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.

@KR ... At least you are a sane junior failed failed detective.

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

Nole4King
Noleisthebest...

Discuss

According to this, it must be "The Djoker"....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFzFIjdtopE

CaledonianCraig wrote:  Yes have some of mine.  

Thanks Craig  

Nothing like popcorn to chomp on - ate it watching Andy Murray win Olympic Gold, the US Open and the Wimbledon title all in the space of 11 months beating the World No.1 on all three occasions.   

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nothing like popcorn to chomp on - ate it watching Andy Murray win Olympic Gold, the US Open and the Wimbledon title all in the space of 11 months beating the World No.1 on all three occasions.   

Popcorn goes well with victory  

Yes I think I should give homogenised a Winston Churchill salute of V for Victory:-

V

Actually, I agree with the title of this (ahem) article...

Andy Murray - The Modern Day Asterix !

JubbaIsle wrote:Actually, I agree with the title of this (ahem) article...

Andy Murray - The Modern Day Asterix !

Oh the Gaul of it.  

So Djoko is then Caesar?

kingraf wrote:So Djoko is then Caesar?  

Wasn't that the ape in Planet of the Apes.  

kingraf wrote:So Djoko is then Caesar?  

That's why these are his salad days!

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kingraf wrote:So Djoko is then Caesar?  

Wasn't that the ape in Planet of the Apes.  

Would explain the growing frequency of his tantrums



Too soon?

kingraf wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kingraf wrote:So Djoko is then Caesar?  

Wasn't that the ape in Planet of the Apes.  

Would explain the growing frequency of his tantrums



Too soon?

Its OK  

Lendl would be Obelix then ?

Novak was already making mistakes at the start of the delpo match so that cannot be blamed for his performance in the final. The isa valid saying that you can only play whats on front of you and Murray did that and beat him.


regards to the us open did Murray play his part of that match in different conditions? No he just handled them better.

sure how you can say he's one dimensional either. He has developed many aspects of his game and had one of the best lobs I've seen. Yes he likes to stand and trade but he can mix it up too. I've been watching him since he came into the tour andi really like watching him. I prefer when he's not playing novak as t they tend to be dull matches.

conclusion you can't asterisk a win just because your favoured played had a tougher match just as th wouldn't accept that the other way around. It's very disappointing that some people are still having go at Murray after everything.

Actually I don't see much difference between Homogenised and some old regular poster who does the same theme for a different era.  

Maybe the name Andy Barren Murray is a bit of a mouthful for homogenised.

but then again, so may this be.....a Murray inspired burger from Manchesters SoLIta Bar and Grill.....the "Nae Lettuce"




The burger consists of an Aberdeen Angus beef patty, deep-fried haggis, Irn Bru and whiskey BBQ sauce and Monterey JOCK cheese.

What on Earth??
Sounds Type 1 diabetic!!

Yep, but its makin' me oongry....

Seen this, Cameron trying to sneak up on Murray to tickle him ?

I am Spartacus - the asterisk version where all the Romans had rubber swords

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

Nole4King
Noleisthebest...

Discuss

I am a Federer fan, not a Nole fan. Although he is growing on me. It's rather sad that any opposite opinion around here requires such childish responses.

Quote Homogenised...."Federer was in absolutely no shape to put up any real fight in the final."  
Yeah the greatest player in the history of the game couldn't recover from a 3 set victory

Any miniscule shred of credibility you may have had evaporated right there.

Any guesses who Murray had to beat in the other semi?

You dont have an opposite opinion to me... JHM mostly has an alternate opinion to mine, as does SouthernCalifornia.

What you have is an alternate reality...

JAS wrote:Quote Homogenised...."Federer was in absolutely no shape to put up any real fight in the final."  
Yeah the greatest player in the history of the game couldn't recover from a 3 set victory

Any miniscule shred of credibility you may have had evaporated right there.

Any guesses who Murray had to beat in the other semi?

The greatest player who is now in his 30s, playing nowhere near the level he was at 2004-7, and also even at Wimbledon prior.  Are you really telling us all that Federer was at his best in that match?  You laugh at what I said like it makes no sense, and yet your own post demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about biology.  Tell you what, try this... go play some tennis and have a massive 3 set with one of your friends, keep playing until you are exhausted, then next day come back and play someone else.

