Murray - You Won Queens, But You Won't Win Wimbledon

First topic message reminder :

Well Andy Murray just celebrated like he had won a grand slam title. SO what he wins Queens again, but the fact of the matter is he will not win Wimbledon. He will never win a Grand Slam, cos he isnt good enough.

If he plays Fed, Rafa or Novak they will destroy him.

I would take the day off Enforcer

"If Murray is in the final we might just shut the tennis page for the day"

Can you keep it shut for a day or two after as well, especially if he loses?

Camerajuan
While it's true that in any one on one contest, the unexpected is possible, it remains unlikely - I don't think may of us will be putting the mortgage on Ward reaching the 2nd week at Wimby (would be very impressed if he does so). Andy has the possibility of winning the tournament, but you wouldn't place him at higher than 3rd favourite, and with his current seeding chances are he will be against one of the top 2 seeds in the SF and either the other or Federer in the final - if he can win past those he will certainly deserve it.

Oh, and anyone saying Rafa brushed Andy aside in either the recent FO semi final or last year's Wimbledon semi obviously didn't watch the matches. In both cases it came down to a handful of points that Rafa won (check out the break points converted v opportunities especially in RG). Reverse those stats (i.e Andy winning maybe 3 break points more, Rafa 3 less) and you'd have reversed the result.

Can I ask, does anyone know if the BBC will be doing their annual 'review of wimbledon' programme? Its normally on the sunday night before wimbers begins, and is a behind the scenes look at the previous years tournament. All I can see is a 125 year programmae on BBC2 on sunday at 8pm.

Cheers

Thats true about Ward, I am an optimist but I'm not smoking anything.

Again I wouldn't put Any higher than 3rd favourite but if people like Tsonga are capable of beating the world number 1 on grass right now, Andy should be very optimistic about his chances. I can't see why anyone could say that he's definitely not going to win without being a WUM.

Superochog your post makes a lot of sense (apart from saying you support England at the Olympics when that is GB). As a Scot I also support my national team when we compete as individual nations. However when sportsmen compete under the GB banner I support them and want them to win. Olympics is a good example of that as was Tim Henman in the Tennis world. Sad to say that we do not have a lot of top class sports stars from Scotland so when they do come along we tend to get more behind them because they are Scottish. It's a sort of national pride thing. Like I suppose if someone from your home town/city was doing well you would be really behind them.

I've watched a lot of Andy Murray since he came onto the professional tour (sadly only on television up until now) and admit it's a rollercoaster of highs, lows, pleasure, frustration etc. I admit that I don't like it when he swears and moans on court because I don't think it helps him. But that's sport if everyone was the same it would be boring.

I really hope that he wins Wimbledon and I think his preparation and current confidence level will give him a chance of doing that. However apart from the big three there are a number of others out there (such as Tsonga, Soderling, Monfils) who if they play well and Murray dips in form could beat him. So it will be back on the emotional rollercoaster until it either comes off the rails or pulls serenely into the winners enclosure.

Welcome to the forum Calder106

Enjoy the debates

Thanks LK

camerajuan wrote:Thats true about Ward, I am an optimist but I'm not smoking anything.

I really hope that the draw is kind to ward, I dont want to see another british hope going out in the first round with a 'gave it my all' or 'they were better on the day' speil.

He really impressed me last week at queens, so fingers crossed that he's maybe a latebloomer!

BigSal

I agree to some extent - would be good for Ward to avoid a seed in the first round and then to be up against someone like Almagro as the first seeded player in his section i.e. a good player but one happier on clay than grass. Something like that would make the 3rd round a possibility if he can carry his Queens form, and would earn him both a good pay cheque and ranking points to move up a level in the game.

Unfortunately, the Wimbledon committee seem very honest in their draws (was it last year that Baltacha and Keothavong were against Venus in the 1st and 2nd rounds?), and so it's just as likely he'll get Federer first up - OK, so it would be on centre court, but his chances of winning and getting a few more ranking points would be very slim.

legendkillar wrote:Welcome to the forum Calder106

Enjoy the debates

If we are allowed to debate, that is....

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Welcome to the forum Calder106

Enjoy the debates

If we are allowed to debate, that is....

Be good if you could debate

There is nothing wrong with debate. Not eveyone will have the same opinions and people will perceive things differently. It is often good to see a different perspective. It's where it gets personal and not really tennis related that the line does get drawn. In Murray's case his on court behaviour and demeanour is a fair debating point. However generalising about that into his private and family life is not.

