Marion Bartoli And Andy Murray Reach The Sumit At Wimbledon 2013

by hawkeye Thu 20 Mar 2014, 9:36 pm

Wimbledon 2013 marked the career high of both the men's and women's singles winners. Marion Bartoli as everyone knows followed this triumph with retirement. But what next for the winner of the men's singles? Simon Barnes from the Times speculates...

Why Andy Murray has reached the point of no return

So, Muzza dearest — is that it? Is it all over? Is your life’s work complete? I ask these questions because Andy Murray has just parted from his coach, Ivan Lendl, and that seems to me as significant as Lendl’s appointment two years earlier.

The pair should have parted on Centre Court on that unforgettable afternoon last July. Both had done what they set out to do. For Murray, Wimbledon champion, the world would never be the same again; for Lendl, the job wouldn’t be. Or the relationship.

But they have parted now and it is another sign that Murray is not the player he was last July. The prince has slain the dragon and kissed the princess; he has, it seems, no great appetite to kiss the kitchen-maids and ladies-in-waiting to add to his score. Perhaps he’s ready to live happily ever after.

Extract from The Times... Sorry no link as it's PPV.

by banbrotam Fri 21 Mar 2014, 11:32 am

Typical HE!! There's an equally as good opinion from Tony Pickard who I think knows a bit more about Tennis, who sees no issues with Andy regaining his former standard

For those who are registered, here you are

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/tennis/article4039825.ece

Didn't Rafa spend the latter part of 2009, struggling to come back from an injury? Rolling Eyes

by CaledonianCraig Fri 21 Mar 2014, 11:34 am

Just out of interest hawkeye but that Times extract you link to - does that sum up your feelings as well?

by banbrotam Fri 21 Mar 2014, 11:39 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just out of interest hawkeye but that Times extract you link to - does that sum up your feelings as well?

by AFCWomble42 Fri 21 Mar 2014, 12:25 pm

I think it's generally said that you shouldn't judge an injured player's comback until he/she has been back playing for at least as long as they were out. For Andy that would be towards the end of April slap bang in the middle of the clay season. On the basis that he hardly played on the clay last year (two matches, one win ?) and it seemed to be the surface causing his back the most problems, it probably isn't fair to make a judgement until after Wimbledon.

I am sure that Andy has many more tournament wins in him, but I am also sure that as a teenager he would have accepted a Faustian bargain: the career he's had to date including a Wimbledon win, but nothing else of note from 27 on. As a Brit, winning Wimbledon means sporting immortality for Andy.

by banbrotam Fri 21 Mar 2014, 2:19 pm

We're still waiting for HE to answer the following;-

1) As CC says - Do they agree with Simon Barnes? (his article is what she's quoted)
2) If they do, can they explain how if Rafa could do it (come back from relatively poor form after an injury) why Andy can't. Not saying that Andy will have Rafa's GMT summertime of 2010, but it surely shows that a player can come back, but sometimes it takes time

If past history is anything to go by, we'll be waiting a long time. HE doesn't like been challenged

Meantime, I need food and a good seat as this, to quote Hannibal Lecter, could be "fuun"!! Marion Bartoli And Andy Murray Reach The Sumit At Wimbledon 2013 1347041234

Marion Bartoli And Andy Murray Reach The Sumit At Wimbledon 2013 1347041234

by Born Slippy Fri 21 Mar 2014, 6:43 pm

If the quote is an accurate summary of the article (and I am sure HE wouldn't have quoted out of context) it seems a very poor piece of journalism. The article would make sense if Murray had dropped form for no reason but ascribing the poor results to the fact he has won Wimbledon and ignoring the surgery and back issues seems like lazy writing.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 22 Mar 2014, 3:01 pm

Do we take hawkeye's silence as a confirmation he/she shares the same opinion as his/her report?

by kingraf Sat 22 Mar 2014, 3:20 pm

Not all athletes are the same. Some are just born with an insatiable "worlds to conquer" mindset, while others have a definite peak they want to summit. I've never met Murray, so I personally don't know his motivation... but it's hardly an outlandish* theory to suggest a Brit who won an Olympic medal at Wimbledon, as well as the tournament proper has reached the "What now" phase.

