"Maybe the star turn’s absence will finally torpedo an annual eyesore that needs to be put out of its misery?"

First topic message reminder :

Murray (who is the heavy favorite to win) can't be bothered to attend the BBC sports personality of the year contest because he has more important things to do. If he can't be bothered should the event be scrapped?

---

GOOD old Andy Murray.

Just when it seemed impossible to love the Scottish sporting colossus any more he goes and delivers an epic custard pie to Auntie Beeb and Middle England.

The invitation to the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Awards may have landed in his email inbox but it might as well have gone straight to his spam folder.

Thanks, but no thanks, said our Andy. He’s got better things to do with his time. Like winning proper titles.

That’s what makes Murray special. Of course it would be nice to go and get a pat on the back from the Establishment, but that’s not his style.

He can’t waste two days out of his brutal schedule to get his belly tickled by folk who’ve hardly tripped over themselves to back him in the past.

Who needs the Sports Personality of the Year Awards anyway? It has hee haw to do with sport and even less to do with personality.

Maybe the star turn’s absence will finally torpedo an annual eyesore that needs put out of its misery.

It’s the sporting event of the year for people who don’t like or know anything about sport.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Andy was right to give the event the body swerve – it’s long past the time the rest of us did the same.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis/michael-gannon-andy-murray-doesnt-2918011

Haddie-nuff wrote:That too is an interesting comment though I find it hard to agree with it.. if it is NOW that Murray has decided to be more committed its only since he has had Lendl as his coach.. (the man stands for no nonensense). The bottom line is that Murray has ONLY JUST grown up. Nadal/Federer/Djokovic have always been more mature than Murray. Lendl kicked the little boy up the backside and made a man of him

Presumably you mean his on-court behaviour where he berates himself and loses focus? Surely Djokovic's habitual smashing of rackets and shouting at the crowd also indicates immaturity?

I can't see any sign that Murray's off court behaviour was in any way immature. Ferrer, for example, smoked until recently, which for a top athlete shows an immature lack of dedication. Safin and Guerolitis never grew up, but seem to be darlings of the tennis public for that very reason.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
He is not debonair or multi-lingual as Fed is, nor does he have his effortless charm.
He does not have Rafa's good looks and smile.

Do you think being "debonair" or multi-lingual or being good looking or having a nice smile is what makes Federer and Nadal popular? Do you think people are that shallow? Nonsense! They are amazing tennis players but in addition to that they have charm but charm isn't effortless. They put a lot of effort into charming their audience and people generally want to be charmed. Their effort is appreciated. How much effort does Murray put in to be charming? By this I don't mean being false or fooling around but putting effort into doing things like attend an award ceremony that was centered on him. Pro tennis isn't just about training and hitting balls. Without an audience it wouldn't exist.

Tennis would be a difficult sell if future players adopted Murray's attitude rather than Federer and Nadal's.

HE have you ever heard of the term "fairweather fans" or "jumping on the bandwagon"? SOOO many people do this for rafa's looks, despite the fact they no nada about tennis. They are very easy to find at Wimbledon.

hawkeye wrote:I will just ignore your attempts to WUM... but I will say I disagree with your opinion.

Murray is a hard sell. The proof is out there. Federer and Nadal do more than sell themselves they sell the sport that's part of the job.

HE calling someone else a wum? Wowzer.

No that is not what I mean JM so do stop trying to second guess me     Murray was never committed to his tennis.. his on court behaviour was merely a reflection of this. He did not take to being told what to do .. doubtless because his mother involved herself too much in his coaching. He was immature in his attitude on and off court. You speak of Djokovic´s habitual smashing and shouting (but that I think you will agree is now almost non-existent and in the past) and Im no fan of Novak. He never got where he is through being undisciplined and that has always been Murray´s problem.
Now he has won Wimbledon it will be interesting to see where he goes from here... however Im not holding my breath. But I was unaware that this thread was to discuss Safin and Guerolitis you digress JM  

LuvSports! wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
He is not debonair or multi-lingual as Fed is, nor does he have his effortless charm.
He does not have Rafa's good looks and smile.