ROBBO_WONT_BE_CHAMP_AGAIN wrote:Well Andy Murray just celebrated like he had won a grand slam title. SO what he wins Queens again, but the fact of the matter is he will not win Wimbledon. He will never win a Grand Slam, cos he isnt good enough.

If he plays Fed, Rafa or Novak they will destroy him.

So What ?

They are 128 players in the draw 125 of them ranked behind the top 3. Are you going to write 125 articles telling us that they won't win either ?

dummy_half wrote:BigSal

I agree to some extent - would be good for Ward to avoid a seed in the first round and then to be up against someone like Almagro as the first seeded player in his section i.e. a good player but one happier on clay than grass. Something like that would make the 3rd round a possibility if he can carry his Queens form, and would earn him both a good pay cheque and ranking points to move up a level in the game.

Unfortunately, the Wimbledon committee seem very honest in their draws (was it last year that Baltacha and Keothavong were against Venus in the 1st and 2nd rounds?), and so it's just as likely he'll get Federer first up - OK, so it would be on centre court, but his chances of winning and getting a few more ranking points would be very slim.

Yeah thats why im hopeful rather than optimistic of a decent draw! British Mens tennis needs a welcome boost, although to be honest, I'd forefit wards decent draw for a Murray WIN!

Deleting half the things i write LK, some people have no humour about certain things.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Deleting half the things i write LK, some people have no humour about certain things.

Really? Enlighten me with these people that like your humour

I must have missed the posts you made with humour in them.

You still have a pm.

And i still don't care about the pm.

Does that count as a humourous post?

I though Andy done really well to win Queens. showed just how good he was in the semi against andy roddick. not sure that he will be able to win wimbledon though, i think he will just fall short of another grand slam opportunity

LK you need to get out more, tennis is not for you if you believe Nadal doesn't feign injury time outs.

Welcome to the forum ironclad

Enjoy the debates

ABN.

Theres an ongoing thread about murray and his chances at wimbeldon.

Do we really need another??

Yes but BigSal shouldnt we give a new forum members the benefit of the doubt in not being familiar with forum layout, etc.

BigSal, ironclad is expressing an opinion. Please can we consider debating before accusing posts of other intent?

Thanks

Josiah, you have been banned for 24 hours with immediate effect.

Apologies for not pm'ing you but you wouldn't have seen it. Please read my pm before returning after your ban, otherwise it will be made permanent.

Others, please do not discuss this any further.

I will lock this thread Enforcer to ensure nothing more is posted regarding this matter.

This can now replace the other that went so very off topic! I will leave the other locked and the debate (about Murray) can continue here.

Welcome ironclad!

legendkillar wrote:BigSal, ironclad is expressing an opinion. Please can we consider debating before accusing posts of other intent?

Thanks

No other intent given in my post, I too am a new poster

On the different formus that I post on, we are encouraged to check for relevant existing threads before starting others.

I was pointing out that there was another thread, started today, that was discussing exactly the same topic as this new thread was.

Sal, you are right about the need for checking for similar threads. It helps to keep the debate together, the mods will look to merge threads where appropriate as well to help with this.

Fair point BigSal
To be honest it did drive me up the wall on Original606 because good threads got buried under a morass of repetition.

lydian wrote:Fair point BigSal
To be honest it did drive me up the wall on Original606 because good threads got buried under a morass of repetition.

Cheers

Figured it'd be good to get into good habits this week, what with wimbers starting next monday, its gonna get busy in here!

I have merged the topics guys

ROBBO_WONT_BE_CHAMP_AGAIN wrote:Well Andy Murray just celebrated like he had won a grand slam title. SO what he wins Queens again

How would you like him to celebrate? You're criticising him for celebrating winning a tournament with passion? If he didn't you'd be criticising him for being "dour", "a miserable Scot" etc. He can't win with people like you.

ROBBO_WONT_BE_CHAMP_AGAIN wrote:but the fact of the matter is he will not win Wimbledon. He will never win a Grand Slam, cos he isnt good enough. If he plays Fed, Rafa or Novak they will destroy him.

This is all conjecture stated as fact. Stating something as fact doesn't make it so. It's possible, probable even, he won't win Wimbledon, but he's number 4 in the world and playing well so it's obvious he ought to be in the mix. It's possible he will never win a grand slam tournament, though I think it's more likely he will at some point win one.

