Murray: under appreciated or overrated?

I would say overrated    

But what do other members of 606v2 think?

Under appreciated for a number of reasons:-

Many 'Brits' (non-tennis fans) resent him for tongue in cheek remarks made in jest. They don't realise he has done something no British man has for 70-odd years.

May not be in the class of your Nadals and Federers but he brings his own unique qualities such as volatility, unpredictability and passion to court.

One of only ten players ever (I do believe) to have reached at least the semis of each slam twice.

Also one of a few to reach semis or better in each slam in a calendar year.

He's absolutely not underrated.

He's an exceptional player, who before his back surgery showed incredible consistency across the tour, with the exception of the clay season.
When he was younger he showed his great potential by troubling both Federer and Nadal, and as he got older his game got better and better.
There was a period where he was reaching the latter stages of nearly every Grand Slam, only to be denied by the All Time Greats such as Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic. His game was complete- his baseline play was stupendous and his return of serve was right up there. His second serve was an issue, but his main problem was mentally believing in himself when he got to the biggest stage.
That's where Lendl came in and helped Murray, which fired him to 2 Slams including his lifelong goal of being the first Brit to win Wimbledon in decades.
His defeats between 2010 and 2013, in these 4 years the only players in the hard court and grass Slams he lost to were: Nadal (3), Djokovic (3), Federer (2), Wawrinka (2). Not easy matches.

So not really overrated, obviously there are a few people who particularly dislike him who tend to underrate him (many of those because of his Scottish background).

In an era of Federer Nadal and Djokovic hes been resilient enough to win 2 slams. Despite that he gets practically no respect from any corner thats not British. He is criminally underrated, people always compare him to the big 3, which is grossly unfair. Hes not as good as they are, but he is without doubt the most dangerous opponent to any of them on tour. Easily one of the best players weve ever had post agassi era

Good to see you back on subject HE. Merry Christmas. In answer to the question I would say if you are talking about at present I would that his appreciation and rating levels are just about right. At other stages in his career I feel he was under appreciated/rated by some including yourself. Conversely there have been times when he was playing well that the potential appeared to be there for him to do even better than he has up to date. Therefore you could say these expectations have turned out to be overrated.
He has 2 slams, a good number of Masters, an Olympic Gold and was a top 4 player for around 5 years almost continuously so I suppose the question is what are the criteria a player has to meet before a person can judge if if he/she is over or under rated.

temporary21 wrote:In an era of Federer Nadal and Djokovic hes been resilient enough to win 2 slams. Despite that he gets practically no respect from any corner thats not British. He is criminally underrated, people always compare him to the big 3, which is grossly unfair. Hes not as good as they are, but he is without doubt the most dangerous opponent to any of them on tour. Easily one of the best players weve ever had post agassi era

I have to agree with that in part at least. He has been and I feel still can be a threat to all the top players.When he is on form he has the ability to beat any one of them. Nadal has been quoted as saying that Andy is a dangerous opponent.
I will reiterate my ongoing criticism of Andy .. get it together mentally Andy and the physical aspect of your game will follow.
He has the talent but falls short in this regard. So it leaves me saying he is neither

I would say he has been appreciated about right. For many years before 2014 he was considered one of 4 men who can realistically win every slam he entered. Well, 3 of them per year anyway. That's some statement of his ability.

He should be more decorated than he is in my opinion. With a few better strategic choices he could have 5+ slams in my opinion. But then as someone points out above, he's not quite the mental giant the other 3 are.

He's the best these isles have had in many generations though, and boy oh boy will we miss him when he's gone.

A more interesting question (following on from Danny's post) is whether he has over-achieved or under-achieved. I fall firmly in the camp that he has underachieved, given his talent levels. Danny's 5+ slams is conservative given that Novak, with in my view less natural ability, already has 7.

Born Slippy wrote:5+ slams is conservative given that Novak, with in my view less natural ability, already has 7.

The oft-referenced natural ability is overstated in my view.