Do you think being "debonair" or multi-lingual or being good looking or having a nice smile is what makes Federer and Nadal popular? Do you think people are that shallow? Nonsense! They are amazing tennis players but in addition to that they have charm but charm isn't effortless. They put a lot of effort into charming their audience and people generally want to be charmed. Their effort is appreciated. How much effort does Murray put in to be charming? By this I don't mean being false or fooling around but putting effort into doing things like attend an award ceremony that was centered on him. Pro tennis isn't just about training and hitting balls. Without an audience it wouldn't exist.

Tennis would be a difficult sell if future players adopted Murray's attitude rather than Federer and Nadal's.

HE have you ever heard of the term "fairweather fans" or "jumping on the bandwagon"? SOOO many people do this for rafa's looks, despite the fact they no nada about tennis. They are very easy to find at Wimbledon.

They might be easy to find at Wimbledon LS but not on this forum

Haddie-nuff wrote:No that is not what I mean JM so do stop trying to second guess me     Murray was never committed to his tennis.. his on court behaviour was merely a reflection of this. He did not take to being told what to do .. doubtless because his mother involved herself too much in his coaching. He was immature in his attitude on and off court. You speak of Djokovic´s habitual smashing and shouting (but that I think you will agree is now almost non-existent and in the past) and Im no fan of Novak. He never got where he is through being undisciplined and that has always been Murray´s problem.
Now he has won Wimbledon it will be interesting to see where he goes from here... however Im not holding my breath. But I was unaware that this thread was to discuss Safin and Guerolitis you digress JM  

not sure that is true at all - he took himself to Spain, spent years going round Scotland to compete, took it all on his (and his mum's shoulders as the LTA did f all) to develop himself into a world class tennis player.

He may have needed better direction and focus on areas to improve (hence Lendle), but he has always been one of the hardest workers on the tour

Murray left his home, family and friends at age 15 to train in Spain, because it was the best way to improve his tennis.
At age 17 he won the Junior US Open.
In March 2005 he became the youngest Briton to play in the Davis Cup.
Does that sound like he wasn't committed to tennis from an early age?
Where is this lack of off court discipline you speak of in his early career?

I'm actually glad Andy is like he is. Part of the interest in the 'Big 4' is that we have 4 very different personalities who are all, in their own way, interesting.

If we had four Federer-esque personalities, it would be more boring. Same as if all four were like Rafa, Novak or Andy.

I'm always a bit bemused by the way his not being at the same level as Fed, Nadal or Djoko is used as a stick to beat him with. I see football players get praised to high heaven for being nothing more than adequate in global terms. Yet a guy who is comfortably better than anyone in the world except three pretty special talents (whom he is still good enough to beat more than occasionally) is somehow seen as falling short?! It's bizarre.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
He is not debonair or multi-lingual as Fed is, nor does he have his effortless charm.
He does not have Rafa's good looks and smile.

Do you think being "debonair" or multi-lingual or being good looking or having a nice smile is what makes Federer and Nadal popular? Do you think people are that shallow? Nonsense! They are amazing tennis players but in addition to that they have charm but charm isn't effortless. They put a lot of effort into charming their audience and people generally want to be charmed. Their effort is appreciated. How much effort does Murray put in to be charming? By this I don't mean being false or fooling around but putting effort into doing things like attend an award ceremony that was centered on him. Pro tennis isn't just about training and hitting balls. Without an audience it wouldn't exist.

Tennis would be a difficult sell if future players adopted Murray's attitude rather than Federer and Nadal's.

HE have you ever heard of the term "fairweather fans" or "jumping on the bandwagon"? SOOO many people do this for rafa's looks, despite the fact they no nada about tennis. They are very easy to find at Wimbledon.