Then maybe you will actually understand sport.

Federer was nowhere near his best in that match due to age and massive fatigue, that's no opinion, bud.

Good grief, homogenised is a Federer fan? On behalf of all Fed fans present, I must proclaim this - reasonable posters on the forum, this man (or lady) does not represent us!

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JubbaIsle wrote:Actually, I agree with the title of this (ahem) article...

Andy Murray - The Modern Day Asterix !

Oh the Gaul of it.  

Inspired, Craig   thread of the year?

    Sorry Carrie / CC / Danny I've been too busy destressing with this hilarious article to share, but have some of these as well;-
 

@_homogenised_... It is all right to be a Federer fan. When you start trying to find excuses for a loss ( Murray v Federer at O ), then it makes no sense.

Federer won a Silver at O, which is very good accomplishment. Murray won G and Del Po won B.

A similar mindset (to yours) then starts questioning Federer v Gonzalez at AO or Federer v Baghdatis or Federer v Philippoussis.

Winning a slam is a Herculean effort. Credit to the winner is due, no matter whether you are a fan or not.

Trying to devalue such a trophy is rather demeaning to winners past, present and future, which includes a past winner like Federer himself.

Enjoy the sport and the history being made.

banbrotam wrote:    Sorry Carrie / CC / Danny I've been too busy destressing with this hilarious article to share, but have some of these as well;-
 

You're too kind banbro, I'll definitely partake in a bit of  while I wait for the next "Murray's win didn't count" comment!

Good post laverfan.

banbrotam wrote:    Sorry Carrie / CC / Danny I've been too busy destressing with this hilarious article to share, but have some of these as well;-
 

Cheers Banbro  

Well if the OP's a fed fan that explains why he slinked off with his/her/its tail between its/her/his legs a couple of days into the championships after being told off by the mods. Denigrating success is a big sign of a lack of it in the person. Focusing more on why someones done well as opposed to why someones achievements should be slandered is the sort of atmosphere the board expects.

falzy21 wrote:Well if the OP's a fed fan that explains why he slinked off with his/her/its tail between its/her/his legs a couple of days into the championships after being told off by the mods.

The Federer loss at the hands of Stakhovsky probably exacerbated this outpouring of grief.

falzy21 wrote:Denigrating success is a big sign of a lack of it in the person. Focusing more on why someones done well as opposed to why someones achievements should be slandered is the sort of atmosphere the board expects.

Quite agree. There are 127 losers at each slam. The celebration is for the winner of the trophy.

JAS wrote:Quote Homogenised...."Federer was in absolutely no shape to put up any real fight in the final."  
Yeah the greatest player in the history of the game couldn't recover from a 3 set victory

Any miniscule shred of credibility you may have had evaporated right there.

Any guesses who Murray had to beat in the other semi?

Pity to spoil a critique with a really bad argument.

So a 19-17 third set still warrants dismissal as a three setter?

I guess John Isner was a bit of a quitter falling so easily after his 5 setter at Wimbledon a few years ago, I mean they all do 5 setters these days and it was only his first of the event.

In reality the O semi was the equivalent of a 6 setter. Big Johns was... well...... about a 20-setter.

bogbrush wrote:In reality the O semi was the equivalent of a 6 setter. Big Johns was... well...... about a 20-setter.

I prefer the US TB, even though it may be sudden death. Technically it is still possible to play an endless TB, where neither player wants to win, but plays for stalemate. The whole premise of Tennis, unlike Chess, is to play to win.

MahIsner could have been an endless TB with (70+68)*4 = 552 point TB, with each of them winning 276 points.

_homogenised_ wrote: Tell you what, try this... go play some tennis and have a massive 3 set with one of your friends, keep playing until you are exhausted, then next day come back and play someone else.

Federer was nowhere near his best in that match due to age and massive fatigue, that's no opinion, bud.

You seem to have missed out "have a day's rest" in your analogy.

The whole idea that Federer couldn't recover from a long three setter is fairly laughable and, frankly, is insulting to a guy who trains as hard as he does. At the French this year we saw Tommy Haas play what, on BB's calculations would be the equivalent of a 7-setter. He was able to recover to the extent that he dropped only 6 games to the dangerous Youhzny. Robredo struggled so much to recover from his 5 set marathon that he went on to play another two back to back. Both these guys are older than Federer and were playing on a far tougher surface.