He has good hands and a good "feel" for the ball that makes him a more capable player around the net than Novak and a better user and player of slice.

But his second serve has always been dire and, for large chunks of his career, his forehand has also been a liability too. Even nowadays, I still think his forehand is not what it should be. He's very hesitant about going down the line with it, for instance.

I'm not sure why he gets a free pass on these weaknesses in fundamental skills when people laud his natural ability over a player as talented as Novak.

In response to the OP, I think Andy is probably only now getting the respect he deserves. He's been a brilliant player for a long time but I think many people have been put off by his rather bad tempered manner on court.

I also think he has been very over-hyped by the BBC which has probably put people off too (I've found it very irritating at times).

I think the balance is probably about right now. I get the sense that most people recognise that he may be a shade behind the very best but he's still one of the best sportsmen this country has produced in a long time. Which British sportsperson, in a proper sport (sorry, Phil Taylor!), has had the same level of success i.e. top handful in the world, winning some of the biggest events for as long as Andy has?

I'd say he's every bit the equal of "national treasures" such as Kelly Holmes and Bradley Wiggins but he's had to wait much longer for the respect.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Under appreciated for a number of reasons:-

Many 'Brits' (non-tennis fans) resent him for tongue in cheek remarks made in jest. They don't realise he has done something no British man has for 70-odd years.

May not be in the class of your Nadals and Federers but he brings his own unique qualities such as volatility, unpredictability and passion to court.

One of only ten players ever (I do believe) to have reached at least the semis of each slam twice.

Also one of a few to reach semis or better in each slam in a calendar year.

I wasn't referring to Murray's personality but to his ability as a tennis player.

I actually agree with the rest of your comment but the reason why I believe Murray is overrated is because unlike you he has been hyped as being in the class of Nadal and Federer. He has also been hyped as being in the same class as Djokovic and I believe that is also evidence of him being overrated. We have been told he is more talented than Federer, has more tactical skill than Nadal and has a better backhand than Djokovic. We have been told he is the real number one, has figured Nadal out on clay and that Federer will never beat him again. Commentators repeatedly make him a favorite at slams whatever his form leading up to them. Unlike Federer, Nadal and Djokovic after poor results he is more likely to be given a pass. There is an elite top three but it's extended into a top four to include Murray. We hear that the "top four" have won between them "x" many slams hiding the fact that Murray's contribution is two. It's obvious that much of the over rating is a sort of wishful thinking because he is British and a British champion has the potential to be worth more than a champion from other countries.

Born Slippy wrote:Danny's 5+ slams is conservative given that Novak, with in my view less natural ability, already has 7.

This is IMO an example of Murray being overrated.

Not just compared to Djokovic but compared to many players in the top 100. Murray has an unpredictable first serve (low percentage), poor second serve, poor forehand and very predictable patterns of play ie he rarely goes down the line particularly on the forehand. In fact his forehand down the line is at times completely absent from his game. IMO he has probably over achieved taking the obvious flaws in his game into account. He has been able to take advantage of some good opportunities in his career and has maximized his fitness.

He's already achieved more than what most people thought he would.

Good to see you displaying dual standards HE. A lot of what you say in your first statement makes sense although I would disagree with him being "given a pass" when he has poor results in comparison to others. Yes there has been a lot of hype but ultimately he has not reached the high levels of consistency that Federer, Nadal and since 2011 Djokovic have.

However you then add your second statement and I question who else in the top 100 other than the previously mentioned 3 have shown the results and consistency that Murray has. Yes there are flaws in his game both technically and mentally but what he brought to the court over the period 2008-2013 was easily better than any one of the other 96 during that period. Results back that up and saying that 'he took advantage of some good opportunities' doesn't really strengthen your point.

hawkeye wrote:

.........He has also been hyped as being in the same class as Djokovic and I believe that is also evidence of him being overrated. We have been told he is more talented than Federer, has more tactical skill than Nadal and has a better backhand than Djokovic. We have been told he is the real number one, has figured Nadal out on clay and that Federer will never beat him again

You somehow forgot to add (purely an oversight, I'm sure ...) that we have also been told - many, many, times - that he would never win a Slam. And then when he did win one, we were told he would never win another.