He is good enough to win one, saying he is not good enough isn't even conjecture, it's just wrong. Of course being good enough to win a grand slam tournament doesn't mean you will, plenty of great players have failed to win a grand slam. But you can't say some one who has been to 3 grand slam finals and won 6 masters events isn't good enough to win a grand slam tournament.

That's my attempt at sensible, reasoned debate with this guy It's difficult because the OP clearly makes no attempt at genuine reasoning.

superochog wrote:Back to tennis - tennis is a very individual sports and one doesn't have to like their countryman/woman. However, like Jubbahey said it is nice to show some support. Andy is an interesting case because of few things ; firstly I know many English friends of mine gets annoyed when people carry Scottish flag during Andy's match. There is nothing wrong but to many English it sort of says "he is ours and you don't have the right to call him British". Secondly; people like my mother in law who is a neutral in tennis can't stand Andy's behaviour on court - very moddy, clumsy walks, and too much muttering and when he showed his biceps few years ago that was it for her - she dislikes him completely now.

I agree that there's no reason you should support someone just because they are the same nationality as you. Be it British, Scottish or whatever. I don't expect everyone to support Murray. I know Scottish people who don't much like Andy. However some people, like the OP, go beyond non-support, to out and out hatred and vindictiveness. It's strange. My experience from the original 606 is that generally with these people it's not just that they don't like his personality or on court behaviour, it is that this hatred is rooted in the fact that Murray is Scottish, and perceived as anti-English.

He seems to be perceived as anti-English for 2 reasons. Firstly because he is a proud Scot and used to wear Saltire sweat bands etc. in the early part of his career. This doesn't equal anti-English or anti-British. Scottish fans waving saltires at his matches doesn't equal anti-English either. You can be proud to be both Scottish and British. Just as you can be proud to be both English and British. Just as James Ward might have a large support from London who see him as one of their own. The fans waving saltires at Wimbledon are not saying "he is our and you don't have the right to call him British", or at least the majority aren't. They are just proud to support a fellow Scot. That doesn't mean they object to other British people supporting him. That doesn't mean they're saying he isn't British. I wouldn't have had a problem with people waving the St. George flag at Henman matches, Henman was English, but also British, and I always liked to see him do well.

The second reason Murray is perceived as anti-English is because of his comment in 2006 about the world cup, that he would support "whoever England are playing against". It was a joke in response to teasing from Tim Henman and Daily Mail writer Des Kelly that Scotland had failed to qualify for the world cup. It was banter. Murray took the teasing as a joke, and Henman and Kelly took Murray's retort as a joke. England and Scotland are football rivals. Murray never had anything to apologise for in this regard. Why would anyone expect Murray to say anything different?? Football rivalries don't reveal anything about non-football related feelings. Huge numbers of Man City fans for instance will delight in seeing Man Utd lose a match in Europe and then they will be out drinking and laughing with their Man Utd supporting mates the next week. Frankly given this is all well known, it tells us more about the people who still take this comment as evidence of Murray's supposed anti-Englishness. These people desperately want to believe Murray is anti-English because it gives them some justification in their anti-Scottish attitudes towards Murray.

Anyway roll on Wimbledon.

Well said Letigre.

Andy murray is scotland's second finest export, and their finest non-liquid export how can you not like the guy. He is a bit dour though on the court at least.

letigre

Would agree with you here for sure but isn't it a pity there wasn't at least one or two other British players on the regular stage to help take away all the focus on Andy from the media.

James Ward had an excellent Queens considering his ranking and who he beat but apart from a good serve he doesn't have much else in the way of "weapons", possibly a late developer?

After him who else is there? or are there up and coming players that we don't know about!

As for any tennis forum - what is usually posted, such as this article usually bears no relevance to what can actually happen in the real world, so just because you want something to happen to prove your point it doesn't always follow.

I think Ward can develop late SL. For me it would be an achievement if he broke into the top 100. I don't think anyone would expect anything more than that, if he managed that he would be overachieving. I am hoping that the LTA can give him the much needed support in terms of 'high' calibre coaching.

legendkillar wrote:I think Ward can develop late SL. For me it would be an achievement if he broke into the top 100. I don't think anyone would expect anything more than that, if he managed that he would be overachieving. I am hoping that the LTA can give him the much needed support in terms of 'high' calibre coaching.

Let's hope so legend as I am sure Ward would love to get it and Andy would also love to have another Brit on the regular tour.