*Of course with HE's history, I understand why this isnt even being taken seriously...

by hawkeye Sat 22 Mar 2014, 4:18 pm

kingraf. The article by Simon Barnes is perhaps not being taken seriously here because it is seen as being critical of Murray. The Barnes article has been much talked about elsewhere and other journalists have agreed with the viewpoint of Barnes. In fact some Murray fans appear to like it as it judges Murray's Wimbledon win so highly. My history (as you put it) is as far as Murray is concerned to judge what I see. Shame you don't have the same attitude when it comes to reading articles here Rolling Eyes

Why exactly do you think posting about a much discussed article by a well known and respected sports journalist shouldn't be "taken seriously"?

Sadly on 606v2 opinions have to be sugar coated otherwise a small group of very sensitive posters get upset (or as they describe get "wound up"). So sugar coated that they can't take views expressed in the main stream media. No wonder conversation is dead...

For those that are desperate for my view Very Happy

I have no idea about Murray's motivation. But from what I've seen of his play prior to his Wimbledon win and post his Wimbledon win it looks similar. So do his results. I do know he has had back surgery.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 22 Mar 2014, 4:21 pm

Just curious hawkeye as I know you don't hold the view in that report that Murray reached the top so just wondered if the rest you saw as poppycock as well.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 22 Mar 2014, 6:26 pm

hawkeye wrote:kingraf. The article by Simon Barnes is perhaps not being taken seriously here because it is seen as being critical of Murray. The Barnes article has been much talked about elsewhere and other journalists have agreed with the viewpoint of Barnes. In fact some Murray fans appear to like it as it judges Murray's Wimbledon win so highly. My history (as you put it) is as far as Murray is concerned to judge what I see. Shame you don't have the same attitude when it comes to reading articles here Why exactly do you think posting about a much discussed article by a well known and respected sports journalist shouldn't be "taken seriously"?

Sadly on 606v2 opinions have to be sugar coated otherwise a small group of very sensitive posters get upset (or as they describe get "wound up"). So sugar coated that they can't take views expressed in the main stream media. No wonder conversation is dead...

For those that are desperate for my view I have no idea about Murray's motivation. But from what I've seen of his play prior to his Wimbledon win and post his Wimbledon win it looks similar. So do his results. I do know he has had back surgery.

Opinions on 696v2 don't have to be sugar-coated HE, they just have to be posted in a non-WUM like manner. You act like a WUM and so get called a WUM and your articles get the appropriate responses. It's not hard to understand. It's nothing to do with anything being critical of Murray or anyone being sensitive. Your contributions to the forum get less mature as time goes on.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 22 Mar 2014, 6:50 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
hawkeye wrote:kingraf. The article by Simon Barnes is perhaps not being taken seriously here because it is seen as being critical of Murray. The Barnes article has been much talked about elsewhere and other journalists have agreed with the viewpoint of Barnes. In fact some Murray fans appear to like it as it judges Murray's Wimbledon win so highly. My history (as you put it) is as far as Murray is concerned to judge what I see. Shame you don't have the same attitude when it comes to reading articles here Why exactly do you think posting about a much discussed article by a well known and respected sports journalist shouldn't be "taken seriously"?

Sadly on 606v2 opinions have to be sugar coated otherwise a small group of very sensitive posters get upset (or as they describe get "wound up"). So sugar coated that they can't take views expressed in the main stream media. No wonder conversation is dead...

For those that are desperate for my view I have no idea about Murray's motivation. But from what I've seen of his play prior to his Wimbledon win and post his Wimbledon win it looks similar. So do his results. I do know he has had back surgery.

Opinions on 696v2 don't have to be sugar-coated HE, they just have to be posted in a non-WUM like manner. You act like a WUM and so get called a WUM and your articles get the appropriate responses. It's not hard to understand. It's nothing to do with anything being critical of Murray or anyone being sensitive. Your contributions to the forum get less mature as time goes on.