Personally, I had the impression Federer was just very nervous in the final. He was seeking a title which meant a huge amount to him - he cried even because he made the final. His nerves, coupled with the fact Murray was playing extremely well meant he had no chance. Incidentally, when they next played in Shanghai Murray beat him down in very similar fashion. He has the ability to do that to Fed - more so than any other player.

It remains Murray's finest performance. It was kind of his 'signature' match, like Mac against Connors at Wimby 84'

banbrotam wrote:It remains Murray's finest performance. It was kind of his 'signature' match, like Mac against Connors at Wimby 84'

Oddly, when you read Mac's account of that final, he feels Connors had an off-day, and looked flat to Mac.

banbrotam wrote:It remains Murray's finest performance. It was kind of his 'signature' match, like Mac against Connors at Wimby 84'

It's certainly there or thereabouts. Personally the best I've ever seen Murray play was the O semi against Novak, because Novak played really well. Murray was unbelievable in that match. Everything worked perfectly, his serving, his returning, his movement, aggression.... I remember one point in particular when BP down Novak returned a serve really deep and Murray from miles behind the baseline launched a forehand missile DTL for a clean winner. Before Lendl he wouldn't even have tried it, let alone had the forehand to actually do it.

Everyone talks about the final as a turning point, and rightly so... But that semi was huge too. He went for the throat as Lendl wanted him too and beat a great player who was playing really well. Must have given him so much belief in what he was doing.

Good shout, Danny

Not sure I totally agree with all the Lendl love. Yes, Murray's performance in the Olympics was exceptional but it wasn't tennis of a level he hadn't shown before. The destruction of Nadal in Tokyo was unreal tennis which exhibited all the same qualities pre-Lendl.

What Lendl has brought seems to have been an increased ability by Murray to bring his game to the biggest matches and also to recover from setbacks. Whether that would have happened anyway simply through growing maturity isn't clear. What seems clear is they enjoy working together and Murray is finally getting the results his talent deserves.

The Olympic final defeating an ageing Federer. Luck of the draw caused Federer to have the much more difficult opponent in Del Potro,

The opponent Del Potro who is known as being a much more difficult opponent than the world number 1? I realise that the match went to an unprecedented length, but Murray had the more difficult semi, he just dealt with it better than Fed did.

It does seem a shame to put a sensible response up as the comments, especially on page 1, gave about the right level of respect to the OP!

Tokyo's a good shout and I remember getting laughed at when I suggested that this (meaning the bagel) would be a significant game changer for both players

I also half agree with you as Murray's forehand improvement occurred under the part-time tutelage of Darren Cahill

In fairness Tokyo wasn't a slam or Olympics so the lower importance dilutes the quality of performance

_homogenised_ wrote:

JAS wrote:Quote Homogenised...."Federer was in absolutely no shape to put up any real fight in the final."  
Yeah the greatest player in the history of the game couldn't recover from a 3 set victory

Any miniscule shred of credibility you may have had evaporated right there.

Any guesses who Murray had to beat in the other semi?

The greatest player who is now in his 30s, playing nowhere near the level he was at 2004-7, and also even at Wimbledon prior.  Are you really telling us all that Federer was at his best in that match?  You laugh at what I said like it makes no sense, and yet your own post demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about biology.  Tell you what, try this... go play some tennis and have a massive 3 set with one of your friends, keep playing until you are exhausted, then next day come back and play someone else.

Then maybe you will actually understand sport.  

Federer was nowhere near his best in that match due to age and massive fatigue, that's no opinion, bud.

Wow!! You surmise from one post that I have a complete lack of knowledge of biology and don't understand sport and then you suggest a totally unrealistic scenario to try and somehow justify you're completely irrelevant point?? Awesome!! Backs up my original "shred of credibility" point.

OK, so putting aside the fact that I'm a qualified sports masseuse, have run a sub 3 hour marathon and am 4th Dan in Karate (which means I know how it feels to be pushed to my own limits and what recovery is like), there will, if you bothered to look, be many examples of Fed recovering from longer matches to go out and win his next match, even after he started his natural decline. I think the fact you're struggling with is the fact that Murray is now pretty much established as one of the best 2 players in the world and is likely to be for the next few years...deal with it.