Regardless of whether Murray is 'under-appreciated' or 'overrated', I can't imagine you, hawkeye, were ever amongst those writing off his Slam prospects .....   Indeed, as a balanced & fair-minded follower of the sport, you would doubtless be more than willing to give him full credit & respect for having achieved things that countless others have attempted  -  only to fail, and be found wanting when it comes to the crunch.

I think Andy is not in the same class as Novak. Novak does not have the weaknesses that Andy has (or has had) over his career. The second serve is a weakness Novak does not have. The forehand is something which Andy has only really turned into a weapon since 2012. And mentally Novak is much tougher.

That's not to say that Andy isn't mentally tough, he has after all dealt with huge pressure from the British press and public admirably well. But those other three guys are mental giants.

There are areas you could say Andy is superior to Novak such as soft hands or imagination. But given the choice I would definitely rather have Novak's game. It's more well rounded. Less enigmatic if you like. The numbers back it up too. I would also say Novak has been better at identifying his weaknesses. And then doing something about them. His slice is a great example. Used to be comparatively poor, now it's very good.

I stand by the 5+ slams for Andy though. I think with his game those are the numbers that he should've achieved. He has so much ability. Playing to the Lendl blueprint, he became the player he threatened to be for years. 2 slams, 2 runner ups, an OG gold in the space of a year. He was a match for anyone.

I don't believe it's unreasonable to say that if he'd taken on that blueprint earlier he'd be talking 5+ slams.

It's tricky to say what slam total best matches Andy's ability.

On one hand, we might say Novak has 7 slam so 4-5 slams should have been on the cards for Andy given their respective games and abilities.

But trying to specify which tournaments Andy should have won but didn't is much harder. His first 4 slam final defeats were against Federer in good form and 2011 Novak, so he wouldn't be the favourite in those.

You can make a case that AO13 got away from him a bit. Had he converted those break points early in the 2nd set, I think Novak may have struggled to come back.

I thought he had a decent chance at Wimbledon this year but going through Djokovic and Federer in SF/F would have been tough.

So I don't actually think 2 slams is much of an underachievement. Maybe he could have won a couple more but the same could be said of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic too.

My point Murdoch is he's only been playing the right strategy to maximise his ability since that Lendl period. I guess you can exclude 2014 as we'll never know how much surgery is responsible for his struggles, but all the big match defeats previous to Lendl were verging on surrenders.

That's not to say all those semis and finals would automatically have been victories had he attacked, but in the one period he did play more in the front foot he got pretty good results against the big boys.

For me, definitely more than 2 but less than Novak is where he should be. I feel he'll probably finish with 2 now, and that's under his level. Not too shabby though, of course.

On pure tennis talent Andy is right up there as one of the very best. However, between the ears, in the mental department, he lags behind others and that is, along with a woeful second serve, his Achilles heel. The mental strengths count for plenty in any sport and at times this has let Andy down be it lack of self-belief, lack of confidence or lack of concentration. It happens much more with him than it does with any of the top three hence his much lower slam count.

I say he is appreciated about right (at least here in the US). He is viewed as a guy who is right up there and can threaten at every slam but at the same time is some distance behind Nole, and great distance behind Fed and Rafa. And that sounds just about right to me.

In terms of slam count I think two is also just about right. Three, or even four, would not have been too crazy either but anything more and he would have been punching above his weight.

One thing I do think does him a bit of injustice is the 7-2 slam comparison vs Nole. I think Nole is clearly the better player but maybe something like 6-3, or maybe even 5-3, would feel more appropriate.

But I think that is more about Nole overachieving than Andy underachieving and I think it may be to some extent caused by current tennis conditions. Increased uniformity leads to fewer upsets. This helps the very best players - such as Nole - win more slams. It also makes it harder for the players down the rankings - such as Tsongas or Berdych - to win anything. But I think Andy is somewhere in the middle where his slam count is not impacted so much.