They might be easy to find at Wimbledon LS but not on this forum

Is HE not doing a great WUM impersonation towards Murray fans?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Murray left his home, family and friends at age 15 to train in Spain, because it was the best way to improve his tennis.
At age 17 he won the Junior US Open.
In March 2005 he became the youngest Briton to play in the Davis Cup.
Does that sound like he wasn't committed to tennis from an early age?
Where is this lack of off court discipline you speak of in his early career?

The youngest Briton to play in the Davis Cup... Because Britain is so spoilt for choice.  
Have you ever asked yourself why if he is as disciplined, as good,and as talented as you all say.
(By the By I am not questioning his talent not one iota) and is good enough to beat the rest why he hasn´t done so at the most crucial times. If that is not undisciplined then I dont know what is. It has taken someone like Lendl who is without doubt one of the most mentally strong, most physically disciplined, who demanded much of himself and doubtless would have done with Murray. i defy anyone to deny that there has been a visible change in Murray in all areas of his game since Lendl has become his coach. So yes I stick by what I have said . I am left asking what he could have achieved had he had that kind of disciplined coaching at a younger age. He was a spoilt youngster who was indulged by his mother. You only have to take Rafa as an example of what I am saying.. and indeed Agassi.. They both trained under a strict regime. Tough yes but thats what you have to do to aspire to their standards.

On that note Murdoch, it always confuses me that people use past achievements to declare that Murray isn't as good as his rivals. Up until this years US open he had reached 4 slam finals in a row (excluding the one he missed through injury) winning two of them.

That tells me that in the last 12-18 months his level has been pretty much as good as anyone's. Yet you get career stats chucked back at you "he's only win 2, so and so has won way more"..... No Murray fan thinks that over the course of his career he will be judged like the other 3 will, he reached the level that he's at now too late for that. At the end of their careers Murray will be shown to be a level below these guys. Rightly so.

But right now, in the present, he's up there alongside them. Or at least he has been for 18 months (who knows if he'll return as good after surgery).

On a side note.... Ferrer, the energy bunny of today's game, until recently smoked??? I find that astonishingly.

Yes  Danny but you are endorsing exactly what I am saying
"He is up there alongside the rest .. or at least during the last 18 months"  It took Lendl to get it out of him and knock him into shape,  to discipline him, and push him hard  to be the top tennis player we know he can be
. He has been his own worst enemy in the past lets now hope that his back recovers well enough to prove that the boy has grown up to take them all on. Rafa has always had faith in Andy and has always acknowledged what he is capable of. He has been waiting for that player to emerge as we all have. Maybe this will be his year.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Murray left his home, family and friends at age 15 to train in Spain, because it was the best way to improve his tennis.
At age 17 he won the Junior US Open.
In March 2005 he became the youngest Briton to play in the Davis Cup.
Does that sound like he wasn't committed to tennis from an early age?
Where is this lack of off court discipline you speak of in his early career?

The youngest Briton to play in the Davis Cup... Because Britain is so spoilt for choice.  
Have you ever asked yourself why if he is as disciplined, as good,and as talented as you all say.
(By the By I am not questioning his talent not one iota) and is good enough to beat the rest why he hasn´t done so at the most crucial times. If that is not undisciplined then I dont know what is. It has taken someone like Lendl who is without doubt one of the most mentally strong, most physically disciplined, who demanded much of himself and doubtless would have done with Murray. i defy anyone to deny that there has been a visible change in Murray in all areas of his game since Lendl has become his coach. So yes I stick by what I have said . I am left asking what he could have achieved had he had that kind of disciplined coaching at a younger age. He was a spoilt youngster who was indulged by his mother. You only have to take Rafa as an example of what I am saying.. and indeed Agassi.. They both trained under a strict regime. Tough yes but thats what you have to do to aspire to their standards.

Both Fed and Djoko have beaten Rafa on clay, but have failed to do so at the most crucial times - are they undisciplined? The fact is that Murray is not quite as good a player as Rafa or Fed. Lack of discipline doesn't come into it.
Yes, Murray lost his first 4 GS finals in a row - just like Ivan Lendl did. Perhaps Lendl was undisciplined?