And just to add JHM I know I can say I am not all for sugar-coating comments. There are many times on here when I have openly been critical of Murray. Just because I like to see him win does not stop me from handing out criticism of him. Look at the posts from Indian Wells where I have been honest and prior to that I was questioning his motivations now.

by Calder106 Sat 22 Mar 2014, 6:52 pm

I actually think that for a 'well known and respected journalist' it is a pretty poor article that does not deserve to be taken seriously. If I was paying for The Times ppv I would a bit disappointed in the standard of it.

Of course he is entitled to an opinion but if that is all the article really says it is no more than others have correctly asked but in a more sensible way. Anyway the gist of it seems to be that having achieved a lifetime goal in winning Wimbledon Murray may now be happy to cruise along and if anything else comes his way that's fine.

I think, however, that if what we read elsewhere is correct that is not the case. He is going through a bit of a low spell in his confidence at present (fact as he admitted it himself). He was looking to Lendl to up his commitment presumably to help get back on track and start challenging at the top again. Lendl was not able to give that commitment. Therefore they split. Doesn't sound to me like what Murray was asking for indicates that he is 'ready to live happily ever after'

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 22 Mar 2014, 7:03 pm

Calder, do we need to read elsewhere? HE always reads through every Murray-related article in all the papers and picks out the one that is worth passing on to us. It's the article every other journalist is talking about and wishes they had written. Smile

by CaledonianCraig Sat 22 Mar 2014, 7:07 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Calder, do we need to read elsewhere? HE always reads through every Murray-related article in all the papers and picks out the one that is worth passing on to us. It's the article every other journalist is talking about and wishes they had written.

The whole point is...who cares what this journalist thinks? Hawkeye is here to voice her opinion so lets hear it instead of trying to be the voice of the newspapers (and only then when said reports suit her agenda). Just say what you think Hawkeye instead of trying to talk through newspaper reports.

by hawkeye Sat 22 Mar 2014, 9:37 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Calder, do we need to read elsewhere?

No you would be safer not to venture outside. Best stay nice and safe here as there are people out there that might say things that you don't agree with (including well respected sporting journalists) If the outside dares to step in just gang together and call them names. They will soon go away. After all it's worked in the past. Only the die hard Murray fans remain Zzzzzz...

by CaledonianCraig Sat 22 Mar 2014, 9:50 pm

Sorry hawkeye but you are missing a valid point I made. Quit hiding behind newspaper reports and just post your opinion - plain and simple. You are not the voice of The Times newspaper and if they wanted their views known here they'd send on their own poster. People here are here to post THEIR opinion but on this subject and many others you mask your views in newspaper reports. Just speak your mind - it is what you are here for and not to sell copies of The Times newspaper.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 22 Mar 2014, 10:00 pm

HE doesn't miss points, she just ignores them. He has no desire for a sensible debate, or to address points that other posters make. Everyone here is happy to discuss anyone/everyone else's opinions, even when they don't agree with our own. But when they are presented in a WUM-like and childish manner, then yes, we do wish those posters would go away.

by Calder106 Sat 22 Mar 2014, 10:14 pm

hawkeye wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Calder, do we need to read elsewhere?

No you would be safer not to venture outside. Best stay nice and safe here as there are people out there that might say things that you don't agree with (including well respected sporting journalists) If the outside dares to step in just gang together and call them names. They will soon go away. After all it's worked in the past. Only the die hard Murray fans remain Zzzzzz...

Well I thought I gave a fair answer as in. a) I thought the article was of poor standard for such a 'well respected sporting journalist' and b) I thought the suggestion of him 'living happily ever after' was incorrect and gave my reason for this.

If you wish to discuss my answers lets do so.

by hawkeye Sat 22 Mar 2014, 10:58 pm

Caladonian Craig.

I just told you my views a few posts back. If you want I will clarify. IMO Murray's game was the same before Wimbledon as after. To win Wimbledon his game was also the same. He won because he was in the right place at the right time and benefited from huge home support, favorable scheduling and a draw that opened up for him like the parting of the waters. I'm sure you know my opinion about Djokovic and the holy grail too? Smile

Whether winning affected his motivation or not I have no idea. I certainly am not alone in these views and there is enough evidence to suggest that I may be correct. Certainly it is a valid enough point of view for what supposedly is a general tennis discussion site. T

For your information I don't mask my views by linking articles that I find interesting. I do so because I find them interesting. I sometimes agree with them and sometimes don't. But I'm grown up enough not to cry if I see an opinion I don't agree with and definitely am not rude enough to call people names even if I disagree with them.