Folks. Nobody mess with JAS  

Born Slippy wrote:Not sure I totally agree with all the Lendl love. Yes, Murray's performance in the Olympics was exceptional but it wasn't tennis of a level he hadn't shown before. The destruction of Nadal in Tokyo was unreal tennis which exhibited all the same qualities pre-Lendl.

Lendl was the fittest on tour during his heyday. Murray is the fittest in the current Top 4. This is one of the significant differences that gets ignored.

Born Slippy wrote:What Lendl has brought seems to have been an increased ability by Murray to bring his game to the biggest matches and also to recover from setbacks. Whether that would have happened anyway simply through growing maturity isn't clear. What seems clear is they enjoy working together and Murray is finally getting the results his talent deserves.

Murray came back from being a break down in two sets in the final in W2013. For example, AO 2010, he could not hold not his lead against Federer. Lendl is a brilliant tactician, and has made Murray's nascent tactical brain into a well-honed Tennis machine. Hypothetically, Lendl leaving Murray would cause Murray quite a few problems. Murray has a lot of Clay work yet to come.

Being the fittest is not a good measure of foot speed, or timing of shots.

Being the fittest is not a good measure of foot speed, or timing of shots.

Genius and simple.

That is the one aspect that is overlooked so conveniently when using the 'fitness' argument.

JAS wrote:OK, so putting aside the fact that I'm a qualified sports masseuse, have run a sub 3 hour marathon and am 4th Dan in Karate (which means I know how it feels to be pushed to my own limits and what recovery is like), there will, if you bothered to look, be many examples of Fed recovering from longer matches to go out and win his next match, even after he started his natural decline.

If your age is correct in your profile, my hats off to you. Wonderful. As BanBro says, no one should mess with you.

JAS wrote:I think the fact you're struggling with is the fact that Murray is now pretty much established as one of the best 2 players in the world and is likely to be for the next few years...deal with it.

I cannot fathom that posters (like _h..._) like specific players, but fail to appreciate what others bring to the court. The uniqueness of individuality seems to get ignored.

Someone had made a comment, that Federer fans should be grateful to Murray for keeping Djokovic in check and not letting him run rampant at slams, like 2011. Nadal kept Federer honest otherwise Federer would be a multi-GS winner, Djokovic kept Nadal honest, Murray is keeping Djokovic honest. Del Po, Ferrer and many others are making it even more interesting. It is wonderful to see so much talent on tap.

Laverfan, makes a good point about Murray's new ability to now come back from breaks down (or getting broken back) against the best - he did it in the second set at NY

He got broken just as many times in his 2010/12 Federer defeats as he did against Novak

The difference this time and for the first time, is that he did what he does against all the others (outside his three rivals at Slams) and simply got at least a couple of breaks per set, himself

His three Fed defeats yielded totaled less breaks than all the Novak match. Note, before we get carried away about the Fed serving (yes, at his peak he was better than Novak) Murray did have 20 break point opportunities in his three defeats

I've always maintained that with Andy, it's all about his ability to break serve. That sets up his attitude for any given match. The Verdasco one was a classic illustration of this. Nothing was going that wrong - but he couldn't handle not getting into his serve and nearly went out because of this

Quite LF, the fieldd is expanding and becoming more competitive as the seasons roll on. In 5 yrs time, who knows who will be No1 or if Murray will still be knocking that FH across courts the world over.

Very interesting times ahead, except for those with heads in sand, they'll miss it all.

Cue an era of slam winners but not multi slam winners.

Murray has been lucky with the 2 slams he won, for the reasons the author has mentioned. I would also say I'm disappointed Murray doesn't seem to have grown up much. He still has on court tantrums and petulantly shouts at his team, something I though Lendl was meant to beat out of him. Also he still seems unable to give opponents credit, routinely clutching at an imagined pain when he loses a point.

@JAS... I recall a poster on old 606 who used 'RightJudgeIAm' as their moniker, who was a practicing judoka for 38 years, if my memory serves me correctly. Yep, found it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A39443862

He used to post on the Tennis forum as well.