An interesting statistic - Andys win at Queens against Tsonga was around his 26th win out of 28 against a French player.

Compare that with the number of French players who took part in this years FO which from memory was around 21.

So with only one player we can hold our heads up as a country when it comes to these tournaments in relation to some of the others!

Absolutely spot on letigre. Couldn't have put it better myself.

The thing about people who hate or dislike Murray is that they are the ones who make a big issue out of winning a slam. Now Andy Murray has already been to three slam finals (as near as you can get to winning one near enough) and in all three finals he lost against A. Players ranked higher than him B. Twice against a player called by many the GOAT (Roger Federer) C. Once against Djokovic who was in such a hot run of form he went unbeaten for SIX months.

Andy Murray may win a slam on the other hand he may not but I am just loving seeing him in the sports biggest tournaments now more often than not in the semis or finals. If he wins a slam it will go down as an immense achievement but if he doesn't he is already comfortably the greatest tennis player Britain has produced in the Open era and since Fred Perry. That alone is an immense achievement that the OP doesn't wish to recognise anywhere in his post.

That is a great statistic you have pulled out there SL.

I think Ward could develop, I think that is why having someone like a Murray or Henman to consult with would help immensly, because Murray could show Ward how improving fitness would help his feetwork as he does seem off balance on the run. Henman could show Ward how to maximise his potential.

legendkillar wrote:That is a great statistic you have pulled out there SL.

I think Ward could develop, I think that is why having someone like a Murray or Henman to consult with would help immensly, because Murray could show Ward how improving fitness would help his feetwork as he does seem off balance on the run. Henman could show Ward how to maximise his potential.

When it comes to Andy all the doubters throw up "he will never win a slam", now unless they have the powers of Nostradamus nobody can say yes or no.

Going back to my original statistic you could add the likes of Germany, Italy USA and to a large extent Spain (minus Rafa) along with France - how many slam winners are there in that lot not many if any, and these countries probably make up a large percentage of the ATP tour.

So really to win one takes a huge effort as has been shown over the last four/five years with only a few being the lucky ones.

So to win any ATP title from a 250 up to a Masters is an achievement and one which a high percentage of tour players may never achieve.

sportslover,

I certainly don't dispute any of that. I would love to see other top British players come through. I really don't follow the development of British tennis closely enough to know the answers. I think it's highly unlikely James Ward will become a top player at this point in his career, but if he keeps playing the way he has this year, you'd hope he might be capable of making it in to the top 100 and as Legendkillar says, that would be quite some achievement at this point. Ollie Golding? Who knows? I'm really not knowledgeable enough to assess the potential of youngsters. It's so unpredictable.

Heather Watson definitely looks promising and Laura Robson has potential. I think having a top British player on the Women's tour would certainly take some of the focus off Murray and I really liked what I saw of Heather at the FO. I'm not really sure Murray let's the weight of the British public's expectation get to him any more though. I think if expectation does get to him, then generally it's his own personal expectation.

Murray has a proven track record against decent players in slams. He invariabley loses. All of his finals have been a complete disaster and I may say he was a disgrace against djokovic.

boromir wrote:Murray has a proven track record against decent players in slams. He invariabley loses. All of his finals have been a complete disaster and I may say he was a disgrace against djokovic.

Could you elaborate 'disgrace' please?

Welcome to the forum letigre

Enjoy the debates.

legendkillar wrote:

boromir wrote:Murray has a proven track record against decent players in slams. He invariabley loses. All of his finals have been a complete disaster and I may say he was a disgrace against djokovic.

Could you elaborate 'disgrace' please?

Hmm so Rafael Nadal is just a decent player then? I thought he was world No.1 and a multiple slam winner? And Andy has twice beaten him in slams.

The performance was dismal, but it was his attitude that made me say disgrace. His characteristic moaning and apathetic attitude when the chips are down. He had no fight. Didn't he realise he was in a grand slam final.

boromir wrote:Murray has a proven track record against decent players in slams. He invariabley loses. All of his finals have been a complete disaster and I may say he was a disgrace against djokovic.

He has a decent record against Nadal in the slams. Beat him in the Australian Open 2010 and the US Open 2008. He's only played Djokovic once in a grand slam match, this years AO final, because they were ranked third and fourth for so long that they were always drawn in separate halves of the draw. Murray has a decent record against Djokovic in other events though, including two masters final wins. So your point only really applies to matches versus Federer.