I don't think 606v2 is a general tennis discussion site any longer. It has become a Murray fan site. Posters that are not Murray fans have all left. No wonder. Even the moderator tells people to shut up (and go away) if they have an opinion they don't agree with censored

If Simon Barnes wanted to discuss tennis here presumably he would be told to shut up and go away too.

Calder.

I thought it was a very good article and the speculation was valid. In some way's I can see a parallel between Bartoli's win at Wimbledon and Murray's (Hence my title) For both it was a peak in terms of achievement and for both based on past performance it would be difficult to top. Bartoli decided to retire because of this. You, me or Simon Barnes can only speculate how Murray's win may affect his motivation but Bartoli's decision demonstrates that for some athletes it destroys it. Barnes voiced his opinion well. At least as well as those that speculate that a big win may lead to more big wins.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 22 Mar 2014, 11:08 pm

hawkeye wrote:Even the moderator tells people to shut up (and go away) if they have an opinion they don't agree with

That's rubbish. I don't agree with much of what, say, socal says, or some of what Born Slippy says and several others. I specifically said that I do welcome opinions that differ from my own. I don't welcome WUM-like, childish posters.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 23 Mar 2014, 12:43 am

First up hawkeye he won Wimbledon because he was the best player over the two weeks, as for the draw opening up well so what it happens to every slam winner at some point and in any case he had the world No.1 to beat in the final which he did in straight sets as for the huge home support how about the huge pressure counterbalancing that? The motivation side of things we won't know just yet as since he was hindered by a back injury that needed corrective treatment and now is feeling his way back so let's wait and see. I do wonder at times myself though.

In my opinion you cherry pick newspaper articles that you post as you agree with them and it is what you really want to say but won't do so yourself as you fear labelled a WUM. It is really ridiculous the amount of times you do this. You do not see myself doing the same to any great degree on sugarcoat ed Murray articles plucked from British sources. By the way who here has been crying about your views? Certainly not me. People have asked to hear YOUR opinion - nothing else. And please don't be silly about this being a strongly pro Murray site with suchlike moderators. If that really were the case would you still be here spouting your 500th anti Murray post after several years as a poster - they would have turfed you out long ago if there was any true bias towards you or a pro-Murray bias. I also see no one telling you to shut up even after your hundreds of anti-Murray posts so please do me a favour and leave it out.

by Calder106 Sun 23 Mar 2014, 7:42 am

We will have to agree to disagree on the quality of thd article Hawkeye. Tbe style it was written in would not encourage me to read the full transcript. Therefore any sensible point would be lost.
Of course only Murray knows how much motivation he currently has. However my point is that by looking for more time tban Lendl could commitment to shows that there is still a desire there and even tbough his game/head is not there currently he is working to rectify this.

by Born Slippy Sun 23 Mar 2014, 9:08 am

hawkeye wrote:Caladonian Craig.

I just told you my views a few posts back. If you want I will clarify. IMO Murray's game was the same before Wimbledon as after. To win Wimbledon his game was also the same. He won because he was in the right place at the right time and benefited from huge home support, favorable scheduling and a draw that opened up for him like the parting of the waters. I'm sure you know my opinion about Djokovic and the holy grail too? Whether winning affected his motivation or not I have no idea. I certainly am not alone in these views and there is enough evidence to suggest that I may be correct. Certainly it is a valid enough point of view for what supposedly is a general tennis discussion site. T

For your information I don't mask my views by linking articles that I find interesting. I do so because I find them interesting. I sometimes agree with them and sometimes don't. But I'm grown up enough not to cry if I see an opinion I don't agree with and definitely am not rude enough to call people names even if I disagree with them.

I don't think 606v2 is a general tennis discussion site any longer. It has become a Murray fan site. Posters that are not Murray fans have all left. No wonder. Even the moderator tells people to shut up (and go away) if they have an opinion they don't agree with If Simon Barnes wanted to discuss tennis here presumably he would be told to shut up and go away too.

Calder.