Has he improved under Lendl? Yes. He seems to have found the right coach. His problem has never been lack of commitment, dedication or hard work - he has excelled in all those areas throughout his career and his off court devotion to tennis cannot be questioned. His problem has been on court - mentally he gets down on himself, dwells too much on errors etc. You may call it overall immaturity - I disagree. I call it lack of mental discipline - at that level it can be hard to master. Henman, for example, was always suspect mentally, but certainly not immature.

You say Murray was spoilt and indulged, but have provided no evidence of this whatsoever. He left home to train in Spain and was not with his mother. I'm sure she had an major influence, but can you say for certain it was a negative one? Do you know so much about the dynamics of their relationship to say that Murray would have done better without that influence (given she is a top class coach in her own right) and that she spoilt him?
What gives you the impression that Murray has not had a strict regime - what evidence do you have to back up your opinion?

Haddie

I really do not quite get what you are saying

he was spoilt ? Where is the proof of that?
He was undisciplined off the court - again proof please
He lost to 3 of the best tennis players around and he is spoilt and undisciplined? - Really - then every player in the world is spoilt and undisciplined then (except the top 3)

Lendel has brought a different focus and more knowledge to Murray's his hard work - which has improved Murray - as he now has someone who can help him understand where to work on -(What coaches do)

Your premise that to lose means spoilt and undisciplined is very flawed



He is not qu

Im sorry I dont agree with either of you.
But I am not going to be ganged up on because I have my own opinions.
I am not anti-Murray BY ANY MEANS  but I have always said about him stands (and to some degree it was agreed with by none other than Craig) who you know is a staunch Murray supporter. My criticisms of Andy have been borne out of sheer frustration... he was always on self-destruct... whatever his commitment was, it was not enough imo. His on court behaviour (that of a spoiled brat) can only be a reflection of what he was off court. Lendl has done more that show him a different focus... Lendl was, and probably still is a bully, and his attitude doubtless imo is shape up or ship out. Lendl has never courted favour by his peers and Lendl (I would bet my last €) is a hard taskmaster.. Murray has responded to that kind of coaching .. because he hasn´t been responsive to someone taking control and Lendl wont accept being anything less than "boss". Its working and it shows. I rest my case ... SO SORRY JULIUS  

Haddie-nuff wrote:Im sorry I dont agree with either of you.
But I am not going to be ganged up on because I have my own opinions.
I am not anti-Murray BY ANY MEANS  but I have always said about him stands (and to some degree it was agreed with by none other than Craig) who you know is a staunch  Murray supporter. My criticisms of Andy have been borne out of sheer frustration... he was always on self-destruct... whatever his commitment was, it was not enough imo. His on court behaviour (that of a spoiled brat) can only be a reflection of what he was off court. Lendl has done more that show him a different focus... Lendl was, and probably still is a bully, and his attitude doubtless imo is shape up or ship out. Lendl has never courted favour by his peers and Lendl (I would bet my last €) is a hard taskmaster.. Murray has responded to that kind of coaching .. because he hasn´t been responsive to someone taking control and Lendl wont accept being anything less than "boss". Its working and it shows. I rest my case ... SO SORRY JULIUS  

So if two people disagree with you, they're ganging up on you? In what way?
"His on court behaviour (that of a spoiled brat) can only be a reflection of what he was off court."
Yet look at Rafa, whose own on court behaviour is so different from his off court behaviour that even his own mother doesn't recognise him (I'm sure she spoke somewhat in jest, but the point holds) - but for Murray it "can only" reflect what he's like off court.
SO SORRY HADDIE, but your argument is very weak in this case.

Haddie - not ganging up on you, just seeing (IMO) fatal flaws in your conclusion

You say (with no proof) that he is spoilt off court, and I have asked for proof.

