Marion Bartoli And Andy Murray Reach The Sumit At Wimbledon 2013

First topic message reminder :

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.

I've been to Scottsdale! Didn't see any tennis courts there though, they'd probably melted into tar.

Despite being an admirer of Hewitt and having knocked Murray's depressing lack of variety in recent years, I agree with socal. Murray is close enough in statistical terms to be given the nod anyway, and when you factor in the competition that he's had to deal with in order to get those titles, I think it puts Hewitt's injuries and weeks at #1 in the shade. Murray's slam finals: lost to Federer, lost to Federer, lost to Djokovic, lost to Federer, d. Djokovic, lost to Djokovic, d. Djokovic. Hardly the easiest opponents to manage! Add in the masters titles, the H2H records against certain players, and his general weight of play...he is clearly ahead in my eyes.

But Hewitt is and was an excellent player who sometimes doesn't get the credit he deserves. And as one of the foremost forerunners to the current trend of baseline play, his place in tennis history as an innovator is assured; this is also a tag that Djokovic in particular will claim in the future (offensive baseliners).

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes socal I do agree.......    
If he had more consistency in his play he'd already be up there with Novak on slam wins and looking at winning 10+ slams. Wonderful talent though he has that isn't enough to guarantee becoming one of the greats.

So when Murray wins, it's because of his superior talent, when he loses it's his inconsistency. Unlike Hewitt who won his slams and wtfs (conveniently  forgotten in this "dabate") and weeks at n.1   because of his superior consistency but couldn't achieve more for his lack of talent.

Sometimes it's fanaticism that prevents clarity of mind.

Funny, Murray dominates Hewitt in every category win percentage, wins against to 10, masters and equals Hewitt in tournie wins and and slams a little more than half way through his career. Being world number 1 in the early 2000s was like being voted the most attractive girl at fat camp. I agree Hewitt is the king of the Scottsdale open and therefore must be superior to a guy who is still in his prime and has over 200 percent more masters victories.

Silver wrote:I've been to Scottsdale! Didn't see any tennis courts there though, they'd probably melted into tar.

Despite being an admirer of Hewitt and having knocked Murray's depressing lack of variety in recent years, I agree with socal. Murray is close enough in statistical terms to be given the nod anyway, and when you factor in the competition that he's had to deal with in order to get those titles, I think it puts Hewitt's injuries and weeks at #1 in the shade. Murray's slam finals: lost to Federer, lost to Federer, lost to Djokovic, lost to Federer, d. Djokovic, lost to Djokovic, d. Djokovic. Hardly the easiest opponents to manage! Add in the masters titles, the H2H records against certain players, and his general weight of play...he is clearly ahead in my eyes.

But Hewitt is and was an excellent player who sometimes doesn't get the credit he deserves. And as one of the foremost forerunners to the current trend of baseline play, his place in tennis history as an innovator is assured; this is also a tag that Djokovic in particular will claim in the future (offensive baseliners).

Good post Silver and I agree with you. Hewitt as I have said i consider him an all time great of the game. But in no way does he compare with Murray. For some reason certain segments of this board want to put forward the belief that there are no such things as variations in the level of top flight competition in the men's game. Some of the same people have no problem pointing out how underperforming the current young players are. If you look at the number of slam finals Murray has and who he played in those slam finals then really the question almost becomes comical as to which player is better. It would be like having a debate as to which tastes better poopie or chocolate ice cream.

Look Hewitt was a great player and is a great fighter. But like you said he was basically an earlier model and Murray and the baseliners of today are an upgrade. Players came about who defended as well and hit a lot bigger, game over for Hewitt.

I do love the idea that Foggy has bigger ground shots than Murray. They may be prettier but he doesn't have anywhere near the same power. Didn't Murray hit one a year or two back at about 120 mph on his forehand?

Born Slippy wrote:I do love the idea that Foggy has bigger ground shots than Murray. They may be prettier but he doesn't have anywhere near the same power. Didn't Murray hit one a year or two back at about 120 mph on his forehand?

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wROcw-bm6Mo

Murray dosn't generate a tremendous amount of power with his ground strokes, on average. This is one of the reasons he struggles on the clay courts, where you have to generate your own pace to produce winners. It doesn't mean he's worse or better of others for this specific reason alone. He's essentially a defensive player ( counter-puncher nowadays) and it's only natural that his strenghts lie elsewhere.

Born Slippy wrote:I do love the idea that Foggy has bigger ground shots than Murray. They may be prettier but he doesn't have anywhere near the same power. Didn't Murray hit one a year or two back at about 120 mph on his forehand?

Yeah that was a pretty ridiculous comparison. Foggy does not have bigger weapons than Murray. Fognini is at his most dangerous when he doesn't show up for a match.