I thought it was a very good article and the speculation was valid. In some way's I can see a parallel between Bartoli's win at Wimbledon and Murray's (Hence my title) For both it was a peak in terms of achievement and for both based on past performance it would be difficult to top. Bartoli decided to retire because of this. You, me or Simon Barnes can only speculate how Murray's win may affect his motivation but Bartoli's decision demonstrates that for some athletes it destroys it. Barnes voiced his opinion well. At least as well as those that speculate that a big win may lead to more big wins.

Fairly bizarre analysis. Murray's record in his past three slams before Wimbledon was FINAL, WIN, FINAL. Whilst his game may have been the same as before it is clear that the level of his game was that of a slam winner. Consequently, the suggestion that he somehow only won because of circumstance is clearly ridiculous.

In contrast, Bartoli's slam results over that period were R2, QF, R3, R3. Her last (and only) slam final was 6 years before. It was a freak result that she won and understandable she felt that she could never repeat it.

The extract you quote is poor because it fails to mention the back problems Murray has had before and since the Wimbledon triumph. It may be that Barnes deals with that elsewhere in the article - does he? If not, I cannot take his view seriously.

by hawkeye Sun 23 Mar 2014, 11:24 am

Caladonian Craig. You think I'm scared to post what I think Laugh

Julius. IMO you are a "WUM like childish" moderator. Yours are the sort of posts that should be moderated. My guess is that your childish and biased wumming of 606v2 posters have caused many to leave. Julius and Mikey are one and the same and your behavior as Mikey gives away your real character and shows how you see wuming as a fun activity. You have little to say about tennis but enjoy wumming. What a joke that you are a moderator.

Born Slippy.

Yes Simon Barnes does mention the back problems. But I have a feeling that what he has to say about them will be even more unpopular here than his theory about Murray's motivation Smile

There’s the back thing, of course. Murray called his 2013 season short for an operation on his back, and was clearly struggling for rhythm and confidence — and motivation? — in the Australian Open in January when he was beaten in a nostalgic quarter-final by Roger Federer. The physical toll that elite sport makes on its greatest performers is disturbing, as Matthew Syed recently pointed out in these pages. Murray’s back is a problem all right, and I don’t envy him. But what about Rafa’s knees?

On that same trip to New York, I saw Rafael Nadal beat Novak Djokovic in the final with a performance of such extravagant physical commitment that it was as if he’d been given a single tennis match to play for his own life. Nadal has had enough pain to make any athlete retire, but he is still hard at it and if anyone beats him in Paris in June, it will be as spectacularly unexpected as a polite waiter in the same city.

If you don't like it just take Julius/Mikey's advice and don't read it Wink

or better still just call Simon Barnes (a well respected prize winning sports journalist) a childish wum because he is obviously just writing such things to make Murray fans cry.

I find this subject interesting but talking about Murray here is like trying to have an intelligent conversation on a Justin Beiber fan site... and quoting Simon Barnes gets a similar reaction to links quoting the analysis of a respected music critic Laugh

Don't worry Julius/Mikey you don't have to censored

me. Unless a few more grown ups materialize here on 606v2 I will go elsewhere for intelligent conversation Smile

by kingraf Sun 23 Mar 2014, 11:32 am

who on earth is Mikey?

by CaledonianCraig Sun 23 Mar 2014, 11:44 am

hawkeye wrote:Caladonian Craig. You think I'm scared to post what I think Julius. IMO you are a "WUM like childish" moderator. Yours are the sort of posts that should be moderated. My guess is that your childish and biased wumming of 606v2 posters have caused many to leave. Julius and Mikey are one and the same and your behavior as Mikey gives away your real character and shows how you see wuming as a fun activity. You have little to say about tennis but enjoy wumming. What a joke that you are a moderator.