He is overrated as a Man, he is just a spoiled boy, lacking any manly b@lls.

He is underrated as a player, but thats as a result of no b@lls.

Lendl made him a man and a player for some time, but once he went away, Andy got back under his umbrella with 3 ladies around him.

Now he's got some silly shirt sponsor selling it to us as his way of helping small brands, while Adidas told him since summer, they dont like to support no b@lls players any more.

Be gentle now , way too much b@lls in this comnent

^ Adidas dropped Djokovic in 2009 or 2010 for Murray. Maybe they under-appreciated Djokovic and overrated Murray?

HM Murdoch wrote:It's tricky to say what slam total best matches Andy's ability.

On one hand, we might say Novak has 7 slam so 4-5 slams should have been on the cards for Andy given their respective games and abilities.

But trying to specify which tournaments Andy should have won but didn't is much harder. His first 4 slam final defeats were against Federer in good form and 2011 Novak, so he wouldn't be the favourite in those.

You can make a case that AO13 got away from him a bit. Had he converted those break points early in the 2nd set, I think Novak may have struggled to come back.

I thought he had a decent chance at Wimbledon this year but going through Djokovic and Federer in SF/F would have been tough.

So I don't actually think 2 slams is much of an underachievement. Maybe he could have won a couple more but the same could be said of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic too.

Wimbledon 09, 10, 11 and 12 could easily have all been his had he had the mental steel of the other 3. There is no doubt that Novak is now a better player than Andy but he has done so with less original tools at his disposal. The fact that Andy still has a woeful 2nd serve is fairly laughable and clearly it is not an issue he should have been unable to resolve due to any lack of talent.

Murray has had a great career and to even be competing with three ATGs is phenomenal but he could have been so much more.

Jahu wrote:He is overrated as a Man, he is just a spoiled boy, lacking any manly b@lls.

He is underrated as a player, but thats as a result of no b@lls.

Lendl made him a man and a player for some time, but once he went away, Andy got back under his umbrella with 3 ladies around him.

Now he's got some silly shirt sponsor selling it to us as his way of helping small brands, while Adidas told him since summer, they dont like to support no b@lls players any more.

Be gentle now , way too much b@lls in this comnent  

Im not convinced you "appreciate" any player do you Jahu.? I take it you do like watching tennis ?

Wait for our date, I will lay it all for you (poking me again I see    )

Sure I do appreciate players.

But players personality goes together with his sports results, so I will not like a player just cause he plays great, but is a bit of sour person for my taste.

Not talking about Andy here as I like him, but he should grow a pair too.

Maybe his new wife will man him up a little

Hmmm grow a pair?

Err have you followed his career at all? He lost four slam finals on the bounce but was not put off and crushed and kept coming back for more and cracked it - that takes balls. Just like he has won matches from impossible positions such as V Gasquet at Wimbledon from two sets down and at the French Open when hampered by a back injury he came back from two sets down to win fighting through the pain barrier - again that takes balls so please stop spouting nonsense eh? Balls Andy has in abundance but mental strength is his weak point not courage or guts.

CC, no one that has balls has mental weakness, because the mental weakness gets compensated by big balls.

Proven medical fact, just ask the ladies that complain constantly about ball-less men.

Marry xmass Mr.Scott, luv ya

Mental weakness has naff all to do with balls. Mental weakness can come in many forms such as concentration (or times when there is lack of it) or lack of believing in ones self and that isn't lack of balls. If you cannot see that it takes balls to play through the pain barrier and turn matches around from near defeat then I am at a loss. Or that having courage to put yourself up for more slam final disappointment time and time again and turn that disappointment into glory takes guts. I freely admit Murray has his weakness but having no balls is just pure nonsense and I think you know it.

How so sure? Seen them?

I edited my previous comment to express my outrage at balls

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmmm grow a pair?