You can not assume that because he has a tendency to be down on himself and self destructive on court - means he is spoilt off court -

Just because he may have focused on areas that were not the most efficient to get him winning, you can not then assume he is not committed to tennis

He is well known be other players as one of the hardest workers on the circuit - which is a provable fact - so there is commitment

I would agree that Lendl is the right choice, as he has focused Murray on the right areas to, has helped him to curb his inner demons and helped to strengthen his resolve

So in summation - spoilt and no commitmenet - zero proof of that - so disagree
Lendl a great choice - agree
Lendl - focusing Murray on the right areas to work on - Agree
Murray - not quite as good as the other 3 - agree


Getting a good coach is important, and it took a while for Andy to get the right one - does that make him spoilt? Hardly

HN - you are definitely not a WUM or anti Murray, that is for sure.

I don't want to add to the feeling of ganging up, but I do disagree that his previous struggles were a result of being spoilt or a lack of effort. Murray has always tried 100% and been dedicated to what he thought he had to do. The fact that he didn't achieve it early in his career was definitely not down to a lack of application.

He said after his quarter final defeat at Wimbledon to Rafa some years ago that he thought he was fit enough, but that match made him realise he wasn't. He changed his physical training after that and got closer to the others as a result, reaching slam finals and getting into the top 4.  

Then when he hired Lendl he made some small tactical changes. Lendl was impressed with his workrate straight away, but thought he played too much of the big matches 2 metres behind the baseline. He has also helped him hit the forehand more often, and most of all got him to be very aggressive on big points. That last one is a huge mental change, having the courage to do that... That is probably Lendl's biggest achievement, making him mentally stronger.  That's what has got him to where he is now, those changes.

None of these are a lack of effort or being spoilt. He always thought he was doing the right thing and dedicated himself to it 100% to what he believed was right. Through self realisation, or through the wisdom of his new coach, he has evolved into the player he is.

I've followed him very closely since he was 17 and the one thing that can never be questioned in my opinion is is dedication to doing what he believed at the time was the right thing.

Im a bit lost as well on how Murray's on-court behaviour is that of a spoilt brat. He never displays any sense of entitlement, is courteous with the umpire and does not regularly flount the rules. Whilst swearing at himself or breaking racquets is arguably harmful to him, it isn't evidence that he is spoilt. Also, I'm unsure what all these big matches were which he lost due to indiscipline. He lost his first four slam finals by going into his shell through nerves not through any indiscipline.

All the evidence is that Murray has always been incredibly dedicated to tennis.

I think you are mistaken Hn.

Andy Murray has always been very dedicated to his tennis and rants on court do not make him a spoilt brat. These rants are directed solely at himself and usually follows a poor shot selection or poor execution and he gets angry with himself - nobody else. Also his dedication shone through as an early teenager who realised going to Spain to learn the trade was a must. Even if it meant leaving his family behind he was determined it had to be done.

Ivan Lendl was just the final piece of the jigsaw. A coach that he looked up to and took onboard very pertinent and valuable tips and on mental mindset.

Also surely to heavens above if he were a spoilt brat lacking dedication I doubt Lendl would have went anywhere near the job. Also would a spoilt brat without dedication really be up to taking four straight slam defeats and still carry on coming back for more and going away to work harder on his game. I suggest people who label him these things should try watching the BBC documentary 'Andy Murray - The Man Behind The Racquet'.

I do partially agree with Haddie on her assessment of Murray. I get the impression (and I can't really back it up, it's just an impression) that he was a bit indulged as a junior player - he's always been a bit brattish on court and I suspect his mother and other coaches were just so chuffed with how well he was doing, they didn't address the poor behaviour.

I also think once he became a media figure, he got a lot of criticism from the media and pundits and reacted rather defensively. This gave a view that he couldn't take criticism and wouldn't listen to good advice. The slightly acrimonious end to his coaching relationship with Brad Gilbert reinforced this view. To some extent, the defensiveness was understandable as Murray obviously felt he was working as hard as he could.

I wouldn't class any of the above as lack of dedictation or commitment though.

I think he has matured gradually, and finally teaming up with Lendl has been a great success - there's seems a lot of mutual respect, Murray seems to want to repay Lendl for his faith in him, and Lendl has helped him with the mental aspects of the game. Murray still has his moments of brattish behaviour, but I'd say now not significantly more than other players (though I'd still rather he cut it out altogether).