Yes I do think you must be afraid or else why post coded messages dressed up in Times newspaper articles? You are bursting to say what you think of Murray but daren't say the words in my opinion, before posting. Instead you ferret around the Times newspaper archives for something you want to say and post it as someone else's view. Sorry but your tirades on mods is very odd. I will re-iterate - you have not changed in all the years you have been posting here as in well over a hundred anti-Murray posts many invented by your own bizarre imagination laced up in newspaper articles but you have never once been banned or anything really extreme so I would say that mods here have been most tolerant. As for this being Murray biased forum now I know you are joking. Federer fan base here is much greater, Nadal's fanbase has now all but disappeared and Murray fan base is just a little larger than Djokovic but we can all be critical of Murray at times but if anyone dares to mention time violations in accordance with Nadal it is you who throws hissy fits.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 23 Mar 2014, 11:52 am

HE, you may find intelligent conversation elsewhere, but you seem unable to provide any here.
I have not had any people PM me to tell me they are leaving due to my moderation, but I have had people PM me to tell me your wumming has driven them away. Not Murray fans, by the way, just general tennis fans, who prefer intelligent posts, not the immature approach you frequently take. Sorry if the truth is hard to take but there it is.
You are the typical wum who refuses to accept that anything they do can possibly be wrong, it must always be someone else fault - the over-sensitive other posters, the over-bearing moderator etc etc. The truth is you damage the forum.
We do need more intelligent Rafa support on here - kingraf and lydian are great posters - I wish there were more like them.
What we don't need is the obsessive anti-Murray campaign (or anyone's obsessive anti-any-player campaign) that dominates your life (or at least the 606v2 part of it).

by sportslover Sun 23 Mar 2014, 12:04 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE, you may find intelligent conversation elsewhere, but you seem unable to provide any here.
I have not had any people PM me to tell me they are leaving due to my moderation, but I have had people PM me to tell me your wumming has driven them away. Not Murray fans, by the way, just general tennis fans, who prefer intelligent posts, not the immature approach you frequently take. Sorry if the truth is hard to take but there it is.
You are the typical wum who refuses to accept that anything they do can possibly be wrong, it must always be someone else fault - the over-sensitive other posters, the over-bearing moderator etc etc. The truth is you damage the forum.
We do need more intelligent Rafa support on here - kingraf and lydian are great posters - I wish there were more like them.
What we don't need is the obsessive anti-Murray campaign (or anyone's obsessive anti-any-player campaign) that dominates your life (or at least the 606v2 part of it).

If people are PMing you to say her wumming has driven them away.

I would suggest you give her a PERMANENT ban and perhaps some may return to the forum!

by Jahu Sun 23 Mar 2014, 1:22 pm

Nobody cares for Djokovic, whats going on here?

Murray is top guy. He will get more slams.

Times sucks.

by banbrotam Sun 23 Mar 2014, 3:02 pm

Calder106 wrote:I actually think that for a 'well known and respected journalist' it is a pretty poor article that does not deserve to be taken seriously

I'm surprised anyone takes Simon Barnes's articles seriously. And that's not meant as an insult to this great journalist

Barnes writes from an ironic / humourous / aesthetic / romantic view point. He's not a facts based driven journo

HE's spectacular 'own goal' here, is to ignore the far more valid articles from Tony Pickard or Neil Harmon - that were within the same paper picard

Problem is they were both sympathetic / or optimistic about Andy and as we know we can't have that Wink

by YvonneT Sun 23 Mar 2014, 3:02 pm

Winning Wimbledon may well turn out to the summit of Murray's career because it is hard to think of much he could achieve that would top it - even such lofty goals as reaching no.1 or doing the career slam (not saying these are attainable goals for him!) that would ordinarily seal a special place in history for a player would not quite have the emotions from that win last July - it was a perfect storm of player journey (all those tough losses at previous Wimbledons), atmosphere on Centre Court, public sympathy etc.

Nevertheless, I think it's a bit early to determine any lack of motivation from Murray. If he'd decided that he didn't need Lendl or it wasn't worth paying him or Lendl was walking away because he thought Murray wasn't trying then it would be a reasonable conclusion. But it seems to be that Lendl wasn't prepared to commit the time Murray wanted - he possibly felt there wasn't much more in the relationship for him any more.

As for results since Wimbledon, he's lost some matches to players he had a perfect record against and struggled against likes of Giles Simon, so that suggests that he's not playing as well as he was before (even if he was never entirely consistent in BO3 before). I think that's mostly attributable to the lay-off and reduced off-season training because of the rehab. I'm guessing that's why he wants to miss Monte Carlo and fit in a decent training block.

