
"Willie Murray. Stirling born, professional life has been in the newsagents’ business."

Is this what you call silver spoon fed middle class rich kid ? maybe you're the one who should get some perspective.

Homogenised, I can understand you not liking a personality, a style of play etc. I know that I personally struggle to watch Gilles Simon, who I find similiar to watching paint dry or Lydian's dislike of Granollers, the Human Plowing Machine, but if Simon and let's be sensible here, wins in Canada lets say, I may not have enjoyed it, I may have preferred that his opponent won, but in the end I will acknowledge that occasionally he coped best with the situations of that week and therefore deserved his his glory.

And then the following week, he'll lose to Viktor Troicki and then I'll be pleased.

_homogenised_ wrote:Oh yeah, and I don't like Murray (I can't think why...).  That also has something to do with it.  So sue me.  I want you to know that I really tried to like Murray at first, but a few things stopped me, the main one being his personality (or lack thereof).

1. The media hype that surrounds him, and extends to his fans. The Wimbledon lot were disgraceful again this year, doing everything in their power to make opponents feel uncomfortable.  I can't enjoy supporting someone who has bullies for fans, and worse even waves his arms around to rouse them up like some sort of conductor.  Clapping double faults and mistakes by opponent and shouting out all the time during points. - So you blame him for the media and the fans - brilliant. Not discounting the fact the the corwd did not clap double faults, is one of the most respectful crowds around and was very warm to Djoker (before he starting having his hissy fit) and was 50/50 lst year in supoort of the Fed - so in summary - mainly made up and wrong

2. His boring personality.  He is so dour and uninteresting.  Never smiles.  He is like cardboard. - Watch the documentry on him and realise that again you are wrong - watch how him, Nadal and Djoker are the best of mates and have a laugh with each other - so in summary - mainly made up and wrong

3.  His conduct on court is atrocious.  He whines, shouts, screams.  Shouts out things even on opponents double faults.  He has no class whatsoever.  The minute he is a set behind against a player like Djokovic, it's usually lights out. He has a tendancy to berate himself, which can be porr, but is better than it was and is now no worst than most players. Again on the double fault - he will react the same as anyone - which is not what you say - class - best leave that, as I am sure you know what his class is - so in summary - mainly made up and wrong

4.  His style of play is typical baseliner.  Pusher and counter puncher.  I really wish this was old conditions to sort this kind of style out.  It's frustrating when I play tennis and my opponent does this same crap against me.  No imagination or skill, but get away with it. Again, not true, he moves people around, makes them go out of position and then goes for the win - see how quickly he dispatches opponents in the ealier rounds - ou have read a myth and fallen for it. I am sorry you are not good enough to play against someone who gets tha ball back - maybe you should try to mix up your gamne, or get better - so in summary - mainly made up and wrong

There's not one thing I can say about him that is good.  As for Craig's assertion that it was a "unique" rise to the top.  Not really.  He was another silver spoon product from the middle and upper classes.  Sent to Spain to train and given opportunities in life that 99.9% of people can only dream of.  Get some perspective. This is so far away from the truth that I can not really understand why you post o tennis boards, as you know nothing about the Number 2 in the world - so in summary - mainly made up and wrong

-

I fully agree...Andy Murray is indeed the modern-day Asterix:

Spoiler:

The resemblance is uncanny!  

Who's the modern day Obelix, Nalbandian?

Just read this great article, summaries the frustrations of our author here and how nonsensical they truly are  

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/27/tennis-phenom-andy-murray-s-personality-problem.html