YvonneT wrote:I do partially agree with Haddie on her assessment of Murray. I get the impression (and I can't really back it up, it's just an impression) that he was a bit indulged as a junior player - he's always been a bit brattish on court and I suspect his mother and other coaches were just so chuffed with how well he was doing, they didn't address the poor behaviour.

But given that his 'brattish' behaviour was always directed at himself (not the umpire or opponent) and has almost invariably led to poorer performances and results, why would his mother or other coaches not address an issue that was clearly losing him matches? What would be the motivation to indulge any behaviour that was holding him back?

Perhaps:
- they didn't address it because it wasn't affecting his results at that level
- they didn't address it because they didn't think it was affecting his results, even though it was actually having a negative impact
- they tried to address it and weren't listened to (reinforcing my second paragraph).
As I said, it's just my impression. I'm not convinced as others that it had the negative impact results-wise even in his later career - the reason I don't like that kind of behaviour is that it appears self-indulgant and demonstrates a lack of concern of those forced to watch it.

YvonneT

I agree that some of his ranting should have been worked on (although it might have helped him in the early years get aggressive on court - who know) and that most of us would prefer he did not do it

I think what got us Interneters all bothered was calling him spoilt and uncommitted to tennis - which I certainly feel is totally out of order and wrong

:-)

This is an extract from an article I found when Lendl agreed to be
Andy´s coach.

""
And the second reason I think Lendl can help Murray, or be dismissed quickly, is Murray’s reputation for being very difficult with coaches. Ivan will not put up with any nonsense from Andy. If Murray gives too much attitude to Lendl, you can bet the 8-time Grand Slam champion will walk. What I think is more likely is that Murray knows who Ivan is and will know when to draw the line. Andy needs a personality strong enough to get in his face and tell him to stop sulking and getting down on himself. Ivan is just what the doctor ordered. ""


That IS THE POINT IM MAKING. And Craig you often agreed with me when I said that Andy was his own worst enemy on court because of his behaviour and the way he allowed his opponents to see how they rattled him... so heh??? Just because he has won Wimbledon does not change that Im afraid.  Again I say I am not anti-Murray and never have been.. but neither will it wash that Andy would have found the new Murray without Lendl.

HN, if the only point you're making is that "Andy was his own worst enemy on court" then there is probably general agreement.

Julius you do not produce that type of behaviour on court and then suddenly become a passive, take life on the chin placid person  off court I dont believe it for a minute. You cannot be dedicated if you do not have the ability to discipline yourself. . He needed someone like Lendl.
Lendl is not there to teach Murray how to play tennis .. Andy is more than capable of that as we know. He is there to improve Andy´s  mental strength, his consistency, and dedication. (which in Lendl´s case is a strict regime regarding practice and self-discipline) Instilled in him by his own tennis parents
Breaking away from his mother was the best thing that Andy could do..exactly what Lendl himself had to to in order to improve.  His mother too was a tennis player who never managed to fulfil her potential.. Because Ivan came along too soon.
Did you know she would go to tennis practice and chain her baby son Ivan to the net post !!!!

I will finish by saying that I think Andy has made a wise choice in Lendl and I think there is a mutal bond and respect between them. I have hopes that Andy has learned and is still learning from Lendl who was a great player and is obviously going to be a great coach.  Wish it could have happened sooner.
Lets face it Uncle Toni isn´t there to teach Rafa how to play tennis anymore.. he is the disciplinarian in Rafa´s camp and all sportsmen need that.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Julius you do not produce that type of behaviour on court and then suddenly become a passive, take life on the chin placid person  off court  I dont believe it for a minute.  You cannot be dedicated if you do not have the ability to discipline yourself. . He needed someone like Lendl.
Lendl is not there to teach Murray how to play tennis .. Andy  is more than capable of that as we know. He is there to improve Andy´s  mental strength, his consistency, and dedication. (which in Lendl´s case is a strict regime regarding practice and self-discipline) Instilled in him by his own tennis parents
Breaking away from his mother was the best thing that Andy could do..exactly what Lendl himself had to to in order to improve.  His mother too was a tennis player who never managed to fulfil her potential.. Because Ivan came along too soon.
Did you know she would go to tennis practice and chain her baby son Ivan to the net post !!!!