It is going to be tough for him for a while yet with a lower ranking meaning harder draws, so maybe if he doesn't start reaching semis and finals more often, the motivation might go completely but I think that's a while away yet.

As for Simon Barnes, if he's Chief Sports Writer, he's employed more for prose on the emotional stories behind sport rather than any form of reporting. He's speculating here - he might turn out to be right, but I don't think being Chief Sports Writer gives him any special insight into the mind of an elite athlete.

by banbrotam Sun 23 Mar 2014, 3:04 pm

There was no lack of motivation at 5-0 up in the second set of his last match, when he made an error!!

You'd have thought that he was 5-0 down, such was his annoyance with himself

The old snarling Murray was back and amen to that as it's a myth to say that this stops him winning slams

by YvonneT Sun 23 Mar 2014, 3:08 pm

One small piece of feedback to hawkeye on the article and most recent comment above (11:24 one). When lifting direct quotes from other sources into your own articles/comments, it would be preferable to mark them using either quotation marks or italics or similar to make it easier for the reader to distinguish which bits are your own comments/thoughts and which someone else's.

by Born Slippy Sun 23 Mar 2014, 3:38 pm

Simon Barnes wrote:There’s the back thing, of course. Murray called his 2013 season short for an operation on his back, and was clearly struggling for rhythm and confidence — and motivation? — in the Australian Open in January when he was beaten in a nostalgic quarter-final by Roger Federer. The physical toll that elite sport makes on its greatest performers is disturbing, as Matthew Syed recently pointed out in these pages. Murray’s back is a problem all right, and I don’t envy him. But what about Rafa’s knees?

On that same trip to New York, I saw Rafael Nadal beat Novak Djokovic in the final with a performance of such extravagant physical commitment that it was as if he’d been given a single tennis match to play for his own life. Nadal has had enough pain to make any athlete retire, but he is still hard at it and if anyone beats him in Paris in June, it will be as spectacularly unexpected as a polite waiter in the same city.

Hmm, Simon Barnes seems like the Times equivalent of Simon Reed. He is, I assume, in no better position than we are to judge the respective seriousness of Rafa and Andy's injuries. Rafa's comeback from injury (note non-surgical though) was remarkable. However, he had a full pre-season and even then came back in very carefully controlled circumstances. Murray had a limited pre-season and his comeback has followed the type of pattern most expect from a player who has been out through surgery.

All the indications are that the fire still burns brightly for Murray. He is just, as most people expected, struggling slightly on his return from injury.

by banbrotam Sun 23 Mar 2014, 3:57 pm

Born Slippy wrote:Hmm, Simon Barnes seems like the Times equivalent of Simon Reed

Poor Barnes - getting compared with Reed

In fairness he's not a specialist journo (like Reed is supposed to be) and hence will often write stuff that is frankly bonkers but a great read (not "reed" Laugh

)

by hawkeye Sun 23 Mar 2014, 4:27 pm

YvonneT wrote:One small piece of feedback to hawkeye on the article and most recent comment above (11:24 one). When lifting direct quotes from other sources into your own articles/comments, it would be preferable to mark them using either quotation marks or italics or similar to make it easier for the reader to distinguish which bits are your own comments/thoughts and which someone else's.

Yes I agree. In fact when there were more people here to talk to I used to put quotes in bold to make them stand out. Nice to read your comments. You should try and get hold of the whole Barnes article if your interested. Also have just been reading some comments by Pat Cash who spoke to Lendl at various senior events prior to the split. He was suggesting that Lendl wasn't happy about one or two things before the split but didn't say what they were.

by hawkeye Sun 23 Mar 2014, 4:28 pm

kingraf wrote:who on earth is Mikey?

I thought everyone knew? Mikey or "mikeyM1000" to give the full name is Julius's alter ego or maybe one of them who knows. Julius posts under this name on another forum. Nothing wrong with that of course but he did this as a "personal internet experiment" to mess around with posters there. Basically deliberately posting WUM comments to as he explained spice things up for them.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 23 Mar 2014, 4:36 pm

hawkeye wrote:
kingraf wrote:who on earth is Mikey?