Err have you followed his career at all? He lost four slam finals on the bounce but was not put off and crushed and kept coming back for more and cracked it - that takes balls. Just like he has won matches from impossible positions such as V Gasquet at Wimbledon from two sets down and at the French Open when hampered by a back injury he came back from two sets down to win fighting through the pain barrier - again that takes balls so please stop spouting nonsense eh? Balls Andy has in abundance but mental strength is his weak point not courage or guts.

I think you know what I think of Andy CC I agree with what your saying. He has had a lot to live up to. A country that expects so much of him and at times he cannot deliver. Mentally that kind of pressure must have an affect. But as you know Ive always believed Andy has the ability and talent.. IF ONLY, IF ONLY, he could get his head together. no he is not lacking in b@lls that is not his problem

Jahu wrote:How so sure? Seen them?

I edited my previous comment to express my outrage at balls

Best that you could do is just delete all of them really as there wasn't an ounce of truth in them as I would say the poll result shows.

So we are all Urologists now?

Lets not derail the thread with medical stuff.

Back to topic please

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Jahu wrote:How so sure? Seen them?

I edited my previous comment to express my outrage at balls

Best that you could do is just delete all of them really as there wasn't an ounce of truth in them as I would say the poll result shows.

Agreed, and I am proud I voted under appreciated, doing my bit for the Scotland

Jahu wrote:So we are all Urologists now?

Lets not derail the thread with medical stuff.

Back to topic please

Jeez if you honestly believe what you are saying then how come he has beaten your hero so much. That doesn't say a heck of a lot for him does it - kind of detracts from him. Anyways look at the poll result again and if you believe he lacks balls yet has won two slams well what more can I say accept for - nonsense.

Jahu wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Jahu wrote:How so sure? Seen them?

I edited my previous comment to express my outrage at balls

Best that you could do is just delete all of them really as there wasn't an ounce of truth in them as I would say the poll result shows.

Agreed, and I am proud I voted under appreciated, doing my bit for the Scotland

Hmm under-appreciated yet you say he lacks balls. I can't fathom that one out. Heck even Andy's harshest critic on here (hawkeye) hasn't (that I've seen) levied that remark at him.

Who said I belive what I wrote?

Mixing now real life stuff with Forum stuff?

You're old enough to distinguish my thoughts.

Dont be so mean to me, I love Andy I swear.

Someone save this thread quickly

Yes, but HE is female, she needs to play it nice in this Male Club

Well if you insist on posting nonsense then expect criticism - why don't you grow some??

Good evening.

Rent me yours

Are we still friends?

Jahu wrote:Who said I belive what I wrote?

Mixing now real life stuff with Forum stuff?

You're old enough to distinguish my thoughts.

Dont be so mean to me, I love Andy I swear.

Someone save this thread quickly

The only way to save this thread Jahu is to put your  brain into gear before opening your mouth. Quit whilst your ahead methinks

Hahah, its festive season, I've left my brain to recharge till after New Years eve, so do pardon my commenting till then

Its all your fault, you started me on this thread

I think it's about right. He's been fortunate to be lumped in with the top three, but as others have said, that's a double-edged sword too due to constant comparisons. Andy's been unlucky to catch three legends of the game playing at the same time, he could've won many more slams in a different age. But it is what it is...

He could've achieved more, perhaps. Of the top four, he's had by far the most volatile background when it comes to coaches and general changes in strategy throughout his career - and maybe that's held him back. We've discussed the Lendl effect plenty on these forums over the last few years! But at the same time, I honestly think that's who he is - he strikes me as someone who's bloody minded, bags of talent but perhaps just doesn't know how to utilise it all himself. It might sound odd but I don't he's as confident in himself as he sometimes appears, and that translates to his tennis. Basically, again as others have said, it's all about that mentality and the decision-making and clarity of thought that comes with it.