I will finish by saying that I think Andy has made a wise choice in Lendl and I think there is a mutal bond and respect between them. I have hopes that Andy has learned and is still learning from Lendl who was a great player and is obviously going to be a great coach.  Wish it could have happened sooner.
Lets face it Uncle Toni isn´t there to teach Rafa how to play tennis anymore.. he is the disciplinarian in Rafa´s camp and all sportsmen need that.

yes you can. I am one of the most laid back peeps in the real world, but when it comes to competitive sport, I tend to be a different animal entirely - and am ultra competitive and could be a little grump (with myself) when things do not go well (I smashed the ground a few times)

So your whole premise is flawed

Here's some ROn Burgundy to calm things down here!
https://www.youtube.com/user/dodge

Haddie-nuff wrote:Julius you do not produce that type of behaviour on court and then suddenly become a passive, take life on the chin placid person  off court  I dont believe it for a minute.

I fundamentally disagree with you on that point. Murray is far from the first sportsman to have totally different match-play 'persona' when compared to how they behave off court. Match-play is a unique situation. Rafa is 'a beast' on court that his mother doesn't recognise - should I assume he is also a beast off court simply because "you do not produce that type of behaviour on court and then suddenly become a passive, take life on the chin placid person off court"? By your logic, that's what we should do.

There is a huge difference between mental discipline and immaturity. As I said, Henman never had mental discipline, nor IMHO does Ferrer, but I wouldn't call them immature, spoilt or indulged. Would you?

OK Julius if you wish to continue on this line then do so .. Im not waiving the white flag because I know it is your habit to be deliberately obtuse with me.. I definitely get right up your nose don´t I..????. but for me  there is just a teeny weeny bit of satisfaction in that:     

But just one thing when you have finished chewing on that particular bone would you mind tossing it to my dog.   Feliz Navidad !!!

Of course Andy was his own worst enemy on court Hn, I agree. But that does not mean he is a spoilt brat or lacks dedication to tennis. Mentally flawed yes but none of the other traits.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

Calder106 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
He is not debonair or multi-lingual as Fed is, nor does he have his effortless charm.



He does not have Rafa's good looks and smile.

Do you think being "debonair" or multi-lingual or being good looking or having a nice smile is what makes Federer and Nadal popular? Do you think people are that shallow? Nonsense! They are amazing tennis players but in addition to that they have charm but charm isn't effortless. They put a lot of effort into charming their audience and people generally want to be charmed. Their effort is appreciated. How much effort does Murray put in to be charming? By this I don't mean being false or fooling around but putting effort into doing things like attend an award ceremony that was centered on him. Pro tennis isn't just about training and hitting balls. Without an audience it wouldn't exist.

Tennis would be a difficult sell if future players adopted Murray's attitude rather than Federer and Nadal's.

Interesting comment but the reason why Murray was in the position to win SPOTY was due to the fact that he realised quite early in his career that pro tennis was actually 'about training and hitting balls' if he wanted to get to the higher levels. He knows that a pro tennis career is limited in timescale and has commited himself to making as good a fist of it as he can. As he implied in his interview he would much rather spend Christmas with family and friends but knows he has to make these sacrifices. In an interview done after SPOTY but was on tv next morning he was asked if he would be celebrating his win that night. His answer was unfortunately not as he had a session in the gym on his schedule.

He doesn't have the charisma of Federer. However he does show a good example in that to suceed in pro sport you don't just need talent. You also need hard work and total commitment.