I thought everyone knew? Mikey or "mikeyM1000" to give the full name is Julius's alter ego or maybe one of them who knows.

I'm also hawkeye.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 23 Mar 2014, 5:14 pm

hawkeye wrote:

Also have just been reading some comments by Pat Cash who spoke to Lendl at various senior events prior to the split. He was suggesting that Lendl wasn't happy about one or two things before the split but didn't say what they were.

Tosh and nonsense. Lendl is no longer Andy's coach but is still in his box cheering him on today in Miami.

by Danny_1982 Sun 23 Mar 2014, 6:09 pm

HE - can you provide a link to the Pat Cash comments? I'd like to read them for myself.

As for W13 bring the peak of Murray's career... As Yvonne says earlier, even if he wins another 6 slams nothing will compare to last summer. A British man won Wimbledon, after 77 years. And it was him. After the tears and despair of 12 months earlier, he did it. And he did it beating the world number 1 in straight sets! How could anything top that?

And frankly any journalist can guess that Murray's motivation has gone or his best days are behind him, but they don't know. None of us do. Time will tell us that. Nothing else.

by Silver Sun 23 Mar 2014, 7:46 pm

It's so hard to maintain motivation at the top of the sport - any sport. That's why there are so few all-time greats! As Danny says, only time will tell how the recent success will affect Murray, but I think the signs are good. It's incredibly hard when you have such talent at the top of the ATP right now, winning anything is difficult.

hawkeye wrote:Caladonian Craig. You think I'm scared to post what I think Julius. IMO you are a "WUM like childish" moderator. Yours are the sort of posts that should be moderated. My guess is that your childish and biased wumming of 606v2 posters have caused many to leave. Julius and Mikey are one and the same and your behavior as Mikey gives away your real character and shows how you see wuming as a fun activity. You have little to say about tennis but enjoy wumming. What a joke that you are a moderator.

And yet Julius has the support of virtually everyone on here. He's a good mod. You, on the other hand...well, I don't see people queuing up to defend you.

A 'Murray fansite'? No, we just prefer it if people don't relentlessly lampoon and belittle one specific player in nearly every post that they make. It's sad, and quite honestly, very dull at this point. The negative reaction to you would be the same if it were any other player.

by Born Slippy Sun 23 Mar 2014, 9:13 pm

Just a question for HE. Where would you rank Murray in the greatest players of all time? In 2012 the Tennis Channel had Lleyton Hewitt at number 63 (combined men and women). Would you say Murray (with the same number of slams, more slam finals and 9 masters to 2) should be higher or lower? Even if lower than Hewitt, presumably you would agree he is one of the best 100 players of all time?

by kingraf Sun 23 Mar 2014, 9:20 pm

I'd have Murray quite highly, to perfectly honest - Possibly top 25 males... The longevity (of his success) puts him above the likes of Hewitt, and Safin, although I'd say never reaching #1 is a bigger hindrance than most would want to agree with.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 23 Mar 2014, 9:40 pm

Better than Willie Renshaw? Smile

by Born Slippy Sun 23 Mar 2014, 9:44 pm

Tennis Channel had Willie Renshaw at no 76. Seems fair enough. He probably wasn't as good as Hewitt.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 23 Mar 2014, 9:52 pm

Don't know how it's possible to compare.

by summerblues Sun 23 Mar 2014, 10:54 pm

kingraf wrote:I'd have Murray quite highly, to perfectly honest - Possibly top 25 males... The longevity (of his success) puts him above the likes of Hewitt, and Safin, although I'd say never reaching #1 is a bigger hindrance than most would want to agree with.

Yes, I see the comparison vs Hewitt similarly. All in all, I would probably rate Andy above Hewitt. I would probably have Hewitt's best above Andy's best but Andy's longevity would be enough to tilt it in his favor. I also agree that not having reached #1 (so far) is a fairly big negative.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 23 Mar 2014, 11:27 pm

Hewitt was not only no 1, he was no 1 for 75 weeks - the tenth highest total in the open era. Andy has been no. 2 for about 20 weeks in total. Got to rate Hewitt higher imo.

by Sponsored content