On second thought, I'd edge towards underrated. That being said, contrary to seemingly popular opinion, I'd rate Novak as both the better player and the (marginally) more talented, and would say that in some ways he is also underrated - despite being the #1!

Might I suggest Jahu not get plastered before commenting on

Hes a man... with a gorgeous fiance, a (now) adoring public and a list of acheivements that will outstrip anything any of us will do in our relatively pathetic existences.Spoilt would suggest hes undeserving of his acheivements... I personally cant think of anybody who deserves what hes got more than Andy.

School massacre, grew up in the dampest place on earth, takes decision to go to Spain with no experience of the country, gets knocked back time and time and time and time and time again.

Yet he still wins Wimbledon, the US and a gold singles medal, something not even Federer will ever get.

Venting his frustration aside, he's a magnificent example to others of how to overcome adversity, whether youre anti Scottish or not, and he will be missed when he retires terribly

One last thing on an actual serious note, girl or not I don't expect anyone to be treated differently because of their gender. Now then, back to the punch my fellow humanoids

temporary21 wrote:...and a list of acheivements that will outstrip anything any of us will do in our relatively pathetic existences....

I object to the relative pathetic existence of us mere mortals. We provide the yardstick by which such achievements (as Murray's) can be lauded. If every human had 2 slams, Murray's relative pathetic existence would not be a topic of such erudite discussion.

No harm intended, T2.

temporary21 wrote:

Hes a man... with a gorgeous fiance, a (now) adoring public and a list of acheivements that will outstrip anything any of us will do in our relatively pathetic existences.Spoilt would suggest hes undeserving of his acheivements... I personally cant think of anybody who deserves what hes got more than Andy.

School massacre, grew up in the dampest place on earth, takes decision to go to Spain with no experience of the country, gets knocked back time and time and time and time and time again.

Yet he still wins Wimbledon, the US and a gold singles medal, something not even Federer will ever get.

Venting his frustration aside, he's a magnificent example to others of how to overcome adversity, whether youre anti Scottish or not, and he will be missed when he retires terribly

What a load of codswallop! (to put it politely) If you feel your existence is pathetic in comparison to some over paid celebrity then you can speak for yourself but don't include others in your judgement and certainly not me. Murray had a protected and cosseted childhood compared to most in the world and the only thing that makes him stand out is his ability to hit a ball. Not so long ago if he was exceptional at tennis he may have been lucky enough to win a prize of 25 guineas and a hearty round of applause. He may be paid a lot more now but the amount of money someone may have in their bank doesn't make them a better person. Although money can buy an enviable lifestyle and can even buy the "adoration" of some. Murray is lucky that an obscure skill at this point in time is highly valued but it does not make him a better human being.

But as I have already said this article was meant to be about rating Murray as a tennis player. I believe as a tennis player he is overrated because of the numerous technical flaws in his game. For example if he can't hit a forehand down the line he doesn't have the tools to be a "tactical genius". It's remarkable the number of times when Murray's tennis is criticized the response by some is to say what a pretty girlfriend they consider he has

hawkeye wrote: For example if he can't hit a forehand down the line he doesn't have the tools to be a "tactical genius".

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1284318/Rafael-Nadal-wants-service-like-Andy-Murrays.html

There is another tactical genius who is yet to figure out how to get out of jail using his BH.

Silver wrote:I think it's about right. He's been fortunate to be lumped in with the top three, but as others have said, that's a double-edged sword too due to constant comparisons. Andy's been unlucky to catch three legends of the game playing at the same time, he could've won many more slams in a different age. But it is what it is...

He could've achieved more, perhaps. Of the top four, he's had by far the most volatile background when it comes to coaches and general changes in strategy throughout his career - and maybe that's held him back. We've discussed the Lendl effect plenty on these forums over the last few years! But at the same time, I honestly think that's who he is - he strikes me as someone who's bloody minded, bags of talent but perhaps just doesn't know how to utilise it all himself. It might sound odd but I don't he's as confident in himself as he sometimes appears, and that translates to his tennis. Basically, again as others have said, it's all about that mentality and the decision-making and clarity of thought that comes with it.