 

 

That too is an interesting comment though I find it hard to agree with it.. if it is NOW that Murray has decided to be more committed its only since he has had Lendl as his coach.. (the man stands for no nonensense). The bottom line is that Murray has ONLY JUST grown up. Nadal/Federer/Djokovic have always been more mature than Murray. Lendl kicked the little boy up the backside and made a man of him

I'll take this back to where you came into this thread as it was in response to my post. I see things have mushroomed a bit since then. I just cannot agree that Murray 'suddenly decided to be more committed' when Lendl became his coach. The commitment was always there IMO but I agree that what people have called maturity wasn't. I would actually call it bloody mindedness (if I can use that word on here). When he split with Miles MacLagan I think that relationship had taken him as far as it could as proved by the fact that even without a coach he could still reach the sharp end of the big tournaments. But he wasn't winning them and realised that to have a better chance if he employed a coach who had experience of winning slams. As far as I remember it was Murray who approached Lendl. Lendl's appointment was questioned by some on here but proved to be the correct decision. As you say having a very strong character who he obviously has respect for was the missing piece in the jigsaw. I had said similar to that in posts after his S/F loss to Nadal at Wimbledon in 2011. I also felt he used up too much negative energy on court. So like most Murray supporters I've never thought he was perfect. However I have never questioned his commitment.

Anyway the point I was trying to make was that IMO 'training and hitting balls' especailly when coming back from injury are much more important than being physically present for SPOTY. Which may seems contradictory as I quite like watching SPOTY.

Haddie-nuff wrote:OK Julius if you wish to continue on this line then do so .. Im not waiving the white flag because I know it is your habit to be deliberately obtuse with me.. I definitely get right up your nose don´t I..????. but for me  there is just a teeny weeny bit of satisfaction in that:     

But just one thing when you have finished chewing on that particular bone would you mind tossing it to my dog.   Feliz Navidad !!!

If you were right, you'd get up my nose. Because you're wrong, you don't

Why would I expect you to wave the white flag? You express your opinion, I express mine - surely there's no issue with that?

I haven't been obtuse in any way - I think I've stated my case very clearly in fact. I'm happy to clarify any points which you felt were obtuse.

Interesting though that you get satisfaction when you feel you've upset someone, though I think the wink emoticon indicates a tongue-in-cheek moment there

Julius. I presume I've earned a little commission for generating all this extra traffic here on 606v2. A cheque will do nicely 

hawkeye wrote:Julius. I presume I've earned a little commission for generating all this extra traffic here on 606v2. A cheque will do nicely 

I'll take you to the ITF world champions dinner. We can wear wigs and dance with the kiddies.

Just give up HE. This thread is an embarrassment. We all know why you have wheeled out your usual vitriol. Because Andy has won SPOTY by a landslide, which doesn't, of course, conform to your views. The general public clearly have a lot to learn!

For someone who, presumably, knows absolutely nothing about what it's really like to be a top level tennis player, your endless determination to pass judgement on the conduct of certain players is, frankly, astonishing.

We all know that Andy isn't as great a player as Roger or Rafa, nor is he as charismatic or 'media-friendly'. We also know that he isn't to your taste. Can't we just leave it at that?

As far as I know there's nothing in the rules that says you have to be there in person to win the award.

^ no there isn't. And whilst it might have been nice to receive the pat on the back, would it have been worth the long flights, the days of missed training, and the potential aggravation it may have caused to his post surgery back? No of course not.

He made the right choice. Tennis and his recovery from surgery comes first.

hawkeye wrote:YvonneT.  I don't believe for a minute that returning to the UK to pick up this award would affect his training (see Henman Bills post) but doing so would have been in his best long term interest.

I seem to remember many sportsmen and women not turning up to receive the award due to training or competition constraints. No-one moaned at them about it, in fact just the opposite.

I suspect the ABE brigade have sharpened their pencils because Murray has superseded all their slings and arrows with top results and a huge sympathetic public following.

Its sad to see such pathetic life forms dredging the barrel for motes of comfort, feeding off specks of detritus to sate their hunger.

Give it up, its a lost cause.