On second thought, I'd edge towards underrated. That being said, contrary to seemingly popular opinion, I'd rate Novak as both the better player and the (marginally) more talented, and would say that in some ways he is also underrated - despite being the #1!

Murray is clearly not going to go down in history as on the same level as the other 3. However, in the 2008-13 period he clearly deserved to be in the big 4. He made 7 slam finals and won 9 masters - only slightly worse than Fed's 11 finals and 7 masters. He had (off clay) a 10-8 record v Fed, an 8-6 record v Novak and a 5-7 record versus Rafa. The gap between him to the other 3 was small with the gap to the 5th best player being astronomic.

I agree he could have achieved more. Personally I think Lendl did an ok job but I feel another coach would have got a lot more out of him - Lendl clearly went for the option of simplifying his game and made him essentially a worse player but one who found it easier to play that style in big matches. The way he says he is now seeking to go with Mauresmo is what I would have liked to have seen a few years back but with a proven coach. I'm not sure now he will be able to properly execute that style as I suspect his back problems have made the problems with his serve irreversible.

Agree incidentally that Murray doesn't seem as confident as he should be. He seems to be plagued with self-doubt which the others simply aren't.

hawkeye wrote:

temporary21 wrote:

Hes a man... with a gorgeous fiance, a (now) adoring public and a list of acheivements that will outstrip anything any of us will do in our relatively pathetic existences.Spoilt would suggest hes undeserving of his acheivements... I personally cant think of anybody who deserves what hes got more than Andy.

School massacre, grew up in the dampest place on earth, takes decision to go to Spain with no experience of the country, gets knocked back time and time and time and time and time again.

Yet he still wins Wimbledon, the US and a gold singles medal, something not even Federer will ever get.

Venting his frustration aside, he's a magnificent example to others of how to overcome adversity, whether youre anti Scottish or not, and he will be missed when he retires terribly

What a load of codswallop! (to put it politely) If you feel your existence is pathetic in comparison to some over paid celebrity then you can speak for yourself but don't include others in your judgement and certainly not me. Murray had a protected and cosseted childhood compared to most in the world and the only thing that makes him stand out is his ability to hit a ball. Not so long ago if he was exceptional at tennis he may have been lucky enough to win a prize of 25 guineas and a hearty round of applause. He may be paid a lot more now but the amount of money someone may have in their bank doesn't make them a better person. Although money can buy an enviable lifestyle and can even buy the "adoration" of some. Murray is lucky that an obscure skill at this point in time is highly valued but it does not make him a better human being.

But as I have already said this article was meant to be about rating Murray as a tennis player. I believe as a tennis player he is overrated because of the numerous technical flaws in his game. For example if he can't hit a forehand down the line he doesn't have the tools to be a "tactical genius". It's remarkable the number of times when Murray's tennis is criticized the response by some is to say what a pretty girlfriend they consider he has

Still waiting for you to come up with the names of the top 100 players outside the top 3 that Murray is overrated in comparison to (as you stated in an earlier post) and then for the reasons why these players have not had a record as consistently good as Murray had between 2008 and 2013.

He's also done enormous amounts for charity and for sport on the country as a whole.  May I also ask how you think it necessary to character assassinate somebody you don't know anything about in reality? Why does convincing people that Murray is pathetic mAtter to you soo much?

I didn't intend to degrade others. The intention was to show how much he's done at his state of life.  Probably more than we have done as a counter to people calling him coddled spoilt and pathetic. Which I think. Quite frankly is codswallop. Federer had a privileged life too but he's still darn well earned what he's got

I think Murray gets a lot of criticism because he isn't as good as Fedal or Novak but when you look at all the tournaments and big tournaments he has won and the number of grandslam finals he has competed in against the competition he has faced I think he will be remembered as an all time great of the game. And lets remember the book is not closed on his accounts. I would be very surprised if he didn't add a couple of slams to his CV.